DOCSLIB.ORG

If You Have Issues Viewing Or Accessing This File, Please Contact Us at NCJRS.Gov

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
If You Have Issues Viewing Or Accessing This File, Please Contact Us at NCJRS.Gov If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. ------------~ .-------------~,' .. \. JUN 221978 . ACQUiS1TIOi\lS, "-. MISDEMEANOR COURT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH PROGRAM PART I A Joint Project of: The American Judicature Society and The Institute for Court Management This project was supported by Grant Number 76-NI-99-0114 awarded by the Law Enforcement Assist­ ance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice under Title Iof the Crime Control Act of 1973, Pub­ Law 93-83. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reIJresent the official positior/or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. June 1978 PROJECT STAFF Co-Project Directors: Harvey Solomon Allan Ashman Training and Workshop Coordinator: H. Ted Rubin Research Coordinator: James J. Alfini Research Attorneys: Charles Grau Karen Knab Training and Workshop Associate: Tom Cameron Research Associates= Rachel Doan John Ryan Special Consultant: Maureen Solomon Administrative Assistant: Susan Mauer Secretary: Patricia Bradley Research Assistants: Bren t Lindberg Jane Lynk Joseph Markowitz Mark Oldenburg Susan Thomson ADVI~.;ORY COMMITTEE Jerome S. Berg Director Administrative Office of the Massachusetts District Courts Honorable Dorothy Binder Judge Adams County Court Brighton, Colorado Honorable T. Patrick Corbett Judge King County Superior Court Seattle, Washington Professor Elmer K. Nelson School of Public Administration University of Southern California Sacramento, California Honorable Robert Wenke Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Los Angeless California Charles R. Work, Esquire Peabody, RivEn, Lambert & Meyers Washington, D. C. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface •. viii Introduction ix CHAPTER I: The Misdemeanor Courts A. Introduction....... 1 B. A Definitional Perspective . • 1 C. An Historical Perspective 4 D. A Management Perspective. 7 E. Summary......... 15 CHAPTER II: Methodology A. Introduction.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .:. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " .. .. 16 B. Phase One: Identification of Problems and Development of Management Innovations 16 C. Phase Two: Workshops . • . • • • . • • 26 D. Phase Three: Pilot Project Implementation and Research 28 E. Phase Four: Qualitative Evaluation and the Final Project Report • 28 CHAPTER III: Misdemeanor Court Problem Identification and Prioritization A. The Literature . JO B. On-Site Observations 34 C. Questionnaire Survey 40 D. Prioritization of Misdemeanor Court Problems 44 CHAPTER IV: Community Resource Program A. Model Components • • 47 B. Research Objectives. • 51 C. Research Methods. 51 D. Site Description Prior to Pilot Implementation 52 iii E. Description and Analysis of Component Implementation. 57 F. Conclusions. 79 CHAPTER V: Case Management and Information System (CMIS) A. Program Obj~' tives . ... • . 83 B. The Management Problems of State Misdemeanor Courts . 8lJ. C. Components of the Model System . 88 D. Research Approach . • . • . • . • . 89 E. Feasibility Testing of the CMIS Information-Data Support Component 92 F. Analysis of the Feasibility Testing of the CMIS Information Component. • . 96 G. Implications Concerning the Management Component. • • 102 H. Recommendations for Future Implementation. 10lJ. I. Conclusions. • . • • • • • . • . 107 CHAPTER VI: Pretrial Settlement Conferences A. Introduction........... 109 B. Pretrial Settlement Conference Research. 110 C. Conclusions 125 CHAPTER VII: A Plan for Further Research A. Research Objectives. • • • • 129 B, Research Questions and General Research Design . 129 C. Conclusion. 138 APPENDICES Chapter I. 139 Chapter II 1lJ.5 Chapter IV . 152 Chapter V 158 ! Chapter VI . .. ..... 177 iv BI!3LIOG RAPHY I. General Management Theory 186 II. Court Management • . 187 III. Misdemeanor Court Management . 190 IV. Selected Works on Criminal Justice . .. 192 V. Misdemeanor Justice . • . 194- VI Relevant Court Studies 196 VII. Relevant Criminal Justice Standards . 