NCJ Number
17161
Date Published
Unknown
Length
28 pages
Annotation
ARGUMENT THAT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IN THE FIELD OF CRIMINAL LAW HAVE INCREASED THE WORKLOAD OF TRIAL JUDGES AND ARE, THEREFORE, RESPONSIBLE THE DELAY IN AND BACKLOG OF CRIMINAL COURT PROCEEDINGS.
Abstract
THE AUTHOR DETAILS HOW EVERY INDICTMENT OF ANY CONSEQUENCE USUALLY REQUIRED THE TRIAL JUDGE TO CONDUCT EIGHT SEPARATE CONSECUTIVE TRIALS (NOT INCLUDING THE MAIN TRIAL) OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS. THESE ADDITIONAL TRIALS, COMING BEFORE, AFTER AND DURING THE ORIGINAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, ARE EXPLAINED AND DISCUSSED, AND THE SUPREME COURT RULING ALLOWING OR NECESSITATING EACH IS CITED. FOUR 1971-1972 SUPERIOR COURT DECISIONS MARKING A TREND IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION ARE ALSO CITED. THE AUTHOR OFFERS 25 SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS AND PROPOSALS WHICH WOULD ELIMINATE OR REDUCE DELAY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. THEY INCLUDE SEPARATING AND SPECIALIZING THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL PRACTICE, ELIMINATING INDICTMENTS WITH OVER FIVE COUNTS, MORE EXTENSIVE USE OF PLEA BARGAINING, USE OF TRIAL SCHEDULES AND TIME TABLES ON APPEALS, AND ELIMINATING INSANITY ISSUES FROM THE TRIAL.