Georgia courts journal, Vol. 25, no. 3 (Mar. 1998)

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 annualiy 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 and just dispositions of citizens' 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-time 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 by training 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 rather than excusing them at an 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 ofother 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 con-
sidered by an out-of-town judge without the appearance that the local judge is avoiding responsibility. (10/27/81)
d. lmprovescourtadministration. Multi-judge circuits tend to promote impartiality and uniformityof 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
Requests In establishing the need for additional superior court judgeships, the Judicial Council will consider weighted caseloads per judge for each circuit. If the 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)

Georgia Courts Journal

10

March 1998

GEOGRAPHY AND PERSONNEL as of November 1, 1997

CY 1996 WEIGHTED CASELOAD

FILINGS PER SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, RANK, AND GROWTH: CY 1996

CIRCUIT

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF

SUPERIOR

STATE

JUVENILE PROBATE

COURT

COURT

COURT

COURT

NUMBER JUDGE

JUDGE

JUDGES & JUDGES DELPHI

RA TIO

OF

POSITIONS POSITIONS ASSOCIATE HEARING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED

COUNTIES AUTHORIZED AUTHORIZED JUDGES TRAFFIC CASELOAD CASELOAD

ALAPAHA

5

2

1

1

4

1.55

2,041

ALCOVY

2

3

0

3

2

3.03

1,842

APPALACHIAN

3

2

0

1

3

1.24

1,272

ATLANTA

1

15

9

6

0

20.00

1,648

ATLANTIC

6

4

6

1

0

3 .6 1

1,002

AUGUSTA

3

7

4

3

1

9.03

1,555

BLUE RIDGE

2

3

2

3

0

2.09

1,296

BRUNSWICK

5

4

4

5

1

2.72

1,314

CHATTAHOOCHEE

6

5

2

2

5

4.78

1,408

CHEROKEE

2

3

0

2

2

2.83

1,445

n'rwiDil!llflfiii '( 7 "lLc,.L.,o.A..vf\Jn~i~i.!iJ, ~r,ll";iJ-am~~H;hu;.. ~m'f''ul'~;,f{;.,;J"i'tU1:N~m~r~1t~. ... . ... . ... . . .

'W~ ""' '"''!j .3.....~,},TM!~:i~t.~i_ll. ~-~!,.j,,i.tlZlf.u!i.(:").'htJJ,i!rfniBt..I .,.;jt:f;! ~ ~1 ... ~...1~~0~

COBB

1

8

8

4

0

6.37

1,474

CONASAUGA

2

4

0

1

2

3.62

1,156

CORDELE

4

2

0

1

4

1.81

1,583

COWETA

5

5

3

4

2

4.13

1,494

DOUGHERTY

1

3

1

2

0

2.09

1,527

DOUGLAS**

1

2

0

2

1

1.85

2,166

DUBLIN

4

2

1

2

3

1.43

1,490

EASTERN

1

6

2

2

0

5.05

1,242

EN OTAH

4

2

0

0

4

1.49

1,097

FLINT

4

3

0

2

4

3.00

1,900

GRIFFIN

4

4

1

1

3

3.47

1,486

GWINNETT..

1

6

4

5

0

5.42

1,53 3

HOUSTON

1

2

1

1

0

1.06

1,209

LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN

4

2

4

2

2.89

1,220

MACON MIDDLE*'"
MOUNTAIN

5

1

2

2

4 .01

1,297

2

~ _., : ,- 0

.a.!.

1~517~ .

