DOCSLIB.ORG

Caseload Standards for Indigent Defenders in Michigan Final Project Report for the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Caseload Standards for Indigent Defenders in Michigan Final Project Report for the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission C O R P O R A T I O N Caseload Standards for Indigent Defenders in Michigan Final Project Report for the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission Nicholas M. Pace, Dulani Woods, Shamena Anwar, Roberto Guevara, Chau Pham, Karin Liu For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2988 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0341-4 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2019 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface In 2017, the RAND Corporation was asked by the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission (MIDC) for assistance in determining maximum caseload standards for providers of indigent legal representation to adult defendants in the trial-level courts of the state of Michigan. Maximum caseload standards, typically expressed in terms of the number of cases of a particular type that can be reasonably handled by an attorney over the course of a specific time period (such as “no more than 150 felonies in a year”), give administrators of indigent defense programs, the courts that appoint indigent defense counsel, and policymakers who decide on funding allocations for such appointments a useful tool for determining both when caseloads are in danger of being excessive and the number of attorneys that may be needed to handle expected demand. This report is intended to describe the results of work conducted by RAND on behalf of the MIDC. The project team conducted three data collection efforts to provide the empirical foundation for the standards. The first involved a time study of Michigan indigent defense attorneys that was intended to describe the average amount of time such counsel currently spend on trial court–level criminal matters within various case type categories. A survey of criminal defense attorneys followed, in which the results of the earlier time study were presented to participants as evidence of current time expenditures. Informed by those results, respondents then provided their opinions as to the average amount of time that an attorney should plan on spending on a particular type of case to deliver effective assistance of counsel. The final data collection effort was conducted as part of a conference held in September 2018. The purpose of the conference was to have experienced criminal defenders review available evidence regarding the state’s indigent defense bar (including the results of the two earlier data collections) and ultimately reach consensus on recommended average time expenditures for counsel representing indigent defendants in various categories of criminal matters proceeding in the Michigan trial courts. The decisions of the conference participants formed the basis for the recommended maximum caseload standards described in this report. Justice Policy Program RAND Social and Economic Well-Being is a division of the RAND Corporation that seeks to actively improve the health and social and economic well-being of populations and communities throughout the world. This research was conducted in the Justice Policy Program within RAND Social and Economic Well-Being. The program focuses on such topics as access to justice, policing, corrections, drug policy, and court system reform, as well as other policy concerns iii pertaining to public safety and criminal and civil justice. For more information, email [email protected]. iv Contents Preface ........................................................................................................................................... iii Figures .......................................................................................................................................... vii Tables .......................................................................................................................................... viii Summary .......................................................................................................................................... x Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................... xxv Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. xxvi 1. Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Definitions ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Calculating and Using Maximum Caseload Standards ............................................................................. 3 Approach ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Prior Work in This Area ........................................................................................................................ 5 Rationale Behind the Plan Chosen for the Michigan Caseload Standard Effort ................................. 18 Summary of Key Events ..................................................................................................................... 24 Organization of This Report .................................................................................................................... 26 2. Attorney Time Study ................................................................................................................. 27 The Indigent Attorney “Universe” in Michigan ...................................................................................... 27 Length of the Time Study ........................................................................................................................ 28 The Web-Based Timekeeping Application ............................................................................................. 