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 reporter should be used in the grand jury...... 75 20. The practice of holding a full pretrial conference I immediately following arraignment should be discontinued. The limited conference for scheduling future events in the case process I should continue to be held upon arraignment, . . . . . 77 I I I

I \ I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I PREFACE I A1 though New Jersey state and local court pol icymakers have described the objective of the Passaic County Speedy Trial Demonstration Project I principally in terms of reducing elapsed time to disposition, the techniques applied since the project's inception in February 1980 have

I also aimed at consolidating management of the criminal case process at I the superior court level, encouraging rigorous pre-grand jury screening of indictable complaints, experimenting with a change in the approach to I legal representation by the state and defense counsel, and permitting the court to supervise and make more accountable the performance of

I participants in the case process. In other words, the future shape and

quality of criminal case processing in Passaic County have been at issue,

not simply "speedy trial".

In an even broader sense, this report is about the process of I .. change. Many of those in Passaic County who make a living by

I contributing to the court's mission of doing justice in criminal cases I have found work diffncult during the past eighteen months. All of these individuals-- judges,, court administrators and other court support staff, I prosecutors and defense attorneys and the rest of the staff of the county prosecutor's and pub1 ic defender's offices, the private criminal defense

I bar, probation department personnel, and police and corrections I officers-- have adjusted to new daily work habits. Some have found themselves under increased pressure and scrutiny. Many have had to I overcome a natural resistance to change. All were asked to commit I themselves to doing things in new ways, to resolving problems 3' I I cooperatively and constructively, and to maintaining a flexible attitude about their approach to job performance--all while discharging their I professional responsibilities in the movement of cases in their charge. ! The process of getting to know these individuals and of evaluating their efforts has provided a valuable reminder to this report's authors of the ! high level of desire and energy which participants in the change process \ must sustain. Our respect for these individuals and for their work, at ! the state and local levels, exists wholly apart from any of our findings. I ! I

__I I ! ! ! ! I I ! ! -2- SUMMARY Research and deliberation on court delay increasingly focus on the I practical approaches and techniques that result in speedier dispositions more than on theoretical questions about whether delay reduction is i desirable or possible to achieve. It is no longer necessary to justify delay reduction programs by reciting the litany of public complaints I about the slow pace of litigation evident in some trial courts. Nor is I it necessary to argue over whether judges' and other professional court managers can accomplish delay reduction without diluting the quality of I justice; the feat has already been accomplished in jurisdictions throughout the United States. I The Passaic County Speedy Trial Demonstration Project was a bold I delay reduction experiment with ambitious elapsed time objectives. Its approach to criminal case processing altered traditional case-processing 1 expectations in important ways. And while the project's most highly 1. visible impact was intended to be on disposition time, the project also I sought to make fundamental changes in the quality of the criminal case I process and in the quality of criminal justice which the process yielded. Passaic County is located in northern New Jersey and has a population i (1980 census) of 447,585. Of the county's sixteen municipalities, four generate approximately eighty-five percent of all of the county's 1 indictable complaints and, therefore, most of the work of the prosecutor I and public defender. These four municipalities are Paterson (pop. 137,970), C1 ifton (pop. 74,388), Passaic (pop. 52,463), and Wayne (pop. I 46,474). In the Initial phase of the demonstration project-- February to I

-3- c A I June 1980-- application of the project Is case-processing techniques was limited to complaints originating in the municipalities of Clifton, I Wayne, Totowa, Pompton Lakes, and North Haledon, all of which offered smaller caseload volumes and less severe types of criminal cases than I either Paterson or Passaic. In September 1980, the city of Passaic, with I its larger and more serious criminal caseload, was added to the demonstration project. All of Passaic County was operating under a 'I criminal case delay reduction plan as of January 1, 1981. The elapsed time objectives and certain important case-processing procedures of the I demonstration project were not implemented, however, in the rest of the I county. The demonstration project started February 6, 1980 as one of the I earliest elements of a statewide delay reduction program on which development began during 1979. The New Jersey Administrative Office of I the Courts asked the National Center for State Courts to evaluate the - I $eject. The evaluation's objective was to determine the effects on indictable complaint disposition of a case process featuring the following major characteristics:

0 Emphasis on achieving a highly accelerated case processing pace compared to previous disposition speed. I 0 Strong county-level court management control over casef low at all stages of the case process from arrest to disposition. I 0 Assignment of responsibility for processing the entire indictable caseload arising from arrests in a particular I municipality or group of municipalities to one superior court I trial judge. The judge monitors case progress at the municipal court level, conducts arraignment following indictment, I

-4- I schedules, monitors and presides over pretrial activi-y, accepts 1 guilty pleas, and conducts trials for all indictments resulting from arrests in the assigned municipality or group of I municipalities. I 0 A case assignment technique for attorneys called "verticalization" by which a prosecutor and a public defender I are assigned to each case following arrest and are responsible for all aspects of that case through disposition, including 1 (where applicable) all tasks and appearances associated with 1 probable cause hearing, grand jury presentation, arraignment, pretrial activity, and trial or non-trial disposition.

I 0 Broad powers granted to the superior court trial judge under an order of the New Jersey Supreme Court suspending in Passaic I County all time periods ordinarily governing criminal case processing under New Jersey rules and guidelines. The order permitted the trial judge to enter orders accelerating the I scheduling of all events in the case process and did not restrict the judge in any way as to the content of the new schedules. The project's most visible impact was intended to be on disposition time. The elapsed time object ve was to accelerate the pace of criminal I case processing for indictable compl a nts by shortening the intervals I between steps in the process to the following: 0 Arrest to probable cause hearing 7 days I 0 Probable cause hearing to indictment 7 days - 0 Indictment to arrdignment 7 days I Arraignment to trial or non-trial disposition 30 days I Total time 51 days

-5- I On January 1, 1981, the court leadership modified its view of acceptable elapsed time performance in the demonstration project as f 01 lows :

0 Arrest to probable cause hearing 7 days I 0 Probable cause hearing to indictment 14 days I 0 Indictment to arraignment 14 days

0 Arraignment to trial or non-trial disposition 45 days I Total time 80 days Achievement of the project's elapsed time objectives was not expected to be an easy task. In February 1980, prior to the development of the I project's caseload, the average elapsed time from arrest to disposition in Passaic County was 285 days. The average elapsed time from indictment I to disposition for February 1980 dispositions was 215 days in non-jail I cases and 81 days in jail cases. Attorneys, not the judiciary, controlled.-. the pace of the case process; a tradition of strong court I management control over caseflow did not exist. Many felt the court would require several years to impress speedier habits upon participants I in the case process. Others predicted that much higher personnel I- expenditures would result and that a costly electronic data processing capability would be needed. I Statistics show the project as having substantially achieved its I e 1 apsedI time objectives both in 1980 and 1981. The following table shows results for cases reaching disposition in the demonstration project I February 6, 1980 and March 31, 1981. between I

-6- I I Passaic County Speedy Trial Demonstration Project I I Elapsed Times (Days) for Cases Reaching Disposition February 6, 1980 - March 31, 7981 . I (Times are averages; N=number orcases) Entire I Time Frame Project 1980 1981 All cases 67 (n=246) 60 (n=148) 78 (n=98) I Arrest to guilty plea 65 (N=212) 58 (N=126) 75 (N= 86)

Arrest to trial 82 (N= 34) 72 (N= 22)- 99 (N= 12) I Arrest to P/C hearing 8 (N=794) 8 (N=515) 9 (N=279) I P/C Hrg. to grand jury action 14 (N=514) 11 (N=319) 20 (N=195) Indictment to arraignment 13 (N=300) 15 (N=186) 10 (N=114) I Arraignment to disposition 32 (N=300) 29 (N=186) 38 (N=114) Note: Fifty-fou'r indictmer ;s disposed by 'TI, non-appreh ision or death I lof defendant, or removal of case from calendar for special investigation. I In one year the project reduced total elapsed time to disposition from i85 to 67 days, and the time from indictment to disposition from eight I months to six weeks. Participants in the case process now perceive that the achievement of an accelerated case processing pace is a practicable I continuing objective. Attorney control over the pace of the case process I was ended; the princ:iple of superior court authority over the movement of indictable criminal complaints now appears to be a permanent feature I of the Passaic County case process. The operation of the demonstration pro,ject did not result in increased financial costs to the court or I in the need for costly data processing equipment to track cases. I With the assumption of management control, the court has gained the opportunity' to create and enforce new procedures for determining what I kinds of cases can be disposed without resort to the full court process, I that is, to consolidate and supervise the process by which adult I - 7- w I- criminal complaints and defendants are screened, much as New Jersey's juvenile and domestic relations intake services perform this function for I the state's Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Screening decisions I in adult criminal cases, including the pretrial intervention (diversion) decision, can thereby be made at the very outset of the case process. I The new potential for improved complaint screening may, in the long run, prove to be as important as any other result of the project, in the I opinion of the National Center evaluation team. The demonstration I project placed great emphasis on rigorous pre-indictment complaint screening by county prosecutors and public defenders at the municipal' I court level, with close monitoring of results by a superior court judge. As a result, pre-indictment downgrading and dismissals of indictable I complaints increased by over threefold compared to 1978-79 results. At I the same time, post-indictment dismissals in superior court decreased from twenty-six percent of upper court dispositions in 1978-79 to three I percent in the demonstration project. The project experimented with the theory of 'Vertical" case I representation by attorneys-- an interesting and potentially beneficial 1 case assignment method. The experiment proved difficult because the project's caseload appears to have required the application of more I attorneys than were available given limited funds for staff in the1 prosecutor's and public defender's offices. In addition, attorneys found I the original pace of the demonstration project's case process too fast to I suit the verticalization method; just as the court decided to modify the pace, the public defender's office discontinued the method's use. ,As I applied in the demonstration project, the method required public defenders I I -8- I I 1 to process cases day after day with the same prosecutor, municipal court I judge, and superior court judge. The defenders' dislike of this approach, coupled with the accelerated pace of the process, caused them I to abandon the experiment midway through the project. It is not clear I whether these problems can be overcome in Passaic County or any other jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the "verticalization" concept deserves I 'further experimentation in a jurisdiction with more adequate attorney resources. I Other interesting issues emerged. Court policymakers discovered I there was a need to maintain continuous structured and unstructured consultations and exchanges of views among program participants at all I levels, including court policymakers, trial judges, prosecutors, public defenders, private defense attorneys, court support personnel, probation I and corrections officials, and the police. Regular and frank I communication among most participants in the demonstration project was a Gsitive and absolutely necessary characteristic of the program from its I inception. The initiative for this open communicat on policy in Passaic County came from the level of the highest local adm nistrative judge (the I vicinage assignment judge), who in turn had the ear and support of the I state's chief justice and other high-ranking state-level court policymakers. The demonstration project also showed that the I communications program must have real rather than apparent objectives: a court's leadership must be prepared to make programmatic changes based on I reasonable needs, not merely to give participants the opportunity to I Ilsound off It. I I I An unexpected result was a change in Passaic County in the ratio of guilty pleas to trials from approximately two guilty pleas for every I trial from 1977-79 (pre-demonstration project) to over six guilty pleas for every trial in the demonstration project in 1980-81. Some attorneys I claimed that the change resulted from the need to dispose of I demonstration project cases rapidly in order to keep caseload sizes under control in the face of speedy trial pressures. These attorneys asserted I that only the increased percentage of guilty pleas made possible the achievement of the project's elapsed time objective. I Attorneys also claimed to discern a trend in the demonstration I project toward less stringent plea bargaining standards. These supposedly resulted in "better deals" for defendants than prior to the I project's inception. Consequently, sentences were generally less severe in the demonstration project, according to the prosecutors and defenders I i nvol ved . I .'. .'. It is important to note that a new criminal code became effective in New Jersey just prior to the inception of the demonstration project (N.J.S.A. ZC, effective September 1, 1979). Assessments of the impact of the new code on plea bargaining and sentencing have been limited. I According to the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, I convictions by trial in superior court statewide during the past year have decreased by approximately half. In addition, the impact on I sentencing of current overcrowded conditions in New Jersey's jails and prisons needs examination. No data on specific plea bargains or on I sentencing in the demonstration project were available from either the 1 court, the prosecutor, or the public defender. The disposition ! I -10- 1 statistics and the assertions of some of the project's participants have I not caused the National Center to conclude that accused criminals in Passaic County whose cases were prosecuted by the demonstration project I were not vigorously or correctly prosecuted according to the evidence. I But the statistics, combined with the comments of the attorneys reported above, should reinforce for pol icymakers the understanding that achieving 1 speedy dispositions is an important but not overriding objective. Processing pretrial intervention program applications within shorter I time limits (18 rather than 25 days) proved difficult, and probation I officers expressed concern about the accuracy and sufficiency of the information upon which they were basing recommendations. Pretrial 1 intervention (PTI) is New Jersey's adult criminal diversion program; as such, it has important responsibilities related to community safety and I the rights of defendants. The National Center examined the operation of I pretrial intervention programs in five county probation departments 'during 1980 as part of its work as consultant to the New Jersey Chief 1 Justice's Committee on Efficiency in the Operation of the Courts and recommended a thorough evaluation of PTI to determine if it is meeting I its mandated objectives. This recommendation has been repeated in this i evaluation of Passaic County's Speedy Trial Demonstration Project. Finally, the demonstration project attempted for the first time in I New Jersey the consolidation of the work of the municipal courts and superior courts for processing indictable criminal complaints. Municipal I courts were "regionalized" for the purpose of conducting probable cause I hearings; that is, hearings arising from arrests in certain small municipalities were held in a larger municipal court "center". In 4-

-11- I addition, a superior court judge was assigned to monitor caseflow progress and disposition results in the municipal court center. These I techniques point the way toward exploration of fuller superior court control, including, if desired, the eventual termination of municipal I court involvement in the processing of indictable complaints and the I restructuring of the organizational relationships of the municipal, district,. and superior courts. . I It is important to bear in mind that the demonstration project was an experiment. The previous case-processing mold was shattered, fa1 l-out I and remodeling occurred, and all of the new pieces have not yet taken I their final shape and place within a new structure. Nevertheless, it is clear the project has shown that a court can sharply reduce elapsed time I from arrest to disposition of criminal cases by applying certain delay reduction principles. These include: 1 .. 0 The administrative leadership of the local trial court of I .. general jurisdiction must issue a policy stating specific objectives for the pace of the criminal case process from arrest I to disposition and for each stage of the case process. I a The policy must have the support of the state-level judiciary leadership. I 0 The court must develop elapsed time data from a recent period prior to the implementation of its new policy against which to I measure progress and performance. I 0 The court must manage its calendar by monitoring the performance of all of the participants in the case process and by closely I monitoring the progress of each case from stage to stage of the I

-12- case process. The court must point out unacceptable performance

I to participants as it occurs. I 0 Although time standards must be strictly enforced, the court must have a flexible attitude toward modifying elapsed time I objectives and case-processing methods if necessary to maintain high quality standards of criminal justice (balancing the rights

