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