PROCESSING OF CRIMINAL CASES
IN THE 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
BOSSIER PARISH
Institute for Court Management
Court Executive Development Program
2006 – 2007 Phase III Project
May 2007
Suzanne H. Stinson, Court Administrator
26th Judicial District Court
Benton, Louisiana
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to express her appreciation to the judges of her court that have
been supportive through the entire process of pursuing her Court Executive Development
Program education.
Thanks to Jennifer Bolden, Ashlyn Impson and Erica Jefferson for their efforts and hard
work in gathering data for this research, as well as assisting in identifying flaws in the creation of
the case management software for the 26th Judicial District Court. Also, thanks to my law clerk,
Kimberly Woodfield, in taking time from her busy workload to proofread this research.
Thanks to my advisor and friend, Dr. Geoff Gallas, for his continued support and
encouragement during this entire process.
And finally the author would like to express her deepest and sincerest appreciation to her
husband, Ford, for his unrelenting support, understanding, encouragement and reassurance in
accomplishing her goals, not only in this project, but her career and in all other aspects of her
life.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS and TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv
LIST OF APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Who Is Responsible? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
4. Court Culture/Local Legal Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
5. Control of Continuances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Time Standards and Measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
1. CourTools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
A. CourTools 2 – Clearance Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
B. CourTools 3 – Time to Disposition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
C. CourTools 4 – Age of Active Pending Caseload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
D. CourTools 5 – Trial Date Certainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
2. Surveys: Lawyer and Judge Perceptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
A. Survey of Bossier Parish Bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
B. Survey of Judges of the 26th Judicial District Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
ii
FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1. CourTools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
A. CourTools 2 – Clearance Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
B. CourTools 3 – Time to Disposition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
C. CourTools 4 – Age of Active Pending Caseload. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
D. CourTools 5 – Trial Date Certainty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
2. Surveys: Lawyer and Judge Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
A. Survey of Bossier Parish Bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
B. Survey of Judges of the 26th Judicial District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
C. Comparison of Bar and Judges Perceptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
WORKS CITED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
iii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATION and TABLES
Illustration 1 – Criminal Caseflow per Louisiana Statutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 1 – Criminal Caseflow v. ABA Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Table 2 – CourTools Measure 3 Results Graph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Table 3 – CourTools Measure 4 Results Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Table 4 – CourTools Measure 4 Results Graph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Table 5 – Survey of Bossier Parish Bar Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Table 6 – Goals Questionnaire Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Table 7 – Staff Involvement Questionnaire Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Table 8 – Mechanisms for Accountability Questionnaire Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Table 9 – Survey of Judges Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Table 10 – Information Questionnaire Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Table 11 – Comparison of Lawyer and Judge Perceptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Table 12 – Caseflow Management Procedures Questionnaire Results . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Table 13 – Judicial Commitment Questionnaire Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Table 14 – Backlog Reduction/Inventory Control Questionnaire Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
iv
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix I – CourTools 2 – Clearance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Appendix II – CourTools 3 – Time to Disposition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Appendix III – CourTools 4 – Age of Active Pending Caseload. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Appendix IV – CourTools 5 – Trial Date Certainty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Appendix V – Trial Court Assessment Questionnaire for Bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Appendix VI – Trial Court Assessment Questionnaire for Judges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
v
ABSTRACT
The Commission on Trial Court Performance Standards developed in 1990, after an
eight-year initiative, the Trial Court Performance Standards (TCPS) and Measurement System.1
The Trial Court Performance Standards have been adopted by, among others, the Conference of
Chief Judges, the Conference of State Court Administrators and many states, including Louisiana
in November of 1999.2 The second of five Trial Court Performance Standards areas is
Expedition and Timeliness. Trial Court Performance Standards 2.1 (Case Processing) and the
companion measures incorporate the American Bar Association (ABA) Time Standards, which
for criminal cases set the following times for disposition of criminal felony cases:3
Number of Days
0-120 days
121-180 days
181-365 days
Percentage of Cases Disposed
90%
98%
100%
The primary question addressed in this project is how does the 26th Judicial District Court
located in Bossier Parish, Louisiana perform in this critical area? Does its criminal case
processing time meet national standards? The research entailed the use of four of the ten
CourTools measures created by the National Center for State Courts,4 more specifically as it
relates to clearance rates, time to disposition, age of active pending caseload and trial date
1
National Center for State Courts, Trial Court Performance Standards With Commentary,
NCSC, 1995; cited Barry Mahoney, Holly Bakke, Antoinette Bonacci-Miller, Nancy C. Maron,
and Maureen Solomon, How to Conduct Caseflow Management Review: A Guide for
Practitioners, (1992), v.
2
The Louisiana District Judges Association adopted many of the Trial Court Performance
Standards into the Louisiana Supreme Court’s Strategic Plan of the District Courts, more
specifically in one of its objectives as it relates to this research, to encourage timely case
management and processing.
3
National Center for State Courts Website, www.ncsconline.org/ WC/ Publications /
KIS_CasManCPTSPub.pdf.
4
The CourTools Measurements are available at http://www.ncsconline.org
1
certainty. Data was gathered using case management software that is being created for the 26th
Judicial District Court, but data collection revealed that the software had serious limitations and
needed to be supplemented.
In addition, selected members of the Bossier Parish criminal bar and all six judges of the
26th Judicial District Court were surveyed to learn their perceptions regarding the 26th Judicial
District Court’s case processing performance and practices. Areas surveyed included case
processing goals, staff involvement, mechanisms for accountability, information, caseflow
management procedures, judicial commitment, and backlog reduction/inventory control.
The data showed that the 26th Judicial District Court fell below the time standards
recommended by the American Bar Association and that the court’s backlog was significant and
growing. Backlog is growing due to continuances and numerous trial settings. Survey results
reflected unfavorable perceptions of the 26th Judicial District Court’s goals on addressing case
management, controlling backlog and inventory of cases, and having in place mechanisms for
accountability. Conversely, when the judges of the 26th Judicial District Court were surveyed,
their perception was that the judges are somewhat committed to reducing backlog and managing
caseflow, and that there were some mechanisms in place to accomplish these tasks.
Based upon the below Literature Review (see pages 11-21) and the results of the
CourTools measures and surveys of the bench and bar, the following conclusions were reached
and recommendations made. It is apparent that the processing of some of the criminal cases in
the 26th Judicial District Court falls behind time standards recommended by the American Bar
Association. The 26th Judicial District Court needs to adopt time standards for processing of
criminal cases and develop policies and procedures to provide guidelines for the bench, bar and
judges’ support staff on accomplishing the goals set forth by the time standards. Members of the
2
bar need to be educated on the policies and procedures adopted by the 26th Judicial District Court
and the problems and ramifications associated with non-compliance. The 26th Judicial District
Court’s support staff needs to buy in on the policies and procedures and to be trained to assist the
court in monitoring compliance. The developers of the case management software need to be
informed on the problems discovered during the gathering of data for this research and what
information needs to be gleaned from their software to effectuate proper case management. The
benefits derived from successful implementation of case management policies will not only
benefit the 26th Judicial District Court in maintaining control of their cases, but will assist
attorneys in moving the cases timely and assist the public in regaining trust and confidence in the
courts in this jurisdiction.
3
INTRODUCTION
Maintaining public confidence in the courts’ ability to administer justice is an ongoing
issue, and this is addressed through maximizing available resources and processing cases
efficiently. In every advanced court, court managers working with their judges, particularly the
judges in leadership position, use caseflow management to address this growing concern.5 The
American Bar Association Standards Relating to Trial Courts (1992) and the National Center for
State Courts Trial Court Performance Standards (1990) have called for trial courts to provide
programs to reduce and prevent delay and to keep current with its incoming caseload.6
Delays in any type of court proceeding affect the purposes of courts by impacting the
lives of litigants, witnesses, defendants and victims. The result of lengthy delays is often the loss
of confidence by the people in the judicial system. The public perception is “that lengthy delays
undermine the courts’ capacity to provide justice”.7 Basic techniques for addressing such delays
include early court intervention and continuous court control over case progress, realistic
schedules, credible trial dates and management of trials.8
Until this research, the 26th Judicial District Court never conducted a study to document
criminal case processing performance. The court realizes, however, the importance of case
management and case processing. For example, it is now addressing the need for monitoring
case processing through the development of case management software. At the time of this
research, the software development was still in its infancy stages. Despite its early development,
5
See Mahoney, et al note 1 supra, page v.
Loc. cit.
7
Barry Mahoney, Carol Friesen, Ernest Friesen, Dale Lefever, Maureen Solomon, and Douglas
Somerlot, Planning and Conducting a Workshop on Reducing Delay in Felony Cases, (1991), 23 – 2-5.
8
David Steelman, John A. Goerdt and James E. McMillan, Caseflow Management – The Heart
of Court Management in the New Millennium, (2000), 3.
6
4
the case management software was utilized to collect the data used to administer CourTools 2, 3,
4 and 5.9 The time period of the focus of this study is from June 1, 2005 through June 1, 2006.
The 26th Judicial District Court is a multi-parish court of general jurisdiction. (Note: In
Louisiana counties are called parishes.) In 2005, 10,577 criminal cases were filed in this
jurisdiction, 8,850 of those in Bossier Parish, the parish that is the focus of this study. Six judges
are elected every six years to serve on the bench in this jurisdiction. All six judges preside over
pre-assigned criminal cases. All criminal matters are randomly assigned at the time the bill of
information or bill of indictment is filed or upon filing of any preliminary motion if the motion
precedes the filing of the bill.
Although the judges rotate on the criminal bench and are aware of their dockets on any
given court day, they do not have knowledge of the age of the cases set before them or the size of
their pending caseload. This study starts the mandatory address of this void. At present, the total
number of active pending cases is far in excess of the number that would be necessary to meet
the time standards established by the American Bar Association. Cases are regularly granted
continuances based on joint requests by the prosecuting and defense counsel.
In Louisiana, there are statutes that exist that dictate timelines for certain events,
including providing framework for continuances. However, the existence of statutes is not
foolproof in avoiding delays and backlog. It is important that the Louisiana statutes surrounding
the significant events in criminal cases and defined in the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure
are understood. Important sections are:
9
National Center for State Courts, CourTools, Measures 2, 3, 4 and 5 (2005).
5
Bond setting:
The sheriff or law enforcement officer having custody of an arrested person shall
bring him promptly, and in any case within seventy-two hours from the time of
the arrest, before a judge for the purpose of appointment of counsel. Saturdays,
Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in computing the seventy-two hour
period referred to herein. The defendant shall appear in person unless the court
by local rule provides for such appearance by telephone or audio-video electronic
equipment. At this appearance, if a defendant has the right to have the court
appoint counsel to defend him, the court shall assign counsel to the defendant.
The court may also, in its discretion, determine or review a prior determination of
the amount of bail. If the arrested person is not brought before a judge in
accordance with the provisions of Paragraph A of this Article, he shall be released
forthwith. The failure of the sheriff or law enforcement officer to comply with
the requirements herein shall have no effect whatsoever upon the validity of the
proceedings thereafter against the defendant.10
Order for Preliminary Examination Before and After Indictment
The court, on request of the state or the defendant, shall immediately order a
preliminary examination in felony cases unless the defendant has been indicted by
a grand jury. After the defendant has been indicted by a grand jury, the court may
rescind its order for a preliminary examination. An order for a preliminary
examination in felony cases may be granted by the court at any time, either on its
own motion or on request of the state or of the defendant before or after the
defendant has been indicted by a grand jury.11
Arraignment of Defendant
The arraignment consists of the reading of the indictment to the defendant by the
clerk in open court, and the court calling upon the defendant to plead. Reading of
the indictment may be waived by the defendant at the discretion and with the
permission of the court. The arraignment and the defendant’s plea shall be
entered in the minutes of the court and shall constitute a part of the record.
