Calendaring and Case Management in the Anchorage …

CALENDARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT IN THE ANCHORAGE DISTRICT COURT

Report on Stakeholder Survey June 2012

David C. Steelman Erika Friess Alisa Kim

David Sayles

Daniel J. Hall, Vice President Court Consulting Services

707 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2900 Denver, CO 80202-3429 (303) 293-3063

? 2012 National Center for State Courts This document was prepared under an agreement dated December 28, 2011, between the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and the Alaska Court System (Court), for an assessment of calendaring and case management in the Anchorage District Court. The points of view and opinions expressed in this report are those of the lead author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Court. NCSC grants the Court a royalty-free, non-exclusive license to produce, reproduce, publish, distribute or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, all or any part of this report for any governmental or public purpose.

Online legal research provided by LexisNexis.

ii

CALENDARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT IN THE ANCHORAGE DISTRICT COURT

Table of Contents

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. District Court Jurisdiction and Judicial Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Brief Description of Current Calendar System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Stakeholder Survey Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II. Calendaring Issues Specific to Criminal Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Calendaring Impact on Timeliness and Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Docket Size and Time Available per Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Future Dates for Continued Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Other Criminal Calendaring Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. Calendaring Issues Specific to Civil Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Calendaring Impact on Timeliness and Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Docket Size and Time Available per Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Future Dates for Continued Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Final Civil Calendaring Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV. General Calendaring Issues for All Case Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Scheduling Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Judge Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Granting of Continuance Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Attorney Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. Other Calendaring Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Assessing a Calendar System in Terms of Case Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Possible Changes in Calendar System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Improving Calendars by Improving Case Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendices A. NCSC Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Summary of All Survey Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Basic Features of Current Anchorage District Court Calendar System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Calendar System Options and Case Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

1 1 2 2

3 3 6 8 11

13 13 14 16 16

18 18 20 21 22 24

26 26 26 27

29 42 66 70

iii

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Self-Identification by Stakeholders Responding to NCSC Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 1. Survey Respondents on Whether Current District Court Calendar Allows for Fair and

Prompt Handling of Misdemeanor cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 2. Respondent Ratings of Anchorage District Court Criminal Docket Size in Terms of

Number of Cases Listed and Time Available per Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3. Survey Responses on Future Dates for Continued Criminal Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 4. Survey Responses on Whether Current District Court Calendar Allows for Fair and

Prompt Handling of Civil Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5. Respondent Ratings of Anchorage District Court Civil Docket Size in Terms of

Number of Cases Listed and Time Available per Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 6. Survey Responses on Future Dates for Continued Civil Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2. Affirmative Survey Responses on Attorney Scheduling Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 7. Judge Availability for Motion Hearings and Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3. Perceived Ease of Obtaining a Continuance Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4. Attorney Readiness to Proceed on Scheduled Date for District Court Event . . . . . . . . . . . . Table C-1. Judge Rotation: Excerpt from Anchorage District Court Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table C-2. Number Table for Dockets to be Heard Each Day by Judges under Assignments 1-10 . . Figure D-1. Individual Calendar Case Assignment System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure D-2. Master Calendar Case Assignment System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure D-3. Team Calendar Case Assignment System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

2

4

7 9

14

15 17 18 20 21 23 67 69 72 74 76

iv

Calendaring and Case Management in the Anchorage District Court

I. INTRODUCTION

Leaders of the Alaska Court System and the Anchorage District Court have engaged the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to facilitate a meaningful discussion about the current District Court calendaring process, identify any problems, and explore options for improvement. In consultation with the District Court, and with assistance of the local bar association, NCSC prepared a brief survey for distribution with assistance from the local bar association. (See Appendix A for a copy of the survey instrument.) The survey requested online responses by district court judges and staff, prosecutors and public defenders, members of the private bar, and other stakeholders to gauge their satisfaction with the current system and try to identify the weak points. In this report, NCSC presents its analysis of the results of that survey, which are presented in detail in Appendix B.

