---1

 

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE INFORMATION AND
MANAGEMENT NEEDS OF INGHAM COUNTY COURTS IN
PREPARATION FOR THE IMPLEMENTATON OF AN
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM

Thesis for the Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
GARY RAYMOND ACKER
1977

 

 

IIIIIIIIIIZIIIJIBIIIII IIIIJIIIIMIIIJIIIII L Emflsfirxxfl

 

 

 

 

 

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE INFORMATION
AND MANAGEMENT NEEDS OF INGHAM COUNTY COURTS:
IN PREPARATION FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF AN AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM

BY

Gary Raymond Acker

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to
The College of Social Science
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

School of Criminal Justice

1977

Dr. Rhlph G. Lewis, Chairman

/1fiJ‘*v A] ADZaIN/’5rwjbwv

pr“ John H. McNamara

/ jéfigzjl’fizsz:1,4¢’¢fié

essor ZoltOn Ferenaj

i/‘yI/VV //z/£1/I’/uq,/

Mr. Henry Verkaik

-1,

 
  

ABSTRACT
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE INFORMATION
AND MANAGEMENT NEEDS OF INGHAM COUNTY COURTS:

IN PREPARATION FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF AN AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM

By

Gary Raymond Acker

P11172036

Courts in the United States are facing an information
and management crunch. Without adequate data and objec—
tives, the courts have had to rely on makeshift manage-
ment techniques.

An information system, predicated on objectives and
rules of interaction, can be the management tool needed
by courts. Information systems use information to reach
decisions.

The courts of Ingham County have committed to develOp—
ing an information system. After careful consideration of
several alternatives, the Courts Task Force of Region VI
chose the Law Enforcement Management System (LEMS) because
of its total system criminal justice system approach and
emphasis on the use of the mini computers.

Research
In order to identify the information needs and avail-

ability, a questionnaire was given to the courts in Ingham,

Gary Raymond Acker

Clinton, and Eaton Counties. Using data elements ex-
tracted from several designed systems, each court rated
the data needs and specified the availability of this
information.

The results of the survey showed that the needs not
now available, but highly desirable, were mostly manage-
ment information. The courts specifically identified
centralized court scheduling as the most needed and least
available service.

It was also found that the data needs were more
serious in Ingham County than in the other two counties.

Upon completion of the needs assessment survey, each
of the courts helped develop a caseflow model for their
individual court. A felony flow chart was also developed.
The object of developing these flow models was to allow
the court personnel an unattached viewpoint of the present
system.

There was found to be duplication, inconsistencies,
multiple files, inconsistent scheduling practices, a lack
of aggregate data, and plea negotiations continuing after
a trial had already begun.

There were also some findings of the two surveys not
anticipated in the original research design, such as:
common definitions of basic terms were not available; the

informal management and data collection process offered

Gary Raymond Acker

continuous opportunities for system breakdown; there were
no objectives established in any of the courts; and the
problems associated with the State Supreme Court's re-
porting format.

Recommendations

 

Following the research, several recommendations for
system development are noted.

Training and attitude develOpment are vital to the
success of an information system. The lack of support of
clerks, judges, lawyers, and community people can result
in the undermining of the system.

The setting of objectives, for both the individual
agency and the total system, can be the most important
tool in development.

System objectives and data are meaningless unless
the terms used have definitions that are commonly shared.

System design should address adequacy of the present
system, uses of the system, data to be collected, elimina—
tion of duplication, Offender Based Transactional Systems,
improved paper flow, and management data support. The use
of outside technical assistance should only be considered
for those functions of development that cannot be provided
from the agencies.

Court scheduling should address caseflow management,

calendaring, and data support.

Gary Raymond Acker

Privacy and security as defined in Title 28 and
other legislation must be an intricate part of the system.
Evaluation, feedback, and research are predicated on
having data to support these functions. The impact of
the courts and on the courts as a result of future changes

in the system should be considered.

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE INFORMATION
AND MANAGEMENT NEEDS OF INGHAM COUNTY COURTS
IN PREPARATION FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF AN AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM

BY

Gary Raymond Acker

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

School of Criminal Justice

1977

DEDICATION

To

Karen S. Greenwood

And

My Parents

Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Acker

who made it all possible.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to acknowledge my research assistant, editor
and proofreader, Karen Greenwood, for her invaluable
assistance and helpful suggestions. I wish to acknowledge
Catherine Moehring, who spent many hours transforming my
handwriting into the final product and proofreading it.
Without her aid the project would still be a stack of
papers in a folder.

I would like to acknowledge William Wahl and Wayne
Brooks of Tri County Planning Commission for their assist-
ance and advice. I would also like to note my apprecia-
tion to Thomas Gormely, Chairman of the Courts Task
Force and the Information Systems Task Force of the Tri
County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. His c00per-
ation and encouragement during the research process were
invaluable. I would also like to thank the membership
of the two Task Forces, both of which I am a member, for
their cooperation during the two surveys.

Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the encouragement
and direction of my Chairman, Dr. Ralph Lewis, and the
Committee members, Dr. John McNamara, Professor Zolton
Ferency and Hank Verkaik, of the State Office of Criminal

~Justice Programs.

iii

Chapter

I.

II.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

AN OVERVIEW . . . . . . . .

The State of the Courts in the 0.5.

Information Systems, Information and

the Decision. . . . .
Information Systems
Information .
Decisions . . . . .

Ingham County Courts. .
54A District Court.
54B District Court.
55th District Court

30th Circuit Court.

Systems That Were Considered.

BMCS O O O O O O O O
PROMIS. . . . . . .
LEMS. . . . . . . .

RESEARCH DESCRIPTION . .

Self Perception Survey of Courts'

Information Needs . .

Caseflow Survey .

iv

11

ll
12
14

20
21
22
23
23
24
24
33
36

40

41

45

Chapter Page

III. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . 48
Unanticipated Findings . . . . . . . . . . 48
Lack of Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Lack of Common Definitions . . . . . . 49
Informal Collection Processes. . . . . 50
The Needs of Ingham County Court . . . 51

State Supreme Court Administrator
Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Lack of Aggregate Data . . . . . . . . 53
Information Needs Questionnaire. . . . . . 54
Case Information . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Individual Respondent (Defendant)

Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
General Court Information. . . . . . . 56
Other Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Caseflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS & CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . 61

Training and Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . 6l
Objectives Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Standardization of Terminology . . . . . . 66

System Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Court Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Caseflow Management. . . . . . . . . . 73
Calendaring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Data Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Chapter Page

Privacy and Security . . . . . . . . . . 86

Federal Legislation and

Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . 87
System Design . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Privacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

System Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Evaluation, Feedback, & Research . . . . 100

Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Research .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

V. THE IMPACT OF SCHEDULING . . . . . . . . . . 106

Hypothetical Scheduling Model:

Implementation Impact. . . . . . . . . 106
Preimplementation Baseline Data. . . 108
Resource Allocation. . . . . . . . . 108

Delays, Continuances and Attorney
conflicts. o o o o o o o o o o o o 109

Cases Disposed Without Trial . . . . llO
Reduced Oversetting. . . . . . . . . lll
Witness Impact . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Police Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Reduced Backlogs . . . . . . . . . . llS

Speedy Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . ll6

vi

Chapter

Hypothetical Scheduling Impact Model:

Post Implementation Impact . . . .
Less Reversals . . . . . . . .
Increase in Some Types of Cases.
Better Prepared Attorneys. . . .
Surer Action in a Case . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . .
ATTACHMENT A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ATTACHMENT B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ATTACHMENT C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ATTACHMENT D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ATTACHMENT B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

Page

117
117
119
119
120

120

122
130
143
158
168
171

177

LIST OF TABLES

Table
1. Systems Technology and the Michigan Courts
BMCS - Summary of Local Court Adminis-
trative Information Requirements . . . .
2. Needs Assessment Questionnaire Rating
scale 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I
3. People Responding To The Questionnaire

viii

Page

26

42

43

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES

Effect of Continuance and Scheduling
Policy on Attorney Readiness.

Master Calendar . . . . .
Individual Calendar . . . . .

Hypothetical Scheduling Model:
Implementation Impact . . .

Witness Questionnaire . . . .

Hypothetical Scheduling Impact Model:

Post Implementation Impact.

ix

Page

77
82
83

107
113

118

CHAPTER I

AN OVERVIEW

This chapter includes an introduction to the state
of courts within the United States. Emphasis is given
to the fact that courts do not have the information to
make good decisions, nor do they have the tools to comply
with the legal mandates of speedy trial. The only real
approach to the problem seems to be adOption of manage-
ment tools, specifically the implementation of automated
information systems.

Consideration is given to the terms "information
system", "information", and "decisions". The importance
of these terms is underlined. The issues raised here
should be considered by an implementor of an information
system.

Introduction to the specific courts included in the
research for this document is presented. The court of
general jurisdiction and the courts of original jurisdic-
tion are discussed. The courts are all in Ingham County
and have agreed to become part of an information system.

There is a review of the three systems that were
considered for use by the courts. The relative merits

<3f each system is discussed and some discussion is

presented as to the selection of the LEMS system. The
separation of powers issue is discussed as part of the

discussion of the BMCS.
I. THE STATE OF THE COURTS IN THE U.S.

In 1966 the Court of General Sessions in Washington,
D.C. became the first U.S. court to use a computer for the
maintenance of court records.1 The promise of a new court
with new direction and efficiency as its goal was predicted
by many.

The state of courts within the U.S. has not been a
promising reflection of equal justice. The National Advis—
ory Commission on Criminal Justice Goals and Standards,in
1973, noted that:

"The problem of the courts in criminal proceedings
begin with delay and congestion; these factors are
aggravated by the growth in filings resulting from
an increasing active law enforcement establishment,
and appellate court rulings which mandate greater
attention to the equitable treatment of individual
defendants."2

Robert James of the San Diego County Court System

stated that the national picture is that: "The courts are

too crowded; the judicial process is being choked to death

 

lMalcolm E. MacDonald, "Computer Support for the Courts -
A Case for Cautious Optimism," Judicature 57 (August/Septem~
ber 1973): 52.

 

2National Advisory COmmission on Criminal Justice
Standards and Goals, Criminal Justice System (Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973): 68.

 

by paperwork; archaic methods of indexing, scheduling, and
docketing make the setting of a workable court an impossi-
bility."3
Too often descriptions of the courts during the last
10 years have pointed to the inadequacies of our court
systems. The strongest critics have gone so far as to
state that, "no significant institution has been left un-
touched by modern technology - with the possible exception
of the courts."4
Many of the problems facing courts are not exclusive
to the judicial branch of government. The Criminal Justice
Goals and Standards for the State of Michigan, in 1975, noted
that there exists throughout the criminal justice system:
1. A general lack of current and/or comprehensive
data that reflects the nature and needs of the
agency's manpower and physical resources;
2. The inability to retrieve data that does exist
or to correlate data collected by different

functional components; and

3. The inability to use existing data in the manage-
ment process.

 

3Robert B. James, "Computers Trim Backlog in San

Diego County Courts," Judicature 57 (August/September 1973):
56.

 

4Jethro K. Lieberman, "Will Courts Meet the Challenge
of Technology?" Judicature 60 (August/September 1976): 85.

 

5Michigan Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice,
_§riminal Justice Goals and Standards for the State of
_Michigan (Lansing: Office of Crimifial Justice Programs, 1974),
p. 196.

 

:5

Many of the functions of individuals in the criminal
justice system have been fragmented and cooperation is
almost non-existent. In the courts, "often a functional
operation is carried on by itself with little relationship
to or connection with any other functional operation."6
This can only result in indecisiveness and fractionalism
within the courts. Common information, necessary to cper-
ate a smooth running court can be lost in the bureaucratic
hierarchy common to all large and medium size courts.
Quite often courts are left without a single individual
responsible for direction.

Professor Jacques Bargun, of Columbia, noted that
"the glorification of policy making and the debasement of
'pencil pushing' clogs our courts and other institutions.
Everyone wants to set a lofty goal but no one wants to
administer the means to attain it."7 The obvious result
has been that too often courts have gone in directions
not dictated by well defined goals but instead have situ-
ations where individuals within the court have developed
their own definitions of the court's role.

Kenneth Vines has noted that the roles of the court

can be defined as "ritualistic, adjudicative, Policymaking,

 

6William L. Whittaker, "Ceremony Versus Substance:
Clerical Process in the Courts," Judicature 56 (April
1973): 375.

7Jacques Bargun, "Administering and the Law," Ameri-
can Bar Association Journal 62 (May 1976): 625.

 

and administrative."8 The emphasis in the two hundred
years of U.S. judicial history has been on the ritualistic
and adjudicative at the expense of the policymaking and
administrative. The result has been tradition always
takes precedent in the American Court.

The emphasis on tradition is not unique to courts,
and in fact it has been noted that "Western man is active

9 But, courts by the very nature of their

by tradition."
ritualistic functions have placed greater emphasis on
traditional approaches than any other type of public
agency.

In a recent survey conducted by the Institute for
Court Management in Missouri and Colorado, it was noted
that "many of the functional Operations observed (within
the courts) arise out of tradition and exist in order to
preserve tradition; others exist to preserve the legal
mystique and legal fictions built into the system, and
still others exist because of the necessity of recording
and preserving the vast quantities of legalistic jargon."lo

William Whittaker, the project coordinator for this

research project, observed that, "much of the administrative

 

8John H. Reed, "Operational Research and the Courts,"
Judicature 56 (August/September 1972): 69.

 

9Bargum, p. 626.

loWhittaker, p. 375.

function is created and exists to serve the records which
are being maintained."11 He noted that when the study
team asked an individual why an apparently "meaningless"
activity was performed, the response was "time after time",
"we've always done it this way."12
Not only do the courts most often follow the dictates
of tradition but because of tradition create large and in-
complete case files. In a recent survey in Los Angeles:
it was found that the average criminal case folder held a

volume of 39 separate documents.13

The survey report
noted that, "the problems precipitated by the abundance

of case documents are magnified by the manner in which
files are stored and indexed."14 It was commonly found
that total case files were misplaced, parts of files were
lost, and upon completion of a case an attempt at review
of the file folder was predicated upon the individual know-

ing the case number.15 Another serious negative spin off

 

llIbid.

l21bid., p. 374.

13Thomas A. Henderson and Winifred M. Lyday, "Infor-
mation Systems -- An Administrative Development: Dilemma
for the Judiciary," Proceedings of the Third International
Search Symposium on Criminal Justice Information and
Statistics Systems (Sacramento, California: Search Group,
Inc., 1976), p. 34.

 

 

14Ibid.

lSIbid.

of large case files is the fact that valuable storage
space must be consumed in order to maintain the records.

The emphasis on the traditional rituals has deempha-
sized the importance of aggregate data to develop policy
and to evaluate administrative practices. The management
techniques developed during World War II and now being
utilized throughout the public sector are based upon the
need for meaningful aggregate data.

Further increasing the problem, almost all states now
require local courts to report on the status of their case-
loads. The lack of a data base to generate the statistics
for the reports has meant that considerable time is demanded
of the judges and clerks to "derive these figures by hand
from case files and the court ledgers."l6

With the legal dictates for "speedy trial," the court
is finding itself with a further massive problem of main-
taining some sort of offender tracking system to assure
that offenders do not get lost in the system. Some repeat
offenders have already learned that by getting lost in the
system their chances of being prosecuted successfully are

17

minimized. Many other accused may face long periods of

 

l6Ibid.

17William A. Hamilton and Charles R. Work, "The Prose-
cutor's Role In the Urban Court System: The Case for Manage-
ment Consciousness," The Journal of Criminal Law and Crimi-
nology 64 (June 1973):183.

preadjudicative incarceration or undue mental strain.
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has long
held that:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shafil enjoy
the right to a speedy and public trial . . .1

In addition, in PeOple v. Collins (388 Mich 680) the

 

State Supreme Court of Michigan ruled that the factors of
a speedy trial are "length of delay, the reason for the
delay, the defendant's assertation of his right and pre-
judice to the defendant."19
Michigan Statutes, 28.922, Sec. 4, requires the
preliminary examination to be held prior to 12 days after

arraignment20

and Michigan Statutes 28.973, Sec. 38 re—
quires that those held in jail prior to trial must be
tried in the next term of the court "after the expiration

21 Statutes and court rules of this nature

of six months."
are common throughout the U.S.

With the increasing caseloads, insuffient staffs,
and large incomplete case files, the courts are not

capable of keeping track of the status of cases. Length

of delay and the reason for delay are not common in

 

18U.S. Constitution, Amend. VI.

 

l9peop1e v. Collins, 388 Mich. 680 (1972).

20Michigan, Michigan Statutes Annotated, 1972 Revis-
ion of Vol. 25 (Rice, 1972).

ZlIbid.

court records and in most cases not an easily accessible
piece of information.

Many courts, as a result of the conflicting adminis—
trative demands, have placed greater emphasis on what the
researchers at the Institute for Law and Social Research
(INSLAW) called the "great gal" approach to administering
their court. The great gal is defined as the powerful in-
dividual in a court who is referred to by the supervisor
or judge as "this great gal, and she does . . .,"22 when-
ever the question of how the court functions is raised.
"It doesn't much matter what the great gal does, what
counts is what she knows. The great gal knows the judges,
. . . the attorneys, . . . and may even know the defen-

dants."23

She will be the only one who knows the total
court system and how the files are created. Whenever
questions about the court arise the great gal is the only
one who can answer them.

The major problems with the great gal is that she is
discovered, not made, and the knowledge she possesses is
half instinctive. When the great gal leaves the court, the
24

results can be serious.

In lieu of the great gal, some courts have moved towards

 

22Sarah Cox, "Court Scheduling Made Easy?" Judicature
59 (February 1976): 353-4.

23Ibid.

24Ibid.

10

an increased involvement of the judges in the administra-

tion of the courts.25

No one questions the validity of
this approach but the problem is that the increasing admin-
istrative demands will result in less available court time,
an already scarce and valuable commodity.

In the last few years a major emphasis has been on the
develOpment of the court administrator as a viable alterna-
tive to the great gal or too active administrative judge.
The tools of this administrator are management techniques,
which include aggregate data, goals and objectives, offen-
der case tracking, new approaches, and public dissemination
of information about the courts. In order to achieve these
means the large and medium size courts have placed emphasis
on receiving funding for computerized management and infor-
mation systems.26

Funding from LEAA has in the past not emphasized the
role of the courts. Many feel the two basic reasons for
this slighting have been the "unfair competition" of law
enforcement and correctional staffs who have planning and
grantsmanship as their primary responsibilities and the
fact that most judges have been committed to full-time

courts thus leaving little or no time for grant preparation?7

 

25Henderson and Lyday, p. 35.

26National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice
Standards and Goals, Courts, pp. 171-75.

27Pat Chapin, "A New Round for LEAA," Judicature 60
(June/July 1976): 30.

 

11

Present LEAA funding does offer the Opportunity for courts
to become more active.especially with the emphasis now on
system improvement.

As courts move more and more into automated court

processing,the key emphasis will be on information systems.

II. INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INFORMATION,

AND THE DECISION

Information System

 

An "information system" is defined as "a set of pre-
scribable interactive objects governed by well defined

"28 The role

rules which relate to a distinguishable goal.
of any information system "lies in a capacity to provide
certain forms of file management and utilization services

29 In order to describe an information system,

to the user."
one must have already a description of the interacting ob-
jectives, the defining rules of interaction based upon goal
achievement, and a statement of organization for the Opera-
tion of the system.

Within this framework it becomes obvious that if clear

common definitions, well defined goals or rules of interaction

 

28John F. Vinsonhaler and Robert D. Moon, Handbook of
of Computers and Information Systems in Education and Social
Science TEast Lansing: Michigan State University, 1976), p.12.

 

29Edgar S. Dunn, Jr., Social Information Processing and
Statistical Systems - Change and Reform (New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1974), p. 14.

12

are lacking, the process is not an information system.

In order to insure that development of an informa-
tion system meets the prescribed criteria, it must be
assumed that those potential users of the system will have
input. Not only must the user define the goals of the sys-
tem but without his cooperation,the system rules can easily
break down.

It can be assumed that in order to achieve the pre-
scribed objectives of an information system,careful consid-
eration must be given to how data collected by the system

30 Irrelevant data costs valuable collection

will be used.
time and storage space.

It should be noted that an information system need not
be automated. A manual system that meets the criteria pre—
scribed is an information system and may, especially for
smaller agencies, be just as effective.

Information

If data, a set or sets of statistics that symbolically
represent observation of the real world, are the inputs of
an information system, then the outputs are information.
Information is "an act or process . . . which informs and

which most generally means to give meaning."31 Dr. Edgar

 

30National Clearinghouse for Criminal Justice Planning
and Architecture, "Planning Process Methodology," Monograph
A2 in the Guidelines for the Planning and Design of State
Court Programs and Facilities (Champaign, Illinois: Univer—
sity of Illinois, 1976), p. 21

 

31Dunn, p. 20.

13

Dunn, a senior research associate at Resources for the
Future, Inc. and previously a high level systems develOper
for the government cautions that:

There is a pervasive tendency to assume that infor—
mation is an intrinsic property of symbolic data,
and that the more symbolic data we have, the more
information we have . . .

He further states that:

Any element of symbolic data is just that — symbolic -
and only represents a meaning or set of meanings.
Which meaning becomes operative is a consequence

of the symbol being employed in an information pro-
cess engaged in informing behavior; in a manner con-
sistent with the logic and purposes of that process. 2

It follows that data becomes information only when
its definition is clear and is consistent with the stated
objectives of the collection process. Unclear definitions
or inconsistent goals cannot provide information.

There has been within the last few years considerable
pressure to establish interagency information systems.
Dunn states that:

Underlying the advocacy of information systems is the

presupposition that data initially generated for a

variety of specific needs by a variety of social

organizations and processes can be reused in novel
ways. By the simple expedient of their storage in
computer memories, and their availability for computer
manipulation, it is believed they become an expanded
resource for satisfying a variety of information
needs.

This does not mean that agencies who can subscribe to

 

32Ibid.

33Ibid., p. 8

14

common collection goals and share common definitions can-
not participate in an interagency information system. The
important concern must be that the rules governing inter-
action are consistent with the goals and definitions of
the system and that data is collected for the defined
purpose.

Decisions

 

The ultimate goal of the collection of data and the
dissemination of information is to reach decisions. Profes-
sor Leslie Wilkins, of the School of Criminal Justice at
the State University of New York, in Albany, has done con-
siderable research for LEAA on decision-making within the
criminal justice system. Though most of his research has
been oriented towards parole, it does have applicability
throughout the system.

Professor Wilkins defines a decision as:

A termination of a process search. We cannot reason-

ably argue that a person has reached a decision if

that person persists in seeking further information
with regard to the act he must make or fail to make.

34
Wilkins research tested members of parole boards,
students in elementary statistics classes, graduate students

in research methods and criminology, and other "decision-

makers". The groups and individuals were shown slide pro-

jections that simulated computer readouts of the future.

 

34Leslie T. Wilkins, "Information Overload: Peace or
War With the Computer," The Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology 64 (June 1973): 192.

 

15

Each participant as an individual, or as a member of a
group, was required to then make decisions on the parole
status of an individual.35
Wilkins noted that, "making a decision is itself a
process . . . we say we have decided when we no longer
wish to seek for more information."36
In relation to the use of computers to generate in-
formation, he cautions that "human intelligence will always
have an essential part to play in decision-making, no mat-
ter to what extent computer can be designed to facilitate
the processes of information retrieval and analysis."37

It was found that "decision-makers differ not only

in the decisions they make, but also in the methods they

use for seeking information relating to their decisions."38
Among the findings was the fact that individuals, when
placed under pressure to make a decision, showed differ-

39

ent priorities for what information was considered first.
A key type of information desired by all decision-
makers is what Wilkins calls "information about informa-

tion." This type of information is the key to the

 

3SIbid., p. 195

36Ibid., p. 191.

37Ibid., p. 190.

38Ibid., p. 194.

39Ibid.

16

40 In—

processing of other information to make decisions.
cluded in this category might be reliability of the in-
formation, age of the information, who collected the in-
formation, the Operational definitions used, and the im-
pact of the decisions made from this information (feed-
back).

, He does note that, "it seems improbable that in the
information search strategies of most decision-makers there
is any conscious effort to collect information about infor-

mation."41

This seems to infer the desire for this type
of information is in the subconscious.

Wilkins found that, within the criminal justice sys—
tem, "persons are dealt with in terms of the information
which the decision-maker thinks is relevant and in terms
of the similarities between individuals and not in terms
of "all the information, nor in terms of uniqueness."42
He further elaborates that "actually, a decision cannot be
made about an individual, but only about information con-
cerning that individual. The individual is moved into one

channel or another according to the nature of the decision,

but the decision-maker cannot deal with more of the

 

40Ibid., p. 196.

4lIbid.

421bid., p. 93.

17

individual's characteristics than he can ascertain by
whatever means are available."43
Dunn remarked that the concept of "information over-
load" "is a misnomer" in terms of the definition of "infor-
mation" as stated previously. He further states that there
is "no such things as 'too much information', (but) what is
meant is the equivalent of sensory overload that leads to
deformation rather than information."44
Wilkins states that, "seldom does the thought occur
that the decision might have been a poor one because there
was too much information for human intelligence to cope

with."45

He noted in his studies that, "although free to
select as much information as they desire, decision-makers
do not claim that the more information they see the more
difficult the decision becomes; instead they claim that
it becomes easier in a direct relationship to their assess-
ment of their confidence."46
The research showed that there was a direct inverse
relationship between confidence and difficulty. Subjects

claimed that their confidence in the decision they made in-

creased as the amount of information they have seen increases.

 

43Ibid.

44Dunn, p. 20.

45Wilkins, p. 190.

461bid., p. 195.

