Northeastern Regional Office
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 Northeastern Regional Office - PASSAIC COUNTY (N.J.) SPEEDY TRIAL #I DEMONSTRATION PROJECT: F I NAL EV,4LUAT I ON REPORT, - June 1931 Eva1 uati on Team Samuel D. Conti, Regional Director and Principal Evaluator Richard Ross, Senior Staff Attorney, Principal Evaluator and i\ut!io David C.-Steelman, Senior Staff Attorney Sharman C. Shostak, Staff Associate National Center for State Courts Osgood Hill 723 Osgood St. North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 -3 I Copyright 1981 National Center for State'Courts I I . I I I I I I National Center for State Courts I NORTHEASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE Osgood Hill 723 Osgood Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Edward B. McConnell !l !l OARD OF DIRECTORS Director President (617) 687-0111 Chief Justice William 5. Richardson Supreme Court of Hawaii Samuel D. Conti Cice President .Regional Director Chief Judge Theodore R Newman, Jr. July 1, 1981 District of Columbia Court of Appeals residing Judge Robert C. Broomfield Superior Court, Maricopa County, Arizona 1hief Judge Lawrence H. Cooke Court of Appeals of New York udge Mercedes F. Deiz Circuit Court of Oregon Chief Justice Robert N. Wilentz State Street Iudge Roland J. Faricy 313 Municipal Court of Ramsey County Perth Amboy, New Jersey 08861 .hief Justice Joe R. Greenhill Supreme Court of Texas hief Justice Lawrence W. I'Anson Dear Chief Justice Wilentz: 1Supreme Court of Virginia Judge Wilfred W. Nuernberger Separate Juvenile Court of We are pleased to transmit our final report Lancaster County, Nebraska entitled "Passaic County (N.J.) Speedy Trial Iudge Kaliste J. Saloom, Jr. Demonstration Project Final Evaluation Report". City Court of Lafayette, Louisiana ustice Joseph R. Weisberger This report is intended to complete the series Supreme Court of Rhode Island of interim evaluation reports which have been udge Robert A. Wenke sent to you periodically since our evaluation 1Superior Court of Los Angeles began. We trust the report is helpful to you OUNCIL OF STATE as you continue your effort to improve the OURT REPRESENTATIVES hairman administration of justice in New Jersey. If Chief Justice Arthur J. England, Jr. we may provide further information or assistance Supreme Court of Florida ice Chairman please call upon us. Justice B. Don Barnes Y Supreme Court of Oklahoma .. vYJbvoz2 WASHINGTON LIAISON OFFICE 2030 M. Street. N.W. Suite 401 Washington, D.C. 20036 1(202) 8333270 'Samuel D. Conti EGIONAL OFFICES IDATUNTIC 300 Newport Avenue SDC:mwp f. Williamsburg. Virginia 23185 (804)253-2000 AORTHEASTERN cc: Robert Lipscher, Esq. Osgood Hill Hon. Peter Ciolino 723 Osgood Street North Andover. Massachusetts 01845 Hon. Sidney H. Reiss (617) 6874111 Hon. Vincent E. Hull, Jr. OUTHERN 1600 Tullie Circle, N.E.. Suite 119 Atlanta, Georgia 30329 (404)634-3366 NORTH CENTRAL Suite 2208 American National Bank Building .I 5th & Minnesota Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612)222-6331 ESTERN 720 Sacramento Street San Francisco. California 94108 (415) 557-151 5 I i TABLE OF CONTENTS I .Page 1 Preface ........................ 1 Summary ....................... 3 I 1. Introduction ................... 14 2. Description of the Case Process.......... 25 I 3 . Findings and Recommendations ........... 38 a . The Pace of the Case Process......... 38 I b . Disposition Types .............. 49 C . Attorney Case Assignment Approaches ..... 53 d . Pre-Grand Jury Complaint Screening ...... 60 e . Judges as Managers .............. 74 I f . Cases Based on Sale or Possession of . Controlled Dangerous Substances ..... 75 75 9 Grand Jury Transcripts ............ I h . Pretrial Conferences............. 76 i. Financial Costs ............... 77 I AppendixA .................... A- 1 I Appendix6 .................... B-I -1 APPendixC .................... C-1 i Appendix D .................... D-1 .Appendix E .................... E-1 I Appendix F .................... F-1 I i i i i i 1 I I LIST OF FIGURES Page I Figure 1 Passaic County Map .............. 18 Figure 2 Passaic County Speedy Trial Demonstration I Project Criminal Case Process. ........ 26 I 1 LIST OF TABLES 1 Table 1 Passaic County Population .1980. ....... '1 7 Table 2 1979 Crime Rates for Municipalities in Passai c County Speedy Tri a1 Demons trati on I Project Compared with Paterson and Count,Ywide Rate ................. 19 Table 3 Criminal Caseload Information for Municipalities I in Passai c County Speedy Tri a1 Demonstrati on Project Compared With Paterson and Enti re I County September 1, 1978 - August 31, 1979 . 20 Table 4 Elapsed Time to Disposition: Passaic County Indictments Reaching 9isposition in <' 'February, 1980 Non-jai I Cases e e 22 I -.. - . Table 5 Elapsed Time to Disposition: Passaic County 'Indictments Reaching Disposition. in 1 February 1980 . Jail Cases. ......... 