U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Attacking Problems of Delay in Urban Trial Courts: A Progress Report

NCJ Number
106621
Journal
State Court Journal Volume: 11 Issue: 3 Dated: (Summer 1987) Pages: 4-10
Author(s)
B Mahoney
Date Published
1987
Length
7 pages
Annotation
This study collected data on case processing times from the records of 500 criminal and 500 civil cases terminated in 18 different trial courts from 1983 to 1985 through questionnaires, interviews, observation, and document review.
Abstract
Courts selected has been the subject of a prior empirical study of case processing times, had undertaken a significant delay reduction efforts within the past decade, or were part of a statewide delay-reduction program. Civil courts were measured by tort disposition time, trial list disposition time, time to jury verdict, and general civil docket disposition time. Felony case processing time was measured by total disposition time, upper court disposition time, and upper court time in jury cases. Data analysis revealed that trial court delay was found to be not inevitable because it can be reduced; the pace of civil and criminal litigation is not clearly correlated with the size of the court, population of jurisdication, composition of caseload, per judge caseloads, or percentages of cases that proceed to jury trial; and size and workload are irrelevant. Findings show that the fastest courts have periodic monitoring and early setting of schedules. Criminal courts with speedy felony case processing time have cooperation between court and prosecutor's office in developing efficient procedures: rapid postarrest screening, rapid filing of charges in the upper court, early assignment of counsel to indigent defendants, early disclosure of prosecution's evidence, and strong management of the case by the upper court. Additional findings are discussed. 3 notes, 4 tables, and 1 illustration.