A. District Court Jurisdiction and Judicial Officers. The District Court in Anchorage, Alaska, is a trial court of limited jurisdiction created by statute. It has ten judges, who may:

hear misdemeanors and ordinance violations; issue summonses, arrest warrants and search warrants; conduct first appearances and preliminary hearings in felony cases; hear civil cases with up to $100,000 at stake; hear small claims cases, with up to $10,000 at stake; handle cases involving children on an emergency basis; and hear domestic violence cases.

To handle routine matters and to ease the workload of the judges, the Court also has five standing masters and six committing magistrates. More specifically, these judicial officers are authorized by statute to:

hear small claims; hear wage claims brought by the Alaska Department of Labor, with a value up to $20,000; hear other civil cases with a value up to $10,000; issue writs of habeas corpus; solemnize marriages; handle cases involving children on an emergency basis; hear domestic violence cases; act as a hearing officer to review driver's license revocations; enter judgments of conviction on pleas of guilty or no contest in misdemeanor cases; hold trials and enter judgments in misdemeanor cases with the written agreement of a

defendant; hold trials on ordinance violations, traffic infractions, and noncriminal offenses punishable only

by a fine (but not by imprisonment or any other penalty) under Title 11 of the Alaska Statutes; preside over felony preliminary hearings; issue summonses, search warrants, and arrest warrants; and conduct extradition proceedings.

National Center for State Courts

Page 1

Calendaring and Case Management in the Anchorage District Court

B. Brief Description of Current Calendar System

The calendar for the Anchorage District Court is set up for ten judges who rotate assignments each week under a ten-week grid developed by the judges to provide more even sharing of judicial duties. As Table C-1 in Appendix C shows, one judge hears matters designated for assignment #1 for a week; in the next week, the judge hears the matters under assignment #2; and he or she then goes for a week at a time through assignments #3-10 in numerical order before rotating back to assignment #1. The rotation is staggered so that there is always one judge to hear the specific kinds of matters in each of the ten assignments each week. A number table (see Table C-2 in Appendix C) shows the dockets for which a judge is responsible in each of the numbered assignments. For example, the judge who has "Assignment 1" for a week hears out-of-custody arraignments every morning and is to be available for any warrants or motions every afternoon. Table C-2 shows the dockets for judges to hear under each assignment from Monday through Friday. Along with the matters routinely heard under each of the ten assignments, there are also specialty assignments for matters that may not have to be heard each week.

C. Stakeholder Survey Responses

The stakeholder survey was administered by NCSC in May 2012. As Figure 1 shows, two-thirds of all respondents were from lawyers who appear before the Court. An additional one-fourth of the responses were from the Court itself (judges and court employees), and the remainder were from others, including law enforcement officers.

Figure 1. Self-Identification by Stakeholders Responding to NCSC Survey (N = 56)1

7.1%

10.7%

32.1%

14.3% 35.7%

Judicial Officer Court Employee Prosecutor/Defender Private Attorney Other (please specify)

1 Source: NCSC analysis of Anchorage District Court stakeholder survey administered in May 2012. See Appendix B.

National Center for State Courts

Page 2

Calendaring and Case Management in the Anchorage District Court

II. CALENDARING ISSUES SPECIFIC TO CRIMINAL CASES

A substantial portion of the work done by the Anchorage District Court has to do with a high volume of matters involving claimed violations of criminal statutes and ordinances. In the NCSC survey reproduced as Appendix A, respondents were asked for their views on calendar "down time", time available for each case, future dates for rescheduled cases, and other matters having to do with the scheduling of court events in criminal cases.

A. Calendaring Impact on Timeliness and Efficiency

In the first survey question, NCSC asked respondents how well the current Anchorage District Court Calendar allows for fair and prompt handling of misdemeanor cases, without undue waste of time for judges, attorneys and other case participants. Table 1 below presents an analytical summary of the responses to this question.

