A Report of the Mississippi Bar's Commission on Courts in the 21St Century - Discussion Draft
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Mississippi College Law Review Volume 14 Issue 2 Vol. 14 Iss. 2 Article 14 1994 Laying the Groundwork for Court Reform - A Report of the Mississippi Bar's Commission on Courts in the 21st Century - Discussion Draft S. Allan Alexander Matthew Steffey Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.law.mc.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Custom Citation 14 Miss. C. L. Rev. 511 (1993-1994) This Case Note is brought to you for free and open access by MC Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mississippi College Law Review by an authorized editor of MC Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR COURT REFORM A REPORT OF THE Mississippi BAR'S COMMISSION ON COURTS IN THE 21 ST CENTURY [Note: the Report has been edited to conform with Mississippi College Law Review publication standards, ed.] DISCUSSION DRAFT JULY 1993 S. Allan Alexander, Commission Chair Matthew Steffey, Report Editor TABLE OF CONTENTS I. MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR ................................................ 515 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................... 517 A. The Commission's Charge ......................................... 517 B. The 1993 Legislative Session ...................................... 517 1. The Creation of an Administrative Office of the Courts ........................................... 518 2. The Creation of an Intermediate Appellate Court ................................................ 519 3. Secretarial and Research Assistance for Trial Judges ................................................ 519 4. Increased Judicial Salaries .................................... 520 C. Studies and Recommendations .................................... 520 1. Trial Court Funding ............................................ 520 2. Information Technology ....................................... 521 3. The Criminal Justice System .................................. 521 4. The Juvenile Justice System ................................... 522 III. PREFACE TO THE REPORT ................................................... 522 A. The Study Process .................................................. 522 B. The Next Phase: Report and Public Comment .................. 523 IV. AREA ONE: JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION ................................... 524 A. The Problems: Information Barriers and Fragmented Administration ....................................... 524 MISSISSIPPI COLLEGE LA WREVIEW [Vol. 14:511 B. The Solution: An Administrative Office of the C ourts ........................................................ 525 1. The Commission's Recommendations ....................... 525 2. Legislative Action .............................................. 527 V. AREA Two: THE APPELLATE PROCESS ..................................... 528 A. The Problem: Delay in the Mississippi Supreme Court ...................................................... 528 B. The Solution: An Intermediate Court of Appeals ............... 529 1. The Commission's Recommendation ........................ 529 2. Legislative Action .............................................. 532 VI. AREA THREE: TRIAL COURT PRODUCTIVITY .............................. 533 A. The Problem: Insufficient Clerical, Research, and Administrative Support for Trial Judges .................... 533 B. Legislative Action: Funds for Secretarial and Research Assistance ........................................... 534 C. The Commission's Further Recommendation: Enhanced Administrative Support ................................ 534 VII. AREA FOUR: JUDICIAL COMPENSATION .................................... 535 A. The Problem: Inadequate Judicial Salaries ...................... 535 B. Legislative Action: Increased Judicial Salaries ..................................................... 535 Vin. AREA FIVE: TRIAL COURT FUNDING ...................................... 536 A. The Problem: An Outdated System for Funding Trial Courts ........................................... 536 B. The Commission's Solution: The "Third Branch" Approach .......................................... 537 IX. AREA SIX: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ................................... 537 A. The Commission's Recommendation: Full Use of Modern Technology ................................................ 537 X. AREA SEVEN: THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ........................... 539 A. The Problems Selected for Study: Disparity in Sentencing and Indigent Representation ...................... 539 1. Disparity in Sentencing ........................................ 540 2. Indigent Representation ........................................ 