Delivering Timely Justice In Criminal Cases - NCSC
Delivering Timely Justicein Criminal Cases:A National PictureBrian J. Ostrom, Ph.D.Lydia E. Hamblin, Ph.D.Richard Y. SchaufflerNational Center for State CourtsFunded by Arnold Ventureswww.ncsc.org
The Issue of Court Delay has Persisted for MillenniaJethro (circa 1350 BC), Priest of Midian and Father-in-Law of Moses:“Israel needed more judges because people could not find a judge to hear their case without long delay”Delivering Timely Justice in Criminal Cases:A National PictureThe complaint that justice delayed is justice denied has toooften described the experience of many who await a decisionfrom the courts. The Effective Criminal Case Management(ECCM) project was designed to investigate the extent to whichdelay exists in criminal cases, identify courts that consistentlydeliver timely justice, and document their solutions.ECCM collected data on over 1.2 million criminal cases from136 courts from 91 jurisdictions in 21 states, making ECCMthe largest national study of criminal cases ever undertaken.ECCM identified key factors driving the success of timelycourts while dispelling much of the conventional wisdomabout court delay.21 States Contributed ECCM DataAKWAMNOR UTIA WICACOARTX 5,000,000Felonies 2,400 Per Hour 13,000,000Misdemeanors 6,000 Per Hour2EFFECTIVE CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENTMAVAKYFLThe ECCM data provides the first reliable national estimateof criminal cases resolved annually in the state courts andthe extent of delay in criminal case processing. 18,000,000ECCM FindingsNYPAMO ILAZCases Resolved Per YearState courts dispose approximately 18 million felonyand misdemeanor cases annually with an averagetime to disposition of 256 days for felony casesand 193 days for misdemeanor cases.MIWhat is a Case?A case is defined as a singledefendant and all chargesarising from a single incident.For cases involving multiplecharges against a singledefendant, the data wascondensed to produce asingle record based on themost serious charge atfiling and disposition.
Felony Case Composition 5,000,000 CasesHomicide1%50,000Person22%1,165,000A Detailed Look at Felony CasesProperty35%1,590,000Drugs27%1,390,000While ECCM investigated delay in all criminal cases, the focushere is on the most serious criminal cases—felony cases.To provide a frame of reference for individual courts,ECCM created a profile of the national caseload detailingthe types of felony cases handled in state courts andhow they are resolved.Weapons4%220,000DUI/DWI2%110,000Legal Process5%270,000Other Felony4%200,0000%10%What Are the Felony Case Type Categories? 5,000,000 CasesHomicide murder, manslaughterDrugs manufacture, sale, useWeapons illegal possessionDUI driving while intoxicatedLegal Process bail, protection order violationOther Felony reckless driving, disorderly conductJury Trial2%125,000Bench Trial3%275,170Guilty d18%888,556Of the 5 million felony cases disposed, 92% areby guilty plea or dismissal.ECCM Findings40%Felony Manner of DispositionFelony Case Type ExamplesProperty Offense burglary, larceny30%Percentage of CasesFelony cases are crimes typically punishable by a yearor more in jail or prison:Person Offense assault, 0%70%80%Percentage of CasesDELIVERING TIMELY JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL CASES: A NATIONAL PICTURE3
The Issue of Court Delay has Persisted for MillenniaHabakkuk (circa 612 BC), Biblical Prophet in the Hebrew Bible:“The law is slackened and judgment doth never go forth”How Long Does It Take to Resolve a Felony Case?The final piece of the national picture is a measure of how longcases take to be resolved and a comparison of that result to thecurrent national time standards endorsed by the state courts.Overall time is measured as the number of days from the dateof filing to the date of disposition. Time standards set areasonable expectation for timely case processing and providea benchmark for assessing court performance. The NationalModel Time Standards (NCSC, 2011) for felony cases suggest75% should be resolved in 90 days, 90% resolved in 180 days,and 98% resolved in 365 days.Even the 365-day time standard is difficult to achieve.On average, ECCM courts resolve 83% of felonycases within 365 days.ECCM FindingsPercentage of Felony Cases Disposed Within Time StandardsModel Time StandardsECCM Project ResultsWhat is Delay?100%Median 153 DaysMean 256 Days80%98%90%83%75%60%57%40%20%0%30%90180Number of Days4EFFECTIVE CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT365Delay is any elapsed time beyondthat necessary to effectively prepareand efficiently resolve a criminal case.The role of time standards is toidentify the goals for timely caseprocessing. Therefore, delay refersto cases resolved outside the timestandards, with this set of casesmaking up a court’s backlog.
