- Collection:
- Georgia Government Publications
- Serial:
- Georgia courts journal.
- Title:
- Georgia courts journal, Vol. 24, no. 3 (Mar. 1997)
- Creator:
- Georgia. Administrative Office of the Courts
- Contributor to Resource:
- Georgia. Administrative Office of the Courts.
Judicial Council of Georgia. - Publisher:
- Atlanta, Ga. : Judicial Council of Georgia, Administrative Office of the Courts, 1997
- Date of Original:
- 1997
- Subject:
- Courts--Georgia
- Location:
- United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018
- Medium:
- state government records
- Type:
- Text
- Format:
- application/pdf
- Description:
- Began in 1977?
-v. 26, no, 5 (June 1999); Dec. 1999-
A publication of the Judicial Council of Georgia, Dec. 1999-
Description based on: Vol. 21, no. 3 (Feb. 1994); title from caption.
Latest issue consulted: June 2005. - External Identifiers:
- Call Number GA J800 .P1 G4 24/3
- Metadata URL:
- https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/id:dlg_ggpd_i-ga-bj800-b-pp1-bg4-b24-s3
- Digital Object URL:
- https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/do:dlg_ggpd_i-ga-bj800-b-pp1-bg4-b24-s3
- Language:
- eng
- Holding Institution:
- University of Georgia. Map and Government Information Library
- Rights:
-
Judicial Council policy for judgeship, circuit boundary studies
Initiation Recommendations to the governor and the
General Assembly for judicial personnel allocations for the superior courts shall be made annually prior to the beginning of the regular session of the General Assembly. Studies by the Administrative Office of the Courts of the need for judgeships or of the need for changes in circuit boundaries may be authorized by the Judicial Council upon the request of the governor, members of the General Assembly, or by a judge of the county or counties affected. Such requests shall be submitted in writing by September 1, prior to the session of the General Assembly during which the judgeship or change in circuit boundaries is sought. Any judge who intends to make a request for a study must notify the Judicial Council of any special circumstances or data of the courts involved in the request by June 1 so that these special circumstances may be investigated during the studies conducted by the Administrative Office of the Courts. (Rev. 12-13-91)
Purpose The Judicial Council seeks to achieve a
balanced and equitable distribution of caseload among the judges of the state to promote speedy andjustdispositions ofcitizens' cases. The Judicial Council recognizes that the addition of a judgeship is a matter of great gravity and substantial expense to the counties and the state and should be approached through careful inquiry and deliberate study before action is taken. (10/27/81)
Policy Statements The Judicial Council will recommend the
creation of additional judgeships or changes in circuit boundaries based only upon needs demonstrated through comparative, objective studies. The Judicial Council will not recommend the addition of a judgeship not requested by the circuit under study unless there is clear and convincing evidence that an additional judgeship is needed. (10/27/81)
As a matter of policy, the Judicial Council recommends that no new part-time judgeship be created. (10/27/81 )
Because of the advantages of multi-judge circuits, the Judicial Council generally will not recommend the creation of additional circuits. (10/27/81)
Judgeships 1. Part-tjme judgeships
As a general rule, part-time judgeships are not an effective method of handling judicial workload. The disadvantages of part-time judgeships are many; a few specific ones are:
a. The cost of training a part-time judge is the same as that of training a full-time judge, but the benefits to the state or local government of training a part-time judge are only a
fraction of those realized bytraining a full-time judge, since a part-time judge will hear only a fraction of the cases heard by a full-time judge receiving the same training. (10/27/81)
Additionally, part-time judges are generally not paid for the time they spend in continuing education. This creates a financial disincentive for part-time judges to attend continuing education courses, since the time spent in continuing education might ordinarily be spent practicing law or conducting other business. (10/27/81)
b. Conflicts of interest often arise in professional relationships for part-time judges. It is often difficult for other attorneys to litigate against an attorney and have to appear before the same attorney, sitting as judge, the next day. (10/27/81)
Additionally, cases in which part-time judges are disqualified usually arise in their own court, thus eliminating a large potential portion of their law practice. (10/27/81)
2. Promotion of Multi-Judge Circuits Multi-judge courts are more effective orga,
nizations for administrative purposes. Some specific advantages of multi-judge courts are:
a. Accommodation of judicial absences. Multi-judge circuits allow better management in the absence of a judge from the circuit due to illness, disqualification, vacation, and the demands of other responsibilities such as continuing legal education. (10/27/81)
b. More efficient use of jurors. Better use of jury manpower can be effected when two judges hold court simultaneously in the same county. One judge in a multi-judge circuit may use the other judge's excess jurors for a trial of a second case ratherthan excusing them atan added expense to the county. Present courtroom space in most counties may not permit two trials simultaneously; but such a practice, if implemented, may justify the building of a second smaller courtroom by the county affected, or the making of other arrangements. (10/27/81)
c. Accommodation of problems of impartiality or disqualification. A larger circuit with additional judges may permit hometown cases where acquaintances are involved to be considered by an ouFof-town judge without the appearance that the local judge is avoiding responsibility. (10/27/81)
d. Improves court administration. Multi-j"dge circuits tend to promote impartiality and uniformity of administrative practices and procedures by making court administration something more than the extension of a single judge's personality. Multi-judge circuits also permit economies in the deployment of auxiliary court personnel. (10/27/81)
e. Expedites handling of cases. Probably most important of all, under the arithmetic of calendar management, the judges of a multi-
judge court can handle substantially more cases than an equal number of judges operating in separate courts. (10/27/81)
Besides the advantage of improved efficiency to be realized through the use of multijudge circuits, there are also a number of other reasons as to why this approach should be taken. Under the existing law, a new judgeship may be created without the addition of another elected district attorney, although an assistant district attorney is added. However, when the circuit is divided and a new circuit thereby created, another elected district attorney is needed. (10/27/81)
A second reason supporting the use of multi-judge circuits is that upon division of an existing circuit into two new ones, one new circuit may grow disproportionately to the other, or population or other factors suggesting division may diminish, thus negating the factors which initially led to the division and compounding future problems of adjustment. (10/27/81)
Methodology 1. Criteria for Superior Court Judgeship
Re guests In establishing the need for additional superior court judgeships, the Judicial Council will consider weighted caseloads per judge for each circuit. If th.e per judge weighted caseload meets the threshold standards established by the council for consideration of an additional judgeship, additional criteria will be considered. The threshold standard for the Ratio Weighted Caseload System is 1,500 weighted caseload filings per judge and the threshold standard for the Delphi Weighted Caseload System is any value over the current number of judges in the judicial circuit. For example, if the circuit being considered has 2 judges, then the Delphi value must be any fraction over 2. Additional criteria considered may include, but are not limited to the following, and are not necessarily in the order of importance as listed below:
a. Filings per judge b. Growth rate of filings per judge c. Open cases per judge d. Case backlog per judge e. Population served per judge f. Population growth g. Number and types of supporting courts h. Availability and use of senior judge assistance i. Number of resident attorneys per judge j. Responses to letters to legislators, county commissioners, presidents of local bar associations, district attorneys, and clerks of superior court asking for their input. (9/13/85)
10
GEOGRAPHY AND PERSONNEL as of November 1, 1996
CY 1995 WEIGHTED CASELOAD
CIRCUIT
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF
SUPERIOR
STATE
JUVENILE
PROBATE
COURT
COURT
COURT
COURT
NUMBER
JUDGE
JUDGE
JUDGES&
JUDGES
DELPHI
RATIO
If
OF
POSITIONS
POSITIONS ASSOCIATE HEARING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
Pl
COUNTIES AUTHORIZED AUTHORIZED JUDGES
TRAFFIC CASELOAD CASELOAD RE
ALAPAHA
5
2
ALCOVY
2
3
APPALACHIAN
3
2
ATLANTA*
1
15
ATLANTIC
6
4
AUGUSTA
3
7
BLUE RIDGE
2
3
BRUNSWICK
5
4
CHATTAHOOCHEE*
6
5
CHEROKEE
2
3
CLAYTON*
1
4
COBB
1
8
CONASAUGA
2
4
CORDELE
4
2
COWETA
5
5
DOUGHERTY
1
3
DOUGLAS*
1
2
DUBLIN
4
2
EASTERN
1
6
ENOTAH
4
2
FLINT
4
3
GRIFFIN
4
4
GWINNETT*
1
6
HOUSTON
1
2
LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN
4
4
MACON
3
5
MIDDLE*
5
2
MOUNTAIN
3
2
NORTHEASTERN
2
3
NORTHERN
5
3
OCMULGEE*
8
4
OCONEE
6
2
OGEECHEE
4
3
PATAULA PIEDMONT
7
2
3
3
ROCKDALE
1
2
ROME
1
3
SOUTH GEORGIA
5
2
SOUTHERN SOUTHWESTERN
5
4
6
2
STONE MOUNTAIN*
1
9
TALLAPOOSA TIFTON TOOMBS
3
3
4
2
6
2
WAYCROSS
6
3
WESTERN
2
3
1
1
.o
3.
0
1
9
5
6
1
2
3
1 +
4
4
5
2
2
0
' 2
3
3
8
4
0
1
0
0
3
4
1
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
2
2
1
2
5
3
2
0
2
2
1
1
2
0
0
0
4
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
3
2
4
4
1
0
5
3
0
2
2
2
0
0
3
2
1
3
4
2
3
0
0
1
0
1
5
2
0
0
2
4
2
0
1
'
3
0
4
4
3
0
0
2
2
0
1
1
4
6
6
0
5
2
0
1
2
1
5
0
3
2
6
3
1
(TOTAL) OR MEAN
(159)
(169)
(91)
(89)
Notes: 1. As of 1/1/97, there will be 2 state court judges. 2. Juvenile court judges & associate
(94)
judges includes three pro tem judges. 3. All whole numbers have been rounded from decimal values.
