The article examines the question which the Supreme Court addressed in Ludwig v. Massachusetts; i.e., whether or not Massachusetts provides the easy access to the courts which the Constitution requires. The Court determined that the defendant must have easy access to a court where all constitutional rights are observed. Since West Virginia does not provide easy access to defendants in magistrate court, criminal defendants must be granted a right of removal to the circuit court in order to streamline proceedings. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals can create this right of removal by rule. Such a rule could define the right to remove, declare when it is exercisable, and describe the procedure by which the defendant is informed of this right. Procedural reforms to promote court efficiency include standardizing the setting of bail, permitting elimination of the bail-determining portion of the initial appearance and thereby simplifying the hearing. Also, simplifying the pretrial process might be achieved through changes in the rules governing joinder and the timing of prosecutions and by permitting defendants who seek discovery to obtain it by removing their cases to the circuit court. The single factor which most complicates procedures is the defendant's right to trial by jury. West Virginia could avoid these delays by standardizing the procedures for selecting a jury and for giving the jury instructions. Furthermore, the supreme court should simplify the controlling rules regarding hearsay and the application of the fourth amendment's exclusionary rule. Finally, the supreme court of appeals should speed the sentencing process by adopting a schedule of mandatory sentences for all misdemeanors tried in magistrate court. Footnotes with references are provided.