I of defendants and the needs of the community) and to accommodate I the reasonable needs of participants in the case process. 0 To assure intermediate and long-range achievement of elapsed I time objectives, the court must have regular and frank communication with the participants in the case process and 1 encourage them to contribute to the development and modification I of the delay reduction program. 0 The court must set firm dates for post-arraignment events and I permit brief continuances only upon good cause. L. I I I I I I I I 1 -13- I I 1. Introduction 1 This report is the last in a series of five National Center reports evaluating the Passaic County Speedy Trial Demonstration Project. The I evaluation's objective was to dekermine the effects on indictable I complaint disposition of a case process featuring the following major characteristics:

I 0 Emphasis on achieving a highly accelerated case processing pace I compared to previous disposition speed. 0 Strong county-level court management control over caseflow at I all stages of the case process from arrest to disposition. 0 Assignment of responsibility for processing the entire 1 indictable caseload arising from arrests in a particular I municipality or group of municipalities to one superior court trial judge.' The judge monitors case progress at the municipal court level, conducts arraignment following I ..._ indictment, schedules, monitors, and presides over pretrial I activity, accepts guilty pleas, and conducts trials for all indictments resulting from arrests in the assigned municipality I or group of municipalities. 1

I lSee "Description and Analysis of the Passaic County Speedy Trial Demonstration Project" (June 1980); "Interim Evaluation Report No. 2" (December 1980); "Interim Evaluation Report No. 3" (January 1981); I "Interim Evaluation Report No. 4" (April 1981). The June 1980 report was distributed at the 1980 New Jersey Judicial Conferenie, which focused on court delay reduction. Interim reports No. 2, 3 and 4 were given lim ted I distribution to New Jersey court policymakers. *The superior court is New Jersey's trial court of general jurisdiction. The municipal courts conduct probable cause hearings on I indictable complaints. I -14-

c i A I 0 A case assignment technique for attorneys called "verticalization'' by which a prosecutor and a public defender I are assigned to each case following arrest and are responsible for all aspects of that case through disposition, including I (where applicable) a1 1 tasks and appearances associated with probable cause hearing, grand jury presentation, arraignment, I pretrial activity, and disposition. I 0 Broad powers granted to the superior court trial judge under an order of the New Jersey Supreme Court suspending in Passaic I County all time periods ordinarily governing criminal case processing under New Jersey rules and guidelines. The order I permitted the trial judge to enter orders accelerating the I scheduling of all events in the case process and did not restrict the judge in any way as to the content of the new I 3 schedules. I %, %, The demonstration project started February 6, 1980 as one of the earliest elements of a statewide delay reduction program on which I development began during 1979. The statewide program became fully operational in January, 1981. 4 I I 30rder of the New Jersey Supreme Court, February 21, 1980. See Appendix C for the full text of the order. 4Al 1 twenty-one New Jersey counties submitted criminal case delay I reduction plans for approval by the Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court in November, 1980. Full implementation began January 1, 1981, although particular aspects of plans in certain counties were in I operation during 1980. For this evaluation, the National Center also examined aspects of the delay reduction programs of Gloucester, Hudson, Somerset, and Union Counties, particularly in regard to pre-grand jury I complaint screening procedures. I

-15-

.. ..I Passaic County is located in northern New Jersey and has a population 1 (1980 census) of 447,585.0f the county's 16 municipalities, four generate approximately 85% of all of the county's indictable offenses and, I therefore, most of the work of the prosecutor and public defender. These -I four municipalities are Paterson (pop. 137,970), Clifton (pop. 74,388), Passaic (pop. 52,463), and Wayne (pop. 46,474). Table 1 shows 1980 I population of all Passaic County municipalities. Figure 1 shows a map of the county. I In the initial phase of the demonstration project--February to June 1 1980--application of the project's case processing techniques was limited to the municipalities of Clifton, Wayne, Totowa, Pompton Lakes, and North I Haledon, all of which offered sma1,ler caseload volumes and less severe types of criminal cases than either Paterson or Passaic. In September I 1980, the city of Passaic, with its larger and more serious criminal I caseload, was added as a demonstration site.5 Violent crime (homicide, 'rape, robbery, and assault) in the county occurs primarily in Paterson B and Passaic. The most common crimes reported in Clifton and Wayne in 197.9 were burglary, larceny, and possession of controlled dangerous I substances. Table 2 shows 1979 crime rates and violent crime rates for I the demonstration project municipalities compared to rates in Paterson and the entire county. Table 3 shows criminal caseload information for I municipalities in the demonstration project compared with Paterson and the entire county from September 1, 1978 to August 31, 1979, the last 1 full statistical reporting year prior to the inception of the project. I 5All of Passaic County was operating under a criminal case delay reduction plan as of January 1, 1981. The elapsed time objectives and certain important case-processing procedures of the demonstration project I were not implemented, however, in the rest of the county. The National Center was not asked to examine operations outside the sphere of the 1 demonstration project. 1 -16- TABLE 1

Passaic County Population - 1980

Enti re County 447,585 Paterson 137,970 *C1 i fton 74,388 *Pas sai c 52,463 I *Wayne 46,474 West Mi 1ford 22,750 Hawthorne 18,200 R i ngwood 12,625 I , Little Falls 11,496 *To towa 11,448 "Pompton Lakes 10,660 I West Paterson 11,293 Wanaque 10,025 Bloomingdale 7,867 I *North Haledon 8,177 Hal edon 6,607 Prospect Park 5,142 I I *Speedy Trial Demonstration Project Municipality I Source: Passai c County Planning Board I I I , I I I -17- ] I -1 FIGURE 1 I PASSAIC COUNTY MAP

I

I.

I I I I ’. + Speedy trial demonstration project municipalities I are under1 i ned.

-18- ) TABLE 2

1979 Crime Rates for Municipalities in Passaic County Speedy Trial Demonstration Project Compared With Paterson and Cou%rtywideRate (*= Demonstration Project rlunicipa1,ity)

~ ~ ~~

Muni ci pal i ty Crimes per Violent Crimes per 1,000 Pop,ulation 1,000 Population

*Passai c 86.2 9.7 *Clifton 45.3 2.4 *Wayne 63.8 1.2

*Pompton Lakes , 41.9 1 .o *Totowa 68.1 2.1 -*North Haledon 18.5 0.5

Paters on 71.4 8.9 Enti re County 59.7 4.9

Source: Passaic County P1 anni ng Board I 1 I TABLE 3 Criminal Caseload Information for Municipalities in Passaic County Speedy Tri a1 Demonstration I Project Compared with Paterson and Entire County September 1, 1975 - August 31, 7979 I (*= Demonstration Pro.iwi Municimlitiit?~) I

I Referred to County Prosecutor Following % of total Cri mi nal Probable Cause Hear- Countywide i! of I Conipl aints ing (Potential Potentia? - Indictments Municipal i ty -Fi 1ed Indi ctables) Indictables Returned

1 *Passaic 3,636 1,000 23.9% 1 *C1 ifton 2,554 4 39 10.5% *Wayne 2,090 182 4.3% *Pompton Lakes 308 12 0.3% 1 -_ kTot owa 273 52 1.2% 1 kNorth Haledon 183 20 4.8%

I Paterson 9,951 2,062 49.4% Entire County 22,514 4,173 1,290 1 an indictment may include more than one 1 complaint)

I Source: New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts I I I I - 29- 1 The selection of Wayne, Clifton, Totowa, Pompton Lakes, and North I Haledon as pilot municipalities for the initial phase of the project I illustrated the cautious approach of the judiciary leadership -- the new Jersey Supreme Court, the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, I and the Passaic County Superior Court leadership-- in launching the experiment. The reasoning was that failure of the project's techniques 1 in municipalities with criminal caseloads of relatively lower volume and I less serious offenses would almost certainly presage failure in Passaic or Paterson. The consequences of failure on a small scale, moreover, I would be less disruptive for the county's criminal justice system and the community at large than failure in the larger municipalities. I The project's most visible impact was intended to be on disposition I time. The elapsed time objective was to accelerate the pace of criminal case processing for indictable compla nts by shortening the intervals R between steps in the process to the following: I 'L 0 Arrest to probable cause hearing 7 days 0 Probable cause hearing to indictment 7 days I 0 Indictment to arraignment 7 days 0 Arraignment to trial or non-trial -1 disposition 30 days Total time 51 days I On January 1, 1981, the court leadership modified its view of acceptable elapsed time performance in the demonstration project (for I reasons to be discussed later in this report) as follows: I 0 Arrest to probable cause hearing 7 days 0 Probable cause hearing to indictment 14 days I 0 Indictment to arraignment 14 days

0 Arraignment to trial or non-trial I disposition 45 days Total time 80 days I

L -21 - .- . . 1 These elapsed time objectives represented a much faster case I processing pace than that revealed by a National Center for State Courts survey of Passaic County indictable criminal cases reaching disposition

I in February 1980, prior to the development of the project's caseload. I This survey showed that the median elapsed time from arrest to trial commencement or non-trial disposition was 249 days, or over eight months 1 (average disposition time = 285 days; sample size = 91 cases). Cases in which the defendant was jailed pending disposition showed a median

I elapsed time of 120 days, or four months (average disposition time = 154 I days; sample size = 19 cases). Non-jail cases showed a median elapsed time of 312 days, or ten and one-half months (average elapsed time = 320 I days; sample size = 72 cases)? Elapsed times for the stages of case process for the February 1980 (pre-demonstration project) dispositions

I are shown in the fol lowing 'tables:

TABLE 4 I Elapsed Time to Disposition: -.. Passaic County Indictments Reaching Disposition in February 1980 1 Non- Jai 1 Cases (N=78) 7

Median Elapsed 1 Time Frame Time (Days) Average Elapsed Time (Days) Arrest to P/C Hearing 12 20

1 P/C Hearing to Indictment 95 95 1 Indictment to Arraignment 20 43 Arraignment to Disposition 130 172 I 6National Center for State Courts April 1980 survey of Passaic County I Superior Court criminal cases reaching disposition during February 1980. I I -22- TABLE 5 Elapsed Time to Disposition Passaic County Indictments Reaching Disposition in February 1980 I Jail Cases (N=19)8

' Median Elapsed I Time Frame Time (Days) Average Elapsed Time (Days) Arrest to P/C Hearing 2 7 I P/C Hearing to Indictment 51 54 Indictment to Arraignment 6 14 Arraignment to Disposition 48 73 In addition to the achievement of disposition speed, however, the

I demonstration project had other major objectives. These were expressed as follows in the Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts to t:ie 1980 .Nesi Jersey Judicial Conference: I

9 "Early involvement by the prosecutor and public defender, leading to greater speed and responsibility I for each individual coming into the system;

9 "A "team approach" to criminal processing, leading 1, I also to greater speed and responsibility, by the elimination of the education of other assistant prosecutors and assistant public defenders on the intricacies of a particular case from stage to stage. I This also leads to a perception by the victim and the defendant that some single person or team is "in charge" and knows their case; I "Responsibility by a single superior court judge over cases at the municipal level, leading to the court's I having better communciation with the municipal judge and others under the judiciary's direct control. This communication is achieved by the interaction of human I being with human being, and not merely by placing the name of a person coming into the criminal justice system into a computer, whose print-out can then be I read by the superior court at the county. - seat;-- I %Id.- I I -23- 1

0 "Promotion of general adversariness, leading to a I protection of each individual's rights, including those of defendants and victims. This occurs because of the early involvement of all elements of the system I and also because delay, an unworthy and sporting side effect of the old method of disposition, will no longer be permitted. Lawyers and judges can concentrate on the real task bfore them, I representation and justice;

0 "Greater community awareness of what is occurring, I leading to the public's knowing who is accountable for the system and, perhaps, to their attempting to reduce I crime further; and e "Innovation, which can occur because of the smaller units now in operation and because of a perception by everyone involved that the system is manageable and I worthy of further improvement.II9 I I I

I

9"Judicial Conference of New Jersey: An Approach to the Expeditious I Processing of Criminal Cases", New Jersey Administrative Off,ice of the Courts, pp. 6-7 (June 6, 1980).

-24- 1 I 1 2. Description f: the Case Proce I The demonstration project's case-processing techniques are best illustrated by examining the operation of the project from stage to stage I of the case process. (Figure 2 is a flow chart depicting the I demonstration project's entire case process.) This section of the report is intended to describe the process, not to raise issues or make I recommendations. Arrest to Probable Cause Hearing. In Passaic County, a preliminary I arraignment'' is ordinarily conducted by the municipal court judge of 1 the municipality where the arrest occurs. Pursuant to Rule 3:4-1 of the New Jersey Rules of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter R.), this hearing is I ordinarily held within 24 hours of arrest, regardless of whether the court is in regular session. The court informs the defendant of the I charges against him and makes a decision regarding bail. Indigent I defendants can make application for representation by the public defender. A date for a probable cause hearing is set. The demonstration I project makes no change in procedure at this stage. In the demonstration project, however, a1 1 indictable criminal u complaints resulting from arrests in Totowa, North Haledon, and Pompton I Lakes are referred to the Wayne Municipal Court for probable cause hearing. The technique is called "regionalization". The Wayne Municipal I Court continues to hold probable cause hearings for cases arising from arrests in Wayne, of course. The Clifton Municipal Court and the Passaic I Municipal Court also continue to conduct their own probable cause I IOKnown in New Jersey as First Appearance in Court After Filing of I Complaint. i -25- 1 - _-_._ -. . .-...... - ...... -_- -...... -...... _.. Arrest . FIGURE 2. -___ - - 'I -.I. .. -..... I' Passai-c County. Speedy 1.. I I. 4 i "Without Project Criminal Cas& '...... At Prel imi nary Arraignment:. . .. Unnecessary I Process a) Defendant informed of Lharge. De 1ay 'I I 1 Within to counsel. Prel imi nary I Arraignment c) R.O.R., bail or jaif. I 7 I. d) Probable. cause hearing (Nunici pal I Da!/s .. date set". Court) I

Within I 30-45 days

I I ' Within

,

...

