THE MASS CASE COORDINATOR PROJECT WAS CREATED TO ESTABLISH JUDICIAL COURT COMMISSIONER, COURT REPORTER, AND DEPUTY CLERK. THE ROLE OF THE COURT COMMISSIONER, REFERRED TO AS THE MASS CASE COORDINATOR (MCC), IS TO PRESIDE AT PRETRIAL COURT CONFERENCES AND TO ATTEMPT TO MEDIATE PLEA AGREEMENTS IN CONTESTED MISDEMEANOR AND TRAFFIC CASES. THE OTHER TWO POSITIONS REPRESENT THE NECESSARY SUPPORT STAFF FOR THE MCC. THERE ARE THREE POSSIBLE RESULTS OF THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. THE FIRST INVOLVES PLEA AGREEMENT. THE SECOND IS THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE. THE THIRD IS THE TRANSFER OF THE CASE TO A JUDGE FOR A JURY TRIAL. THE PRESENT LAW DOES NOT EXPLICITLY ALLOW A COURT COMMISSIONER TO DISMISS CASES OR IMPOSE FORFEITURES IN CASES OTHER THAN TRAFFIC. USING DAILY COURT DATA, THE RESULTS OF 1,010 CASES WERE COMPILED. IT WAS FOUND THAT 42 PERCENT OF THE SCHEDULED CASES WERE SETTLED BY A PLEA AGREEMENT AT THE PRETRIAL HEARING AND 22 PERCENT WERE TRANSFERRED BACK TO THE ASSIGNED JUDGE FOR TRIAL. THE DATA INDICATE THAT 48 PERCENT OF THE CASES SCHEDULED FOR TRIAL AND 69 PERCENT OF THE CASES ACTUALLY PRETRIED WERE ESSENTIALLY RESOLVED AT THE PRETRIAL. THESE CASE RESOLUTIONS SAVE THE COURT SYSTEM BOTH TIME AND MONEY. A DEFINITIVE STATEMENT REGARDING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE COURT COMMISSIONER AND STAFF CANNOT BE MADE DUE TO THE LACK OF COMPARATIVE DATA. EVEN THOUGH IT IS LIKELY THAT EFFICIENCY IN HANDLING CONTESTED MISDEMEANOR AND TRAFFIC CASES HAS BEEN INCREASED THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PROJECT, THERE ARE STILL QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED. FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS UNCLEAR WHAT EFFECT THIS PROJECT IS HAVING ON THE NUMBER OF TRIAL DEMANDS. THE EVALUATION OF THIS PROJECT IS STILL IN PROGRESS. ADDITIONAL AREAS TO BE ADDRESSED WILL BE CASE PROCESSING TIME, THE NUMBER OF CASES PROCESSED, AND THE EFFECT OF THE PROJECT ON THE MISDEMEANOR AND TRAFFIC CASE BACKLOG. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--MLC)