Nothing in this Article shall prohibit the court, by local rule, or the defense
counsel from providing for a defendant’s appearance at his arraignment by
simultaneous audio-visual transmission. The court may, by local rule, provide for
the defendant’s appearance at the arraignment and the entry of his plea by way of
simultaneous transmission through audio-visual electronic equipment.12
10
C.Cr.P. Art. 230.2, added by Acts 1972, No. 700, § 1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 395 § 1;
Acts 1984, No. 206, § 1; Acts 1985, No. 955, § 1.
11
C.Cr.P. Art. 292, amended by Acts 1974, Ex.Sess. No. 16 § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1975.
12
C.Cr.P. Art. 551, amended by Acts 1977, No. 396, § 1; Acts 1990, No. 543, § 1; Acts 1990,
No. 593, §1.
6
Time for Filing of Pretrial Motions
Pretrial motions shall be made or filed within fifteen days after arraignment,
unless a different time is provided by law or fixed by the court at arraignment
upon a showing of good cause why fifteen days is inadequate. Upon written
motion at any time and a showing of good cause, the court shall allow additional
time to file pretrial motions.13
Limitations Upon Trial – General Rule
Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, no trial shall be commenced: (1) in
capital cases after three years from the date of institution of the prosecution; (2) in
other felony cases after two years from the date of institution of the prosecution;
(3) in misdemeanor cases after one year from the date of institution of
prosecution. The offense charged shall determine the applicable limitation.14
Commencement of Trial
A jury trial commences when the first prospective juror is called for examination.
A trial by a judge alone commences when the first witness is sworn.15
Method and Time of Appeal
A motion for an appeal may be made orally in open court or by filing a written
motion with the clerk. The motion shall be entered in the minutes of the court.
The motion for an appeal must be made no later than: (1) thirty days after the
rendition of the judgment or ruling from which the appeal is taken; (2) thirty days
from the ruling on a motion to reconsider sentence filed pursuant to Article 881.1,
should consider such a motion be filed.16
13
C.Cr.P. Art. 521, added by Acts 1978, No. 735, § 1. Amended by Acts 1981, No. 440, § 1.
C.Cr.P. Art. 578
15
C.Cr.P. Art. 761
16
C.Cr.P. Art. 914, amended by Acts 1982, No. 143, § 1; Acts 1993, No. 490, § 1, eff. June 10,
1993; Acts 2003, No. 949, § 1.
14
7
Illustration 1:
Criminal Caseflow per
Louisiana Statutes
Grand Jury
Indictment
Arrest/
Booking
W/in 72 hours,
excludes
wknds/holidays
Arrest/
Booking
First
Appearance
CCRP 230.2
Preliminary
Examination
CCRP 292
Day arrest
Arraignment
CCRP 551
 Advised of rights;
 Indictment read;
 Bill of Information
Discovery/
File Motions
CCRP 521
15 days to file
motions
TRIAL
Appeal
Motion
CCRP 761
& 578
CCRP 914
often waived;
 Enter plea: guilty,
not guilty, not guilty
by reason of
insanity, nolo
contendere
The laws surrounding continuances in criminal cases are located in the Louisiana Code of
Criminal Procedure and include:
1. C.Cr.P. Article 707. Motion for continuance; time for filing.
A motion for a continuance shall be in writing and shall allege specifically the grounds
upon which it is based and, when made by a defendant, must be verified by his affidavit
or that of his counsel. It shall be filed at least seven days prior to the commencement of
trial.
Upon written motion at any time and after contradictory hearing, the court may grant a
continuance, but only upon a showing that such motion is in the interest of justice.17
2. C.Cr.P. Article 708. Continuance and recess; definitions.
17
C.Cr.P. Art. 707, amended by Acts 1978, No. 735, § 2; Acts 19891, No. 440, § 1.
8
A continuance is the postponement of a scheduled trial or hearing, and shall not be
granted after the trial or hearing has commenced. A recess is a temporary adjournment of
a trial or hearing that occurs after a trial or hearing has commenced.18
3. C.Cr.P. Article 709. Continuance based on absence of a witness.
A motion for a continuance based upon the absence of a witness must state:
(1) Facts to which the absent witness is expected to testify, showing the materiality of the
testimony and the necessity for the presence of the witness at the trial;
(2) Facts and circumstances showing a probability that the witness will be available at
the time to which the trial is deferred; and
(3) Facts showing due diligence used in an effort to procure attendance of the witness.19
4. C.Cr.P. Art. 710. Prevention of continuances by admission of adverse party.
When a motion for a continuance is based on the absence of a material witness, and the
adverse party admits that if the witness were present he would testify as stated in the
motion, the court may proceed to the trial of the case. If the court is of the opinion that
despite the admission, the case cannot be tried with justice to the applicant, it may require
the adverse party to admit also the truth of the testimony as a condition of refusing to
grant the continuance.20
5. C.Cr.P. Art. 711. Trial of motion
A motion for continuance, unless consented to, shall be tried summarily and
contradictorily with the adverse party.21
6. C.Cr.P. Art. 712. Discretionary grounds.
A motion for continuance, if timely filed, may be granted, in the discretion of the court,
in any case if there is good ground therefor.22
The above rules aside, both the Literature Review to follow and findings reported in this
report demonstrate the negative impact of continuances on trial date certainty, age of pending
cases, time to disposition and clearance rates of criminal cases in the 26th Judicial District Court.
18
C.Cr.P. Art. 708
C.Cr.P. Art. 709
20
C.Cr.P. Art. 710
21
C.Cr.P. Art. 711
22
C.Cr.P. Art. 712
19
9
The Bossier Parish Bar Association and the judges of the 26th Judicial District Court were
surveyed to ascertain their perceptions on how cases are managed by the 26th Judicial District
Court.
The review of the relevant literature describes the impact of delay on the public’s trust
and confidence in the judiciary and its history. Court and local legal culture influence the
perception of how cases are moved through the process established by each jurisdiction. The
literature review points out what entities, beginning with judges in leadership positions, are
responsible for criminal case processing, including the needed control of continuances.
Finally this research reports how the 26th Judicial District Court will address the problems
discovered through the use of the measurement tools to document current performance and case
processing practices. Survey of the bench and bar provided in this research will be addressed in
the recommendations, providing the 26th Judicial District Court with the results of the
perceptions of their own bench and members of the bar. The report will also enumerate the goals
established to ensure the same problems will not arise in the future.
10
LITERATURE REVIEW
The ongoing issues of timely case processing and delay reduction have been widespread
in judicial systems for decades. The literature discussing such dilemmas emphasizes the need for
strong case management to address the time and cost associated with unacceptable delay. Books
and publications cited in this research deal primarily with criminal case processing.
History
As early as 1906, Roscoe Pound alluded to the subject of delay in justice in his address
titled The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice. Although Mr.
Pound’s focus at the time was primarily on civil matters, he enumerated several causes for
dissatisfaction that are still relevant to criminal case processing today:
“uncertainty, delay and expense, and above all the injustice of deciding cases upon points
of practice, which are the mere etiquette of justice, direct results of the organization of
our courts and the backwardness of our procedure, have created a deep-seated desire to
keep out of court, right or wrong, on the part of every sensible business man in the
community”.23
In 1999, the National Center for State Courts conducted a survey on the perception of
state courts, and the Hearst Corporation funded a report titled How the Public Views the State
Courts, as a result of the survey. Among the findings, it was determined that approximately onehalf of the respondents agreed with the statement that “courts adequately monitor the progress of
cases”.24 Although Mr. Pound makes reference to this more than 90 years earlier, we still
continue to recognize this as a serious issue for courts to address.
23
Roscoe Pound, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice, in
his address presented and reprinted from 29 ABA Reports, (1906), 39.
24
National Center for State Courts, How the Public Views the State Courts, (1999), 27.
11
Definition
Maureen Solomon and Douglas Somerlot ably define caseflow management in Caseflow
Management in the Trial Court as:
“. . . supervision or management of the time and events involved in the movement of a
case through the court system from the point of initiation to disposition, regardless of the
type of disposition”.25
There is an entire section in NACM’s Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines: What
Court Leaders Need to Know and Be Able to Do dedicated to Caseflow Management – one of
ten Core Competencies26. According to that document, “Caseflow management is the process by
which courts move cases from filing to closure”.27 The process includes all significant events
from pre-trial to post-disposition. Additionally the Caseflow Guideline mentions that “effective
caseflow management makes justice possible not only in individual cases but also across judicial
systems and courts . . .”28 which reiterates Mr. Pound’s assertion over a hundred years ago that
ineffective case management was a cause of public dissatisfaction with the administration of
justice.
Delay in reaching disposition of cases implies that “the pace of litigation is longer than
necessary to arrive at a fair resolution of a case”.29 The American Bar Association (ABA) has
set disposition time standards, so delay is further defined “to the extent to which a court exceeds”
25
Maureen Solomon and Douglas Somerlot, Caseflow Management in the Trial Court, (1987), 3.
National Association for Court Management, 18 Court Manager 2, Core Competency
Curriculum Guidelines: What Court Leaders Need to Know and Be Able to Do, 12. The
NACM/PDAC directed this publication, which is now used by courts worldwide. Although the
NACM/PDAC members and other reviewers who received credit for this publication are too
many in number to mention, the primary author for the section dealing with Caseflow
Management is Geoff Gallas.
27
Loc. cit.
28
Id.
29
John A. Goerdt, Chris Lomvardias, and Geoff Gallas, Reexamining the Pace of Litigation in
39 Urban Trial Courts, National Center for State Courts, (1991), 4.
26
12
those standards.30 The ABA Standards further state that “delay is any time not reasonably
necessary to give the litigants an opportunity to prepare”.31
As reviewed above, the American Bar Association had set the following timeline
standards for disposition of criminal felony cases.32
Number of Days
Percentage of Cases Disposed
0-120 days
121-180 days
181-365 days
90%
98%
100%
Who Is Responsible?
Unequivocally it is agreed that the judges play the primary role in effective caseflow
management. Review of the following literature stresses the urgency of the judges’ involvement
in reducing delay of court cases. David Steelman, John Goerdt and James McMillan in their
book, Caseflow Management – The Heart of Court Management in the New Millennium, state
that it is leadership that is fundamental to caseflow management success, and citing excerpts of
the ABA Trial Court Standards that the court should take responsibility for the leadership role.
However, they identify the chief judge and court manager as an executive team in the caseflow
management process, especially in those instances where the chief judge’s role is limited or short
term. They emphasize this teamwork effort by stating that:
“their [chief judge and court administrator] regular and continuing attention to caseflow
performance sends an important message to judges and court staff that effective caseflow
management is a matter of ongoing importance for the court”.33
30
Id, 4.
Cited in Barry Mahoney, Carol Friesen, Ernest C. Friesen, R. Dale Lefever, Maureen
Solomon, and Douglas K. Somerlot, Planning and Conducting a Workshop a Workshop on
Reducing Delay in Felony Cases. Vol. 1: Guidebook for Trainers, (1991), 2-2.
32
See note 3 supra.
33
See note 8 supra, page 91.
