Category: News And Announcements

The Court Statistics Project (CSP), a joint project between the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC),  has published the 2019 edition of State Court Caseload Digest, which uses 2017 data to update caseload totals.

National, civil, domestic relations, criminal, juvenile, traffic, and appellate caseloads are covered.  On the national level, after years of increasing caseloads reported by state trial courts in the previous decade, the most recent 10-year period shows a slow but steady decline since 2008. Total trial court caseloads in 2017 were roughly the same as those reported in 1993.

The SJI Board of Directors met on June 24, 2019 to make decisions on quarterly grant applications and awarded a total of 12 new grants.

A Project Grant was awarded to the District of Columbia Courts to develop a language access program, including the first nationwide Amharic Court Interpreter Certification Exam to better serve litigants from the Washington, D.C. metro region’s Ethiopian population.

Seven (7) Technical Assistance Grants were awarded: the Nebraska Administrative Office of the Courts for an assessment of self-represented litigants; the Massachusetts Administrative Office of the Trial Court for a plain language and simplified court procedures project; the 7^th Judicial Circuit of Maryland for a strategic planning initiative; the 2^nd Judicial Circuit of Arkansas for a calendar/caseflow improvement project; the Connecticut Judicial Branch for an electronic records management initiative; the Deschutes County, Oregon, Circuit Court for a Central Oregon Regional Guardianship Summit; and the 41B District Court in Michigan for a strategic planning project.

Four (4) Curriculum Adaptation and Training (CAT) Grants were awarded: The National Judicial College (NJC) for judicial webcasts; the New York Unified Court System for a faculty development workshop on creating and presenting webinars; the National Association of Women Judges (NAWJ) on opioids education; and the Hawaii Administrative Office of the Courts for Institute for Court Management (ICM) training.

The National Judicial College (NJC) and the Justice Speakers Institute, LLC (JSI) are pleased to announce the release of a new online publication, Science Bench Book for Judges, funded by the State Justice Institute (SJI).

Judges don’t need to become scientists to make appropriate evidentiary decisions about scientific evidence.  However, judges do need to have a comprehensive understanding of their role in admitting scientific evidence.  Everything a judge needs to know in deciding the admissibility of scientific evidence is contained in this new online publication.

Available exclusively and at no charge as a digital download, the bench book includes sections on:

• The Judicial Gatekeeper Function
  by Hon. Samuel A. Thumma, Chief Judge, Division One, Court of Appeals, AZ
• Cyber and Digital Evidence
  by Hon. Bridget Mary McCormack, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Michigan
• DNA Evidence
  by Hon. Ming Chin, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California
• The Use of Science in Juvenile Court
  by Hon. Cindy Lederman (Ret.) Judge, Dependency Court Dade County, FL
• Plus dozens more topicsto help judges anticipate and prepare to rule on admission of new areas of scientific evidence.

The bench book also provides sample orders for criminal discovery and a state-by-state Frye/Daubert analysis.  Download the entire Bench Book, or just the sections that you need.

With support from the State Justice Institute, the 22^nd Judicial Circuit Court of McHenry County, Illinois undertook an ambitious plan to implement all 13 of the CCJ civil justice recommendations.

The Court’s Civil Justice Initiative Project (CJIP) began with a landscape assessment of its civil caseload and identifying strengths and weaknesses in civil case processing.  Using a specially appointed civil case manager, the Court developed civil case pathways for each of the civil calendars.  Court administration also developed technology tools to improve communication with lawyers and litigants, and enhanced case management reports to better inform judges about the status of the pending caseloads.  Although too little time has elapsed since CJIP was fully implemented to gauge its long term impact, initial analyses indicate increased attorney awareness of case movement and deadlines; increased judicial and court staff attention to administrative orders and case reports; increased dialogue and buy-in around active case management; and significantly reduced time to disposition for the pending caseload.

The project also highlights the importance of judicial leadership and effective communication strategies to ensure stakeholder awareness, understanding, and support for reform efforts.  More about McHenry County, and the other demonstration project sites selected, can be found on the National Center for State Court’s Civil Justice Initiative page.

The Rural Responses to the Opioid Epidemic Grant is designed to leverage the combined resources and expertise of the BJA, CDC, SJI, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and other federal partners to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with opioid overdoses among individuals who come in contact with law enforcement or are involved in the criminal justice system in high-risk rural communities and regions.