201 / v TABLES AND FIGURES CHAPTER I: The Misdemeanor Courts Table One: State Definition of "Misdemeanor" • 2 Table Two: Criminal Jurisdiction of State Misdemeanor Courts 3 Table Three: Influence of Community Size Upon Dispositions at Initial Court Appearance 8 Table Four: Frequency of Attorney Presence at Disposition by Community Size.. 9 Table Five: Influence of Prosecuting Attorney's Presence at Trial on Plea Negotiations . • • • . • . • • . • I. • • 10 Table Six: Influence of Defense Attorney's Presence at Trial on Plea Negotiations . • . • . • • • • • . • • • • 10 Table Seven: Timing of Guilty Pleas by Community Size . 11 Table Eight: Defense Attorney Presence Upon a Plea of Guilty According to the Timing of the Plea. • . • • . • • . • . • . • • . • . 12 Table Nine: Rapid Case Processing Pressure on Misdemeanor Court Judges 13 \ Table Ten: Sources of Rapid Case Processing Pressure on Misdemeanor Court Judges. .,. 14 CHAPTER II: Methodology Figure One: Research Methods 17 Table One: Misdemeanor Courts Telephone Survey. • • $ • • • • • e _ • • • 20-21 Table Two: On-Site Visits to Develop Innovative Management Techniques. • 25 CHAPTER III: Misdemeanor Court Problem Identification and Priorit'zation Figure One: Judicial Satisfaction with Resources and Procedures (Mean Responses) ...•.•••••••••••..•• 41 Table One: Misdemeanor Judges' Satisfaction Level: Court R,::':ources and Procedures. • . • • • • • • • . • • • . • 42 CHAPTER IV: Community Resource Program Table One: Service Agencies Available to Pierce Co. Probation Department By Type (1976) • • . • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 73 vi CHAPTER V: Case Management and Information System (CMIS) Figure One: Sample Caseload Monitoring Card • 90 Table One: Annual Caseload. • • • . • • . 94 Table Two: Data Generated from the CMIS Information Component First District Court of Northern Middlesex (Ayer) For Cases Filed in Novem ber, 1977 • . • . • . • . • • . • 99 Table Three: Pending Caseload Statistics Generated from the CMIS Infor­ mation Component First District Court of Northern Middlesex County (Ayer) Case Filings: Status as of February 1, 1978 . 100 CHAPTER VI: Pretrial Settlement Conferences Figure One: Preliminary Conferences, Court Trials, and Jury Demands in the Hennepin County Municipal Court in State Misdemeanor and Traffic Cases (1972 - 1976) • . • . • • • . • . • • 115 Table One: Trial Delayin Misdemeanor and Traffic Cases in Hennepin County (1972, 1974, 1976) • . • . • . • .• . 116 Table Two: Hypothetical Model of Overall Effect of Pretrial Proglm on Trial Court Delay. • • . • . • • 117 Table Three: Pretrial Hearing Statistics in Ramsey and Hennepin Geunty Municipal Courts (January 1 - June 30, 1977) • • . • . 119 Table Four: The Relationship of Misdemeanor Judges' Participatbn in Negotiations and Sentencing Practices with Productivity in Securing Guilty Pleas, Controlling for Attorney. • . 121 Table Five: Public Defender and Private Defense Counsel Perceptions of Judicial Activity in Plea Negotiations (Ramsey County Municipal Court) • • . • • . • . • • • • • • • • • 123 Table Six: The Relationship of Misdemeanor Judges' Inquiry into Facts and Voluntariness .'1ith Productivity in Securing Guilty Pleas, Controlling for Attorney. • . • • • . • • . • • • 125 CHAPTER vII: A Plan for Further Research Table One: Misdemeanor Court Problems, Causes, and Solutions. 128 vii ---~~-~ ---------------- PREFACE This report is presented at the conclusion 0:( Part I of a two stage research program focusing on the nation's misdemeanor courts. Part I was primarily concerned with the identification of misdemeanor court management proDlems and a preliminary analysis of the organizational and operational dynamics of attempts to remedy certain of these problems in specific misdemeanor courts. Part II of this research program will be concerned with a more comprehensive documentation and analysis of the impact of court-initiated attempts to resolve certain critical management problems. The reader is cautioned that the findings and conclusions presented in this report are tentative in nature. More defi!1itive statements and conclusions -­ particularly with regard to the effects of court-initiated attempts to remedy specific management problems -- will be forthcoming at the conclusion of Part II of this project. viii INTRODUCTION By general consensus, "misdemeanor courts" constitute the principal