Court DisDos- . -- -_ \Motion / ) deferred prose- W cutiori -26- I-( 1 hearings." The major purpose of regionalization is to permit fewer I publicly-funded attorneys and fewer superior court judges to handle I indictable complaint processing through a reduction in the number of municipal case processing sites. 12 I The police departments in the target municipalities are required to deliver two copies of all police reports in indictable matters to the I assistant county prosecutors prior to the date of the probable cause I hearing. In addition, by directive of the vicinage assignment judge (New Jersey's designation for administrative judge)J3 the municipal court I must submit two copies of all indictable complaints to the superior court's criminal assignment clerk within 48 hours of arrest. Upon I receipt of the complaint, a recording clerk completes a "daily log sheet" I denoting the complaint and Criminal Disposition Report (CDR) numbers, the defendant's name, and the municipality of origin. Next, a Criminal Case Data Control and Tracking form is completed in duplicate by the recording .. clerk. Additional required defendant arrest information is obtained by telephone contact from the municipal court clerk. Missing

llTwo other regions were created January 1, 1981 for probable cause hearings in Passaic County municipalities not participating in the demonstration project. The West Milford Municipal Court conducts the hearings for arrests from Bloomingdale, Ringwood, Wanaque, and West Milford. The Little Falls Municipal Court also handles Haledon, Hawthorne, Prospect Park, and West Paterson. The Paterson Municipal I Court continues to conduct only its own probable cause hearings. 12New Jersey Statutes Annotated (hereinafter N. J.S.A. ) 2A:8-5 provides for gubernatorial appointment and senatorial confirmation of municipal court judges serving more than one municipality. N.J.S.A. 2A:6-37 grants concurrent criminal jurisdiction to the county district courts. These provisions form the basis for alternative options to the present criminal case processing structure. 13The twenty-one county superior courts in New Jersey are organized for administrative purposes into eleven vicinages.

-27- ] I I information is also noted on the county prosecutor's copy of the complaint. The original of the data control form is then filed with the I complaint in an Awaiting Probable Cause holding file, by date scheduled and by municipality. The duplicate form is forwarded to the superior I court judge for notebook filing. The daily log sheet is delivered to the I county prosecutor's office with a copy of each complaint received. Upon receipt and cross check, the log sheet is signed by a staff person of the I prosecutor$ off ice and returned to the criminal assignment clerk's office. 14 I At this point, the trial judge in the superior court with I responsibility for monitoring the progress of all indictable complaints arising in the municipality of the arrest (or regionalized municipal I court center) begins supervision of casef low. In the demonstration project, one judge was assigned to the Wayne/Clifton caseload I< (Wayne/Cl iftonlNorth Haledon/Pompton Lakes/Totowa) , another to the I 'Pas sai c case 1 oad .15 Probable Cause Hearing to Indictment. At the probable cause hearing, I the prosecution must prove that a crime has been comitted and that there are reasonable grounds to believe the defendant committed it. If I probable cause is not found, the case is dismissed. In addition, pleas I to non-indictable offenses as "downgrades" of the originally-filed charges can be negotiated at this stage. There may be a guilty plea or a I decision to defer prosecution on the downgraded offense. The hearing I 1 14Appendices D and E show the Daily Log and Data Control Forms. I 15The two trial judges supervising case processing in the demonstration project were New Jersey District Court judges temporarily assigned to the superior court.. I I -28- 1 1 thus has the potential for serving an important screening function. 16

In the demonstration project, the probable cause hearing also serves

as a significant step in the organization of case processing towards I disposition. From the inception of the demonstration project on February 6, 1980, until January 5, 1981, indictable complaints originating from I- arrests in the project's target municipalities were processed by three I "teams" of Passaic County assistant prosecutors and state pub1 ic defenders from the Passaic County Public Defenders 0ffi~e.l~One team

was assigned to the Wayne Municipal Court, another to the Clifton

Municipal Court, and a third to the Passaic Municipal Court. Each team consisted of two prosecutors and two defenders. A prosecutor and a I defender were assigned to each case at the probable cause hearing, which was held in every case. The same pair of attorneys then performed all I tasks related to representation on that case through all stages of the I case process until disposition. The technique was called "'verticalization". In addition to improving the ability of the superior I court judges to control the management of the calendars (since each judge r was responsible for specific municipalities and, therefore, was able to 16A fuller discussion, with statistics, of pre-grand jury case I screening as accomplished by the demonstration project and other New Jersey speedy trial experiments occurs later in this report.

17The word "team" to describe the pair of attorneys assigned to process 1 each case, as well as the phrase "team approach'' to describe the approach to representation, appeared in the official report of the Judicial Conference of New Jersey which took place on June 6, 1980. See "Judicial I Conference of New Jersey: An Approach to the Expeditious Processing of Criminal Cases", New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, pp. 4-6. However, the words were being used by New Jersey state and local I policymakers involved in designing the demonstration project during Fall 1979 and Winter 1979-80, prior to the project's implementation. I

-29- 1 H I monitor the same attorneys day after day), Passaic County's "team approach" was presented as a way to encourage "awareness of the local 1 citizenry of the participants involved in the processing of cases from their area". 18 I On January 5, 1981, the Passaic County Public Defender Office I discontinued the Yearn" and llverticalization"approaches for reasons which this report will address in its next section. At present, a public I defender continues to begin representation on each complaint at all probable cause hearings in Passaic County; however, the individuals I providing representation are two "contract attorneys" not part of the I permanent public defender staff. The public defender staff trial assistants are now assigned to cases at the point of superior court I arraignment (post-indictment), and are no longer assigned to cases by municipality of origin. Each public defender's caseload, in other words, I now contains cases from many municipalities rather than the single I muncipality to which the defender was previously assigned as a member of a Veam" with an assistant prosecutor. Consequently, the defenders also 1 now appear before all of the superior court judges at the county level, rather than appearing only before the one judge assigned to supervise the I processing of a particular municipality's indictable caseload. I The assistant county prosecutors continue to be assigned to particular municipalities, however, and continue to use the Vertical" I representation approach. A variety of case processing activities occurs at the probable cause I hearings, which are held for a portion of one day each week in each I

I8Ibid., at pp. 4-5. I , I - 30- \ 1, demonstration project municipal court. The prosecutor receives and reviews police reports not previously delivered, interviews police and other witnesses, and gives all available discovery to the defender. Negotiations between the prosecutor and defender take place. Prosecution investigators obtain dates of birth and social security numbers of defendants so that requests for criminal histories- of defendants who are referred to the grand jury can be expedited. The investigators also serve all police and civilian witnesses with grand jury subpoenas and obtain names and addresses of absent witnesses so that service can be made prior to the grand jury hearing. The municipal court clerk provides the prosecutor with the original of the complaint, which is required for grand jury presentation. The above paperf low and information exchange techniques have been highly accelerated compared to previous practices in the county. The municipal courts are required each week to deliver to the L .superior court criminal assignment clerk's office a Probable Cause Hearing Information Sheet which lists the results of all probable cause hearings. If the probable cause hearing is adjourned, the reason and rescheduled hearing date are noted on the summary sheet. Upon receipt of the report, a clerk makes entries on corresponding data control and tracking forms and refiles them either in a file called Awaiting Prosecutor's Notification of Grand Jury Action or, if the probable cause hearing has been adjourned, a file called Awaiting Probable Cause Hearing. If the complaint was dismissed or otherwise disposed by the municipal court, the form is stored in a closed file. (Ultimately, these records will be transferred to microfiche storage files.) The superior

-31- ,1 court judges are notified of probable cause hearing dispositions in their assigned municipalities on a weekly basis. Indictment to Arraignment. Following the probable cause hearing, the prosecutor prepares the case for presentation to the grand jury for indictment. A special grand jury, meeting once each week, was provided I for the demonstration project to hear Wayne and Clifton cases exclusively in the early stages of the project, but its use was abandoned as I unnecessary within a few months. If probable cause is found in the municipal court, scheduling of the 1 case for presentation to the grand jury is made the following day. At 1 the same time, the prosecutor's office advises the criminal assignment clerk of the date. Following indictment, the grand jury clerk's office 1 prepares and delivers by hand a Grand Jury Input Sheet, denoting the daily returns, to the criminal assignment clerk's office. The criminal 1 assignment clerk makes the related entries on the Criminal Case Data 1 Control and Tracking form, checks for jail/bail status, and schedules the defendant for arraignment. If the defendant .$s incarcerated, the I sheriff's department is asked to deliver the defendant to arraignment. Notices of arraignment dates are prepared by computer and mailed. I The' Criminal Case Data Control and Tracking form is then moved to the I Awaiting Arraignment file and an arraignment schedule (calendar) is generated for the assigned judge, with a copy to the prosecutor's office. I Adjournments of arraignment and post-arraignment events are not granted beyond one week of the original date without good cause. I

-32- 1 Requests for adjournment are monitored using a Reason for Requested I Adjournment form which is completed by the assigned judge and transmitted I to the criminal assignment clerk. (See Appendix F.) This form is also used for all subsequently scheduled events. I Arraignment to Trial or Non-Trial Disposition. Following indictment, the defendant enters a plea at arraignment in superior court. Mail I arraignment is not permitted. In Passaic County, guilty pleas are I ordinarily not entered at this stage. Typically, a plea of not guilty is entered, then retracted on or previous to the scheduled trial date if the I defendant has decided to plead guilty. In the demonstration project, arraignment is the point at which the I superior court trial judge assumes full control over case progress. He I conducts the arraignment, determines and monitors the schedule of all pretrial events, including discovery and motions practice, and presides I over the trial or non-trial disposition of the case. \ One of the judges assigned to the demonstration project conducts the I pretrial conference immediately following arraignment. The defendant, c defense counsel, and the prosecution are present, as at arraignment. At this conference a checklist of items is discussed. The checklist is I reproduced below. CHECKLIST OF CONFERENCE BEFORE TRIAL I 1. Necessity for motion for consolidation or severance. Rules 3:15-1; 3:15-2; 3:7-6 and 3:7-7. 1 2. Ask for requests to charge. Must be submitted before trial except as to unanticipated issues. Rule 1:8-7. I 3. Request general information about case for use in jury interrogation. 4. Request list of witnesses and addresses of attorneys, parties and I witnesses, for use in jury interrogation. I I I 5. Obt in estimated tri 1 time d ther jury of 12 or 14 desired. Rule 3:8-2(c). I 6. Ask if decision made as to whether defendant will testify, and if not, obtain consent on failure to testif- State V. Smith, 100 Super. 420. I 7. Ask prosecutor if defendant has prior criminal record and instruct counsel to inform defendant of admissibility thereof on credibility if he testifies. I 8. Ascertain status of discovery and whether defendant has received copies of statements of witnesses under Rule 3:17. I 8a. Ask whether grand jury minutes have been ordered; if not, do so immediatelv." I 9. Mark for identification exhibits which can be marked to save jury time. I 10. Inform counsel as to the number of jury challenges for each side. Rule 1:8-3(d). I 11. Inform counsel and defendant if he is on bail, of requirement that they appear on time after recesses. If defendant is in jail, give sheriff's officers orders as to time for his appearance.. in court, and I that he is to be in civilian clothes. 12. Ask if alibi witnesses demand served under Rule 3:ll-1 and whether -.. all proposed alibi witnesses have been named in replies served. I 13. Ask if state will offer any statements of defendant, oral or written, If 1 .. inculpatory or exculpatory, to be used for inculpatory purpose. so, order state to avoid reference thereto until ruling on admissibility, order vior dire examination under Evidence Rule 8:3, and if several defendants on trial consider severance under Rule I 3: 15-2. 14. Ask counsel if any objection will be raised regarding testimony as to identification of defendant and if so, order state to avoid reference I thereto until ruling on admissibility and order voir dire examination under Evidence Rule 8: 1. I 15. Entertain motion for sequestration of trial witnesses. 16. Check indictment for errors requiring amendments to indictment. Rule I 3:7-4. Errors in statutory citation of crime can\ be corrected, Rule 3: 7-4. 17. Ascertain if there was any evidence suppressed at motion before 1 trial. Note limitation on right of defendant to so move at trial. Rule 3:5-7. I I -34- 1 I, M I 18. Ascertain if any disqualifications of judge. Rule 1:lZ and Canon of I Judicial Ethics 13. 19. Have any applications far pretrial intervention been made? 20. Is there anything else to be brought to the attention of the court in I this matter? 1 Although the other demonstration project judge does not hold pretrial conferences immediately following arraignment (instead waiting for a I point prior to trial in order to determine if a guilty plea will be offered), both judges use the arraignment to schedule future case I activity, including t ial, and issue a scheduling order for disco ery and I pretrial motion pract ce. Defense counsel must order the transcr pt of grand jury testimony, if desired, within a day after arraignment. I At arraignment, the defendant is given an application for the Pretrial Intervention (PTI) Program administered by the Passaic County I Probation Department. PTI is New Jersey's adult criminal diversion 1 program.19 The defendant must apply within one day of court. In practice the application is filed the same day as arraignment. The 1 probation department must complete its investigation and make a recommendation to the court regarding the defendant's eligibility for I diversion no more than 18 calendar days later. (Prosecution or defense 1 objection to the PTI recommendation must be made within 4 days, with a hearing on the object-ion held in superior court within 3 days). I 19See R. 3:28; N.J.S.A. 20:43-12-22; "Guidelines for Operation of Pretrial Intervention in New Jersey", reprinted following R. 3:28; State 1 V. Leonardis, 71 N.J. 85 (1976) and State V. Leonardis (Leonardis 1-73 I N.J. 360 (1977). 1 I 1 i -35- i 1 This system represents a major change from the pre-demonstration project timetable for pretri a1 intervention in Passaic County. Under the I previous timetable, the defendant had 25 days following superior court arraignment to apply for PTI; the probation department had 25 days I following application to make a recommendation to the court. The system I now in place is also different from that used during the initial phase of the demonstration project in the Spring of 1980. That system required 1 the defendant to apply for PTI within 5 days following the probable cause hearing, with the probation department having 25 days from the date of I application to make a recommendation. The purpose of this schedule was I to assure that the PTI decision would be made no later than one month following the probable cause hearing (i.e., no more than one to two weeks I after arraignment) and that there would be no need to refrain from listing a case for trial while a PTI investigation was being conducted. I However, advancing PTI application and investigation to the I $e-indictment stage created an overlap with presentation of the complaint to the grand jury. Unless an indictment was returned on the 1 complaint, the resources used by the probation department in c investigating the applicant were wasted. The application/investigation process was returned to the post-indictment stage, therefore, with the I current 20-day application to recommendation timetable following arraignment. Discussion of the effects of this timetable on the PTI I process is contained in the report's next section. As mentioned, monitoring of scheduled events from arraignment through disposition and sentencing is the responsibility of the trial judge. The judge's Criminal Case Data and Tracking forms are maintained by the court clerk or other designated member of the judge's staff, i.e., secretary or law clerk. Scheduled dates, notification of the,occurrence of events, 1 and adjournment information are provided to the criminal assignment clerk by the court clerk.

.

