The social anthropological method of gathering data was employed in this research effort. For 1 year, the author explored the organizational and managerial dynamics of a State court, observing human behavior, implementing nondirective interviewing, and studying social organization. In gathering information, observation was not limited to those individuals in the immediate State court setting; people were also contacted in areas such as the prosecutor's office, the public defender's office, and the regional office of LEAA. Following the systems workflow framework, the information collected was then applied to interpretation of the court's activities. Identified constraints within which the court must operate include the contribution of other spheres of the system to overall caseflow and the lack of sensitivity of one agency regarding interaction with others. Further contributing to disjointed court administrative behavior are the techniques used by the courts in gathering case information. In the State studied, for example, it was discovered that each court keeps its own separate case information, limited in scope and designed with little concern for how it might prove of use in assessing the processing of cases. Organizational controls appear to be similarly ineffective. 'Speedy trial' controls appear to encourage activities such as more plea bargaining, more case dismissals, and fewer trials. If court administrators are to facilitate improved administration of the courts, they require ongoning support from judges, particularly administrative judges. This suppport must be based on judicial interest, involvement, and appreciation of administrative matters. In addition, the whole technical question of how courts and agencies interact in caseflow management should be examined in detail. Footnotes and about 180 references are included.