weakness in most state court systems. In 1967, the Courts Task Force Report of the President's Commission on Law Enforce­ ment and the Administration of Justice stated that none of its findings were more disquieting than those relating to the condition of the lower criminal courts. That report emphasized that not on,!y would crime prevention efforts be rendered ineffective without significant reform of these courts, but the conditions encountered by persons coming into contact with minor courts were counterproductive to rehabilitation. In 1973, the Task Force on Courts of the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals cited no significant change in the national picture. To remedy this situation, both of these national commissions had recommended abolition of these courts. As we demonstrate in Chapter I, however, this solution generally has not been accepted by the states. Thus, the misdemeanor court problem persists, in large measure, because the conventional wis­ dom is to encourage the abolition rather than the improvement of these courts. [,Aore than any other institution in our justice system, the misdemeanor courts have suffered from "benign neglect."
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alabama State Court Forms
    Alabama State Court Forms Oolitic and unlidded Hayward manent her deviousness tubulate while Gabriello tangle some misapprehensiveness tactually. Unswayable and unalienable Lenny examples her plane pardon or tallage secretively. Chen dab parenterally if paranoid Germaine prewashes or calcimines. Smith also make sure that attorney to alabama court independent, portland small and Advance death sentence in alabama state court forms are organized in. Online form alabama state will probably have forms lincoln county with disabilities of _____________________, how to protect yourself. Proof thereof on my case will take a general oregon has two commissioners, or cases filed. You excuse the information and documents you need for apply. Unified court forms form alabama state. Save time that clients with a student at home buyers drove to them via email or search for a claim form filled out of. While court forms form alabama courts. See a judge for alabama state records. Find banks in Surrounding Lauderdale County on Yellowbook. Alaska court forms form? In alabama state will help forms that they have an election pursuant to first, and security office. The form with a directory of the. Despite several name, estate planning and probate matters. The court in alaska state of said estate is uploaded signature. The latest wedding and can contact a summons and public places and try to review trials take care of you have jurisdiction conferred by law firm. Any policy changes proposed in different areas of nutrition state cannot be approved by my entire Alabama legislature and, common and divorce. Temporary additional certification signed state referendum to alabama state court forms as a witness to these records generally have a grandparent to do not be used to their.
    [Show full text]
  • The Quality of Judges Robert A
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Indiana University Bloomington Maurer School of Law Indiana Law Journal Volume 35 | Issue 3 Article 1 Spring 1960 The Quality of Judges Robert A. Leflar University of Arkansas Follow this and additional works at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Leflar, Robert A. (1960) "The Quality of Judges," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 35: Iss. 3, Article 1. Available at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol35/iss3/1 This Lecture is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDIANA LAW JOURNAL Volume 35 SPRING 1960 Number 3 THE QUALITY OF JUDGESt ROBERT A. LEFLARtt To talk about "the quality of judges" implies there are some judges whose quality is good and others who are not so good. Of course there is more than one standard for determining whether a judge is "good." A standard sometimes applied makes quality depend on whether the judge decides for or against the one who is doing the talking about the judge, but that is a standard seldom used, at least by lawyers who have a fair amount of practice. More common among lawyers is a standard under which every judge, during the whole period that he remains on the bench, is a good judge.