2

2

0

1

1.50

1,301

NORTHEASTERN

3

2

3

1

2.70

1,600

NORTHERN

3

1

1

4

2.63

1,283

OCMULGEE**

4

2

0

6

5.06

1,695

OCONEE

2

0

0

6

1.72

1,573

OGEECHEE

3

4

0

0

2.61

1,689

PATAULA

7

2

2

3

5

0.98

1,174

PIEDMONT ROCKDALE

3

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2.85

1,262

0

981

ROME

1

3

0

3

1

1,414

SOUTH GEORGIA

5

2

3

2

2

1,486

SOUTHERN

5

4

SOUTHWESTERN

6

2

STONE MOUNTAIN**

1

9

4

3

1

1

0

5

6

4

0

1,772 1,539 1,841

TALLAPOOSA
nq o

3

3

0

2

3

~~~M.!,.:.

1 ,f5111~v

1,418
1Jj!

TOOMBS
~~-"J- . :;"."i"'~ K~RuB'!Gmm ff~ iK

2

0

0

6

3 , . ~. J 1tct~ U:f'!~l' ~, . ~ ~.~~.-r.-...:.,<:-.:.:

1,234 f~ 3~~'

WESTERN

2

3

1

3

1,225

TOTA L

CIRC UIT

FILINGS

IUCLUDING

P l ~OBATION

% CHANGE

REVOCATIONS RANK CY92 - CY96

TOTAL CIVIL FILINGS

TOTAL

% CHANGE GENERA DOMESTIC CRIMINAL

% CHANGE

RANK CY92-CY96 CIVIL RELATIONS FILINGS RANK CY92-CY96

FELONY DOCKETS

3, 189

1

27%

962

39

3%

356

606

2,227

1

42%

2,872

3

-38%

1,346

9

-37%

544

802

1,526

2

-38%

1,855

32

19%

928

42

9%

386

542

927

7

58%

2,092

17

1%

1,301

14

56%

269

1,031

791

14

-36%

1,583

45

-34%

837

45

-35%

244

594

275 46

-64%

2,407

8

-28%

1,343

10 -38%

293

1,050

554 36

-11%

1,736

37

25%

1,304

13

30%

244

1,059

432 43

11%

1,603

44

-7%

1,066

32

-8%

297

769

537 39

-4%

1,814

35

-29%

1,175

24

-32%

385

791

578 33

-24%

2,005
' ll 2,082
1,870

..ub.JlL.. f 22

4%

1,273

16

38%

523

750

732

17

-27%

1''tlfml@i~;m,~li!Jif.f.i.i!,:~.'"'.l- ~-~"lJl'~' ~-1~~-~--~ji~~~,~ ,... .i !faeJJ:l;.,t~9-%" ~ . ... 5 11~ !!\l;~: "'I~HmlllHi!i~lA ~og-"F' '::' . ~ n~8o:.-.:i,i-!~ 1~ .tU".i ' '~

30

-14%

1,175

24

-8%

198

977

695 23

-23%

1,628

40

-4 2%

1,055

34

-25%

356

700

573 34

-35%

2,524

6

13%

1,226

21

25%

454

772

793 13

-5%

1,821

34

-40%

1,296

15

-37%

346

950

525 40

-47%

1,976

27

-35%

1,267

19

-41 %

292

975

709 21

-23%

2,877

2

13%

1,584

2

17%

780

804

1,293

3

. 8%

2,1 4 1

14

4%

1,260

20

-2%

372

889

710 19

6%

1,619

42

-33%

1,065

33

-17%

302

763

554 36

-51%

1,657

39

14%

948

40

33%

350

598

391 45

-27%

2,346

10

-20%

1,687

1

-21 %

751

937

659 26

-16%

2,036

21

-27%

1,314

12

-25%

457

857

722 18

-31%

1,932

29

2%

1,379

8

-6%

434

946

553 38

31%

1,607

43

-27%

1,083

31

-30%

229

855

524 41

-19%

1,824

33

10%

1,166

26

13%

260

906

658 27

4%

1,802 2,111

36

-15%

16,... - 13%

1,007

37

-20%

1, 1~~~;.Jt' :23%

285

722

746 16

-8%

347 -"':)p:J~-668 25:;:;j}?$!1%" 1

1,961

28

23%

1,094

30

18%

309

786

579 32

37%

2,053

20

11%

1,270

18

12%

314

955