31
13
Barry Mahoney, Carol Friesen, Ernest Friesen, Dale Lefever, Maureen Solomon, and
Douglas Somerlot in Planning and Conducting a Workshop on Reducing Delay in Felony Cases
also cite in part the ABA standards that it is the court, not the lawyers or litigants, that should
control the pace of litigation.34
Theodore Kolb and Douglas Somerlot emphasize the judicial role in their literature,
Defeating Delay: Developing and Implementing a Court Delay Reduction Program, by stating
that “since it is the judges who must be responsible for the pace of litigation, it is the judges who
must be the formal leaders of the reform [delay reduction] effort”.35 Geoff Gallas, in the NACM
Caseflow Management Curriculum Guideline maintains that:
“to effectively lead the court, court leaders, especially the judge(s) in charge, must take
responsibility for caseflow management and skillfully communicate with and manage
others”.36
Additionally, the American Judicature Society, in Criminal Caseflow Management,
Chester County, Pennsylvania, indicate that the court is in the best position to coordinate the
caseflow since it is the neutral agency in the adjudicative process. The consequences of the court
avoiding its responsibility is that the “fundamental fairness and the timely disposition of cases is
sacrificed”.37
Barry Mahoney, Holly Bakke, Antoinette Bonacci-Miller, Nancy Maron and Maureen
Solomon in How to Conduct a Caseflow Management Review: A Guide for Practitioners
emphasized the fact that it is the responsibility of the court to effectively manage its workload
34
See note 25 supra, page 2-2.
Theodore Kolb and Douglas Somerlot, Defeating Delay: Developing and Implementing a
Court Delay Reduction Program, (1986), 8.
36
See note 8 supra, page 13.
37
American Judicature Society, Criminal Caseflow Management, Chester County, Pennsylvania,
(1976).
35
14
and to dispose of court business without delay. To effectuate this, “the court must be conscious
of its caseflow management performance”.38
Although the judge serves as the leader in case processing efforts, other affected entities
also play integral roles in the achievement of caseflow management. Several of the literature
enumerates key players in this endeavor; however, for the purpose of this research and the
measurement tools used in this study, the role of the bar will be the primary focus. In Defeating
Delay: Developing and Implementing a Court Delay Reduction Program, Kolb and Somerlot
stated that:
“the initial impetus for a delay reduction program may come from the bench or the
bar”39, and the “best way to design a delay reduction program is to create a judge-led
bench-bar organization to study the problem and develop solutions”.40
As previously stated, there are many organizational representatives who play an active
part in case processing, and some whose objectives are different from the court. In criminal
matters:
“successful caseflow management generally requires the commitment of both the court
and the prosecutor’s office to speedy case processing” and . . . “public defenders and
others representing indigent defendants must be committed not only to providing
effective assistance of counsel but also to resolving cases expeditiously in recognition of
speedy trial requirements”.41
Sometimes, however, judicial sanctions against counsel or clients who do not comply
with the court’s course of action is more limited in criminal cases due to due process protections,
38
See note 5 supra, page v.
See note 35 supra, page 5.
40
Id. 9.
41
See note 8 supra, page 48.
39
15
which then “creates enforcement problems for the court and undermines the credibility of its
statements that it is serious about reducing the time to disposition for its caseload as a whole”.42
Court Culture/Local Legal Culture
The judicial control and bar expectations are all a part of the court culture or local legal
culture of a particular jurisdiction. Larry Sipes, Alan Carlson, Teresa Tan, Alexander Aikman
and Robert Page in Managing to Reduce Delay state that “the local legal culture defines due
process limitations on processing time as equivalent to the existing pace of litigation”.43 In
Caseload Highlights: Examining the Work of State Courts, Brian Ostrom, Roger Hanson and
Matthew Kleiman state that the local legal culture:
“ . . . was believed to be more determinative than differences in case characteristics,
resources, or procedures as to why some courts operate more expeditiously than
others”.44
If the court culture is such that the case participants are apprehensive that their trials will
be held at or near their scheduled appearance, they will not be prepared.45 The judges, however,
can alter the local legal culture and modify attitudes and expectations through a process of active
communication.46
Geoff Gallas provided emphasis in his article in the NACM Court Manager, when he
stated that:
42
Larry Sipes, Alan Carlson, Teresa Tan, Alexander Aikman, and Robert Page, Managing to
Reduce Delay, (1980), 32.
43
Loc. cit.
44
Brian Ostrom, Roger Hanson, and Matthew Kleiman, Caseload Highlights: Examining the
Work of State Courts, (May 2005). The Caseload Highlights is a product of the National Center
for State Courts’ Court Statistics Project, which is supported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The Conference of State Court Administrators, through its Court Statistics Project Advisory
Committee, provides general policy direction to the Court Statistics Project.
45
See note 8 supra, page 9.
46
Id, 97.
16
“without change in the local legal culture, slow courts will remain slow no matter how
hard people work and, in all but the most extreme cases, no matter how many resources
are expended”.47
Local legal culture is attributed to the pace of litigation, as opposed to structural,
caseload, and procedural factors, according to John Goerdt, Chris Lomvardias, and Geoff Gallas
in Examining the Pace of Litigation in 39 Urban Trial Courts.48 Although Theodore Kolb and
Douglas Somerlot do not use the terminology, local legal culture, they nonetheless allude to its
meaning when they state in Defeating Delay: Developing and Implementing a Court Delay
Reduction Program that “delay is most often perpetuated because the judges and lawyers accept
it as the norm”.49 They also add, “where judicial enforcement of scheduled dates becomes the
norm, the entire set of expectations and attitudes of the trial bar will adjust to that norm”.50
Control of Continuances
The consensus of all the literature reviewed is that at the heart of all delay in case
processing is the issue of continuances. As a follow up to the court culture/local legal culture
and the responsibility of the courts as leaders in processing of criminal cases, John Goerdt, Chris
Lomvardias and Geoff Gallas stressed that “firm trial dates are related to shorter case processing
times”, that is “the percentage of . . . cases that received no continuances”.51
Theodore Kolb and Douglas Somerlot suggest that courts adopt a firm continuance
policy, justifying that “a firm continuance policy is required for high productivity, date certain
scheduling”.52 They, too, rely on excerpts from ABA standards, more specifically citing
47
Geoff Gallas, “Local Legal Culture: More Than Culture”, 20 The Court Manager 4, (2006), 26.
See note 23 supra, page 3.
49
See note 35 supra, page 6.
50
Id, 43.
51
See note 23 supra, page 18.
52
See note 35 supra, page 43.
48
17
Standard 2.51 (G), which mandates firm policies on granting continuances, and Standard 2.55,
which stresses the need for such policies.53
The detriment of continuances is similarly stressed by Geoff Gallas:
“no court can succeed if continuances of court events and trial date resets are routinely
granted. If continuances and, even worse, trial date resets, are common, the workload of
a court and justice partners can grow even as caseload (filings) remain steady or even
decrease”.54
The vicious cycle attributed to continuances is stressed by the following statement by
David Steelman, John Goerdt and James McMillan:
“ . . . attorneys who are not prepared request that the court grant continuances. If the
court grants too many continuances, the docket for the day collapses, and the judges’ time
is underutilized. If the court is not aware of its calendar dynamics, it may add even more
cases to the next day’s docket, making for a very long trial list. Attorneys who are low
on the court’s trial list do not expect their cases to be reached, and they are unprepared.
If they are reached, however, they must request continuances . . .”55
Excessive continuances turn over control of the trial calendar to the attorneys. Larry
Sipes, Alan Carlson, Teresa Tan, Alexander Aikman, and Robert Page reiterate the cycle and
make the following point:
“Many courts contribute to delay in the disposition of cases by setting more cases for
trial than the court can handle. Those cases which have not settled and cannot be heard
by the court when scheduled must be continued by the court. At some point the
attorneys, realizing that scheduled cases are being set over, may choose not to prepare for
trial and will opt to be continued. As more cases are continued and the court reaches
further down the overset calendar, the number of continuance requests increases because
attorneys with cases toward the end of the calendar thought it unlikely their cases would
be reached and therefore did not prepare”.56
They go on to state that judges must realize the consequences of granting continuances
and must create a condition to guarantee that cases are likely to begin trial on the first scheduled
53
Id.
See note 47 supra, page 26.
55
See note 8 supra, page 27.
56
See note 42 supra, page 13.
54
18
trial date. Conversely, attorneys then must realize the seriousness of the trial dates so that they
will change their behavior regarding trial preparation.57
Maureen Solomon and Douglas Somerlot in Caseflow Management in the Trial Court
adopt the same principles as the previous authors regarding continuances and court control of
case processing. They add, however, that not all requests for continuances should be denied, but
rather that “the court supervision system be designed to facilitate attorney preparation for
scheduled events, expert witness availability for trials, and anticipation of possible problems”.58
When emergencies arise causing an inevitable continuance, “the continuance should be to a date
certain as close as possible to the original date”, and not “continued to be reset on motion of
counsel”.59
Time Standards and Measurements
In the Theodore Kolb and Douglas Somerlot literature, Defeating Delay: Developing and
Implementing a Court Delay Reduction Program, the authors state that time standards must be
adopted, which are the goals of a delay reduction program.60 The literature reviewed for
authority to ground this research build on the ABA and Trial Court Performance Standards.
David Steelman, John Goerdt and James McMillan agree that adopting time standards for case
processing “reflects a commitment to timely completion of cases as an important goal” and serve
other important results, such as motivation, measurement, management, and information system
development.61
57
Id, 18.
Maureen Solomon and Douglas Somerlot, Caseflow Management in the Trial Court, 30.
59
Id.
60
See note 35 supra, page 13.
61
See note 8 supra, page 106.
58
19
The beginning date for time standards for purposes of measurement in criminal cases
should be “from arrest through key court events, including bail hearing, probable cause
determination, felony arraignment, and trial start or nontrial disposition”.62 They suggest that
before gathering data for measurement, one would need to define what a case is, determine when
a case is pending or disposed, and determine which data to record and report.63
Different literature refers to the measurement standards by different names, but the
variables considered for measurement are basically the same. For instance, Mary Lee Luskin in
Describing and Analyzing Case Processing Time in Criminal Cases: Suggestions for
Administrators would offer that if administrators want to discover how long it takes to assess the
effects of delay reduction innovation, they would measure the case processing time.64 When
considering a number of important events and suggesting how a court can collect dates on their
occurrence, the administrator is recommended to measure the pace of litigation.65 In addition to
these variables, an administrator may want to assess the impact of different factors that might
influence case processing time.66
Survey questions from the Trial Court Self-Assessment Questionnaire found in How to
Conduct a Caseflow Management Review: A Guide for Practitioners, were adapted for this
research and used to glean from the local bar their perception on the judges’ goals, caseflow
management procedures, judicial commitment, staff involvement, mechanisms for
accountability, and backlog reduction/inventory control as it relates to case processing in the 26th
Judicial District Court (see Appendix V). Additionally, excerpts from the same questionnaire
62
Id.
Id, 128-129.
64
Mary Lee Luskin, Describing and Analyzing Case Processing Tim in Criminal Cases:
Suggestions for Administrators, (1981), 4.
65
Loc. cit.
66
Id, 5.
63
20
were used in a survey form to determine from the judges of the 26th Judicial District Court their
perception of what information the court has knowledge of or uses for time standards (see
Appendix VI). Details follow in the Methodology section of this report below.
The National Center for State Courts developed CourTools to assist court managers in
measuring trial court performance, including case processing.67 Four of ten NCSC measures
were utilized during this study.
The review of relevant literature provided the skeletal framework upon which this
research was conducted using the measurement tools outlined above. Although case processing
is not a new or uncommon term used in the judicial system as outlined in the previous history
section, tools upon which to measure the effects were not established until recently. Knowledge
of the effects of continuances has also historically been studied, and the stakeholders and
responsible parties have been more narrowly defined throughout the years. And although not
historically mentioned in the terms currently used, court and legal culture have been the focus of
recent literature on determination of the causes of delay in the judicial system.
All of these matters will be taken into consideration in measuring the performance of the
26th Judicial District Court and in the recommendations of addressing areas upon which the 26th
Judicial District Court can manage the problems outlined in this research.
67
See note 4, supra.
