Volume and Delay in the Indiana Court of Appeals - A Staff Study

• NCJ Number: 82114
• Author(s): J A Martin; E A Prescott
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 106 pages
• Grant Number(s): 79-DF-AX-0082; 78-DF-AX-0021
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice; Charles E Culpeper Foundation
• Corporate Author: National Ctr for State Courts
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: A publication of Appellate Justice Improvement Project

Annotation

Findings and recommendations are presented from an examination of case volume and delay in the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Abstract

Case backlog was a serious problem in the Indiana Court of Appeals during the period from which case record data were collected (cases filed in 1975-76). Cases often exceeded the court's maximum time limits for filing briefs, records, and transcripts. Apparently, attorneys and lower court clerks are often not preparing and promptly filing or monitoring the flow of necessary appeals case documents. Further, judges seem not to be consistently following established policies governing the granting of extensions for filing notices of appeal, records, and transcripts. Neither are trial court judges uniformly monitoring the performance of attorneys, court clerks, and reporters during the initial stages of the appellate process. Litigants must often wait a substantial time for their cases to be decided and opinions prepared by the court. The court's work habits apparently limit the number of cases which can be decided, and inconsistency between panels may contribute to a climate of uncertainty about when cases will be decided. Improvements could be derived from (1) developing mechanisms to grant the appellate court commissioner and law clerks authority to screen cases and prepare suggested memorandum opinions, (2) implementing procedures for assigning cases to individual judges according to their case backlog, (3) implementing a court rule that written opinions must be completed within 60 days after decision, (4) implementing procedures for case reassignment when judges are consistently behind in their cases, (5) developing 'fast track' alternative procedures, and (6) providing sanctions for judges who are consistently delinquent in completing assigned cases. Appended are considerations of a framework for examining delay in appellate court systems, case subject matter, type of attorney involved in appeal, time interval graphs, and correlates of case processing time. Tabular and graphic data are provided. (Author summary modified)