1.45 2.90 1.24 20.80 4.16 8.78 1.94 2.59 3.91 3.12 3.51 6.71 5.04 1.89 3.43 1.87 1.97 1.38 4.72 1.22 2.47 3.04 5.36 1.27 2.83 4.07 1.89 1.43 2.30 2.38 4.27 1.42 2.58 0.86 2.82 1.22 2.55 1.23 3.31 1.88 10.11 3.00 1.25 1.37 2.49 2.55
1,900 1,778 1,153 1,647 1,038 1,426 1,184 1,197 1,419 1,439 1.,508 1,449 1,154 1,567 1,364 1,210 2,091 1,418 1,192 1,003 1,633 1,425 1,446 1,183 1, 141 1,269 1,630 1,225 1,354 1, 125 1,501 1,218 1,477 1,019 1,130
754 1,336 1,319 1,550 1,359 2,181 1,454 1,360 1,018 1,469 1,222
1,368
11
FILINGS PER SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, RANK, AND GROWTH: CY 1995
TOTAL CIRCUIT FILINGS INCLUDING PROBATION REVOCATION
% CHANGE RANK CY91 -CY95
3,058
1
10%
2,818
2
-34%
1,684
33
16%
1,920
20
7%
1,649
35
-21%
2,264
10
-17%
1,532
43
15%
1,489
44
-16%
1,845
25
-9%
1,951
18
-8%
1,986
16
16%
1,809
28
-9%
1,997
14
-27%
2,564
5
15%
1,710
31
-19%
1,615
38
-50%
2,751
4
2%
. 2,025
13
-2%
1,551
42
-2%
1,560
41
9%
2,081
12
2%
1,873
23
-23%
1,870
24
8%
1,570
40
-30%
1,690
32
-29%
1,620
37
-21%
2,269
9
1%
1,920
20
20%
1,637
36
-2%
1,650
34
-38%
2,420
6
12%
1,822
26
-14%
2,160
11
-23%
1,410
45
-13%
1,902
22
-25%
1,015
46
-14%
1,994
15
4%
1,759
29
-13%
1,964
17
~J
2,409
7
-7% 11%
2,778
3
36%
2,357
8
-23%
1,813
27
-13%
1,729
30
-8%
1,939
19
12%
1,597
39
-51%
1,935
.j
-1
.I
TOTAL
CIVIL FILINGS
916 1,253
846 1,059
850 1,221 1,072
978 1,216 1, 181 1,241 1,076
957 1,266 1,206
905 1,528 1,202 1,031
855 1,4_49 1,147 1,373 1,052 1,051
921 1, 136 1,012 1,075
880 1,003
863 1,320
673 859 685 1,008 1, 153 1,205 783 1,673 1, 161 1,226 729 1,278 879
1,075
RANK
34 8
42 24 41 11 23 31 12 16
9 21 32
7 13 35 2 15 27 40
3 19 4 25 26 33 20 28 22 36 30 38 5 46 39 45 29 18 14 43
1 17 10 44
6 37
% CHANGE , GENERAL CY91-CY95 CIVIL
-12%
289
-40%
492
11%
314
37%
526
-13%
282
-24%
289
18%
237
-19%
274
-8%
364
2%
472
19%
172
-16%
214
-26%
321
17%
379
-14%
297
-56%
212
8%
739
-18%
351
12%
271
27%
295
4%
647
-30%
420
1%
420
-38%
233
-30%
234
-21%
443
c20%
335
13%
292
0%
310
-45%
252
-13%
346
-19%
343
-25%
379
-26%
236
-35%
281
-15%
187
-1%
388
-22%
336
. -14%
409
-23%
367
37%
203
-31%
430
32%
322
-5%
252
12%
370
-45%
341
338
DOMESTIC RELATIONS
627 761 532 533 569 932 835 705 852 709 1,069 862 636 887 909 692 790 851 759 561 802 726 952 820 817 478 802 720 766 628 657 520 942 437 578 498 620 817 796 417 1,470 731 904 478 908 538
737
- TOTAL
CRIMINAL
% CHANGE FELONY
FILINGS RANK CY91-CY95 DOCKETS
2,142
1
23%
1,565
2
-29%
838
9
43%
861
8
-16%
252
46
-65%
457
43
-16%
460
42
7%
511
36
-7%
563
32
-13%
770
11
-20%
745
13
11%
733
18
2%
470
41
-50%
820
10
1%
504
38
-29%
710
21
-39%
1,223
3
--4%
669
22
30%
520
34
-21%
414
44
-34%
632
25
-2%
727
19
-7%
497
39
35%
518
35
-4%
639
24
-27%
659
23
-20%
744
14
39%
600
28
33%
562
33
-1%
565
31
-29%
1,026
6
38%
737
17
-13%
491
40
-26%
738
16
17%
570
30
-36%
330
45
-11%
986
7
8%
606
27
9%
752
12
6%
1,078
5
13%
1,104
4
34%
717
20
-38%
587
29
-9%
740
15
-22%
510
37
5%
615
26
~19%
732
445
263
649
207
267
300
370
337
265
487
550
149
298
346
389
468
347
386
152
286
414
e335
356
244
368
581
263
~/
431
284
375
296
355
379
211
210
234
291
462
309
843
228
309
199
362
379
716
357
-~;,/
12
MISDEMEANOR DOCKETS
PROBATION REVOCATIONS
TOTAL JUVENILE (NUMBER OF CHILDREN)
1,336
75
ci
827
293
0
390
186
0
0
213
0
5
40
547
93
97
587
51
109
0
67
74
.o
. f34
93
66
2:30
275
0
20
238
0
21
162
0
165
156
570
256
267
478
75
83
0
.1s6o8o.
153 249
0 0
216
106
154
12
123
0
173
90
291
214
131
0
215
98
0
1''
16.1
0
51
111
0
292
103
0
50
241
40
i:;--::_:_
t::rr
129 .
.,1.41 209
390 309
62
68
0
137
144
205
$'66
285
391
325
117
222
9
127
349
254
105
0
137
222
472
10
111
0
565
186
0
99
216
0
137
153
7
368
402
548
0
261
0
354
134
480
146
133
0
409
132
260
41
107
151
62
'174
103
200
160
144
RANK
4 1
19
2 6
16 12
20 9 11 15 8 14 10 7
21 3 5 13 17 18
%CHANGE CY91-CY95
44% 3%
19%
18% 38%
48% 120%
-16% 39%' 21% -26% 52% 4% -7% 47%
250% 168% 103% 51% 44% -88%
OPEN CASELOAD PER JUDGE AND RANK:
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DISPOSITIONS PER JUDGE AND RANK: CRIMINAL AND CIVIL
CY 1995
CY 1995
TOTAL
OPEN
FILINGS
1,769 1,515 1,200 1,035
421 1,188
732 468 1,211 1,025 492 705 780 422 739 497 1,584 669 637 422 1,240 1,249 558 961 633 1,126 977 395 622 1,032 498 408 379 319 708 418 988 575 1,084 875 1,259 894 974 647 890 833
827
RANK
1 3 8 12 41 9 25 38 7 14 37 27 23 39 24 36 2 28 30 39 6 5 34 18 31 10 16 44 32 13 35 43 45 46 26 42 15 33 11 21 4 19 17 29 20 22
TOTAL BACKLOG
RANK
CRIMINAL COUNTS HEARD BY JURY
RANK
CIVIL CASES HEARD BY JURY
RAN
1, 187
1
10.0
46
3.0
4
928
4
39.0
24
6.0
2
828
7
88.5
4
3.5
3
593
17
34.1
26 19.9
210
42
30.5
30
8.3
1
854
6
55.7
11
7.3
2
395
29
60.3
10
7.7
1
244
37
16.5
42
7.5
2
877
5
24.0
40
2.4
4
672
15 176.0
1
5.7
3
930
3
96.8
3
5.3
3
504
23
37.9
25
5.3
3
466
25
46.0
16
7.3
2
202
43
15.5
44
3.0
4
441
28
28.0
34
4.8
3
215
41
70.3
6
3.0
4
1,019
2
62.5
9 10.5
349
32
16.5
42
6.0
2
391
30
29.3
33
6.5
2
223
38
40.5
22
5.0 ::
733
11
41.3
21
8.0
1
786
9
47.3
15
6.0
:;
222
39
27.3
36 22.5
677
.14
44.5
17 24.0
344
33
63.3
8
7.8
797
8
43.0
19
9.0
724
12
30.0
31
6.5
:
195
44
41.5
20
6.0
:
277
34
54.0
12
9.7
749
10
32.0
27
8.0
267
35.
