NCJ Number
85862
Date Published
1982
Length
251 pages
Annotation
Judges' general compliance with Ohio's Rules of Superintendence reduced case processing time, but the judges expressed concern about the quality of case dispositions and the neglect of the civil docket.
Abstract
Ohio's Rules of Superintendence fixed the responsibility for reducing case delay upon judges, delegating them certain powers to achieve that goal. As authority to reduce delay was decentralized, accountability for success or failure was centralized through the imposition of the individual calendar and the statistical reporting system. Further, the rules authorized and encouraged the adoption of new audio-video technologies to save time and personnel costs. Thus, the rules epitomize the 'technocratic solution' to court problems. Through a combination of qualitative and quantitative data, this study examined the history of the rules, their implementation, the reasons for resistance and acceptance among judges, and their effects upon case processing time and the quality of justice. The rules' impact upon relationships among legal actors was also explored. Although there was dissension among the judges about the rules, with many disagreeing with the premise that their courts suffered from delay and that individual calendars and statistical reports would remedy it, few judges actively opposed the rules' formulation or implementation. The judges also generally complied with the rules. The rules were successful in reducing case processing time, particularly when reinforced by the speedy trial statute; however, the judges expressed concern about a diminishment of work satisfaction and autonomy. They also believed that the rules had deleterious effects upon the quality of justice rendered. Because the rules focused upon criminal cases, there was also concern about neglect of the civil docket. Tabular data and the Rules of Superintendence are appended, and a bibliography of about 150 listings is provided.