-37- 1 I

3. Findings and Recommendations 1 a. The Pace of the Case Process I Table 6 shows elapsed times for case processing in the demonstration project. The statistics show the project as having substantially I achieved its elapsed time objectives both for 1980 and 1981. These I objectives are restated immediately below: -1980 -1981 Arrest to probable cause hearing 7 days 7 days Probable cause hearing to indictment 7 days 14 days I Indictment to arraignment 7 days 14 days Ar r a i gnmen t to d i spo s i t i on 30 days 45 days TOTAL TIME I 51 days 80 days I ...... TABLE 6 I Passaic County Speedy Trial Demonstration Project Elapsed Times (Days) for Cases Reaching Disposition February 6, 1980 - March 31, 1981 I (Times are averages; N=number of cases) 2o Entire 1 Time Frame Project -1980 -1981 I All cases 67 (n=246) 60 (n=148) 78 (n=98) Arrest to guilty plea. 65 (N=212) 58 (N=126) 75 (N= 86) I Arrest to trial 82 (N= 34) 72 (NE 22).- 99 (N= 12) Arrest to P/C hearing . 8 (N=794) 8 (N=515) 9 (N=279) I P/C Hrg. to grand jury action 14 (N=514) 11 (N=319) 20 (N=195) I Indictment to arraignment 13 (N=300) 15 (N=186) 10 (N=114) Arraignment to disposition 32 (N=300) 29 (N=186) 38 (N=114) I Note: Fifty-four indictments disposed by PTI, non-apprehension or death of defendant, or removal of case from calendar for special investigation. I c 20Source: Passaic County Superior Court. A member of the staff of the criminal assignment clerk was assigned by the court to maintain elapsed time 1 statistics. The National Center conparea bj aevelo?ing statistics from t!iC records of each case in the denonstration nroject from Februarythrough April 1980 and found the court's statistics accurate. in I addition, the National Center with the assistance of the criminal assignment clerk's office coded elapsed time data for a sample of the demonstration project caseload from September to December 1980 and found the results highly comparable to the court's data. The assistance of the criminal assignment 1 clerk, Mathias Bolton, and his staff, especially Joseph Quartucci, is gratefully acknowledged. I -38- I A comparison of these results with elapsed time statistics for criminal cases reaching disposition in the Passaic County Superior Court I prior to the application of the demonstration project's techniques is I striking. As shown on Tables 4 and 5 in the first section of this report (pp. 22-23), cases reaching disposition during February 1980 showed an j I average elapsed time from arrest to disposition of 285 days (N=91 cases). Elapsed times for each stage of the case process were also much I leGthier than in the demonstration project, especially for non-jail I cases, and in particular for the periods from probable cause hearing to indictment and from arraignment to disposition. Furthermore, statistics I-- of the Administrative Office of the New Jersey Courts for Passaic County indictments reaching disposition in March 1979 showed an average elapsed I time of'254 days from indictment to trial and 206 days from indictment to guilty plea. 21 I This bland recital of "before and after" elapsed time statistics I fails to emphasize the significance of project results in this respect. At-. the outset of the project, many considered the elapsed time objectives I impossible to achieve. Others predicted that the court would require 1 several years to impress speedier habits upon the local legal culture. . Yet in one year the project reduced the total elapsed time to disposition I from 285 days to 67 days, and the time from indictment to disposition -' from eight months to six weeks. Moreover, attorney control over the pace I of the case process ended with the inception of the project; the principle of I superior court authority over the movement of criminal cases no!^ a??ears to be a perniancnt feature of the Passaic County case process. I i I - 21Statistical Supplement to the Annual Report of the New Jersey Administrative D'irectorof the Courts, 1978-79, pp. F-29 and F-35. I

-39- ] I Table 7 shows elapsed time statistics for cases supervised by each of 1 the two demonstration project judges from September 1980 through March 1 1981. As previously described, one judge had responsibility for the Wayne/Cl ifton/North Haledon/Totowa/Pompton Lakes caseload (processed through t!ie I Wayne rlunicipal Court "Center"), the other for the Passaic (City) caseload. At least two significant facts emerge from Table 7. First, most of 1 the elapsed time results are within project objectives. Secondly, the I case processing pace for the Wayne/Cl ifton caseload was somewhat slower than for Passaic during the time period 1/1/81 to 3/31/81, especially for I the total disposition time for guilty pleas and trials.

TABLE 7 I I Passaic County Speedy Trial Demonstration Project Elapsed Time (Days) for Cases Reaching Disposition: By Municipality of Origin I (Times are averages; n=number of cases)22 - I Probable Arrest Cause 2ase 1 oad Awes t to ,Hearing Indict- to Arrest Probable to ment to Arraignment I . Guilty to Cause Indict- Arraign- to Plea Trial Hearing ment ment Disposition 1 llayne , :1 ifton, lorth Haledon, rotowa, and 1 'ompton Lakes 52 (n=O) 12 14 16 31 3/8/80-12/31/80 -(n=17) (n=99) (n=47) (n=20) (n=20) 1 lassaic 47 59 7 :7 14 26 3/8/80- 12/ 31 /80 (n=28) (n=6) (n=82) (n=45) (n=37) n=37) 1 - 1 dayne, etc. 91 107 10 21 10 45 I 1/1/81-3.31/81 -(n=42) (n=lO) (n=173) (n=117) . (n=80) (n=80) 'assaic 60 58 7 20 9 30 1/1/81-3/31/81 (n=44) n=2) n=106) (n=78) (n=50) n=50) I Note: Th e'mof guilty pleas and trials is loLer than the total lumber of indictments because dispositions by PTI , non-apprehension or death I if defendant, or removal of case from calendar for special investigation are

1 22Supra n. 20. 1 -40- This difference is probably the result of two factors: the total elapsed time objective for the project changed from 51 to 80 days as of I 1/1/81, and the judge supervising the Wayne demonstration region stated during the evaluation interview that "flexibility" was important to I emphasize in the attempt to achieve speedy disp~sition.~~Evaluation I interviews revealed that the judge supervising the Passaic (city) demonstration site at the superior court level brought to bear on I participants in the case process somewhat stronger pressure to achieve rapid disposition. Note that the elapsed time results for the Passaic site in 1981 are well below the 80-day maximum disposition objective. The purpose of the foregoing discussion is not to compare the performance of the two judges. Both achieved the project's elapsed time ----- I objectives. Rather, the purpose is to raise the question of what the concept of "speedy" disposition means. For example, general agreement I appeared to exist among participants in the demonstration project that I the traditional case process -- lacking both the management control of county-level administrative and trial judges and specific court-stated I elapsed time objectives -- moved too slowly. However, evaluation interviews also revealed a consensus, especially among the attorneys and 1 probation workers involved in processing the demonstration project caseload, that the rationale for the particular elapsed time objectives was unclear and that achieving the new objectives created extreme work

23See Appendix A for a roster of individuals interviewed by the National Center during its period of observation (April 1980 - May 1981) of the demonstration project. pressure and difficulties with maintaining high quality job performance without bringing concomitant benefits. Interviewees asked: Why 60 or 80 days to disposition? Why not 90, 120 or 150? Why 30,or 45 days from arraignment to disposition instead of 60, 75 or 90? Why not 30 or 35 days for the PTI application/recommendation process instead of 20? Table 8 shows some of the elapsed time objectives currently in effect in New Jersey. TABLE 8 Elapsed Time to Disposition: Selected New Jersey Criminal Case Objectives for 1981 (Days)24 Passaic County Speedy Passaic Statewide Trial Dem- County Objective Gloucester onstration (Remainder Union Type of Case for 1981 County Project of County) County Non-j ai 1 240 240 80 210 120 Jai 1 120 120 80 120 120 Certainly, accelerating the pace of criminal case processing is -1 widely considered a worthwhile objective. But what is the meaning of the specific goals and achievements of particular courts? For example, is Passaic County's achievement of processing 246 indictments from arrest to disposition in an average of 82 days to trial and 65 days to guilty plea a more desirable accomplishment than reducing Union County's arrest to disposition time to 120 days? Will reducing the time period

24Source of statewide objective: New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts. Objectives for counties are from court criminal case delay reduction plans submitted to the Administrative Office of the Courts in November 1980.

-42- .. i 1 from arrest to disposition for indictable non-jail cases arising in the city of Paterson (Passaic County) during 1981 from its February 1980 I level of 312 days to the 1981 goal of 210 days be a less significant achievement than reducing the elapsed time figure for the same kind of I cases in Union County's city of Plainfield to just 120 days? After all, I Paterson is twice Plainfield's size and has a larger and more serious caseload. For that matter, by the end of 1980 all of New Jersey's I twenty-one superior courts had submitted detailed criminal case delay reduction plans to the Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court I through the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts--plans which 1 in varying degrees differ from one another as to elapsed time objectives for 1981 as well as to the case processing techniques to be applied in 1 achieving those objectives. Are any of the elapsed time objectives I contained in any of these twenty-one different plans more worthwhile than those of any other plan? Would the achievement of these objectives be I p?oof of better performance than in the courts of the neighboring states of Pennsylvania, which has a 180-day arrest-to-disposition rule for I felony cases, or New York, which as of January 1, 1980 had a goal of I . achieving disposition in felony cases in six months from the time of indictment, or of the U.S. District Courts, where the standard is I 25 arrest-to-trial in sixty days? I ! %ee Pa. Rules of Crim. Proc. 1100 (adopted June 8, 1973); "State of New York First Annual Report of the Chief Administrator of the Courts" I (1979), p. 2-2; Federal Speedy Trial Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-619) as amended. See also, "Speedy Trial", Midwest Research Institute (1978) , for a discussion of state speedy trial constitutional and statutory provisions throughout the United States. I I I -43- 1 J D I

I The answer to all of these questions, in the opinion of the National 1 Center evaluation team, is a negative one. As to specific objectives, it is important that the proposed case processing pace represents a I reasonable improvement over previous performance and that a realistic chance of achieving the faster pace exists given the nature of the case -1 mix and the expected impact of the attitudes and practices of the local 1 legal culture. The particular chosen objectives have meaning only within those contexts. Moreover, the desire to pursue speedy disposition should 1 not be for the sake of speed itself. The establishment of time lapse objectives can have more important policy ramifications. It gives public I and explicit expression to the court's institutional efforts to preserve 1 the rights of those accused of crime to rapid disposition and to satisfy community needs for public safety. It provides the court with a powerful 1 rationale for assuming management control over the pace with which cases move. The establishment of measurable standards against which to gauge I .performance in a court leads naturally to the court's creating and I adjusting procedures and deploying personnel as necessary to meet the new objectives and achieve other desired results. I How can court policymakers arrive at objectives that are reasonable and realistic and which contain built-in flexibility and room for 1 experimentation with new case processing techniques? Passaic County's I response to this question in developing and conducting the speedy trial demonstration project appears to provide a solution: maintain continuous 1 structured and unstructured consultations and exchanges of views among 1 program participants at all levels, including court policymakers, trial I 1 -44- '1 1 judges, prosecutors, public defenders, private defense attorneys, court support personnel, probation and corrections officials, and the police. I Regular and frank communication among most participants in the demonstration project has been a positive and absolutely necessary I characteristic of the program since its inception. The initiative for I this open communication policy in Passaic County has come, as it must, from the level of the highest local administrative judge (the vicinage I assignment judge), who in turn has had the ear and support of the state's chief justice and other high-ranking state-level court I policymakers--another essential characteristic. Finally, the I demonstration project has shown that the communications program must have real rather than apparant objectives: A court's leadership must be prepared to make programmatic changes based on reasonable needs, not merely to give participants the opportunity to "sound off.''26 During the demonstration project, prosecutors and public defenders Gphasized that the project's elapsed time objectives allowed insufficient time even for experienced attorneys to prepare cases adequately, especially for trials, but for other types of appearances as well. The analogy offered was that of a conveyor moving too quickly for a worker to give full attention to each item passing before him. In I part, this observation related to the responsibilities of "vertical" I 26For additional observations on these issues see "Managing to Reduce Delay", National Center for State Courts, (1980), pp. 7-10 and pp. 25-30. I See Also "Justice Delayed", National Center for State Courts (1978), pp. 53-62. i I I -45- ] 8 I representation, which will be more fully discussed later in this I section. This approach, as applied in the demonstration project, caused the typical work week of each'attorney to be filled with appearances for I probable cause hearings, grand jury presentations, arra gnments, pretrial 1 conferences, motion and sentencing hearings, plea offer ngs, and trials, leaving insufficient time for preparation, according to attorneys. Even 1 without considering the impact of verticalization, however, attorneys considered the original pace of the demonstration project's case process 1 too fast. As noted, the court adjusted the project's elapsed time I objectives at the end of 1980 in response to participant observations. This action alleviated the problem to a degree, but some of the attorneys I interviewed for this evaluation during the Spring of 1981 still fe t the pace should be slower. I Probation officers, meanwhile, cla med that the faster elapsed t me I objectives caused some decisions on pretrial intervention applications to be based on information that was either less complete or not as fully I verified as is desirable. With 18 calendar days to make a recommendation from the date of application, the probation department has dispensed with the previous technique of conducting two in-person interviews with the I defendant. A second interview, where possible, is now conducted by telephone. The probation officer's report to the court, rather. than I taking the previous form of a five-to six-page narrative justifying the recommendation, is now usually one to one-and-one-half pages long 1 preceded by two pages of numerically-coded personal information. I I I -46- 1 I w I The National Center has not determined whether these changed procedures have adversely affected the quality of the recommendations; I however, a lower degree of confidence among probation personnel in the correctness of some percentage of the recommendations was expressed in I evaluation interviews. Meanwhile, the public defender's office began to I file PTI applications in every case in the Spring of 1981. In March and April of 1981, 278 applications were filed compared to 131 in March and I April of 1980, a 112% increase. The public defender's explanation for this new policy is that the demonstration project's requirement of filing I the PTI application within one day of arraignment (most defendants apply 1 immediately after arraignment) does not allow his office to continue the practice of screening clients as to the prospects for a successful PTI I application. (Prior to the demonstration project, defendants had 25 days to file following arraignment.) It is important to note that prior to I the demonstration project the public defender could have routinely filed I PTI applications in all cases and justified the practice in the name of vigorous advocacy -- but chose not to. Staff of the PTI unit of the I probation department has recently been increased from five to eight in order to handle the volume of applications. The percentage of I acceptances, usually about 254'0, is expected to drop sharply in the near I future as the applications of the less qualified defendants begin to be dec i ded . I Other problems with the speed of the case process involve the police and the municipal court clerks. Police claimed that the time allowed I sometimes did not permit the completion of investigations and reports, I I I I -47- . I 1 8 I especially in complex cases. This complaint was verified by the I prosecutors assigned to the project who reported that required police material was sometimes not available when needed. At the outset of the I project, the municipal court clerks complained of too little time to I complete required paperwork, especially in Wayne, where probable cause hearings from arrests in three additional municipalities are conducted. 1 The complaints have abated as the new procedures have become more fami 1 i ar. I The National Center is aware that the implementation of new I procedures, particularly those calling for speedier effort, is usually accompanied by a certain amount of employee grousing that is a common I consequence of human reluctance to change familiar ways. Even discounting for that factor, however, the evaluation team is I convinced--following one year of evaluating the project and several I opportunities to get to know the persons involved--that the complaints about the speed of thie process have much validity and that policymakers I should again modify the project's elapsed time objectives after consulting with the participating agencies, (As previously noted, the original 51-day objective was mod fied to 80 days as of January 1, I 1981). The court leadership has one an excellent job of maintaining communication with these agencies throughout the project, and has thereby I managed to enjoy support for the project despite differences on certain operational aspects. Several project objectives not necessarily related 1 to speed--quality legal representation, a court-managed case process, a I high degree of accountability to the court by participants in the I process, and rigorous, court-supervised complaint screening--are too I I -48- 1 I important to risk losing the support of participants in order to achieve case disposition in 80 days. Completing the process of I arrest-to-disposition in Passaic County even in 120 days in most indictable criminal cases would be a major accomplishment of which all I participants could be justifiably proud. I RECOMMENDATIONS 1. THE CURRENT ELAPSED TIME OBJECTIVES FOR DISPOSITION OF I INDICTABLE COHPLAIrlTS ORIGIflATING Ill THE DEMONSTEATIOF1 PROJECT SITES SHOULD BE MODIFIED. 2. THE ELAPSED TIME OBJECTIVES FOR THE PRETRIAL I INTERVENTION PROCESS SHOULD BE MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: ARRAIGNMENT TO FILING OF APPLICATION 10 days I APPLICATION TO RECOMMENDATION 25 days TOTAL TIME FROM ARRAIGNMENT 35 days I 3. HAVING ACHIEVED ITS ELAPSED TIME OBJECTIVES, THE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT SHOULD BE ENDED IN JUNE 1981 AND ITS CASELOAD INCORPORATED INTO THE COUNTYWIDE DELAY REDUCTION PROGRAM. I b. Disposition Types -. I Table 9 compares disposition types for Passaic County indictable complaints for the two statistical reporting years prior to the inception I of the demonstration project with the results for indictable complaints processed by the project between February 6, 1980 and March 31, 1981. I The table shows a more than threefold increase in the percentage of cases I screened out of indictable status in municipal court (pre-indictment) following the inception of the demonstration project (with just less than I a ten-fold increase from the 1977-78 figure); a near elimination of dispositions by dismissal in superior court in the demonstration project; I an increase from approximately 510% to 33.5% in the perc,entage of indictments I disposed by guilty plea in the demonstration project as compared to either of the I I -49- 1 I I -1