31.3
28
3.0
'
161
46
25.5
38
5.0
164
45
10.7
45 13.0
219
40
25.0
39
2.0
442
27
67.0
7
7.7
261
36 108.0
2 11.5
553
20
88.0
5 10.7
352
31
53.5
13
6.5
662
16
31.0
29
4.0
588
18
27.0
37
3.5
583 538
19 . 30.0
22
40.0
31 23
9.9 8.7
700
13
48.5
14
7.0
458
26
27.5
35
7.5
552
21
20.7
41 11.3
484
24
44.0
18 11.7
522
45.2
7.8
13
DISPOSITIONS EAND RANK: _AND CIVIL
1995
CIVIL CASES HEARD K BY JURY
3.0
6.0
3.5
'
19.9
I
8.3
7.3
I
7.7
'
7.5
I
2.4
5.7
i
5.3
i '
5.3 7.3
I
3.0
I
4.8
i
3.0
I
10.5
~
6.0
I
6.5
~
5.0
I
8.0
j
6.0
5
22.5
r
24.0
~
7.8
~
9.0
I
6.5
)
6.0
2
9.7
7
8.0
B
3.0
B
5.0
5
13.0
9
2.0
7
7.7
2
11.5
5
10.7
3
6.5
9
4.0
7
3.5
1
9.9
3
8.7
4
7.0
5
7.5
1
11.3
8
11.7
7.8
RANK
41 28 39
3 14 22 18 20 45 32 33 33 22 41 37 41
9 28 25 35 15 28
2 1 17 12 25 28 11 15 41 35 4 46 18 6 8 25 38 39 10 13 24 20 7 5
POPULATION
SENIOR JUDGES AND RESIDENT ACTIVE ATTORNEYS
1995 ESTIMATED POPULATION
PER SUPERIOR CT.JUDGE
RANK
24,458
46
32,446
33
25,139
45
46,713
9
30,555
36
42,989
14
59,029
4
39,956
18
49,796
6
34,058
28
49,638
7
65,682
2
27,016
41
27,694
38
48,099
8
32,504
32
41, 149
16
33,646
31
37,693
22
27,069
40
44,442
12
43,647
13
76,176
1
49,824
5
36,426
26
37,628
23
46,346
10
33,942
29
40,158
17
26,030
44
33,901
30
30,624
35
34,585
27
26,224
43
27,079
39
32,224
34
27,978
37
38,589
20
45, 151
11
42,138
15
64,677
3
39,356
19
37,608
24
26,231
42
38,513
21
37,132
25
38,956
U.S. CENSUS
2010
PROJECTED
POPULATION
PER
SUPERIOR CT.JUDGE
24,417 41,657 28,470 50,462 37,623 51,442 74,328 46,689 53,710 43,410
~6,313
90,026 33,722 30,807 59,078 35,389 52,487 37,768. 45,565 32,949 52,578 54,338 108,455 61,623 40,307 37,391 50,843 37,961 50,897 35, 151 38,419 32,677 40,080 25,948 32,061 50,122 30,307 . 40,906 50,941 43,389 79,973 46,988 41,024 28,106 43,158 46,881
46,453
RANK
FY96 SENIOR JUDGE DAYS OF
ASSISTANCE
46 25 43 16 / 33 12
4 20
9 22
5 2 37 41 7 35 11 32 21 38 10 8 1 6 28 34 15 31 14
36 30 39 29 45 40 17 42 27 13 23
3 18 26 44 24 19
73.5 4.0
54.5 368.5 153.5 109.0
25.5 157.5 111.5 22.0
12.0 262.5
0.0 6.0 19.0 63.0 54.0 17.0 48.5 10.0 53.5 85.5 4.5 3.0 38.5 62.5 6.0 30.5 44.0 21.0 26.0 0.0 1.0 55.0 21.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 165.0 1.0 186.0 4.0 47.0 0.0 22.5 109.0
55.7 ,
RANK
1996 RESIDENT ACTIVE
ATTORNEYS PER JUDGE
11
18
36
38
15
31
1
641
6
22
8
59
24
61
5
58
7
75
26
36
31
62
2
169
43
31
33
21
29
50
12
73
16
41
30
30
18
106
32
27
17
43
10
55
35
137
38
68
21
25
13
108
33
45
22
44
20
80
27
27
23
30
43
22
42
27
14
21
27
18
43
51
39
47
39
20
4
53
42
21
3
173
36
28
19
41
43
20
25
40
8
107
65.2
RANK
45 27 29
1 38 14 13 15
9 28 12
3 29 41 19 10 24 31
7 35 23 16
4 11 37
5 21 22
8 35 31 38 35 41 45 18 20 43 17 41
2 33 24 43 26
6
ALAPAHA ALCOVY APPALACHIAN ATLANTA* ATLANTIC AUGUSTA BLUE RIDGE BRUNSWICK CHATTAHOOCHEE* CHEROKEE CLAYTON* COBB CONASAUGA CORDELE COWETA DOUGHERTY DOUGLAS* DUBLIN EASTERN ENOTAH FLINT GRIFFIN GWINNETT* HOUSTON LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN MACON MIDDLE* MOUNTAIN NORTHEASTERN NORTHERN OCMULGEE* OCONEE OGEECHEE PATAU LA PIEDMONT ROCKDALE ROME SOUTH GEORGIA SOUTHERN SOUTHWESTERN STONE MOUNTAIN* TALLAPOOSA TIFTON TOOMBS WAYCROSS WESTERN
..
14
Judicial Council policy continued
2. CriteriaforStudying ReaueststoAlter Circuit Boundaries The criteria used by the Judicial Council in
reviewing proposals to alter circuit boundaries will include the following criteria:
a. Weightec! Caseload per Judge - After the proposed change in circuit boundaries, caseload should be more evenly distributed. In addition, a proposed circuit's workload should not vary significantly from the statewide average weighted caseload per judge. (10/27/81)
b. Caseload Growth Trends - Caseload growth trends should be examined so that an imbalance in growth rates when a circuit boundary is changed will not necessitate a reallocation of manpower or alteration of circuit boundaries again in the near future. Such continual shifts in circuit boundaries or manpower could be very unsettling and, thereby, significantly reduce judicial efficiency. (10/27/81)
If a reliable caseload projection method is available, this technique will be used to determine future case filings; if one is not available, caseload growth rates, increases in the number of attorneys per capita and population projections will be analyzed. The population per judge should be evenly divided among the geographical areas affected by the proposed circuit boundary change if a recommendation is to be made.
Secondly, population projections should be examined to insure that disparate population growth rates will not create a great imbalance in the population to be served by each judge within a short period of time from the date of the alteration of the circuit boundaries. Lastly, the population per judge of the altered circuit should not be substantially different from the statewide average population per judge. (10/27/81)
c. Changes in Judicial Travel Time - Travel time diminishes total judicial time available for case processing; th~refore, travel time should not be significantly increased for judges in circuits affected by a change in circuit boundaries before such a change should be recommended. Terms of court in and the number of times each county was visited on caserelated business by the judges should be determined and these trips should be translated into travel time by using official distances between courthouses and road conditions determined by the Georgia Department of Public Safety. (10/27/81)
d. projected Changes in Cost to State and Local Government- Cost savings or additional expenditures required of local and state governing authorities should be determined. Changes in cost for personnel, facilities, and travel should be considered. A recommendation for change sh9uld not be made unless additional expenditures required are minimal or balanced by equivalent cost savings. (10/27/81)
e. Characteristics of populace in areas of
circuits sought to be separated, such as rural
or urban. (12111/81)
f. Operational policies of circuit as presently
constituted as might involve inattention to
smaller counties in circuit. (12111181)
g. Whether creation of new circuit would
obviate necessity of one or two additional
judges in parent circuit. (12111181)
h. Travel and other expenses incident to
serving smaller counties. (12111/81)
i. Alleviation of case assignment problems
in larger counties of circuit. (12/11/81)
j. Population growth of counties of circuit
which would reflect need for new circuit.
(12111/81)
k. Comparison population per judge in new
circuit with standards approved by Judicial
Council in recent years. (12/11/81)
I. The Judicial Council will presume that a
multi-judge circuit is preferred over a single-
judge circuit. (12111/81)
"
m. If a county is to be split off from the circuit
of which it is a part, the possibilities of adding
that county to another circuit should be ex-
hausted prior to the council's recommending a
single-judge circuit. ( 12111/81)
allocations. Votes on such motions shall be by secret written ballot. A two-thirds vote of the. council membership present at the session will be required to override an unfavorable recommendation based on the criteria contained in these by-laws (policy). After determining those circuits in which the council recommends an additional judgeship, the council will rank the recommendations based on need. (6/6/84)
5. Length of Recommendations Upon a recommendation of an additional
judgeship or to alter circuit boundaries for a judicial circuit by the council, the recommendation shall remain approved by the council for a period of three years, unless the caseload of that circuit changes by plus or minus ten percent. (Rev. 12/13/96)
6. Disqualifications Any council member in a circuit or county
affected by a council recommendation shall be eligible to vote by secret ballot on motions affecting that circuit, but shall not be present or participate in the council's final deliberations regarding his or her circuit. (Rev. 6/6/84)
Judicial Council Deliberations 1. Testimony
Judges, legislators, and others deemed appropriate by the chairman shall be invited to make written remarks or present data regarding the need for judgeships or to alter circuit boundaries. Any special circumstance or data of a circuit for which a request is to be made must be brought to the attention ofthe Judicial Council by a judge of the requesting circuit by June 1 of the year prior to the year of the legislative session during which the judgeship or change in circuit boundaries will be considered. The written testimony of the judges, legislators and other persons shall be reviewed and considered by the Judicial Council in their deliberations regarding judicial manpower. Oral arguments will not be made. (6/6/84)
Dissemination of Recommendations 1. Study of the Need for Additional Superior
Court Judgeships The Administrative Office of the Courts shall prepare a report, including data required by the council for their deliberations and council policy statement, on the Judicial Council's recommendations as to the need for additional superior court judgeships. Such report shall be distributed to the governor, members of the judiciary and special judiciary committees of the Senate and House, all superiorcourtjudges and other interested parties approved by the director of the Administrative Office of the Courts. Additionally, the Administrative Office of the Courts shall prepare and distribute a press release summarizing the council's recommendations. (10/27/81)
2. Final Deliberations After all written presentations, the Judicial
Council and key Administrative Office of the Courts staff, in open session, will discuss the merits of each request. (6/6/84)
3. Staff presentations The Administrative Office of the Courts will
present data evaluating the need to add judgeships or to alter circuit boundaries based on council approved criteria and will make staff recommendations. (10/27/81)
4.~
After final deliberations, the council will, in open session, entertain approve ordisapprove recommended changes in judicial manpower
2. Special Studies of Judicial Manpower,
Including Alteration of Cjrcuit Boundaries
a. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall prepare reports on the Judicial Council's recommendations for special studies, including reports on requests to alter circuit boundaries and for judgeships of courts other than the superior court and shall distribute them to the requester and, in the discretion of the director, to other interested parties. (10/27/81)
b. In preparing special reports, written remarks of judges, legislators, and others deemed appropriate by the chairperson shall be solicited by the Administrative Office of the Courts and considered by the Judicial Council. (12/11/86)
15
For Your Information ...
COSTS OF A NEW SUPERIOR COURT JUDGESHIP & JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DIVISION
I. Cost of a new superior court judgeship:
A new judgeship requires funding from the state and counties of the circuit. Fixed costs do not fluctuate with the volume of activity. Variable costs fluctuate according to changes in the volume of activity or local preference.
State Costs
Fixed costs salaries and fringe benefits Superior court judge Judge's secretary Assistant district attorney Court reporter (contingent expense)
Other fixed costs Library
Total range of fixed costs
Variable costs travel expenses Superior court judge Assistant district attorney
Total average/range of variable costs
TOTAL RANGE OF STATE COSTS
Salary
$85,782 19,956
27,696 - 68,382 960-4,560
Fringe benefits
$28,430 7,142
9,912 - 24,474
Total range
$114,212 27,098
37,608 - 92,856 960-4,560
$7,225
Average $2,229
1,233 $3,462
$7,225 $187,103. 245,951
Range $0- 8,757
0- 7,096 $015,853
$187,103. 261,804
II. Cost of dividing a judicial circuit without adding a judgeship:
The division of a judicial circuit always requires additional state funding and may result in substantial changes in county costs as well. County costs could decrease significantly if salaries for county-paid positions are subsequently assumed by the state (such as when the total number of assistant district attorneys in a circuit remains the same and a county-paid assistant district attorney is shifted to the state payroll as the assistant district attorney that is added when the circuit is divided). Depending on what the county sees as necessary for meeting its needs, however, county costs could increase due to a number of other factors (such as any county salary supplements, hiring of additional county-paid personnel, operating expenses, etc., as well as when the total number of assistant district attorneys in the circuit is increased). While the minimum new costs to the state can be estimated, the effect of a circuit division on county costs will vary dramatically depending on the balance of the county's needs and resources as well as on the proportion of the total circuit costs that each county paid prior to the division of the circuit.
