.. If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. " Some Costs of Continuances it l\lulti-Jurisdictional Study . prepared by Joan E. Jacoby Charles R. Link Edv,'ard C. Ratledge 103304 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of thl; authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this ~d material has been granted by ." .Plll?}~~_~J:).9I!!9:j.~N:(g___ . __ . ,,(J • S.· .. ,2E:!Pc::t.±J:F.§nt_Q£~JUs.tic e to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of th~t owner. Jefferson Institute for Justice Studies \Vashington, D.C. July 1986 \ This report was supported by !\'lJ Grant Number 84-IJ-CX-0002 a"warded to the Jefferson Insti­ tute of Justice Studies, Washington DC by the National Institute of Justice. The data presented and the views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not reflect the official position, policies or points of "iew of the l\ational Institute Justice or the U.S. Department of Justice . • • -ii- • CONTENTS Page List of Tables...... ..... ..................... ............ ........ ............................ ..... ................ ................ IV List of Figures................... ................... ........ ..................................................................... y Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................. vi Findings and Conclusions............................. ... ... ...... .............. ..... ..... ......... ......... ................ 1 1. A.ssessing the Cost of Continuances ............................................................................... 9 2. The Cost of Continuances.............................................................................................. 21 3. Oontinuances and the Adjudication Process................................................................... 26 4. The Cost of Being a \Vitness ......................... ...... ........ ...... ...... ....... .............. ..... ............ 43 5. Alternatiye Costing 11ethodologies.................. .......... .............. ............ ...................... ..... 66 ( Selected Readings............................................................................................................... 65 • • -iii- • ( LIST OF TABLES •'< Table Page . F.l Percent Increase in Workload Created by Continuances .............................................. 2 F.2 Cost of Continuances .................................................................................................. 3 F.3 Percent Distribution of Prosecutor's Continuance Costs ............................................. 3 F.4 Percent Distribution of Defender Continuance Costs................................................... 4 F.5 Adjusted Labor Costs for Continuances ...................................................................... 5 F.6 Ratio of Adjusted Continuance Labor Costs ............................................................... 5 2.1 Average Continuance Rates by Jurisdiction ................................................................ 22 2.2 Hours of Attorney Effort for Continuances .................................................................. 22 2.3 Labor Costs of Continuance.s ..... ·.................................................................................. 23 2.4 Adjusted Labor Costs for Continuances ...................................................................... 24 2.5 Effect of Continuances on Full-Time Equivalent Attorneys ......................................... 25 3.1 Distribution of Labor Rates by Process Step: Alexandria VA ...................................... 27 3.2 Distribution of Labor Rates by Process Step: Charlotte NC ....................................... 30 3.3 Distribution of Labor Rates by Process Step: Ventura CA .......................................... 33 3.4 Distribution of Labor Rates by Process Step: Pittsburgh P A ...................................... 36 3.5 Comparison of Rates of Labor Costs Expended on Continuances ....... , ........................ 39 ~( 3.6 Continuance Rat.es and Labor Costs by Process Step .................................................. 40 3.7 Adjusted Continuance Labor Costs and Ratios by Process Step .................................. 41 4.1 Number of Witnesses Surveyed by Type of Crime ...................................................... 43 4.2 Time and 110ney Spent by \Vitnesses .......................................................................... 44 4.3 Employment Costs to \Vitness .................................................................................... 44 4.4 Type of Transportation Used by Witnesses ................................................................. 45 • 4.5 Average Transportation c;ost~ for Witnesses ............................................................... 45 4.6 Food Costs for \\,itnesses ............................................................................................ 46 4.7 Special Arrangements for 'VVitnesses ............................................................................ 46 4.8 Experience of \,ritnesses .............................................................................................. 4i 4.9 Distribution of People Affected .................................................................................... 47 • 4.10 Distribution of \Vitness Oosts ..................................................................................... 48 • • -iv- • LIST OF FIGURES • Figure Page 1.1 Felony Capilcity Study: Bronx Ny......................................................................... 15 1.2 Sample Log ............................................................................................................ 17 1.3- \Vitness Survey Instrument .................... ".............................................................. 19 5.1 Marginal Product Curve......................................................................................... 52 5.2 Short Run Marginal Cost Curve............................................................................. 52 5.3 Short Run Average Cost Curve ........................ ...................................................... 54 5.4 Long Run Average Cost Curve .................................... :.......................................... 54 5.5 Typical Court System Flo'w Chart ......................................................................... 61 5.6 One-step Transition Matrix.................................................................................... 63 • • • • • -v- • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS • The detail in this study is possible only because it was extracted from the National Baseline Information study of offender processing cost.s (:\IJ Grant Number 83-IJ-CX-K043). Otherwise, the basic information could not haVE' been gathered within the funding limits of this '. project. The product.ion of the data upon which this research was based is also due to the cooperation and assistance of the attorneys in the offices of the prosecutor and public defender in Alexandria, VA; Charlotte, (Mecklenburg County), 1'\0; Ventura, CA and Pittsburgh (Allegheny County), P A. We are deeply indebted to their professionalism and sense of dedica­ • tion. None of the above would have been possible without the leadership and support of the agency heads. We gratefully acknowledge and commend their role in thE> success of this project and hope that the results will prove useful and beneficial to them as they continue to improve i: .. the quality of justice in their community. They are: John Kloch. Commonwealth Attorney Alexandria, VA Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District At.torney Mecklenberg County, NC Isabel Day. Public Defender Mecklenberg County, NC .( Michael Bradbury, District Attorney Ventura, CA Kenneth Clayman, Public Defender Ventura, CA Robert Coleville, District Attorney Allegheny County, PA Lester Nauhaus, Public Defender Allegheny County I P A The witness survey reflects the hard work and earnest follow-up of the following persons • who should be commended for their assistance: Janie Beaver, Mecklenburg Oounty District Attorney's Office Virginia Coscia, Alexandria Commonwealth Attorney's Office Laurie Nonnemaker, Ventura County District Attorney's Office • We wish to thank Dan Johnston of the Vera Institute of Justice for his assistance in developing the cost study design and the witness survey as well as for his help in the prepara­ tion and review of the final reports. Finally, we acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the staff of the Jefferson Insti­ tute without whose effort, this study would not have gone forward and b~en completed, and our • grant monitors for their support and assistance. 1fany thanks to Elaine Wolf, Matthew McCau­ ley and Terry Lewis of the Jefferson Institute and Edwin Zedlewski and Winifred Reed of the National Institute of Justice. • -vi- • • ( • • Findings and Conclusions Background. • This section presents a summary of the findings and conclusicns derived from the study of the costs of continuances to prosecution and defender agencies in adult felony and mis* demeanor cases. Continuances are defined as scheduled