I previous two years; a reduction from approximately 25% to 13.3% in the percentage of dispositions by trial in the demonstration project when compared to the I two prior years; and a change in the ratio of guilty pleas and trials I from approximately two guilty pleas for every trial from 1977-79 to over six guilty pleas for every trial in the demonstration project. I In the demonstration project, the assistant prosecutor who begins representing the state at the probable cause hearing in municipal court I also presents the complaint. to the county grand jury if probable cause is I found and upon indictment handles the case to disposition in superior court. During 1980, the public defenders were also providing this form I of "vertical" representation. The theoretical impact on pre-grand jury case screening is thtit attorneys with responsibility for carrying out all I of the subsequent tasks involved in the cases assigned at the probable I cause hearing wi 11 be unwilling to allow minor or weak cases to clutter 'their caseload if a (1 smissal or downgrade of the comp aint at the I municipal court level seems at all appropriate. The prosecutor's office and the public defender's office acknowledged that the increase in municipal court dispositions resulted in part from I "verticalization", i.e., continuous responsibility for a case appears to lead to more careful pretrial screening. (When public defender I verticalization ended on January 1, 1981, the percentage of indictable complaints disposed at the municipal court level during the next three I months fell to 30.1% from the 1980 level of 38.6%.) At the same time, I however, attorneys maintained that the increase in the municipal court I I I I- TABLE 9 Disposition Types for Passaic County Indictable Complaints: 1977-78 and 1978-79 Statistical Reporting Years I Compared to Speedy Trial Demonstration Project27 Demonstration I September 1, 1977 September 1, 1978 Project to to February 6, 1980 August 31, 1978 August 31, 1979 to March 31, 1981 I 1. Indictables processed in municipal court other than by waiver of indict- I ment and right to jury trial 4,109 4,673 794 I 2. Disposed in munici- pal court by plea to downgraded offense 157 500 280 I or by dismissal (3.8%) (10.7%) (35.3%) 3. Indictments disposed in superior I court i,389 1,290 254 4. Indictments I disposed by guilty 714 634 212 plea (51.4%) (49.1%) (83.5%) I 5~~ Indictments 354 318 34 disposed by tri a1 (25.5%) ( 24.7%) (13.3%) 6. Indictments 293 338 8 1 disposed by dismissal (21.1%) (26.2%) (3.1%) 7. Indictments I disposed by conditional 28 0 0 discharge (2 .ox) I

27Sources of statistics: 1977-78 and 1978-79 Statistical Supplement to the Annual Reports of the New Jersey Administrative Director of the Courts; Passaic I County Superior Court for demonstration project statistics. I I I 1 -51- '1 I I I dispositions also resulted from the need to dispose of cases rapidly in I order to keep caseload size under control in the face of speedy trial pressures. 28

I Prosecutors and defenders repeatedly offered the latter explanation .I throughout the National Center's evaluation for an additional reason: to account for the higher ratio of guilty pleas to trials evident in the I demonstration project's superior court caseload compared to previous years. Some asserted that only the increased percentage of guilty pleas

I made possible the achievement of the project's total elapsed time I object ive. Attorneys also claimed to discern a trend in the demonstration I project toward less stringent plea bargaining standards. These supposedly resulted .in "better deals" for defendants following indictment

I than prior to the project's inception. Consequently, sentences were I generally less severe in the demonstration project, according to the prosecutors and defenders involved. I It is important to note that a new criminal code became effective in New Jersey just prior' to the inception of the demonstration project

3 (N.J.S.A. ZC, effective September 1, 1979). Assessments of the impact of I the new code on plea bargaining and sentencing have been limited. As in the demonstration project, convictions by trial in superior court I statewide during the past year have decreased by approximately half. 29 In add tion, the impact on sentencing of current overcrowded conditions

I in New Jersey's jails and prisons would need to be examined. No data on I 28 The sharp decrease in dispositions by dismissal following indictment is probably explained by the fact that the weaker cases are being I screened out in municipal court. I 29Source: New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts. \ -52- j 1 I specific plea bargains or on sentencing in the demonstration project were I available from either the court, the prosecutor, or the public defender. I The disposition statistics and the assertions of some of the project's participants have not caused the National Center to conclude that accused I criminals in Passaic County whose cases were prosecuted by the demonstration project were not vigorously or correctly prosecuted I according to the evidence. But the statistics, combined with the I comments of the 'attorneys reported above, should reinforce for policymakers the understanding that achieving disposition speed is an I important but not overriding objective. I RECOMMENDATION

4. RESEARCH INTO THE RESULTS OF PLEA BARGAINING AND SENTENCING UNDER THE PASSAIC COUNTY CRIMINAL CASE I DELAY REDUCTION PROGRAM SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN. c. Attorney Case Assignment Approaches I This section focuses on case assignment methods for trial attorneys. I More particularly, the section discusses the "verticalizationl'/Veam member" case assignment method used during 1980 in the demonstration I project both by the public defender and the county prosecutor. On

January 5, 1981, the Passaic County Pub1 ic Defender Office discontinued use of this method.

During 1980, indictable complaints originating from arrests in the municipalities of Clifton, North Haledon, Passaic, Pompton Lakes, Totowa, I and Wayne were processed by two "teams" of Passaic County assistant prosecutors and state public defenders from the Passaic County Public I Defender Office. One team had responsibility for the Clifton Municipal I Court and the Wayne Municipal Court, which, as previously described, also heard all of the probable cause hearings from cases originating in North I Haledon, Pompton Lakes, and Totowa. The other team was assigned to the 1 I -53- j I I Passaic Municipal Court. Each team consisted of two prosecutors and two 1 defenders. A prosecutor and a defender were assigned to each case at the I probable cause hearing, which was held in every case. As described earlier, the same pair of attorneys then performed all tasks related to I representation on that case through all stages of the case process until disposition. In addition to improving complaint screening, helping I accelerate the pace of the criminal case process, and facilitating the I control functions of the county level trial judges in their management of the superior court calendars, Passaic County's "team approach" was I presented as a way to encourage "awareness of the local citizenry of the participants involved in the processing of cases from their area". 30 I As of January 5, 1981, the public defender's office instead assigned an attorney to each case upon receipt of an application for I representation (5-A form) from a defendant and acceptance of the I case. 31 The earlier the 5-A form was received, the sooner representation of the defendant began, but representation became I Vertical" only as of the superior court arraignment. In other words, a different public defender would appear at a case's probable cause hearing than at subsequent county-level proceedings. In addition, any particular I 3°''Judicial Conference of New Jersey: An Approach to the Expeditious Processing of Criminal Cases", New Jersey Administrative Office of the I Courts, pp. 4-6 (1980). 311n Passaic County, the public defender office appears in I approximately 75% of all indictable complaints. Statistic supplied by the Passaic County Superior Court. I I I I -54- 11 I I public defender's caseload would contain cases from more than one municipality, unlike the "team member" public defenders involved in the I demonstration project during 1980 who appeared only in the municipality to which they were assigned and only before the one superior court-level I judge with responsibility for the cases originating in that municipality. I The use of the words "team" and "team approach'' to describe the . demonstration project's method of assigning prosecutors and public I defenders to cases made the public defender office wary. Public I defenders do not like to consider themselves part of a case processing "team". They view themselves as client advocates in an adversary i system. Some of the public defenders involved in the project complained that occasionally it was difficult to demonstrate this posture to their I clients while helping to process cases using the project's techniques. I The Deputy Public Defender in charge of the county's public defender office expressed @'some ethical reservations as to a defense attorney's I participation on such a "team". 32 The conclusion of the National Center following its examination of I the team approach as it operated in the demonstration project during 1980 I is that no "team" every really existed, at least not in the sense that the right of defendants to vigorous, competent representation was I compromised. Defenders continued to represent their clients conscientiously. Statistics show that in 38.6% of the indictable I complaints filed in the demonstraion project during 1980, the defender I

32Letter from Terence P. Corcoran, Passaic County Deputy Public Defender to Honorable Peter Ciolino, Passaic County Assignment Judge, I November 5, 1980, p. 3. I I I I managed to negotiate a dismissal or downgrade in municipal court. 33 By I autumn, county prosecutors were perceiving defendants as obtaining "better deals", although this assertion was not d~curnented.~~It is I more likely that the public defenders felt they were part of a case I processing "team" for two other reasons. First, court officials told them they were.35 Secondly, as noted, the approach required that each I defender appear on an almost daily basis before only one superior court-level trial judge (who was closely monitoring the defender's I actions) as well as before the same municipal court judge--at the same I time that a highly accelerated case processing pace was being emphasized. The increased scrutiny and pressure became too much even for experienced defenders to bear, especially when combined with the natural desire of defenders for an independant role. The problems which the demonstration project encountered with the team approach were in large part a consequence of the kinds of role perceptions which attorneys are taught during their training for participation in an adversary system of criminal justice. Moreover, as this report mentioned earlier, project attorneys claimed the responsibilities of "vertical" representation within short time frames caused the typical work week of each attorney to be filled with appearances for probable cause hearings, grand jury presentations,

33~ource: Passaic County Superior Court. 341nterview by Richard Ross, Senior Staff Attorney, National Center for State Courts, with staff of the Passaic County Prosecutorls Office, November 18, 1980. 35Supra n. 30,

i i -56- j b I I arraignments, pretrial conferences, motion and sentenc ng hearings, plea offerings, and trials. All of these left insufficient time for I preparation, according to the attorneys. An illustrat ve description is found in an excerpt from an internal memorandum of the Passaic County I Prosecutor's Office prepared in the Fall of 1980 by the two assistant I prosecutors assigned to one of the demonstration project sites. This excerpt appears as Appendix B. I Despite the misgivings as to preparation time and assignment .to a single judge, however, most of the attorneys interviewed 1 during the evaluation had a high theoretical regard for "vertical" I .b .b representation. The prosecutor's office felt that the addition of a third assistant prosecutor to each caseload would have made the method I more practical. Limited financial resources for staffing in both the prosecutor's and defender's offices made this suggestion impossible to I implement. In any case, the important prerequisites to use of the I Verticalt' assignment method appear to be the presence of sufficient numbers of trial attorneys and a case processing pace that the attorneys I view as manageable. A minority of the attorneys and judges interviewed by the National I Center in Passaic County and other counties (see Appendix A) were I unenthusiastic about verticalization. In particular, the loss of pre-grand jury complaint screening by prosecutor "specialists" was I criticized. As implementation of the demonstration project continued in 1981 following the decision of the public defender's office to change its attorney assignment approach, some court policymakers began to express

-57- j I concern that the absence of teams of public defenders in the

demonstration project's courts would considerably slow the pace of the

project's case process. Although the project's average elapsed time from

arrest to disposition by guilty plea during the first three months of

1981 slipped to 75 days from 58 during 1980, and the average arrest to trial time slowed from 72 days in 1980 to 99 days in January - March

1981 (see Table 6 at page 38), the statistics reveal little about the

impact of the case assignment methods on disposition speed. In the first

place, the project's elapsed time objective was changed from 60 to 80

days as of January, 1981. Secondly, only a portion of the cases reaching

disposition early in 1981 resulted from a 1981 arrest. Many of these

cases began to be processed in 1980 under the "team"/"vertical" case

assignment method.

Furthermore, there is no theoretical reason to believe that the

performance of the trial judges in controlling and enforcing schedules

'and procedures should be weakened simply because they do not see the same

public defenders every day. It is reasonable to assume that each case

can still be managed just as vigorously. In fact, each trial judge in

c the demonstration project now exercises caseflow management control over

all of the trial attorneys in the public defender's office, as the case

assignments are spread about that office. The court has thereby gained

the opportunity to familiarize all of the defenders, rather than just a

few, with the new case processing habits required by the county's delay

reduction methods.