18

Wilkins noted that, "the individual decision-maker is not
aware of the fact that he is performing much more work as
he processes more and more information. Rather he believes,
without exception, that the processing of more and more in-
formation makes decision-making easier. Wilkins offers the
analogy of the drunk driver who thinks he can drive safely
to the decision-maker who thinks that by acquiring more and
more information he can make better decisions.47

It was found in the research project that the higher
degree of difficulty of the decision, as perceived by the
subject, the more he will want larger amounts of data. It
was also noted "we require high degrees of assurance where
large differences in alternative outcomes rest upon our
decisions."48

A decision-maker is apt to use the available resources
to their limit when the decision is perceived as serious
and he will, to increase confidence, do either more—of-
the-same or try something else to increase his confidence.
In either case the possibility of "sensory overload" is a
real danger.

Subjects of the experiment were found to change their

9 0 I o a 49
deCi31ons as more and more information was revrewed.

 

47Ibid.

481bid., p. 192.

491b1d., p. 195.

19

But Gerald Stern, Director of Administration of the Courts
in the First Judicial Department (N.Y. & Bronx Counties)
of New York found that not only do decisions change as more

information was reviewed but that the decisions became

harsher.50

Additional findings of Wilkins research show that:

l. The format of presentation (i.e.: computer read-
outs versus the manual reports) affects the
decision. It was found that harsher decisions
were associated with computer readouts. It was
suggested the stark format of computers was less
palatable to the decision-maker;

2. Individuals, when making decisions within a group,
developed different priorities for what informa-
tion is seen first;

3. Different individuals given the same information
will use it differently and different decisions
will result;

4. Different approaches to information can result in
the same decisions; and

5. Sequence, as much as form, can influence the de-
cision, irrespective of the content of the infor-
mation.

It becomes obvious that, "considerable problems exist

in organizing materials so that optimal use can be made of

the computer and particular strengths of human intelligence.52

 

50Gerald Stern, "Courts and Computers: Conflicts in
Approaches and Goals," Judicature 58 (December 1974): 226.

 

SlWilkins, pp. 194-5.

521bid., p. 190.

20

The success of information systems rests with the solution
to this problem as well as establishing well defined goals

and rules of interaction.
III. INGHAM COUNTY COURTS

The research in the following two chapters centers
around the courts of the Michigan Region VI Planning area.
The primary emphasis of the research is on the courts of
original and general jurisdiction in Ingham County, the

largest of the three counties in Region VI with a pOpula-

53

tion of 278,398. Clinton and Eaton Counties, the other

two counties in the region, by comparison have a total

combined population of 134,981.54

128,42155, Lansing is the largest city in Ingham County.

With a pOpulation of

56
The courts of original jurisdiction throughout most

of the state57 are called district courts. Three of the

five district cOurts in Region VI are located within

Ingham County. All criminal cases begin in district court.

 

53Interview with William Wahl, Tri County Planning
Commission, Lansing, Michigan, 19 April 1977. The pOpu-
lation data represents computer estimates for 1975 pre-
pared by the Tri County Staff.

54Ibid.

SSIbid.

56The total estimated pOpulation of Lansing is 134,421
but 6,000 residents of the city reside in Baton County.

57Detroit is the exception to the rest of the state.
The original court of jurisdiction and the court of gen-
eral jurisdiction in Detroit only, is the Recorders Court.

21

Felony cases will be arraigned and a preliminary hearing
offered at the district court level before the case is

bound over to the circuit court (the court of general juris-
diction) for further processing. All misdemeanors are tried
after arraignment at the district court level. All traffic
and ordinance cases are also tried at the district level.58
District courts quite often have a magistrate, who can con-
duct all the business of the court except for actual trials.

Circuit court tries all felonies and serves as the
first court of appeals on all cases tried at the district
court level.

The jurisdiction of circuit courts is generally at
least countywide while district courts are more apt to be
courts of local jurisdiction. Many of the district courts
evolved out of the old justice of peace or municipal courts
that existed prior to the present state constitution
approved in 1963.

The staffing of all the courts is included in Attach-

ment E .

54A District Court

 

54A District Court is the largest court in the region.

Its jurisdiction is the City of Lansing and ordinance

 

58The emphasis of this report will be on criminal case
loads only. Civil responsibility does exist in both district
and circuit courts but will not be addressed, because LEAA
funding necessary for the start-up of an information system
prohibits use of such funding for civil caseloads.

22

violations can be based upon either Ingham County or City
of Lansing ordinances.

Of the 33,547 criminal cases disposed of during the
1974-75 fiscal year, 29,494 cases were traffic cases. The
non-traffic cases included 673 felony arraignments with
357 preliminary hearings conducted. Over 75% of 3,369
misdemeanor and ordinance cases were disposed of without
a trial.59

54A has 5 judges and added a magistrate in April
1977.

The City of Lansing has a City Attorney who files
cases in 54A District Court in addition to the county pro-

SECUtOI‘ .

54B District Court

 

54B District Court is located in East Lansing and has
as its jurisdiction the city and most of the M.S.U. campus.
This court is the newest court in the region and is a spin-
Off of the old 54 District Court that included East Lansing
and Lansing. The court disposed of 17,454 criminal cases
during the 1974-75 fiscal year. 16,178 cases were traffic
cases. The non-traffic cases included 76 felony arraign-
ments with 49 preliminary hearings. All but 17 of the
1194 ordinance or misdemeanor violations were disposed of

without trial.60

 

59Einar Bohlin, State Court Administrator 1974-75
Report (Lansing: State of Michigan, 1975), p. 107.

 

601bid.

23

Ordinance violations can be from East Lansing, Mich-
igan State or the county in this court.
54B has one judge and one magistrate.

55th District Court

 

55th District Court serves all of the county not in—
cluded in Lansing or East Lansing. This is the largest
land jurisdiction of the three district courts and in-
cludes several townships and several villages, towns,
and two small cities. Each of the townships in the county
may file cases in this court.

Of the 23,671 criminal cases disposed of during the
1974-75 fiscal year 21,172 were traffic cases and 2099
were ordinance or misdemeanor cases. Of this caseload,
114 were tried. There were 319 felony cases of which 250
61

preliminary exams were given.

30th Circuit Court

 

The Circuit Court has general jurisdiction throughout
Ingham County. The court has benches in Lansing (4 judges)
and Mason, the county seat (1 judge). The court is the
9th largest of the 46 circuit courts in the state.

There were 853 criminal cases disposed of in this
court during the 1974-75 fiscal year. Two of these cases
were on appeal from district courts in the jurisdiction.
There were 63 trials conducted during the year and 788

cases were disposed of without trial. 47 trial cases.

 

6lIbid., p. 108.

24

required a jury.
The criminal case backlog was increased during the
year from 620 to 737 cases. It should be noted that the

backlog is almost as large as all the cases disposed.
IV. SYSTEMS THAT WERE CONSIDERED

Since December 1975,the members of the Adjudicative
Task Force for Tri County have been exploring the feasi-
bility of implementing an information system for at least
the Ingham County courts. Three major system designs were
considered; BMCS, PROMIS, and LEMS.
9.992

In 1970 LEAA established the non-profit agency, Search
Group, Incorporated, to develop,through a joint effort of
12 states,a comprehensive data system. The emphasis of
this system would be on a total criminal justice information
system for the total state. A state judicial information
system was considered a primary objective.

Though Michigan was not one of the original states to
be included in the Search project, the state was invited
to participate as an interested observer. Representatives
from the Michigan State Supreme Court attended all of the
early conferences and in l97l,the Supreme Court established
in Detroit the Judicial Data Center (JDC).

The objective of JDC was the implementation of an
automated state judicial information system. The strategy

adopted by JDC called for the automation of all court records

25

in Detroit as a first priority and the implementation of
a batch process for the other courts in the state. It
was assumed that as automation of Detroit was completed
the automated services would be offered to courts outside
of Detroit.

The system develOped was called the Basic Michigan
Court System (BMCS). (Table I shows the components developed
under BMCS). The emphasis was on a statewide system con—
trolled from the State Supreme Court Administrator's Office.
It was assumed that BMCS would become one component of a
total statewide comprehensive criminal justice information
system.

During the time of the develOpment of BMCS the State
Supreme Court was placing great emphasis on a statewide
unified court system. One of the first steps taken in
this direction was the development of an annual statewide
report. A major selling point to the local jurisdictions
for subscribing to the batch processing was that the in—
formation necessary for this report would be generated by
batch and possibly later by the automated system.

A consensus opinion of court personnel throughout the
state is that after the death of Chief Justice Thomas M.
Kavanagh in 1975, the emphasis on statewide unified court
has diminished for the lack of a strong proponent on the
bench.

The emphasis on surrogate services continues at JDC des-
pite the fact that the bench is no longer actively pushing

for a statewide system.

26

emHmmmm I
.oem .mezmmmcs

NmOBmHm AfiZHEHMU
QmNHmmBDQZOU MUHAOm mfidfim I

ZOHBHmOmmHQ AfiZHSHMU
mZOHBUmmmOU m0 BzmzemdeQ I

MMBmHOmm
mZOHBUH>ZOU mmcu AdZHZHMO

NmOBmH:
mm>HmQ ema<8m m0 .Umm I

ZOHBUH>ZOU mo mfiodmemmd

mamoomm
A¢9H> .meqémm m0 qum0 I

EZWZADZZ<
m0 m0m0>HQ m0 Dmoomm

 

mMHUZHU< Q<UOA 02¢
afiflfim OB mfimommm

memoemm
onecmDo moszamm a
mom mmco .ocoq mmco

mMHmfiHUDQHm m0 mDBdBm

mfimommm mDE<Bm
mm¢0 UHQOHmmm

memommm OHeHommm a
Acozz< .qcczzcaHme
.wqmmemcso .wcmezoz

 

mOE¢MEmHZHZQ¢ BmDOU
WEflfim OB mBmOmmm

 

OZHBMOmmm m>HB<mBmHZH204

.Ooflmmo
m.uoumupmwcfifip< unsoo OEOumsm oumum cmmflroflz

are Do pmncmo when acaoacsn 9:9 an ceca>oea

mmHzoz

moHemHe<em mmmeo mezmzonmm<

a Oszmmoome mmao mmoHeoz
wwwwmem mm mmfimm 82.582.
roe mmmao oneemoxm mneszOS
meoHnezoo smzmosec mammooo
mmnsommom zoom empoo mmcozmqao
mmmmoome oz mmoHozH

 

 

BZMZMU¢Z¢Z
30am mm40

 

OZHmmmuomm mm<U

 

mBzmzmmHDOmm ZOHB<EmOmZH m>HB<MBmHZHSD¢ emDOU Q<UOA ho NfifiZZDm

 

mUZm

 

mBmDOU Z<UHEUHZ mmE 02¢ VOCAoszmB mZMEmMm

H mqmdfi

DZHmmmx Qmoumm
mmdo

27

JDC has developed their software on a large main-
frame computer located in Detroit. Because the system is
developed for multi-users, special emphasis has been placed
on tight security measures. Data access is limited to the
court of origination only. Another court or agency within
the criminal justice system can only access information on
the computer by requesting such information from the court
of jurisdiction. Intercooperation with other criminal
justice agencies is discouraged because of the separation
of powers issue.

JDC also has developed a sister package to BMCS for
civil cases. This was possible only because LEAA dollars
were not used for this part of the program. Almost all
other systems do not include civil case packages.

In 1976 Ingham County was identified by JDC as one of
the prime targets for develOpment of an automated system.
The decision was made based upon the fact that Lansing is
the state capitol, therefore providing a showcase setting
for the State Legislature. It was also realized that the
Ingham courts were actively exploring the feasibility of
implementing an information system.

After several contacts between members of the Adjudi-
cation Task Force and JDC staff, it was decided by the Task
Force not to implement an automated BMCS in Ingham County.

Several courts in the Region have expressed displea-
sure with the batch process they are now receiving from

JDC. Among the criticisms has been the long turn around

28

time for data, the lack of training provided to local
staffs, and meaningless reports that are now generated
for the courts.

Key Task Force members expressed their opposition
to a centralized system. The concern was that by develop-
ing and dictating from the tOp down, the local jurisdic-
tional needs would be less apt to be addressed.

This concern is not unique to Michigan. When, in
1972, the state of Missouri developed their court informa-
tion system as a project under the Search Group, they em-
phasized local jurisdictional develOpment of systems.
"The plan provided for development of an emphasis on local
computer use as determined at the local level and after
development, interface with the state Information System."62

Dr. Thomas Henderson and Dr. Winifred Lyday have re-
ported in a paper, for The Third International Search Sym-
posium on Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Sys-
tems, in 1975, that, "unless the state has a unified court
system, the development of a statewide system with opera—
tional units catering to the needs of the local courts is

highly unusual."63

 

62J.D. Kidd, "Missouri's Data Processing Experiment,"
Judicature 59 (March 1976): 385.

 

63Henderson & Lyday, p. 35.

29

Considerable opposition was expressed to the use of
the large mainframe multi-user computer designated for
BMCS. Members noted that this type of computer usually
results in slow turn around time for users,since all
queries are prioritized and must wait their turn at pro—
cessing. This is common even with on-line interactive
terminals for the large computers.

Mainframes have longer downtimes than the new genera-
tion mini computers. The installation and upkeep of main-
frames is considerably more expensive than the mini; in
addition, the installation of support equipment is a
longer process with mainframes.

Mainframe software development and modifications re-
quire professional programers and long periods of time.
Quite often, debugging a new program takes several months.

The Task Force had been holding joint meetings with
the Prosecution Task Force and had agreed to proceed with
the understanding that any system to be develOped would be
oriented towards an integrated system. It was felt that the
information needs of the prosecutor and the court are quite
common. Though each agency may have specific information
needs shared by other agencies, it was felt that there were
several common data needs that could be addressed by using
common collection points. Many of the reports of the
courts and prosecutors have the same data elements.

JDC, following the recommendations of the State Judi-

cial System Project of Search, Opposed an integrated

30

information system where other criminal justice agencies
outside the court have access to court generated informa-
tion.

The State Judicial Information Systems Projects recom-

mendations to courts are:

l. The Judiciary should use computer facilities
which are wholly under judicial management and
control;

2. When this is not possible, the agency Operating
the computer facility ought not to be an operat-
ing on line agency. It instead should be a con-
tracted governmental general service agency;

3. Place key management and technical personnel con-
cerned with judicial data processing needs under
judicial management control;

4. Storage of information procedures should be re—
viewed and approved by the judiciary and not be
changed without judicial approval; and

5. In no case should the computer facility release
other than to the judiciary any files or statis-
tical reports generated from the data base of
the judicial information system, except upon 64
prior consent of the appropriate judicial body.

The recommendations have grown out of strong concern

that the "process of developing an information system

almost inevitably places the courts in an interactive
situation with other governmental agencies in new configu—
rations (in which) demands are being made which are forc-
ing the courts to juxtapose their administrative and manage-
ment needs against the traditional and legal foundations of

the judiciary."65

 

64David Weinstein, "Judicial Independence in the Compu-
ter Age," Judicature 59 (March 1976): 377.

 

65Henderson and Lyday, p. 33.

31

Many judges are concerned about maintaining an
"appearance of impartiality." Gerald Stern represented
this strong feeling of many courts when he said:

"The courts must maintain their role of an advocacy
system. Though courts may be able to share common
data, it could result in public misinterpretation
of this OOOperation. The courts must not only
render justice, they must appear to render justice.
Comprehensive data sharing detracts from an appear-
ance of impartiality, and should therefore be con-
sidered with great caution."66

Henderson and Lyday in their paper again reflect the
feelings of many when they state that:

Although adjudication provides the link between

law enforcement, prosecution, and corrections, the
courts differ from other criminal justice agencies
since they constitute a separate branch of govern-
ment whose independence is insured by constitutional
separation of powers. Because of their prescribed
role as impartial arbitrators, the judiciary must be
careful neither to align nor appear to align the
courts with agencies which continually appear as
petitioners in the judicial process.

They further state that, "the degree to which the
courts can resolve this dilemma without sacrificing judi-
cial integrity will determine, to an extent, the future
of COOperative intergovernmental relationships between
courts and other criminal justice agencies."68

Many members of the judiciary are concerned about the

issue of judicial accountability. In 1974 Henderson and

 

66Stern, pp. 223-224.

67Henderson and Lyday, O. 36.

‘-

68Ibid., p. 33.

32

Lyday sent questionnaires to the chief justice of each
state. All forty-three respondents advocated that dispo-
sitional information be shared with other criminal justice
agencies but drew the line at specific information "re-
lated to arraignment, indictment, preliminary hearing con-
tinuances, courtroom assignments, and the name of the pre-
siding judge, . . . (because) the only purpose in retain-
ing this data subsequent to a finding of guilt or innocence
would be to develop an aggregate evaluation of the judicial
process."69
The issue of accountability evolves around the fact
"data could be used by an interested party to bring public
pressure on judges to conform to a particular point of view.
Better information means greater accountability but to whom

is a judge accountable?"7O

.——..~-.. -

Many courts feel quite strongly that "the courts must

be able to manage their own administrative affairs indepen- f

71 Edward

dent of review from executive branch agencies."
McConnell, Director of the National Center for State Courts,

states that, "change must come from within the court system.

and not be forced upon it by legislative or public pressure."

 

691bid., pp. 38-9.

7oWeinstein, p. 376.

71Henderson & Lyday, p. 36.

72Jerrold K. Footlick, "How Will the Courts be
Managed," Judicature 60 (August/September 1976): 83.

 

72

33

Henderson and Lyday emphasize this "should not be
construed to mean that courts are not willing to COOperate
with criminal justice agencies, nor that they are basi-
cally antagonistic to many of the concepts proposed re-
garding comprehensive criminal justice data systems."73

That concern reflects the feelings of the Task Force
and many of them felt that the JDC stance, like many others,
is too unyielding. As long as control of the data outputs
was maintained, all felt that interagency COOperation was
desirable and should be the primary concern.

Another prime consideration, that resulted in the
Task Force's rejection of the JDC offer, was the fact
that the primary funding source, the Office of Criminal
Justice Programs for the State of Michigan (OCJP), had
begun to deemphasize statewide information systems in
favor of localized systems. Much of this deemphasis was
the result of the disenchantment of OCJP staff with the
-JDC.

PROMIS

In 1971 the Washington, D.C. District prosecutor's
office developed and implemented the Prosecutor's Manage—
ment Information System (PROMIS). The program was developed
at the local level for local use.

The success of PROMIS was proclaimed by LEAA, which

identified the program as an "exemplary project" in 1973.

 

73Henderson & Lyday, p. 36.

34

As a result of this designation, PROMIS is now being
implemented in over thirty sites throughout the U.S.

The Institute for Law and Social Research (INSLAW)
is a non—profit agency established to provide technical
consulting in the implementation of PROMIS. All consul-
tations by INSLAW are provided free to local agencies
through a special LEAA grant.

The PROMIS package includes over 200 data elements

covering:

1. "Defendant Data" such as name, alias, sex, race,
date Of birth, correct address, previous record,
employment and substance abuse history;

2. "Crime Data" including the time, date and place
of offense, the nature of offense, those involved,
degree of personal injury, property damage, and
intimidation involved;

3. "Arrest Data" that states time, place and type of
arrest along with the name of the arresting offi-

cer(s);

4. "Charge Data" follows the charge against the de-
fendant, including any changes in the charge; and

5. "Court Processing Data" is a form of offender
based tracking designed to keep track of events, 4
delays, cause of delays, and time between events.

Using the defendant data elements as a base.PROMIS is

capable of measuring "the seriousness of the criminal record"

of each defendant. This measure was developed by Dr. Don

 

74Dean C. Merrill, "Using the PROMIS Tracking System
for Criminal Justice Evaluation," Proceedings of the Inter—
national Search Symposium on Criminal Justice Information
and Statistical Systems, (New Orleans: Search Group, Inc.,
3 October 1972), pp. 6-7.

35

Gottfredson as a slight modification of a previous scale
he developed to provide parole officers with some measure
for predicting successful parole. The scale considers
density of prior arrests, indications of previous sub-
stance abuse in the defendant's record, and the offense
committed.75
The crime data elements are used to measure the
"seriousness of the crime." This scale was originally de-
veloped by Marvin E. Wolfgang and Thorsten Sellin to meas-
ure the seriousness of delinquent behavior. Sellin and
Wolfgang have slightly modified the scale for the PROMIS
package.76
Cases can be tracked through the system by crime in-
cident, defendant, or court number. The system is capable
of generating periodical reports on the status of cases,
thus assuring a greater control over the speedy trial sit-
uation.77
There was some concern among the Task Force members
as to the transferability of PROMIS to a mini program. The
INSLAW staff assured these members of the Task Force that

a mini PROMIS package was being prepared for release later

in 1977.

 

75William A. Hamilton, "Modern Management for the Pro—
secutor," The Prosecutors Journal 7 (November/December
1971): 474.

 

761bid.

77Merrill, p. 4.

36

The strong selling points of PROMIS are the high
transferability of the package, the applicability of the .
package to all agencies of the criminal justice system,78
the statistical data base for scheduling, and a rich data
base for research.

Though the Task Force was impressed with PROMIS the
decision was made not to adOpt the total package because
of the strong emphasis on prosecutors and the OCJP empha-
sis on funding LEMS.
e119.

OCJP has been working on implementation of statewide
information systems since 1971. JDC was just one example
of efforts to develop a total reporting effort of the whole
criminal justice system. By the fall of 1976 the emphasis
at OCJP had shifted.

As a result of this new emphasis, the State Police
were granted development funds to establish the Law Enforce-
ment Management System (LEMS). The orientation of LEMS is
towards local control and development of a localized infor-
mation system utilizing mini computers.

The basic assumption of LEMS is that there is a "thin
line" of data that is common to all criminaljustéée agen-

v/
cies. The common data links all of these agencies together

 

78INSLAW has been working with the courts and prose—
cutor's office in Milwaukee in implementing a PROMIS infor-
mation system for courts and prosecutors.

37

and enables offender based transactional tracking. The
original base data is inputed by the arresting agency and
is added to as the case flows through the system.

Ingham County, because of their preparation towards an
automated system, was one of six counties in Michigan desig—
nated for implementation of LEMS. The central location of
Ingham County and the fact that Lansing is the political
center obviously helped in the selection of the county as
an experimental model. Another large consideration was that
the State Headquarters of the State Police are also located
within the County.

Program development for mini computers requires a lot
less technical assistance. The core package is built into
the computer during the construction of processing equip-
ment. Minis Operate on a form develOpment format. Under
this format the individual identifies through the develop~
ment of a form,the data input. ‘Within LEMS,each agency can
develop its own format for data beyond the "thin line" com-
mon data. Changes in format are quite easy and do not re-
quire a lot of time. Outputs can also easily be developed
by preparing on the computer the format for data reports
using the identified data inputs in any sequence.

Mini computers are extremely cheap when compared to
the large mainframes. Not only is the front end equipment
less expensive but the support terminals are also a lot
cheaper. Because of their relatively less expensive costs

it is conceivable that every agency could own their own

38

mini and that the agencies could interface for reports and
shared data items.

The advantages of this sort of setup are large. Not
only can each agency control data flow between program and
other agencies but accessibility to unauthorized data is far
less possible.

The low cost also assures all users enough terminals
to guarantee that staff will have adequate access to per-
form the daily business of the agency. Because of the
limited number of users per computer, turn around time
should be almost immediate. This is an important advan-
tage where quick decisions have to be made on the disposi—
tion of an individual at almost every stage of the court
flow.

LEMS funds full—time programers for the development
of more technical programming such as a master scheduling
system for all the courts in Ingham County.79

The programers are also valuable in transferring exist-
ing packages of services into the LEMS programs. An exam-
ple of this may be in transferring parts of the PROMIS pack-
age into the new system. There is a strong possibility of
this happening, since PROMIS was develOped under Federal

grants and is considered an item of public domain.

 

79The research that follows indicates that court
scheduling was perceived by court officials as the most
important priority for develOpment in any new system.

39

The initial development of the system will be through
the services of a mini computer purchased by the Lansing
Police Department for use in their automated dispatch pro-
gram. The development, which is expected to take approxi-
mately one year, will involve creation of the formats,
establishment of the base data from existing records, and
the debugging of the program.

Upon completion of the development stage the various
aspects will be transferred to the appropriate computers
and the system will go active. The design will be on line
interactive with interfacing of the common data where
needed.

The following chapters will cover the research done
to date in preparing for the system design and the con-

cerns that must be addressed in development of the system.

CHAPTER II

RESEARCH DESCRIPTION

This chapter will outline the research done with
the members of the Adjudicative Task Force in prepara-
tion for develOping an automated information system.

During the period from September to December, 1976,
all of the courts in Ingham, Clinton, and Eaton Counties
(with the exception of Clinton Probate Court) were sur-
veyed for their assessment of information needs. The
method of developing the survey and how the participants
were chosen is discussed.

Upon completion of the survey, 54A District Court,
55 District Court and 30th Circuit Court were asked to
develop a case flow model of their existing administrative
flow. The flow description of the district courts was
.prepared, and using these flow desriptions, plus the flow
through circuit court, a felony flow chart was developed.

It should be noted that, although a flow was pre-
pared for 54B District Court by a graduate student in
COOperation with this paper, the flow is now not available.
However, discussions,with the Court Administrator for 54B,
indicate that the case flow in the 55th if; almost the
same.

40

41

I. SELF PERCEPTION SURVEY OF COURTS'

INFORMATION NEEDS

Quite early in the planning process it became evident
that the administrators of the court were not aware of the
situation in other courts in the Region. After consider-
able discussion it was decided that some sort of an assess-
ment of the present situation was desirable before new
directions could be discussed.