Overall, survey respondents indicate that they are most favorable about the Court's therapeutic court, OWL (operating without a license), arraignment, and change-of-plea calendars. The least favored calendar is the trial call, followed by that for pretrial conferences.

The therapeutic court calendar is viewed more favorably by court staff and lawyers than by the judges, among whom only the pretrial conference calendar is less popular. Judges, lawyers and "other" respondents all view the pretrial conference calendar and trial call less favorably than the calendars for other kinds of criminal hearings.

Prosecutors and public defenders gave the least favorable ratings to the calendars for pretrial conferences, trial call, and motion call. The most negative responses in general for this question were from private attorneys, who gave an overall neutral-to-negative rating to bail hearings, pretrial conferences, trial call and MCA (minor consuming alcohol) court. This indicates that many private attorneys that these calendars waste more of their time than they should. The category of "Other" survey respondents is a small one, but it suggest that law enforcement officers may also feel that there is wasted time for them on some calendars, most particularly arraignment, bail hearings, OWL court, and therapeutic court.

Comments offered by respondents on this question provide a greater sense of the perceptions behind some of these ratings. One judge wrote, "Criminal pre-trial conferences should be scheduled earlier so that discovery problems are more quickly identified. COPS (changes of plea), trial call, and motion hearings operate inefficiently because there are so many continuances. I am not sure if there is any calendar adjustment that would address this problem." In the view of one court staff member, "The judges and attorneys routinely continue criminal cases over from one hearing to the next, with no real progress or plan for disposition."

National Center for State Courts

Page 3

Calendaring and Case Management in the Anchorage District Court

Table 1. Survey Respondents on Whether Current District Court Calendar Allows for Fair and Prompt Handling of Misdemeanor Cases2

Percent of Affirmative Responses*

Mean (Average) Score by Respondent Identity**

Type of Criminal Calendar

Total Affirmative Responses*

Strongly Disagree (1) or

Disagree (2)

Neutral (3)

Agree(4) or Strongly Agree(5)

All Responses

Judges

Court Staff

Prosecutors & Public Defenders

Private Attorneys

Other***

Arraignment

48

Bail hearings

49

Pre-trial conferences

50

Trial call

47

Trials

45

Changes of plea

48

Motion call

39

Motion hearings

38

Petitions to revoke probation

44

Operating without a

license court (OWL)

35

Minor consuming

alcohol court (MCA)

27

Therapeutic court

28

19%

17%

65%

3.65

4.00

4.14

3.71

3.40

2.67

22%

16%

61%

3.43

4.00

3.86

3.63

2.86

2.67

30%

20%

60%

3.14

3.40

3.86

3.11

2.75

3.33

32%

20%

43%

3.09

3.50

4.00

3.11

2.63

3.00

16%

13%

71%

3.62

3.80

3.67

3.75

3.44

3.50

14%

17%

69%

3.65

4.00

3.86

3.58

3.47

4.00

21%

23%

57%

3.36

4.00

4.00

3.17

3.06

4.00

19%

13%

68%

3.55

3.60

4.17

3.45

3.33

4.00

28%

18%

55%

3.36

3.67

3.83

3.41

3.00

3.00

12%

26%

63%

3.66

3.83

4.33

3.46

3.75

2.00

26%

22%

52%

3.41

3.75

4.33

3.20

2.71

N/A

14%

14%

71%

3.71

3.50

4.33

3.71

3.67

2.50

* "Affirmative Responses" excludes "N/A or Don't Know" responses and those who skipped this question. Because of rounding, percentages may not total 100%. ** By category of respondent, the "mean" score is the average rating from "1" (Strongly Disagree) through "5" (Strongly Agree). *** "Other" includes three law enforcement officers and a former law clerk.

2 Source: NCSC analysis of Anchorage District Court stakeholder survey administered in May 2012. See Item 1A in Appendix B for more details.

National Center for State Courts

Page 4

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download