NCJ Number
132985
Journal
Judicature Volume: 75 Issue: 1 Dated: (June-July 1991) Pages: 41-44
Date Published
1991
Length
4 pages
Annotation
Chief Judge Eisle, in his vigorous opposition to court-annexed mandatory alternative dispute resolution programs in the Federal district courts and his effort to point out that the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ADR program does not provide a trial and fails to distinguish between the vastly dissimilar procedures in other jurisdictions.
Abstract
To answer Judge Eisle's question, there are many trial judges and many trial attorneys in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania who know from firsthand experience that the ADR program provides the litigants with a trial. It is not the traditional courtroom trial presided over by an Article III judge, but it is a fair trial in that the parties present their witnesses, opposing counsel cross-examine, and a panel of three, experienced attorneys make credibility determinations and apply the law applicable to the case. Supporters of court-annexed arbitration programs also wish to maintain the jury system for civil trials, and no one advocates the demise of the Article III trial judge. The constitutionality of court-annexed compulsory arbitration has been upheld.