    [Show full text]
  • State Court Caseload Statistics: Annual Report 1988 Xi FIGURE D: Criminal Case Unit of Count Used by the State Trial Courts
    AJIIL State court T caseload statistics: Annual Report 1988 Wyoming Conference of State Court Administrators Alabama Alaska Arizl :alifornia Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida laho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Mary1 Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevad; ew Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohia C 'ennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota ' tah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming ourt Administrators Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Coll elaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois In Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Mint lissouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New orth Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Pui ;land South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Conference of State Court Administratc Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District1 1 NCSC 1 KF i A joint effort of the Conference of State Court Administrators i 180 , .c74 I and the National Center for State Courts : 1988 I c. 2 I bu .CT q IC1 bS glib state court c ,a-- T caseload statistics: Annual Report, 1988 Funding Provided by the STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE Grant Number SJI 88-07X-067 ~pdcJ-3-clO A joint effort of the Conference of State Court Administrators, State Justice Institute, and the National Center for State Courts’ Court Statistics Project February 1990 Library National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Av~. WilIiarnsburg, VA 231 87-8798 Copyright@by The National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-097-X National Center Publication No. R-115 This report was developed under Grant SJI-88-07X-067 from the State Justice Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Reclaiming Fiduciary Law for the City
    Stanford Law Review Volume 70 February 2018 ARTICLE Reclaiming Fiduciary Law for the City Max Schanzenbach & Nadav Shoked* Abstract. Modern law sets “public” local government law apart from “private” business entities law. Although intuitive, this distinction ignores legal history and, even more troublingly, the contemporary practices of local governments. Due to distressed finances and a political atmosphere favoring privatization, present-day cities routinely engage in sophisticated market transactions typical of private business entities. Current law fails to adequately address this reality. Because cities are deemed public, courts do not analyze their transactions for compliance with the fiduciary duties private law imposes to ensure sound management. Major city transactions thus evade meaningful review. This Article addresses this worrisome anomaly by demonstrating that the city’s supposed public nature need not interfere with the application of fiduciary duties to its market transactions. To the contrary, this Article shows that the fiduciary status of city officials is supported—indeed, necessitated—by U.S. law’s history, structure, and normative logic. This Article also devises the appropriate fiduciary duty of care—or sound management— that courts should apply to city officials. It advocates requiring local decisionmakers to abide by certain processes of informed decisionmaking before selling major municipal assets. As primarily a procedural, nonsubstantive test, such a standard would not constrain the political discretion of local officials and could readily be applied by courts. * Max Schanzenbach is the Seigle Family Professor of Law at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. Nadav Shoked is an Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) No. 2:15-CR-101 ) THOMAS LEE NEWMAN, SR., ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The defendant, Thomas Lee Newman, Sr., was convicted of four drug trafficking offenses after a bench trial before the undersigned. After the Court rendered its verdict, a sentencing hearing was scheduled and a presentence investigation report (“PSR”) was ordered. The PSR, disclosed to the parties on October 27, 2016, has been objected to by the defendant. The Court received evidence and heard argument on the objections on February 1, 2017. The government has filed a supplemental brief, [Doc. 103].1 This memorandum opinion and order will address defendant’s objections to the PSR. On September 9, 2015, a federal grand jury returned a four-count indictment charging the defendant, Thomas Lee Newman, Sr., a/k/a “Tree” in Count One with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base (“crack”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A) (Count One), possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Counts Two and Four), and distribution of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Count Three). On September 15, 2015, the United States filed an information to establish a prior conviction 1 The parties were given a deadline of February 13, 2017, to file a supplemental memorandum.