The figures listed below represent the range of new annual costs that the state would bear (as of January 1, 1997). Assistant district attorneys can be hired at any pay level of the statutory scale (at the discretion of the district attorney), based on the attorney's experience. The salary for an assistant district attorney can range from $27,696 to $68,382 annually. The assistant district attorney salary information in the following table illustrates the potential range in state costs if an assistant district attorney is hired at the lowest pay scale as compared to when an assistant district attorney is hired at the highest pay level.
State Costs
Fixed costs salaries and fringe benefits District attorney Assistant district attorney DA's secretaries (2)t DA's investigator Law clerk for chief judge
Total Fixed Costs
Variable costs travel expenses District attorney Assistant district attorney
Total average/range of variable costs
TOTAL RANGE OF STATE COSTS
Salary $76,404 27,696 - 68,382
39,912 24,426 28,218
Average $1,304 1,233 $2,537
Fringe benefits
Total range
$23,029 9,912 - 24,474
14,285 8,742
$99,433 37,608 - 92,856
54,197 33,168
5,686
33,904
$258,310. 313,557
Range
$0- 4,079 0- 7,096
$0-11,175
$258,310. 324,732
Georgia Courts journal
16
March 1997
For Your Information ...
~- . COSTS OF A NEW SUPERIOR COURT JUDGESHIP &JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DIVISION
~
llt Cost of dividing a judicial circuit and adding a superior court judgeship simultaneously:
The creation of a new judgeship and a new circuit would result in the following additional positions and costs.
State Costs
Fixed costs - salaries and fringe benefits
District attorney Assistant district attorney DA's secretaries (2)t DA's investigator Law clerk for chief judge
For adding a judgeship
Superior court judge Judge's secretary ADA Court reporter (contingent expense)
Other fixed costs
Library
Total range of additional fixed costs
Salary
$76,404 27,696 - 68,382
39,912 24,426 28,218
Fringe benefits
$23,029 9,912 - 24,474
14,285 8,742 5,686
Total range
$99,433 37,608 - 92,856
54,197 33,168 33,904
$85,782 19,956
27,696- 68,382 960- 4,560
$28,430 7,142
9,912 - 24,474
$114,212 27,098
37,608 - 92,856 960-4,560
$7,225
$7,225 $445,413 - 559,508
Variable costs - travel expenses For circuit division
District attorney Assistant district attorney For adding a judgeship Superior court judge Assistant district attorney Total average/range of variable costs
TOTAL RANGE OF ADDITIONAL STATE COSTS
Average
$1,304 1,233
$2,229 1,233
$5,999
Range
$0- 4,079 0- 7,096
$0- 8,757 0- 7,096
$0- 27,028 $445,413 - 586,536
t These figures reflect the total costs for two individuals in these positions.
Notes:
All expenses are annually recurring costs except for the following: establishment of judge's library, acquisition of office equipment, necessary renovations. Salaries and fringe benefits are calculated from 111197 figures. Travel expenses are calculated from fiscal year 1996 expenses.
Average figures for county costs are unavailable or vary too widely to be included here. However, county costs will include the following:
Fixed costs Salary supplements for any or all of the following: judge, judge's secretary, district attorney, assistant district attorney, district attorney's secretary, district attorney's investigator, and law clerk Salaries and/or fees for court reporters Salaries and fringe benefits for other, county-paid court personnel: assistant district attorneys, investigators, law assistants, secretaries, and bailiffs Office equipment and furniture
Variable costs Travel allowances Office operating expenses Necessary courtroom and office space acquisition
March 1997
17
Georgia Courts Journal
Highlights of the Judicial Council meeting continued from page 1
New members welcomed
Judicial Circuit), Seventh Judicial
The council welcomed the follow-
Administrative District, replaces
ing new members:
Judge Walter J. Matthews.
Judge A. Wallace Cato (South
Judge Richard W. Story (North-
Georgia Judicial Circuit), Second
eastern Judicial Circuit), Ninth Judi-
Judicial Administrative District,
cial Administrative District, replaces
replaces Judge Joe C. Bishop.
Judge Richard S. Gault.
Judge Rita Cavanaugh (Spalding
Judge T.O. Sturdivant III (Cobb
County), president, Council of
County), president-elect, Council of
Magistrate Court Judges, replaces
Magistrate Court Judges, replaces
Judge Kelly R. Burke.
Judge Dan F. Pierce.
Judge Howard Cook (Gwinnett
County), president-elect, Council of
Meeting highlights
State Court Judges, replaces Judge
Court of Appeals Judge Dorothy
Kathlene Gosselin.
T. Beasley reported that the Com-
mission on Appellate
Courts would publish
its report after its final
meeting on December
18. For more informa-
tion, please see the
article on page 1.
The chief justice
summarized the Final
Report of the Commis-
sion on Lawyer Disci-
pline, which was re-
leased in September
1996 and included
these recommenda -
tions: 1) the Supreme
Judge William M. Towson Sr. and Chief!udge Dorothy A. Robinson study the caseload data chart prior to voting on new judgeship recommendations.
Court should place lawyer discipline under a disciplinary commis-
sion composed oflaw-
Judge E. Purnell Davis II (Toombs
yers and nonlawyers; 2) the State Bar
Judicial Circuit), Tenth Judicial Ad-
should continue to operate central
ministrative District, replaces Judge
intake and coordinate ancillary ser-
William F. Grant.
vices; 3) no Bar officer or employee
Judge Philip F. Etheridge (Atlanta
should participate in the prosecu-
Judicial Circuit), Fifth Judicial Ad-
tion, adjudication or deliberation of
ministrative District, replaces Judge
these matters, other than the initial
Isaac Jenrette.
screening; 4) the Supreme Court
Judge Sanford J. Jones (Fulton
should give investigative and
County), president-elect, Council of
prosecutorial functions to an inde-
Juvenile Court Judges, replaces Judge pendent disciplinary counsel ap-
George J. Heam III.
pointed by the court. The Supreme
Judge George F. Nunn Jr. (Hous-
Court has created a subcommittee to
ton Judicial Circuit), president-elect,
receive comments on the proposal
Council of Superior Court Judges,
from the public, lawyers, judges and
replaces Judge H. Arthur McLane.
legal scholars.
Judge Dorothy A. Robinson (Cobb
Two of the Georgia Commission
Judge Rita L. Cavanaugh and Judge T.O. Sturdivant III were welcomed as new members ofthe Judicial Council at the December meeting.
on Dispute Resolution's primary projects include the development of ethics procedures for handling disciplinary complaints and implementation of a statistical automated reporting project. The commission director, Ansley Barton, reported that the Office of Dispute Resolution will seek an increase in the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) filing fee surcharge in counties with populations less than 500,000 to help smaller counties develop ADR programs.
Institute of Continuing Judicial Education (ICJE) Director Richard D. Reaves reported that the Institute for Court Management court executive development program will be offered through ICJE in Georgia for the first time. In response to survey results, ICJE has begun designing training curricula for law clerks of the trial
Continued next page.
Court ofAppeals ChiefJudge Gary B. Andrew:: (far left) and AOC staffMarla S. Moore, Gregory W. Arnold (seated) and Victor L. Webb tabulate voting results.
Georgia Courts Journal
18
March 1997
Judicial Council continued
courts. New facilities at ICJE include . a modem, computerized courtroom (_ where judges can make videotapes of their courtroom style for a later critique.
The chairperson of the Georgia Courts Automation Commission, Judge Hilton Fuller, reported GCAC's recently adopted mission statement: 1) to facilitate appropriate and prompt collection, via GO Network or otherwise, of court data in compatible or standardized electronic formats; to arrange for storage in state databases; and, to make such data available to, and provide for data exchanges between, local courts and state agencies; 2) to assist local courts in automated case management and legal electronic research; and 3) to provide such services with awareness that: court needs and resources vary, accurate and prompt data collection are both statewide and local objectives, and data collected has both state and local value.
Recent GCAC projects include coordination of distribution of the Law Office ._____. Information Systems (LOIS) electronic research program. GCAC is also working with the Georgia Tech Research Institute to develop data compatibility for reporting to state databases.
The term of the Supreme Court Commission on Equality has been extended for two years. The interpreters committee has developed a code of professional conduct and guidelines for using court interpreters, suggested language for judicial benchbooks regarding use of interpreters, and created a registry of interpreters. The
commission also developed a Guide to Bias-Free Language.
During the 1997 legislative session, the Commission on Family Violence will promote these legislative measures: prohibiting insurance discrimination against victims of domestic violence; expanding collection of the 5% penalty in criminal cases to be distrib. uted for the support of shelters; and establishing a criminal penalty for revealing the location of a shelter.
ICJE honors Judge Johnny Warren
At its November 1996 meeting, the Board of Trustees of the Institute of Continuing Judicial Education (ICJE) honored Judge Johnny W. Warren, former Chief Magistrate of Laurens County. Judge Warren was recognized for /1 exemplary leadership within the judiciary of the state of Georgia, and public service to the citizens of this state, by strengthening the administration of justice through improved state judicial education."
The ICJE proclamation reviewed Judge Warren's numerous accomplishments. In addition to appearing regularly as an ICJE program instruc-
tor, he "served ably as an ICJE trustee from 1990 to 1996, as well as with extraordinary distinction as chair of the Georgia Magistrate Courts Training Council from 1985 through 1996."
Judge Warren took office as a magistrate court judge in 1983. He began his legal practice in Dublin, GA, in 1979 and served as judge of the Laurens County Small Claims Court from 1979 to 1983. He received a B.B.A. from Georgia College and aJ.D. from Atlanta Law School. Judge
Warren is author of the Magistrate Court Handbook to.
Judges councils The Council of Superior Court
Judges continued its Judges Online Project: 46 personal computers for state-paid law clerks were purchased and installed. One hundred and forty-two copies of word-processing software, 57 fax rnachines and 146 printers were also purchased.
The Council of State Court Judges will introduce three legislative items this year: a minimum salary bill for full-time state court judges and two retirement bills.
The Council of Juvenile Court Judges is working with the Supreme Court Child Placement Proceedings Project and its implementation committee.
The Council of Probate Court Judges reported that the Court Futures Committee is developing a mission statement for the probate courts. Efforts are underway to connect all probate judges to the GO Network.