With the cooperation of the Chairman of the Task
Force (the Circuit COurt Administrator of Ingham County),

a questionnaire was developed to allow each court to iden-
tify specific information now available and information
courts deemed useful in the management of their activi-
ties.

A review of BMCS & PROMIS data elements was made and
several questions were generated from these objective group
elements. Other questions were designed to measure the
desirability of various directions the information system
could take.

In a cover letter, from the chairman to the Task
Force members, the two scales used to evaluate data items
were explained (See Attachment A). Members were asked to

rate each item as follows:

42

TABLE 2

NEEDS ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

D Rating:

A Rating:

RATING SCALE

Desirability of this item of

information within your court

D1
D2
D3

D4

- Very useful

- Somewhat useful

Slightly useful

- Not useful

Availability of this information

at

A1
A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

your court

Always available
- Usually available

- Available at periodic intervals
(but at least monthly)

- Sometimes available

- Seldom available (only by
intensive searching)

- Never available

43

Appointments were made with the person identified

by the judges as responsible for collection and dissemi-

nation of data in almost every court within the Region.

The Probate Court in Clinton County, which indicated no

interest in participating, was excluded.

TABLE 3

PEOPLE RESPONDING TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

 

Name

 

Thomas Gormely

Al Kirschenbaur
Frank Russel
Judge Robert Bell

Douglas Slade

Michael Moran

Maxine Meyers

Leone Hartenburg

Maxine Rohlfs

Mary Anne Harrett

Gordon L. Willyoung

co_ur_t_
30 Circuit Court
54A District Ct.
54B District Ct.
55 District Court

Ingham County
Probate Court

Ingham County
Probate Court

Eaton County
District Court

Eaton County
Circuit Court

Eaton County
Probate Court

Clinton County
Circuit Court

Clinton County
District Court

Position
Court Administrator
Clerk of the Court
Court Administrator
Presiding Judge

Probate Register
Court Administrator
Court Clerk

Deputy County Clerk
County Juvenile

Officer

Judge's Secretary &
Assignment Clerk

Magistrate

44

There was considerable discussion as to who should
participate in the survey. In most cases, the presid-
ing judge of the court was contacted and given an explana—
tion of the purpose of the survey. Almost all of the
judges explained that they do not handle the daily admin-
istrative functions of the court nor do they feel versed
enough in these activities to answer the questionnaire.
There was, however, every attempt to keep the judge
advised as to activities related to the survey.

The exception to the rule was 55 District Court
where the presiding judge, Robert Bell, not only is
actively involved in the administrative decisions of
the court but actually is a strong advocate of judicial
procedure reform.

At the Circuit Court level, in Michigan, the county
clerk is held responsible for collection of court records.
For this reason the County Clerk's office in Eaton County
was used when the presiding judge had to cancel an appoint-
ment because of a case conflict. In Clinton County Circuit
Court the Assistant County Clerk for the Court assisted the

Court Clerk in responding to the questionnaire.

 

1The two clerks had established a manual cross refer-
ence system that could be considered an ideal model. The
records were the most complete of any encountered in the
Region. The small case load and the close working rela-
tionships of these two women were definitely major con-
tributors to the efficiency of the system.

45
Each of the respondents, with one exceptionz, had no
problems responding to the questions. They were encouraged,
whenever there was a question of court policy, to check
with the presiding judge before responding. Each inter-

view took between 45 minutes and one hour.
II. CASEFLOW SURVEY

Upon completion of the survey of needs it was decided
by the Task Force members that the results indicated there
was a need for further concentration in the Ingham County
Courts because of their more drastic situation.

It was decided that the next logical step would be to
prepare a caseflow model for each court. The emphasis of
the model would be to identify:

1. The court events associated with a case as it
flows through the system;

2. The information collection points involved with
a court case;

3. The files collected;

4. The people who collect information and data;

5. The uses of information; and

6. The decision making points of the court system.

The flow models were developed over the period of
January 2, 1977 to March 30, 1977. Each flow model re-

quired five or six meetings with a court official.

 

2The one exception was Eaton District, where there had
been a major staff change and the previous Court Clerk, who
had functioned much like the great gal described in Chapter
I, had left. In addition, the court had lost one of the two
judges as a result of the State Bar's punitive actions
against the judge.

46

In each case the person in the court identified as
most likely to be able to provide the information was
contacted. Because of the fact that there were variations
in each court the model develOpment varied with the court.

Al Kirschenbaur in 54A District Court served as the
contact person but chose to have each staff member of the
court explain his role in the processing of the various
cases. Karen Greenwood, who served as a research assis-
tant on this part of the project, had worked in the court
during the last summer and found the cooperation of the
court staff quite high. She would start with the initia-
tion of each type of case into the court flow and by going
from desk to desk, each staff person would explain his role
and describe the next step in the flow. A draft was re-
viewed by Mr. Kirschenbaur for accuracy before the flow
was finalized.

Judge Bell Of 55 District Court identified Pat Trimm,
Criminal Clerk and Scheduler, as the key court staff per-
son capable of identifying the total flow. Ms. Trimm had
been with the court for several years and had, previous to
her present position, worked in 54A District Court. Dur-
ing a series of six interviews she identified a case type
and then followed the flow of the case from beginning to
sentencing. Upon completion of the flow model, both Ms.
Trimm and Judge Bell reviewed the flow for corrections, de-

letions, and/or modification.

47

Thomas Gormely, 30 Circuit Court Administrator, had,
in anticipation of the survey, already completed most of
the research necessary to develOp the flow prior to the
first meeting. The case flow at the circuit court level
provides greater difficulty because of the fact that both
the court and the county clerk have responsibilities for
management of the case and its files. This advance prepara-
tion was necessary for that reason. Mr. Gormely did approve
the flow model prior to the final draft.

It was decided, in order to get some idea of the
total picture, that it would be advantageous to develop
a "Felony Flow Chart." This flow chart (Attachment B) is
a composite of the various district courts and the total
case flow in Circuit Court.

The develOpment of flow models not only allows each
of the courts to get some concept of the total situation,
but, more importantly, each court is forced to analyze
the ways cases flow through its system. The importance
of looking at the present system in a detached manner
cannot be overemphasized. This is probably the most

vital function of doing caseflow analysis.

CHAPTER III

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDING

This chapter covers the results of the research out-
lined in the previous chapter. The surveys, in addition
to the anticipated findings of the questionnaire and case
flow modeling, generated some unanticipated findings.
Careful consideration is given to unanticipated facts
first. Among the issues discussed in this section are
lack of goals, lack of common definitions, the informal I
collection processes, the needs of Ingham County, the
problem with the State reporting requirements, and the A
lack of aggregate data. .

A review is next made of the results of the question-
naire (Attachment A). The results are broken down into
the categories of "All Courts" responding, "Ingham with
Probate" Court and "Ingham without Probate" Court. General
findings from the case flow studies are discussed in the

final part of the chapter.
I. UNANTICIPATED FINDINGS

Quite often a research project will generate findings
not originally anticipated with the research design. As in
this case, the unanticipated findings can be as important to

the project as the anticipated areas of the original research.

48

49

Lack of Goals

 

None of the courts contacted in either study had
ever established goals and objectives for Operation of

the administrative functions of the courts, nor for that ‘

1’
I
I

I.
r' I

matter, any operations of the court.

The Courts now collect data with no established
purpose or direction. Also,all data collection is the
result of State laws or rules, some unclear concept of
what would be useful or the specific needs of a member of
the court. It is evident that some data is collected be-
cause that's the way its always been done.

Little or no data is collected with the idea of gen-
erating information for decisions.

Lack of Common Definitions

 

It became evident almost from the beginning of thevi
research that the courts did not share the same common A
working definitions for many court terms. Terms not
sharing common definitions include case, caseload, docket,
warrant and master calendar scheduling. Although these
were the most glaring examples encountered, it is not un-
reasonable to assume that in depth research would uncover
many more incidents of such circumstances.

This problem is not unique to this Region. The liter-
ature abounds with other jurisdictions encountering the
same problem. Probably the best statement of the problem
was made by the INSLAW staff during research on court

scheduling when they said:

50

Very early in the project it became clear that courts
and court administrators have difficulty communicat-
ing and sharing with one another because they do not
have a common language. When one moves from one court
to another, a case is no longer a case, a calendar is
no longer a calendar, a continuance is no longer a
continuance. Either the name or the definition will
be different. If courts could develop a common termi-
nology, sharing and transferring court technology
would be greatly simplified.1

The situation is not even unique to the U.S. In 1973,
when Italy computerized the court record keeping for the
entire country,the computer technicians had to develOp a
dictionary of 3000 "seed" words used as a base for all
records going on the computer.2

Informal Collection Processes

 

Much of the data and information flow within the
courts and between other criminal justice agencies is on
an unstructured informal basis. The response in both sur-A‘
veys, when court personnel were asked how people were noti-
fied or how some data was transmitted, was "well, we usually
just call somebody and take care of it that way." A lot
of data and information flows to and from courts based
upon interpersonal relationships developed between indiviép
duals in agencies.

A glaring danger, in this sort of relationship, is

that data within and between courts will not be uniform.

 

1Institute for Law and Social Research, Guide to Court
Scheduling: l. A Framework for Criminal ananAdJ.Courts
(Washington, D.C.: INSLAW, 1976): p. 42.

 

2Laura Tatham, "Computerizing Information Retrieval
in Italy," Judicature 57 (August/September):6l.

 

51

Any comparison of court data is not possible when there
is no assurance of uniform collection.

If personal relationships break down or if a key
individual leaves the court, a vital source of information
and data may cease. At best, when this sort of situation
happens, the court may spend many valuable hours reestab-
lishing an old situation.

There is always the possibility that one individual
within the court can acquire inordinate amounts of powers.
The "great gal", described in Chapter I, quite often evolves
from situations such as this. It just is easier to give
people the power to go with controlled access rights, than
to try to compete with them. Therefore, vital peOple with—
in an agency become the focal point of all data and infor-
mation flow.

The most important concern is that key information may
not be collected or disseminated in a timely manner, also
there is always the possibility that information vital to
a case file or to aggregate data collection may never be
collected consistently. In Chapter IV,the issue of timely
data will be underlined in the discussion of the privacy
and security issue. It is sufficient at this point to say
that accurate and timely information/data on a case is the
single most important topic under this issue.

The Needs of Ingham County Court

 

During the needs assessment survey, it became quite‘

apparent that the differences between Ingham County and

52

the courts in the rest of the Region were dramatic.
Except for Eaton County District Court, the courts out-
side of Ingham County are not now facing the crunch that
exists in larger county courts.

Ingham County courts are all experiencing increasing
case loads, scheduling problems, budget crunches, politi-
cal pressures from all sides, and diminishing resources.
The compounding effect of ineffective court continuance
policies has added to the problems of some courts. Over-
setting is a common practice in three of the courts in the
County.

Eaton and Clinton County both have a predominately
rural setting at this time and have experienced far less
pressures. Eaton County District Court in the last few
years has had a small increase in case loads as a result
of a large shopping center built in the part of the county
closest to Lansing but the other outcountry courts have not
yet felt the impact of urban flight that may follow in
future years.

State Supreme Court Administrator Reports

The State Supreme Court Administrator, in order to pre-
pare reports to the Supreme Court Justices and to the State
Legislature, has mandated periodical reports to be prepared
by the local courts. Every court encountered during the
research period expressed strong feeling of Opposition to

the reporting requirements.

53

The administrators stated that the reports were ex-
tremely time consuming, were not useful in making day-to-
day management decisions, and offered no useful feedback
beyond some aggregate data presented in the annual report.
No one ever said that the report helped the court improve
its operation. Many expressed the strong feeling that
there was no intent by the State to explain the meanings
of the various reports that were generated as a result of
their reporting.

Almost every court had trouble meeting the State's
deadlines for reporting and several stated they were always
late. Much of this trouble stemmed from the lack of train-
ing provided by the State to local administrators.

All of the courts had hoped that the batch reporting
to JDC would make the preparation of these reports easier,
however, every court in the Region had strong reservations
about the JDC batch process. All but three of the courts
have now discontinued the batch service.

Lack of Aggregate Data

 

Very little aggregate data is collected within courts
throughout the Region. Ingham County Circuit Court was the
only court that prepared any sort of annual report using
some aggregate data. None of the courts kept data that
could be used as management information.

No provisions are made for planning and evaluation
except for those court programs under grants. However,

all of the Ingham County courts were strong in their feeling

54

that there was a need for data necessary to develop and

evaluate new programs.

II. INFORMATION NEEDS QUESTIONNAIRE (ATTACHMENT A)

The Needs Questionnaire responses were totaled for
each column and then the mean score was determined. When-
ever the mean score exceeded one point to the right of the
decimal, it was rounded off to the nearest tenth. The "All
Courts" column includes all responses, the "Ingham w/Probate"
column has an N of 6, and “Ingham w/out Probate" has an N of 4.

The most obvious information needs would be those re-
sponses with a mean D score close to l and a mean A score
close to 6.

With few exceptions the range between A and D scores
was highest in the Ingham County responses.

Case Information

 

A good example of a definitional problem is the first
question. A uniform docket number seemed to be a self-
evident term. It was meant to represent a circumstance
where cases would receive consecutive numbers as they were
assigned and that number would stay with the case through-
out its court life, no matter what other change might
happen in a case. No such system exists anywhere in the
Region yet respondents felt that such a system was avail-
able. In following up on the question, it was found that
the definition of a "uniform docket number" was not a

commonly used term. This is especially revealing when

55

one considers the fact that quite often the term is used
in reports of computerized information systems.

Though every court in the Region feels that knowing
the status of any individual while awaiting final disposi-
tion is vital information to know, it was found that it
is not always available information. Offender based
tracking information is not kept anywhere in the Region.

Case postponements and the cause of postponements is
considered important information, but in Ingham County
that information is not readily available in all cases.
This sort of information is vital to any scheduling pro-
cess and policy and case postponements will usually be the
most important variable in any successful case scheduling
programs.

Individual Respondent (Defendant) Data

Courts do not usually keep data on sex and race of
defendant and most responses indicated that this informa-
tion is not important. This is surprising in light of the
civil rights requirements being placed on all public agen-
cies.

Though courts usually know of cases pending against
an individual in their own court, the cases pending in
other courts against the individual are usually not known.
One of the court administrators who responded to the ques-
tionnaire gave the example of an individual who was re-
leased from custody by the court at the end of a trial,

even though the individual should have been kept because

56

of a felony charge pending in another court. Though this
is not an every day incident, it does happen enough to be
of some concern.

Past criminal, substance abuse, and treatment history
are all desirable but not readily available items of infor-
mation. When a court must decide on bail status before
or during the course of a trial or when sentencing, this
information can be vital.

General Court Information

 

A master court scheduling system is considered impOr-
tant but has not been generated. The single most often
stated complaint, of the way court business is now Operated,
was that lawyers quite often overset their schedules by I
scheduling in several courts at the same time. The re-
sult has been a high rate of continuances, thus forcing
courts to overset to compensate for the high attrition
rate. Oversetting for oversetting feeds on itself and
court calendars in some courts have become a mockery.

The problem of court scheduling in Ingham County
Circuit Court is compounded by the fact that they do not,
do the scheduling in the court. Control of the court's
schedule is maintained in the Prosecutor's Office.

The courts especially desire data that can assist
them in making management decisions and can offer some
indications of future work loads. As previously stated,

aggregate data is not available.

57

Other Responses

 

Courts, especially in Ingham County, do not have
immediate access to other government data sources. The
Secretary of State record checks consume a large part of
the staff time in district courts. Direct access to the
State office could reduce the amount of time spent on many
routine traffic cases.

The desirability of LEIN, correctional and police
arrest records all reflect the desire of courts to have
better histories of an individual before dispositional
events in the courts. Those courts now receiving any or
part of this information indicated that they received such
information through informal contacts in police departments,
while those expressing a strong desire for such information
have not established these informal links. None of the
courts had direct access to defendant history information.

All of the courts felt a strong desire to have some
computer assistance in the preparation of reports. Most
courts felt there was a need to start sharing information
with other criminal justice agencies and saw the computer

as the tool for this type of service.
I II . CASEFLOW

During the flow of a felony case through the courts,
the following sources of case records may be created:
1. District court liber or journal;

2. District court docket card;

58

3. District court file, which is usually duplicated
before it is sent to Circuit Court;

4. Circuit Court file in the County Clerk's Office;

5. Circuit Court journal;

6. Court Clerk's informal notes;

7. County Clerk's docket card (the only one that is

official); and

8. Assignment Clerk's docket card.

No single source will have a complete file and the
records may actually contain conflicting information. Any
review of the records is a long drawn out process requir-
ing considerable resources.

Duplication of information is common. Not only may
more than one source maintain the same data elements but
because of the growing bureaucratic structures in the
larger court,there is a large amount of COpying records
for CYA purposes. There are as many as three or four
copies of some documents in various court files. In addi-
tion to the obvious drain on manpower there is a storage
and space problem with duplicative records. 54A District
Court, for example, because of space problems,has expanded
its facilities to another floor of City Hall.

Each court, in addition to developing a flow model,
was asked to recreate a case file including the usual
documents accumulated during an average case. The major
conclusion, from a review of these files, is that case

files contain duplicative data elements. Name, address,

59

charge, and attorney may appear as many as 20 to 30 times
in the case file. Documents may, however, conflict with
each other on certain data elements and there is no way
short of an exhaustive investigation of identifying the
correct facts.

Scheduling is not a consistent process throughout
the courts. The district courts rely on an individual
within the court to handle the event scheduling while
the County Prosecutor's staff does the event scheduling
for Circuit Court. Some courts consult with the defense
attorney's office in schedule preparation while others
notify the attorney after the schedule is prepared. The
defense and prosecution are either notified by phone or
letter of the scheduled event depending on the procedure
of the individual court.

Continuance and appearance rules also vary by court.
As might be expected, those courts with strict continuance
and appearance rules experienced the least problems with
scheduling.

There is no attempt to coordinate scheduling efforts
with other courts, therefore making it quite easy for an
attorney to overset his case load for a given time. The
courts with stricter continuance policies will usually
check with the attorney prior to scheduling to try and
have a reasonably conflict free schedule.

The number of cases that plead out and the inconsis-

tent court policies have resulted in courts oversetting

60

their schedules. Oversetting can mean long waits result-
ing in frustrations for the defendant, witness, attorney,
and the police. The police and witness attitudes are an
important element in the successful prosecution of a case.
When a case is released without a trial because of apathy
on the part of the participants, the general public loses.
As previously stated, repeat offenders have learned to
exploit this situation.

When oversetting occurs, another byproduct is that
those attorneys having cases low on the pecking order will
not be prepared. The assumption is that, with a large
number of proceeding cases, the chances of getting to that
case are small. More often than not the result is a con-
tinuance adding to the growing backlog.

Following a case from start to finish is, at best,
difficult because of the fact that the case number will
change as it goes to another court and rarely will the
original charge and the final charge be the same. Plea
negotiations, prosecutor discretion and police overcharg-
ing all add to charges being changed. A police officer,
trying to figure out what happened to one of his cases by
reading the dispositional reports,may never know if the
case being reported is the same one he had investigated.

Probation, when preparing the PSI, usually does not
have access to the court files. An investigation by the
Probation Office will generate many of the facts already
available within the court files. Duplicative files and

wasted resources are again the result.

CHAPTER IV

RECOMMENDATIONS & CONSIDERATIONS

This chapter will present recommendations for improve-
ment of the existing system prior and during implementation
of the information system.

System development issues discussed include training
and attitude, objective setting, standardization of termi-
nology, system design, scheduling, privacy and security,
system control, evaluation and feedback, and research capa-

bilities, including future projection capabilities.

I. TRAINING AND ATTITUDES

The best system design will not succeed if the staff
of the agency does not support the changes necessary to
implement the new plan. An example of a breakdown of a
good system design was when the Florida State Court Admin- .
istrator tried to implement a new system. The Clerks per-I
ceived the new system as demanding more education and ex- :.
perience than any of them had. Without any training or A
explanation of their new roles, the clerks bogged the sys~

tem down and effectively made it break down.1

 

1Larry C. Berkson and Steven W. Hayes, "The Unmaking
of a Court Administrator," Judicature 60 (October 1976):
136.

 

61

62

Frank Cheatham of the Georgia Supreme Court Office
identified, in addition to the clerks, the following as
important elements in selling a new system:

1. The judges;

2. Other elected criminal justice officials;

3. County commissioners; and

4. The general public.2

Another important element of the community that must\
be behind any new system within the courts is the Bar A
Association. As much as the clerk or judge, the lawyer, M
if he (she) feels threatened by a new system, can serve as
an obstructionist.

The best way to assure acceptance of a new system is;
to involve all potential users in the develOpment stages.;E
The National Clearinghouse for Criminal Justice and Archi-
tecture states that "it's better to get participation from
all involved, rather than to impose a new system from
above . . . all viewpoints must be represented in the
planning process."3

The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice
Standards and Goals reflect this opinion throughout their

various documents. In the book Criminal Justice System,

 

they state:

 

2Frank S. Cheatham, Jr. , "The Unmaking of a Court Admin-
istrator," Judicature 60 (October 1976):129-130.

 

3National Clearhouse, p. 7.

63

Too often, system design and operation is considered

a technical task to be left entirely to technicians.

Certain standards in this report assure system users

of the right to a voice in the develOpment of poli-

cies and objectives for information systems and to

continuing authority during system operation.

Training programs through the design and implementation
process for staff are essential. Fear of computers is a
common characteristic to American society. Most Americans
do not know how computers work and almost everyone has had
at least one frustrating experience with a data processing
system. A training program should include some assurances
of the potential good of the new system, as well as the more
technical skill development.

Judges have more than a passing interest in the success
of a court program because of the legal and political account-
ability they have for the court's operations. Their enforce-a
ment of court rules and procedures can be the key element to
a successful program.5 The leadership of the judges is crit—
ical to system development.

A public relations program to politically sell the new
system must be considered a high priority. Since Watergate,
the American public has become suspicious of governmental
agencies who maintain automated records. Courts are pub-

lic agencies and, therefore, are accountable to the public

for their performance. Local funding, as a result of

 

4Criminal Justice Systems, p. 36.

 

5Barzun, p. 626.

64

community support, will be determined by the general
acceptance of the new program.

Malcolm MacDonald, the person who designed the Omaha/
Douglas County Metropolitan Criminal Justice Center and
served as a computer systems designer for the U.S. govern-
ment, warns that one "must neither oversell or undersell,
for it is dangerous to create false hOpes and expectations
for a system,as it is foolish not to explain completely and
honestly what may be expected."6

Benefits of an automated system that can be sold to

the public, other agencies, and within the court include:

1. Decreased man hours spent in preparing documents
now produced manually;

2. Accurate and timely dissemination of dispositions
to other criminal justice agencies;

3. Automated scheduling including notices prepared
for attorneys;

4. Easier monitoring for speedy trial compliance;
5. Better utilization of resources;
6. Timely status reports to administrators;

7. Simulation models that can help predict future
resource demands; and

8. Accurate accumulative data that can be used to
plan and evaluate the programs of the court.

 

6MacDonald, p. 55.

65

II. OBJECTIVES SETTING

The single most important tool in the development of
any system is the setting of objectives. Without objec-
tives, there can be no direction or evaluation of the pro—
gram.

An objective, unlike a goal, should be specific in
time and be associated with a quantifiable measure. Objec-
tives should: reflect desired changes both within and be-
tween agencies; be realistic to achieve; reflect data sets
that can be collected; be prioritized; consider all poten-
tial users of the system; have flexibility enough so that
as the situation within the agency changes, the objectives
can reflect the most immediate needs; and offer some per-
manency of positive change instead of stOp gap measures.
When any one of these elements is missing from a set of
objectives, the chances of successful planning, management,
and evaluation are greatly reduced.

Objectives should first be develOped at the local
agency level. Only after completion of the agency level
objectives should Objectives be developed at the system
level. Whenever conflicts exist between the objectives of
various agencies, careful consideration should be given to

the impact of any tradeoffs.

66

III. STANDARDIZATION OF TERMINOLOGY

System objectives will be meaningless without com-
mon working definitions shared by all agencies. Under-
standing and communication between agencies is predicated
on mutually shared definitions.

All key words of a system should be identified and
given definition. It is recommended that there be devel-
oped a manual which includes definitions for all data ele—

ments used in the system.
IV. SYSTEM DESIGN

Whenever a new system is developed the agency(s) will
need to consider whether:

1. Its existing system is adequate;

2. Its existing system can be upgraded;

3. A transferable data-support system can be
acquired; or '

4. A new system must be designed.7

Careful consideration must be given to the present
system and great care must be given to the inadequacies of
the situation. A common error made by administrators when
they convert to an automated system is to computerize the

existing system intact.

 

7Guide to Court Scheduling, p. 20.

 

67

Computers are wonderful management tools, but they
are only tools. If we computerize meaningless pro-
cesses and electronically store useless, meaningless
data which is only a memorial to an ancient clerk
who was trying to raise his standard of living, we
should not be surprised if the effectiveness of court
clerical activities does not improve. . .

In the area of mechanization and computerization,

care should be taken not to further institutionalize

and perpetuate operations and processes which do
nothing to aid the court and may, in fact, hinder it.

A careful examination of what is being performed in

relation to what is being accomplished may reveal

that the real need is to eliminate many activities

rather than to create complex and expensive Electronic

Data Processing processes to permit irrational func-

tions to be accomplished efficiently.

The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice
Standards and Goals Task Force on Courts recommends the
following uses for computerized court systems:

1. Monitor cases;

2. Access to case histories;

3. Scheduling;

4. Clerical tasks;

5. Mailing of notices;

6. Accounting; and

7. Jury selection.9

Taking into consideration the present situation,
objectives should be developed for each of the prescribed
tasks and interaction between tasks should be considered.

