NCJ Number
82496
Journal
American University Law Review Volume: 31 Issue: 2 Dated: (Winter 1982) Pages: 213-236
Date Published
1982
Length
24 pages
Annotation
This article briefly describes some of the research and demonstration projects that have been undertaken to shed light on the causes of State trial court delay and to identify and test remedial measures. The activities discussed involve justice system approaches and those specifically designed to reduce court backlog and delay.
Abstract
The first systematic analysis of a caseflow system was conducted in the District of Columbia during 1968-69 and was known as the Court Management Study. Its recommendations (i.e., court-established time standards, calendar control, performance evaluation) formed the basis for a delay reduction program that included organizational, policy, management, and procedural change. In 1976, LEAA formally launched its national Court Delay Reduction Program. This program involved two basic research projects: (1) a study conducted jointly by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and the National Conference of Metropolitan Courts that focused on the collection and analysis of case processing data from 21 metropolitan trial courts and (2) a Whittier Justice Institute study designed to document the criminal case processing system in the Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland, Oreg. NCSC researchers could identify no clear-cut solution to the delay problem. The only consistent factor present in the 'faster' jurisdictions and absent in the 'slower' jurisdictions was the exercise of strong court case management. The Whittier team developed delay reduction strategies that required a management information base at the trial court level. Both study teams agreed that delay in civil and criminal case processing is not inevitable, that consistent management control and attitude changes among actors in the case process can result in improved case processing times, that successful delay reduction programs are inhibited by the inability of existing court information systems to provide essential data, that a local control and review mechanism is necessary, and that a long-term preimplementation period for a delay reduction program is required. Future reform prospects are mentioned, and statutory and constitutional speedy trial requirements in criminal and civil cases are discussed. Footnotes are included.