21
METHODOLOGY
The researcher used a compilation of data gathered from case management software
being developed for the 26th Judicial District Court and measured using the National Center for
State Courts CourTools, as well as responses from surveys disseminated to members of the local
bar and the judges of the 26th Judicial District Court. The research methods and supporting data
are outlined below.
1. CourTools:
A. CourTools 2 – Clearance Rates (see Appendix I)
B. CourTools 3 – Time to Disposition (see Appendix II)
C. CourTools 4 – Age of Active Pending Caseload (see Appendix III)
D. CourTools 5 – Trial Date Certainty (see Appendix IV)
2. Survey:
A. Questionnaire to members of the Bossier Parish Bar (see Appendix V)
B. Questionnaire to Judges of the 26th Judicial District Court (see Appendix VI)
CourTools
Case management software is currently being developed for the 26th Judicial District
Court. Staff members from the judges’ office assisted in gathering the data necessary for the
CourTools measures. In using the developing software, however, several flaws were discovered,
and the thorough research used in gathering the data assisted this office in refining the case
management software. The time frame that was the focus of collecting data for this research was
the period of time between June 1, 2005 and June 1, 2006. The case management software
currently being developed for the 26th Judicial District Court is designed to yield the following
information: list, age, and number of cases for active pending cases and inactive or closed cases
22
for each of the judges in the 26th Judicial District Court. The categories the software recognizes
are: docket number of each case, the assigned judge, the file date, status of the case, age of each
case in days, defendant’s name and defendant’s charge.
In pulling together data for CourTools 2, 3, 4 and 5, staff was instructed to use the case
management software to: 1) check the last minute entry of each case to determine whether there
were any outstanding bench warrants; 2) count the number of continuances in each case; 3)
determine the age of cases from the time they were filed until the time of disposition on inactive
cases to see if the actual age of cases reflected in the software is accurate; and 4) total the
number of cases in the active and inactive categories.
Additionally for CourTools 5 the types of cases used were those felony cases that actually
went to trial. Instead of using the case management software to collect this information, staff
used the court calendar to determine when each judge was scheduled for jury terms. They then
checked with each judge’s court reporter to determine what cases actually went to trial during
that term. Generally in this jurisdiction, felony cases tried by bench trials are tried during jury
weeks when the defendants opt to be tried by judge alone.
A number of problems were discovered in using the case management software, such as
cases misassigned to the wrong judges and cases misidentified under the wrong status. Cases
which were nol prossed or dismissed were listed as active pending cases. This possibly could be
attributed to the lack of knowledge of the software developers in the terminology used in the
criminal justice system. The total number of cases reflected in the case management software
differed from the actual total number of cases.
The age of criminal cases should be calculated beginning at the time of arrest because
meaningful events could potentially occur from the time of arrest to the filing of a bill of
23
information or bill of indictment. The case management software used to gather the data for this
study, however, measured the age of cases from the filing of bills of information or indictment,
and that is the age used to run the CourTools measures. Because the case management software
was unable to differentiate between misdemeanor and felony cases, all criminal cases were
included in the data for the CourTools measurements.
Because of the numerous flaws discovered using the case management software, this
prolonged the time necessary to gather the data. In spite of the defects in the case management
software, there was sufficient information to collect a quality sampling of cases for the purpose
of each CourTools measurement.
CourTools Measure 2 – Clearance Rates
The purpose of the clearance rates measure is to try and determine if the courts are
keeping up with their incoming caseloads. This measure can assist courts in determining
emerging problems and where improvements can be made. The method used in determining
clearance rates is by a count of incoming cases and outgoing cases during a given time period
and dividing the total outgoing cases by the total incoming cases.68
Staff who assisted in gathering data for this measurement tool was instructed to pull up
active cases for all the judges that have not been reopened or reactivated during the period
between June 1, 2005 and June 1, 2006, using the case management software system being
developed for the 26th Judicial District Court. They were additionally instructed to pull all
inactive, or closed, cases for the same judges during the same period of time.
68
Loc. cit.
24
CourTools Measure 3 – Time to Disposition
CourTools Measure 3 is used to assess the length of time it takes a court to process
cases.69 This research compared the 26th Judicial District Court’s performance to the standards
set by the American Bar Association.
The data used to perform this measure was derived from a compiled list of cases that
were disposed of during the period of this research. Staff was instructed to glean from the case
management software system those criminal cases that were disposed of by way of plea,
conviction at trial, or acquittal during the period between June 1, 2005 and June 1, 2006.
CourTools Measure 4 – Age of Active Pending Caseloads
Pending caseload is comprised of those cases that are filed but not yet disposed.
Determining the pending caseload assists the courts in knowing the number of cases that are
nearing or surpassing the court’s case processing time standards. Although currently the 26th
Judicial District Court has not adopted any time standards, the researcher has compared all
measures against the time standards adopted by the American Bar Association.
The method used for CourTools 4 measure is the collection of active pending cases
calculating the time, in days, from filing of the case until the date established for the reporting
period being examined.70 Assistance from the judges’ office staff was used to gather data from
the same software. The data collected consisted of criminal cases still pending during the period
between June 1, 2005 and June 1, 2006. The cumulative number of days was divided by the total
number of cases, which equaled the average number of days per case.
CourTools 4 was used with CourTools 2 and CourTools 3 to determine how the 26th
Judicial District Court was managing its caseload.
69
70
Loc. cit.
Loc. cit.
25
CourTools Measure 5 – Trial Date Certainty
The intent behind CourTools Measure 5 is to determine timely case disposition and to
“evaluate the effectiveness of calendaring and continuance practices” of courts.71 Cases during a
specified period of time are identified as to what actually went to trial. Number of continuances
was then counted on those cases to ascertain the number of trial settings per case.
Data was gathered by the staff to determine what felony cases between the period of
June 1, 2005 and June 1, 2006 actually went to trial. There were nineteen felony cases that went
to trial during this period of time, and only four of those cases opted for bench trials. Because
the bench trials are so few in number and they were originally designated jury trials until the
actual date of trial, all nineteen cases were counted under one category for purposes of this
measurement.
CourTools 5 is computed by totaling the number of trial settings for each case, then
dividing the total trial settings by the total cases disposed by trial to determine the average
number of trial settings per case.
Surveys: Lawyer and Judge Perceptions
In addition to CourTools, a survey instrument was used to determine the perception of the
bar and bench on how the 26th Judicial District Court handled processing and managing its
criminal caseload. The questions used to gather this information are derived from excerpts of a
questionnaire found in How to Conduct a Caseflow Management Review: A Guide for
Practitioners written by Barry Mahoney, Holly C. Bakke, Antoinette Bonacci-Miller, Nancy C.
Maron and Maureen Solomon. The researcher chose to adapt this questionnaire because of the
length of the original questionnaire and the concern of participants not responding due to its
71
Loc. cit.
26
length. Some of the questions, however, were repeated between the bench and bar in order to
compare perceptions.
The elements this research measured were: Goals, or time standards adopted by the court
with respect to caseflow management performance; Caseflow Management Procedures, or how
the court effectively incorporates early court control, ongoing monitoring and assurance that
trials will be held when scheduled; Judicial Commitment, or to what degree the judges are
committed to delay reduction and what the judges do to ensure effective caseflow management;
Information, or the availability of accurate and timely of information; Staff Involvement, or the
awareness and involvement of court staff members in case-processing goals; Mechanisms for
Accountability, or whether someone in authority oversees the performance of the court and has
the ability to impose sanctions; and Backlog Reduction Inventory, or control of the inventory of
pending cases.72
Each question was rated on a Likert scale from one to five, and the respondents were
asked to score the court on each question. They were asked to give their best estimate if they
were uncertain how to answer. The scores were then transferred to a scoring sheet for each
respondent, which were then totaled and averaged for a final score from the Bossier Parish Bar
Association and a separate final score from the judges of the 26th Judicial District Court. Each
question received a possible score of five, and for each category the total points were divided by
five times the number of questions.
Survey of Bossier Parish Bar
The survey to the Bossier Parish Bar Association (see Appendix V) was disseminated at
one of the monthly bar association meetings. There was low attendance at the meeting,
72
See note 5 supra, pages 2-3.
27
approximately 20 members, and 12 of which members, or approximately 60 percent, responded.
Four of the twelve were partially completed and discounted for the purposes of computing results
for this survey.
Since the focus of this research dealt primarily with criminal matters, the survey was later
sent to the district attorney’s office and public defender’s office for their practicing attorneys to
respond. This yielded a higher response rate and reflected a greater sampling of the bar that
practices criminal law in the 26th Judicial District Court. Five, or forty percent, of the district
attorneys responded, and seven, or eighty percent, of the public defenders responded. While
their responses were informative, the criminal lawyer survey population cannot be claimed as
100 percent representative of the Bossier Parish criminal bar.
The questions used for the surveys were categorized to determine the following
perceptions of the 26th Judicial District Court: goals, caseflow management, procedures, judicial
commitment, staff involvement, mechanisms for accountability, and backlog reduction/inventory
control.
Survey of the Judges of the 26th Judicial District Court
Questions used to survey the judges’ perception (see Appendix VI) were delivered to all
six judges of the 26th Judicial District Court. There was a 100 percent response rate to this
survey. The results of the questions were categorized by the following perceptions: caseflow
management procedures, judicial commitment, information, and backlog reduction/inventory
control.
28
FINDINGS
This section will address the findings of the methodology used in this research, more
specifically as it relates to the CourTools Measures 2, 3, 4 and 5, and the questionnaires used to
survey the members of the Bossier Parish Bar Association and the Judges of the 26th Judicial
District Court.
CourTools
CourTools Measure 2 – Clearance Rates
The sum of incoming cases for this period of time for all six judges totaled 2,610,
according to the case management software; outgoing totaled 1,962. In order to calculate the
clearance rate, the total of outgoing cases was divided by the total of incoming cases, or:
1,962/2,610 = 75%
Therefore, the clearance rate of criminal cases for the 26th Judicial District Court in Bossier
Parish during the period between June 1, 2005 and June 1, 2006 was 75 percent. This is a very
low percentage for clearance rates of criminal cases and is symptomatic of a rapidly growing
backlog in the 26th Judicial District Court.
CourTools Measure 3 – Time to Disposition
To review again, the ABA standards for disposition of criminal felony cases are:73
Number of Days
0-120 days
121-180 days
181-365 days
Percentage of Cases Disposed
90%
98%
100%
The list of cases were placed in the following timelines that reflect the number of days
the cases were disposed from filing to plea, conviction at trial or acquittal.
73
See note 3, supra.
29
The timelines and results are as follows:
Table 1: 26th Judicial District Court v. ABA Standards
Number of Days
Number of Cases
Percentage of Cases Disposed
ABA Standards
0-120 days
1,188
62%
90%
121-180 days
345
80%
98%
181-365 days
330
97%
100%
Over 365 days
64
100%
TOTAL
1,927
Table 2:
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
0-120
121-180
181-365
Over 365
Clearly, the 26th Judicial District Court falls significantly below the time standards set by
the American Bar Association for disposition of felony criminal cases, especially within the time
frames between 0-120 days and 121-180 days. Too many cases, also, take in excess of 365 days
to dispose.
30
CourTools Measure 4 – Age of Active Pending Caseloads
The results of the data collected for this measurement yielded the following:
152,827 (cumulative days)/648 (total number of cases) =
236 days (average number of days per case)
The data was further broken down to reflect the following:
Table 3:
Age
Number of Cases
Percent
Cumulative Percent
0-120 days
94
14.5%
121-180 days
171
26.5%
41%
181-240 days
98
15%
56%
241-300 days
93
14%
70%
301-365 days
77
12%
82%
Over 365 days
115
18%
100%
Table 4:
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0-120
121-180
181-240
241-300
301-365
Over 365
31
CourTools Measure 5 – Trial Date Certainty
For the 26th Judicial District Court, there were 19 total cases and 109 total trial settings
for the 19 cases, giving an average of 5.7 settings per case:
109 (total trial settings)/19 (total cases) = 5.7 (settings per case).