The ultimate system must, in order to be effective, be

 

8Whittaker, p. 376.

9Courts, pp. 217-220.

68

based upon the developed objectives. In addition to the
legal and procedural data requirements, a system design
should generate the data necessary to make management de-
cisions and evaluate the system's effectiveness.
The quality of the data is best maintained through
routine and regularly performed checks and audits.
This provides assurances that the data available are
complete, accurate, updated, and free from subjec-
tive evaluation.
Elimination of duplication and redundancy should be
a prime consideration in any system. The loss of re-
sources in duplicative efforts is costly to the courts.
The Criminal Justice System Task Force recommends the
following to address the problem of duplication:
1. Identical records should not be contained
within two separate repositories, unless
there are strong overruling considerations

of total system efficiency to be gained thereby;

2. "In-process" files should reside within the
agency in which the processes take place; and

3. Historical files should normally be housed at
the governmental level which can satisfy the
maximum percentage of inquiries.

An Offender Based Transactional System (OBTS) com-

ponent can be a vital element of a court system. The use

of OBTS data should identify the problems, within the

court, where "speedy trial" can break down. Defendants

 

10Criminal Justice System, p. 97.

llIbid., p. 43.

69

are less apt to be lost under OBTS12

and their present
status can be monitored as often as necessary.

Careful consideration should be given to developing
new documents and the eliminating of unnecessary work. A
prime concern should be reducing workloads in the prepara-
tion of documents. In addition to redesigning paper flow,
the Denver District Courts, when they automated their record
keeping, paid close attention to standardizing procedures

13 Standardization

for preparing and recording records.
will offer the courts the means of conducting meaningful
comparisons of operations.

An important function of an information system is
the data support offered to administrators. A specific
component of the system design must address the data/
information needs of key decision-makers. As previously
stated, there should be consideration given to just how
much information can be used by the decision-maker. In-
sufficient data or data overloads are problems that must
be addressed.

The case of outside technical assistance and when to

use it is always a problem in the development stages.

 

12The ideal systems will never lose data on cases, but
it should be recognized that a computer is only as reliable
as the peOple providing the inputs.

l3Harvey B. Castro and Ronald E. Owens, "Automation
in the Courts: The Denver Experience," Judicature 59
(August/September l975):92-93.

 

7O

Technicians,outside the courts,can be quite useful in the
more technical areas. Before technicians become involved,
however, the individual courts and total system must de-
velop their own objectives, policies, procedures and eval-
uation performance standards. The only peOple who really
know the courts are those who work there. No outsider can
tell court personnel what the court system needs. Techni-
cians often are selling a packaged product and are not con-
cerned with the needs of the agencies.

A common mistake made in implementing automated infor-
mation systems is to have a limited number of data ele-
ments. If the data set is not flexible, the administrator
will not be able to respond to changes within the court.
The only data elements that can be locked into a system
are those that are always going to be used. Examples of
permanent data elements are name, date of birth, and physi-
cal characteristics. All other types of data elements will
fall into the categories of data that may be revised from
time-to-time or data that may not be desirable at some later
date. Maximum flexibility in the data set should always be

a concern .

V. COURT SCHEDULING

The efficiency of a court centers around an effective
court scheduling component. It is recommended that a com-
prehensive County wide scheduling system be developed.

INSLAW researchers, who have done extensive research in

71

this area, refer to scheduling as:

The process of planning for and ensuring that all
the participants in cases to be heard will assemble
at the proper times and places for the events re-
quired for adjudication, within the constraints of
the court's resources, the availability of the par-
ticipants, and due process.14

Though automation offers Opportunities to improve schedul—
ing, Sarah Cox, an INSLAW researcher, who worked on the

staff that prepared the Guide to Court Scheduling, states

 

that:

". . . there is no automated operational court
scheduling system in existence today. Some courts
use computer-assisted manual systems . . . (and)
some courts have automated single steps which might
be part of a total scheduling system."1

One reason why scheduling is important is that it
costs money, and inefficient or ineffective schedul-
ing costs more money. The scheduling system deter-
mines the pattern of utilization of all the resources
of the court: the time spent by judges, attorneys,
police, citizens and other personnel, as well as
court space and equipment. If any one of these re-
sources is underutilized or is used for the wrong
purposes (as when judges sit idle or must do the
work of clerks and schedulers), the cost of the
entire court system rises, while its effectiveness
may go down.

The INSLAW staff have identified the following as
constraints on effective scheduling:

1. The legal setting with the emphasis on due process;

 

 

14Guide to Court Scheduling, p. 7.
15Cox, p. 353.
16

Guide to Court Scheduling, p. 4.

 

5.

72

The adversary role of the defense, where delay
and the discouragement of key witnesses is a
tactic;

The limited resources of the court and the
emphasis on judge involvement in each step;

The courts' reactive role to an independent
case load; and

The strong emphasis on traditional roles and
policies. 7 -

They further caution, that a scheduling system may fail

because:

1.

2.

5.

The system may be inefficient, because it will
not or cannot use the available resources;

The system may be ineffective, because of lax
continuance policies;

The system may result in unequal workloads and
responsibilities for the staff;

The identified system may not be a system, because
of the lack of Objective orientation; and

The system allows oversetting, delays, continuances,
and witness alienation.

The successful scheduling system, therefore, should address

the following needs:

1.

2.

The need for a conceptual framework, that includes
well defined goals and objectives:

The need for a common set of terminology;

 

17

Jack Hausner, Thomas Lane, and Gary Oleson, "A Sur—
vey and Assessment of Court Scheduling Technology," Pro-
ceedings of the Third International Search Symposium on
Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Systems
(Sacramento, California: Search Group, Inc., 1976), pp.

277-278,

18

Ibid., p. 279.

73

3. The need for more coordinated calendars;

4. The need for integration of scheduling with
court policy and planning;

5. The need for a scheduling evaluation process;

6. The need for quantitative measures of judicial
workloads;

7. The need for increased predictability; and

8. The need for greater use of available automated
information systems.

Most of these needs are basic to a good court infor-
mation system, therefore, the logical extension to a
scheduling system is obvious. However, as was previously
pointed out, no one has taken that logical step.

A comprehensive court scheduling system should include
20

management, calendaring, and data support components.

Caseflow Management

 

The management component of a court scheduling system
should set Objectives and policies, plan Operations of the

21 Each of

scheduling system, and evaluate the system.
these functions may be performed by a single individual
or group within the court.

Maureen Solomon, for the American Bar Association

Commission on Standards of Judicial Administration,has

 

lgIbid., p. 282.

20Guide to Court Scheduling, p. 7.

 

21Ibid., p. 13

10.

74

Established procedures governing the flow and
processing of cases, including judicial commit-
ment to tight control of continuances;

Centralized judicial responsibility for Operation
of the caseflow management system;

Continuous cognizance and control of case progress;

A simple record system specifically designed to
facilitate control of case progress;

Case processing time standards and caseflow system
performance standards;

Continuing measurements of system performance
against these goals, including monitoring and
feedback and periodic modification of the system;

Established techniques for avoiding or minimizing
the attorney schedule conflicts; and

Service of a court administrator to act as a coor-
dinator and innovator in the caseflow management
process.25

The management system, according to Solomon, will lose

control

1.

of caseflow when one of the following exist:

Case scheduling done by attorneys or prosecutors;
Oversetting;

Lenient continuance policies; and

Cumbersomg or ineffective dismissal rules and pro-
cedures.2

Another potential problem is the court's policy on

negotiated pleas. All the courts, in Ingham County, now

accept a bargained plea even after the trial has begun.

This practice, in addition to Solomon's concerns, can

 

25

26

Ibid., p. 2.

Ibid., p. 3.

75

developed an excellent management model she calls "case-
flow management." Solomon states that caseflow manage-

ment is:

Not directly involved with the adjudicative process
itself, but instead, is strictly a management pro-
cess, encompassing all the functions that affect
movement of the case toward disposition. It embod-
ies planning organizing, directing, and controlling
these functions. . . (It) aims for the coordination
of interrelated resources in a manner designed to
achieve a smooth a3? continuous flow of a case
through the court.

Caseflow management is a "goal-oriented process."23

The goals of caseflow management, as stated by Solomon,
are:

1. To expedite the dispositions of all cases in'a
manner consistent with fairness to all parties;

2. To enhance the quality of litigation;

3. To assure equal access to the adjudicative
process for all litigants; and

4. To minimize the uncertainties associated with
cases.24

Factors that make for a successful caseflow management
situation are:

l. Policy—level commitment by judges to control
caseflow and speedy disposition of backlog;

2. Continuing consultation among courts, prosecution,
and the bar about system operation and means of
improvement;

 

2Maureen Solomon, Caseflow Management in the Trial
Court, (Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association Commis-
sion on Standards of Judicial Administration, 1973), P. 4.

 

23Ibid.

24Ibid.

10.

76

Established procedures governing the flow and
processing of cases, including judicial commit-
ment to tight control of continuances;

Centralized judicial responsibility for operation
of the caseflow management system;

Continuous cognizance and control of case progress;

A simple record system specifically designed to
facilitate control of case progress;

Case processing time standards and caseflow system
performance standards;

Continuing measurements of system performance
against these goals, including monitoring and
feedback and periodic modification of the system;

Established techniques for avoiding or minimizing
the attorney schedule conflicts; and

Service of a court administrator to act as a coor-
dinator and innovator in the caseflow management
process.2

The management system, according to Solomon, will lose

control
1.
2.
3.

4.

of caseflow when one of the following exist:

Case scheduling done by attorneys or prosecutors;
Oversetting; I

Lenient continuance policies; and

Cumbersome or ineffective dismissal rules and pro-
cedures.

Another potential problem is the court's policy on

negotiated pleas. All the courts, in Ingham County, now

accept a bargained plea even after the trial has begun.

This practice, in addition to Solomon's concerns, can

 

25

26

Ibid., p. 2.

Ibid., p. 3.

77

account for many of the scheduling problems in Ingham
County.
Continuance policies may be a major factor in con-

27

trolling caseflows. Solomon and the INSLAW staff both

recommend, that "the court(s) must adOpt and apply a re-
strictive continuance policy, administered by a judge."28
Figure I illustrates the results of unrestricted contin—
uance policies.29
The Los Angeles Court System has established a strong
caseflow policy that is working. The court maintains on
computer records, not only the cases a lawyer may have in
any single court, but maintains the lawyer's schedule in
other local courts, and Federal court, his vacation sche-
dule, and other obligations that conflict with court time.
The attorneys are required to report on any conflicts at
the time of trial setting. Failure to comply is a viola-
tion of court rules.30
To expedite trials, the Los Angeles court has classi-
fied cases as either assigned or unassigned. Assigned

cases are those only the attorney filing an appearance

can represent, while unassigned cases can be represented

 

27Guide to Court Scheduling, p. 14.

28Solomon, p. 33.

29Ibid., p. 50.

30Robert A. Wenke, "Mastering the Master Calendar,"
Judicature 57 (March 1974):356.

 

EFFECT OF CONTINUANCE AND SCHEDULING
POLICY ON ATTORNEY READINESS

STA RT
H ERE

I

 

 

Due to L'nreadiness
Attorneys Request
Continuance

 

 

 

 

When Low on List
Attorneys May Net
Prepare Case and
Have Witnesses
Present

 

 

I

 

 

 

Usually Cases
Low on List Are Not
Reached for Trial

 

 

 

 

Court Routinely
Grants Continuance

 

 

 

 

Too Few Ready
Cases To Keep
Judges Busy

 

 

 

Court Schedules
UnrealisticalIy High
Number of Cases

 

 

FIGURE 1

 

 

78

by any member of the attorney's firm. Though not popular
with many attorneys, this system allows the unassigned
cases to be scheduled without too much concern for
schedule conflicts.31

San Diego found that the past record of an attorney's
continuances was a useful tool in predicting those cases
that may go. Not only is a record of continuance kept, but
the reasons are also maintained. This can become a useful
tool in identifying those lawyers who abuse the system.32

During the last year, the law enforcement agencies in
Ingham County have expressed concern about the large amount
of time officers spend waiting in court to testify. The
Police Task Force of the Tri County Criminal Justice Coor-
dinating Council has requested Wayne Brooks, the Tri County
staff support to the Task Force, to do a survey on the
amount of police time spent waiting to testify. Though
the report is not complete, Brooks indicates that the lost
time is considerable.

The INSLAW staff suggests scheduling as many of a police
officer's cases as possible for one court session. This can
minimize the number of his or her appearances and control

for conflicts as a result of appearances in other courts.

It, also, assists the police in their scheduling duties.33

 

31Ibid.

32James, p. 58.

33Guide to Court Scheduling, p. 32.

 

79

Some courts have established a hearing-duration policy,
that allows those attorneys, who agree to limit the hearing
on a case to a set time, the Option of moving their case
up on the scheduling priority of the court. Faster cases
for the attorney and a more controlled calendar are the
34

results.

Calendaring

 

Calendaring, "the component of a scheduling system by
which a date, time, and place for an individual event are

35 is the

selected in accordance with court objectives,"
application of the caseflow management functions.

A calendaring component, according to INSLAW, should
include:

1. Monitoring the calendar;

2. Setting events, dates, and times;

3. Controlling conflicts in attorney schedules;

4. Consolidating appearances by police;

5. Making last-minute adjustments in the calendar; and
6. Notifying all participants of a scheduled event.36

"Notification has two aspects,both of which are impor-

tant in develOping a scheduling system; it is directed both

 

34Ibid., p. 10.
35Ibid., p. 7.
36

Ibid., p. 7.

80

at the individual participants in a scheduled event and

37 With-

at other courts and criminal justice agencies."
out controlling for events that conflict, by sharing
scheduling information, courts cannot expect to have
effectual schedules.

The workload of the court is a vital element that must
be considered, when preparing court schedules. Workload
estimates include consideration of holidays, weekends,
average sick time and vacations, visiting judges, and the
day of the week for which the event is scheduled.38

A central and essential function of the calendaring
process is matching court hearings with dates and times.
This process is usually called calendar mode. INSLAW
identified the two types of modes as:

1. Continuous Mode, where no precise data is set in
advance. Instead, as cases progress toward trial
in succession, the trial date is determined by
the completion of events and the resulting avail-
ability of resources; and

2. Date-Certain (day-certain) mode, where a specific
date is chosen in advance. Either a date is
selected as the need for the next event is iden—
tified, or even 3 are selected for dates under
consideration.

The mode most apt to allow control over the scheduling

process is "Date Certain." This mode allows for a more

 

37Ibid., p. 11.

38Wenke, p. 357.

39Guide to Court Scheduling, p. 42.

 

81

accurate notification process, thus minimizing conflicts
in the schedule.

Some disagreement exists between experts on the value
of choosing a case assignment system.

Solomon states, that "recent court studies have demon-
strated that the type of case assignment system used is
not per se the determinate of success or failure . . ."40

INSLAW, however, states, that "choosing a case assign-
ment system and a calendar mode will affect the whole
scheduling system, and they should be chosen in light of
the objectives that have been established for it."41

There are three types of case assignment systems:

1. Master assignment system (master calendar). Each
event in a case is assigned as a judge becomes
available, without regard to which judge heard
any of the previous events. (See Figure 2)

2. Individual assignment system (individual calendar).
Each case is assigned to one judge, who hears all
th23events in the life of that case. (See Figure
3)

3. Hybrid assignment system. This consists of some
combination of (l) and (2).

The strengths of mastering scheduling according to

Solomon are:

 

40Solomon, p. 2.

4J'Guide to Court Scheduling, p. 14.

 

42Solomon, p. 11.

43Ibid., p. 7.

44Guide to Court Scheduling, pp. 42-43.

 

82

          

coEaOQEQ

coEnox—ma

:oEmomca

N mmDOHm

6.96 Co 2;. 5 :38 or. :O mic—.231 :53: 30.5.5 .5 ._acc_:_o .foac-ecsE on 52.

 

    

     

      

    

   

   

 

     

      
   

          

   

        

    
  

         

            

 

 

 

 

Q
m
‘—
sters—aux —
.03. 5
0:5 .5 .24 5.8m EC. 3.53.. @3315: amuse m
12% .a....—. -5 i no Sofia—sum 0358 :OJ 50.52 55:2
.... . . ._ p a .5 3:55 . .. ._ r . . 2
3.3.50 . 5952:0m m
.5 .525...— (m
m
m 350 <
O . .
”any“? 350 4.5—... 3 U
.5 earl. Wczsfiwfim. OO._m_mm<
EOE—Ear. :4 pa: :3.
.3 Bcwmmflx
x<DZMJ<U

xmhm<2

83

 

INDIVIDUAL To
CALENDAR

Pretrial
Conferences'l'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\lotions pTett'ial
L Con ferettces"
C
A
S
E
S T0 Pretn'al
J quc Conferences,“
F
I
L
E
I)
TO Pretrial
JUdge Conferences"
T0 Pretrial
IUdg e Conferences“

 

 

 

‘May be mandatory. optional. or absent entirely depending on thejudge or type oI‘case.

FIGURE 3

84

1. Maximum use of available judges;

2. Greater probability of going to court on the
assigned date, because individual delays in cases
do not affect the total court;

3. Speedy trial is not dependent upon the character-
istics of a judge;

4. Uniformity of policy likely;

5. Judges may specialize in the area of their indi-
vidual strengths;

6. There is central control of cases; and

7. Encourages a team spirit among judges.45

The individual calendar system, in recent years, has
been "widely advocated" and adopted by courts. Courts have
accepted the system because:

1. There is high accountability and, thus, there is
high motivation for the judges;

2. Judges maintain a familiarity with a case, mean-
ing that less time is spent in briefing the judge;

3. There should be consistent rulings throughout the
history of the case; and

4. Prevents lawyers from shopping for the desirable
judge for each event.

Most court scheduling processes, according to Solomon,
are not pure forms of either master or individual systems,
but combine elements of each and, thus, have a hybrid

system.47 The hybrid system's major advantage is that it

 

4SSolomon, pp. 12-13.

46Ibid., pp. 8—10.

47Ibid., p. 7.

can

85

draw from the strong points of the other two systems.

Data Support

 

The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice

Standards and Goals, under Standard 5.2 states:

for

Criminal courts should be provided with sufficient
information on caseflow to permit efficient calendar
management. Basic data to support this activity in-
clude the following:

1. Periodic disposition rates by proceeding;
these statistics can be used to formulate
and adjust calendar caseload limits;

2. An attorney and police witness schedule
which can be used to minimize scheduling
conflicts;

3. Judge and courtroom schedule;

4. Range of time which proceedings consume;
and

5. An age index of all cases in pretrial or
awaiting trial (by type of trial requested)
to determine if special attention is re- 48
quired or the speedy trial rule endangered.

In addition to management support, data is necessary
evaluation purposes. INSLAW recommends, that:

Both judges and administrators need to evaluate the
scheduling system continually to see that the court's
goals and objectives are being met. The administra—
tor may need to adjust procedures and formulas and
give bar members or other participants further in-
structions about the operation of the system and
their role in it.

 

48Criminal Justice Systems, p. 71.

 

49Guide to Court Scheduling, p. 17.

 

86
VI. PRIVACY AND SECURITY

If historians record Vietnam as the issue of the
sixties, they will probably identify privacy and secur-
ity as the issue of the seventies. Watergate, and its
related issues, brought to light the fact that misuse
and abuse of personal information by governmental agen-
cies was more than probable. In Michigan, people found
that police intelligence files were being kept on indi-
viduals because of their involvement in the American
political process.

During the surveys, for this project, and in meetings
where the issue of a criminal justice information system
for Ingham County was raised, the subject that always
was discussed was privacy and security.

With the advent Of new, more accessible hardware
and software, the potential for system abuse is greater
today than ever before. Within this century, the possi-
bility exists that computers, small enough to be held in
the hand, but capable of large quantities of memory, will
exist. The mini computer now makes it possible for almost
all agencies to computerize their records. There is every
reason to believe that the computer age has begun and that
the potential for controlling our everyday life is a by-
product.

The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice
Standards and Goals Task Force on Information Systems has

stated that:

87

Computer-based information systems require con-

scious planning for protection of personal privacy.

Constraints must be imposed on the system to insure

that the highest practicable level of protection is

obtained.

It is recommended that the Task Force take into care-
ful consideration the issues pertaining to privacy and
security that follow,and that they adopt a privacy and
security strategy statement,prior to implementation of

the system.

Federal Legislation and Regulations

 

In 1973, the United States passed the Crime Control
Act of 1973 which amended the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Section 524(b) of
the new law put LEAA into the privacy and security
business. It provided in particular that:

All criminal history information collected, stored,
or disseminated through support under this title
shall contain, to the maximum extent feasible,
disposition as well as arrest data where arrest
data is included therein. The collection, stor-
age, and dissemination of such information shall
take place under procedures reasonably designed
to insure that all such information is kept cur-
rent therein; the Administration shall assure
that the security and privacy of all information
is adequately provided for and that information
shall only be used for law enforcement and crimi-
nal justice and other lawful purposes. ,In addi-
tion, an individual who believes that criminal
history information concerning him contained in
an automated system is inaccurate, incomplete,
or maintained in violation of this title, shall,
upon satisfactory verification of his identity,
be entitled to review such information and to
obtain a COpy of it for the purpose of challenge
or correction.

 

50Criminal Justice System, p. 115.

 

51Michael A. Zimmerman; Donald F. King, and Michael
F. O'Neill. How to Implement Privacy and Security, De—
partment of Justice Regulations, Title 28 and Beyond
(San Jose, California: THEOREM Corporation, 1976), p. 10.

88

Congress has not, however, singled out criminal jus—
tice agencies as the only area of privacy and security.
"Among recent laws, the most important is the federal
Privacy Act of 1974. This law, which governs all federal

agencies, but partially excludes records of an individual's

criminal history, suggests several important trends,"52

including:

1. Substantial control over dissemination by the
subject of the record; and

2. Data collection rules towards improved record
accuracy and relevance.53

In 1975, LEAA "acting under Congressional mandate"

issued the Title 28 regulations, which govern the main-

. . . . . . 54
tenance and dissemination of criminal history records.

Title 28 applies to criminal history record infor-
mation (CHRI):

"Criminal history record information“ means infor-
mation collected by criminal justice agencies on
individuals consisting of identifiable descriptions
and notations of arrests, detentions, indictments,
informations, or other formal criminal charges,
and any disposition arising therefrom, sentencing,
correctional supervision, and release. The term
does not include identification information such
as fingerprint records to the extent that such
information does not indicate involvement of the
individual in the criminal justice system.

 

52Ibid., p. 7.
53Ibid.
S4Ibid., p. 1.
55

Ibid., p. 10.

89

The regulations allow for only six exemptions and
states:

The regulations shall not apply to criminal history
record information contained in: (1) posters,
announcements, or lists for identifying or appre-
hending fugitives or wanted persons; (2) original
records of entry such as police blotters maintained
by criminal justice agencies, compiled chronologi-
cally and required by law or long standing custom
to be made public, if such records are organized

on a chronological basis; (3) court records of pub-
lic judicial proceedings; (4) published court or
administrative opinions or public judicial, admin-
istrative or legislative proceedings; (5) records
of traffic offenses maintained by State departments
of transportation, motor vehicles or the equivalent
thereof for the purpose of regulating the issuance,
suspension, revocation, or renewal of driver's,
pilot's or other operators' licenses; (6) announce-
ments of executive clemency.56

The third point has caused some confusion among
courts, who now feel that this clause exempts them from
any of the record keeping controls under the Title 28
regulations. In the THEOREM handbook, How to Implement

Privacy and Security, the editors specifically address

 

this concern:

Item 3 does not exempt all records maintained by a
court; only those records, automated or manual,
which can be properly termed "court" records. For
example, a pre—sentence report is a court record.
It is filed with the court and used in sentencing
an offender. Any CHRI contained in that report is
exempt from Title 28. But if the probation officer
provides the judge a copy of the state criminal
history along with the pre-sentence report, that
history is not a formal court record unless incor-
porated into the pre-sentence report. If not incor-
porated, it is still subject to Title 28 and should
be removed from court files Open to the public. An

 

561bid., p. 11.

9O

automated record of case activities is also a
"court" record and exempted from Title 28 even

if it does not constitute an official aspect of
case processing or a public document. Courts are
not exempt from the regulations although their
formal records are; they will have to exercise
caution.57

Title 28 covers:

All State and local agencies and individuals collect-

ing, storing, or disseminating criminal history

record information processed by manual or automated

operations where such collection, storage, or dis-

semination has been funded in whole or part with

funds made available by the Law Enforcement Assist-

ance Administration subsequent to July 1, 1973, pur-

suant to Title I of the Act.5

Each state, under Title 28, must audit randomly
selected criminal justice agencies, for compliance with
the regulations. Other agencies, in addition to those
receiving total audits, will receive more limited types
of audits. Dissemination logs and reporting of disposi—
tions for dissemination will be two "aspects of all
audits."

Under the dissemination section, the regulations

state that:

1. All information on convictions may be shared
with anyone; and

2. Information, which does not indicate a convic-
tion, is subject to the following constraints:

a. May be shared with criminal justice agen-
cies only for criminal justice purposes and
employment,

 

57Ibid.

58Ibid., p. 12

91

b. Non-criminal justice agencies and indivi-
duals, who have legal access to such records,
may only use such records for the purposes
for which it was given, and each exchange of
information must be logged.59

Under Title 28, each individual has the right to in-

spect and challenge "the accuracy and completeness of CHRI

which pertains to him or her." If a challenge is reviewed,

by a

found to be valid, the agency must correct the records.

more

coordinating body required under the regulations, and
60

The THEOREM editors state thatfagencies should expect
and more control on record-keeping:

The LEAA Regulations are just a beginning. There
will be further exploring of privacy issues by fed-
eral and state legislatures and by the courts.