Nevertheless, some court policymakers continue to express a desire to

create and enforce a mechanism giving the court an enhanced capability to

i -58- i I I~ influence or control attorney case assignment techniques so that they are better coordinated with the superior court's management of its criminal I calendars, particularly to avoid attorney scheduling conflicts. The issue of whether the time is ripe for development of such a coordinating I mechanism is an important one. Should the court invest its newly I acquired case management control "capital" in the effort, especially in view of the defenders' sensitivity on this point? Especially in a time I of transition (1980-81) to this kind of control, the choices are critical as to which aspects of the case process the courts emphasize in I establishing control; misplaced emphasis can erode useful support among I participants in the case process. Policies which could erode support would be particularly harmful as to those whose cooperation must be I voluntary because the court lacks legal or administrative authority over their internal management and case assignment activities, such as with I the public defender's office. The National Center suggests that a I potentially more significant and probably less contested area of concern exists for the courts to address with their management authority. The I next subsection of this report describes this area. RECOMMENDATION I 5 THE "VERTICAL" ATTORNEY CASE ASSIGNMENT METHOD SHOULD . BE TESTED IN A JURISDICTION WITH SUFFICIENT ATTORNEY I RESOURCES. 1 I I I I I -59- 1 I I

1 d. Pre-grand jury Complaint Screening I An important potential benefit that can derive from a court's assumption of management control over caseflow is that the courts gain I the ability to give direction to other important aspects of the criminal case process. One of these is the pre-grand jury screening process for -I indictable complaints. How best to examine the evidence and investigate I the defendant for diversion purposes in a court-supervised process following the potentially indictable incident and decide within short 1 periods of time whether the evidence warrants presentation of the case to I the grand jury and whether the defendant is a worthy candidate for diversion? A court's response to this question will determine in large 1 measure the size and content of its criminal caseload and will in all likelihood substantially affect the pace of the case process. 1 A variety of ways exist to screen indictable complaints; a few of the experimental programs now operating in New Jersey will be described later I in this section to demonstrate the range of possibilities. Because such I programs are relatively new and have not been comprehensively evaluated, however, conclusions are not yet possible about the comparative impact of 1 different screening programs on the content of the criminal caseloads of the municipal and superior courts. One reasonable hypothesis is that any I aggressive program of screening of indictable complaints will result in a I lower percentage of complaints being presented to the grand jury than if no such program exists. In other words, the nature of a particular I screening program's approach may not be as crucial as the strength of the I I

I 1 -63- ! I 1 court's commitment to rigorous screening.36 In the absence of management control over indictable complaint 1 caseflow, the court's influence on the kinds of complaints that are presented to the grand jury will be limited at best. For example, the I traditional New Jersey pre-grand jury screening process has consisted of 1 holding probable cause hearings in the municipal courts with little or no special attention to screening (and in many instances with no county 1 prosecutor or pub1 ic defender present), then referring the complaint to the county prosecutor's office. County prosecutor's offices have then 1 reviewed complaints with whatever degree of rigor happens to characterize I the existing pre-grand jury screening program of particular prosecutors, a factor that has varied from county to county and from time to time, I depending on the personnel in each office. 37

During the statistical reporting year ending August 31, 1979--prior I to the inception of the demonstration project's intensive screening 1 approach involving county prosecutors and public defenders at all probable cause hearings--4,173 indictable complaints were referred to the I Passaic County Prosecutor's Office from the county's sixteen municipal c I

36See e.g., "Report of the New Jersey Task Force on Pre-Indictment Delay", contained in "Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial 1 Conference of New Jersey of June 6, 1980", New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, pp. 21-24. (The same material can be found in the New Jersey Law Journal, June 5, 1980, p. 11.) I 37N.J. Rules Crim. Prac. 3:25-1 (as amended effective September 1977) authorizes the county prosecutor to dismiss a complaint administratively without presenting it to the grand jury, providing he notifies the I vicinage assignment judge of the dismissal and the reasons therefor. I I I -G1- I I I courts.38 These represented 89.3% of the 4,673 indictable complaints I processed in the municipal courts during this period other than by defendant's waiver of indi~tment.~' Of these 4,173 remaining I indictable complaints, 87 complaints (2.1%) were administratively I dismissed by the Passaic County Prosecutor's Office prior to presentation for grand jury action.40 The remaining 4,086 complaints, or 87.4% of I the 4,673 complaints not disposed of by waiver of indictment, were presented to the county grand jury, according to the county prosecutor's I office. By comparison, of the 794 indictable complaints reaching I disposition in the demonstration project between February 6, 1980 and March 31, 1981, 280 (35.3%) resulted in disposition at the municipal 1 court level either by dismissal or by downgrade to a non-indictable offense. This percentage was nearly three times as high as that achieved I by the "traditional" Passaic County screening process in 1978-79. (see I Table 9 at page 51 .) Several explanations exist for this increase. In the demonstration I project, attorneys receive early feedback from the superior court-level judge monitoring the caseload if a weak or minor case is not screened. Secondly, as previously mentioned, the highly accelerated pace of the I case process has left attorneys with the perception that processing

I 38Source: Statistical supplement to the Report of the Administrative Director of the New Jersey Courts, 1978-79. I 40~ource: Passaic County Prosecutor's Office.

I

I -62- 1! I I the more serious cases is so substantial a task in itself that reaching disposition in municipal court is highly desirable where at all 1 justifiable. Finally, the logic of screening cases earlier rather than

later has impressed itself upon some of the project's participants. As I shown on Table 9, dismissals at the superior court level in the 1 demonstration project were 3.1% of indictments, compared to 26.2% of indictments during the previous year in the traditional case process. I Nevertheless, New Jersey's liberal discovery rules coupled with the

caseload monitoring function of the superior court judges have made I probable cause hearings unnecessary in most cases, in the opinion of most I of the individuals interviewed for this evaluation. Even many public defenders privately take this position, although they are reluctant to I say so publicly. One advantage of eliminating this step in the process

would be a reduction of work and time pressures for all participants I without an increase in elapsed time from arrest to indictment. Other I benefits would include elimination of police travel and attendance time for the hearings, reduction of police and municipal court clerk I paperwork, paring of municipal court caseloads coupled with the twin

L by-products of greater attention to remaining matters and improved I management control in those courts, and an increase in uncommitted 1 prosecutor and public defender time during the work week. It is important to note that the probable cause hearing is not a I constitutionally guaranteed part of the criminal case process4' and

that grand jury action is increasinglyoccurrin5 prior to the probable I I 41Defendants in custody are entitled to a hearing as to continuation of custodial status. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1979). I

! I -63- 1 I I I cause hearing in some New Jersey counties now that the criminal case I process is moving faster. Moreover, prosecutors are free to seek an indictment even where a municipal court judge finds no probable cause. I Other issues requiring discussion in connection with elimination of I the probable cause hearing follow: 0 Complex cases - The complexity of the issues, evidence, and I presentation of certain cases will sometimes make a preliminary hearing sufficiently valuable to be permitted (if requested promptly) upon motion I of defense counsel. I 0 Defendants in custody - If bail is denied at the first court appearance following arrest, a Gerstein hearing can be he d promptly. I Because Gerstein v. Pugh does not require that defendants have counsel at the probable cause hearing, some observers have suggested that the 1 hearing take place at the first appearance if bail is den ed or I unobtainable. It would probably be more appropriate to schedule the hearing later to permit the defendant to obtain counsel, however. I 0 Assurinq that defendants have counsel at arraianment - Defendants are advised of the right to counsel and, ordinarily, given an I application (5-A form) for public defender representation at the first 1 court appearance after arrest. The advice is repeated at the probable cause hearing for defendants who still do not have counsel. A substitute I for this important backup step would have to be in place if probable cause hearings were no longer conducted. Otherwise, many more defendants I would appear without counsel at superior court arraignment than at I present, and the case process would be delayed. Five additional possibilities, which are not mutually exclusive (besides the usual court I

I -64- 1j I advice at the first appearance), are: (a) attach a 5-A form to the copy of the complaint given to the defendant at the first appearance; (b) I attach a notice advising the defendant how to apply to the public defender for representation; (c) have the municipal court routinely mail I such a notice, or a 5-a form, or both to all defendants within several days of the first appearance; (d) have the probation department bail unit routinely inquire whether the defendant has obtained counsel and, if not, provide the 5-A form; and (e) make the 5-A form available at the time of intake at the county jail. I The elimination of the probable cause hearing would be undesirable, I of course, unless a screening process that is at least equally effective replaces it. A reliable pre-grand jury screening process, in the absence I of a probable cause hearing, appears to depend on having the prosecutor receiving timely case information for review, on the defendant obtaining I counsel, and on the attorneys communicating to discuss the evidence and I se'ek dismissal or downgrade. In Gloucester County, New Jersey, for example, probable cause hearings were eliminated by order of the New I Jersey Supreme Court as of March 10, 1980.42 Pre-grand jury screening . is now performed by a county prosecutor within a week to ten days after I he receives the police report. A recommendation is then made either to I downgrade, dismiss, or seek indictment on the complaint. I 420rder of the New Jersey Supreme Court, February 16, 1980. Brief hearings for defendants in custody continue to be held within 24-48 hours of arrest. A county prosecutor and the defendant are present. Usually, I no defense attorney is present. A very small percentage of cases require these hearings. The hearings ordinarily consist of the prosecutor reading the police report in the courtroom, with little or no I cross-examination by defendant. The purpose of the hearing is to determine if there is probable cause to continue detaining the defendant. ,I

-65- 1 I I

I Defendant 's attorney can discuss the complaint with the prosecutor during 1 this period. Indigent defendants are given a 5-A form (for public defender representation) by the municipal court clerk at the initial ' I court appearance following arrest. Where defense counsel is not involved, the screening decision commonly depends on the following -1 factors: the nature of the charge, the screener's experience, the 1 screener's perception of judicial expectations, custom, prosecutor policy as to certain offenses, and the strength of the desire of the I complainant(s) to proceed with prosecution. An intriguing experiment with pre-grand jury screening is taking I place in Somerset County. S nce September 8, 1980, the police have not I been permitted to file an in ictable complaint without the approval of the county prosecutor's office. I Under this program, a police officer seeking to charge a person with an indictable offense must first call an intake screening unit at the I county prosecutor's office. The unit consists of two assistant county I prosecutors, two detectives, and three secretaries, and is located in the county prosecutor's office. An assistant county prosecutor is on call at I any hour of the night as well. The police officer and screening unit staff discuss the evidence and a tentative charge for a summons or I warrant that can provide the basis for prosecution. The prosecutor may I advise that a non-indictable complaint is appropriate. If an indictable complaint is to be filled with a summons, the defendant signs a form 1 agreeing to appear at; the first hearing. If an arrest is to be made, the county prosecutor calls a superior court judge to make the jail/non-jail I deci si on. I I I I

If a case involves an indictable complaint, the police officer meets I with the screening unit within 24 hours for jail cases or three days for 1 non-jail cases. During this conference, the evidence is again reviewed and a complaint is approved by an assistant prosecutor. The conference I may result in the filing of a non-indictable complaint in municipal 1 court. If an indictable complaint results, it is filed with the superior court. If the assistant prosecutor decides further investigation is I required, he asks the police officer to deliver all information within one week.43 Once all police reports are received and reviewed, the I complaint is assigned to an assistant prosecutor for presentation to the grand jury. 44 I Following the filing of an indictable complaint with the superior I court, an initial hearing is held in the court within 24 hours for jail cases and every Friday for non-jail cases. The defendant, an assistant I prosecutor, and a public defender are present. At this hearing, the I jail/non-jail decision is reviewed and a probable cause hearing is scheduled for three weeks hence in superior court. The probable cause I hearing will be held, however, only if an indictment is not returned . earlier. The three week hiatus is intended to allow time for the grand I jury to act and for all investigative work and related reports to be I completed. The prosecutor's office also decides whether a defendant is eligible for admission to the pretrial intervention program before the office I 43Some police complain that one week is insufficient time in certain cases and that police overtime costs (for the conferences with the I screening unit) are beginning to increase. 4% .e., prosecutorial representation is "vertical ized" following the screening unit's decision to file an indictable complaint. I I -67- 1 I I I presents an indictable complaint to the grand jury. This decision, I particularly at this point, adds an important dimension to the screening process by reducing the number of cases referred to the grand jury.

I (Note that in the Passaic County demonstration project in Spring 1980, the PTI process also began at the pre-grand jury stage. PTI application

1 was submitted following the probable cause hearing, but the decision on I the application did --not precede grand jury action, an important distinction.) In Somerset County, slightly over 28% of all PTI I applications were accepted in 1980. (PTI acceptances in Passaic County, I by comparison, are ordinarily at an annual rate of between 24% and 28%.) The use of this process from September 1980 through March 1981 I resulted, among others, in the following pre-grand jury screening results: 1. Municipal court involvement in the processing of indictable I complaints ended in Somerset County. I 2. The total number of indictable complaints filed in the county 'during these seven months was 520, an average of 74.3 per month. 45 I During the statistical reporting year September 1, 1978 to August 31, 197.9 (using "traditional" screening techniques), the total number was I 1,356, or an average of 112 per month, over 50% more than resulted from the new- program. 46

I 3. However, statistics are not yet available on .the number of I non-indictable complaints being filed by the police directly in the

1 45Source: Somerset County Prosecutor's Office. Note that 40 of these complaints were the result of just two multi-complaint indictments ("cases"). The county prosecutor's office considers this an anomalous I .occurrence. The impact of the new screening program on the filing of indictable complaints would appear to be even more striking than the statistics show, in other words.

I 46~upra n. 39.

I -68- 1I 1 i

municipal courts without consulting the screening unit. During the I period September 1, 1978 to August 31, 1979, the number filed in I municipal courts was 4,175, or an average monthly rate of 348.47 The missing statistics are significant because a sharp increase could I mean that the police are learning how to charge more accurately as a result of regular contact with county prosecutors or that the techniques i of the new screening program are gradually convincing the police to relax I their standards as to what evidence constitutes an indictable offense.48 Of course, if the total number of indictable and 1 non-indictable complaints filed in the county during the course of the operation of the new screening program varies significantly from the I total filed during previous comparable statistical reporting periods, I then any analysis should begin with an examination of the county's crime rate. I 4. In cases where the police officer believes filing an indictable I complaint may be appropriate, the county prosecutor's office now has assumed the responsibility for making the decision rather than merely I reviewing a police decision. Previously, the police made the initial

c determination. The prosecutorial review under the old system did not I occur until four to six months following the filing of an indictable I complaint by the police. The new technique assures prosecutorial involvement immediately following the point at which the police officer I decides it might be appropriate to file an indictable complaint. I I 48The Somerset County Prosecutor's Office has asked the county's municipal prosecutors to relay their impressions as to whether the latter may be occurring. 1

1 -69- 1 I 1 1 In Hudson County, a "Central Judicial Processing Unit" began I operating in January, 1981 charged with the responsibility for processing all indictable complaints from the county's twelve municipalities. The I unit operates Monday through Friday to screen all complaints on the day .i of arrest. A public defender, public defender investigator, county prosecuto,r, prosecut ion investigator, sheriff I s department aide, clerks I bailiffs, and a municipal court judge are present for the hearings. During the first three months of 1981, the unit dismissed or downgraded 1 to a non-indictable offense 1,693 of the 2,647 (64%) indictable 8 complaints brought before it.49 Under the "traditional" process, in 1978-79, 4,641 of 7,585 indictable complaints (61.2%) were referred to I the county prosecutor following screening in the county's municipal courts, though not as quickly after arrest. 50 I These experimental screening programs (and other screening programs I now operating as part of New Jersey's statewide delay reduction effort) -provide the judiciar,y with an opportunity that is of great potential I significance. Just as the state's Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court regulates the entry of juvenile and domestic relations complaints into its system through intake units that exist in every county, the judiciary by assuming control over the criminal case process can now proceed to create a consolidated, court-supervised pre-grand jury screening process I to replace the variety of forms of multi-tiered, part judicialjpart administrative, unevenly coordinated screening systems now in place. I Under a consolidated screening system, the municipal court could be - 49Source: Hudson County Central Judicial Processing Unit. 50~upra n. 39.

