Category: News

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has released its annual State of the State Courts survey results.  The survey results yielded valuable information on public trust, procedural fairness, and other critical areas.  This year’s survey results showed an increase  in the public’s trust in the courts, with four in five people having direct interaction with the court system expressing satisfaction in procedural fairness.

The survey was conducted among 1,000 respondents by telephone between November 14 – 17, 2016.  Survey findings are considered accurate 19 times out of 20.

Key findings of the survey include:

• There are signs of positive momentum in public trust — but innovation and technology concerns persist;
• A glaring lack of understanding about court funding is reflective of misperceptions about government spending generally;
• If courts lead on fines and fees reform, the public will follow;
• The public believes that the ethnicity of a judge may impact fairness.

For more detail on the survey findings, read this six-page summary from the pollster, or download the presentation slides.

The NCSC also surveyed public opinion in previous years, and has archived the 2015 and 2014 survey results.

 

The Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators Joint Committee on Elders and the Courts has approved the Strategic Action Plan – 2016 for the Adult Guardianship Initiative.

With support from SJI and the Retirement Research Foundation (RRF), the Center for Elders and the Courts is addressing guardianship and conservatorship issues in the state courts through the initiative.

The plan comprises a multi-year response that targets four key goals including:

• Develop and maintain a partnership of key stakeholders;
• Prioritize the protection and enhancement of individual rights;
• Promote modernization and transparency in the guardianship process; and,
• Enhance guardianship/conservatorship court processes and oversight.

A recent survey by the NCSC shows an estimated $50 billion in assets are currently under state courts’ watch in conservatorship cases across the country.  This number is based on projections from data from a handful of states.  Some 176,000 new conservatorship or guardianship cases were filed in state courts nationally in 2015, and there were an estimated 1.3 million open cases.  These statistics provide valuable insight to a growing national problem and how courts recognize and deal with the financial exploitation of people under a conservatorship.

 

With support from SJI and in partnership with the National Juvenile Defender Center, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), a new juvenile delinquency information card is now available that highlights the key elements of ensuring meaningful access to counsel for juveniles at initial appointment.

The card, titled “Honoring Gault: Ensuring Access to Counsel in Delinquency Proceedings,” is named after the 1964 case against Gerald Francis Gault, aged fifteen, who was sentenced to the state youth correctional facility until his twenty-first birthday for making an annoying phone call.  It was later determined by the U.S. Supreme Court that, no matter the age, the accused should receive meaningful access to counsel.

Included in the card are four key elements to ensuring meaningful access to counsel for juveniles, and ethical standards for consideration by the parties involved in the proceedings.

 

Courting Justice  follows a town hall format that invites state supreme, appellate, and trial court judges to step down from the bench and listen to new perspectives on how the state courts can better deliver justice for all.

Supported by SJI and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), airing on PBS and hosted by acclaimed journalist Tavis Smiley, Courting Justice is on a cross-country tour, engaging the public and judges in a conversation about the courts.

From litigants to public defenders, families of the incarcerated to prosecutors, multiple voices have shared their concerns and real-world solutions on how to rebuild the public trust in our judiciary.
The most recent episode was taped in Cleveland, Ohio, on December 8, 2016, and is now available online.  Panelists included: Ohio Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor; Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Ronald Adrine; Lakewood Judge Patrick Carroll; and, Former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Yvette McGee. Brown.

 

On December 10, 2016, the U.S. Senate confirmed Chief Justice John Minton from Kentucky to serve on the SJI Board of Directors.  Chief Justice Minton was nominated by the President on July 13, 2016.  He was elected to the Supreme Court of Kentucky in 2006, and reelected in 2014.  His fellow justices elected him as Chief Justice in 2008, 2012, and 2016.  Chief Justice Minton was in private practice for 15 years before serving as a Circuit Court Judge from 1992 to 2003, and a Kentucky Court of Appeals Judge from 2003 to 2006.  In 2016, He was elected by his fellow chief justices to serve as President of the Conference of Chief Justices and Chair of the National Center for State Courts Board of Directors.  He holds degrees from Western Kentucky University and the University of Kentucky College of Law.