29 Preliminary Matters ............................................................................................................................. 29 Application Structure .......................................................................................................................... 30 Participation ............................................................................................................................................ 36 Estimating Unobserved Time Expenditures ............................................................................................ 38 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 42 Average Attorney Hours by Case Type .............................................................................................. 42 Activities ............................................................................................................................................. 46 3. Attorney Survey ......................................................................................................................... 48 Approach ................................................................................................................................................. 48 Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 48 Encouraging Participation ................................................................................................................... 48 Survey Design ..................................................................................................................................... 49 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 49 Participation ........................................................................................................................................ 49 Activities ............................................................................................................................................. 51 Caseloads ............................................................................................................................................. 54 Office Resources ................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Circuit Court and Probate Court Annual Report
    THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT 2000 ANNUAL REPORT OAKLAND COUNTY PROBATE COURT 1 Message from Chief Circuit Judge . 2 Message from Chief Probate Judge. 3 CONTENTS OF TABLE History of the Courts. 4 Judges of the Circuit Court . 8 Judges of the Probate Court . 13 Circuit Court – Judicial Administration Message from the Court Administrator . 14 Circuit/Probate Administrative Structure . 15 Circuit Court – General Jurisdiction Division General Jurisdiction Overview . 16 Jury Office . 17 Case Management Office. 18 Circuit Court – Family Division Family Division Overview . 20 Friend of the Court . 22 Court Services . 24 Judicial Support. 26 Circuit Court – Business Division Business Division Overview. 28 Financial Report . 30 Probate Court – Estates and Mental Health Estates and Mental Health Overview . 32 Thank You to Our Collaborating Departments and Agencies . 34 Volunteers Make a Difference . 35 Judicial Information Management System (JIMS) . 36 A Year in Review . 38 Annual Awards . 40 Staff Recognition . 42 Judicial Retirements. 43 Acknowledgments . 44 2 Circuit Court for the County of Oakland BUILDING 12 EAST DEPT 404 1200 N. TELEGRAPH RD PONTIAC MI 48341-0404 BARRY L. HOWARD SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CIRCUIT JUDGE OF MICHIGAN 248-858-5284 The Honorable Barry L. Howard Elected Officials, Staff, and the Citizens of Oakland County: We in the Circuit and Probate Courts have had our share of defining moments – major events wherein we mobilized our resources and modified our operations. Recent history points to the creation of the Family Division, instituting new procedures for receipting and distributing child support, and implementing a newly legislated Probate Code, to name but a few. Defining moments can influence our present state and shape our destiny.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals
    Case: 15-2463 Document: 51-2 Filed: 02/10/2017 Page: 1 RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 17a0030p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT WAYSIDE CHURCH, an Illinois Not-For-Profit ┐ (Ecclesiastical) Corporation; MYRON W. STAHL; │ HENDERSON HODGENS, individually and on behalf │ of a class of all others similarly situated, │ │ Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, > Nos. 15-2463/2525 │ │ v. │ │ VAN BUREN COUNTY, in its individual Michigan │ municipal capacity and on behalf of a class of all │ other Michigan counties similarly situated; KAREN │ MAKAY, in her individual official capacity as │ Treasurer of Van Buren County and on behalf of a │ class of all other Treasurers of Michigan counties │ similarly situated, │ │ Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. No. 1:14-cv-01274—Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge. Argued: October 20, 2016 Decided and Filed: February 10, 2017 Before: CLAY, KETHLEDGE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Owen Dennis Ramey, LEWIS, REED & ALLEN PC, Kalamazoo, Michigan, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Thomas G. King, KREIS, ENDERLE, HUDGINS & BORSOS, P.C., Kalamazoo, Michigan, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. ON BRIEF: Owen Dennis Ramey, Ronald W. Ryan, LEWIS, REED & ALLEN PC, Kalamazoo, Michigan, James Shek, Allegan, Michigan, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Thomas G. King, KREIS, ENDERLE, HUDGINS & BORSOS, P.C., Kalamazoo, Michigan, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Christina Case: 15-2463 Document: 51-2 Filed: 02/10/2017 Page: 2 Nos. 15-2463/2525 Wayside Church, et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Petitioner, V