Applications should demonstrate an understanding of the dynamic nature of substance abuse. All proposed activities supported by this solicitation must exclusively target populations residing in rural communities or rural census tracts in urban or suburban counties.

Learn more about the Rural Responses to the Opioid Epidemic Grant and application process during the upcoming webinar, scheduled for  June 26, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., ET.  Register here: http://s.iir.com/Rural_Responses.  Please submit questions in advance to COAP@iir.com no later than June 25, 2019.  Emails should include the name and agency of the submitter, his or her email address, and the question(s).

The solicitation can be found at http://s.iir.com/RRgrantform2019. Applications are due on July 26, 2019.

The NCJFCJ’s National Resource Center on Military-Connected Families and the Courts is designed to be a resource for judicial officers and others working in courts with military-connected families in cases involving family violence, protection orders, divorce, child custody, child support, child abuse and neglect, and juvenile delinquency.

The NCJFCJ received funding for a grant from the State Justice Institute (SJI) to address issues for Military-Connected Families and the Courts through December 2019, and is expecting support and involvement from the U.S. Department of Defense’s Office on Military Community and Family Policy.

The primary focus for the resource center is on active duty military members and their families with cases in the juvenile and family court system.  The state courts can also find a variety of points of services and information including:

1. Register for upcoming trainings featuring military families
   View a list of upcoming NCJFCJ trainings featuring military families and many other topics.
2. Request technical assistance
   Get answers to the question you have about how the courts are dealing with military families. If you would like to submit a technical assistance request, please email contactus@ncjfcj.org.
3. Browse publications
   The NCJFCJ has an extensive library of mental health-related and veteran treatment court publications, guides, and summaries.

Resources regarding military veterans, National Guard, and Reserve members are not the focus of the center at this time, but may be included in the future.  Click here to visit the Resource Center.

Participants from the nation’s state courts attended a Summit on Pandemic Preparedness at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) May 22 – 24, 2019.  The summit, hosted by Nebraska Chief Justice Michael Heavican, brought together chief justices and other court leaders, health officials, and members of the legislative and executive branches to discuss ways to address a pandemic outbreak.

Topics for the summit included legal issues that can emerge from a pandemic, such as quarantines.  Small discussion groups were led through exercises designed to explore the problematic aspects of isolation and quarantine law, following presentations by the Center for Disease Control, medical researchers, and legal experts.  Tours of the Nebraska Biocontainment Unit, National Quarantine Center, iExcel VizHub, and the Chihuly Sanctuary were included.

The goal of the summit is to ensure that all government agencies work together to effectively meet the needs of the public during a public health crisis.  The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) is provided technical assistance, including experts in the field and the State Justice Institute (SJI) awarded grant funding for this critical summit.

• Read/Listen to NPR interview with Judge Leigh Ann Retelsdorf:  If a pandemic hits, Nebraska’s courts plan to protect legal system.
• Read the Omaha World Herald: Doc quarantined in Omaha after Ebola exposure on experience, need to care for people facing disease.
• Read Chief Justice Heavican’s remarks: Opening Remarks for the National Summit Omaha.
• Read Court Order in Kaci Hickox case (Maine nurse who challenged Ebola quarantine): Order of Charles LaVerdiere, Former Chief Judge of the Maine District Court: Maine HHS vs. Kaci Hickox.

In November 2016, the Circuit Civil Division of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of Florida implemented the Civil Justice Initiative Pilot Project (CJIPP) to test the impact of Civil Case Management Teams (CCMTs) on civil case processing.   CCMTs were envisioned as an essential component of civil justice reform in the report and recommendations of the CCJ Civil Justice Improvements Committee.  With SJI support, the CJIPP created four CCMTs, each consisting of a judge, a case manager, a judicial assistant, and a bailiff.  The CCMTs developed a standardized case management process to streamline administrative tasks, triage cases into appropriate case management pathways, and monitor case progress.  The remaining 21 judges in the Circuit Civil Division continued to manage civil caseloads under traditional case processing practices and staffing assignments, providing a baseline for comparison.