Viewed in a positive way, this trend gives all crim-
inal justice agencies an opportunity to examine their
record-keeping practices and to introduce measures
which will enhance the quality and flow of available
criminal history information.51

Judicial trends pertaining to cases covering privacy

indicate that:

1. Court decisions will emphasize the importance
of accurate and complete records;

2. Courts will purge or restrain the use of records
of arrest not leading to conviction, even though
that information is accurate and complete, and

3. Courts will establish financial or other conse-
quences for Ehe use of inaccurate or incomplete
information.

 

591bid., p. 14.
601bid., p. 15.
61Ibid., p. l.
62

Ibid., pp. 11-12.

92

Much of the legislation, coming out Of state legis-
latures, seems to be directed toward legal prosecution of
violations of record keeping security and privacy.

System Design

Security and privacy must be an integrated part of
any overall information system design and must be a "func-
tion of the management philosophy."63 Any attempt to
"tack on" a security and privacy component to the system,
after develOpment, just will not work. The issue under-
lines a total approach to record keeping and cannot be
isolated.

Gerald Stern has recommended the following rules for
implementation of a court security and privacy system:

1. Only essential data should be collected; the

question should be balanced in each instance
against the inherent risks involved in keeping

the information;

2. The system should not link criminal history
files with subjective intelligence materials;

3. Records of convictions for minor crimes should
not be stored for wide dissemination;

4. Precautions must be taken to insure that all
data stored are accurate, current, and reflect
court dispositions;

5. Purging of old data is essential, as is the re-
quirement that some reasonable cut-off date be
established by which dispositions must be added
to histories;

6. Permit individuals access to their files,and
the right to challenge possible erroneous data
must be guaranteed;

 

63Criminal Justice System, p. 36.

93

7. Accessibility to any computerized data system
should be restricted to carefully screened per-
sonnel who are held to strict standards of con-
fidentiality; and

8. Every jurisdiction should pinpoint responsibility
for insuring privacy and confidentiality.6

Stern's recommendations incorporate the rules, regu-
lations, and standards established by almost everyone who
writes on court information systems. This is probably
the most comprehensive list of recommendations prepared
to date.

Privacy

According to the THEOREM editors, "privacy is often
described as the right to be left alone; to be free from
interference by others." However, "privacy is not an
absolute right (because) no one can insist on privacy in
every situation. The public's interest in disclosure
must be weighed against the individual's interest in pre-
venting disclosure."65

Invasion of privacy may result from:

1. Intrusion into seclusion, solitude, or private
affairs;

2. Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts;

3. Publicity placing a person in a false light in
the public eye; and

4. Appropriation for personal advantage of a person's
name or likeness.6

 

64Stern, pp. 222-224.

65Zimmerman, King, and O'Neill, p. 1.

66Ibid., p. 2.

94

The Supreme Court established, in Griswold v. Connec-

 

ticut, the significance of privacy as a Constitutional
issue, when they stated that:

Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right
of association contained in the penumbra of the First
Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amend-
ment in its prohibition against the quartering of
soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the
consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy.
The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches

and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-
Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create

a zone of privacy which government may not force him
to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment
provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or dis-
parage others retained by the peOple."67

We, therefore, not only have what some call the "moral
right" to privacy, but we also have a Constitutional right
to privacy.

Prior to the computer age, records within criminal
justice agencies were not a major privacy concern. Stern
states the:

"Existing law gives the public substantial right of
access to public documents. The only barrier to
records not classified as confidential by special
law is the present system's inefficiency . . . (and)
the laws which permit access to public records con-
tain the caveat that such access is limited by the
convenience of court personnel . . . Thus, the pub-
lic right to access is largely illusory."68

With computerized information systems now a possibility,

information of a CHRI nature is now being looked at by

 

67Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), 484.

68Stern, p. 227.

95

legislatures and courts, as already noted, with great

interest.

The issue, of how much privacy court records should

have, seems to be moving toward a point of confrontation.

The central crux of the issue evolves around just how

public are public records?

Public records, according to the THEOREM editors, are:

Commonly defined are those records which an agency
makes or receives in the course of performing its
official duties. They are open to public inspec-
tion; they allow citizens to find out what public
agencies are doing. Americans do not want those
who expend public funds to operate under a veil of
secrecy. The physical form of a record does not
change its character as a public document.59

Thomas Madden, General Counsel of LEAA states that in

relationship to criminal justice records:

most
have
many

fact

Part of a citizen's right of privacy is lost through
engagement in criminal activity. By law or by

custom in each state, the facts of an individual's
arrest, trial and conviction are all matters of
public record.70

The fact is that criminal records in courts and, in
instances, throughout the criminal justice system,
always been a matter of public record. However, today
individuals are beginning to be concerned about the

that for the first time, a total criminal record is

not attainable. Stern best emphasizes the position when

he states, that "perhaps we want the laws changed to keep

computerized records confidential.

"71

 

69Zimmerman, King, and O'Neill, p. 3.

70Larsen, p. 21

71Stern, p. 227.

96

Until such time as the issue is finally resolved,
as to just how private are court records, the important
concern in the privacy area is timely as well as accurate
records that do not misrepresent the actual status of an
individual.

Audits and purging must be standard operational pro-
cedures in any automated information system that places
a concern on privacy. There have been several recommen-
dations, that after a specific time, a record within a

court should be expunged.

Security

The concept of security, when related to information
systems, is "the degree and means by which information and
the machines and facilities for processing, storing and
transmitting it are protected from loss and unauthorized
access or modification."72

Under Title 28, the following security standards
were established for both manual and automated systems.

1. Access restraints;

2. Personnel control;

3. Disaster protection; and

4. Training.

The Information Task Force of the National Advisory

Commission on Standards and Goals, addressed the access

restraints problem, when they stated that:

 

72Larsen, p. 83.

97

Security is seriously compromised when unauthorized
persons can add to, change, or delete entries in
the information system, when authorized persons can
make extracts of information within the system for
private motives or personal gain, or when the con-
tents of the system or some portion of the contents
can be made known to unauthorized personnel.

Among the possibilities discussed under access re-
straints are secure rooms for the storage of hardware and
terminals, sign—in procedures, keys, guards, limited access
for each terminal, lockable files, criminal sanctions for
violation of security, and access logs, including the who,
what, and why.

The personnel control standards are:

1. All employees, of criminal justice agencies and
agencies who have access to criminal justice
information, will be screened, before employment,
if they have access to the information within
their agency;

2. The agency will have authority to initiate admin-
istrative action leading to transfer or removal
of any authorized person who violates security
regulations; and

3. The agency shall establish and apply standards
for accountability to anyone who has access to
the agency's records.74

The Information Systems Task Force warned of the
problems, prior to Title 28, when they stated:

It is the human element that is most likely to provide
any breach of security in the system. Procedures
should be established to prevent security risks from
being employed in any capacity affording them direct
access to the equipment and to the records in the
system.

 

73Criminal Justice System, p. 114.

 

74Larsen, pp. 84-85.

75Criminal Justice System, p. 133.

98

Disaster protection should include measures to pre-
vent "unauthorized access, theft, sabotage, fire, flood,
wind, or other natural or manmade disasters" against CHRI.76

With a mini, because of its relative mobility and
ability tobe disconnected without damage to the core
memory, the disaster control issue is not as critical.

Title 28 requires that all staff having access to CHRI
"shall be made familiar with the substance and intent of
these regulations."77 It is recommended that the THEOREM
handbook be used for this purpose, as part of the total
training package and operational handbook for authorized
users. The handbook includes a training guide on privacy
and security.

Another issue often raised, dealing with security, is
the rights of various users of a shared system. The recom—
mendations of THEOREM state that agencies should determine
which agency has access to what information and who may modify,
add, or delete a specific data item.

Control
The National Standards and Goals78 and the Michigan

79

Goals and Standards both advocate the establishment of a

 

6Larsen, p. 86.

77Ibid.

78Criminal Justice System, pp. 119-135.

79Michigan Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice,
Criminal Justice Goals and Standards for the State of Mich-
igan, (Lansing, Michigan: Office of Criminal Justice Pro-
grams, 1974), p. 198.

99

state "Security and Privacy Council" and legislation
enabling establishment of such a group, minimum standards,
and civil and criminal sanctions for violation of statutes,
rules, and regulations pertaining to the privacy and secur-
ity issue.

The state of Michigan, at this time, has not estab-
lished a regulatory commission, nor is there legislation
entitling controls.80

It is recommended, as part of the responsibilities of
the controlling unit, established in conjunction with an
Ingham County Information System, that a privacy and
security task force be established and that adequate

rules, regulations, and sanctions be incorporated into

any working agreement that the agencies establish.
VII. SYSTEM CONTROL

It is recommended that a controlling body be estab-
lished to monitor, audit, regulate, and mediate all
aspects of the information system.

The composition of this regulating body should in—
clude 49% representatives of the various agencies using
the system and 51% representation of citizens and elected

officials, who are not users of the system. It is important

 

80Interview with Hank Verkaik, Office of Criminal
Justice Programs, Lansing, Michigan, 16 February 1977.

100

that the key individuals of the agencies be members of

this group and that they actively participate. Presiding
judges, court administrators, the chief of police or sheriff
of each law enforcement agency and the chief correctional
officer should participate. Elected officials should in-
clude legislators and elected administrators from each
branch of government participating in the system. Citizens
should be selected from at large but should include repre-

sentatives of the local Bar Association.
VIII. EVALUATION, FEEDBACK, AND RESEARCH

The importance of a data base has already been under-
lined. It is sufficient to say that,without a comprehen-
sive data base, feedback, evaluation, and research are not
possible.

Feedback

Day-to-day monitoring of statistical data can provide
some indication to the users and to the controlling body
of potential successes, breakdowns, and misdirections
within the information system.

OBTS data generated each day can provide the courts
with a valuable tool in measuring progress towards improv-
ing speedy trial.

Other daily, weekly, or monthly checks Of data can
provide the administrator with useful tools for daily

management decisions.

101

Evaluation

 

The evaluation process uses data/information that is
compared to the objectives to determine success or failure
of the system. The importance of having data elements that
measure for objective achievement is self-evident. Ulti-
mate performance measures must be a major factor in develop-
ing the data base.

Pasqual Don Vito, in cOOperation with the Indicators
Program of the Urban Institute, has developed a series of
evaluative measures of caseflow, that he calls court indi-
cators:

1. Amount of time taken to dispose of criminal
cases;

2. The extent to which those convicted had entered
guilty pleas instead of going to trial;

3. The percentage of jail prisoners awaiting trial;

4. The backlog of criminal cases relative to the
court's average caseload;

5. The average number of cases disposed per judge;

6. The extent to which probation is used (success-
fully) as an alternative to imprisonment;

7. Number of trial days;

8. The length of prior sentences according to type
of crime;

9. Cost per trial;
10. Cost per judgeship;

11. The extent to which convictions are appealed;

102

12. The portion of convictions overturned; and

13. The portion of defendants having adequate
counsel.81

Don Vito's "indicators" are only suggested measures
that can be used in court evaluation.

Administrative measures could include preparation
time of documents, reduction in storage requirements, pro-
cessing time of paper flow, lost documents and data, and
administrative time spent on supervising record keeping.

The important thing is that the data elements collected
should be based upon the individual agency's and the sys-
tem's objectives.

Research

Research is the process of comparing the impact of con-
trolled variables upon a specific set of data. The varia-
bles and data elements compared are only limited by the
intent of the research, the research design, and the
availability of data. Research can either measure past
or present Operations or it can be used as a predictive
tool for the impact of future alternatives. Research can
use data generated by the court or any other source, as
long as all the data elements are compatible for compari—
sons.

Past or present operational research can measure the

court's impact (or the impact upon the court) as the result

 

81Pasqual A. Don Vito, "An Experiment in the Use of
Court Statistics," Judicature 56 (August/September 1972):57.

 

103

of a policy or intervening factor. The PROMIS research,
for example, includes relative probability of rearrests
for individuals or various forms of conditional release
and the effect of the relationship of witnesses and the
accused on successful prosecution.

With Michigan State University and other research
facilities available, the types of research that can be
done, provided there is a large enough data base, are as
broad as the courts want to go.

Another use of research can be the justification of
new programs for the courts.82

Future research is used as a predictor of the impact
of certain modifications, additions, or deletions of var-
iables internal or external to the court.

Predictive models that are now being implemented are:

l. The Alaskan court system is developing a pre-

dictive model using analytical and simulation
approaches to ESSt data to predict the impact
of objectives,

2. The Federal Judicial Center project to develOp

caseload forecasting system for federal courts,
using a mathematical model, based upon 1950-1970

data, that incorporates 132 variables, including
stock market fluxuations;

 

82Merrill, "Using the PROMIS Tracking System for
Criminal Justice Evaluation," pp. 8-9.

83Raymond L. Ellis, "A Research Facility for Courts,"
Judicature 56 (April 1973):378.

 

84Michigan State Court Administrator, "Caseload
Forecasting for Federal Courts," Focus, (May l976):3.

104

3. PROMIS predictive scale development on the re-
lationship of certain personal characteristics
and conditional release success and failure; and

4. JUSSIM and JUSSIM II simulation models for pre-
dicting the impact of modification within the
criminal justice system on various stages and
resources with the system.

The use of data for predictive human behavior is
potentially the one type of future research that may result
in legal and moral questions. Stern is one, who considers
the use of this type of research as damaging:

"One of the most provocative potential computer

applications now being implemented is the use of

the computer to predict future (defendant) behav-

ior . . . It is a frightening threat to the future

of the courts and to the rights of the individuals

who will be judged on the conduct of others."85

Like all other uses of an information system, research
can be beneficial to the court but the system design must
include the necessary considerations of potential and real
research needs. If the court desires to use JUSSIM or any
other predictive model, then the data elements necessary

and, if appropriate, the interface consideration, must be

included.
IX. CONCLUSION

The success of the information system is dependent
upon blending of training, attitudes, objectives, standard
‘terminology, system design, scheduling, privacy and secur—

ity, system control, evaluation, feedback and research.

 

85Stern, p. 225.

105

The failure to consider any one of these in the develop-
ment stage can result in the breakdown of the total

effort.

CEMHER\7

THE IMPACT OF SCHEDULING

Throughout the literature, the experts all emphasize
the virtues of court scheduling, yet none offer impact
data to support their claims. 'Does scheduling impact
courts, how does it affect courts, who does it affect,
and what advantages are offered by instituting a schedul-
ing system, are key questions that need to be answered.

The emphasis of this chapter is on an evaluation de-
sign to measure the impact of a scheduling system during
and after implementation. Much of the data collection
recommendations in this chapter are based upon Don Vito's

Model of Indicators.l

I. HYPOTHETICAL SCHEDULING MODEL:

IMPLEMENTATION IMPACT

Figure 4 represents the perceived impact flow,
according to the experts, of a court scheduling system

during the implementation period.

 

lDon Vito, p. 57.

106

107

HYPOTHETICAL SCHEDULING MODEL :

IMPLEMENTAT I ON IMPACT

 

 

INTRODUCTION
all an

 

 

v

In roam-r: ON

Svsv-em

 

 

T
I
I
l
I
I
A
I
l
I
I

 

I mPWArmM
0-? a. Benson/ms

 

Reeves

3 Couriuunuccs ¢

9 Hayley
CONFLICTS

 

 

 

 

 

Impact“. Us;
ovI’ Resonances

 

Sue-rem

 

 

 

PHD ”Thaw

 

 

 

 

 

IDENTIFY AND
Eummnre (39565

 

7““? wtu. «or
50 1'0 TRIQL

 

\/

 

 

 

 

L ————————— < ----------- -,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIGURE 4

 

imPRoveD
\ (air/vase
/ 4
Reeve-non or CCDPERRTIOII " "'<_‘ "I '
UJI-rxcss Mo \ \ I y
/ / I
9914::- "an/NO REDUCED Ponce A I
> Expense nun V l l
+ 91.14%”??qu ] I
I L L
REDUCE?) Raw”; 5 Peeoy
\ r' \
OVERSerrmG / -955 / T
BACKLOGS RI m.

 

 

108

Preimplementation Baseline Data

The
the data
system.
a system

1.

Resource

introduction of an information system provides
necessary to plan and implement a scheduling
Among the baseline data necessary to implement
are:

The number of cases by case type, judge, defen-
dant's previous record, and attorney, that do
not go to trial:

Number of delays by type of motion;

Length of time taken to reach each stage of the
judicial process by case type;

Average length of time to disposition by case
type;

Available judge courtroom time lost; and
Average waiting time for witnesses and police

before appearance in a court event.

Allocation

 

If courts can predict, with any success, the time

allocations necessary for any case, it should logically

follow that better utilization of the resources of the

court should result.

The

single most important resource in any court can

be the judge's time. Since scheduling at its best is not

exact, either judges are going to experience dead court

time or have to deal with large enough overset ratios that-

one foot

is always in the hole. Neither seems to be a de-

sirable situation.

109

Ideally, a scheduling system should impact lost
judge court time and allow for a predictive mOdel that
keeps oversetting to a minimum. Data that identifies
lost judge, staff and courtroom time can give some indi-
cation of actual system impact.

Automation, it is argued, can reduce the amount of
time necessary in preparing schedules and notifying the
participants. A pre-implementation survey of the average
preparation and notification compared with the same data
after implementation, should show a decrease in clerical
time spent on scheduling, if the argument is correct.

The baseline data, however, may actually show that there is
an increase in preparation time in order to provide the
data necessary to impact speedy trial.

Costs of scheduling, for supplies as well as person-
nel, will most likely be affected by implementation of an
automated scheduling system. No one addresses this issue.
in the literature but it can be a very relevant point to
the courts. The cost of preparation on a per case basis
for a time period prior and after implementation will give
the court some measure of the impact on the overall budget.
The costs to the court for effective scheduling may actually

be greater than previous methods.

Delays, Continuances and Attorney Conflicts
In the previous chapters, one of the issues discussed,
as a cause in backlogs, was the practice where attorneys

often overset their own schedules to assure best utilization

110

of their time. It should be pointed out that attorney
schedule oversetting is not the only fact that results
in delays, but is perhaps the single most important
factor resulting in delays.

It is recommended that, in order to develop a policy
addressing continuances, the following baseline data be
developed.

1. Delays by attorney;

2. Delays by types of motion;

3. Delays as a result of attorney schedule con-
flict; and

4. The stages where delays are most apt to happen.

The strategy developed as a result of this baseline
data should result in reduction of delays as a result of
continuances, attorney conflicts, and motions.

Using the baseline data of the pre and post implemen-
tation periods, impact of the strategy should be identifi-

able.

Cases Disposed Without Trial

 

It would seem that backlogs and schedules can be in-
flated by those cases that are disposed prior to the for-
mal proceedings stage.2 Identification of this type of
case would enable the court to better utilize resources

on a priority basis.

 

2Approximately 90% of all cases in Ingham County
are disposed of without trial. The actual percentage
varies with the court.

111

Predictive baseline data for identifying cases likely
to be disposed prior to trial include:

1. Case type (charge);

2. Attorney;

3. Previous record of the defendant; and

4. Bail status.

As a result of being able to identify and eliminate
from the schedule those cases that will not need formal pro-
ceedings, the court should reduce backlogs and schedule drOp-

outs.

Reduced Oversetting

 

If court can better predict court scheduling, by using
improved data and applying it to reduce continuances, im-
prove the use of resources, and identify cases which will
not go to trial, the need for oversetting can be reduced.

Figure l, in Chapter IV dramatically demonstrates the
negative impact Of oversetting, as a result of the lack of
control of these variables.

To determine whether the impact of these factors is
a reduction of oversetting, data would need to be collected
that identifies:

l. The average number of cases disposed per judge;
and

2. The average number of cases scheduled.
Reduced oversetting should, if the conceptional model
projected in the literature is correct, result in reduced

case backlogs and reduced police and witness waiting time.

 

.i ii III I All

112

Witness Impgct

 

Delays and long waits before events, according to
the INSLAW staff, result in witness alienation, however,
as with many of the claims in the literature, there is NO
research now in print, that supports this claim. It does,
however, seem like a logical assumption that can be
proven.

It is recommended that a simple questionnaire be
prepared asking each witness to express, in his own words,
his impressions of the experience. A second question on
the questionnaire could ask if he would be willing to
testify again, if, during another case, the occasion
should arise. Figure 5 is offered as a possible format
for the questionnaire.

If the INSLAW supposition is true, then those who
experienced delays or long waits would have the most
negative impressions of the court and be least willing to
testify.

Assuming the hypothesis is correct, then if a schedul-
ing system can reduce the waiting time of witnesses, it
should follow that witness alienation should decrease and
that witness willingness to cooperate with the courts in
trials should increase.

Data that could indicate the impact of reduced wait-

ing time for witnesses are:

113

WITNESS QUESTIONNAIRE

Name (optional)

 

Case (optional)

 

Time and Date told to appear

 

Amount of time you waited before testifying

 

Did you feel the delay, if any was justified? Yes No

Approximate amount of time on the stand

 

Briefly describe your impressions of your total experience
(examples: good, because or bad, because):

Would you, if the occasion should again arise, be:
1. Very willing to testify in this court.
2. Somewhat willing to testify in this court.
3. Reluctant to testify in this court.

4. Would not want to testify in this court.

FIGURE 5

114

1. Average witness waiting time prior to appearance
in a court event;

2. The percentage of witnesses who express aliena—
tion toward the court, as a result of delays or
long waits; and

3. The percentage of witnesses willing to testify,

within the court, if the need should arise, at
a future date.

Police Impact

 

Lost police time, awaiting appearances in court,
either results in the police agency having to pay over-
time or losing available manpower during the shifts that
coincide with court time. Both, it has been argued, mean
that available police resources are not being effectively
used.

Police officers may actually feel the same alienation
toward courts, after an appearance, that it is theorized
witnesses experience. When police feel animosity towards
the courts and are reluctant to testify because of long
waits and delays, it could be questioned as to whether
anyone, other than the accused, benefits.

It is recommended that the witness questionnaire be
used in a pre and post test situation for police.

It should be recognized that reduced waiting time
is not, as is true with witnesses, the only issue that

results in police alienation. The perceived quality of

 

3Some consideration may want to be given to wit-
nesses who waited to appear but are not called to testify.

115

dispositions and the lack of assured adjudication can
also affect the attitudes.

The average number of appearances per month, for an
officer, in a court can also affect police attitudes and
data identifying this average can be useful.

The single most important impact for police adminis-
tration could be in the reduced overtime and additional
manpower resulting from less police court time. Impact
data should identify the dollar cost prior and after imple-
mentation for police court appearances.

It can be assumed that speedy trials, the end desired
result of a court scheduling system, therefore can affect
police cooperation. Though this may not be a definable
measure, the data should show some correlations that can

indicate this relationship.

Reduced Backlogs

 

The reduction of backlogs is the key element to
speedy trials. The lesser the number of cases awaiting
trial the faster a case can be processed.

The obvious data needed to determine if there is a
reduction in backlogs, is the number of cases awaiting
trial. Pre and post implementation data should show the
relationship of the scheduling system to backlogs.

Data should be kept by case type because there is a
possibility that the backlog of certain types of cases

may not be affected by a systemic approach.

116

Speedy Trial

 

As previously noted, in People v. Collins, the State

 

of Michigan established length and reason for delay as the
measurable criteria for determining whether or not speedy
trial conditions were violated.4

Michigan law specifically states the maximum delays
allowable, without waiver, between events. The minimum
goal of a scheduling system should be to meet the minimum
speedy trial time requirements of the law by the use of
better court scheduling.

If all the courts in the county could meet this
goal without requesting waivers, as a standard operational
procedure,5 the use of a scheduling system would be justi-
fied.

For courts like 55 District Court, where all the cases
now meet speedy trial time requirements, the goal should be
modified to reduce the delays even further. A 12 day delay
before preliminary exam or a 6 months delay before trial
are not justifiable when the accused, under our system of
law, is assumed innocent until proven guilty. It is dif-
ficult to defend these time lapses as "speedy."

The INSLAW staff identified the Multnomah County Cir—

cuit Court evaluation project in Oregon as one of the best

 

4People v. Collins

654A District Court does, quite often, request de-
fendants to waive their speedy trial rights.

117

evaluations of scheduling impacts. The project uses the
following performance measures to determine impact on
speedy trial:

1. Net change in pending case load by type of case;

2. Age distribution of pending cases, by type of
case; and

3. Medium time lapsed from arrest to trial.6

II. HYPOTHETICAL SCHEDULING IMPACT MODEL:

POST IMPLEMENTATION IMPACT

The successful implementation of a scheduling system,
with speedy trial as the end product, will oftentime have
other effects on the courts. Figure 6 represents possible
alterations that may result from implementation.

The model does not exhaust the alternatives but rep-

resents the most logical outcomes.

Less Reversals

 

The defense,of the violation of speedy trial guaran-
tees,does result in reversals of lower court finding.
The exact number of petitioned appeals and the percentage
of reversals are relevant issues that affect court case—
loads. Often appellate courts will remand cases back to
the lower court on reversals. This sort of data will be
useful in evaluating the effect of speedy trials.

An additional benefit to the courts could be that,

 

6Guide to Court Scheduling, pp. 38-39.

 

118

HYPOTHETICAL SCHEDULING IMPACT MODEL

POST IMPLEMENTATION IMPACT

 

 

Space“:
Tami.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L 655 R 6: 006.6
E REVERSRLS A A PPEQLS?
Inenenses INCREASES
__e>__1~£amne1wgg_§>—— IN
0 A: C9533 BACKLOGS?
\
/
86775“ F ewe
-—>—— Pas PARED —>—- R .2
Fl—r-ronnaqs D eu-ws '
Senate I mPRoveo
.—fi>>—-Rcvmnild *€>”—‘(ZOURT
A case. ImAGe ?