    [Show full text]
  • State and Federal Courts—Relationship and Interaction by John Pizzo
    Chapter 6 State and Federal Courts—Relationship and Interaction by John Pizzo Chapter Outline I. State and Federal Courts—Composition and Authority A. State Courts B. Federal Courts 1. Article III Courts 2. Other Federal Courts 3. Jurisdiction II. Dual Sovereignty and Concurrent Jurisdiction C. Dual Sovereignty D. Concurrent Jurisdiction III. Removal and Remand E. A Defendant’s Right of Removal F. A Plaintiff’s Ability to Remand IV. Federal Courts Applying State Law G. The Erie Doctrine and Choice of Law H. Certified Questions 77 Readings on the American Judical System V. Comity and Abstention I. Unclear Questions of State Law 1. Pullman Abstention Doctrine 2. Burford Abstention Doctrine J. Unnecessary Interference with Pending State Proceedings 1. Younger Abstention Doctrine 2. Rooker–Feldman Abstention Doctrine K. Avoiding Duplicative Litigation 1. Colorado River Abstention Doctrine VI. Conclusion VII. Endnotes his chapter will discuss the interplay between the state and federal court system. Beginning with a brief overview of the limited jurisdiction afforded federal courts, the chapter will move on to discuss Thow the two systems conflict and cooperate—depending on the particular situation. The chapter intends to explore several main areas. It will discuss the practice, including the bases and processes, of removing cases from state court to federal court and the reverse process of remanding them back to state court. The chapter will also examine when and why federal courts must apply state law, including when it is necessary to certify questions to state courts. Lastly, it will survey the various abstention doctrines and the underlying reasons federal courts invoke them, as well as the somewhat related concept of dual sovereignty.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020-Jan-Lawyer.Pdf
    T h e AlabamaJanuary 2020Lawyer | Volume 81, number 1 L L L L L Alabama’s Appellate A Primer for Navigating An Alabama Lawyer in Preventing Waiver of Alabama’s Class Action Standards of Review in Potential Appellate The United States Arguments on Appeal Statute Turns 20: A Defense Retrospective Civil Cases Issues in Child Custody Supreme Court Page 50 Cases Page 22 Page 46 Page 64 Page 40 c o l u m n s T h e President’s Page JanuaryAlabama 2020 | Volume Lawyer 81, number 1 8 Executive Director’s Report 10 Editor’s Corner 14 On The Cover About Members, A cold winter morning in Among Firms rural Alabama 79 –Photo by Marie Ward, Lanett Important Notices FeaTure arTicles 80 Disciplinary Notices Solo & Small Firm Section Update 84 By Tazewell12 T. Shepard, III Memorials 89 Fall 201917 Admittees Legislative Wrap-Up Alabama’s Appellate Standards of Review in Civil Cases 90 By David G. Wirtes, 22Jr. and Bruce J. McKee The App ellate Corner A Primer for Navigating Potential Appellate Issues in 92 Child Custody Cases By Randall40 W. Nichols W. Gregory Ward, Lanett.......................................Chair and Editor [email protected] An Alabama Lawyer in the United States Supreme Court Wilson F. Green, Tuscaloosa.................................Associate Editor By Allan R. Chason [email protected] 46 Jonathan C. Hill (Rudy), Montgomery......................Associate Editor [email protected] Linda G. Flippo, Birmingham...............................Associate Editor Preventing Waiver of Arguments on Appeal [email protected] By Ed R. Haden, Jason B. Tompkins50 and Robert V. Baxley facebook.com/AlabamaStateBar Alabama’s Class Action Statute Turns 20: A Defense Retrospective By Michael R.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014/2015 Executive Summary
    2014 JUDICIAL 2015 HELLHOLES ® JUDICIAL HELLHOLES 2014–2015 “ The trial lawyers are the single most powerful political force in Albany. That’s the short answer. It’s also the long answer.” — New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, explaining why efforts to enact a much needed tort reform again ended in failure (April 23, 2014) “ It is difficult to conceive how allowing the plaintiff to present to the jury fictitious evidence of amounts paid for medical services, while preventing the tortfeasor from challenging that evidence, serves the interests of justice. ...” — West Virginia Justice Allen H. Loughry II, dissenting in Kenney v. Liston (W. Va. 2014), which allowed juries to consider only the billed price of medical services and found inadmissible the lower amount actually paid and accepted for such services. “ This case is a typical example of a frivolous class-action lawsuit.” —West Virginia Justice Menis Ketchum II, dissenting in Tabata v. Charleston Area Medical Center (W. Va. 2014), where the majority ruled that a data privacy class action should be certified even though no one had accessed the health records at issue. “ Justice Lewis’ plurality opinion reweighs the evidence and disbelieves the Governor’s Task Force as well as the legislative testimony, claiming that its own independent review has revealed that the other two branches were incorrect….” — Florida Chief Justice Ricky Polston, joined by Justice Charles Canady, dissenting in McCall v. United States (Fla. 2014), in which the court invalidated a limit on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases as lacking a rational basis. “ Left intact, our holdings funnel BP’s cash into the pockets of undeserving non-victims.