The Council of Magistrate Court Judges has accomplished major revisions to its civil and criminal benchbook. The council is also planning a
pictorial directory. to
Mark your calendar:
Deadline for pilot projects is June 1
Courts interested in establishing experimental court projects of nonuniform jurisdiction must submit their request for consideration in writing to the chairperson of the Judicial Council, ChiefJustice Robert Benham.
According to Judicial Council policy, the deadline for submitting requests is June 1 prior to the beginning of the regular session of the General Assembly during which the experimental project legislation will be considered. The request can be made by the chief judge of one of the affected courts, the governor, a member of the General Assembly, or the governing authority of an affected county. The proposal must contain a plan for the experiment which includes the information set out in Judicial Council policy. For a copy of the policy, contact the AOC
(404-656-5171). to
March 1997
19
Georgia Courts Journal
Newly elected judges take office
The following new judges, district attorneys, solicitors-general and superior court clerks were elected for the term of January 1, 1997, through December 31, 2000 (unless otherwise indicated). Please make a note of
these changes in your Geargia Courts Directory.
Superior Courts
Alapaha Judicial Circuit Judge Dane Perkins
Atlanta Judicial Circuit Judge T. Jackson Bedford District Attorney Paul Howard
Augusta Judicial Circuit Judge Neal W. Dickert
Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney Stephen Kelley
Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit District Attorney John Gray Conger
Coweta Judicial Circuit Judge John Simpson
Dougherty Judicial Circuit Judge Willie E. Lockette District Attorney Ken Hodges
Houston Judicial Circuit Judge Edward D. Lukemire
(Though elected for the term beginning January 1, 1997, Judge Lukemire was appointed and sworn in by Gov. Miller on September 3, 1996, to complete the term of a retiring judge.)
District Attorney Kelly R. Burke Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit
District Attorney Herbert E. (Buzz) Franklin, for the term January 17, 1997, through December 31, 2000. Northern Judicial Circuit Judge Lindsay A. Tise District Attorney Robert W. Lavender
Ogeechee Judicial Circuit Judge John R. Turner
Rome Judicial Circuit District Attorney Tami Colston
Southern Judicial Circuit District Attorney J. David Miller
South Georgia Judicial Circuit Judge J. Richard Porter III
Tifton Judicial Circuit Judge Gary Mccorvey
Toombs Judicial Circuit Judge Roger W. Dunaway Jr.
Waycross Judicial Circuit Judge Stephen L. Jackson
State Courts
Bibb County Solicitor-General Otis L. Scarbary
Brooks County Judge William R. Folson
Bulloch County Judge F. Gates Peed Solicitor-General Gary Mikell
Cherokee County Solicitor-General Leslie Case Abernathy
Clayton County Judge Morris Braswell
Clinch County Solicitor-General George A. Bessonette
Coffee County Solicitor-General Boyd English
Colquitt County Judge Richard T. Kent
Fayette County Judge Fletcher Sams Solicitor-General Steven L. Harris
Forsyth County Solicitor-General Leslie Case Abernathy
Fulton County Solicitor-General Carmen D. Smith
Habersham County Judge Linton Crawford Jr.
Jefferson County Judge John R. Murphy III Solicitor-General Mickey Moses
Liberty County Solicitor-General Edward L. Colby Jr.
Mitchell County Judge Michael Bankston
Putnam County Judge Jesse Copelan Jr.
Richmond County Solicitor-General Sheryl B. Jolly
Screven County Judge Lisa Gross Solicitor-General J.A. Bazemore
Probate Courts Atkinson County
Judge Jeffrey Paulk McGowan Ben Hill County
Judge Tommy Walton Ash Bleckley County
Judge Kenneth Powell Burke County
Judge Preston B. Lewis III Carroll County
Judge BettyB. Cason Charlton County
Judge Bob Phillips Cherokee County
Judge Kip McVay Clarke County
Judge Susan P. Tate Dawson County
Judge Jennifer Evans Burt Floyd County
Judge Steve Burkhalter Franklin County
Judge Eddy Fowler Houston County
Judge Janice Davidson Spires Long County
Judge Marie H. Middleton Pike County
Judge Lynn Brandenburg Putnam County
Judge Patrice Howard Taliaferro County
Judge Martha R. Mayo Terrell County
Judge Nancy P. Fryer Union County
Judge Dwain Brackett Wilkinson County
Judge Vivian Cummings
Magistrate Courts (Chief Magistrates) Atkinson County
Judge Rowan Sirmans Baker County
Judge Wanda T. Floyd Barrow County
Judge Michael A. Barnette Bartow County
Judge Tom Moseley
Georgia Courts Journal
20
March 1997
Newly elected judges cont.
{ Burke County ~ Judge Alma Young Tuff
Catoosa County Judge Donald Caldwell
Charlton County Judge Reginald F. Todd
Clayton County Judge Michael P. Baird
Coffee County Judge Betty S. Lanier
Coweta County Judge James C. Stripling
Decatur County Judge Billy G. Mills
Effingham County Judge Preston G. Exley
Floyd County Judge Jerry Wood
Gilmer County Judge Roger Kincaid
Glascock County Judge Terry Usry
Hall County Judge Charles S. Wynne
Jeff Davis County ,'-- Judge Chris Davenport
Lamar County Judge Brenda Williamson
Laurens County Judge Thomas C. Bobbitt III
Lee County Judge Jim Thurman
Lumpkin County Judge Jeff Lowe
Spalding County Judge Rita L. Cavanaugh
Stewart County Judge George Hancock
Sumter County Judge R. Lawton Lesueur Jr.
Telfair County Judge Vickie Scarborough
Terrell County Judge Linda Freeman
Ware County Judge Lawton G. Taylor
Washington County Judge Clayton Sheppard
- White County Judge Maylou K. London
Superior Court Clerks Barrow County
Gloria Wall Bibb County
Dianne Brannen Bryan County
Rhonda Reese Charlton County
Kay Carter Chatham County
Susan Pruse Coweta County
Joan Griffies DeKalb County
Jeanette Rozier Forsyth County
Douglas Sorrells Gilmer County
Glenda Sue Johnson Glynn County
Larry Ellison Gwinnett County
Thomas Lawler Haralson County
Jo Ann Hutcheson Harris County
Jo Alston Irwin County
Sharon Martin Jenkins County
Elizabeth Landing Monroe County
LynnW.Ham Putnam County
Shelia Layson Quitman County
Becky Findley Talbot County
Linda Lucas Taliaferro County
Sandra Green Telfair County
Laura Neal Washington County
Joy Conner Wilkes County
Mildred Peeler
This information was compiled by the Office of the Secretary of State. tc.
Notice and opportunity for comment on proposed rule
The following proposed Court Information Rule will be presented to the Council of State Court Judges in May. Comments concerning this rule may be directed in writing to the Council of State Court Judges, 244 Washington St., SW, Suite 550, Atlanta, GA 30334.
Rule - Court Information
The chief judge of each State Court may require the clerk of that court to furnish to the chief judge within 10 days after the end of each month, a general civil and a criminal, including traffic violation bureau offenses 4013-50 et seq., caseload management report. The Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court may request copies of the information that is furnished to the Chief Judges of the Courts pursuant to this rule.
The case types, events types and disposition methods used in these reports will conform to Judicial Council guidelines for reporting caseload. Each such report shall include the following:
(A) the number of cases filed by case type in the prior month and year-to-date;
(B) the number of cases disposed by case type and disposition method in the prior month and year-to-date;
(C) the number and type of pending cases;
(D) a list of cases more than 120 days old (criminal) and 180 days old (civil) to include the following data: (i) case number, (ii) style, (iii) case type, (iv) filing date, (v) next event scheduled (vi) date of that event; and
(E) any other information the chief judge requests that is contained within the court's standardized computer
programs.~
March 1997
21
Georgia Courts Journal
Judge Jeffrey S. Bagley takes office
Jeffrey S. Bagley (center) was sworn in by Gao. Zell Miller as judge ofthe State Court of Forsyth County on January 2. He was accompanied by his wife, Anita.
Legislative Log tracks court-related legislation
The Administrative Office of the Courts publishes and distributes the judicial Legi.slative Log each week during the 1997 session of the General Assembly. The Log includes summaries of court-related legislation and tracks the status of
these measures through the House and Senate. To be added to the mailing list or for copies of bills, contact Billie Bolton, senior communications officer (404656-5171).
Information on legislation is also available on the GeorgiaNet. Go to http:// www.ganet.state.ga.us/ and click on "Index of Services." tc.
Vol. 22 No. 5 Februay 21, 1wr
Judicial Legislative Log
PuCU&l'l$d ror ine ~gla jtddary by lhe AdmlOIS1ralrYe Olllc.;i or t~ COUlll, 2 Waa/llflglon Sir eel SW, Surtc;iSSO.Allana,GA 30334-59004041856-5171
Georgia Courts JOURNAL
Vol. 24 No. 3
Georgia Judicial Council
Chief Justice Robert Benham, Chair Presiding Justice Norman S. Fletcher,
Vice Chair Chief Judge Gary B. Andrews Chief Judge A. Wallace Cato
Judge Rita L. Cavanaugh Chief Judge Howard Cook Chief Judge Daniel M. Coursey, Jr. Judge E. Purnell Davis II Chief Judge Philip F. Etheridge Judge Stephen E. Franzen Judge John E. Girardeau Judge Edward B. Johnson
Judge Sanford J. Jones
Judge William F. Lee Jr. Judge Jeannette L. Little Judge George F. Nunn Jr. Judge LaVeme C. Ogletree
Judge Floyd E. Propst Chief Judge Dorothy A. Robinson
Chief Judge Richard W. Story Judge T.0. Sturdivant ill
Chief Judge William M. Towson Sr. Judge E. Mullins Whisnant Judge Amanda F. Williams
Administrative Office of the Courts
Director Robert L. Doss Jr.
Senior Cammunicatians Officer Billie Bolton
Editor Nancy K. Pevey
The Georgia Courts Journal is a publication of the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts. It welcomes news about Georgia's courts, their programs and personnel. Editorial and circulation offices: AOC, Suite 550, 244 Washington St., SW, Atlanta, GA 30334-5900, (404) 656-5171.
Georgia Courts JOURNAL
Administrative Office of the Courts 244 Washington Street, S.W., Suite 550 Atlanta, GA 30334-5900
BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE
PAID ATLANTA, GA PERMIT #1880
Address Correction Requested
0 Printed on recycled paper.
'vA
J8oo
. Pl
Git
;).4/3
Vol. 24
No. 3
March 1997
Courts
Judicial Council meets
New superior court judgeships recommended for five circuits
At its December meeting, the Judicial Council recommended creation of additional superior court judgeships in five judicial circuits for consideration by the 1997 General Assembly.