 

 

FIGURE 6

 

 

 

 

119

as the result of publicized lower reversal rates, there

will be a reduction in appeals by attorneys.

Increase in Some Types of Cases

 

There is no doubt that police and prosecutors do not
aggressively pursue some types of cases, because of their
relative low priority and the futility of processing a
case through the overloaded court system. However, if back-
logs are reduced and speedy trials are a fact, there may be
a tendency to increase emphasis on some of these case types.

The result of increased emphasis on these types of
cases may be an increased backlog. Further penetration of
cases into the court flow and increased allocation of parti-
cipant recourses to a case may add to this problem.

Whether or not this will be an end result, with back-
logs of one case type replacing those of another case type,
the court should monitor this type of data in order to

stay atop of any changes in prosecution emphasis.

Better Prepared Attorneys

 

A strong court policy on continuances, will mean that
attorneys can be assured of their cases going on the
scheduled date and time. Because of this assurance,
attorneys will be better prepared at trial time.

A natural spin-off of better prepared attorneys can
be fewer court delays, resulting in improved scheduling

predictability.

120

Surer Action in a Case

 

The INSLAW findings of recidivists using the in-
adequacies of the court scheduling to their advantage,
offers a possible impact usually inferred but directly
addressed in the literature.

The impact on the court image and its impact on
police and witness cooperation could be quite positive,
if they know that the case they are participating in will
result in final disposition.

War stories, by past witnesses, describing long de-
lays and continuances, are common to all courts. Most
people who have ever participated in a case know the
frustrations and help to create the negative image of
the courts.

Surer action may also result in reduced backlogs
because of the threat to the defendant that he will be
able to evade a disposition. The result could be more

pleas entered.

III. CONCLUSION

The impact of a scheduling system, as a result of
an information system, can be both positive and negative.
Until such time as some statistical data either supports
or refutes the theoretical suppositions, the questions
remain issues of debate within the literature.

Almost all of the literature emphasizes the possible

positive impact of court scheduling, however, there may

121

be some negative results that should be considered.

The Wilkins research in Chapter I indicates that
decision-makers continue to want more and more information
to reinforce their decisions. It would be quite easy to
get caught in an expand cycle that requires greater
amounts of data. The important factors to consider are
resources and manpower allocations to data collection and
the amount of actual data that can be handled by the
decision-makers.

Attorneys may actually decide to Oppose a new system
and instead of better preparation for cases, they may refuse
to cOOperate with the courts. Court administrators are
going to have to maintain a close working association
with the Bar and at the first signs of opposition, these
administrators are going to have to react.

The utilization of court time may be easier to abuse
once participants in a court system perceive less restraint
on available time. The danger is real and could actually
increase scheduling problems.

There is always the possibility of surer action result-
ing in negative attitude from witnesses. If dispositions
are perceived as lenient and if the opposite of what was
expected, the result can be lesser witness cooperation.

Many of these questions, both positive and negative
can be answered after establishing a data base and imple-
menting a system. Only then can a court actually answer

the issues raised in the literature.

ATTACHMENT A
INFORMATION NEEDS QUESTIONNAIRE

FOR REGION VI COURTS

122

ATTACHMENT A

Uigiriieii; Exhifial Circuit n’i eflfiichigan
Q5313 33:11!
' 'Zflxmsing. filichigan
48533

 

IACK VII. \‘VARREN

RAY C. HOTCHKISS

IAMES T. KALLAIAN

THOMAS L. BROWN

MICHAEL C. HARRISON ‘
Circuit ludges .

The enclosed questionaire is designed to assist us in determining data needs,
availability and usefullness for the courts of the Tri-County region.

The Court's Task Force is attempting to assess the feasibility of providing com-
puterized data processing methods to help our courts in the never-ending struggle
to keep track of our caseload, and your cooperation in helping us by completing
this questionaire would be greatly appreciated.

Our researcher will assist you in recording your contribution to this survey. we
are not seeking any number of cases or other statistical data, but rather your
impression of the availability and usefullness of this data to your court.

The following scales are being employed for the study:

D Rating: Desirability of this item of information within your court.
D1 - Very Useful
D2 - Somewhat Useful
D3 - Slightly Useful
D4 - Not Useful

A Rating: Availability of information at your court.
A1 - Always Available
A2 - Usually Available
A3 - Available at periodic intervals (but at least monthly)
A4 - Sometimes Available
AS Seldom Available (only by intensive.searching)
A6 - Never Available

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 485-1706, or our
researcher, Cary Acker, from the HSU College of Criminal Justice, at 353-4760.

Thank you for your valuable time, and we will keep you advised as further
developments come along.

Yours truly, ’
/' (ea/magg- , 1

/
Thomas C. Gormely
Circuit Coort Administrator

  

lp

I.

123

ATTACHMENT A

INFORMATION NEEDS QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR REGION VI COURTS
Ingham
A11 Ingham w/out
Courts w/Probate Probate

D A D A D A

 

Case Information

Uniform Docket Number 2.2 4.4 1.3 4.0 1.5 3.0

 

Type & Seriousness of
Charges(s) 1.1 2.1 1.2 3.2 1.2 2.7

 

Place in the Flow of
Courts Events
(Current Case Status 1.3 1.7 1.6 2.4 1.5 2.0

 

Date(s) of Commission
of Crime(s) 1.5 1.6 1.6 2.2 1.2 1.7

 

Date of Arrest &
Arresting Officer 1.4 1.6 1.4 2.2 1.2 2.0

 

Defense & Prosecut-
ing Attorneys 1.1 1.9 1.3 2.5 1.2 2.7

 

Witness List 2.1 2.4 1.6 2.8 2.0 3.0

 

Co-Defendants 1.2 2.0 1.5 2.3 1.0 2.0

 

Status of Defendant
while awaiting final
disposition (i.e.,
bond, incarceration,
probation continuance,
ROR, diversionary pro-
gram, held by other
than local authori-
ties, etc.) l.0 2.4 1.0 3.6 1.0 3.0

 

10.

Plea(s) negotiated 1.3 2.1 1.6 2.4 1.7 2.5

 

11.

Case postponements &
cause of postpone-
ments 1.0 2.5 1.0 3.8 1.0 3.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

124

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ingham
A11 Ingham w/out
Courts w/Probate Probate
D A D A D A
12. Case dismissal:
a. Sua Spoute ! 1.7 2:1 2.4 3.2 2.2 3.7
b. Prosecutor's motion'1.6 1.7 2.2 2.4 2.0 2.Z_
c. Defense motion 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.0 2.7
13. Nolle Proseque 1.7 1.7 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.7
14. Penal Statue for the
Charge (Criminal law
citation MCLA; MSA) 1.6 2.0 2.1 2.8 2.0 2.7
15. Special Conditions and/
or decisions of the 3
Judge which may be 1
raised on an appeal 1.8 2.2 2.5 3.5 1.7 2.7‘
16. Final Disposition i
a. M.C.C. - Sentence 1.7 2.7 2.1 3.8 2.2 3.7.
b. County Jail - i
Sentence 1.2 1.7 1.4 2.4 1.0 1.5+
c. Probation - Length ,
& Conditions 1.2 1.6 1.4 2.2 1.0 1.5?
d. Fine (amount) 1.3 1.8 1.6 2.6 1.2 1.1;
e. Costs (amount) 1.3 2.3 1.5 3.1 1.2 1.73
f. Reimbursement 1.2 2.3 1.3 3.1 1.2 2.51
17. Jury Trial or Judge f
Trial 1.2 1.7 1.5 2.3 1.0 1.7%
II. Individual Respondent Data 1
1. Name, including all
AKA's 1.2 2.3 1.0 2.8 1.0 1.7
2. Sex 2.2 3.7 2.3 4.6 2.2 4.5
3. Race 2.3 3.5 2.5 4.3 2.5 4.0
4. Fingerprints 3.7 4.5 3.6 4.8 3.5 4.5
5. Date of Birth and/
or Age 1.5 2.6 1.5 2.6 1.5 2.5
6. Address - Last Known 1.3 2.3 1.3 2.1 1.2 1.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

125

 

 

 

 

 

10.

 

ll.

 

12.

 

l3.

 

14.

 

15.

 

l6.

 

l7.

 

18.

Ingham
All Ingham w/out
Courts w/Probate Probate
D A D A D A
Prior Arrests 2.0 3.8
Prior Convictions 1.2 3.0
Cases outstanding &
their status against
the respondent for:
a. Your court 1.3 2.6
b. Other regional
courts (Ingham,
Eaton, Clinton) 1.1 4.6
Employment & Fiscal
Status 2.0 4.1
Previous Substance
Abuse history & known
treatment 1.8 3.8
Previous diversionary
& treatment programs
the respondent has
been involved with 1.1 4.3
Results of prosecu—
tor's character
investigation 2.2 4.2
Results of Court's
(ROR or Probation) 1.8 2.5
Present Charge(s) &
Seriousness of Case(s) 1.5 3.1
Outstanding warrants
against the respondent 1.1 3.5
At the time of the
arrest was the indivi-
dual on probation,
parole, or other. 1.2 3.0
Specify other infor-
mation useful to the
Judge and/or probation
officer 1.0 5.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

up..- .- ~.--

 

 

 

 

126

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ingham
A11 Ingham w/out
Courts w/Probate Probate
D A D A D A
T I I
III. General Court Infor- I
mation E
I
l. A Master Felony §
Calendar 1.7 4.8 1.2 4.6 ‘1.0 5.0
2. A Master Misdemeanor
Calendar 2.1 5.4 1.8 5.0 1.7 5.5
3. A Master Civil Calendar 2.0 4 6 1.3 4.3 $1.0 4.5
4. A Master Sentencing 2
Calendar 2.1 4.7 1.8 5.4 31.5 5.5
5. A Master Hearing, or
Motion Calendar 1.7 4.2 1.3 4.5 1.2 4.5
6. A Master Juror Manage-
ment System 2.2 4.5 2.0 4.4 2.2 4.3
7. Number of Cases Pend—
ing According to:
a. Charge 2.0 4 2 1.6 5.2 1.7 5.2
b. Time awaiting adfu-
dication of charges
& sentencing 1.5 2.7 1.0 3.6 1.0 3.2
c. Status of case 1.5 3.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 3.7
d. Cases on adjourn-
ments & contin-
uances 1.3 3.5 1.0 4.3 1.0 4.0
e. Attorney 1.8 4.0 1.8 5.1 2.2 5.7
f. Respondent 1.1 2.8 1.1 3.5 1.0 3.2
g. ROR 2.2 3.7 2.5 4.6 2.2 4.5
h. Cash bond 1.8 2.8 2.3 4.0 2.0 3.2
i. Respondents with
current charges
pending in other
courts 1.3 4.3 1.0 4.8 1.0 5.0
j. Any demographic data
available under
"Respondent" and/or
"Case" Information
Sheets 2 0 3.6 1.8 5.0 1.7 5.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

127

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ingham
A11 w/out
Courts w/Probate Probate
D A A D A
8. Number of specific .
charges, or counts, re-:
ferred to court versus
number of charges at ;
final adjudication 1.8 4.0 4.5 2.0 4.5
9. Specific trends in ?
case loads by T
a. Seasonal or other é
cycles 2.2 4.3 32.1 5.5 2.7 5;2_
b. Charges 2.0 4.3 '2.0 5.6 2.0 5.5
c. Court appointed vs. ’ g
hired attorneys 1.6 i4.0 31.6 4.8 2.0 5.2
d. Civil vs. Criminal i g 3
vs. Ordinance 1.6 32.4 i1.3 33.3 1.2 3.0
e. Economic & Social ' 3 §
Trends 2.3 f4.7 92.5 (6.0 2.5 6.0
f. Negotiated Pleas 1.6 53.5 -2.14§5.5 2.0 .5-2
g;, Final disposition 1.5 g322 :1.0 3.8 1.0 g4.0 ‘
h. Mistrials 2.1 24.0 f2.6 4.8 2:54 5.2
i. Dismissals 1.7 43:44 1.8 3.8 1.73 3.7
1, Sentencing 1.5 :3.7 il.4 4.4 1.5! 4.04
k. Other indicators: 4 3 5
specify 1.0 14.0 51.0 4.5 1.0! 5.0}
: x ,
10. Formal priority sched- ‘ 3 j
uling system according : ;
to seriousness of the ;
charge, criminal con- :
viction record, and !
time awaiting disposi- :
tion (in custody) (on 3
bond). 1.9 2.8 4.4 1.5 4.2*
11. Number of Cases using
Jury by
a. Attorney 2.1 4.4 5.6 2.0 5.7
b. Reaching final
adjudication and
verdicts rendered 2.1 3.9 4.8 2.0 4.5
c. Time spent in jury
trials (by case
type) 2.0 3.3 4.3 1.2 4.5
d. Jury trials com-
menced but termi-
nated prior to
verdict 2.0 3.2 4.5 1.5 4.2
e. Other: specify - - - — -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

128

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ingham
A11 Ingham w/out
Courts w/Probate Probate
D A D A D A
I
12. Number of cases using l
Judge by: l
a. Attorney 2.0 4.0 1.5, 5.0 1.7 5.7;
b. Reaching final ad- ff, . 7
judication and i .
verdicts rendered 2.2 3.4 1.8 4.1 2 2I 4.5'
c. Time spent in ' ?
Judge trials (by 3
case type) 1.9 3.7 1.6 5.0 2.0 5.7I
d. Judge trials com- .
menced but termi- '
nated prior to ,
verdict 2 0 ;3 7 1.5 5 1 il.7 6.0
e. Other: specify - - - - f - -
T
13. Number of warrants E
issued vs. number of
cases bound over on
the information:
a. Felonies dismissed
in district court 2.5 5.0 1.6 5.4 1.5 5.2
b. Felonies reduced
to misdemeanors
in district court 2.6 5.0 1.8 5.4 1.5 5.2
IV. Other available data sources:
1. Secretary of State 1.4 2.5 [1.3 3.8 1.273.0j
2. LEIN 1.5 52.7 [1.8 4.1 1.2 3.7.
? l
3. Health department 7 i I
(vital statistics) 1.6 i3.3 g1.6 4.5 2.0 4.5:
4. Judicial Data Center 2.0} 4.8 1.3: 4.6 1.0 5.2
5. Department of Correc-
tions 1.5 3.1 1.8 4.2 1.2 3.7
6. Local Police arrest
records 1.2 2.9 1.2 4.0 1.2 3.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

129

Desirability of using computer generated data for
preparation of the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ingham
A11 Ingham ‘.w/out
Courts w/Probate Probate
D D D
State Supreme Court
Records 1.5 1.8 1.2
Reports to other
courts in this
region 2.0 1.3 1.5
Reports to other
jurisdictions
throughout the State 2.2 2.0 1.7
Reports prepared for
local legislative
body and/or adminis-
trators 2.0 1.2 1.3
Reports prepared for
other criminal jus-
tice agencies
a. Prosecutor 2.0 1.4 1.2
b. Law Enforcement ‘
Agencies 2.0 1.4 1.2
c. Correctional or
Jail Authorities 1.9 1.2 1.2

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT B

FELONY FLOW CHART

1 3 0
ATTACHMENT B

FlowCHHHT Symsoi Kev

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pnocess Docume/vr

 

 

Z 7 (>

INPUT/OUTPUT PnePnnnr/oxv

 

C D

Dee/slow TafirnIA/HL

Cozwvec TOR OFF P968—
0 omzec-roR

l3l

FELONY FLOW CHART

'Ti
CEO—eff. —~¢ . r‘3" —-—«L}I— W
4;; ’5 <1) ._ V
a. ELL“
[:33

col’

 
   
  
 

1"

 

 

L0

d

—- ii, an...
<5 11?] Jijrrx/P-H; ..

5.“?! r- -

Lie

2

53

p
‘1.
(U
o—
_ . .PIQ’F‘SI'- _

CIRCUIT
I

 

 

 

 

 

'321. 3” ism/b] 5‘”

132

FELONY FLOW CHART

 

 

 

®—>—I/47 48 ’49 50
' +
1+7. I 43¢ I 1+0“
1-4;,
(471. '
r.-Y_
47¢.

Tam.

Y
'62”)! [255]
. K

@—>-—'r57fi§-—>——”__SE7 :5? 4,; Yes a... F‘_'1 7“!
[5%] '

133

ATTACHMENT B

KEY TO FELONY FLOW CHART
Arrest (sometimes warrant issued prior to arrest) -
police function.

Booking - police function - done at either apprOpriate
City Hall, Township Police Office, or County Jail.

Warrant - police present warrant to the judge.

Bail Project Interview - Ingham County Bail Project

(Funded through the Circuit Court); interview each

felony defendant and prepare the following documents

prior to District Court arraignment:

a. Ingham County Pretrial Release Information Form -
designed to offer the judge the information neces-
sary to determine bail status of the defendant. It
should be noted that the Bail Project does not have
access to previous records nor can the project seek
information from other criminal justice agencies.

b. Affidavit of Financial Condition - used by the
Circuit Court Administrator to determine the eligi-
bility of defendant for a court appointed attorney.

Arraignment in District Court - Point 56 describes the
documents presented at this time.

District Court Judge does one of the following:

a. Sets bail.

b. Releases on recognizance (PR Bond).

c. Detains the defendant at county jail.

Circuit Court Administrator determines whether defendant
eligible for court appointed attorney and if eligible,
appointment notice sent to:

a. County clerk — original

b. Prosecutor

c. District Court

d. Appointed Defense Attorney

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

134

e. Bail Project

f. Circuit Court Administrator

9. Defendant

District Court creates the following:

a. Liber or Docket Card (varies with the court).

b. File folder (contains all the items under @ ) .

Preliminary Exam Requested?

YES - proceeds through flow.

NO - proceeds to bound over to Circuit Court.

Defense Attorney Files Appearance - copies to:

a. District Court Clerk - Original

b. Prosecutor

Preliminary Exam held.

Bound over to Circuit Court on felony charge?

YES - proceeds through flow.

NO - instead of being bound over

12a. Defendant pleads to a lesser charge and 38
to completion then should be considered a
misdemeanor flow through District Court.
12b. Case dismissed and 52 should be considered

a District Court function, with only one

docket card (or Liber).

District Court Judge binds over the case to Circuit
Court.

District Court assigns the defendant to the next Cir-
cuit Court arraignment date.

Court file transferred from district court to County
Clerk. File should contain the following:

a. Complaint

b. Warrant

135

c. Return to Circuit Court

d. Bond

e. Information (if available, will usually be filed
at point 19).

f. Pretrial Release Form

9. Attorney Appearance

16. File created and judge assigned by draw.

a. File folder created and entries made.

b. Original County Clerk docket card created and
entries made on card pertaining to process to date.

17. Assignment Clerk receives information from County Clerk
about the case and prepares the following:

a. Assignment schedule - Schedule prepared on Thursday
for Friday session.

b. Assignment clerk docket card with same entries as
County Clerk docket card.

C) Information includes:

a)
b)
C)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)

File number
Defendant

Address

Charge

Defense Attorney
Arresting Officer
Date of arrest

Other information available.

18. Arraignment held at Circuit Court

@ If the defendant waived a preliminary exam at
District Court and he was not represented by
counsel, the judge may remand the case back to
District Court for such action.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

136
Q§ If a negotiated plea is agreed upon the plea
will be taken at this time.
Prosecutor presents and reads into the record the infor-
mation, a standard form used in all criminal cases. The
reading of the information into the record may be waived
by the defense. The Prosecutor will hand deliver copies
at the arraignment to the following:

a. Judge - becomes the copy that the County Clerk enters
into the official court folder.

b. Defense Attorney

c. Defendant - optional copy

Judge questions the defendant for the record. Infor—
mation includes name, address, employment, and other

information about the individual.

Plea entered by defense.
Not guilty — proceeds through flow to trial.

a. Nolo Contrendre - proceeds to point 38.
b. Guilty - proceeds to point 38.

Bail determined by Circuit Court Judge.

a. Bail or PR bond continued.

b. Bail or bond increased or decreased, or the defen-
dant released from detention.

c. Detention continued.

Arraignment proceedings recorded in:
a. Court journal:

b. County Clerk docket card; and

c. Assignment Clerk docket card.

Pretrial is scheduled by Prosecutor and hearing notices
sent to:

a. Prosecutor's file
b. Defense

Pretrial is held. No court official attends and no
record is kept of the proceedings.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

137
Q@ .If a plea is negotiated the case returns to
point 18.

Trial schedule is prepared by the Prosecutor's Office
and the following are prepared:

a. Assignment Clerk prepares individual judge sched-
ules.

b. Assignment Clerk prepares individual defense attor-
ney trial notices.

c. Assignment Clerk docket card entries made.
d. County Clerk docket card entries made.

Schedules are sent by Assignment Clerk to the judge
and defense.

Pre-trial motions are filed by defense and prosecution.
All motions should be filed prior to trial. This does
not always happen, however.

Judge requests briefs?

NO - Proceeds with flow.

YES - a. Both sides present their briefs in writing and
proceed to point 30.

Judge presents his opinion on the motion(s). This may
or may not be in writing.

The prevailing party prepares the written order of the
judge for his signature.

a. Original filed in court file and copies retained by
defense and prosecution.

b. Court journal entries are made.

c. County Clerk docket card updated.

d. Assignment Clerk docket card updated.

Case dismissed as a result of motions?

NO - Proceeds through flow.

YES - Proceeds to point 52 and case is closed.

Jury trial is waived by defense?

34.

35.

138

YES — Proceeds through flow.

NO

— Proceeds to point 35 ((3).

Defense files waiver with County Clerk.

d.

Original waiver filed in case file.

Journal entry is made.

County Clerk docket card is updated.

Assignment Clerk docket card is updated.

Trial is scheduled and held. Scheduling is done by
Prosecutor's office according to the following:

1)

2)

3)

4)

30-50 cases are scheduled for each of the 5
judges for 3 week periods. About 93% of all
cases plea out before trial.

Priority will be according to the following:

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

Persons in jail for more than 6 months
and charged with an offense with a maxi-
mum sentence of 20 years or more.

Persons in jail for more than 6 months and
charged with an offense with a maximum
sentence of less than 20 years.

Persons on bond and with maximum sentences
of 20 years or more. Oldest cases are
scheduled first.

Persons on bond and with maximum sentences
of less than 20 years. Oldest cases are
scheduled first.

The age of the case.

The Prosecutor's office delivers to the Assign-
ment Clerk the trial schedule 30 days prior to
the start of the new schedule.

The Assignment Clerk forwards copies of the in-
dividual judge's schedule to the judge's secre-

tary.

She in turn forwards the schedule to the

defense.

Journal Entries are made of all trial proceedings.
It should be noted that the court clerk maintains
informal notes on the proceedings to make the
journal entries.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

139

The verdict is delivered.

Is the defendant found guilty?

YES - Proceeds to point 39.

NO - Proceeds to point 52 and case closed.
Bail continuance determined.

a. Bail or bond is continued.

b. Bail or bond is increased or decreased, or defen—
dant released from detention prior to sentencing.

c. Detention is continued.

Trial Proceedings recorded.

a. All documents are placed in case file folder.
b. County Clerk docket card is updated.

c. Assignment Clerk docket card is updated.

Sentencing date is set by judge at the time the verdict
is delivered.

Probation office prepare:
a. Presentence Investigation Report (PSI).
Probation sends PSI to judge:

a. Original judge's copy and becomes part of case
file. Counsel may review judge's copy.

b. Copy retained by the Probation Office.
Judge holds Sentence Hearing.

PSI is challenged?

NO - Proceeds through flow.

YES - a. Counter arguments are presented by counsel
and then proceeds to point 45.

Judge gives sentence to defendant.
Sentence

a. Probation - proceeds to point 57.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

140

b. Incarceration

1) Conviction Register prepared and original sent
to Dept. of Corrections.

2) Copy of Conviction Register sent to case file.
Proceeds to point 47.

c. Suspend Sentence - proceeds to point 47.

d. Fine - proceeds to point 47.

Sentence is recorded in:

a. Court journal;

b. County Clerk docket card; and

c. Assignment Clerk docket card.

Judge's secretary prepares and sends to file:

a. Judgment of Sentence Report.

Master sentencing report prepared by the court.

a. Master sentencing report - prepared bi-weekly -
summarizes all cases closed or placed on pro-
bation during the 2 week period.

Master sentencing report is sent to all area law

enforcement agencies. Major problem is that the

report lists only conviction on final charge and not
the original charge.

File is inactivated and case closed.

Court decision of sentencing given - may be any one
of those mentioned in 56.

a. Court journal (liber) entries of sentence.

b. County Clerk docket card updated (only in Circuit
Court).

c. Assignment Clerk docket card updated (only in
Circuit Court).

d. Conviction Register prepared and original sent to
proper correctional authorities, if sentenced to
incarceration only.

Master Sentencing Report prepared bi-weekly.

54.

55.

56.

60.
61.

62.

63.

64.

141

a. Master sentencing report — same as 49.

Sentencing Report sent to area law enforcement agen-
cies.

File is inactivated and case closed.

Documents presented at arraignment and placed in court
file:

a. Pre-trial form (ROR report)

b. Affidavit (complaint)

c. Warrant

Probation assumes responsibility for offender.
Probation file is created and PSI is added.

Master Sentencing Report prepared bi-weekly.

a. Master Sentencing Report - same as 49.

Sentencing Report sent to all law enforcement agencies.
Probation violation committed?

YES - proceeds to point 52.

NO - a. Individual completes probation and Probation
Record of Release is sent to judge.

b. Judge releases individual and case proceeds
to point 47.

Probation recommends trial or violation hearing depend-
ing on the charge or violation.

Hearing or Trial?

