National ! Center I for 1984 State Annual Courts Report &._ I- - . --&* -- 4 -- - , \ j DO NOT REMOVE FROM PUBLICATIONS COORD DESK .. I. ,- ter dedicated to impmng the adminispation ofjustice in the nation. ,heNational Center for State Courts during 1984 continued to increase its Tassistance to the state courts of the nation, while at the same time growing in strength and stability. That record of accom- plishment is chronicled in the pages that follow. With the merger of the National Center and the Institute for Court Management, the National Center has been able to make sub- stantial progress toward accomplishing a major organizational objective, and ICM has been able to strengthen its training programs for court personnel. The National Center’s initiative in the area of delay reduction is well under way with two major studies of general jurisdiction trial courts in progress. Other significant projects are being developed and a national conference on delay reduction co- President Repoldson, left and Ekecutive Director McConneIL sponsored by some forty organizations is scheduled for September 5-7,1985. During the year, the National Center responded hlly to the-increased need for staff sup- port of the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators, and the many other national court organizations served by the Center. Noteworthy was the passage by the Congress late in 1984 of the State Justice Institute Act, an achievement that would not have been possible without the National Center’s assistance. The increased ability of the National Center to be of service to the states is made pos- sible by the high level of support it receives from them. In 1984 state charges and state and local contracts for specific services amounted to 54 percent of total revenues of $5,919,466. Also of great importance to the Center is the continued high level of private sector support. The Center’s financial future appears secure. The success of any organization is primarily attributable to people who have given it guidance and support. The National Center is no different: it has grown as the result of the efforts of many persons who have guided and helped it over the years. Some of those who have been particularly helpful to the National Center are mentioned elsewhere in this report. On the National Center’s behalf we express to them our sincere thanks and gratitude. W Ward Reynoldson Edward B. McConnell ChiefJustice of Iowa Executive Director President 2 Board of Directors National Centerfor State Coum Pradent Edward B. McConnell, W, Ward Reynoldson, Executive Director,National Centerfor Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Iowa State Courts President-Elect Robert C. Murphy, Edward F. Hennessey, Chief Jdge, Court of Appeals of Maryland Chief Justice, SupremeJudicial Court of iVIassachusetts John T. Racanelli, Presding Justice, California Court of Vice-Presdent Appeal, First Dktrict Lester Earl Cingcade, Arthur H. Snowden 11, AdministrativeDirector of the Cou% of Admin&tratiueDirector of the Courts, Hawaii Alaska Edward F. Hennessey President-Elect B. Don Barnes, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Okkaboma Leo M. Spellacy, FreszdingJdge, Court of Common Pleas Dorothy T. Beasley, of Cuyaboga County, Ohio Judge, Court of Appeals of Georgia Charles H. Starrett,Jr., CourtAdministrator,Court of Common George C. Berry, Pleas of AUq$eny County,Pennylvania Judge, Probate Ditision of the Circuit Court,Kansas City, Misouri Robert C. Broomfield, Preszding Jdge, Supenin-Court of Maricopa County,Arizona Halibuaon Fales, 2d, White & Case, New York City Lester Earl Cingcade Vice-President William H. D. Fones, Justice, Supeme Court of Tennessee Vernon M. Geddy, Jr., McGuire Woods & Battle, Williamsburg, Virginia Charles V. Johnson, Judge, Superior Court,King County, Washington Gladys Kessler, PredingJdge, Family Division, Superior Court, District of Columbia Ralph J. Erickstad Patpresident, 1983-1984 ChiefJustice of North Dakota Lhting as of December31, 1984. 3' ?-.-.-- am pleased to report that the initial stage of the merger between the Institute for Court Management and the National Center for State Courts proceeded smoothly. Plans are already under way to enhance further the variety, number, and quality of the educational opportunities offered by the Institute. It is clear that the merger is beneficial to both the National Center and the Institute, and is in the best interests of the court community. Earl E Morris Chairman Earl F. Morris Chairman IGW Board of Trustees Chairman Richard F. Knight, Earl F. Morris, Talley, Anthony, Hughes G Knigbt Portw, Wright,Morris &Arthur Bogalusa, Lou&zana Columbus, Ohio Robert D. Lipscher, Vice-Chairman Director,Administrative Office of the John J. Corson, Courts of New Jersey Management