To assess the impact of CJIPP, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) conducted an outcome evaluation that compared the outcomes of cases assigned to the CJIPP teams with those assigned to the non-CJIPP judges (baseline).  The NCSC found that CJIPP cases closed at a significantly higher rate, and approximately five months earlier on average than baseline cases.  Shortly after the initial launch of the pilot program, the CJIPP cases experienced a temporary increase in the number of court hearings and case management conferences as lawyers in the CJIPP cases requested modifications to case management orders, including continuances or extensions of time to complete litigation tasks; however, the frequency of these case events returned to normal levels within three months.  In addition to shorter timeframes and increased case activity, the CJIPP cases also showed a smaller ratio between the number of motions filed and the number of orders entered, suggesting that CJIPP judges were more responsive than baseline judges in deciding motions in a timely manner, thus preventing unnecessary costs and delay for litigants.

The NCSC evaluation also conducted focus groups and surveyed attorneys in CJIPP cases to solicit their perceptions about the pilot program.  Attorneys were positive overall about the case management practices introduced through CJIPP, with more than half of attorneys surveyed reporting that CJIPP judges set clear expectations and enforced case deadlines.  During focus groups, several attorneys also commented that the CJIPP judges’ level of oversight and willingness to enforce case management orders tended to reward competence and professionalism and to discourage unnecessary gamesmanship in litigation.   CJIPP judges also reported that the CCMT model removed some of the administrative burden associated with civil case management, giving them more time to review case details before hearings or deciding motions.  CJIPP judges also noted that attorneys seemed to respond positively to the greater attention from judges, moving their cases sooner than usual.

The NCSC evaluation report also describes challenges that the Court experienced during the CJIPP implementation as well as suggestions for other courts planning to implement CCMTs.

The Massachusetts Trial Court is looking for leaders willing to “commit to a longer-term partnership” between the courts and the community.  In Nebraska, the state Supreme Court wants to better recognize the needs of Native Americans.  The Franklin (Ohio) Municipal Court is learning how under-served populations perceive specialized dockets and its Self-Help Resource Center.

Those are three of the six court systems participating in NCSC’s Public Engagement Pilot Project, which aims to identify proven ways to build trust and confidence in the courts.  Each pilot court is working on a different aspect of court services in connection to public engagement.  After the project ends, toolkits will be available for courts nationwide.

Chief Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals Anna Blackburne-Rigsby chairs the Community Engagement in the State Courts Initiative, which oversees the pilot project. At the first meeting of the pilot site teams earlier this year, Chief Judge Blackburne-Rigsby said courts have been working for decades to improve public trust and confidence in the courts, but little progress has been made.  She said the primary method courts have used is outreach to communities. Representatives from state teams and project researchers are pictured at top of the page.

“Outreach is one-way communication,” she said. “Engagement is different.  It involves listening. It’s a two-way.  We are going to come up with strategies, outcomes, toolkits, and data.  This project is going to make a difference.”

The other three pilot sites include:

• Kansas City (Mo.) Municipal Court, which is integrating court user surveys into its public engagement process;
• Puerto Rico Judicial Branch, which is focusing on helping communities address neighborhood conflict; and
• Texas Office of Court Administration, which is building on results from its prior “Beyond the Bench” effort.

The Public Engagement Pilot Project is building on information gathered and analyzed from a three-city listening tour in which judges met with community members to hear about their experiences with – and their impressions of – the courts. The sessions, broadcast on PBS titled “Courting Justice,” were held in Los Angeles, Cleveland and Little Rock, Ark.  After the listening tours, surveys were sent to court and civic leaders to hone in on specific areas of concern that courts need to address.  Each of the pilot sites is engaging the public to address such needs collaboratively.  Tune into this month’s podcast with Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Judith Nakamura addressed a joint session of the New Mexico Legislature earlier this year to outline plans for improving and streamlining New Mexico Courts  operations to better serve New Mexicans.  A core component moving forward will be an SJI grant-funded evaluation by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) of appellate court processes.

The first-ever evaluation is already underway and seeks to help the judiciary and court administration identify issues that need to be addressed.  It will work in tandem with a workload study, also to be performed by the NCSC of the district, metropolitan, and magistrate courts.

Plans for improving court operations are part of a campaign called “Advancing Judicial Excellence” that originated last spring at a meeting of chief judges, court executive officers and representatives of magistrate and municipal courts.

“This initiative, which will provide the framework for the judiciary’s strategic planning and budgets for the next three years is rooted in two simple questions,” the Chief Justice told lawmakers. “Are we doing our best work? And how can we do better?”