Time Standards: Percentage of Felony Cases Resolved at 90, 180, 365 and 730 DaysMore Timely15 Courts100%Midrange40 Courts90-100%80-90%80%All Courts Do the SameWork. Some Are FasterThan Others.The percentage of felony casesresolved within 365 days wascalculated for all ECCM courts.While there is wide variationacross courts as to timeliness,ECCM discovered that the77 courts could be readilysorted into three groups basedon case processing time.Percentage of Felony CasesResolved Within 365 Daysby Court Time GroupMore Timely 90% or moreMidrange 80% to 90%Less Timely 80% or lessLess Timely22 OverallTotalAverage730 90180365OverallTotalAverage730 90180365730Number of DaysTotal Time to Disposition for Felony CasesCourtTime 56153More Timely3,555213118Midrange4,339243150Less Timely3,461313192Percentage of Felony Cases Resolved in90, 180, 365 and 730 Days30%57%83%91%95%97% 96%85%92%75%70%58%No court fully meets the Model Time Standards.Some courts are close at the 365-day mark, but allcourts fall short of the 90-day and 180-day goals.ECCM Findings45%38%30%22%90180365730Number of DaysDELIVERING TIMELY JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL CASES: A NATIONAL PICTURE5
The Issue of Court Delay has Persisted for MillenniaJohann Wolfgang Von Goethe (1749-1832), Writer and Statesman, Germany:“It was not unusual for a case to remain on the docket for more than 100 years”Felony Case Composition by Court Time GroupMore TimelyMidrangeFelony Manner of Disposition by Court Time GroupLess TimelyMidrangeMore TimelyHomicideLess TimelyJury TrialPersonBench TrialPropertyGuilty PleaDrugsDiversion/DeferredWeaponsDismissedLegal ProcessOther/UnknownOther Felony0%10%20%30%40%Percentage of Cases0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%Percentage of CasesWhat Accounts for Differences in Timeliness?ECCM sought to discover whether these three groups differedalong some observable dimension—whether timeliness is theresult of differences in the number of types of cases beingadjudicated or the way cases were resolved. In fact, casecomposition and manner of disposition is very similar among thethree groups. The source of timeliness is not to be found here.6EFFECTIVE CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENTThere is no significant difference across the threegroups of courts in composition of felony caseloadsor manner in which cases are resolved.ECCM Findings80%
Percentage of Felony Cases Disposed Within 365 DaysMore TimelyMidrangeLess TimelyLonger bar higher percentage of cases are being resolved within 365 days.All FeloniesHomicideFaster Courts are Faster Across All Case Typesand Manners of DispositionLooking at the percent of different types of felony casesresolved within 365 days across the three groups of courtsshows that faster courts are most timely for all types of felonycases and the slower courts are least timely for all case types.PersonPropertyDrugsWeaponsLegal ProcessOther Felony0%Likewise, a similar pattern emerges for the manner ofdisposition. Time to disposition is lowest for the fastercourts and highest for the slowest courts across allmanners of disposition (e.g., plea, trial, dismissal).20%40%60%80%100%Percentage of CasesFelony Manner of Disposition by Median DaysMore TimelyMidrangeLess TimelyShorter bar fewer days are taken to reach that particular type of disposition.Jury TrialBench TrialDespite broad similarity across all courts in caseloadcomposition and the way felony cases are resolved,some courts resolve the same caseload withintighter timeframes than other courts.ECCM FindingsGuilty 0300400500Median Number of DaysDELIVERING TIMELY JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL CASES: A NATIONAL PICTURE7
The Issue of Court Delay has Persisted for MillenniaWilliam E. Gladstone (1808-1898), Former Prime Minister, United Kingdom:“Justice delayed is justice denied”Do Court Size, Structure and Organization Explain Timeliness?ECCM next looked at a wide range of court-level factors believed toinfluence outcomes. Considerable variation exists among state courts insize of court (e.g., number of judges; cases per judge; size of populationserved), court structure (e.g., single-tiered v. two-tiered; felony jurisdiction)and organizational features (e.g., type or calendar; method of judicialselection). The goal was to analyze whether differences in the timelinessof case processing are tied to any of these diverse factors. In the end,none of the factors related to court size or organization had any significanteffect, including many commonly thought to influence the ability ofa court to achieve timely case outcomes.Court structure(based on fourdifferent