This finding reflects the number of continuances that are granted in those cases that were
ultimately disposed of by trial. Again, continuances and the significant number of trial settings
are indicative of the backlog suffered by the 26th Judicial District Court.
Although the average number of trial settings per case equals 5.7 per case, some of the
cases reflect as many as 13 to 17 settings per case. Some of the cases had only one or two trial
settings, thereby decreasing the average.
Surveys: Lawyers and Judge Perceptions
Survey of Bossier Parish Bar
The cumulative results for each category were as follows out of a possible 100 percent,
using the scale created to measure the results by Barry Mahoney and his colleagues as reflected
in Appendix V:
Table 5: Survey of Bossier Parish Bar
Goals
54 %
Caseflow Management Procedures
60%
Judicial Commitment
60%
Staff Involvement
60%
Mechanisms for Accountability
45%
Backlog Reduction/Inventory Control
48%
OVERALL AVERAGE
54.5%
32
The overall perception on how the 26th Judicial District Court handles processing of
criminal cases is not favorable. Details of each survey section are outlined below.
Goals
Table 6:
The responses to the questions below were averaged between members of the bar. All
answers range on a Likert scale from one to five.
Questions
The court has adopted time standards that establish expected outside limits on
case processing time from filing to disposition, for major categories of cases. (1
represents no standards or guidelines; 5 represents yes; written standards have
been adopted and published.)
The judges are aware of the court’s case-processing time standards. (1 represents
no standards exist; 5 represents yes; all judges.)
The court’s staff at all levels is aware of the court’s case-processing time
standards and other caseflow management goals. (1 represents there are no goals
or standards; 5 represents yes.)
The court has time standards/guidelines governing the time interval between each
major stage in the litigation process. (1 represents no; 5 represents yes.)
The court’s caseflow management goals, and its performance in relation to the
goals, are subjects of regular communication with the bar and media. (1
represents no; 5 represents yes.)
The time required to complete case processing is generally within the time
standards adopted by the court (or, if no standards have been adopted by the court,
does not exceed the ABA case-processing time standards). (1 represents don’t
know; 5 represents yes; the court is consistently within the standards.)
The court has adopted formal policies and procedures with respect to most or all
areas of caseflow management, and these policies are followed/enforced. (1
represents few or no areas are covered by formal policies; 5 represents most
areas covered by formal policies; enforcement.)
OVERALL AVERAGE
Response
Averages
2.55
3.35
2.8
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.75
2.66
Members of the bar in general were not aware of goals, if any, the 26th Judicial District
Court had adopted with respect to case-processing time standards. The researcher also
discovered in communicating with members of the bar before the survey was distributed that
most members were not familiar with the case-processing time standards adopted by the
33
American Bar Association. It is obvious that lack of communication affected the bar’s
perception of the 26th Judicial District Court not establishing time standards and goals for timely
disposition of cases. The court can have the best intentions of managing caseload, but unless the
bar is educated on the court’s intent and the ramifications surrounding lack of case management
polices and procedures, the results will be an uncontrollable backlog and dissatisfaction of the
26th Judicial District Court system by the attorneys and the public.
Staff Involvement
Table 7:
The responses to the questions below were averaged between members of the bar. All
answers range on a Likert scale from one to five.
Questions
Members of the judges’ support staffs (courtroom clerk, judges’ secretaries,
bailiffs, etc.) are knowledgeable about caseflow management principles and
techniques, and use them in helping to manage caseloads. (1 represents no; 5
represents yes)
Judicial support staff notifies the judges of cases that have been pending for long
periods of time and cases in which there have been repeated continuances. (1
represents no; 5 represents yes.)
The court has a central staff unit that regularly monitors the caseload, identifies
problems (e.g. pending caseload increasing; certain cases taking unduly long),
and provides recommendations for action to the chief judge or other judge with
administrative responsibility. (1 represents no; 5 represents yes.)
Judges’ support staff provides help in achieving the court’s goals (e.g. in
contacts with attorneys, including scheduling cases for court dates). (1
represents no; 5 represents yes.)
Senior staff members regularly meet with judges in leadership position to discuss
caseload status and develop plans for addressing specific problems. (1
represents no; 5 represents yes.)
OVERALL AVERAGE
Response
Averages
3.4
2.7
2.1
3.2
2.6
2.8
The judges’ support staff was generally perceived by the bar as being knowledgeable
about case processing; however, the bar did not feel the support staff regularly monitors the
caseload of the 26th Judicial District Court. In reality the members of the bar would generally
34
not be aware if the judges and their support staff met regularly to discuss caseload and case
management issues, but the perception of the bar at least was that they sometimes did.
Mechanisms for Accountability
Table 8:
The responses to the questions below were averaged between members of the bar. All
answers range on a Likert scale from one to five.
Questions
The Court has established, and uses, a system evaluating the effectiveness of
judges in handling the portions of the court’s total caseload for which they have
responsibility. (1 represents don’t know; 5 represents no cases or only a few are
over the standards.)
Judges who do an effective job of managing the caseloads for which they are
responsible are publicly recognized for their good performance. (1 represents
no; 5 represents yes.)
The court has established, and uses, a system for evaluating the effectiveness of
staff members in performing their duties with respect to caseflow management.
(1 represents no; 5 represents yes.)
Judges whose performance in managing the caseloads for which they are
responsible is below acceptable standards are provided with assistance and
receive negative sanctions if their performance does not improve. (1 represents
no; 5 represents yes.)
Staff members who do an effective job of managing caseloads for which they are
responsible are publicly recognized by the court’s leaders for their good
performance. (1 represents no; 5 represents yes.)
OVERALL AVERAGE
Response
Averages
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
1.9
2.14
Members of the bar generally perceived that there were little or no mechanisms for
accountability, regardless of whether judges and staff performed above or below standard.
Judges have to report monthly to the Louisiana Supreme Court those cases over 30 days that are
taken under advisement and not decided. Again, although there are presently self-reporting
mechanisms in place for such accountability through the Louisiana Supreme Court, members of
the bar were generally not aware of this, which probably explains why they ranked their answers
this way.
35
Survey of the Judges of the 26th Judicial District Court
Also using Barry Mahoney’s scale in Appendix VI to measure results, out of a possible
100 percent score, the results of the judges’ survey were as follows:
Table 9:
Caseflow Management Procedures
67.3%
Judicial Commitment
73%
Information
63%
Backlog Reduction/Inventory Control
64%
OVERALL AVERAGE
66.8%
Even among the judiciary, the judges of the 26th Judicial District Court acknowledge that
the court is not up to the standards acceptable to the bench, bar and public. The judges of the
26th Judicial District Court are aware that proper caseflow management procedures are not in
place and that information regarding the status and process of cases is not always readily
available. The result of the lack of case management procedure and information is backlog and
the inability to control inventory of cases.
Information
Table 10:
The responses to the questions below were averaged between judges of the 26th Judicial
District Court. All answers range on a Likert scale from one to five.
Questions
The judges have, or can readily obtain, all information necessary to enable them
to know about the status of a case, its prior history in the court, and related cases
involving the same parties. (1 represents no; 5 represents yes.)
Response
Averages
3.7
36
Table 10 (continued):
The following caseflow management information is readily available and
regularly used: Number of pending cases, by case type; Age of pending cases
(frequency distribution, within age categories); Change in number and age of
pending cases since last report or since previous year; Age of pending caseload
compared to time standards; Age of cases at disposition, by case type;
Percentage of trials starting on first scheduled trial date; Number of continuances
of scheduled events in each case; Reasons for each continuance; Number and
proportions of dispositions by type of disposition; Annual filings and
dispositions, by case type. (To score, the number of yeses in each category were
added and divided by 4.)
The judges are aware of the time standards adopted by the American Bar
Association regarding processing of criminal cases. (1 represents no; 5
represents yes.)
The judges monitor their criminal cases to comply with the time standards set
forth by the American Bar Association. (1 represents no; 5 represents yes.)
The judges are aware of the time standards set forth in the Louisiana Code of
Criminal Procedure regarding processing of criminal cases. (1 represents no; 5
represents yes.)
The judges monitor their criminal cases to comply with the time standards set
forth by the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure. (1 represents no; 5
represents yes.)
OVERALL AVERAGE
1.85
3.2
2.3
4.3
3.5
3.14
Except for the availability and use of caseflow management information, the judges of
the 26th Judicial District Court felt that information was readily available and that they complied
with required time standards according to the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure detailed in
the introduction of this research. However, most of the judges were not aware or were only
vaguely familiar with the time standards set forth by the American Bar Association. After
informing the judges of what the ABA time standards are, most of the judges responded that the
26th Judicial District Court was not monitored to comply with those time standards.
37
Comparison of Bar and Judges Perceptions
Comparison of the perceptions of the bar and judges in like categories were:
Table 11:
Category
Bossier Bar Association
Judges
Caseflow Management
Procedures
Judicial Commitment
60%
67.3%
60%
73%
Backlog Reduction/Inventory
Control
OVERALL AVERAGE
48%
64%
56%
68.1%
Because the members of the general bar, defense bar and prosecutor bar were surveyed
separately, the researcher was able to compare the perceptions of the bench and bar. The
responses were generally consistent with each section of the bar regarding their perception of
how the 26th Judicial District Court managed caseflow procedures, judicial commitment and
backlog reduction/inventory control. Individual scores, however, ranged on each ends of the
Likert scale. The researcher can only surmise that this was based on each member of the bar’s
individual experience.
Caseflow Management Procedures
The responses to the questions below were averaged between judges of the 26th Judicial
District Court and members of the bar. All answers range on a Likert scale from one to five.
Table 12:
Questions
The court counts every case as pending from the date that it is
initially filed (or, in criminal cases in which the defendant has
been arrested, from the date of the arrest). (1 represents no; 5
represents yes.)
Judges’
Responses
3.3
Bars’
Responses
3.5
38
Table 12 (continued):
Potential protracted or complicated cases are identified early for
special attention. (1 represents no; 5 represents yes,
systematically.)
The system of scheduling cases for trials and evidentiary
hearings provides attorneys and the court with certainty that a
case will be reached on the scheduled date. (1 represents rarely;
5 represents 90-100% of the time.)
Consultation with attorneys, by a judge or court staff member,
occurs early in a case, to set deadlines for completion of stages
of the case. (1 represents no; 5 represents yes, in all cases.)
Attorneys are ready to proceed on the scheduled trial date or
evidentiary hearing date. (1 represents rarely; 5 represents 90100% of the time.)
Techniques for avoiding or minimizing attorney schedule
conflicts are part of the scheduling system, and attorneys’
schedules are accommodated to the extent reasonably possible.
(1 represents attorney schedule conflicts are a major problem; 5
represents techniques are used and work well; no improvement
needed.)
Simple cases that may be amenable to swift disposition are
identified at an early stage for special processing. (1 represents
never; 5 represents yes; routinely of cases.)
How frequently are cases that have been scheduled for trial or
evidentiary hearing continued because there are more ready
cases than can be reached on the scheduled date? (1 represents
very frequently; 5 represents never.)
Every pending case on the court’s docket has a “next action”
date scheduled. (1 represent most cases do not have a next a
next action date scheduled; 5 represents yes.)
Trial judges conduct a trial management conference with trial
counsel, 5 to 21 days before the scheduled trial date, to resolve
pending motions, determine what issues of law and fact are in
dispute, and establish “ground rules” with respect to voir dire,
witness scheduling, use of exhibits, and other issues likely to
arise at trial. (1 represents no; 5 represents yes; all judges, in
all except very simple cases.)