Consultant McLean, Virginia Edward B. McConnell, Executive Director, National Center William D. Browning, for State Courts Judge, United States District Court Tucson,Arizona Wade H. McCree, Jr., Professor, University of Mich@an Lester Earl Cingcade, Law School Administrative Director of the Courts of Hawaii Florence K. Murray, Justics Supreme Court of Rhode island Edward C. Gallas, Vice-President,Oqpnizationul Resources C. Kenneth Roberts, Counsel,Inc. General Counsel,Ejcxon Company, USA New York City Thomas J. Stovall, Robert H. Hall, Judge, Second AdministrativeJudicial Jdge) United States District Court District of Taxas Atlanta, Georgia Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr., Judge, United States Court of Appeals Greenvile,South Carolina 4 Introduction uring 1984 the National Center for State Courts focused on a variety of areas, which rendered important and meaningful Dassistance to state courts and helped them improve their administration and management. These areas can be described as follows: Research on common problems Education and training programs Direct services to individual courts Information exchange These activities were carried out by the Center’s multi-disciplinary staff of management specialists, social scientists, systems analysts, accoun- tants, lawyers, and communications specialists. Staff are located at the headquarters office in Williamsburg, Virginia; at the Institute for Court Management in Denver, Colorado; at the Center’s three regional offices in Williamsburg, North Andover, Massachusetts, and San Francisco; and at its Washington, D.C., liaison office. Left to right, EdwardB. McConneN, Chief Justice WarrenE. Burgcy and ChiefJustice of Iowa W! WardReynoldsonat the midyear meeting of the Conference of Chief Justices held ut the Nutional Center for State Courts. 5 search s our nation grows and changes, so do the courts. The courts must ill adjust to those changes within the limits of available resources in such a way as to bring about overall improvement. Thousands of Ahours of painstaking field research are required in any identified problem area to describe and analyze existing practices, and to design and test solutions to the problems found. At the request of judges and court administrators across the country, the National Center is investing those research hours. This year the National Center has continued its long-standing commitment to assist courts in reducing delay and has launched a “delay reduction initiative.”One major study of delay in urban trial courts is re- examining ten of the courts originally included in the landmark report of the National Center for State Courts,Justice Delayed, published in 1978. A related study is focusing on eight large urban courts in which significant delay reduction has been accomplished in recent years. Collection and analysis of these data will shed additional light on the causes and cures of unreasonable delay. Timely and reliable information is essential to state court policy- makers and managers. The National Center has for several years been working with state court administrators to improve the accuracy and relevancy of statistics on court caseloads and operations and to develop a national state court database that will permit interjurisdictional comparisons. Social scientists and attorneys on staff, working with representa- tives of all three branches of government, have developed guidelines to help states assess the need for additional judges. Also, an advisory board of judges and lawyers is working with Center staff to explore the use of practicing lawyers as temporary judges or judicial adjuncts, and to develop guidelines for their proper use. Research in the area of jury service has resulted not only in juries more representative of the population but also in substantial cost sav- ings. With the assistance of the Center for Jury Studies staff, courts are better able to estimate the number of jurors needed and reduce unneces- sary trips to court. Through improved jury management, including such innovations as one-day/one-trial, life has been made easier not only for the courts but for the citizens called to serve on juries. The judicial system’s policies and procedures for dealing with the mentally ill have received intensive study. Staff of the Institute on Mental Disability and the Law have examined and made recommendations to improve procedures for the civil commitment of individuals against their will. The claim of insanity as a defense in criminal cases has been sub- jected to scrutiny, and studies have been made of alternative procedures being experimented with by some states. Another study explored the 6 Research critical issues arising in capital cases and developed techniques to help state appellate courts ensure that the death penalty