ESTIMATING THE COSTS OF JUDICIAL SERVICES

• NCJ Number: 59661
• Author(s): D WELLER; M K BLOCK
• Date Published: Unknown
• Length: 28 pages
• Corporate Author: Hoover Institution
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THE COST OF PROVIDING JUDICIAL SERVICES IN THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT SYSTEM FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 1974-1976 IS ESTIMATED.

Abstract

OF THE 58 COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA, 32 PARTICIPATED IN THE WEIGHTED CASELOAD SURVEY CONDUCTED IN 1976 BY THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA. THE COSTS WHICH ARE MEASURED ARE ONLY THOSE EXPLICITLY BORNE BY THE SUPERIOR COURT. EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE POLICE, THE PROSECUTOR, AND THE PUBLIC DEFENDER ARE EXCLUDED ALONG WITH ANY COSTS NOT PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT. THE CHOSEN METHOD OF MEASURING COSTS PROVIDED AN ESTIMATE OF THE TRUE MARGINAL COST FOR EACH TYPE OF DISPOSITION. RESULTS SHOWED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN COST BETWEEN A GUILTY PLEA AND A COMPLETE TRIAL WAS VERY LARGE. THIS SUPPORTS THE OPINION THAT THE DEGREE TO WHICH PLEA BARGAINING IS PRACTICED BY THE PROSECUTOR, AND PERMITTED BY THE COURT, CAN HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON COURT COSTS. AMONG CASES THAT WENT TO TRIAL, JURY TRIALS WERE FOUND TO BE MORE COSTLY THAN NONJURY TRIALS; HOWEVER, A CORRESPONDING DIFFERENCE IN COST WAS FOUND BETWEEN TRIALS WHERE EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED BY BOTH SIDES AND TRIALS WHICH WERE TERMINATED AT AN EARLIER STAGE. AMONG TRIALS WHERE EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED, THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN COST BETWEEN JURY AND NONJURY TRIALS, SUGGESTING THAT THE LENGTH OF THE TRIAL HAS MORE TO DO WITH ITS COST THAN THE USE OF A JURY. THE MOST SURPRISING FINDING WAS THAT CASES DISMISSED OR TRANSFERRED FROM SUPERIOR COURT ARE QUITE EXPENSIVE. ALTHOUGH THERE IS CURRENTLY NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR THIS FINDING, IT DOES INDICATE THE COST OF SOME PRETRIAL PROCEDURES TO BE HIGH. THERE IS EVIDENCE OF SLIGHTLY DECREASING RETURNS TO SCALE IN THE PROVISION OF JUDICIAL SERVICES. CHANGES IN THE SIZE OF THE BACKLOG PER JUDGE OR IN THE VARIABILITY OF THE CASELOAD WERE NOT FOUND TO BE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT IN EXPLAINING COURT COSTS. THE AVERAGE COSTS PRESENTED FAIL TO REFLECT SHARP DIFFERENCES IN JUDICIAL COSTS FROM ONE COUNTY TO ANOTHER. NOTES AND REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED, AND THE APPENDIX CONTAINS A DISCUSSION OF SOURCES AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE DATA, ESTIMATION PROCEDURES, SELECTED VARIABLES USED IN THE ESTIMATION, AND A LISTING OF MARGINAL JUDICIAL COSTS BY COUNTY. (RCB)