1989-03-24 Comments of Star Tribune.pdf - Minnesota Judicial Branch

“Birmingham Criminal Division
Goes to lndivldual Calendar.” Court
News 3 (October 19831. The Bir-
mingham Criminal Division has
changed from a master to an indlvid- -
ual calendaring system that features
computerized judicial assignments
Under the new system, crfminal case
files are sent from the clerk’s office
to the court administrator for entry
into the computer system. The com-
puter then randomly assigns cases
to the judges. Case-setting informa-
tion is entered into the computer at
the earliest opportunity to resolve
attorney conflicts weeks before pre-
trial and trial. Firm time standards
have not been established. but Pre-
siding Judge Joe Jasper notes that
the new system will help limit the
filing-to-disposition time to 60-90
days.
FLORIDA
“Supreme Court Adopts Sentenc-
ing Guidelines Rule,” 7 Judf-
clal Fonrm 11 (September/October
19831. Proposed Supreme Court
Rule 3.70 1, “Sentencing Guide-
lines,” was adopted by the court
on September 7. 1983. following
changes in response to testimony
on the rule before the Sentencing
Guidelines Commission. The rule
implements the sentencing guide-
lines legislation enacted during the
1983 legislature and became effec-
tive October 1.1983.
“OSCA Prepares for Witness Co
ordination,” 7 Judlctal Forum 7
(September/October 1983). The
state of Rorida began witness fee
reimbursements to its counties on
January 1. 1984, from a S2-mfflion
appropriation by the legislature for
fiscal year 1983-84. The approprla-
tion resulted from an effort begun in
1982 to provide state assumption of
costs associated wit& the appear-
ance of witnesses at trial. Counties
seeking reimbursement for witness
fee expenditures must provide
matching funds or must commit
other resources to the establish-
ment ofwitness coordination offices
(WCOsl. These offices must perform
four services before counties can
34
Digest
obtain reimbursement: (1) coor-
dinate court appearances for all
witnesses subpoenaed in criminal
cases, (2) contact witnesses and
place them on on-call status. (3)
advlse witnesses. when necessary.
not to-report to court 14) confirm
with witness’s employer that the
employee has been subpoenaed to
appear in court For further infor-
mation on these developments in
Florida. call or write Robert Wesley
at the OffIce of the State Courts
Administrator. (904) 488-8621.
L/ IOWA
“Four Years of Cameras in the
Courtrooms,” 3 lowa’s Third Bmnch
4 (November 19831. In January 1980.
the Iowa Supreme Court began an
experiment with camera coverage of
trial procedures. This move followed
a two-year study by the court’s advisory
committee. Four years and
190 trials later, no serious problems
have resulted from expanded media
coverage. Exit polls of jurors in six
civil and nineteen criminal trials
held in the initial two-year l ‘trfaT’
period indicated that media coverage
had little effect on trial participants.
Of the jurors questioned. 96
percent believed that camera coverage
did not affect judges: 87.6 percent,
that coverage did not affect
witnesses: and 83.7 percent that
expanded coverage did not jeopardize
a fair trial.
NEWJERSEY
“Judicial Performance Pilot Be-
gins,” 3 Courhoorks 4 (Fall 19831.
Associate Justice Alan B. Handler.
chairman of the Supreme Court’s
Committee on Judicial Performance.
has announced pilot testing of a
judicial performance questionnaire
program. Questionnaires will be dis-
tributed to attorneys appearing in
major proceedings in the civil and
criminal courts in Monmouth Coun-
ty, in the civil courts of Middlesex
County, and in the courts of a county
to be named. Other questionnaires
will be distributed to members of
the Supreme Court and the Appel-
late Division to obtain performance
information based on appellate re-
view of trial court cases. ACIXSS t
questionnatre data will be limited t
the Committee on Judicial Perfol
mance and to individual judge
under review for their personal ir
formation. The questionnaires focu
on judges’ comportment manage
ment sk.ilJs. and legal ability. Th
pilot program is one of the fin
undertaken at a state level.
PENNSYLVANLA
“Delaware County-A Leader i
Public Relations Efforts.” 6 Peru
syluanla Judlclay News 1 (Ju$
October 1983). The Legal Audi1
Visual Department in the Delawa
County Court of Common Pleas hi
made significant strides in ove ~
coming the gap in public unde
standing of the judicial system. lr
tially funded by LEAA the unit hi
completed ten years of service to tl
court The multi-track audio-recor
ing system has produced transcrip
for attorneys of taped prelimina
hearings from nine district justi
courts. More than 245 witness
were videotaped in 1982 for pla
back in court The department c’
veloped a sound/slide program f
groups touring prison facilities.
The department has provided PI ~
grams in juvenile court that dema
strate effective operation of You
Aid Panels to community leaders I
juror orientation sound/slide PI
gram has been developed to hc
jurors understand courtroom p:
cedure. Two sound/slide prognu
on Delaware County’s criminal jl
tice system and a presentation
the prison system have been p ~
duced for high school senio
Several schools have used the p
sentations in their criminal just
or social studies classes. The Aud
Visual Department works in co4
eration with the Court-Commur
Relations Office. which was est
lished in 1975.
!
~
VlRGINLA
“Automation Marches On.’
Court Commentaries 3 (Octal ~
1983). After months of developme ~
the Financial Management S)st
continued on page