Trial - case referred back to point 3 and new trial on
charges. The defendant may also be held on
violation and probation will be revoked.

Hearing - proceeds to point 64.

Hearing held.

1. Violation charge dropped or defeated - the indivi-
dual will continue probation.

2. Violation is found valid and probation is dropped or
new conditions are placed on the offender.

142

65. Results of hearing recorded and case proceeds to point
59.

a. County Clerk docket card up-dated.

b. Assignment Clerk docket card up-dated.

ATTACHMENT C
54A DISTRICT COURT

CASE FLOW

143

ATTACHMENT C

54A DISTRICT COURT

CASE FLOW

I. Traffic - Lansing City Ordinance

A.

C.

D.

Ticket issued, 5 copies

1. 1 to defendant

2. 2 to District Court

3. l to Lansing Police Department
4. l to City Controller's Office

Lansing Police Department Traffic Records Division
makes list of all tickets issued each day.

1. Takes list to District Court Traffic Violation
Bureau.

2. Takes Bureau's 2 copies of ticket.
Bureau checks file for previous record.

Traffic Violation Bureau prepares file card con-
taining

1. Name

2. Address

3. Operator License Number

4. Sex

5. Date

6. Violation

7. Disposition

File card attached to 2 copies of ticket.

1. Set aside for 72 hours, waiting for person to
come in and pay ticket.

144
If person comes in within 72 hours and wishes to
pay ticket (plead guilty)

1. Person signs back of his copy of ticket and
surrenders it to court.

2. Court's 2 copies of ticket are pulled and all
3 c0pies of ticket plus money goes to cashier.

a. cashier balances each day
b. takes money to City Treasurer's office
3. Notation that ticket was paid goes on file card.

4. Name and docket number handwritten in ordinance
docket book.

a. docket number determined by:

1) docket number - started at some time
with 1, now on 43

2) page number - 1-500 for each docket

number, after page 500, go to next
docket number

b. for tickets paid within 72 hours, numbered
each day in order that they are paid

1) 43-269-3 means docket 43, page 269,
3rd ticket paid that day.

5. Court's 2 copies of ticket plus person's cepy
goes to typist who types abstract, which is
notice to Secretary of State of points assessed.

6. File card returned to card file.

7. After abstract sent, all three copies of
ticket filed by docket number.

8. At end of day, page filled out for docket book
containing all tickets paid that day and in-
serted in book. Page contains:

a. case number (43-269-2)
b. name
c. violation

d. date of offense

e. disposition

145

If person comes in within 72 hours and wishes to
plead not guilty

1.

10.

ll.

12.

Court's 2 copies of ticket and file card
pulled.

Bond set at $25 by deputy clerk in court
office in all cases except:

a. personal injury
b. speeding over 15 mph

These two cases must be arraigned before judge/
magistrate.

Defendant gets receipt from cash register plus
the bond is rung on the court's copy of ticket.

Defendant signs bond, 3 copies.

a. l to defendant

b. 2 stay in court

Pre-numbered docket card assigned to case.
a. docket number pre-printed

b. space for name, violation

Date and time set for trial and handwritten in
looseleaf schedule book according to date.

Date of trial noted on defendant's copy of bond.

Name and docket number handwritten in index
book.

Date of trial and docket number noted on file
card.

Pre-numbered docket card inserted in looseleaf
book in alphabetical order.

Blue card filled out in duplicate, contains:
a. docket and page number

b. name

c. date

d. appearance for defendant and city

l3.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

146

e. witnesses

f. 1 copy to city attorney

9. 1 copy bound in book by date of trial
Packet prepared containing:

a. file card

b. 2 copies of ticket

c. 2 copies of bond

On day of trial, packet goes to judge.

After trial, judge writes decision on sheet
from yellow legal pad and inserts in packet.

If found not guilty
a. defendant receives bond back
b. packet filed away alphabetically

c. blue sheet pulled from book and put in
packet when it's filed away

d. decision recorded on file card and replaced
in file

e. docket card taken out of book, disposition
noted, and refiled in different book in
numerical order.

If found guilty

a. court officer brings packet and defendant
to deputy clerk

b. if bond covers amount of fine, rung out of
cash register as bond and rung in as fine,
otherwise defendant pays difference and it
is rung up

c. disposition noted on file card and replaced
in file

d. blue sheet pulled from book and placed in
packet

e. abstract typed for Secretary of State

147

f. packet filed away

g. docket card pulled from book, disposition
noted and refiled in alphabetical order.

H. If person does not come in within 72 hours

1.

Warrant filled out after 3 days, signed by
judge/magistrate.

a. list made of all warrants done every two
weeks - 2 copies

1) l kept in Violation Bureau of court
2) l sent to cashier

b. court's 2 copies of ticket plus warrant
goes in warrant file.

File card goes back in file.

Warrant goes to Lansing Police Department to
be entered in LEIN.

Warrant goes back to warrant file in court.

a. warrant file on wheels - every night goes
down to LPD, every morning back up to court.

30 days after warrant issued:

a. notice of failure to appear mailed to defen-
dant

b. date noted on court's c0py of ticket
c. "N" put on file card in red ink

d. tickets moved from warrant file to 30-day
notice file.

10 days after failure notice mailed:

a. notice sent to Secretary of State to sus-
pend license - 2 copies

1) l to Secretary of State
2) 1 attached to ticket

b. date noted on court's copy of ticket

C.

d.

148

"S" put on file card

ticket moved from 30 day notice file to
suspended file.

I. If person arrested on warrant

1. During court business hours

a.

b.

defendant taken to police lock-up.
officer gets warrant from court

defendant brought up to court for arraign-
ment

officer brings warrant with defendant,
stops in court office to pick up court's
copies of ticket and file card

defendant appears before judge

if pleads guilty, same procedure as if he
came in within the 72 hours to pay ticket.

1) copy of failure to appear notice which
was sent to Secretary of State given
to person for him to take there to get
license back.

if pleads not guilty, bond set by judge,
then procedure the same as if he had come
in within 72 hours to plead not guilty.

arrested when court closed:

officer fills out 3 copies of interim bond
and collects money

person free to go - gets 1 copy of bond

in morning, money plus 2 copies of interim
bond plus warrant brought up to court

court's copies of ticket and file card are
pulled

all documents filed alphabetically in in-
terim bond file

Wednesday morning - defendant appears with
his copy of bond

g.
h.

149

file pulled, court officer takes to judge
defendant pleads

process then the same as if arrested during
court hours.

If person desires extension of time to pay fine

1. Must see judge/magistrate to be granted exten-
sion.

2. File card pulled and put in extension file -
noted on card.

3. Court's c0pies of ticket also pulled and put
in extension file.

4. If fine not paid one week after extension,
bench warrant issued and given to police.

a.

court's copies of tickets and copy of
warrant goes in packet and assigned
docket and page number

handwritten in docket book

noted on file card and returned to regular
file

when arrested, either taken to lock-up or
released on interim bond

procedure then the same as for arrest on
regular warrant.

II. Traffic - Michigan Statute

A.

B.

Ticket issued same as ordinance.

Police Traffic Records makes list same as for
ordinance.

File checked for previous record.

Card file prepared.

File card attached to 2 COpies of ticket and filed
alphabetically for 72 hours.

If person comes in within 72 hours and wishes to
pay ticket (plead guilty)

150

Person signs back of ticket and surrenders it
to court.

Tickets plus money goes to cashier.

Notation that ticket was paid goes on file
card and returned to file.

All tickets paid that day go into one file
folder.

Each file folder pre-numbered with docket and
page number.

Abstract typed and mailed to Secretary of State.

Filed away by docket number.

If person comes in within 72 hours and wishes to
plead not guilty

1.

Must go before judge to have bond set.
Posts bond same as for ordinance.

File prepared using pre-numbered file folder -
contains

a. 2 copies of bond

b. 2 c0pies of ticket

c. file card.

File goes to Criminal Department.

a. name, docket and page number handwritten in
statute docket book

b. not guilty noted on file card, docket and
page, and card returned to file

c. pink sheet filled out and sent to prosecu-
tor - contains:

1) name
2) date
3) docket and page

4) witnesses

151

File goes to schedulor.

a.

file card prepared containing:
1) name

2) docket and page

3) offense

4) date

if attorney for defense has filed appear—
ance, it goes in file.

date set for pre-trial conference only if
defendant has attorney or requests pre-
trial.

pre—trial conference handwritten in loose-
leaf notebook by date.

date for pre-trial noted on file card.

letter sent telling time and date of pre—
trial - 3 copies

1) l to defendant
2) 1 to attorney
3) l in file.

on day of pre-trial, file pulled and pre-
trial statement inserted.

1) if plea not reached file returned to
schedulor.

schedule trial or plea date - handwritten
in book by date and noted on file card.

notices sent to defendant and attorney of
trial date.

on day of trial or plea, pull file and give
to court officer, also pull file card and
set aside to show file out of office.

court officer informs schedulor verbally of
disposition and it is noted on file card.

if adjourned, file goes back to schedulor
and date reset.

6.

152

approximately one month in advance, page

is pulled from looseleaf notebook and
copied, sent to prosecutor to notify of

all trials and exams set - also in constant
telephone contact.

After trial, file goes back to Criminal Division.

a.

if guilty
1) noted on file card

2) disposition sheet filled out and sent
to prosecutor and police - contains:

a) name

b) docket and page number

c) offense

d) date of offense

e) judge

f) results of case
3) abstract sent to Secretary of State
4) file filed away by docket number
if not guilty
1) noted on file card
2) file filed away

3) bond returned

H. If person does not come in within 72 hours

1.

Ticket held in court file for 10 days.

a.

if charge is no Operators's license,
sheet made out to check on status of
license with Secretary of State - if
suspended, revoked or restricted,

listed in separate prosecutor book and
sent to prosecutor immediately instead of
holding for 10 days.

After 10 days, court's 2 c0pies of ticket sent
to prosecutor.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

153
Date sent noted on file card and returned to
file.

List of all tickets sent made in prosecutor's
book.

a. name

b. offense

c. date of offense

d. date sent

e. ticket number
Prosecutor sends back
a. 2 copies of ticket
b. complaint

c. warrant

When returned, date noted in prosecutor's book.

Complaint attached to tickets and filed
alphabetically.

Warrants also filed alphabetically.
Held for 30 days.

After 30 days, notice sent to person, date
noted on ticket and file card.

Warrant released to police and they enter it
in LEIN.

Warrant sent back to court and filed in por-
table file that goes to police every night.

After 10 days, notice sent to Secretary of
State and copy attached to ticket, date noted
on file card.

If person arrested, same procedure as for
ordinance, except goes through schedulor's
office, rather than Traffic Violation Bureau.

III. Misdemeanor

154

A. Complaint and warrant brought up with defendant
for arraignment.

l.
2.

Defendant goes before judge and pleads.

If pleads guilty

a.

b.

judge usually sets fine

pays fine in court office, receives vali-
dated cash register receipt

all fines paid during day filed in one
pre-numbered file folder, filed numeri-
cally at end of day.

If pleads not guilty

a.

b.

C.

judge sets bond
posts bond

file established using pre-numbered file
folder, contains:

1) c0py of bond
2) complaint
3) warrant

name, docket and page number handwritten
in docket book

if defendant requests court-appointed
attorney

1) court officer fills out request

2) request goes to clerk, who notes it
on file folder, then takes request to
presiding judge

3) request for court—appointed attorney
handwritten in book in clerk's office,
contains:

a) name

b) docket and page

B.

IV. Felony

A.

B.

155

c) charge
d) date of offense
e) request denied or approved

4) if request denied, notice sent to
defendant

5) if request approved, notice sent to
defendant, attorney with contract,
prosecutor, c0py in folder

6) attorney's appearance filed in folder

f. file goes to schedulor's office, same
procedure as for traffic statute violation,
except all cases set for pre-trial con—
ference.

After trial, file goes back to Criminal Division.

1.

3.

If not guilty

a. noted on file folder

b. bond returned

c. folder filed numerically.

If guilty

a. noted on folder

b. filed numerically

c. if placed on probation, noted in file.

Disposition sheet filled out and distributed.

Arrest

Police Officer gets complaint, warrant informa-
tion, return to circuit court from prosecutor.

1.

2.

Signed by judge.

When defendant brought up for arraignment,
given to clerk.

156

3. Clerk takes to schedulor to get date for exam
in case one is demanded.

a. in some cases prosecutor calls schedulor
to get date before officer leaves office.

Court officer takes defendant and complaint, war-
rant, information and return before judge, defen-
dant waives or demands preliminary examination.
1. If exam waived

a. judge sets bond

b. defendant pays bond and gets receipt and
1 copy of bond

c. 1 c0py of bond goes in pre-numbered file
folder, along with complaint, warrant,
information, return

d. if bond not paid, commitment filled out
and defendant taken to jail

e. judge signs return

f. name and docket and page number handwritten
in docket index book

g. packet sent to circuit court, contains:
1) bond
2) complaint
3) warrant
4) information
5) return

h. prosecutor called and told defendant
waived exam.

2. If exam demanded
a. judge sets bond
b. same procedure as if exam waived

c. pink sheet sent to prosecutor

157

file folder goes to court schedulor
rather than to circuit court

if court appointed attorney requested,
court officer fills out request and sends
it to circuit court

circuit court calls district court and
tells who was appointed, noted on file
folder

court schedulor holds file to await exam

after subpoena served, given to schedulor
to put in file

if not bound over at exam
1) bond returned

2) noted on folder

3) filed numerically

if bound over

1) packet sent to circuit court, con-
tains:

a) information

b) warrant

c) complaint

d) return

e) bond

f) appearance of attorney

g) receipt to be signed by circuit
court and returned

2) receipt returned to district court and
put on outside of file folder

3) disposition sheet filled out

4) folder filed numerically by docket
number.

ATTACHMENT D
55 DISTRICT COURT

CASE FLOW

I.

158

ATTACHMENT D

55 DISTRICT COURT

CASE FLOW

Misdemeanor or Felony

A.

Warrant brought to court by police or complainant.

1.
2.

3.

Signed by judge or magistrate
Felony and traffic brought by police

Charge against person usually brought by
complainant

Warrant given to court clerk.

1.

Folder made

a. docket number 77-0001 means the first
case in 1977

b. 77-0002 - second case in 1977

c. continue throughout year, then start over
with 78-0001

More than one person on a warrant
a. use a "see John Doe file" reference

b. can have several files referencing more
than one warrant

Warrant may be left with court if interim bond is
posted or if it is an appearance warrant.

l.

2.

Bond sent over from sheriff's department and
placed in file.

Pre-trial release form sent on felonies only
and placed in file.

If person comes into the court
a. copy of the interim bond receipt is shown

b. file is pulled

159

Arraignment
1. Every day at 9:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m.
2. Usually within 10 days of warrant
3. Bailiff picks up file
4. Bailiff calls name - brought before judge
a. Judge Bell arraigns each accused separately
b. Judge Reid arraigns a group at a time
and requests pleas from each
5. Judge asks for plea
6. Not guilty
a. asks if wants jury trial
b. asks if attorney will be acquired
c. if not capable of paying for attorney -
bailiff assists after arraignment in
preparing petition for attorney
1) if felony - sent to Circuit Court
Administrator
2) if misdemeanor - judge decides
d. plea and attorney request put in folder
e. if attorney appointed - letter of appoint-
ment placed in file
1) original to attorney
2) copy to defendant
7. Guilty plea - if fined

a. sentenced

b. Bailiff comes to counter with defendant
c. fine paid or time to pay extended

d. bond returned

e. copy of docket sheet with disposition noted
goes to prosecutor and arresting agency

160

f. docket sheet separated from file

g. file put in closed

Probation

1.

10.

Presentence form prepared by defendant with
bailiff - taken to counter.

Probation called and notified of date of sen-
tencing and other necessary information.

Probation officer does interview.
Sends presentence report to court.
a. offense

b. history of defendant

c. criminal and/or traffic record
d. recommendations

Judge reads presentence report and then added
to file - not noted on docket card.

Sentencing by judge
a. file taken to desk
b. probation forms prepared
1) defendant
2) court file
3) probation - 2 c0pies
Noted on docket card

Fines and restitution paid to probation, sent
to court for records.

If probation completed - discharge form sent
to court.

a. put in file and file closed
b. filed away

If probation not completed - violation of
probation warrant prepared.

161

a. arresting agency given warrant
b. if arrested on warrant

1) if provisional - judge sentences on
provision

2) if no provision - judge sentences

3) sometimes probation just extended

Incarceration

1.

Commitment is prepared and sheriff's office
picks up person.

a. one copy of sheriff
b. one copy in file

If delayed sentence - person reports on date
with his copy of commitment.

a. failure to return for sentence - bench
warrant issued, prepared by court clerk

b. one c0py of arresting agency, one c0py in
file

Alcohol Program

1.

2.

3.

4.

St. Lawrence - 6 classes, $25.00

Refusal form sent to hospital, copy in file,
noted on docket card.

Written notification of successful completion
sent to court.

Dismissal noted on file and docket card.

Driver's Training Program

1.

Sexton High School
Send form to school
Upon completion - notification sent to court

Copy put in file and dismissal noted on docket
card.

Youthful Trainee Status

162

1. Sometimes not even on probation

2. Date set to reappear - usually one year
3. If no further problems - case dismissed
4. Files maintained after dismissal.
Section 47

1. If guilty of use of marijuana

2. Placed on probation or given return date

3. After one year - return to court and case
dismissed.

Defendant decides to appeal.

1. Attorney files a motion to set aside guilty plea.
2. One copy of prosecutor, one to court

3. If judge grants motion, set for trial

If there is a warrant when the person appears in
court on his own - a recall of the warrant must

be prepared.

1. Call arresting agency.

2. Have warrant removed from LEIN.

3. Prepare recall order.

II. Preliminary Examination

A.

Waive

1. Set bond or incarcerated

2. Prepare a return of waiver to Circuit Court.
3. Arraigned in Circuit Court - enter a plea.

4. If judge feels the defendant was not properly
advised - may give him court-appointed attorney.

5. May be remanded back to district court for exam
and/or plea to a lesser charge.

6. Cherk receives remand and schedules exam with
attorney.

163

Demand Preliminary Exam

1.

10.

11.

12.

Defendant appears with attorney.

Attorney demands preliminary exam.

At arraignment - affidavit of condition pre-

pared and sent to Circuit Court - one c0py kept

in file.

Judge sets bond — if ROR/PR - form prepared.

a. or post cash bond

b. or bondsman signs surety bond

Waive or demand on 12 day rule

a. if waived - preliminary exam not held with-
in 12 day limit, usually scheduled within
30 to 60 days

If 12 day rule demanded - scheduled on 11th or
12th day.

Prosecutor notified of date and witnesses noti-
fied by prosecutor.

If no bond - commitment is prepared and sent

to the jail with defendant - copy kept in court
file, not noted on docket card.

Jail comes out with jail sheet once a week.

a. lists all inmates waiting court action

b. checks with court records to assure schedul-
ing in a reasonable time

Attorney may request bond reduction any time
after arraignment to end of preliminary exam.

a. judge's decision noted on docket card

b. if bond reduced - amended commitment sent
to the jail

If attorney files appearance - noted on docket
card.

Preliminary Exam held.

a. prosecutor presents case

164

b. defense sometimes does not present wit-
nesses at preliminary exam

c. judge decides whether to bind over

d. prepare a bind over to Circuit Court -
return to Circuit Court form

13. Documents sent to Circuit Court
a. return to Circuit Court sheet
b. complaint
0. warrant
d. bond

e. attorney appearance

III. Traffic Tickets
A. Not Guilty Plea
l. Plea may be made by mail or over the counter.
2. Traffic division opens a file on the charge.

3. Defendant fills out form indicating preference
for jury or non-jury trial.

4. Traffic division gives file to criminal divi-
sion.

a. traffic keeps a summary file card

5. Copy of ticket is made and sent to prosecutor's
office

6. Prosecutor prepares file - gets accident report -
determines witnesses and type of warrant.

a. one judge requires warrant

b. one judge allows ticket to serve

7. Docket sheet prepared - number assigned -
one judge odd numbers, one judge even.

8. Recorded for running total to send to state.

9. Set for trial - time and date

165

a. prosecutor notified
b. prosecutor sends trial notice and subpoena
to witnesses
10. Trial
a. during trial judge may make notations on
docket sheet
11. Case is settled
a. if found not guilty - bond returned
b. if found guilty - fine collected or exten-
sion granted - noted on docket or file for
appeal
c. abstract of conviction prepared and sent
to Secretary of State
d. if fail to pay in extended time a bench
warrant is issued
e. after case is completely finished - recorded
in index book then filed
Stand Mute
1. Judge enters plea of not guilty for defendant.
2. Defense attorney can enter plea of not guilty
for client.
3. File given to criminal department.
a. docket sheet prepared
b. if complaint or warrant - prosecutor's
office notified of not guilty plea
c. if defendant has attorney - set a time and
date for pre-trial conference
d. schedule one month in advance - one week
at a time
e. record on docket sheet
f. when scheduling, take into account nature
of attorney and nature of case
4. Judges do adjournments

IV.

VI.

166

a. noted on docket sheet
b. other attorney notified
c. set new trial date

5. Prosecutor will call and let clerk know if
plea is anticipated.

Traffic ticket under local ordinance.

1. Set trial with township attorney.

2. Set up file for court-appointed attorney.
a. judge's approval or denial

b. order of appointment

Township Code Violations

A.

B.

Warrants prepared by township attorney

Judge gives the defendant time for corrective
action within a set time frame - noted on docket
sheet.

Defendant given a return time.

1. Inspector notified to request review of correc-
tive measures and report back to court.

Fugitive Warrant

A.

B.

C.

D.

Usually signed by Captain of Detectives.
Defendant arraigned on fugitive warrant.
Judge demands governor and waives extradition.

Judge sets bond.

Search Warrants

A.

B.

Judge signs warrant
Judge gives clerk request for search warrant.

1. No docket sheet

167

No name on folder, but description of
premises.

Filed in order of request.

Officer brings return on a search warrant.

ATTACHMENT E

1977 STAFFING FOR INGHAM COUNTY COURTS

168

ATTACHMENT B

1977 STAFFING FOR INGHAM COUNTY COURTS

54A District Court
Contact Person: Al Kirshenbaur, Court Administrator

Total Court Staff: 41

 

Judges - 5

Traffic - 4

Civil - 6

Criminal - 3

Court Officers - 5
Magistrate - l
Schedulers - 2
Recorders - 5

City Ordinance - 6
Legal Clerk - 1
Administrators - 2
CETA (temporary help) - l

Probation Staff: 9

 

Officers - 4

Aide - l

Clerks - 4
54B District Court

Contact Person: Frank Russell, Court Administrator

Total Court Staff: 16 Full time and 1 Part-time

 

Judge - 1

Traffic - 2

Civil - 1

Criminal - 2

Court Officer/Magistrate - l
Recorder - 1

Parking - 2 full-time and 1 part‘time
Traffic - 2

Cashier - 1

Chief Clerk - 1

Administrator - 1

Secretary to Administrator - 1

169

Probation Staff: 2

 

Probation Officer - 1
Clerk - 1
55th District Court
Contact Person: Pat Trimm, Criminal Clerk/Court Scheduler

Total Court Staff: 16 Full-time and 2 Part-time

 

Judges - 2

Traffic - 4

Civil - 2

Criminal - l

Criminal/Scheduler - 1

Court Officers - 1 full time and 2 part-time
Magistrate - l

Recorders - 2

Account Clerk - 1

Receptionist - 1

Probation Staff: 2

 

Probation Officers - 2

30th Circuit Court
Contact Person: Thomas Gormely, Court Administrator

Total Court Staff: 26 Full-time and 5 Part-time

 

Judges - 5 ,
Court Baliff - 1

Court Officer/Research Clerk - 3
Reporters - 5

Assignment Clerk - 1

Research Clerks - 2

Workstudy students (part-time) - 5
Legal Stenos - 5

Clerk Steno - 1

Release on Recognizance Interviewers - 2
Court Administrator - 1

County Clerk Staff: 5

 

Assistant County Clerks - 5

170

Probation Staff: 11

 

Chief Probation Officer - 1
Senior Probation Officer - l
Probation Officers - 3
Administrative Assistant - 1
Clerks - 5

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Bar Association Special Committee on Crime
Prevention & Control. New Perspective on Urban
Crime. Washington: American Bar Association,
1972.

Barzun, Jacques. "Administering and the Law." Ameri—
can Bar Association Journal 62 (May l976):625-627.

 

Berg, Jerome S. "Judicial Interest in Administration:
The Critical Variable." Judicature 57 (January
1974):251-255.

 

Berkson, Larry C. and Hayes, Steven W. "The Unmaking of
a Court Administrator." Judicature 60 (October
1976):134-139.

 

Bohlin, Einar. State Court‘Administrator 1974-75 Report.
State of Michigan, 1975, Lansing: State of Michigan.

 

Castro, Harvey B. and Owens, Ronald E. "Automation in
the Courts: The Denver Experience." Judicature 59
(August/September l975):91-93.

 

Chapin, Pat. "A New Round for LEAA." Judicature 60
(June/July l976):29-31.

 

Cheatham, Frank S. Jr. "The Making of a Court Administrator."
Judicature 60 (October 1976):128-133.

 

Cox, Sarah. "Court Scheduling Made Easy?" Judicature 59
(February, l976):353-355.

 

Don Vito, Pasqual A. "An Experiment in the Use of Court
Statistics." Judicature 56 (August/September 1972):
56-66.

 

Driscoll, Margaret C.; Elliott, Kenneth R.; and McHardy,
Louis W., ed. Juvenile Justice Information Systems:
A National Assessment. Reno, Nevada: National Council
of Juvenile Court Judges, 1976.