The council ranked the recommended circuits in the following order: 1) Stone Mountain (DeKalb County), 10th judgeship 2) Gwinnett (Gwinnett -- County), 7th judgeship 3) Atlanta (Fulton County), 16th judgeship 4) Douglas (Douglas County), 3rd judgeship 5) Ocmulgee (Baldwin, Greene, Hancock, Jasper, Jones, Morgan, Putnam and Wilkinson Counties), 5th judgeship.
The council also voted to carry
forward a recommendation made last year to split the Blue Ridge Judicial Circuit (Cherokee and Forsyth Counties) into two single-county circuits.
See Judicial Council, page 18
Judge Jeannette L. Little, ChiefJudge Howard Cook and Judge La Verne C. Ogletree (I. to r.) cast their votes at the Judicial Council meeting.
Chief Judge Gary B. Andrews takes office
ChiefJudge Gary B. Andrews (left) and Presiding Justice Norman S. Fletcher.
Court of Appeals Judge Gary B. Andrews became the court's 18th chief judge in ceremonies on January 6. He was elected to a two-year term, succeeding Chief Judge Dorothy T. Beasley.
Chief Judge Andrews holds a B.B.A. degree from the University of Georgia and a J.D. degree from the University of Georgia Law School. He was elected judge of the superior
See Chief Judge Andrews, page 3
Report suggests adding judges to Court of Appeals
The Commission on Appellate Courts was established by the 1996 General Assembly to analyze the current structures and operations of Georgia's appellate courts and determine what changes, if any, should be recommended. The commission has issued its report and finds that "immediate action is necessary to relieve the caseload currently placed on the judges of the Court of Appeals."
The report reveals that the number of matters filed at the Court of Appeals per judge increased from 287 in 1985 to 434 in 1994. The judges also write more opinions than those of any other intermediate appellate court in the country: 278 per judge in 1993, compared with 137 in secondplace California.
In addition to examining caseload, the commission evaluated the histmy and jurisdiction of the appellate courts; the level and number of
See Appellate Courts Commission, page 3
Inside
Attorney general's opinions ........................ 2 Chief Justice's address to legislature ..... 4 NCSC conference report ............................. 7 New Superior Court Uniform Rule ........... 7 1998 appropriations request ..................... 8 Key to the caseload data chart .................. 9 Caseload data chart ................................... 11 Costs of new judgeship/circuit split ...... 16 Judge Johnny Warren honored ............. 19 Pilot projects deadline ................................ 19 Newly elected judges ................................ 20 Proposed State Court Uniform Rule .... 21
In Brief ...
Appointments
State Court, Cherokee County G. Channing Ruskell was appointed solicitor-general for the term January 1, 1997, through December 31, 1998.
State Court, Decatur County Ben Kirbo was appointed solicitor-general for the term December 16, 1996, through December 31, 1998.
State Court, Forsyth County Judge Jeffrey S. Bagley was appointed for the term January 1, 1997, through December 31, 1998.
Juvenile Court, Bibb County Judge Quintress J. Gilbert was appointed for the term February 1, 1997, through December 31, 2000. Judge Thomas J. Matthews was appointed for the term February 1, 1997, through December 31, 2000.
Council of Superior Court Clerks elects new officers
The new officers of the Council of Superior Court Clerks are: President - Dwight S. Wood, Hall County; First Vice-President - Linda D. Hays, Newton County; Second Vice-President - Curtis (Buddy) Rogers Jr., Treutlen County; and Secretary-Treasurer - Jean H. Rogers, Crisp County.
New member appointed to Judicial Qualifications Commission
The State Bar has appointed Savannah attorney Walter C. Hartridge to the Judicial Qualifications Commission. He replaces Bob Reinhardt, whose term has expired.
GIDC Juvenile Advocacy Division hires new director
Jan Wheeler has joined the Juvenile Advocacy Division of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council as its new director. Previously, Ms. Wheeler served in the Appalachian Judicial Circuit as a juvenile court judge pro tern and as an assistant district attorney. The Juvenile Advocacy Division was created in July 1996 as a resource center for attorneys representing clients in the juvenile courts.
AOC establishes Accounting and Budget Services Users Group, SusrA1N Users Group
The first meeting of the AOC Accounting and Budget Services Users Group was held on January 14 in Atlanta. The users group will provide a forum for receiving feedback and disseminating information.
The SusrAIN Users Group met for the first time on February 13 at the Georgia Public Safety Training Center in Forsyth to share information on new releases of the court case management software, training, problem resolution and future plans.
The groups will meet quarterly.
Commission reports available on World Wide Web
The executive summaries of the final reports of the Supreme Court Committee for Gender Equality and Commission on Racial and Ethnic Bias are now available on the World Wide Web. The summaries, along with information about the Supreme Court Commission on Equality, can be found on the Georgia Supreme Court home page at http://www.state.ga.us/Courts/Supreme.
Georgians receiving training, teach at National Judicial College
In 1996, 42 Georgia judges attended courses at The National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada. Juvenile Court Judge Steven J. Messinger of Douglas County was awarded a Master of Judicial Studies degree. Volunteer faculty from Georgia included Judge Clinton E. Deveaux of the Municipal Court of Atlanta.
Attorney general's opinions
State Attorney General Michael Bowers issued the opinions summarized below. Complete copies are available from the AOC.
Official opinions
Officers and employees, Public; conflict of interest. OCGA 16-10-9 prohibits an individual who is employed as a staff member in the judicial branch of state government or in the General Assembly from being employed as a graduate research, laboratory, or teaching assistant at any unit of the University System of Georgia. (1116/97 No. 97-1)
Unofficial opinions
Rape and aggravated sodomy; prison sentences for. Pursuant to an act passed in 1996, rape and aggravated sodomy are no longer included within the crimes for which the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment is ten years; for these offenses, the mandatory term is one year in prison. Life without parole remains the mandatory term for repeat offenders. (10125196 No. U96-20)
Weapons, deadly. The provisions of OCGA 16-11-127, which prohibit the carrying of deadly weapons to or at public gatherings, while not limited in application to the enumerated places and functions in the statute, do not apply to every place in which the public may be present, but only to those places in which the public is gathered. (10/26/96) No. U96-22)
Grand jury. Neither a district attorney nor members of the district attorney's staff should be present for deliberations of the grand jury. (1117197 No. U97-3) Or:.
Georgia Courts Journal
2
March 1997
Commission on Appellate Courts issues report continued from page 1
appeals allowed in different types of cases coming before the various
L courts; the roles played by the various courts in Georgia's judicial system; the other duties and responsibilities of the appellate courts; and trends in the development of other states' judicial systems. The commission also considered studies conducted by nationally recognized authorities and held a public hearing (see the October 1996 Georgia Courts Journal). After discussing possible changes which might be made in the jurisdiction and operation of the various courts, the commission made the following recommendations: "l) That an additional panel of three judges be added to the Court of Appeals immediately. The caseload of the court is such that this is imperative to ease the current problem of a per judge caseload that adversely affects the quality of the court's work; "2) That a plan to modernize and improve the appellate court system be developed through a continuing study based on the extensive information and issues which have already been developed and considered by this commission. Such continuing effort should be undertaken either by this commission with a reconstituted membership or by some other commission constituted as recommended in item (3) below.
~ Court ofAppeals Judge Marion T. Pope Jr. signs the commission's report.
This plan should include the possible revision of jurisdiction between the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the possible future addition of judges to the Court of Appeals, and the possible creation of an appellate division of the superior courts.
"The goal should be to have in place by the year 2000 a streamlined, modem, and efficient appellate court system in which jurisdictional division is clear and the appellate courts are given the resources needed, on a continuing basis, to render highquality and cost-effective service to the people of Georgia; and
"3) That any continuation of this commission or another commission be restructured so that no current members of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals are included as members of the commission. Current or former members of the appellate courts have valuable information which should be received and utilized; however, recommendations that involve choosing between sometimes competing points of view can be made more easily and effectively by those with no immediate or direct stake in the appellate courts. It is suggested that legislators, trial judges, practicing members of the bar, and law teachers would bring to the work of the commission the expertise and interest needed."
Senate Bill 78, which would increase the number of judges on the Court of Appeals from 10 to 13, was
Commission members attending the final meeting included: Front row, left to rightJudge Dorothy T. Beasley, Chieflustice Robert Benham, Judge Kathlene F. Gosselin. Back row-former Justice George T. Smith, Chiefludge H. Arthur McLane, Sen. David E. Ralston, Senior Judge Harold R. Banke Sr., Rep. Thomas S. Chambless, Judge Marion T. Pope Jr., R. Alex Crumbley.
introduced by Sen. Mary Margaret Oliver on January 16.
For a copy of the report, contact the AOC (404-656-5171).
Commission members Former Rep. Thomas S. Chambless
(District 163) chaired the commission; Sen. Mary Margaret Oliver (District 42) was vice chair. The other members were: Senior Appellate Court Judge Harold R. Banke Sr.; Chief Judge Dorothy T. Beasley, Court of Appeals; Chief Justice Robert Benham, Supreme Court; R. Alex Crumbley, attorney; Ben F. Easterlin IV, president of the State Bar; Judge Kathlene F. Gosselin, State Court, Hall County; Chief Judge H. Arthur McLane, Superior Courts, Southern Judicial Circuit; Presiding Judge Marion T. Pope Jr., Court of Appeals; Sen. David E. Ralston, District 51; Rep. William C. Randall, District 127; and former Justice George T. Smith. (fl;
Judge Andrews takes office continued from page 1
courts of the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit in 1980, serving until 1985 when he was appointed to the Public Service Commission. In 1990, Judge Andrews won election to the Court of Appeals. He is a 1981 graduate of the National Judicial College. (fl;
March 1997
3
Georgia Courts Journal
Chief Justice Robert Benham delivers State of Judiciary Address to 1997 General Assembly
ChiefJustice Robert Benham made his second State ofthe Judiciary Address to the Georgia General Assembly on January 17, 1997. His remarks follow.
Introduction Lieutenant Governor Howard,
Speaker Murphy, officers and members of the Senate and House, my colleagues on the Supreme Court, my colleagues on the Court of Appeals, ladies and gentlemen, it is a high honor and magnificent privilege to address this joint session and to report on the operation, the needs and the future plans of the court system of this state.