types)Calendaring(master, individual,or hybrid)Differences in court structure play a small but surprising role inoverall average timeliness, with single-tiered courts being least timelyand two-tiered court with direct felony filing in the upper court andall misdemeanors resolved in the lower court being most timely.However, the independent effect of court structure disappearswhen factors related to case management are considered.Length of ajudge’s termThere is no correlation between timeliness of criminalcase processing and the size or organizationalcharacteristics of the court, including size of court,method of judicial selection, type of calendar, filingsper judge, length of presiding judge term, or theavailability of case management reports.ECCM Findings8EFFECTIVE CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENTJurisdiction(whether andhow shared by alower court andupper court)The availabilityand sharingof caseflowmanagementreportsSize of court(number of judges,number of cases,cases per judge,size of populationserved)Methodof judicialselection(elected,appointed)Method ofselection ofClerk of Court(appointed,elected, or courtemployee)Method ofselection ofpresiding judge(appointed,elected)
What Does Explain Differences in Timeliness?ECCM’s investigation moved next to examine differencesin detailed case-level data. The data capture differencesin caseflow management practices among these courts,and it is here that the sources of on-time case processingcan be found.To evaluate these differences, ECCM data was used tocreate a model that determined the impact of variousindividual case elements on time to disposition.The following factors were included:Elements in the ModelTypical CaseCase TypePerson CrimeAttorney TypePublic DefenderManner of DispositionGuilty PleaNumber of Charges1Number of Continuances 0Number of Hearings3Charge ReductionNoTo interpret the predictive model, a typical case is usedto compare the magnitude of days added or saved due todifferent factors in the model. For the felony model, thetypical case was set up to be a person-related case resolvedby guilty plea with no charge reductions involving threehearings and zero continuances. The typical felony casewas found to take about 135 days.Results from the analysis show the effects of how, for example,variation in the type of case or manner of disposition willimpact case processing time. That is, as shown in the tablebelow, a typical homicide takes 110 days longer to resolvethan a typical person crime and a legal process case takes14 days fewer. Likewise, a typical trial takes 108 days longerthan a case resolved by a guilty plea, while a dismissal isresolved 23 days faster.Faster courts are faster because they maintaincontrol over scheduling and reduce the timea continuance or an additional hearing isallowed to add to the schedule.ECCM FindingsDELIVERING TIMELY JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL CASES: A NATIONAL PICTURE9
The Issue of Court Delay has Persisted for MillenniaWarren E. Burger (1907-1995), 15th Chief Justice, United States of America:“Inefficiency and delay will drain even a just judgment of its value”Predicted Days by Significant Case Characteristics,Felony CasesCase CharacteristicsCase TypePersonHomicidePropertyDrugsWeaponsLegal ProcessOther FelonyManner of DispositionGuilty PleaTrialDismissalOtherChargesEach ChargeCharge ReductionCase EventsEach ContinuanceEach Hearing Held10EFFECTIVE CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENTPredicted Changein Days to DispositionReference Group11011014-1418Reference Group108-23-360-42114Predicted Days per Additional Hearingand Continuance, Felony CasesTime GroupsAdditional DaysPredicted for AllFeloniesMoreTimelyMidrangeLessTimelyEach Continuance21121935Each Hearing1491518This analysis confirms some well-known facts (homicide casestake longer, trials take longer) and debunks others (cases withmultiple charges do not take longer). In addition, these factorshave a largely similar impact across the three groups of courts.While they are an important source of variation in caseprocessing time, these case characteristics do not explainwhy some courts are faster than others.The number of hearings and continuances were the mostinfluential factors in case duration: each continuance increasedcase duration by three weeks while each hearing increasedduration by two weeks. However, these effects variedsignificantly by court and were directly influenced by groupmembership. More Timely courts accrued a smaller averagenumber of days for each continuance and hearing whileLess Timely courts had steeper increases in time due to each.