In July 2016, the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) approved a resolution endorsing the Recommendations of its Civil Justice Improvements Committee. The Committee’s report, Call to Action: Achieving Justice for All, encourages the state courts to improve their civil justice systems by providing 13 recommendations.  Since then, the Call to Action and supporting materials have been accessed, downloaded, and reviewed thousands of times, garnering attention from all stakeholders, including state courts, academia, and the media.

The Civil Justice Initiative is supported by a partnership between the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), and Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) at the University of Denver.  With continued support from SJI, the NCSC and IAALS will promote the implementation of these recommendations in state courts across the nation.  This collaboration includes providing education, technical assistance, and practical tools to assist state and local courts in improving civil justice systems.

Expert technical assistance is available to state and local courts to implement the Recommendations of the CCJ Civil Justice Improvements Committee.  To be considered for this technical assistance, please download and complete the full CJI Implementation Request for Technical Assistance form, and email to Blake Kavanagh, at bkavanagh@ncsc.org.

An NCSC representative will contact you to discuss the request, including identification of appropriate experts and the scope of work anticipated.

 

Former SJI Board Chair Chief Justice Jim Hannah was posthumously inducted into the Warren E. Burger Society during the National Center for State Court’s (NCSC) Annual Recognition Luncheon on November 17, 2016.  Chief Justice Hannah, who passed away in January 2016 at the age of 71, had served as SJI Board Chair since 2010, and also served as President of the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and Chair of the NCSC Board of Directors.  Attendees included 18 members of his family, along with members from the SJI Board of Directors.  The ceremony was hosted by Kentucky Chief Justice John Minton, CCJ President and Chair of the NCSC Board of Directors.  The Burger Society honors individuals who have volunteered their time, talent, and support to the NCSC in exceptional ways.  It is named for the former Chief Justice of the United States who helped found the NCSC in 1971.

Other inductees included: Wallace Jefferson, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas and current Partner at Alexander, Dubose, Jefferson & Townsend in Austin, Texas; Donna Melby, Partner with Paul Hastings, LLP in Los Angeles; Edward Mullins, Jr, Partner with Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP in Columbia, South Carolina; and Myron T. Steele, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Delaware and current Partner with Potter, Anderson & Corroon, LLP.

 

With support from SJI, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and the Texas Office of Court Administration partnered to evaluate the impact of the Texas Expedited Actions Rules, which were enacted in 2013 to reduce expense and delay in civil litigation.  The rules are mandatory for almost all civil cases involving monetary damages of $100,000 or less (“expedited actions”), and damages awarded for expedited actions cannot exceed $100,000.

The evaluation compared characteristics and outcomes of civil cases filed both before and after the expedited actions rules were enacted.  It also surveyed attorneys about the expedited actions rules and the impact on civil case management.  Students from Baylor University School of Law interviewed judges and attorneys to provide a more nuanced context about how the rules impacted strategic decision-making and calendar management in individual cases.  Analysis of the case-level data indicated that the Expedited Actions Rules had a positive impact on civil case processing.  In contract cases, settlements increased at the expense of summary judgment and trial outcomes, while trial rates grew in tort cases, replacing summary judgments.  The new rules also decreased time to disposition for cases that settled.  Cases disposed by trial or summary judgment experienced some initial delays, presumably due to the relative complexity of those cases, but cases lasting longer than 9 to 12 months resolved more quickly under the new rules.  It has already been observed that the apparent impact of the new rules appears to be a function of routine communications about the new deadlines and restrictions by court administration, rather than conscious decisions by judges and attorneys to change case management practices, which tends to highlight the importance of including court administration in educational programs about civil justice reforms.

The full report is online and will be featured in upcoming editions of the NCSC’s @TheCenter publication, and a new civil justice newsletter that will launch soon.