i -70- i i involved in processing non-indictables only; a county-level judicial forum (perhaps the district court or possibly a district division of the I superior court) could serve, in part, as the functional equivalent of the municipal courts for indictable offenses. Early judicial involvement in I case and defendant screening in a suitable forum would also permid an 1 examination of the way pretrial intervention programs are operating and a consideration of whether diversion decisions might more properly be made I at a much earlier point in the case process than at present. 51 The importance of continuing to gather and report data for future I analysis cannot be emphasized too strongly. To analyze the impact of 1 screening programs, the unit that should be counted is the complaint, not the case or the defendant, neither of which provides sufficient detail. I As to indictable complaints, the correct countywide data includes the total number issued following arrest or summons, the number dismissed in I municipal court due to a lack of probable cause, the number downgraded to I disorderly person offenses at the probable cause hearing, the number disposed in municipal court following defendant's waiver of indictment 1 and county-level jury trial, the number of administrative dismissals by c I the county prosecutor under Rule 3:25-1, the number remanded to municipal court by the county prosecutor for processing as non-indictables, and the 1 number presented to the grand jury for action. As to non-indictable complaints, the necessary data is the number of disorderly person 1 complaints filed in each of the county's mun cipal courts. All of this 1

51The National Center examined the operation of pretrial interventlion programs in five county probation departments as part of its work as consultant to the New Jersey Chief Justice's Committee on Efficiency in the Operation of the Courts and recommended a thorough evaluation 'of PTI to determine if it is meeting its mandated objectives. I

I -71- 1 data should be reported on a monthly basis to the assignment judges, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and the New Jersey Division of Cr imi nal Justice. 1 Finally, data on the outcome of grand jury presentations both prior to and following the implementation of new indictable complaint screening programs in several counties over a period of at least one year would 1 yield interesting and potentially important information. A reasonable hypothesis is that a "better" screening program would result in fewer "no I bills" and remands to municipal court by the grand juries. If this I hypothesis proves incorrect, then the screening techniques and standards may require re-examination. I Whatever the approach to pre-grand jury screening, the judiciary must retain the authority and capability to conduct operational audits. While I effective monitoring is desirable in all aspects of delay reduction 1 programs, it is particularly important on the issue of pre-grand jury case screening, especially if an approach leaves decision-making entirely I in the hands of the county prosecutor. For example, Somerset County's experiment with having the county prosecutor's office decide whether a 1 complaint may be drawn as an indictable, if combined with Gloucester i County's abolition of the probable cause hearing, would eliminate the police, municipal courts, and the adversary as influences over the I pre-grand jury screening process. If the county prosecutor were not somehow held accountable, unwise policy, poor judgment, or outright abuse of power in that office could go unchecked. In the absence of prior monitoring, the influence of county-level judges on the county prosecutor's office at the post-indictment stage might not be strong I

4

I -72- 1I I I enough, even after a period of review and comment on the nature of the cases reaching superior court, to bring about change in the kinds of I prosecutorial decisions being made prior to the presentation of cases to the grand jury. This is not to suggest that any particular combination I of approaches to pre-grand jury screening is unwise. The point is that the courts must be sure to provide adequate monitoring and have the authority to make changes in all programs at every stage of the case process.

RECOMMENDATIONS

6. FUTURE STATEWIDE CRIMINAL CASE DELAY REDUCTION EFFORTS SHOULD FOCUS ON THE INDICTABLE COMPLAINT INTAKE PROCESS.

7. EVALUATIONS OF A VARIETY OF EXISTING PRE-GRAND JURY SCREENING PROGRAMS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED.

8. PROBABLE CAUSE HEARINGS SHOULD BE ELIMINATED AS A FUNCTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPAL COURTS AND SHOULD BE REPLACED BY A CENTRALIZED FORM OF COMPLAINT SCREENING SUPERVISED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT. I %-. 9. THE OPERATION OF PRETRIAL INTERVENTION PROGRAMS SHOULD BE EVALUATED STATEWIDE.

, 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 THE GRAND JURY. I

11. TO ANALYZE THE IMPACT OF SCREENING PROGRAMS, THE UNIT THAT SHOULD BE COUNTED IS THE COMPLAINT RATHER THAN I THE CASE OR THE DEFENDANT.

12. AS TO INDICTABLE COMPLAINTS, THE COUNTYWIDE DATA THAT SHOULD BE COLLECTED INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING: 1 0 TOTAL NUMBER ISSUED FOLLOWING ARREST OR SUMMONS; I 0 THE NUMBER DISMISSED IN MUNICIPAL COURT DUE TO A LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE; I o THE NUMBER DOWNGRADED TO .DISORDERLY PERSON OFFENSES AT THE PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING; I

-73- ' 1 I I & I 0 THE NUMBER DISPOSED IN MUNICIPAL COURT FOLLOWING DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF INDICTMENT AND COUNTY-LEVEL 1 JURY TRIAL; a THE NUMBER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISMISSALS BY THE 1 COUNTY PROSECUTOR UNDER RULE 3~25-1; 0 THE NUMBER REMANDED TO MUNICIPAL COURT BY THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR FOR PROCESSING AS I NON - IN D ICTAB L E S ; 1 0 THE NUMBER PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY FOR ACTION. 0 THE RESULTS OF GRAND JURY ACTIONS.

13. AS TO NON-INDICTABLE COMPLAINTS, THE NECESSARY DATA IS 1 THE NUMBER OF DISORDERLY PERSON COMPLAINTS FILED IN EACH OF THE COUNTY'S MUNICIPAL COURTS. I 14. 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. e. Judges as Managers

I The demonstration project's approach--and, in fact, all other

individual calendar systems--requires the superior court-level trial 1 .. judge to manage aggressively his own criminal calendar. In the court 1 setting, managing a calendar means managing people with diverse, sometimes conflicting, roles and responsibilities. Moreover, some of I these individuals are not court employees and, therefore, are not subject 1 to the court's management authority. The sharp reduction in disposition time achieved by the demonstration project testifies to the ability of I the project's two trial judges to manage for delay reduction. Not all judges have this degree of ability, however. Though this point is an

I obvious one, it is raised for the purpose of emphasizing the importance I of training judges in basic management theory and techniques at the outset of a delay reduction program. The training should also be I 8 I available to the administrative judge (New Jersey assignment judge) responsible for an entire county's program and to non-judicial court I employees with significant delegated responsibility for delay reduction, I including the trial court administrator and criminal assignment clerk.

RECOMMENDATIONS I 15. FUTURE DELAY REDUCTION PROGRAMS SHOULD INCLUDE MANAGEMENT TRAINING FOR JUDICIAL AND NON-JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES WITH PRINCIPAL PROGRAMMATIC RESPONSIBILITIES.

16. THE TRIAL COURT ADMINISTRATOR AND THE KEY MEMBERS OF HIS STAFF SHOULD BE ASSIGNED TO PROVIDE DAY-TO-DAY CALENDAR MANGEMENT SUPPORT TO THE TRIAL JUDGES AS NECESSARY. f. Cases Based on Sale or Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substances. Disposition of many of these cases within the project's elapsed time I objectives was made impossible because of the three to four month time period required to obtain laboratory analysis results from the State

Police Crime Laboratory. Complaints involving possession of marijuana and hashish were able to proceed on the basis of results of a field test I performed by investigators from the county prosecutor's office. I RECOMMENDATION 17. PASSAIC COUNTY (AND, IN FACT, EACH VICINAGE) SHOULD I HAVE AVAILABLE TO IT A LABORATORY FOR ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE IN CASES INVOLVING CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES. IF OPERATED AT THE VICINAGE LEVEL, THESE LABORATORIES SHOULD BE INTEGRATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF I ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL WITH THE STATE POLICE LABORATORY SYSTEM. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE COURTS SHOULD EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF CONTRACTING WITH I LOCAL HOSPITALS FOR DELIVERY OF THE REQUIRED LABORATORY SERVICES. I g. Grand Jury Transcripts The pub1 ic defender routinely orders the stenographic transcript of I grand jury proceedings in each case for discovery purposes. According to I

-75- i J I 1 the public defender's office, the transcript would not be needed in most I cases if the prosecutor made available a list of the witnesses who testified before the grand jury. The prosecutor's current policy is not I to provide this list. .I RECOMMENDATIONS 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. 19. A SOUND RECORDING DEVICE AND MONITOR RATHER THAN A I STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER SHOULD BE USED IN THE GRAND JURY. I Th s recommendation was contained in an earlier National Center Study, Court Reporting Services In New Jersey (1978). I h. Pretrial Conferences- The practice of holding a full pretrial conference immediately I following arraignment (as distinct from a more limited conference aimed I at scheduling future case events) has been uniformly criticized by attorneys as unproductive and usually unnecessary. According to I prosecutors and public defenders, their familiarity with the case is not sufficiently developed to permit a useful pretrial conference at this 1 early point. The result is that the attorneys frequently "reserve" their I position on many issues at the conference. Moreover, as previously shown, most demonstration project dispositions at the superior court \ I level have been guilty pleas (83.5%). Trials have occurred in 13.3% of the indicted cases. The point is that the early pretrial conference is I unnecessary because after a sufficient period of time (and following the I PTI application outcome) a plea bargain is usually negotiated. I

I -76- I I I RECOMMENDATION 20. THE PRACTICE OF HOLDING A FULL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ARRAIGNMENT SHOULD BE I DISCONTINUED. THE LIMITED CONFERENCE FOR SCHEDULING FUTURE EVENTS IN THE CASE PROCESS SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE HELD UPON ARRAIGNMENT. I i. Financial Costs I The operation of the demonstration project did not result in increased financial costs to the court, despite the widely-held belief I prior to the project that achievement of the project's objectives would require much higher personnel expenditures than the traditional process I and, possibly, the addition of a sophisticated electronic data processing I capability to track cases?* Levels of judicial and non-judicial court support personnel remained the same. The use of a special grand jury was I abandoned early in the project. Three additional probation officers were assigned to process PTI applications during 1981, but this action represented the filling of vacancies, not the creation of new positions. I The prosecutor's office operated throughout the demonstration project under severe county budgetary constraints, did not add new personnel for I, the project, and in fact continues to hold positions vacant. During 1981 the public defender's office hired two private attorneys on a contractual I

521n its first interim evaluation report on the demonstration project (April, 1980), the National Center carried out a thorough analysis of all cost-benefit issues, although it was recognized that some of the issues were easier to measure and analyze quantitatively than others. The speed I of the process can be measured in days, for example, and required staffing levels for certain case processing approaches can be described with numbers. Issues related to the efficiency of the case process (its I simplicity and manageability, and the quality of the information it supplies to judge and counsel) and to the quality of the criminal case dispositions which result, were less amenable to quantltatlve measure. I The analysis concluded that from a cost-benefit stand oint the demonstration project's approach ranked much higher tR an the traditional case process. See first interim report, pp. 61-64. This report's much I briefer section is concerned with financial costs, not "cost-benefit". I -77- ! I I basis to represent clients at all probable cause hearings in the county,

I including those of the demonstration project. This action, however, was I a consequence not of the demonstration project but of a desire on the part of the public defender to relieve all of the office's attorneys, not I just those participating in the project, of responsibility for representation in the munic pal courts. Additional mileage costs for

1 police vehicles for travel to and from probable cause hearings in the I "regionalized" Wayne Municipal Court for police officers from North Haledon, Totowa, and Pompton Lakes are estimated at an annual amount of I about $300 (at a rate of $.20/mile). Overtime for off-duty police appearances at probable cause hearings on Wednesday or Friday in Wayne, I Clifton, and Passaic is not an additional cost of the demonstration I project because the appearances are required under any case process that includes the hearings. I Incarceration costs to the county for jailed defendants are lower under the demonstration project Is accelerated case processing pace.

I According to the county sheriff, it cost the county an average of $21.03

per day to maintain an inmate in the county jail during 1979. For "jail"

cases disposed in February 1980 in Passaic County, the National Center I survey shows that the average time from arrest to trial commencement or non-trial disposition was 154 days. Intermediate average time figures

I were: from arrest to probable cause hearing 6.7 days; from probable cause I hearing to filing of indictment, 54.2 days; from indictment to arraignment, 13.7 days; and from arraignment to trial commencement or I non-trial disposition, 73.5 days. With these elapsed times, the defendants in these cases spent a total of 2,747 days in the county I jail. At an average cost of $21.03 per defendant per day, Passaic County

I \ -78- j I thus spent an estimated $57,769 in jail costs for defendants whose cases were disposed in February 1980 under the traditional system. If one I assumes that the February 1980 figures are representative, annual jail costs for the traditional system were approximately $750,000. It is I possible to calculate costs for the same cases had they been processed I under the demonstration project’s 1980 pace. Time standards for 1980, as described earlier, were the following: from arrest to probable cause ! hearing, 7 days; from probable cause to indictment, 7 days; from indictment to arraignment, 7 days; and from arraignment to disposition, ! 30 days. Had the defendants in February, 1980 cases been adjudicated I under these time standards, they would have spent a total of 955 days in jail, with a resulting cost of $20,084 to the county for that month’s I hypothetical dispositions in custody cases. On this basis, annual jail costs would have been about $260,000. Under the slightly slower 1981 I standards, the cost to the county for a hypothetical caseload analagous I ‘to that of February 1980 would have been $26,763, or an annual expense of $346,666. In all of these figures, costs would be reallocated to the I state if the defendants were sentenced sooner to state institutions. ---I-- -

I I I

i 1 -79- 1 d I APPENDIX A I ROSTER OF INTERVIEWEES Gloucester County I Thomas A. Barbera Assistant Court Administrator, Vicinage 4 ( G 1 ouce st er/ Camden Count i e s ) I Hon. Samuel H. Bullock Criminal Assignment Judge, Gloucester County Superior Court Patricia Fox Criminal Assignment Clerk, Gloucester County I Superior Court I Alvin G. Shpeen Prosecutor, Gloucester County Hon. Milton L. Silver Judge, Gloucester County Superior Court I Hon. Arthur J. Simpson, Jr. Former Assignment Judge, Vicinage 4, now Assignment Judge, Vicinage 2 (Bergen County) P. Jeffry Wintner Deputy Public Defender, Office of the Public I Defender, State of New Jersey, Gloucester County I Albert J. Zamel First Assistant Prosecutor, Gloucester County I Hudson County .Mary Ti erney Hudson County Sheriff's Department Jack Valente Investigator (Hudson County) Prosecutor's I Off ice u Hon. Edward F. Zampella Chief Judge, Jersey City Municipal Court Passaic County I William Bizub First Assistant Deputy Public Defender, Office of the Public Defender, State of New Jersey I Mathias J. Bolton Criminal Assignment Clerk, Passaic County Superior Court I Harry Bradle Passaic County Probation Department (PTI Unit) I David Cedrone Passaic County Comptroller Richard M. Centanni Court Administrator, Passaic County Superior I Court Hon. Peter Ciolino Assignment Judge, Vicinage 11 (Passaic I County ) I A-1 I I I Terence P. Corcoran Deputy Public Defender, Office of the Public Defender, State of New Jersey, Passaic County I John R. Cosmi Assistant Prosecutor, Passaic County Prosecutor's Office I Walter Dodson Assistant Deputy Public Defender, Office of the Public Defender, State of New Jersey, Paterson, N.J. I Hon. Joseph N. Donate1 1 i Criminal Assignment Judge, Passaic County Superior Court I Nicholas D. Donna Passaic County Administrator's Office Joseph A. Falcone Prosecutor, Passaic County I Hon. Harry N. Fengya, Jr. Judge, Municipal Court, Clifton, N.J.