    No. _________ ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States ----------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Petitioner, v. JESSE ALLEN JOHNSON, Respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID W. P RATER Oklahoma County District Attorney JIMMY R. HARMON First Assistant District Attorney JENNIFER M. HINSPERGER* Assistant District Attorney *Counsel of Record OKLAHOMA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 320 Robert S. Kerr Avenue, Suite 505 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 713-1600 [email protected] ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED In Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), this Court “h[e]ld that mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’ ” Id. at 465. Instead, to comport with established principles of proportionality, “a judge or jury must have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances before
    [Show full text]
  • Inherent Powers to Obtain Court Funding
    The Use of Inherent Powers to Obtain Court Funding INSTITUTE FOR COURT MANAGEMENT COURT EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 2009-2010 PHASE III PROJECT MAY 2010 Greg Hurley National Center for State Courts Williamsburg, Virginia THE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As I contemplated and even began this project, I was largely oblivious to the amount of time and effort that would be required to complete it. I would like to thank my wife Elena, who was very patient and recognized that I was physically present although at times so absorbed that I was intellectually not. Additionally, I would like to thank my co-workers at the National Center for State Courts who provided not only direct assistance but also carried some of my workload while I worked on this. My cousin George Hurley was also very helpful in keeping me focused and reducing my anxiety as I trudged through the daily research and writing. Last, I would like to thank the guys on my hockey team. I think they realized that some of the time I spent in the penalty box was probably more the result of frustrations with the project than events on the ice. i Table of Contents Acknowledgments ................................................................................................. i Table of Contents................................................................................................... ii Table of Figures..................................................................................................... iii Abstract.................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:07-Cv-00663-GJQ-RSK ECF No. 48, Pageid
    Case 1:07-cv-00663-GJQ-RSK ECF No. 48, PageID.<pageID> Filed 07/24/17 Page 1 of 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION WAYNE McCARTY, Petitioner, Case No. 1:07-cv-663 v. Hon. Gordon J. Quist CARMEN D. PALMER, Respondent. / REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Wayne McCarty, a prisoner currently incarcerated at a Michigan correctional facility, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. I. Background A jury convicted petitioner Wayne McCarty of assault with intent to commit murder, M.C.L. § 750.83, for pushing his wife out of a moving vehicle with the intent to kill her. People v. McCarty, No. 242792, 2003 WL 22928926 at *1 (Mich. App. Dec. 11, 2003). The trial court sentenced petitioner to a prison term of 25 to 50 years. The Michigan Court of Appeals summarized petitioner’s appeal as follows: Eyewitness testimony at the trial indicated that McCarty pushed his wife out of a truck he was driving, that she appeared almost lifeless when she hit the pavement, and that he both failed to help her and tried to stop others from doing so. The prosecutor introduced evidence that McCarty pushed or tried to push women out of moving vehicles twice before. McCarty objected to the admission of this evidence at trial and challenges it on appeal. He also challenges the presence in the courtroom of the victim, who was not a witness. Id. Case 1:07-cv-00663-GJQ-RSK ECF No. 48, PageID.<pageID> Filed 07/24/17 Page 2 of 33 McCarty, through counsel, presented three issues on appeal:1 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Judges of the Court of Appeals P.O
    JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS P.O. Box 30022, Lansing, MI 48909 1st District Term expires JEFFREY G. COLLINS, Detroit . Jan. 1, 2001 ROMAN S. GRIBBS, Northville . Jan. 1, 2001 HAROLD HOOD, Detroit . Jan. 1, 2003 MICHAEL J. TALBOT, Grosse Pointe. Jan. 1, 2003 HELENE N. WHITE, Detroit . Jan. 1, 2005 KURTIS T. WILDER, Canton . Jan. 1, 2001 BRIAN K. ZAHRA, Northville Township . Jan. 1, 2001 2nd District MARK J. CAVANAGH, Royal Oak . Jan. 1, 2003 MARTIN M. DOCTOROFF, Birmingham . Jan. 1, 2005 E. THOMAS FITZGERALD, Owosso . Jan. 1, 2003 HILDA R. GAGE, Bloomfield Hills. Jan. 1, 2001 KATHLEEN JANSEN, St. Clair Shores . Jan. 1, 2001 MICHAEL J. KELLY, Bloomfield Hills . Jan. 1, 2001 HENRY WILLIAM SAAD, Birmingham . Jan. 1, 2003 3rd District RICHARD A. BANDSTRA, Grand Rapids, Chief Judge. Jan. 1, 2003 JOEL P. HOEKSTRA, Grand Rapids . Jan. 1, 2005 JANE E. MARKEY, Grand Rapids . Jan. 1, 2003 WILLIAM B. MURPHY, East Grand Rapids . Jan. 1, 2001 JANET T. NEFF, East Grand Rapids . Jan. 1, 2001 DAVID H. SAWYER, East Grand Rapids. Jan. 1, 2005 MICHAEL R. SMOLENSKI, Grand Rapids . Jan. 1, 2001 4th District RICHARD ALLEN GRIFFIN, Traverse City. Jan. 1, 2003 DONALD E. HOLBROOK, JR., Lansing. Jan. 1, 2003 GARY R. MCDONALD, Saginaw . Jan. 1, 2001 PATRICK M. METER, Saginaw . Jan. 1, 2001 PETER D. O’CONNELL, Mt. Pleasant . Jan. 1, 2001 DONALD S. OWENS, Williamston . Jan. 1, 2001 WILLIAM C. WHITBECK, Lansing, Chief Judge Pro Tem . Jan. 1, 2005 CARL L. GROMEK, Chief Clerk/Research Director Source: State Court Administrative Office COURT OF APPEALS 581 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF JUDGES CHIEF JUDGE RICHARD A.