 

The SJI Board of Directors has established Priority Investment Areas for FY 2017 grant funding.  SJI will allocate significant financial resources through grant-making for these Priority Investment Areas (in no ranking order):

• Self-Represented Litigation – Promoting court-based self-help centers, online services, and increasing use of court-based volunteer attorney programs.
• Language Access – Improving language access in the state courts through remote interpretation (outside the courtroom), interpreter certification, courtroom services (plain language forms, websites, etc.).
• Reengineering to Improve Court Services and Performance – Assisting courts with the process of reengineering, regionalization or centralization of services, structural changes, improving performance, and reducing cost to taxpayers while providing access to justice.
• Remote Technology – Supporting the innovative use of technology to improve the business operations of courts and enhanced services outside the courtroom. This includes videoconferencing, online access, educational services, and remote court proceedings.
• Human Trafficking and the State Courts – Through the Human Trafficking and the State Courts Collaborative, addressing the impact of federal and state human trafficking laws on the state courts, and the challenges faced by state courts in dealing with cases involving trafficking victims and their families.
• Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Elder Issues – Assisting courts in improving oversight of guardians/conservators to prevent fraud of the elderly and the incapacitated, to include establishing court visitor programs, electronic reporting and monitoring, and guardian training.
• Juvenile Justice – Innovative projects that have no other existing or potential funding sources (federal, state, or private) that will advance best practices in handling dependency and delinquency cases; promote effective court oversight of juveniles in the justice system; address the impact of trauma on juvenile behavior; assist the courts in identification of appropriate provision of services for juveniles; and address juvenile re-entry.
• Fines, Fees, and Bail Practices – Assisting courts in taking a leadership role in reviewing fines, fees, and bail practices to ensure processes are fair and access to justice is assured; implementing alternative forms of sanction; developing processes for indigency review; and transparency, governance, and structural reforms that promote access to justice, accountability, and oversight.  Projects that address this Priority Investment Area will inform the work of the Conference of Chief Justices/Conference of State Court Administrators (CCJ/COSCA) National Task Force on Fines, Fees, and Bail Practices

The Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA), released its 2015-2016 policy paper recommending specific policies and practices that courts can adopt to minimize the negative impact of legal financial obligations (LFOs) and end so-called “debtors’ prisons,” while ensuring accountability for individuals violating the law.

This paper examines the growth of debt imposed by legislative bodies through courts and the incarceration that results from failure to pay ,as well as significant collateral consequences incarceration brings to those unable to pay.  The paper discusses the issues created by reliance on funding courts through fine and fee revenue and the impact of using private for-profit entities to collect court-related LFOs.

“COSCA has long advocated against the practice of funding courts and other government activities through fees.  In this paper COSCA advocates for lawful, effective, and just policies toward those who are ordered to pay fines and fees,” said Arthur Pepin, the President of COSCA and Director of the New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts.  “The objective is compliance, whether through payment in money, performing community service, or creating alternative ways to satisfy the public policy behind the imposition of fines and fees.  Incarceration must remain as the ultimate sanction for those who are able to pay but willfully refuse to do so.”

Recommendations included in the paper focus on:

• strengthening the capacity of courts to assess the ability to pay through the use of automated tools or other existing means tests;
• adopting practices that reduce failures to appear, such as using phone call and text message reminders of pending court dates;
• expanding and improving access to alternatives to incarceration, such as community service;
• ensuring judges have the authority to impose alternatives for those unable to pay; and,
• ultimately, imposing jail time for an offender’s willful refusal to pay.

The press release for this paper notes that this is not the first time COSCA has addressed similar issues.  In 2012, COSCA issued a policy paper with the position that courts should not be treated as revenue centers. In that paper, COSCA outlined a series of principles, including:

1. Courts should be substantially funded from general governmental revenue sources, enabling them to fulfill their constitutional mandates.
2. Neither courts nor specific court functions should be expected to operate exclusively from proceeds produced by fees and miscellaneous charges.
3. Optional local fees or miscellaneous charges should not be established.

This new policy paper, and other COSCA papers are available online.