23 .. Table 6 Passai c County Speedy Tri a1 Demons trati on I Project Elapsed Times (Days) for Cases Reaching Disposition February 6, 1930 - I March 31, 1981. ................ 38 Table 7 Passai'c County Speedy Trial Demonstration Project Elapsed Time (Days) for Cases Reaching Disposition: by Municipal itY 1 of Orrigin .................... 40 Table 8 Elapsed Time to Di sposi !i on:. Sel ected New I Jersejy Criminal . Case Ob jecti ves for 1981 (Days) 42 Table 9 Disposition Types for Passaic County 1 Indictable Complaints: 1977-78 and 1978-79 Statistical Reporting Years Compared to Speedy Trial Demonstration 1 Project ......................... 51 I I I SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS i -Page 1. The current elapsed time objectives for disposition I of indictable complaints originating in the demonstration project sites should be modified ...... 49 I 2. The elapsed time objectives for the pretrial intervention process should be modified as f01 lows: I Arraignment to filing of application 10 days Application to recommendation 25 days I Total time from arraignment 35 days. ... 49 3. Having achieved its elapsed time objectives, the demonstration project should be ended in June 1981 I and its caseload incorporated into the countywide delay reduction program,. ................. 49 4. Research into the results of plea bargaining and I sentencing under the Passaic County Criminal Case Delay Reduction Program should be undertaken ....... 53 I 5. The l1verticall1at.torney case assignment method should be tested in a jurisdiction with sufficient attorney I resources.... ..................... 59 6: Future statewide criminal case delay reduction efforts should focus on the indictable complaint I intake process ...................... 73 7. Evaluations of a variety of existing pre-grand jury I screening programs should be conducted .......... 73 8. Probable cause hearings should be eliminated as a function of the individual municipal courts and I should be replaced by a centralized form of complaint screening supervised by the superior court ........ 73 9. The operation of pretrial intervention programs I should be evaluated statewide. .............. 73 10. An experimental diversion program should be conducted I and evaluated in which the diversion recommendation is reached prior to presentation of the evidence to I the grand jury ...................... 73 11. To analyze the impact of screening programs, the unit that should be counted is the complaint rather than l the case or the defendant. ................ 73 i I 12. As to indictable complaints, the countywide data that should be collected includes the following: I 0 Total number issued following arrest or summons; 0 The number dismissed in municipal court due to a lack of probable cause; I 0 The number downgraded to disorderly person offenses at the probable cause hearing; 1 e The number disposed in municipal court following defendant's waiver of indictment and county-level I jury trial; I 0 The number of administrative dismissals by the county prosecutor under Rule 3:25-1; I 0 The number remanded to municipal court by the county prosecutor for processing as non- I indictables; 0 The number presented to the grand jury for action; I 0 The results of grand jury actions .......... 73 13. As to non-indictable complaints, the necessary data is I the number of disorderly person complaints filed in each of the county's municipal courts ............. 74 I 1;. All of the above data should be reported on a monthly basis to the assignment judges, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and the New Jersey Division of I Criminal Justice ...................... 74 15. Future delay reduction programs should include management training for judicial and non-judicial employees with I principal programnatic responsibilities. ......... -75 16. The trial court administrator and the key members I of his staff should be assigned to provide day-to-day calendar nanagement support to the trial 3udges as necessary. ........................ 75 1 17. Passaic County (and, in fact, each vicinage) should have available to it a laboratory for analysis of evidence in cases involving controlled I dangerous substances- If operated at the vicinage level, these laboratories should be integrated for the purpose of administrative control with the 1 state police laboratory system. In thz alternative, the courts should explore the possibility of contracting with local hospitals for delivery of the required I laboratory services. ................... 75 I I 1 I Page I 18. The prosecutor's office should be required by court rule to provide to defense counsel as soon as possible after completion of the grand jury proceeding a list I of witnesses who have testified before the grand jury. 76 19. A sound recording device and monitor rather than a 1 stenographic