    [Show full text]
  • NLADA Report
    -- - MICHIGAN IN SYSTEMS DEFENSE INDIGENT TRIAL-LEVEL EVALUATION TRIAL-LEVEL INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEMS IN MICHIGAN IN SYSTEMS INDIGENT DEFENSE TRIAL-LEVEL EVALUATION AA RaceRace toto thethe BottomBottom SpeedSpeed && SavingsSavings OverOver DDueue Process:Process: AA ConstitutionalConstitutional CrisisCrisis June 2008 Evaluation of Trial-Level Indigent Defense Systems in Michigan is a publication of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association. © Copyright 2008. No reprinting without the express permission of NLADA. Evaluation of Trial-Level Indigent Defense Systems in Michigan A Race to the Bottom Speed & Savings Over Due Process: A Constitutional Crisis June 2008 Researched & Written by: National Legal Aid & Defender Association Executive Summary he National Legal Aid & Defender Association (NLADA) finds that the state of Michi- gan fails to provide competent representation to those who cannot afford counsel in its criminal courts. The state of Michigan’s denial of its constitutional obligations has Tproduced myriad public defense systems that vary greatly in defining who qualifies for services and the competency of the services rendered. Though the level of services varies from county to county – giving credence to the proposition that the level of justice a poor person receives is dependent entirely on which side of a county line one’s crime is alleged to have been committed instead of the factual merits of the case – NLADA finds that none of the public defender services in the sample counties are constitutionally adequate. These conclusions were reached after an extensive year-long study of indigent defense services in ten representative counties in partnership with the State Bar of Michigan and on behalf of the Michigan Legislature under a concurrent resolution (SCR 39 of 2006 ).
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Judicature Act of 1961
    REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961 (EXCERPT) Act 236 of 1961 CHAPTER 29 PROVISIONS CONCERNING SPECIFIC ACTIONS 600.2901 Actions abolished; alienation of affections, criminal conversation, seduction, and breach of contract to marry. Sec. 2901. The following causes of action are abolished: (1) alienation of the affections of any person, animal, or thing capable of feeling affection, whatsoever; (2) criminal conversation; (3) seduction of any person of the age of 18 years or more; (4) breach of contract to marry. History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963. 600.2902 Actions abolished; certain real actions. Sec. 2902. All writs of right, writs of dower, writs of entry, and writs of assize, all fines and common recoveries, and all other real actions known to the common law, not enumerated and retained in this act, and all writs and other processes heretofore used in real actions, which are not specifically retained in this act, are abolished. History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963. 600.2903 Judgment in tort; renewal; continuance of remedies. Sec. 2903. Any judgment in tort heretofore or hereafter rendered and of record in any court of record in this state may be sued on and renewed, within the time and as provided by law, and such renewal judgment or judgments, when obtained, shall likewise be in tort and have the same attributes as the original tort judgment or judgments, with all the rights and remedies of tort judgments attaching thereto. History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963. 600.2904 Repealed. 1964, Act 170, Eff. July 1, 1965. Compiler's note: The repealed section abolished governmental immunity of political subdivisions in actions arising out of operation of motor vehicles, and provided for payment of premiums on liability insurance.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Metropolitan Courts: Detroit Area Maxine Boord Virtue
    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Michigan Legal Studies Series Law School History and Publications 1950 Survey of Metropolitan Courts: Detroit Area Maxine Boord Virtue Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/michigan_legal_studies Part of the Courts Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Maxine Boord Virtue, Survey of Metropolitan Courts: Detroit Area. Ann Arbor: The nivU ersity of Michigan Law School, 1950. This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School History and Publications at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Legal Studies Series by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MICHIGAN LEGAL STUDIES SURVEY OF METROPOLITAN COURTS DETROIT AREA PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL (WHICH, HOWEVER, ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE VIEWS EXPRESSED) WITH THE AID OF FUNDS DERIVED FROM GIFTS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN BY WILLIAM W. COOK. MICHIGAN LEGAL STUDIES Hessel E. Y ntema, Editor DISCOVERY BEFORE TRIAL George Ragland, Jr. ToRTS IN THE CONFLICT OF LAWS Moffatt Hancock THE AMENDING OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION Lester B. Orfield REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS Armin Uhler THE PREVENTION OF REPEATED CRIME John Barker Waite THE CONFLICT OF LAWS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY Volumes One, Two, and Three Ernst Rabel UNREPORTED OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN 1836-1843 William Wirt Blume, Editor PROBLEMS IN PROBATE LAW: MODEL PROBATE CODE Lewis M.