Felony Case Processing Time per Additional Continuanceby Court Time GroupMore TimelyMidrangeLess Timely600The primary drivers of case processing time are thenumber of continuances per case and the numberof hearings per case in combination with theelapsed time between hearings.Days to Disposition500ECCM Findings4003333002222001871000For example, if the typical case (about 135 days to resolve withzero continuances) is adjusted to one with 5 continuances,it will not only take longer to resolve, the length of timewill vary significantly by group. In the More Timely group,this case will now take about 190 days, about 225 days in theMidrange group, and about 335 days in the Less Timely group.012345678910Additional ContinuancesFelony Case Processing Time per Additional Hearingby Court Time GroupMore TimelyLikewise, if the typical felony case is changed to one resolvedin 7 hearings, the estimated time to disposition rises toabout 170 days in the More Timely group, 200 days in theMidrange group, and 260 days in the Less Timely group.350MidrangeLess TimelyAverage Time to Dispositionwith 7 Hearings300Days to DispositionThis information helps clarify the source of lulls in caseprocessing and shows delay often occurs in smaller incrementsrather than in large blocks of time. While the average numberof days added by each additional hearing or continuance maybe relatively small, they can quickly compound.Average Time to Dispositionwith 5 itional HearingsDELIVERING TIMELY JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL CASES: A NATIONAL PICTURE11
National Center for State Courts300 Newport AvenueWilliamsburg, VA 23185-4147www.ncsc.orgMore Timely courts exhibit more effective caseflow managementpractices in controlling the average number of hearings held perdisposition and average number of continuances per disposition.ECCM data show the More Timely courts average more thanone fewer hearing and about one fewer continuance perdisposition than Less Timely courts.Delivering Timely Justice in Criminal Cases:A National Picture The factors that affect timelinessare determined by the court’spolicies and practices. Becoming a high-performing courtstarts with gathering the informationneeded to appraise the results ofcurrent practice, make necessarychanges, and measure progresstoward the court’s goals. Despite all their differences,courts are more alike than different. All courts have the potential tohandle criminal cases effectivelyand improve how justice is served.Average Number of Felony Case Eventsby Court Time GroupMore TimelyMidrangeLess Timely108642What works in successful courtscan be generalized to othercourts across the country.0Hearings ScheduledHearings HeldContinuancesECCM Findings
delay exists in criminal cases, identify courts that consistently AR deliver timely justice, and document their solutions. ECCM collected data on over 1.2 million criminal cases from 136 courts from 91 jurisdictions in 21 states, making ECCM the largest national study of criminal cases ever undertaken.
US Department of Justice, World Factbook of Criminal Justice Systems, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington DC, 1993 MODULE 2 ASPECTS OF COMPARATIVE CRIMINAL POLICY. 6 Systems of Administration of Criminal Justice (Adversarial & Inquisitorial) . Perspectives on Criminal Justice Systems,
-Organized a panel on International Terrorism for criminal justice department, November 2012. -Advised junior students, from 2012 to present. -Member: Criminal Justice Faculty Search Committee 2013. Chair: Criminal Justice Methods Faculty Search Committee 2014. -Member: Criminal Justice General Faculty Search Committee 2014.
Criminal Justice - CJ CJ 493 Undergraduate Research in Criminal Justice Faculty-guided undergraduate research in criminal justice. CJ 494 Criminal Justice Practicum Observation, participation, and study in selected criminal justice agencies. Economics - EC EC 332 Monetary Policy Analysis for Fed Challenge
School of Criminal Justice Dis-tinguished Alumni Award from the University at Albany, State University of New York. The School of Criminal Justice has a well-regarded doctoral program in Criminal Justice. Professor Zalman is a graduate of this pro-gram. Each year, the School of Criminal Justice at the Univer-sity at Albany selects two alumni
3. Articulate and defend differing views on contemporary criminal justice issues. 4. Analyze the sources of political influence over Criminal Justice Policy 5. Use a range of resources to research a contemporary issue in criminal justice 6. Apply criminal justice research methods to current issues in criminal justice Course Textbook:
begin an analysis of the entire criminal justice system by focusing on various decision making points. The Framework for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Criminal Justice Systems is being relied upon as efforts are focused on a comprehensive approach to achieving a fair, effective and efficient criminal justice system in Dutchess County.
Criminal Justice Information Project Catherine Plummer, SEARCH Pamela Scanlon, Automated Regional Justice Information System Laurie Smith, Kalamazoo Criminal Justice Council Integrated Justice Information System Institute (Integrated Justice Information Systems): Susan Bates, Justice Management Inc. Steve Mednick, Law Offices of Steven G.
Andreas Wagner { Integrated Electricity Spot and Forward Model 16/25. MotivationFrameworkModel and ResultsConclusions Volatility of supply-functional This observation motivates the following volatility structure (as in Boerger et al. [2009]) Volatility structure ( ;t) e (t ) 1; 2(t) ; where 1 is the (additional) short-term volatility, is a positive constant controlling the in .