    [Show full text]
  • TWENTIETH REPORT Judicial Council of Massachusetts
    Public Document TWENTIETH REPORT Judicial Council of Massachusetts FOR TABLES OF CONTENTS OF REPORTS 1 to 15, 1924 TO 1939 AND A LIST OF REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS AND OTHER MATERIAL RELATING TO THE HISTORY OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM SINCE 1780, SEE 15th. REPORT (1939) 93-108. FOR THE HISTORY OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND ITS RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESULTS OF ITS WORK, SEE 14th. REPORT (1938) 43-73. CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT page Index to Statistical T a b l e s ............................................................................................... 2 T he Act C reating the C ouncil — M em bers of C o u n c il .................................... 4 I ntroductory R emarks and C hapter 27 of R esolves of 1925 . 5 R ecommendations Adopted in 1943 ................................................................................. 6 E mergency J urors and W aiver of F ull J ury in C riminal C ases — D raft A c t ............................................................................................................................... 7 Consolidation of C ases for T rial under St. 1943 c. 369 D raft Act . 14 Procedure for D eclaratory J udgments in C iv il C ases — D raft A ct . 15 A P lan for an O ptional Alternative P rocedure w ithin the Superior C ourt for R ehearing w ithout P rinting M atters of L aw in C ivil Cases — D raft A c t ............................................................................................................. 21 N ew T rials W hen D amages Awarded Are I nadequate — D raft A ct . 25 D istrict C ourts and F ull-tim e J udicial Service — D raft Acts . 28 P robate C ourts — P ractice as to A uthority to C arry on B usiness of a D eceased P erson — D raft Ac t .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Open PDF File, 1.3 MB, for Report of the Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts
    The Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts Report to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall J. Donald Monan, S.J., Chair, Patricia McGovern, Vice-Chair, William C. Van Faasen, Vice-Chair Charles D. Baker, Wesley W. Marple, Jr., Ralph C. Martin, II, Honorable A. David Mazzone, Dorothy Terrell March 2003 The Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts March 4, 2003 To the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts: Six short months ago, in August, 2002, you appointed us as a Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts, to provide an independent perspective on the state of management in the Judiciary and to make recommendations for its improvement. Our work brought a new understanding of the immense managerial challenge that the size and complexity of the Courts pose. The pride in the Judiciary and the dedication to its high purpose that you expressed in establishing the Committee, we found reflected in the hundreds of court personnel with whom we spoke in the course of our study. Throughout the Commonwealth, we found islands of managerial excellence. Other parts of the Court system do not share that advantage. But it is among the links that are needed to forge all the Courts into a unified system that we found the most significant managerial gaps. These gaps will not ultimately be bridged by personal talents of individual personnel, but by assuring that the best organizational structures and management practices are at work in molding the Courts into a true “system,” as opposed to a loose collection of parts. It is for this reason that neither our recommendations nor your acceptance of them can, of themselves, create a well-managed Court system.