Dominick Giordano Attorney-at-1 aw, Passaic, N. J. I Richard Hoffman Clerk, Municipal Court, Clifton, N.J. I Hon. Vincent E. Hull, Jr. Judge, Passaic County District Court assigned to Passaic County Speedy Trial Demonstration Project I Hon. Charles J. Joelson Former Assignment Judge, Passaic County Superior Court, now Appellate Division Judge I .. -.. Anne Ledakowi ch Clerk of the Passaic County Grand Jury Hon. H. Ronald Levine Judge, Municipal Court, Passaic, NJ I Gary R. Matano Assistant Prosecutor, Passaic County . Prosecutor's Office I T. J. McGinnis Assistant Chief Probation Officer, Passaic County Probation Department I Hon. James J. Murner, Jr. Judge, Municipal Court, Wayne, N.J.

Ann Paul Deputy Clerk, Municipal Court, C1 ifton, N. J. I

Hon. Sidney H. Reiss Judge, Passaic County District Court assigned to' Passaic County Speedy Trial I Demonstration Project Thaddeus W. Tecza Clerk, Municipal Court, Passaic, N.J. I I I A-2 1 I I Anthony P. Tirinato Deputy First Assistant Prosecutor, Passaic I County Prosecutor's Office John J. Woods Assistant Prosecutor, Passaic County Prosecutor's Office I Ray Zardetto Chief Probation Officer, Passaic County Probation Department I Somerset County Paul D. Amitrani Assistant Prosecutor, Somerset County I Hon. Wilfred Diana Judge, Somerset County Superior Court; Deputy Assignment Judge for Somerset County I Eugene L. Farkas Assistant Court Administrator, Vicinage 7 (Mercer/Hunterdon/Somerset Counties) i Peter, Furni ck Somerset County Probation Department (Director of PTI) 1 David Linett Prosecutor, Somerset County Paul D. Martin Assistant Prosecutor, Somerset County I Rita Spritzer Clerk, Franklin Township Municipal Court I William J. Wintermute Assistant Clerk, Somerset County Union County I Hon. Joseph G. Barbieri Criminal Assignment Judge, Union County Superior Court I Hon. Edward W. Beglin, Jr. Judge, Union County Superior Court Hon. V. William DiBuono Assignment Judge, Vicinage 12 (Union County) I S. David Levy Deputy Public Defender, Office of the Public Defender, State of New Jersey, Union County I Hon. A. Donald McKenzie Judge, Union County Superior Court John N. Miri Court Administrator, Union County Superior I Court I John H. Stamler Prosecutor, Union County

I A-3 1i State of New Jersey Robert D. Lipscher Administrative Director of the Courts of New Jersey John P. McCarthy, Jr. Administrative Office of the New Jersey Courts Marc i a Ri chman Assistant Commissioner, State of New Jersey, Department of Public Advocate, Office of the Pu bl i c Defender Edwin H. Stern Assistant Director, Legal Services, Administrative Office of the New Jersey Courts.

1 A-4 j I, APPENDIX. B

DESCRIPTION OF PROSECUTION WORK WEEK IN PASSAIC COUNTY SPEEDY TRIAL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT*

"Probable cause hearings in the City of Passaic take place on Friday mornings. Each I Friday, one assistant prosecutor and two investigators go to the City of Passaic at 8:30 in the morning. The assistant prosecutor goes to .I the detective bureau and receives copies of police reports. Detectives are interviewed. They explain what a case is about and express an opinion as to the merits and seriousness of I the matter. Police reports are scanned. This process normally takes approximately 45 minutes.

I "After talking to the detectives and reviewing the reports, the assistant prosecutor goes into the municipal court and makes an effort I to talk to the lay witnesses who are there. Whatever witnesses are there have been subpoenaed at the direction of the police detective. They are not always the right witnesses. After I talking to these witnesses, the assistant prosecutor attempts to evaluate the matter so as to be able to make a decision as to whether it I should be sent up to the Grand Jury or not. After making that decision, negotiations sometimes take place between the assistant I prosecutor and the defense attorney .... "Probable Cause Hearings usual ly end around 11:30 a.m. given the present volume of cases. I The two and a half hours spent in the courtroom are always extremely hectic. There are always numerous people who want to speak with the 1 assistant prosecutor about a given matter. There are detectives who have to get out of the courtroom and back on the road. There are I witnesses who have to get to work. There is a judge who wants you to expedite his caseload, There is a limited opportunity for adjournment. If any adjournments are given, it is only for I three days until the following Monday afternoon. Decisions consequently are always made under I pressure.

I *Memorandum of John Laky and John R. Cosmi, Passaic County Assistant Prosecutors to Joseph A. Falcone, Passaic County Prosecutor, November 17, 1980. The National Center edited this memorandum to eliminate material I not relevant to the description of the case process. I I "When the assistant prosecutor returns to the office, he must dictate memoranda to explain why charges are dismissed or down raded. He must also compile statistics as to numE er of I defendants and crimes referred to the grand jury or otherwise disposed of. The statistics must be communicated to [others]. The assistant I prosecutor must then begin the process of thoroughly reviewing all the police reports to insure that he is ready to present the matters to I the grand jury. There is limited time to complete the files on Friday afternoon. As a matter of routine, consequently, the files are brought home and reviewed during the course of I the weekend. "The reports have to be thoroughly reviewed I so that a complete list of witnesses can be drawn up. The assistant prosecutor draws up the lists of witnesses both for trial and for grand jury. I This work was carried out in the past by the Pre-Grand Jury Squad. The assistant prosecutor also must make decisions as to whether further I investigation is necessary. If he decides that further material is needed, he must communicate this to his investigator.... I "There are also cases where matters are so complicated that they cannot be responsibly handled on Friday morning. This requires the I assistant prosecutor to go to Passaic on Thursday afternoons so as to talk to the police detectives who are involved. Going to Passaic on Thursday I afternoon is almost an impossibility. It is an impossibility because one of the assistant prosecutors assigned to [the superior court] is L normally on trial on that day and consequently I must be in the courtroom and the other assistant prosecutor is normally before the grand jury presenting cases. 1 "The assistant prosecutor who does not go to Passaic on Fridays is normally in [superior] I court on trial or taking pleas. "Both of the assistant prosecutors, in addition to carrying out the functions already I mentioned, must also prepare the following week's trial list. Files from both speedy and non-speedy trial matters must be reviewed so that I we can determine whether in fact we are ready for trial on the following Monday. The cases have to be discussed with the investigators. As a I

! I B-2 1 1, practical matter, we have found almost no time to carry out this function. For the last two weeks, by way of example, we have had approximately 14 matters scheduled for trial for each week. It is extremely difficult to be adequately prepared on 14 matters so as to go to trial or enter into reasonable plea negotiations .... The fact that we have to be ready necessitates that files be brought home and reviewed during the course of I the weekend. "The assistant prosecutor who remains in superior court on Friday, in addition to trying a I case, is also responsible for taking care of whatever motions and violations of probation I might be scheduled. "Monday morning begins with the calendar call. At the calendar call, we have to be ready 1 to place on the record whether or not we are ready to try cases and what witnesses are missing if we are not ready. The volume of 1 cases and the number of pleas requires the full time efforts of both assistant prosecutors. We take an average of six pleas on Monday. These pleas, at times, require discussions with the I Deputy First. Assistant Prosecutor. Oftentimes downgrades or accusations are required .... I "By Monday afternoon, one assistant prosecutor is normally in the process of beginning a trial. Many times, the second assistant prosecutor is still involved in plea negotiations which began in the morning and in addition travels back to Passaic for adjourned probable cause hearings. Adjournments of I probable cause hearings are usually not given for more than three days. I NInformation regarding witnesses that will appear before the grand jury and docketed cases must be given to [the grand jury clerk] by Monday 1 afternoon. In addition, assistant prosecutors must make sure that investigators are apprised of any follow-up procedures that are necessary in order to adequately prepare for cases in grand I jury . I I

I I B-3 1 I a I "The speedy trial complaints that were referred up on the previous Friday are normally given to [clerical help] so that she can open I files for the same. These files must be delivered to the grand jury on Monday. In addition, the assistant prosecutor who presented the cases to the grand jury on the previous I Thursday must return to grand jury on Monday to review the indictments and sign them if he determines that they are satisfactory. ! "On Tuesdays, one of the assistant prosecutors is in the process of presenting his I trial. The second assistant prosecutor must collect the pre-sentence reports for Wednesday morning. [The judge], on the average, sentences approximately 10 people each week. These reports I must be reviewed and a determination made as to a sentence recommendation... ! "On Wednesdays, one assistant prosecutor is usually still trying his case before [the judge]. The second assistant prosecutor handles I sentences.... "On Wednesday, the assistant prosecutor who was in the Passaic Municipal Court the preceding 1 Friday must collect the files that are scheduled for grand jury on Thursday .... These matters must be reviewed. He must determine whether the I proper witnesses have been subpoenaed. As a practical matter, there is insufficient time to review these files during the course of the work I day on Wednesday. Consequently, these f i les must be brought home for a proper review. In addition, on both Tuesdays and Wednesdays, the assistant prosecutor who is not on trial must be I in the process of preparing the next case that is going for trial. I "In addition to being prepared to present matters to the grand jury, the assistant prosecutor who goes to the grand jury must also I be prepared to handle speedy trial arraignments which take place on Thursday morning. Arraignment on Thursday morning of speedy trial I matters takes approximately one hour. It is for this reason that witnesses are subpoenaed to come to the grand jury at 10 olclock instead of 9 olclock. During the course of the speedy trial ! arraignments, there is a continued pressure for I

-I I I

plea negotiation. Oftentimes, consequently, arraignments and pre-trial conferences turn into pleas. This sometimes delays the assistant prosecutor in getting over to the grand jury. "In order to be properly prepared to arraign and pretry speedy trial cases, discovery has to be duplicated on Wednesdays. The assistant prosecutor must make sure that lab reports are in the file along with criminal histories. "On Thursdays, one assistant prosecutor is responsible for arraignments of speedy trial cases and for the grand jury. This consumes his entire day. The second assistant prosecutor is generally continuing a trial in [superior] court. "On occasions, on Thursdays, as we mentioned above, one of the assistant prosecutors will have to go to the City of Passaic in order to review a complex matter that is scheduled for Friday at I Probable Cause Hearings. "All of the above attempts to communicate what a normal week is like for the assistant prosecutors assigned to ...the Passaic Speedy Trial Project. It should be clear that as a matter of everyday routine, both assistant prosecutors are busy from 8 o'clock in the morning until 5 o'clock in the afternoon. Our time is consumed in carrying out all of the aforementioned functions. There is no time during office hours to prepare files for trial. There is no time during office hours to prepare files for grand jury. There is no time to prepare files for Monday morning calendar call during office hours. Likewise, there is very limited amount of time to visit a crime scene or speak to a witness. This is true of the typical work week. 'This is not a work week involving a. complex trial matter or a homicide which of necessity demands a considerable amount of time to adequately prepare .I' I

I APPENDIX C I SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

I ORDERED, pursuant to -N. J. Const, (1947), Art. VI, 12, par. 3, in I furtherance of: an experimental study relating to expeditious processing of criminal cases and to permit the entry of orders to ensure the prompt I disposition of criminal matters, that the time periods embodied in the Rules Governing the Courts of New Jersey and Guideline 6 to Rule 3:28 are

I hereby suspended to permit the entry of orders accelerating scheduling I and periods for filing motions and applications in criminal cases in Gloucester, Passaic and Union counties. I I For the Court,

I Robert 14. Wilentz, C.J. I DATED: February 21, 1980 I I I I I I

1 c-1 \ I CRIMINAL CASE DATA CONTROL & TRACKING FORM Appendix D -- -

1 Delay cod Result I Jailflail I de: 3 dismiss 7 bail I began: z] downgrad? sch2dulirq QR-! ended: flict I waivs- F. cef. counsel I mt re&y I G. aef. fugitive I I H. pros. mi we- I code: -red I I. -COS. wlice I I began: witness F-. i encied: continued I I;. cxndex' I*~USU& Ii 1 case 11 L. ajserice of esserxizl witness il no -bill M. &sferred I bail yosecorion i N. lnteriacu-ary 1 .... , .??%a1 I 0. trial on o'bx charaes .I P. incareraced in ano-Aer juris- diction ii Q. judges %ne- 11 din0 conflict ii ._ I I R. jcdge wia- il b. Pretrial 1.b tions I 7. &e-kial guilty plea .F-i 1' 1; Conference withdrawal l1 T. o-.lay ?re- . 6. Pial Date Sentence I ! I 1nves:ioation I I

-- D- 1 I Copy 1-Criminal Assignment Clerk copy 2-Judge Assigned -. I I*IULYILI~'NL LUUK'I' I INDICTABLE COMPLAIXT I Date Received by Passaic County Criminal Assignment Clerk / / I CDR 8 Mun ic5.pa 1ity I Cef endant I I

.- . I

I . ._ I I I*

Received and checked bv: I a -- - AUTHORIZEC SIGNATUXE I d NANX PRINTED / / I DATE REC'D. BY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE E-1 ] ..- I Appendix F I @ v. USE XO. -son for &quested r\d jowent I &fendant I Judcre Date - I EVEN!: Arraignment Pre Trial Conference iT Trial // Other RESCN Fo,1 Rt?;BIEsI%D DELAY:

I Prosecution - .__ Assigned prosecutor not available ------,/ -/ I Assigneci prosecutor not reaiiy ------71_I 1 Assigned proszcitor engaged in trial - - - - - /=/ Prosecuting witness not available ------/7- I Police :&.mas not available ------L' ab xepxt not available - - - - :- - - - - I fxferlse - kfense cumsel not avail&le - - L - - - - - Defense counsel not ready ------D-._ - Defense cake1 engas& in Trial ------/7- I ~atcsubstitution of Gefense c&sel- - - - - 47 .- Defense witness not available ------m I Deforiiant not present - - - - -. ------m Ned fderpsycfiatric- evauation ------/f Disccvery not -let& ------= 1 court - Jud5e not available ------5 I Prisonex not available------L7 013IEI2S - Specify in detail: I

I Prcsecutizg Attorney_c Defense Attorney GRA?XED Dl3lIED /I NEXJ M'E I Pricr Pi!jmrw.ents DistriSutim: Original - Criminal Assicpncnt Clerk 6 I F- 1 1