540 B. Commission Recommendation: The Creation of a Sentencing Commission ........................... 540 C. Commission Recommendation: A Public Defender System .................................................... 542 XI. AREA EIGHT: THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM ........................... 542 A. The Problems ....................................................... 542 B. Study Results to Date ............................................... 543 1994] LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR COURTREFORM 513 XH. APPENDICES Appendix 1: Directory of Commission Members Appendix 2: Tollison Letter Appendix 3: Demographic Changes and the Mississippi Judiciary Appendix 4: Topics for Future Study Appendix 5: Diagram of Mississippi's Court System Appendix 6: Report of the Appellate Court Subcommittee Appendix 7: County Funding of Trial Courts Appendix 8: Report of the Court Technology Subcommittee Appendix 9: Report of the Criminal Justice Subcommittee Appendix 10: Report of the Youth Court Subcommittee MISSISSIPPI COLLEGE LA WREVIEW [Vol. 14:511 THE COMMISSION ON THE COURTS IN THE 21ST CENTURY S. Allan Alexander, Chair Robert H. Oswald, Vice-Chair Amy D. Whitten, Vice-Chair Members: Patricia Ainsworth, M.D. Lisa Binder Milner Claude V. Bilbo, Jr. C.E. Morgan, IIl Hon. Unita Blackwell, Mayor Charles H. Newell Judge George C. Carlson, Jr. Bob W. Pittman Judge H. David Clark H S.L. Salter John B. Clark Martin T. Smith Senator Kay B. Cobb Edwin A. Snyder Bobby B. DeLaughter Thomas B. Storey, Jr. Judge Barry W. Ford Judge James E. Thomas Thomas M. Fortner T. Patrick Welch Lawrence J. Franck John W. Winkle, I Judge Beverly Mitchell Franklin Rep. Mark Garriga Staff: Hon. Norman Gillespie Lynn Fitch Mitchell, Reporter John L. Hunter Finance and Operations Rep. Leslie D. King Carolyn Ellis Staton, Reporter Judge John C. Love, Jr. Criminal Justice Dr. James Lyons Matthew Steffey, Reporter Rep. Michael P. Mills Appellate Courts Carmen Rizzo, Secretary A Project of the Mississippi Bar 19941 LA YING THE GROUNDWORK FOR COURTREFORM I. MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR For decades - at least since the Brookings Institution Report of 1932 - study af- ter study of Mississippi's court system has recommended that Mississippi signifi- cantly restructure its court administration to create uniform statewide procedures, increase fiscal and case management accountability, and ensure prompt delivery of judicial decisions in pending cases. No study, however, has ever influenced the legislature to take action. Thus, when the Commission on the Courts began its third year of service in the summer of 1992, the average Mississippian waited four to five years for his or her case to travel through the courts. It was the Commis- sion's challenge to find a solution to the current crisis in the courts while bearing in mind that "just another study" would fail if our Legislature found the Commis- sion's recommendations unpalatable. How does the judiciary relate to the other branches of government? What func- tions are the courts intended to serve? The Mississippi Constitution of 1890 an- swers both of these questions. It provides: Article 1, Section 1 The powers of the government of the state of Mississippi shall be divided into three distinct departments, and each of them confided to a separate magistracy, to-wit: those which are legislative to one, those which are judicial to another, and those which are executive to another. Article 3, Section 24 All courts shall be open; and every person for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of the law, and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, or delay. Under our state constitution, then, the judiciary is one of three, apparently coe- qual, branches of state government, there to serve expeditiously and fairly every person with ajusticiable grievance. It was with this constitutional mission in mind that the Commission began its work three years ago. The questions foremost in the minds of Commission members were: (1) Are our citizens being afforded their state constitutional right to the speedy, just reso- lution of their legal disputes, whether civil or criminal?, and (2) Is the judiciary in fact being funded and administered at a level commensurate with its state constitu- tional status as the Third Branch of our government? The answer to both questions was a resounding "No." Moreover, absent major legislative action, the prospects for reducing docket backlogs, improving accountability, and upgrading judicial processes and personnel were dismal. The very idea of "futures planning" is alien to many professions, but particu- larly so to the legal profession. As lawyers, we are taught to take only the facts we are given and apply the past - legal precedent - to reach a solution. Futures plan- ner Clement Bezold notes that studies of the cognitive styles of judges reveal that they have an acquired preference