OVERALL AVERAGE
3.3
3.0
3.5
2.7
3.8
2.6
3.3
2.9
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.0
3.3
2.7
2.7
2.8
3.3
3.0
3.3
2.94
There is great discrepancy between the perception of the judges of the 26th Judicial
District Court and the members of the Bossier Parish Bar. Neither the judges nor members of the
bar feel the 26th Judicial District Court is consistent in the way it counts its cases. The
39
identification of complicated cases varies with each judge of the 26th Judicial District Court, and
the result of this perception is based on the experience of individual members of the bar and the
policy, although unwritten and undefined, of individual judges in the court. Lack of formal
systems in scheduling of cases for trial and the fact that the measurement tools in this research
have shown that there is deficiency in trial date certainty explain the perception by the bench and
bar that cases set for trial will not with absolute certainty be heard on the scheduled trial dates.
Again, based on individual experiences of attorneys and the informal policy adopted by
each judge of the 26th Judicial District Court, the perception is low, especially by members of the
bar, that attorneys are consulted and encouraged to set deadlines in order to complete all stages
of their cases. Ironically, even attorneys perceive the members of their bar as not always ready
to proceed on the scheduled trial dates. There are no formal techniques for avoidance of
scheduling conflicts for attorneys, although accommodations are made on a case-by-case basis.
Cases are not formally identified at early stages regarding their simplistic nature; therefore, the
judges and members of the bar alike do not perceive these cases as being disposed of swiftly.
Continuances have already been identified as major problems in the 26th Judicial District
Court, and perception lends itself to support that too many cases are scheduled on a trial date
than can be reached. The judges of the 26th Judicial District Court and members of the bar agree
that there is not a clear “next action” date for pending cases. Some cases that are continued are
not immediately reset on a date certain. Judges frequently set status and pretrial conferences on
jury trials and sometimes on bench trials. Unless members of the bar have cases set in the 26th
Judicial District Court for jury trials, they may not be aware of such conferences, and therefore
their perception is that such practices do not exist in the 26th Judicial District Court.
40
Judicial Commitment
The responses to the questions below were averaged between judges of the 26th Judicial
District Court and members of the bar. All answers range on a Likert scale from one to five.
Table 13:
Questions
There is commonly shared commitment, on the part of the
judges, to the principle that the court has responsibility for
ensuring expeditious case processing. (1 represents no shared
commitment; 5 represents virtually all judges are committed.)
Assess the difficulty of an attorney obtaining a continuance of a
trial date or date for an evidentiary hearing. Explanation of the
breakdown of the results is expounded in the research text.
Judges’ commitment to effective caseflow management is
demonstrated by their actions in holding lawyers to schedules,
limiting continuances to situations in which good cause is
shown, and allowing continuances only for short intervals. (1
represents generally, no; 5 represents generally, yes.)
The judges recognize the need to monitor the pace of litigation
and are actively committed to seeing the court meet standards
for expeditious case processing. (1 represents no; 5 represents
yes.)
The court has adopted formal policies and procedures with
respect to most or all areas of caseflow management, and these
policies are followed/enforced. Explanation of the breakdown of
the results is expounded in research text.
OVERALL AVERAGE
Judges’
Responses
4
Bars’
Responses
3.9
3.1
2.1
3.8
3.6
4
2.8
3.2
2.3
3.62
2.94
One of the questions under Judicial Commitment asked the respondents to rate on a scale
of one to five to assess the difficulty of an attorney obtaining a continuance of a trial date or date
for an evidentiary hearing. One represents a response of “easily obtained upon request or
stipulation” and five represents a response of “can be obtained only on written request/motion
and showing of substantial cause”. Interestingly, the average of the responses of the members of
the bar was 2.1, and the average of the responses from the judges of the 26th Judicial District
Court was 3.1. The researcher determined that the general consensus was that it was not difficult
41
to obtain continuances in cases set in the 26th Judicial District Court. This will be addressed later
in the Conclusions and Recommendations section.
With reference to formal policies and procedures adopted by the 26th Judicial District
Court regarding caseflow management, the responses ranged as follows: 1 – few or no areas are
covered by formal polices; 2 – some formal policies; rarely enforced; 3 – some formal policies;
inconsistent enforcement; 4 – most areas have formal policies; enforcement needs some
improvement; is consistent; and 5 – most areas covered by formal polices; enforcement. Other
than statutes and state court rules that dictate to the courts timelines for each significant event,
there were no written, formal policies and procedures in place. The researcher can only
speculate that the 3.2 ranking by the judges of the 26th Judicial District Court was based on their
knowledge of the laws governing timelines, and the much lower 2.3 ranking by members of the
bar was based on the lack of written policies by the 26th Judicial District Court.
Backlog Reduction/Inventory Control
The responses to the questions below were averaged responses of the judges of the 26th
Judicial District Court and members of the bar. All answers range on a Likert scale from one to
five.
Table 14:
Questions
The court has few or no cases pending for more than the
maximum length of time established by its own case-processing
time standards, or alternatively, the ABA case-processing time
standards. (1 represents don’t know; 5 represents no cases or
only a few are over the standards.)
The court disposes of at least as many cases as are filed each
year, in each general category of cases. (1 represents no; filings
consistently exceed dispositions; 5 represents yes, consistently.)
Judges’
Responses
3
4
Bars’
Responses
2.2
3
42
Table 14 (continued):
Judges who have responsibility for portions of the court’s
caseload periodically review the age and status of cases for
which they are responsible. (1 represents never; 5 represents
yes, at least once a month.)
The court follows established procedures to identify inactive
cases and bring them to disposition. (1 represents no; 5
represents yes; regular reviews are done and “purge”
procedures are followed.)
The court has established goals for the maximum size of its
pending caseload(s), and has developed plans for reducing its
caseload to that number (or if the current caseload is at an
acceptable size, for ensuring that the caseload does not exceed
the goal that has been set.) (1 represents no; 5 represents yes.)
OVERALL AVERAGE
3.3
2.7
2.8
1.9
2.8
2.3
3.18
2.42
The judges rated each of the compared categories higher than members of the bar. The
researcher was able to determine through discussion with members of the bar and of the judges
of the 26th Judicial District Court that the judges were better aware of the case management tools
that are in place, where members of the bar were not. The researcher also determined that
members of the bar in general were not aware of the time standards set forth by the American
Bar Association.
43
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Courts continue to experience backlog for several reasons. The reasons expressed by
John Goerdt and James McMillan include management problems, resource problems, court size
and case mix, problems of commitment from judges and those involved in the case management
process and system effects.74 The researcher has verified through implementation of
measurement tools, whether via CourTools or through survey instruments, that all of these
grounds exist with the 26th Judicial District Court.
Before the performance of this research, the 26th Judicial District Court had no time
standard in place for disposing of criminal cases, nor did it have a policy in place for minimizing
continuances. No department took responsibility for monitoring the processing of criminal cases
in the 26th Judicial District Court; therefore, no one was aware of the extent of the backlog of the
criminal caseload.
The researcher discovered during review of relevant literature, gathering of data and
survey of members of the Bossier Parish Bar Association and the judges of the 26th Judicial
District Court, that successful process of criminal cases share the common factors outlined by,
among many others, Theodore Kolb and Douglas Somerlot in Defeating Delay: Developing and
Implementing a Court Delay Reduction Program. More specifically they indicate that courts
should take early control of cases and maintain continuous control of cases. Additionally events
should be scheduled within short time limits and should take place when they are scheduled to
occur.75
74
75
See note 8 supra, pages 192-197.
See note 35 supra, page 24.
44
Recommendations
Standard 2.51 of the Court Delay Reduction Standards should apply to manage cases in
the 26th Judicial District Court, which relevant standard enumerates the following:
“A. Court supervision and control of the movement of all cases from the time of filing of
the first document invoking court jurisdiction through final disposition.
B. Promulgation and monitoring of time standards for the overall disposition of cases.
C. By rules, conferences or other techniques, establishment of times for conclusion of
the critical steps in the litigation process, including the discovery phase.
D. Procedures for early identification of cases that may be protracted, and for giving
them special administrative attention where appropriate.
E. Adoption of a trial setting policy which schedule a sufficient number of cases to
ensure efficient use of judge time while minimizing resettings caused by over scheduling.
F. Commencement of trial on the original date scheduled with adequate advance notice.
G. A firm, consistent policy for minimizing continuances.”76
Recommendation 1: The 26th Judicial District Court should draft and adopt clear and
concise timelines for the processing of criminal cases and any policies relative to the granting of
continuances.
As stated by the authors of Managing to Reduce Delay, “a case management system
begins with measuring the pace of litigation. This quantitative information furnishes the court . .
. with facts which enable judges and staff to evaluate the rate of case progress.”77 This was
accomplished during this research. The data collected and measured showed that the 26th
Judicial District Court went beyond the time standards recommended by the American Bar
Association, and this was primarily as a result of the granting of excessive continuances. Upon
improvement to the case management software system, this software will be used to gather the
76
77
Id, 25.
See note 42 supra, page 7.
45
necessary information to continue monitoring the clearance rate of cases, the time to disposition
of cases, trial date certainty of cases and the age of active pending caseload.
The challenges imposed by granting of continuances were outlined at a course on
Fundamental Issues of Caseflow Management sponsored by the Institute for Court Management.
At that course, the concept of the Continuance Conundrum was used to emphasize the following
problems of continuances: (1) due to unreadiness attorneys request continuances; (2) court
routinely grants continuance; (3) too few ready cases to keep judges busy; (4) court schedules
unrealistically high number of cases; (5) cases low on list are not reached for trial; (6) when low
on list attorneys may not prepare case and have witnesses present.78 This creates a vicious cycle,
as has been experienced by the 26th Judicial District Court.
Grounds for continuances will be studied and policies will be adopted for granting of
continuances. The 26th Judicial District Court will consider for granting of continuances the
diligence and good faith of counsel moving for the continuance, the reasonableness of the
grounds for continuance, and fairness to both parties if the continuance is granted. The court
should also grant continuances in cases where the law so requires. Attorneys will be encouraged
to strictly adhere to those statutes that dictate the movement and granting of continuances.
The laws surrounding continuances in criminal cases located in the Louisiana Code of
Criminal Procedure provide good authority for more control that the judges in the 26th Judicial
District Court can and should build upon and expand. The judges should enforce the law that
members of the bar submit all motions for continuances in writing alleging the bases for the
request, and the motion for continuance shall be filed at least seven days prior to the
78
Cited in Institute for Court Management; Fundamental issues of Caseflow Management
Participant Guide, (2004), 3-10, from Maureen Solomon, Caseflow Management in the Trial
Courts, ABA, 1973.
46
commencement of trial. Continuances should be treated as postponements to a time or date
certain and should not be granted after the commencement of a hearing or trial.
Recommendation 2: The bar should be educated on the 26th Judicial District Court’s
timelines and policies.
It was apparent from the perception of the members of the bar through the survey that
they are not aware of any policies, procedures or timelines adopted and implemented by the 26th
Judicial District Court with respect to criminal case processing. The researcher will present
findings and develop and propose time standards for the 26th Judicial District Court, both to
educate the bench and bar regarding the ramifications surrounding continuances and other factors
that result in unnecessary delays and backlog and to get confirmation and input on study findings
and buy in on the plan for attaching unacceptable criminal case processing and delay.
Recommendation 3: The court’s support staff must be educated regarding the court’s
case-processing time standards and caseflow management goals.
The court’s staff will be included in the drafting of formal policies and procedures for
case processing. Judges’ secretaries will identify cases that have been pending for long periods
of time and identify those cases with repeated continuances. Judges’ law clerks will assist in
contacting attorneys with problematic cases and assist in scheduling timely trial dates. The law
clerks will also calendar scheduling conferences, if necessary, in assisting attorneys to resolve
issues that have prevented them from timely trying cases.