I first came to these chambers 30 years ago. I came as one of the governor's first interns. At that time, my chest swelled with pride as I listened to an address being given from the well. Little did I know, some 30 years later, I would be standing here delivering the State of the Judiciary Address from that same well. It was made possible because courageous judges and legislators put principle above politics and sought to make the American Dream a reality for all of our citizens.
Today I am proud to report that while we in the judiciary are not without our problems, the state of the judiciary is good and we are still in the business of making the American Dream a reality for all of our citizens. Cooperation among judges is at an all-time high, and we take our oaths seriously to do justice to the rich and the poor alike. We realize that our role as a court is to interpret the law, but it is your role as the legislative body to make the law, and we are respectful of your role.
This is my second appearance making the State of the Judiciary Address, and I come today to_ express appreciation for your efforts
on our behalf and to offer our support for the sometimes difficult and oftentimes thankless task of public service. I come to express thanks for your providing us with a full complement of judges at the trial level and at the appellate level. I also come to express appreciation for the funding you have provided for the courts over the years and the spirit of cooperation and collegiality you have shown us throughout the years.
Accomplishments Let me reflect briefly on the past
year. Just last year we celebrated our. sesquicentennial, 150 years' existence of the Supreme Court of Georgia. We celebrated that sesquicentennial in the company of many of our friends and lawyers throughout the state. We also celebrated that history with courts throughout the state, journeying as far away as Louisville to celebrate that circuit's bicentennial. It shows that here in Georgia, we have been in the business of doing justice for over two centuries.
We've hosted many meetings, national and local meetings, to showcase the accomplishments of our courts. Even during the Olympies, we kept our doors open. We kept them open to show to the world what we are doing in Georgia in the area of justice. We were proud of our court system, our professionalism, our automation and our casemanagement programs in this state. Just recently we invited many of you to come and see your court system in operation because the beauty of our court system, unlike many other countries, is that we do our business in public. Our doors swing open on welcome hinges.
Throughout the year, we have put in place some new procedures. We
-~
sought to lessen the delay in criminal proceedings by instituting new rules
in the habeas corpus area. We are
proud of our judges, too. They are better educated, better trained and better qualified than ever before in the history of this state. We truly believe that they are the best and the brightest. They are committed to the rule of law, concerned about all of our citizens and dedicated not only to protecting the rights of citizens, but also to protecting the rights of victims of crime. They are also committed to providing an atmosphere where businesses can thrive and prosper, to create jobs and opportunities for all of our citizens.
Let me give you a brief glimpse of some of the legislation you might be presented with during this session. I will do so without commenting on any of that legislation because from time to time these matters come to the Supreme Court for review, and we must be sure to keep an open and impartial mind. You will probably receive legislation concerning the compensation commission, retirement parity between trial judges and appellate judges, change in the composition of the jury systern, lessening the time limits in death penalty appeals, recommendations for additions to the Court of Appeals, increasing the divisions on the Court of Appeals, adding more categories in discretionary appeals, increasing compensation for senior judges, changing the pay structure for court employees, limitations on firearm possessions by convicted criminals, and increasing penalties for juvenile offenders.
These matters will be brought to you at a time when our court system is busier than ever before. I come from an era and from an area of the state where we went to court for
Georgia Courts Journal
4
March 1997
entertainment. We went to court
after the crops were laid by to see
what was going on in our commu-
nity. That is no longer the way the
{
~
courts are operated. It's a full-time business. It's an everyday business,
and oftentimes, it's an all-nightbusi-
ness in traffic courts and municipal
courts throughout this state. Judges
are busier that ever before.
Courts and society At the Supreme Court level in the
last three years there has been a 17% increase in our caseload and a 38 % increase in the number of opinions that we have issued. The same is true of the Court of Appeals: their business has increased. The same is true of the superior courts of this state. Filings are at an all-time high, and filings continue to increase as our population increases. Our state courts are busier than ever before. The number of filings is almost astronomical in the juvenile courts. Just this past year, we have had 116,000 cases filed.
When I grew up, I don't even remember one child in my community who ever went to juvenile court. Now all of you know children who have gone to juvenile court and some who are in detention. It is not enough to tum to the courts to solve all of the problems of the community; the community itself has a responsibility. Parents must be willing to raise their children. Communities must be willing to take children in. If they come to the courts, there is little we can provide for them, because courts can only give out time and give out fines. Oftentimes our children need some attention in their homes and in their communities.
All our courts are busy, and they will continue to be busy because the public turns to us with alarming frequency to solve society's problems. The courts were not designed to be a cure-all for society's problems. We
- were designed to take the extreme
issues. Now we must deal with the
ordinary and oftentimes mundane issues. We call on you to put into place institutions in the communities and require parents to be responsible for their children.
We realize that the systemic problems keep coming around and around and around. When we send youngsters to jail for stealing hubcaps, they get an education on how to steal the car. We must provide some vehicle in the community to cut off this vicious cycle.
I remember when I first came to the courts, my first death-penalty case. After the execution, someone called me and said, "Do you remem ber that defendant?"
I said, "No, he is just one among many on our death row."
The guy said, "You ought to remember him because his aunt came to your office when you were practicing law."
I said, "Well, this defendant went by the name of Mad Dog."
He said, "Yes, but when he was in your office he went by the name of Little Mikey."
If you don't provide a way to deal with the Little Mikeys then you'll have to deal with the Mad Dogs of society. So I call on you to put in place those institutions to help our parents and to help families deal with our children. But you must also put in place institutions to deal with those we have been unable to help within the community and remove them from our community so that they will not be a menace to our society.
Initiatives We have many programs that are
carried out without fanfare or publicity. Our Administrative Office of the Courts helped with the Commission on Appellate Courts. Our Judicial Council provides assistance as a forum for judges throughout the state to help in filtering requests for judgeships and dividing circuits throughout the state. We appreciate
your creating the Commission on Appellate Courts. That commission has made a report. We submit it to you for your consideration.
We call on you to address the critical issue of domestic violence. Earlier this week, Governor Miller highlighted the need to curb family vialence. Our Commission on Family Violence works to develop a coordinated response and comprehensive plan for addressing this type of vialence. Family violence causes families to become dysfunctional and splintered; it causes medical expenses to rise; it causes a loss of work and productivity; it causes decreased performance of our youngsters in the schools, and it causes a host of other problems too numerous to catalog, including a burden on our courts and eventually a burden on the taxpayers. I encourage you to support efforts of the Family Vialence Commission. We're trying to do our part in the courts. We have created family violence task forces throughout this state, and we now have them in 39 of our 46 judicial circuits. We hope to have 100% participation by the end of the year.
We ask you to give attention to the area of foster care. The advisory committee has just made its report, and we will be submitting it to you for your consideration. That report stresses better representation for the parties and the need to move toward full-time juvenile court judges in this state. It has worked under the direction of one of our most capable trial judges, Judge Bryant Culpepper of the Macon Judicial Circuit. If you have any questions about that commission, feel free to call on us.
We appreciate your support of our Georgia Courts Automation Commission chaired by Judge Hilton Fuller. We're excited about the progress made in the area of automation. I take pride in the fact that my children call me a computer geek, because those are the same
See ChiefJustice, page 6
March 1997
5
Georgia Courts Journal
Chief Justice Benham address General Assembly continuedfrompages
children who said seven years ago that I was afraid of computers. When they went to bed at night, I sneaked in and learned on their computers because I could not have twelve-yearold children embarrassing a judge of the appellate courts of this state.
We now have information for you on our World Wide Web page. We have computers, thanks to you, on the desk of every superior court judge in this state, and by the end of the year we will have every full-time state court judge linked to the GO Network. We will link to the Internet. We are making our Supreme Court opinions available to the world by way of the Internet. In Georgia, we are proud of our decisions. We are proud of the laws, and we are proud of our legislature. We are proud of the accomplishments that have been made in this state.
Thanks to you, our Commission on Equality has been heralded as one of the best in the nation. No longer do we look to California and New York to set the trend in terms of human relations. We can do a pretty good job of it ourselves right here in the state of Georgia because we know something about raising children and caring for family.
Our Substance Abuse Committee is one of the best in the nation, and other states look to us for guidance. Our Institute on Continuing Judicial Education and Commission on Professionalism are in the vanguard of activities in the country. We insist and will continue to insist that our lawyers be competent, that they be civil, that they be courteous, that they engage in community service and public service. Just this morning, we recognized the lawyer-legislator members here so that everyone would know that we are proud of our lawyers and the sacrifice and the service they give.
We ask you to give serious consideration to the recommendation of the Commission on Appellate Courts as
to increasing the number of judges on the Court of Appeals. Our Supreme Court has one of the heaviest jurisdictions of any Supreme Court in this country with 15 specific items being directly appealable to our Supreme Court. Our Court of Appeals is one of the busiestCourts of Appeals in the country. We ask you to give them relief, but not at the expense of the Supreme Court by shifting jurisdiction to us. It is help they need-not spreading of the load with the present personnel.
We ask you to consider the needs of our superior courts, our state courts, our juvenile courts, our probate courts, our magistrate courts, and our municipal courts. We have 29,000 lawyers in this state. We have 1,600 judges, and the business continues to increase.
Future projects We have several future projects we
would like you to consider. One is creation of a blue-ribbon commission to look at the court system to provide for the future of the courts, not just at the appellate level but for all of the courts in this state. We ask you to join with the Supreme Court in creating such a commission made up of legislators, lawyers, experts and lay persons to take a long-range and comprehensive look at our court system.
We have decided to make our own responsible. Just recently, we received from the Bar a recommendation that lawyers be respon~ible for supporting their children-something known as the "Dead-Beat Dads" bill. We plan to move on that matter expeditiously because we do not see lawyers as needing any separate and distinct treatment when it comes to supporting their children.
We are tightening the requirements for those who seek to become lawyers. We have approved the ereation of a commission to look into
campaigning by those who seek judi-
cial positions. The Judicial Qualifica-
tion Commission has appointed a
--
panel to make recommendations to
that body and eventually to the
Supreme Court. We realize that the
business of the law is not just the
business of lawyers: it is also the
business of the public. So, we are rec-
ommending to every judicial circuit
that they establish a citizens' advisory
committee so that citizens can inform
the courts about issues such as re-
spect for the rule of law, civility,
access to justice, efficient operation
of the court system, timely disposi-
tion of the court's business, protect-
ing the rights of the victims of crime,
the affordability of the legal system,
court services and accountability.
Each court must be aware that it
should be in the business of solving
problems. That's why courts were
created.
