THE AUTHORS FIRST REVIEW CRITICISMS OF THE MISDEMEANOR COURTS AND THE REFORMS THAT HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED. IT IS NOTED THAT TEN YEARS AFTER A PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDED ABOLISHING THEM, MISDEMEANOR COURTS REMAIN AN IMPORTANT INSTITUTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN OUR SOCIETY. EVEN IN THE FEW STATES THAT HAVE ESTABLISHED A SINGLE-LEVEL TRIAL COURT SYSTEM, THE AUTHORS NOTE THAT SEPARATE CLASSES OF JUDGES HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED IN THE GENERAL TRIAL COURTS TO HANDLE MINOR MATTERS. IN ORDER TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE NATURE AND OPERATIONS OF THESE COURTS, A SURVEY OF MISDEMEANOR COURT JUDGES WAS UNDERTAKEN. THE SURVEY SHOWED THAT DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THEY ARE LOCATED, MISDEMEANOR COURTS EMPLOY DIFFERENT MEANS TO DISPOSE OF THEIR CASES AND THEY RECEIVE CASE PROCESSING PRESSURES FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES. FOR EXAMPLE, URBAN COURTS MOST OFTEN USED PLEA NEGOTIATIONS AND EXPERIENCED PROCESSING PRESSURES FROM JUDICIAL OFFICIALS, WHILE RURAL COURTS MOST OFTEN DISPOSED OF CASES THROUGH GUILTY PLEAS AT INITIAL APPEARANCES AND EXPERIENCED CASE PROCESSING PRESSURE FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT REFORMS OF MISDEMEANOR COURTS MUST TAKE THESE DIFFERENCES INTO ACCOUNT....DMC