Recommendation 4: The case management software developers will be informed on the
improvements needed to retrieve accurate information for the purposes of processing and
managing criminal caseflow.
47
The 26th Judicial District Court until recently had no effective way of tracking or
measuring its caseload. And even to date with the current case management software system, the
resources are still inadequate to efficiently track all cases. The judges of the 26th Judicial District
Court are judges of general jurisdiction and hear civil, family and juvenile cases, in addition to
the criminal cases used for the bases of this research. Because of the overwhelming caseload
that encompasses all subject matter jurisdiction and the requirement of judges to stay abreast of
recent developments in all civil, family, juvenile and criminal matters, there has been little time
for commitment to studying and tracking caseflow. Conversely, because of the lack of tracking
the process of cases, this has resulted in the increase of caseload for the judges.
The information gathered in running the measurement tools will be used to provide
feedback to the software developers in creating a useful case management software system for
the 26th Judicial District Court. The case management software will include accurate
information regarding the number of pending cases for each judge, age of pending cases, age of
cases at disposition, and the number of continuances in each case. Upon the successful
completion of the case management software system, the judges will be educated on how to
obtain the necessary information to assist them in learning of the status of each case, including
its prior history.
Recommendation 5: Stakeholders must be educated on the 26th Judicial District Court’s
adoption of case-processing time standards and caseflow management goals.
The researcher will set meetings with the judges at its en banc meeting and with the
members of the Bossier Parish bar at its general meeting within the second quarter of 2007 to
discuss the results and problems discovered during this research. Upon sharing the information
with the bench and bar, the researcher will hold a subsequent meeting with department heads
48
involved in setting and processing of cases, such as the clerk of court, district attorney and public
defender’s office. Upon completing these objectives, the researcher will have addressed the
seven fundamentals of caseflow management outlined during the Fundamentals Issues of
Caseflow Management course: leadership and vision, consultation with stakeholders, court
supervision, standards and goals, control continuances, early dispositions, and information
systems.79
79
See note 70, supra, page 3-1.
49
APPENDIX I
50
51
52
53
APPENDIX II
54
55
56
57
58
59
APPENDIX III
60
61
62
63
64
65
APPENDIX IV
66
67
68
69
APPENDIX V
Trial Court Self-Assessment Questionnaire for Bar
Instructions: Score the 26th Judicial District Court on each question. Circle the number closest
to your answer. If you are uncertain, use your best estimate.
1. The court has adopted time standards that establish expected outside limits on caseprocessing time from filing to disposition, for major categories of cases.
1
2
No standards or guidelines
3
4
Informal guidelines exist
5
Yes; written standards
have been adopted & published
2. The court counts every case as pending from the date that it is initially filed (or, in
criminal cases in which the defendant has been arrested, from the date of the arrest).
1
2
No
3
4
Some categories of cases
5
Yes
3. There is a commonly shared commitment, on the part of the judges, to the principle that
the court has responsibility for ensuring expeditious case processing.
1
2
No shared
commitment
3
4
Some judges
are committed
5
Virtually all judges
are committed.
4. Members of the judges’ support staffs (courtroom clerk, judges’ secretaries, bailiffs, etc.)
are knowledgeable about caseflow management principles and techniques, and use them
in helping to manage caseloads.
1
2
No
3
4
Some
5
Yes; virtually all are
knowledgeable and use
the principles and techniques
5. The court has established, and uses, a system evaluating the effectiveness of judges in
handling the portions of the court’s total caseload for which they have responsibility.
1
No
2
3
Some criteria exist
4
5
Yes
70
6. The court has few or no cases pending for more than the maximum length of time
established by its own case-processing time standards, or alternatively, the ABA caseprocessing time standards.
1
Don’t know
7.
2
3
Many cases are older
than the court’s (or
ABA’s) time standards
About 30%
are older
4
5
10-15% are over
the standards
No cases or only
a few are over
the standards
The judges are aware of the court’s case-processing time standards.
1
2
No standards exist
3
4
Some are aware
5
Yes; all judges
8. Potentially protracted or complicated cases are identified early for special attention.
1
2
No
3
4
Sometimes
5
Yes, systematically
9. Assess the difficulty of an attorney obtaining a continuance of a trial date or date for an
evidentiary hearing.
1
2
Easily obtained upon
request or stipulation
3
4
Attorney must show
cause, but request is usually granted
5
Can be obtained only on
written request/motion and
showing of substantial cause
10. Judicial support staff notifies the judges of cases that have been pending for long periods
of time and cases in which there have been repeated continuances.
1
2
No
3
4
Some
5
Yes
11. Judges who do an effective job of managing the caseloads for which they are responsible
are publicly recognized for their good performance.
1
2
No
3
4
Sometimes
5
Yes
12. The court disposes of at least as many cases as are filed each year, in each general
category of cases.
1
No; filings consistently
exceed dispositions
2
3
Some years, in some
categories of cases
4
5
Yes, consistently
71
13. The court’s staff at all levels is aware of the court’s case-processing time standards and
other caseflow management goals.
1
2
3
There are no goals
or standards
Some are aware
4
Top staff is aware
5
Yes
14. Judges’ commitment to effective caseflow management is demonstrated by their actions
in holding lawyers to schedules, limiting continuances to situations in which good cause
is shown, and allowing continuances only for short intervals.
1
2
3
Generally, no
4
Inconsistent
5
Generally, yes
15. The system of scheduling cases for trials and evidentiary hearings provides attorneys and
the court with certainty that a case will be reached on the scheduled date.
1
2
Rarely
Less than half
the time
3
50-70% of
the time
4
70-90% of
the time
5
90-100% of
the time
16. The court has a central staff unit that regularly monitors the caseload, identifies problems
(e.g. pending caseload increasing; certain cases taking unduly long), and provides
recommendations for action to the chief judge or other judge with administrative
responsibility.
1
2
No
3
4
Some central staff monitoring;
occasional recommendations
5
Yes
17. The court has time standards/guidelines governing the time interval between each major
stage in the litigation process.
1
2
No
3
4
Guidelines cover some
but not all intervals
5
Yes
18. The court has established, and uses, a system for evaluating the effectiveness of staff
members in performing their duties with respect to caseflow management.
1
2
No
3
4
Some criteria exist
5
Yes
19. Judges who have responsibility for portions of the court’s caseload periodically review
the age and status of cases for which they are responsible.
1
Never
2
3
Occasionally
4
5
Yes, at least once a month
72
20. The court’s caseflow management goals, and its performance in relation to the goals, are
subjects of regular communication with the bar and media.
1
2
3
No
4
5
Sporadic communication
Yes
21. Consultation with attorneys, by a judge or court staff member, occurs early in a case, to
set deadlines for completion of stages of the case.
1
No
2
Only if requested by an attorney
3
4
5
Sometimes
Mainly in complex cases
Yes; in all cases
22. The judges recognize the need to monitor the pace of litigation and are actively
committed to seeing the court meet standards for expeditious case processing.
1
2
No
3
4
Some judges recognize the need
5
Yes
23. Judges’ support staff provides help in achieving the court’s goals (e.g. in contacts with
attorneys, including scheduling cases for court dates).
1
2
3
No
4
Some
5
Yes
24. Attorneys are ready to proceed on the scheduled trial date or evidentiary hearing date.
1
2
Rarely
Less than half
the time
3
50-70% of
the time
4
70-90% of
the time
5
90-100% of
the time
25. Judges whose performance in managing the caseloads for which they are responsible is
below acceptable standards are provided with assistance and receive negative sanctions if
their performance does not improve.
1
2
No
3
4
Sometimes
5
Yes
26. The court follows established procedures to identify inactive cases and bring them to
disposition.
1
No
2
3
Occasional reviews
and purges of inactive cases
4
5
Yes; regular reviews
are done and “purge”
procedures are followed
73
27. The time required to complete case processing is generally within the time standards
adopted by the court (or, if no standards have been adopted by the court, does not exceed
the ABA case-processing time standards).
1
Don’t know
2
3
Many cases
over standards
4
Fair performance in
relation to standards
5
Good performance;
some improvement
desirable
Yes; the court is
consistently within
the standards
28. Techniques for avoiding or minimizing attorney schedule conflicts are part of the
scheduling system, and attorneys’ schedules are accommodated to the extent reasonably
possible.
1
2
3
Attorney schedule conflicts
are a major problem
4
Some techniques are used;
system could be improved
on some goals
5
Techniques are used and
work well; no improvement needed
29. The court has adopted formal policies and procedures with respect to most or all areas of
caseflow management, and these policies are followed/enforced.
1
Few or no areas
are covered by
formal policies
2
3
Some formal
policies; rarely
enforced
Some formal
policies;
inconsistent
enforcement
4
Most areas have formal
policies; enforcement
needs some improvement
is consistent
5
Most areas
covered by
formal policies;
enforcement
30. Senior staff members regularly meet with judges in leadership positions to discuss
caseload status and develop plans for addressing specific problems.
1
2
No
3
4
Occasionally
5
Yes
31. The court has adopted goals for the frequency with which trials start on the scheduled
date.
1
2
No
3
4
Informal expectations exist
5
Yes
32. Simple cases that may be amenable to swift disposition are identified at an early stage for
special processing.
1
Never
2
Rarely
3
Sometimes; mainly
if counsel requests
4
Some categories
5
Yes; routinely
of cases
74
33. The court has established goals for the maximum size of its pending caseload(s), and has
developed plans for reducing its caseload to that number (or if the current caseload is at
an acceptable size, for ensuring that the caseload does not exceed the goal that has been
set).
1
2
No
3
4
5
Some goals exist;
status of plans unclear
Yes
34. How frequently are cases that have been scheduled for trial or evidentiary hearing
continued because there are more ready cases than can be reached on the scheduled date?
1
Very frequently
2
Frequently
3
4
5
Occasionally
Rarely
Never
35. Staff members who do an effective job of managing caseloads for which they are
responsible are publicly recognized by the court’s leaders for their good performance.
1
2
No
3
4
5
Sometimes
Yes
36. Every pending case on the court’s docket has a “next action” date scheduled.
1
Most cases do not
have a next action
date scheduled
2
3
Approximately 10- Approximately
20% of cases have 20-40% of cases
no next action
have no next action
date scheduled
date scheduled
4
Almost all cases have
a next action date
scheduled
5
Yes
37. Trial judges conduct a trial management conference with trial counsel, 5 to 21 days
before the scheduled trial date, to resolve pending motions, determine what issues of law
and fact are in dispute, and establish “ground rules” with respect to voir dire, witness
scheduling, use of exhibits, and other issues likely to arise at trial.
1
No
2
Rarely
3
4
5
Some judges,
in some cases
Most judges,
in most cases
Yes; all judges,
in all except very
simple cases
75
Goals
Staff Involvement
1. __________
7. __________
13.__________
17.__________
20.__________
27.__________
31.__________
4. __________
10.__________
16.__________
23.__________
30.__________
Total = ______
Out of 25 possible,
Divide total by 25:
Out of 35 possible,
Divide total by 35:
_________
Score
Caseflow Management Procedures
2. __________
8. __________
15.__________
21.__________
24.__________
28.__________
32.__________
34.__________
36.__________
37.__________
Total = ______
_________
Score
Mechanisms for Accountability
5. ___________
11.___________
18.___________
25.___________
35.___________
Total = _______
Out of 25 possible,
Divide total by 25:
_________
Score
Total = ______
Backlog Reduction/Inventory Control
Out of 50 possible,
Divide total by 50:
6. ___________
12.___________
19.___________
26.___________
33.___________
__________
Score
Total = _______
Out of 25 possible,
Divide total by 25:
__________
Score
76
Judicial Commitment
3. __________
9. __________
14.__________
22.__________
29.__________
Total = ______
Out of 25 possible,
Divide total by 25:
__________
Score
77
APPENDIX VI
Trial Court Self-Assessment Questionnaire for Judges
Instructions: Score the 26th Judicial District Court on each question. If you are uncertain, use
your best estimate.