We are grateful for your under-
standing and your support. We ask that you empower the communities _ .._. _,/
to address problems and not leave
those problems for us to address in
the courts. We ask that during your
deliberation you provide adequate
funding for the court system, provide
a system that attracts qualified and
committed judges, provide access to
justice for all of our citizens, allow
judges to exercise some discretion as
they carry out their duties, provide for
a court system that has three levels-
one for the trial of cases, one for the
correction of error, and a court of last
resort.
We continue to solicit your sugges-
tions on improving the court system.
We look forward to working with you
and maintaining the spirit of coop-
eration, collaboration and collegiality.
In the words of my mother, whenever
we were faced with a difficult prob-
!em: "Son, I raised you right, do the
best you can, but whatever you do,
remember that I've got your back."
Thank you very much. tr.
Georgia Courts Journal
6
March 1997
Futures conference produces
c Leadership Agenda for courts
The National Center for State Courts recently published the conference proceedings of the National Conference on the Future of the Judiciary held last year. Georgia judges and court administrators were among those participating.
Leadership Agenda for the courts The Leadership Agenda which
follows is the principal conference product. The agenda is designed to guide the actions of the judiciary as it administers justice. Participants devised and refined the agenda in small group discussion meetings and plenary voting sessions, then ranked and organized the selected items into priority levels.
First tier, in order of importance:
establish strong team leadership among judges and administrators at all levels;
explore techniques for reducing the cost of participating in the justice system;
institutionalize strategic planning, research and evaluation;
continue current efforts implementing trial and appellate court performance standards;
eliminate race, ethnic and gender bias;
make court procedures, forms and instructions easy to understand;
encourage rededication of personal commitment to equal justice under the law, including the role of judges in community/ on bench;
cre~te a broad, inclusive process for feedback on the system and planning future governance (e.g., using citizens, bar, staff, judges);
enhance training, education and professional development,
including law-related education; ensure collaboration with other
areas of government, bar and the public; cultivate relations with the legislature; establish a funding process that provides maximum flexibility in use of resources; and undertake a critical evaluation of the process of providing justice.
Second tier, in order of importance:
respond to demands for therapeutic justice, e.g., alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that complement the adversarial system within the courts;
collect and use customer information as an on-going management process;
provide leadership needed to assure well-qualified representation for indigent defendants;
encourage volunteerism among lawyers and law students;
use in-state conferences to build on the work of this conference;
encourage state courts to expand the use of ADR techniques;
courts and bar should assume responsibility for legal-services planning to poor and middle classes, establishing effective
procedures for pro se litigation;
the Conference of State Court Administrators and Conference of Chief Justices should assume a leadership role in implementing the conference agenda;
courts should take initiative to establish linkages with public and private social institutions; and
courts must take an active part in the political process underlying funding decisions. See NCSC conference, page 9
Notice of new Uniform Rule for the Superior Court
On February 13, 1997, the Supreme Court of Georgia approved the amendment below, which adds a new Rule 39.9 to the Uniform Rules for the Superior Court.
Rule 39.9 - Court Information
The chief judge of each circuit may require the superior court clerk of each county of that circuit to furnish to the chief judge within 10 days after the end of each month, a general civil, domestic relations and a criminal caseload management report. The Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court may request copies of the information that is furnished to the Chief Judges of the circuits pursuant to this rule.
The case types, events types and disposition methods used in these reports will conform to Judicial Council guidelines for reporting caseload. Each such report shall include the following:
(A) the number of cases filed by case type in the prior month and year-to-date;
(B) the number of cases disposed by case type and disposition method in the prior month and year-to-date;
(0 the number and type of pend-
ing cases; (D) a list of cases more than 120
days old (criminal) and 180 days old (civil/domestic relations) to include the following data:
(i) case number, (ii) style, (iii) case type, (iv) filing date, (v) next event scheduled, (vi) date of that event; and (E) any other information the chief judge requests that is contained within court standardized com-
puter programs. to
March 1997
7
Georgiil Courts Journal
Fiscal year 1998 appropriations request submitted
Judicial branch agencies have sub-
mitted budget requests for fiscal year 1998 Guly l, 1997-June 30, 1998) totaling $98.9 million. Requests
Judicial Branch Appropriations Request*
__,
Fiscal Year 1998 (July 1, 1997 - June 30, 1998)
include $95.4 million in continuation funding and $3.5 million in improve-
Budget Unit/Agency
Continuation Improvement
Total
ments or enhancements to existing programs.
Supreme Court
$6,832,973
0
$6,832,973
The fiscal year 1998 continuation request represents an 11.8% increase
Court of Appeals
8,209,707
199,180
8,408,887
over fiscal year 1997 appropriations of $85.3 million.
Superior Courts Superior Court Judges
69,811,908 36,212,635
623,560 0
70,435,468 36,212,635
Improvement requests Improvement funds have been
requested for the following: a contract for microfilming briefs,
District Attorneys Council of Superior Court Judges Judicial Administrative Districts Prosecuting Attorneys' Council
28,736,570 562,587
1,571,079 2,729,037
0 0 623,560 0
28,736,570 562,587
2,194,639 2,729,037
enumerations of error, motions and opinions, pursuant to the Court of Appeals Record Retention Schedule
Juvenile Courts Council of Juvenile Court Judges
1,t96,232
0
1,196,232
(first-year cost $58,438); implementation of a new Court
of Appeals pay scale and service increments for staff attorneys and administrative assistants ($85,465);
Institute of Continuing Judicial Ed. Operations Magistrate Courts Training Council Municipal Courts Training Council
904,910 719,800 166,976
18, 1 3 4
0
904,910
0
719,800
0
166,976
0
18, 134
an additional computer support position for the Court of Appeals ($55,277);
ten systems analyst positions for the ten Judicial Administrative Districts ($605,560);
a study of the feasibility of a statewide video link through the ten Judicial Administrative Districts ($18,000);
Judicial Council Operations Board of Court Reporting Case Counting Council of Magistrate Court Judges Council of Probate Court Judges Council of State Court Judges Council of Superior Court Clerks Appellate Resource Center
2,483,129 1,749,352
89,779 76,500 26,700 58,700 45,748 58,350 378,000
0
2,483,129
0
1,749,352
0
89,779
0
76,500
0
26,700
0
58,700
0
45,748
0
58,350
0
378,000
an increase in funding for the Georgia Indigent Defense Council's
Judicial Qualifications Commission
175,924
0
175,924
Grants to Counties program
Indigent Defense Council
3,000,000 2,750,000
5,750,000
($2,500,000);
an increase in funding for the
Georgia Courts Automation Comm. 2,521, 181
0
2,521, 181
Georgia Indigent Defense Council's
Operations
1,721,181
0
1,721,181
Multi-County Public Defender's
State-wide County Computerized
Office ($250,000);
Information Network
800,000
0
800,000
The judicial branch is usually
allocated approximately seven-
Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution 276,339
0
276,339
tenths of one percent of the total
state budget.
Judicial Branch Totals
$95,412,303 $3,572,740 $98,985,043
A breakdown of the fiscal year 1998 requests for state appropriations is presented in the table at
*Legislative action on these requests will be reported in the June issue of the Georgia Courts Journal.
right. tc.
Georgia Courts Journal
8
March 1997
Key to the caseload data chart: calendar year 1995
The chart on the following pages
t shows caseload data for each of
~ Georgia's 46 superior court judicial circuits. Data are grouped by filing type: civil, criminaL and juvenile, and more specifically by case type: general civil, domestic relations, felony, misdemeanor and probation revocations. Filings per judge are calculated so that each circuit's workload is compared on an equal basis. The number of filings per judge is the total number of filings for the circuit divided by the total number of judges authorized by the General Assembly for that circuit. Some judgeships may be vacant. Shaded areas indicate circuits requesting an additional judgeship. Boldface numbers indicate figures exceeding the threshold caseload per judge on either the delphi
weighted or ratio weighted method. Mean figures for all circuits are
shown at the bottom of the columns. Rank is the position of the individual circuit as compared to that of other circuits. Under % Change, a noticeable change in superior court filings per judge may occur. Presence of courts of limited jurisdiction Within a circuit may decrease or increase filings in the superior court. Numbers also vary if a new judgeship was created in the five-year period shown. Population figures are based on the U.S. Census Bureau's 1995 estimated census figures for county population. Two systems, the delphi weighted caseload and ratio weighted caseload, are used to analyze workload per judge.
The delphi system applies an estimated amount of time required for hearing various case types to each circuit's caseload filings. To qualify for an additional judgeship, the delphi value should exceed the present number of judges in the circuit. For example, if a circuit has two judges and the delphi value is greater than 2, the workload warrants consideration for an additional judgeship.
The ratio weight represents caseload in terms of amount of time needed to bring a case to completion compared with time taken to try a typical felony case. Filings of all case types are converted to felony equivalents for comparison. When a circuit passes the 1,500 felony-case equivalent threshold, another judgeship may be considered. tl.
NCSC conference proceedings continued from page 1
Third tier, in order ofimportance:
move away from the adversary model in family cases;
promote the use of federal/state judicial councils;
encourageoutreach to communities: involvement of judges in interdisciplinary boards and commissions;
expand neighborhood dispute centers and community courts; and
establish local court-appointed advisory boards of court stakeholders.
Prlnclpal Issues facing the courts
Meeting in small discussion groups, participants were challenged to identify the three most important issues facing the state courts today. Each participant stated his or her top issues, and then each group reached
~
a consensus on the top three to five
issues. Conference staff and faculty consolidated the 16 issues identified into five categories. In a plenary session, participants ranked the categories in order of importance. The issues within each category were not ranked.
I. Perform as an Organization
maintain competency of the judiciary
measure court performance strengthen judicial leadership develop well~manage9 and
accountable governance, structures, procedures and systems
II. Open Access to the Justice System
assure access to justice tie together justice and social in-
stitutions to deal with continuing and emerging problems
III. Develop Capacity to Respond to the Changing Environment
define role of the courts concern-
ing specialized offenses (e.g. substance abuse, domestic violence, juvenile) define role of alternative dispute resolution manage increasing caseloads (number and complexity)
N. Secure and Manage Scarce Resources
secure appropriate funds and resources
V. Build Relationships with Customers
create effective means to communicate with the public regarding issues of concern to the public
help media understand the role and function of the judiciary
improve communication and relationships with other branches
improve federal/state relations improve public perception,
understanding and confidence in the courts. tl.
March 1997
9
Georgia Courts Journal