    [Show full text]
  • US Constitution
    NO: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WILLIE CHAR1ES ROSE, JR. PETITIONER -'IS- CONNIE HORTON, - RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI •WIthJIE CHARUES ROSE, .F. #235893, IN PROP PER 269 WEST M-80 KINCHEL!OE, MI 49784- .RECEIVED OCT 302018 OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT, U.S.. S. TABLE OF CONTENTS OPINIONS BELLOW...... JURISDICTION. ................ • • • • • , . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . CONSTITUTION AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOthJED......S...................I....... STATEMENT OF THE CASE... ...... ....... ........ .. .... •1• •••••• REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT......................... ........ CONCLUSION.. INDEX TO APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F MjftT 1, STA-T &a L161 OF PARTIES All parties DO NOT appear in the caption of the case on the cover pegs. A list of all, parties to the proceeding in the Court whose Judgement is the subject of this petition is as follows: People of the State of Michigan Connie Horton T- ________ C Fa Iv-k m#i ZTO STATES g3c 6q3 M- e, yt4Z dT QUESTION(S) PRESENTED WHETHER THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SHOULD SET PRECEDENCE TO CLARIFY AND GUIDE THE LOWER COURTS ON HOW TO PROCEED WHEN FACED WITH THE' SITUATION IN THIS CASE? (WHEN. THE COURTS WILFULLY AND INTENTIONAL1L!Y REFUSE TO PRODUCE /PROVIDE THE NECESSARY COURT RECORDS AND PROSECUTORS DOCUMENTS NEEDED TO APPEAL! AND EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES AS REQUIRED BY THE A.E.D.P.A. IN VIOLATION OF GRIFFIN V. ILLINOIS, 351 U.S. 12. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD SET PRECEDENCE AND CLARIFY THAT LOWER COURTS ARE ALSO .
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Regulation of Court Procedure Edmund M
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1918 Judicial Regulation of Court Procedure Edmund M. Morgan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Morgan, Edmund M., "Judicial Regulation of Court Procedure" (1918). Minnesota Law Review. 1185. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1185 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW VOL. II JANUARY, 1918 No. 2 JUDICIAL REGULATION OF COURT PROCEDURE' ANCIENTLY, regulations of pleading and practice were prin- cipally of judicial origin. Some were the result of judicial decisions in individual cases; others were court rules formally declared;2 some few were enactments of parliament, the latter of which were attempts to mitigate some of the most technical 1 In preparation of this paper the following were freely consulted, and material therefrom has been liberally used: Procedure through Rules of Court. I Journal of American Judica- ture Society 17 (June 1917). The Proposed Regulation of Missouri Procedure by Rules of Court, Manley 0. Hudson. University of Missouri Bulletin, Law Series 13, p. 3 (Dec. 1916). Regulation of Judicial Procedure by Rules of Court, Roscoe Pound. 10 Ill. Law. Rev. 163; 2 Amer. Bar Association Journal 46 (Oct. 1915). Ontario Courts and Procedure, Herbert Harley. 12 Mich. Law Rev. 339-447 (March-April 1914).
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan Constitutional Issues
    Citizens Research Council of Michigan 625 SHELBY STREET, SUITE 1B, DETROIT, Ml 48226,3220 • (313) 961-5377 • FAX (313) 9614)648 1502 MICHIGAN NATIONAL TOWER, LANSING, Ml 48933-1738 • (517) 485-9444 • FAX (547) 485-0423 Michigan Constitutional Issues CITIZENS RESEARCH COUNCIL OF MICHIGAN IS A 501(C) 3) TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATION Report No. 313-01 First in a series on revising the Michigan Constitution June 1994 THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF A STATE CONSTITUTION THE ISSUE IN BRIEF At the general election to be held on November 8, 1994, the people of Michigan will decide the question whether to call a Constitutional Convention to revise the present state Constitution Which was adopted April 11 1963. Section 3 of Article 12 of the State Constitution requires that “[a] the general election to be held in the year 1978, and in each sixteenth year thereafter and at such other times as may be provided by law, the question of a general revision of the constitution shall be submitted to the electors of the state....” In resolving the question of whether to call a Michigan Constitutional Convention, it is essential that voters have an adequate understanding of the nature and purpose of a state constitution. This analysis examines the basic principles underlying American constitutional law, particularly as those principles concern the nature of state government. This analysis summarizes the issues examined in Research Council Memorandum No. 202, The State Constitution: Its Nature and Purpose, authored by Paul G. Kauper, October 1961, 29 pages. Introduction American constitutional law presupposes certain basic principles that find expression, either explicitly or implicitly, in state constitutions and the Constitution of the United States.
    [Show full text]