 

 

Dunn, Edgar 8., Jr. Social Information Processing and Sta-
tistical Systems - Change and Reform. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 1974.

 

 

171

172

Ellis, Howard L. Michigan Reports, Vol. 388. The Lawyers
Co-Operative Publishing Company, Rochester, New York,
1973. ‘

 

Ellis, Raymond L. "A Research Facility for Courts."
Judicature 56 (April 1973):377-379.

 

Footlick, Jerrold K. "How Will the Courts be Managed?"
Judicature 60 (August/September l976):78-83.

 

Gormely, Thomas C. "Grant Application to Office of Crimi-
nal Justice Programs." Lansing, Michigan, 1977.
Mimeographed)

Hamilton, William A. "Modern Management For the Prosecu-
tor." The Prosecutor Journal 7 (November/December
1971):472-475.

 

Hamilton, William A. and Brosi, Kathleen B. PROMIS: A
System Serving Criminal Justice Administration and
Research. Washington, D.C.:INSLAW, 1976.

 

 

Hamilton, William A., and Work, Charles R. "The Prosecu-
tor's Role in the Urban Court System: The Case For
Management Consciousness." The Journal of Criminal

 

Law and Criminology 64 (June 1973):183-l89.

 

Hausner, Jack: Lane, Thomas; and Oleson, Gary. "A Survey
and Assessment of Court Scheduling Technology."
Proceedings of the Third International Search Sym-
posium on Criminal Justice Information and Statistics
Systems. Sacramento, California: Search Group, Inc.,
1976.

Henderson, Thomas A. and Lyday, Winifred M. "Information
Systems -- An Administrative Development: Dilemma
for the Judiciary." Proceedings of the Third Inter-
national Search Symposium on Criminal Justice Infor—
mation and StatistichSystems. Sacramento, California:
Search Group, Inc. 1976.

 

Institute for Law and Social Research. Decision-Related
Research on Technology Utilized by Local Government:
Court Scheduling. Washington, D.C.: Institute for
Law and Social Research, 1975.

 

Institute for Law and Social Research. Guide to Court
Scheduling: 1. A Framework for Criminal and Civil
Courts. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Law and
Social Research, 1976.

James, Robert B. "Computers Trim Backlog in San Diego
County Courts." Judicature 57 (August/September
l973):56-59.

 

173

Kamisar, Yale; LaFave, Wayne R.; and Israel, Jerold H.
Basic Criminal Procedure. St. Paul: West Publish-
ing, 1974.

 

Kidd, J.D. "Missouri's Data Processing Experiment."
Judicature 59 (March l976):384-388.

 

Kozinski, Alex. "That Can of Worms: The Speedy Trial
Act." American Bar Association Journal 62 (July
l976):862-864.

 

Larsen, Kent 3., ed. Privacy! A Public Concern: A Re-
source Document. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1975.

 

 

Lieberman, Jethro K. "Will Courts Meet the Challenge of
Technology?" Judicature 60 (August/September 1976):

 

84-91.
MacDonald, Malcolm E. "Computer Support for the Courts -
A Case for Cautious Optimism." Judicature 57

 

(August/September l973):52-55.

Merrill, Dean C. "Accelerating Reform in the Courts
Through Technology Transfer." Paper presented to
a NATO conference in Les Arcs-Bourg St. Maurice,
France, June 1975.

Merrill, Dean C. "Using the PROMIS Tracking System for
Criminal Justice Evaluation." Proceedings of the
International Search Symposium on Criminal Justice
Information and Statistics Systems; New Orleans:
Search Group, Inc. 3, October 1972.

 

 

 

Michigan. Michigan Statutes Annotated, 1972 Revision of
Vol. 25 (Rice, 1972).

 

Michigan Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice. Crim-
inal Justice Goals and Standards for the State of
Michigan. Lansing: Office of Criminal Justice
Programs, 1974.

 

Michigan State Court Administrator. "Caseload Forecast—
ing for Federal Courts." Focus, Lansing, State Ct.
Admin. May 1976, p. 3.

Miller, Arthur R. "The Dossier Society." University of
Illinois Law Forum. 1971 (March 1971):154-67.

 

 

Miller, Richard J. "Choosing a Consultant: A Guide for
the Courts." Judicature 57 (August/September 1973):
64-68.

 

174

National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards
and Goals. A National Strategy to Reduce Crime.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973.

National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards
and Goals. Courts. Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, 1973.

National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards
and Goals. Criminal Justice Research and Develop-
ment: Report of the Task Force on Criminal Justice
Research and Development. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1976.

National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards
and Goals. Criminal Justice System. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973.

National Clearinghouse for Criminal Justice Planning and
Architecture. "Planning Process Methodology."
Monograph A2 in the Guidelines for the Planning
and Design of State Court Programs and Facilities.
Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1976.

 

Reed, John H. "Operational Research and the Courts."
Judicature 56 (August/September l972):67-71.

 

Senna, Joseph J. "Models in Criminal Justice: Building
Blocks for Change." Judicature 59 (June/July 1975):
34-40.

 

Simpson, T. McN. III. "Restyling Georgia Courts."
Judicature 59 (January l976):282-287.

 

Skoler, Daniel L. "Financing the Criminal Justice System:
The National Standards Revolution." Judicature 60
(June/July l976):33-38.

 

Solomon, Harvey E. "The Rise of the Court Executive."
Judicature 60 (October 1976):114-118.

 

Solomon, Maureen. Caseflow Management in the Trial Court.
American Bar Association Commission on Standards of
Judicial Administration, 1973.

 

Stern, Gerald. "Courts and Computers: Conflicts in
Approaches and Goals." Judicature 58 (December
1974):222—227.

 

Stokey, Roger P. "How the Computer Can Help the Litigator."

American Bar Association Journal 62 (February 1976):
212-215.

 

175

 

Tatham, Laura. "Computerized Information Retrieval in
Italy." Judicature 57 (August/September 1973:
60-63.

Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers,
Theses, and Dissertations, 4th ed. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1973.

U.S. Constitution, amend. VI.

 

Verkaik, Henry. Office of Criminal Justice Programs,
Lansing, Michigan. Interview, 16 February 1977.

Vinsonhaler, John F. and Moon, Robert D. Handbook of
Computers and Information Systems in Education and
Social Science. East Lansing: Michigan State
University, 1976.

 

 

 

Wachs, Helaine. "Planning and Research for the Courts."
Judicature 58 (August 1974):81-85.

 

Wahl, William. Tri County Planning Commission, Lansing,
Michigan. Interview, 19 April 1977.

Watts, Frederick G. and Work, Charles R. "Developing An
Automated Information System for the Prosecutor."
American Law Quarterly 9 (Fall l970):164-169.

 

Weinstein, David. "Judicial Independence in the Computer
Age." Judicature 59 (March l976):372-378.

 

Wenke, Robert A. "Mastering the Master Calendar."
Judicature 57 (March 1974):354-359.

 

Whisenand, Paul M. and Tamaru, Tug T. Automated Police
Information Systems. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. 1970.

 

 

Whittaker, William L. "Ceremony Versus Substance: Cler-
ical Process in the Courts." Judicature 56 (April
1973):374—376.

 

Wilkins, Leslie T. "Information Overload: Peace or War
With the Computer." The Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology 64 (June l973):l90-l97.

 

Work, Charles R. "A Prosecutor's Guide to Automation."
INSLAW Paper, Washington, D.C., 1976.

Yegge, Robert B. "Professional Training for the Court
Administrator." Judicature 60 (October 1976):
123-127.

 

176

Zimmerman, Michael A.; King, Donald F.; and O'Neill,
Michael F. How to Implement Privacy and Security,
Department of Justice Regulations, Title 28 and
Beyond. San Jose, Calif.: THEOREM Corporation,
1976.

GLOSSARY

GLOSSARY

Note: The glossary is the accumulation of several lists
of definitions the author encountered during var-
ious readings and in some case previous experiences
and associations helped to define other terms. This
is not meant to be the ultimate authority in all
cases but is designed to set the limits of this par-
ticular research.

Administrative Record: This is any personal information
preserved by an organization for future use or refer-
ence that is or may be used to make a decision about
the rights, character, opportunities, benefits, or
liabilities of the individual to whom it pertains.

Audit: A formal examination of methods and procedures of
an information system conducted to verify adherence to
policy.

Audit Trail: Records of individual additions, deletions,
or modifications to, and retrievals from, a data base,
retained to facilitate audit.

 

Backlog: The number of cases pending disposition in excess
of the processing capacity of a court. The definition
of backlog requires a standard, such as that imposed by
a speedy trial rule. For example, if the standard chosen
allows 90 days from filing to dispositions, then the back-
log equals the total number of cases in excess of the
number that can be disposed of in 90 days, based on pre-
vious experience. As an alternative definition, if the
standard chosen is 90 days, the backlog could equal the
number of cases older than 90 days.

Batch: A computer program where all data is fed periodi-
cally to the computer and all inputs and outputs require
a turn around time.

 

BMCS (Basic Michigan Courts System): An on line courts
ginformation system designed by the Judicial Data Cen-
ter. The system would be statewide and would include
all of the courts in Michigan. A mainframe computer
would be used. BMCS is now in use in the Recorder's
Courts in Detroit.

 

177

178

Calendar: The body of events making up the daily work load
of the court, or any list of such events, which includes
the assignment of times and places for them.

Calendar Mode: The means by which a date is selected for
any given event within the court. The two modes of
calendaring are:

1. A continuous mode where no precise date is set in
advance. Instead, as cases progress toward trial
in succession, the trial date is determined by the
completion of events and the resulting availability
of resources. -

2. A date-certain (day-certain) mode where a specific
date is chosen in advance. Either a date is selected
as the need for the next event is identified, or
events are selected for dates under consideration.

 

Calendar Monitoring: The process of maintaining current in-
formation on the status of the calendar, the pending work
load and available resources.

 

Calendaring: The component of a scheduling system by which
a date, time, and place for an individual event are
selected in accordance with court objectives.

 

Case: An issue before the court, or a dispute to be settled
which requires that participants gather for one or more
court events. A single triable unit for scheduling pur-
poses.

 

Case Assignment System: The process by which cases or
events are assigned to judges. The three types of
assignment are:

1. Master assignment system (master calendar). Each
event in a case is assigned as a judge becomes avail-
able, without regard to which judge heard any of the
previous events.

2. Individual assignment system (individual calendar).
Each case is assigned to one judge, who hears all
the events in the life of that case.

3. Hybrid assignment system. This consists of some
combination of (1) and (2).

Caseflow Management: Management of the continuum of pro-
cesses and resources necessary to move a case from fil-
ing to disposition, whether that disposition is by
settlement, guilty plea, dismissal, trial, or other
method. As defined by the American Bar Association's
Commission on Standards of Judicial Administration, the
goals of caseflow management are:

1. to expedite the dispositions of all cases in a
manner consistent with fairness to all parties:

 

179

(Caseflow Management - Cont.)
3. to assure equal access to the adjudicative process
for all litigants; and
4. to minimize the uncertainties associated with cases.

 

Case Load: The number of cases filed with the court within
a particular period (weekly, monthly, annually). The
pending case load is the total number of cases, regard-
less of status or age, pending at any given time.

Case-tracking System: Any information system that stores
event and status data and participant information on
cases in a court, including descriptive data derived
from all prior stages of processing (filing, motion
hearings, continuances, etc.) as well as the current
stage of processing. See OBTS.

Compiler: Computer hardware and/or softward designed to
convert computer programs into a form suitable for use
in a specific computer.

Comprehensive Data Systems: A term usually meant to repre-
sent a system with the following components:
1. Offender-based transaction statistics/computerized
criminal history system.
2. Management—administrative statistics systems.
3. Uniform Crime Reporting system.
4. Technical assistance capability.

Computer: Any one of a number of electronic data process-
ing devices which has relatively large storage (memory)
areas and electronic circuits to manipulate data. They
operate only on the instructions which are supplied by
human beings in the form of computer programs (software).

Computerized Criminal History (CCH):

l. A record of offender identification, arrests, court
dispositions, correctional dispositions, and crimi-
nal justice status maintained on a computer.

2. The system for the creation, maintenance, and use of
such records operated by the States and coordinated
by the National Crime Information Center (NCIC).

 

Confidentiality: This is a loose concept that minimally
connotes some commitment to withhold from unauthorized
users information obtained from or about an individual
or institution. In some cases, the subject of the infor-
mation may be considered an unauthorized user; in others,
the universe of authorized users may be broadly described
("any State agency") or redefineable at the discretion of
the holder of the information ("whomsoever the Secretary
shall designate"). A principal objective of recent pri-
vacy legislation has been to give the concept of confiden-
tiality an Operational meaning, e.g., by requiring that

 

180

(Confidentiality-Cont):
the authorized users of information be identified in a
public notice or in a statement to data subjects at
the time of data collection.

 

Continued Event: A court event that is postponed and re-
scheduled upon the motion of either of the parties or
of the court. May also be referred to as postponement
or continuance.

 

Court Event: A judicial hearing related to a case, such as
a motion hearing or trial, which is scheduled by the
court and which requires the presence of at least two
participants.

 

Court of First Instance: In Ingham County the district
courts. Have jurisdiction in all misdemeanor cases
(imprisonment of up to 1 year) and is the court where
a felony case will be arraigned and preliminary exam
will be held. Traffic and local ordinances are also
tried at this level. Each court has both magistrate
and judges.

Court of General Jurisdiction: In Ingham County the 30th
Circuit Court. All felony cases are tried in this court.
Has a county-wide jurisdiction. Serves as first level
of appeal for misdemeanor cases. Judges handle all
stages of a case at this level.

 

Criminal Intelligence: Information, not necessarily fully
substantiated nor resulting from public proceedings,
concerning criminals.

 

Criminal Justice System: The enforcement, prosecution,
defense, adjudication, punishment, and rehabilitation
functions carried out governmentally with respect to
penal sanctions.

Data: A set or sets of statistics that symbolically repre-
sent observations of the real world.

Data Base: The total data collected in an information sys-
tem. A data base may be a set number of elements or it
may be Open ended based upon the characteristics of the
observation.

 

Data Linkage: This refers to the combining, cross referenc-
ing, or comparison of information in two or more records.

 

Data Security: This is a descriptive term that connotes the
degree and means by which information and the machines
and facilities for processing, storing and transmitting
it are protected from loss and unauthorized access or
modification.

 

181

Data Support: The component of a management system that
supplies the information necessary for the performance
of a management function. May be manual or automated.

 

Decision: A termination of a process search through in-
formation. The presentation of information and the
search process can affect the decision.

Demographic: Statistical information relating to char-
acteristics of human populations, particularly size,
density, distribution, and vital statistics.

 

Downtime: The amount of time that a computer is not
Operational due to repairs, maintenance, or breakdown.

Evaluation: The measurement, by objective or subjective
means, of the performance of the system to ascertain
whether the results of the planning and calendaring
functions satisfy the established objectives of the
court.

 

Expunge: The act of physically destroying files, records,
or information; for example, upon judicial order.

Fair Information Practice Principles: These are basic
premises that seek to assure that individuals, solely
or collectively, are able to influence when, how, and
to what extent information about them will be collected,
maintained, used, and disseminated by record—keeping
organizations. Basic premises with respect to govern-
ment record-keeping operations include the following:

An agency should collect only personal information
that is necessary for the performance of functions author-
ized by law.

An agency should advise the individual of the purpose
for which personal information about him is collected
and of any consequence of providing or not providing
the information.

An agency should periodically give public notice of
the existence and character of systems of records con-
taining personal information.

Unless authorized to the contrary for sound public
policy reasons, an agency should permit an individual
to have access to his record and to challenge its
accuracy, relevance, timeliness and completeness.

An agency should adOpt restraints on the disclosure
of personal information that are conditioned by consid-
erations of the purpose for which the information was
collected.

An agency should maintain personal information with
such accuracy, relevance, timeliness and completeness
as is necessary to assure fairness in any determination
affecting an individual's rights and benefits.

 

182

(Fair Information Practice Practices - Cont.)
An agency should take reasonable precautions to assure
the security and integrity of personal information
against damage, misuse, theft and loss.

Fallout: The dropping of events from the calendar after
they were scheduled because the case was pled, settled,
dismissed or continued.

Felony: An offense which may be punished by death or im-
prisonment in a State penitentiary; in a particular
State, an offense which is described by the law of
that State as a felony.

Hardware: Computers and their associate equipment.

Implementation:

1. The act of assembling computer hardware and soft-
ware for the accomplishment of information system
goals.

2. The entire process of information system develop-
ment, including requirements analysis, system design,
equipment procurement, programming, staffing, train-
ing, and data base collection.

 

Individual Schedule (Assignment) System: A case is assigned
to a judge at the time of‘filing (usually by blind-draw)
and remains on that judge's docket until final disposi-
tion.

Information: An act or process which informs; imparts form
and gives meaning.

 

Information Systems: Sets of interactive, self-directing
objects with rules for the interaction and organizations
so as to achieve specifiable goals.

 

INSLAW - Institute for Law and Social Research: A Washing-
ton based agency that designed and implement PROMIS. The
agency provides technical assistance in designing and
implementing the PROMIS package under a LEAA grant.

 

Interactive: On-line computer operations in which operator
and machine interact (by exchanging messages) to process
data entered into the computer.

 

Interface: Procedures, equipment, and/or software which
permits the interconnection of separate information sys-
tems; may be direct (requiring no human intervention) or
indirect (requiring human intervention).

 

Issue-based Information System (IBIS): An information
system designed specifically to aid in organizing and

183

(Issue-based Information System - Cont.):
effectuating the decision-making process for bringing
about desirable physical change.

 

JDC — Judicial Data Center: An agency of the State Supreme
Court Administrator's Office given the mission of de-
veloping a state-wide courts information system.

 

LEAA - Law Enforcement Assistance Administration: The
Federal agency, within the Department of Justice, re-
sponsible for funding new and exemplary projects at
the state, local and Federal levels. The original
emphasis of the agency under the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was to reduce crime. The
amended Act of 1976 has changed emphasis to systems
improvement within the criminal justice system.

LEMS - Law Enforcement Management System: A total criminal
justice information system being designed by the Michi-
gan State Police. Ingham County has been designated as
one of the initial development sites for LEMS. The
basic design is for development of a total system, a
system grouping all like agencies (ie: all courts, all
law enforcement agencies, etc.) and an individual agency
system. Interaction between agencies and groupings are
the vital link to the total system. Common data ele-
ments to the total system are shared. The LEMS project
proposes to use mini computers instead of a single main-
frame.

Mainframe: A term used to signify the larger traditional
type computer. The core memory of this type computer
is usually larger than minis. For extremely large sys-
tems this size is desirable. Quite Often mainframes are
not dedicated. The investment in a mainframe is usually
very large.

 

Management: The component of an organization that sets
goals, Objectives, and policies, supervises planning and
operations, and evaluates the effectiveness of the opera-
tions, policies, and plans in achieving those goals and
objectives.

 

Management Control: The exercise of authority to select
staff, establish procedures, and provide services in order
to achieve goals (see Operational Control).

 

Mini Computer: A new generation of computer characterized
by their desk top size. Minis are capable of servicing
small and medium systems. In most cases, minis are dedi-
cated. Major advantages of minis are the low initial
hardware cost and the fact that down time is usually con—
siderably less than with mainframes.

 

184

Misdemeanor: An offense which may not be punished by death
or imprisonment in a State penitentiary; in a particular
State, an offense which is described by the law of that
State as a misdemeanor.

 

National Crime Information Center (NCIC): A computerized
index and communication network linking law enforcement
agencies with the FBI.

 

Notification: The act of informing participants of scheduled
court events and transferring information to other agen-
cies concerning the schedule and the progress or dispo-
sition of cases in the court.

 

Objective: A specific goal to be achieved within a specified
time, preferably associated with a quantifiable measure
of success (performance measure).

 

OBTS - (Offender Based Transaction Statistics: "Provides
statistical information based on those offenders being
processed (through the criminal justice system). These
data are 'transactional': the individual offender is the
unit of count as he proceeds through the various process-
ing stages of the criminal justice system, and thus pro-
vides the means of linking various segments to one
another." The key element of measure is "processing
time" between stages and between start and finish of
flow.

 

OCJP-(Office of Criminal Justice Programs): The State of
Michigan Agency responsible for planning and grant
management of all LEAA funds.

 

On-Line: A condition in which the information system user
is directly linked with computerized files through a
terminal device, so that user instructions are program-
matically processed without human intervention at the
computer site.

Operational Control: The exercise of authority to estab-
lish policies, goals, objectives, and procedural con-
straints for the Operation of an information system, and
to monitor system performance relative to these items.

 

Oversetting: The process of setting more events than the
court can handle on a given day on the presumption that
some events will fall out because of settlements, contin-
uances, dismissals, etc.

 

Participant: Any person involved in a court event includ-
ing parties to a case, judges, attorneys, Witnesses, etc.

 

185

Party: A person who will be directly affected by the out-
come of a case; a defendant in a criminal case or a de-
fendant or plaintiff in a civil case. A litigant.

Personal Information (or Personal Data): This term often
encompasses all information that describes anything
about an individual, such as identifying characteristics,
measurements, or test scores: evidences things done by
or to an individual, such as records of financial trans-
actions, medical treatment or other services: or affords
a clear basis for inferring personal characteristics of
things done by or to an individual, such as the mere
record of his or her presence in a place, attendance at
a meeting, or contact with some type of service insti-
tution. Another and somewhat more restrictive definition
would be any information that is or can be retrieved from
a record or record-keeping system by reference to the
name, number or some other identifying feature (e.g.,
fingerprints) associated with the individual to whom the
information pertains.

Personal Privacy: This is a concept having constitutional,
common law, and social-psychological roots. As commonly
used, it may connote: (l) substantive rights, stemming
from specific legislative enactment and court rulings,
e.g., the physician-patient privilege, the Supreme Court
rulings on abortion and contraception, the common law
remedies against malicious libel and slander, and the
misuse of an individual's name or likeness; (2) a value
judgment, e.g., a conviction about the extent to which
government should regulate or inquire into private con-
duct; or (3) due process guarantees, e.g., the 4th Amend-
ment requirement of warrants prior to seizure of per-
sonal property.

Programming Language: A meta language consisting of vocab—
ularly, grammar, and syntax used to control the type and
sequence of operations performed by a computer.

PROMIS - (Prosecutors Management Information System): A
LEAA funded program through the Institute for Law and
Social Research. The original funding began in 1971 to
implement a "computerized information system" in Washing-
ton, D.C. for the management of the District's prosecu-
tor's office. The project has been declared as "Exemplary
Project" by LEAA and is now being implemented in 30 other
cities. PROMIS can be manual or automated. The features
of the program are high transferability, free implemen-
tation consultation from INSLAW, and applicability to the
total criminal justice system.

186

Public Record: Data recorded by public officers in conse-
quence of public duties, at the conclusion of relatively
formal and often public proceedings.

Purging: The act of file review and removal of inaccurate,
incomplete, or aged data.

Query: A request by an operator for data from a computer.

Real-Time: On line data processing which returns answers
to questions with sufficient speed to affect operational
decisions.

Region VI Criminal Justice Coordinating Council: The plan-
ning agent for criminal justice agencies within the
planning region, inclusive of Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton
Counties. Membership is composed of criminal justice
practitioners, grant managers, and private citizens of
the region. The Council is a component of the Tri-
County Planning Agency. In addition to review authority
over all LEAA grant applications prepared in the region,
the Council prepares an annual regional criminal justice
plan. The annual plan is the basis for all funding from
LEAA in the region.

Scheduling: The process of planning for and ensuring that
all the participants in cases to be heard will assemble
at the proper times and places for the events required
for adjudication, within the constraints of the court's
resources, the availability of the participants, and
due process.

 

Scheduling System: The complete set of procedures, includ-
ing management, calendaring, and data-support components,
necessary for scheduling.

 

SEARCH (Project SEARCH): A COOperative program of the States,
funded by LEAA, organized to develop and test prototype
systems which may have multistate utility for the appli-
cation of advanced technology to the administration of
criminal justice. Michigan is not one of the original
member states under SEARCH. The State, however, did
attend many of the original planning meetings and JDC
is modeled after the SEARCH recommendations.

Software: Computer programs that determine the sequence and
type of computer action under a certain set of circum-
stances. Sometimes referred to as the master program.

Statistical Reporting or Research Record: This refers to“
personal information maintained by an organization solely
for analytic purposes and which, therefore, is not used
and may not be used to make a decision about the rights,

187

(Statistical Reporting or Research Record - Cont.):
opportunities, benefits, or liabilities of the indivi-
dual to whom it pertains.

Surrogate: Where information services normally provided
at the local level of government are provided at the
regional or State level for reasons of economy or
Optimal use of resources; for example, criminal
justice agencies in a county contract for services
with a State data processing center.

 

Terminal: A device for the transmission of data between
a computer and a user.

Time Sharing: In a time sharing system, the computer
guarantees each user an equal amount of the time by
switching programs in and out of the system while
they are still being processed.

Trade-Off: The consequences of a decision involving
alternatives or competing objectives (for example,
maximizing criminal dispositions vs. maximizing civil
dispositions).

 

Transaction: A formal and public activity of a criminal
justice agency, the results of which are a matter of
public record.

 

Transferability: The capability of applying an existing
computer program to a system of like nature. An exam—
ple is that PROMIS can be used in almost any prosecu-
tor's office with only slight modifications.

Turn around Time: The time between when a data source pre-
pares input to the time when an output is realized.

 

Weighting: The process of assigning a numerical value to
an entity (such as a case or event), which allows for
comparability. The weight may be an expected duration
or priority.-

 

Work Load: The demand placed upon court resources (e.g.,
court time or judge time) by a given case load.

 

I11111111111I“