THE OMNIBUS HEARING IS A MULTIPURPOSE REFORM MEASURE FIRST OUTLINED IN THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE. THE AUTHOR FINDS THAT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS THE RESULTS ACHIEVED WERE BOTH CONSISTENT WITH AND CONTRADICTORY TO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE REFORM. THE OMNIBUS HEARING ESTABLISHED BROAD DISCLOSURE OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE AND REDUCED RELIANCE ON FORMAL WRITTEN MOTIONS AND BRIEFS. THESE RESULTS WERE OBTAINED NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE INHERENT STRUCTURE OF THE REFORM, BUT ALSO BECAUSE OF THE AGGRESSIVE 'ADVOCACY' OF THE REFORM BY THE LOCAL TRIAL JUDGE. A SIMILAR OBSERVATION WAS MADE IN THE PRIOR STUDY, AND THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT JUDGES' COMMITMENT TO THE REFORM IS AN IMPORTANT DETERMINANT OF THE IMPACT OF THE OMNIBUS HEARING. HE ALSO PRESENTS DATA THAT SUGGEST THAT THE OMNIBUS HEARING IMPROVED THE QUALITY OF REPRESENTATION GIVEN DEFENDANTS IN CASES HANDLED BY INEXPERIENCED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. EXPERIENCED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WERE ABLE TO USE THE OMNIBUS HEARING TO REDUCE DELAY IN DISPOSITIONS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE OMNIBUS HEARING REFORM REQUIRED MORE COURT TIME TO PROCESS CASES AND, IN FACT, DELAYED THE DISPOSITION OF CASES HANDLED BY INEXPERIENCED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. THE AUTHOR ATTRIBUTES THE FIRST OF THESE OUTCOMES TO THE FACT THAT THE IN-COURT, ROUTINE MONITORING OF DISCLOSURE REQUIRED AN ADDITIONAL HEARING WITHOUT ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR OTHER HEARINGS. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT THE OMNIBUS REFORM SUBSTANTIALLY ACHIEVED ITS GOALS IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)