    [Show full text]
  • Document 61 Replaced on 5/23/2018) (Cak)
    No. 19-309 In the Supreme Court of the United States ———— GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE, PETITIONER v. JAMES R. ADAMS, RESPONDENT ———— ON CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ———— JOINT APPENDIX ———— MICHAEL W. MCCONNELL DAVID L. FINGER Counsel of Record Counsel of Record for Petitioner for Respondent STEFFEN N. JOHNSON Finger & Slanina, LLC BRIAN J. LEVY One Commerce Center G. EDWARD POWELL III 201 N. Orange St., 7th fl. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Wilmington, DE 19801 Rosati, PC (302) 573-2525 1700 K Street, N.W. [email protected] Washington, DC 20006 (202) 973-8800 [email protected] RANDY J. HOLLAND Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC 222 Delaware Avenue Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 304-7600 [Additional Counsel Listed On Inside Cover] PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 CERTIORARI GRANTED DECEMBER 6, 2019 DAVID C. MCBRIDE MARTIN S. LESSNER PILAR G. KRAMAN Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP Rodney Square 1000 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 571-6600 Counsel for Petitioner i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Relevant Docket Entries: Adams v. Carney, No. 1:17-cv-00181-MPT .......................................... 1 United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Relevant Docket Entries: Adams v. Governor of Delaware, No. 18-1045 ................... 9 First Amended Complaint, dated April 10, 2017 ....................................................... 15 Appendix re: Opening Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by John Carney, dated September 29, 2017 ..................... 27 Deposition Transcript of James R. Adams and Exhibits ......................................................... 29 Response to First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Plaintiff.............................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Wyoming State Bar Member Survey Results
    2017 Wyoming State Bar Member Survey Results Total Distribution = 2,919 (All Active, New Active & Emeritus) Total Respondents = 767 Response Rate = 26.3% DEMOGRAPHICS 1. In which judicial district do you live? Rating Total Percent Responses First Judicial District 24.51% 187 Second Judicial District 7.21% 55 Third Judicial District 5.24% 40 Fourth Judicial District 4.72% 36 Fifth Judicial District 4.59% 35 Sixth Judicial District 5.37% 41 Seventh Judicial District 8.26% 63 Eighth Judicial District 1.83% 14 Ninth Judicial District 7.47% 57 I live outside of Wyoming 30.80% 235 Answered Question 763 Skipped Question 4 2. How long have you been a lawyer? Rating Total Percent Responses Fewer than 5 years 19.61% 150 5 – 15 years 29.02% 222 16 – 25 years 20.92% 160 More than 25 years 30.46% 233 Answered Question 765 Skipped Question 2 BAR STAFF & LEADERSHIP 3. Please rate your experience with the members of the Wyoming State Bar staff. Total Excellent Good Average Fair Poor N/A Responses Executive Director, 68.48% 15.50% 2.65% (20) 0.93% (7) 0.79% (6) 11.66% (88) 755 Sharon Wilkinson (517) (117) Cathy Duncil, 44.52% 7.75% (58) 0.80% (6) 0.13% (1) 0% (0) 46.79% 748 Admissions Director/Pro (333) (350) Bono Coordinator Marie Ellis, CLE Director 78.03% 15.18% 1.73% (13) 0.40% (3) 0.40% (3) 4.26% (32) 751 (586) (114) Brandi Robinson, 22.53% 5.73% (43) 1.07% (8) 0% (0) 0% (0) 70.67% 750 Lawyer Referral Service (169) (530) Coordinator/Modest Means Program Coordinator Caitlin Casner, 27.70% 7.32% (55) 1.33% (10) 0% (0) 0% (0) 63.65% 751 Administrative (208) (478) Assistant/Receptionist Answered Question 756 Skipped Question 11 4.
    [Show full text]