1. The court counts every case as pending from the date that it is initially filed (or, in
criminal cases in which the defendant has been arrested, from the date of the arrest).
1
2
No
3
4
Some categories of cases
5
Yes
2. There is a commonly shared commitment, on the part of the judges, to the principle that
the court has responsibility for ensuring expeditious case processing.
1
2
3
No shared
commitment
4
Some judges
are committed
5
Virtually all judges
are committed.
3. The court has few or no cases pending for more than the maximum length of time
established by its own case-processing time standards, or alternatively, the ABA caseprocessing time standards.
1
Don’t know
4.
2
3
Many cases are older
than the court’s (or
ABA’s) time standards
About 30%
are older
4
10-15% are over
the standards
5
No cases or only
a few are over
the standards
Potentially protracted or complicated cases are identified early for special attention.
1
2
No
3
4
Sometimes
5
Yes, systematically
5. Assess the difficulty of an attorney obtaining a continuance of a trial date or date for an
evidentiary hearing.
1
Easily obtained upon
request or stipulation
2
3
Attorney must show
cause, but request is usually granted
4
5
Can be obtained only on
written request/motion and
showing of substantial cause
78
6. The court disposes of at least as many cases as are filed each year, in each general
category of cases.
1
2
3
No; filings consistently
exceed dispositions
4
5
Some years, in some
categories of cases
Yes, consistently
7. Judges’ commitment to effective caseflow management is demonstrated by their actions
in holding lawyers to schedules, limiting continuances to situations in which good cause
is shown, and allowing continuances only for short intervals.
1
2
3
Generally, no
4
5
Inconsistent
Generally, yes
8. The system of scheduling cases for trials and evidentiary hearings provides attorneys and
the court with certainty that a case will be reached on the scheduled date.
1
2
Rarely
Less than half
the time
3
4
50-70% of
the time
5
70-90% of
the time
90-100% of
the time
9. Judges who have responsibility for portions of the court’s caseload periodically review
the age and status of cases for which they are responsible.
1
2
3
Never
4
Occasionally
5
Yes, at least once a month
10. Consultation with attorneys, by a judge or court staff member, occurs early in a case, to
set deadlines for completion of stages of the case.
1
No
2
Only if requested by an attorney
3
4
5
Sometimes
Mainly in complex cases
Yes; in all cases
11. The judges recognize the need to monitor the pace of litigation and are actively
committed to seeing the court meet standards for expeditious case processing.
1
2
No
3
4
Some judges recognize the need
5
Yes
12. Attorneys are ready to proceed on the scheduled trial date or evidentiary hearing date.
1
2
Rarely
Less than half
the time
3
50-70% of
the time
4
70-90% of
the time
5
90-100% of
the time
79
13. The court follows established procedures to identify inactive cases and bring them to
disposition.
1
2
No
3
4
Occasional reviews
and purges of inactive cases
5
Yes; regular reviews
are done and “purge”
procedures are followed
14. Techniques for avoiding or minimizing attorney schedule conflicts are part of the
scheduling system, and attorneys’ schedules are accommodated to the extent reasonably
possible.
1
2
Attorney schedule conflicts
are a major problem
3
4
Some techniques are used;
system could be improved
on some goals
5
Techniques are used and
work well; no improvement needed
15. The court has adopted formal policies and procedures with respect to most or all areas of
caseflow management, and these policies are followed/enforced.
1
Few or no areas
are covered by
formal policies
2
Some formal
policies; rarely
enforced
3
Some formal
policies;
inconsistent
enforcement
4
Most areas have formal
policies; enforcement
needs some improvement
is consistent
5
Most areas
covered by
formal policies;
enforcement
16. Simple cases that may be amenable to swift disposition are identified at an early stage for
special processing.
1
Never
2
Rarely
3
Sometimes; mainly
if counsel requests
4
Some categories
5
Yes; routinely
of cases
17. The court has established goals for the maximum size of its pending caseload(s), and has
developed plans for reducing its caseload to that number (or if the current caseload is at
an acceptable size, for ensuring that the caseload does not exceed the goal that has been
set).
1
2
No
3
4
Some goals exist;
status of plans unclear
5
Yes
18. How frequently are cases that have been scheduled for trial or evidentiary hearing
continued because there are more ready cases than can be reached on the scheduled date?
1
Very frequently
2
Frequently
3
4
5
Occasionally
Rarely
Never
80
19. Every pending case on the court’s docket has a “next action” date scheduled.
1
2
Most cases do not
have a next action
date scheduled
3
Approximately 10- Approximately
20% of cases have 20-40% of cases
no next action
have no next action
date scheduled
date scheduled
4
Almost all cases have
a next action date
scheduled
5
Yes
20. Trial judges conduct a trial management conference with trial counsel, 5 to 21 days
before the scheduled trial date, to resolve pending motions, determine what issues of law
and fact are in dispute, and establish “ground rules” with respect to voir dire, witness
scheduling, use of exhibits, and other issues likely to arise at trial.
1
2
No
Rarely
3
4
5
Some judges,
in some cases
Most judges,
in most cases
Yes; all judges,
in all except very
simple cases
21. The judges have, or can readily obtain, all information necessary to enable them to know
about the status of a case, its prior history in the court, and related cases involving the
same parties.
1
2
No
3
4
Some information usually available
5
Yes
22. The following caseflow management information is readily available and regularly used:
(Y = Yes; N = No)
Available
Used
Information
_____
_____
Number of pending cases, by case type
_____
_____
Age of pending cases (frequency distribution, within age categories)
_____
_____
Change in number and age of pending cases since last report or since previous year
_____
_____
Age of pending caseload compared to time standards
_____
_____
Age of cases at disposition, by case type
_____
_____
Percentage of trials starting on first scheduled trial date
_____
_____
Number of continuances of scheduled events in each case
_____
_____
Reasons for each continuance
_____
_____
Number and proportion of dispositions by type of disposition
_____
_____
Annual filings and dispositions, by case type
81
23. The judges are aware of the time standards adopted by the American Bar Association
regarding processing of criminal cases.
1
2
No
3
4
Somewhat familiar
5
Yes
24. The judges monitor their criminal cases to comply with the time standards set forth by the
American Bar Association.
1
2
No
3
4
Sometimes
5
Yes
25. The judges are aware of the time standards set forth in the Louisiana Code of Criminal
Procedure regarding processing of criminal cases.
1
2
No
3
4
Somewhat familiar
5
Yes
26. The judges monitor their criminal cases to comply with the time standards set forth by the
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure.
1
No
2
3
Sometimes
4
5
Yes
82
Caseflow Management Procedures
Information
1. __________
4. __________
8. __________
10.__________
12.__________
14.__________
16.__________
18.__________
19.__________
20.__________
21.___________
*22.___________
23.___________
24.___________
25.___________
26.___________
Total=________
Out of 30 possible,
Divide total by 30.
Total = ______
Out of 50 possible,
Divide total by 50:
_____________
Score
Backlog Reduction Inventory
__________
Score
Judicial Commitment
2. __________
5. __________
7. __________
11.__________
15.__________
3.____________
6. ____________
9._____________
13.____________
17.____________
Total=_________
Out of 25 possible,
Divide total by 25.
Total = ______
Out of 25 possible,
Divide total by 25:
__________
Score
_____________
Score
*To score #22, add the number
of Y’s in the “Available” and
“Used” columns, and divide
the total _____ by 4.
RESULT:___________
83
WORKS CITED
C.Cr.P. Art. 230.2, added by Acts 1972, No. 700, § 1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 395 § 1;
Acts 1984, No. 206, § 1; Acts 1985, No. 955, § 1.
C.Cr.P. Art. 292, amended by Acts 1974, Ex.Sess. No. 16 § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1975.
C.Cr.P. Art. 551, amended by Acts 1977, No. 396, § 1; Acts 1990, No. 543, § 1; Acts 1990, No.
593, § 1.
C.Cr.P. Art. 521, added by Acts 1978, No. 735, § 1. Amended by Acts 1981, No. 440, § 1.
C.Cr.P. Art. 578
C.Cr.P. Art. 707, amended by Acts 1978, No. 735, § 2; Acts 19891, No. 440, § 1.
C.Cr.P. Art. 708
C.Cr.P. Art. 709
C.Cr.P. Art. 710
C.Cr.P. Art. 711
C.Cr.P. Art. 712
C.Cr.P. Art. 761
C.Cr.P. Art. 914, amended by Acts 1982, No. 143, § 1; Acts 1993, No. 490, § 1, eff. June 10,
1993; Acts 2003, No. 949, § 1.
American Judicature Society; Criminal Caseflow Management: Chester County,
Pennsylvania; American Judicature Society, Chicago, IL; 1976.
Gallas, Geoff; Local Legal Culture: More Than Court Culture; 20 Court Manager 4; Winter,
2005; pages 23-28.
Goerdt, John A.; Lomvardias, Chris; Gallas, Geoff; Reexamining the Pace of Litigation in 39
Urban Trial Courts; National Center for State Courts; 1991.
Institute for Court Management; Fundamental Issues of Caseflow Management Participant
Guide; National Center for State Courts; 2004.
Luskin, Mary L.; Describing and Analyzing Case Processing Time in Criminal Cases:
Suggestions for Administrators; Washington, D.C.; 1981.
84
Mahoney, Barry; Friesen, Carol; Friesen, Ernest C.; Lefever, R. Dale; Solomon, Maureen;
Solomon, Douglas K.; Planning and Conducting a Workshop on Reducing Delay in
Felony Cases. Volume 1, Guidebook for Trainers; Institute for Court Management of
the National Center for State Courts and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, US
Department of Justice; 1991.
Mahoney, Barry; Bakke, Holly C.; Bonacci-Miller, Antoinette; Maron, Nancy C.; Solomon,
Maureen; How to Conduct a Caseflow Management Review: A Guide for
Practitioners; National Center for State Courts; 1992.
National Association for Court Management, Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines: What
Court Leaders Need to Know and Be Able to Do; 18 Court Manager 2.
National Center for State Courts, CourTools: Trial Court Performance Measures; National
Center for State Courts; 2005.
National Center for State Courts, How the Public Views the State Courts; National Center for
State Courts; 1999.
National Center for State Courts Website, www.ncsconline.org/ WC/ Publications/
KIS_CasManCPTSPub.pdf.
Ostrom, Brian J.; Hanson, Roger; Kleiman, Matthew; Examining the Court Culture; 11
Caseload Highlights: Examining the Work of State Courts 2; May 2005.
Pound, Roscoe A.; The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice;
Address presented and reprinted from 29 ABA Reports; page 39; 1906.
Sipes, Larry L.; Carlson, Alan M.; Tan, Teresa; Aikman, Alexander B.; Page, Robert W.;
Managing to Reduce Delay; National Center for State Courts; 1980.
Solomon, Maureen and Somerlot, Douglas; Caseflow Management in the Trial Court: Now
and for the Future; American Bar Association, Chicago, IL; 1987.
Somerlot, Douglas and Solomon, Maureen; Defeating Delay: Developing and Implementing a
Court Delay Reduction Program; American Judicature Society; Chicago, IL; 1986.
Steelman, David C.; Goerdt, John A.; McMillan, James E.; Caseflow Management: The Heart
of Court Management in the New Millennium; National Center for State Courts; 2000.
85