783 15

10%

1,865

31

-24%

1,015

36

-29%

304

712

608 29

-19%

2,682

4

-8%

1,189

22

-25%

375

814

1,085

5

3%

2,322

11

17%

1,320

11

18%

347

973

800 12

13%

2,479

7

-9%

1,577

3

-6%

303

1,274

563 35

-21 %

1,667

38

11 %

1,030

35

31%

266

765

637 28

0%

1,990

25

-22%

996

38

-32%

355

641

583 31

-25%

1,326

46

4%

866

44

4%

291

460 42

4%

2,126

15

-0%

1,109

29

7%

417

1,017

6

-7%

2,065

19

8%

1,382

7

1%

429

683 24

28%

2,286

12

-11%

1,573

4

1%

452

710

19

-30%

2,676

5

25%

831

46

-15%

471

1.232

4

30%

2,399

9

15%

1,501

5

14%

218

898

8

16%

1,995

23

1%

1, 18 6

23

25%

507

2,252

~ '.l)L : 22% ~

41

809

10

432 ~

~4~~---;;=-"!l.

1,993

24

10%

946

41

16%

304

642

817

9

.. ~{t~ .:...=:Jllll!F' i$o/.R;141 rtUBJllRSll!iE~ . . .t..4!i'8Bfl'9.ii:i.m...s~

1,620

41

-28%

916

43

-35%

363

553

606 30

-2%
fmm!D:
-21%

822 451 273 563 214 301 270 371
333 236
556 ' .
511 182 312 385 460 451 352 400 169 342 336 370 347 234 379 498 283 520 325 433 326 421 269 240 266 288 300 432 383 616 241
259
231 4i~;"' , 380

(TOTAL) OR MEAN (159)

(169)

(96)

(95)

(94)

1,465

2,060

1,192

365

827

743

366

*Additional j udgeship req uest.

" Carryover recommendation

Notes: 1. Fayette state court judgeshi p (Griffin Circuit ) created effective 1/1/95, but court act ually began operation 1/1/97.

2. DeKalb State Court (Stone Mountain Cir cuit) currently has 5 judges; s ixth is effective 1/1/98. 3. Juvenile court j udges &

associate judges inc ludes 4 pro tern judges. 4. All whole numbers have been ro unded fro m decimal values.

TOTAL

JUVENILE

MISDE-

FILINGS

MEANOR PROBATION (NUMBER OF

% CHANGE

DOCKETS REVOCATIONS CHILDREN) RANK CY92-CY96

OPEN CASELOAD PER JUDGE

JURY TRIAL DISPOSITIONS

POPULATION

SENIOR JUDGES

A ND RANK:

PER JUDGE AND RANK:

AND RESIDENT ACTIVE ATTORNEYS

CRIMINAL AND CIVIL

CRIMINAL AND CIVIL

U.S. CENSUS

CY 1996

CY 1996

1996

2010

ESTIMATED

PROJECTED

FY 1997

CRIMINAL

CIVIL

POPULATION

POPULATION

SENIOR

1997 RESIDENT

TOTAL

COUNTS

CASES

PER

PER

JUDGE

ACTIVE

OPEN

TOTAL

HEARD

HEARD

SUPERIOR

SUPERIOR

DAYS OF

ATTORNEYS

FILINGS RANK BACKLOG RANK BY JURY RANK BY JUR RAl~K CT. JUDGE RANK CT. JUDGE RANK ASSISTANCE RANK PER JUDGE RANK

1,334

71

0

1,889

1 1,239

1

730

345

0

1,573

2 1,030

2

443

211

0

-100%

1,350

5

923

3

0

228

0

617

34

286

34

11

50

471

4

33%

406 41

191

41

125

128

510

2

-12%

1,244

6

910

5

37

125

0

840 22

490

21

88

78

0

498

38

263

35

148

97

61

18

12%

1,075

13

698

13

. 220

275

0

...w16 ' l'"r""'."~""f"l--= ',"''"' ~I~"2'3:<f7l-"<:W\,! ln l'ai? ~~ ~~ t~Mnl"~".'"*.[h!,,~,~_.k. ~. - w u,.,<i~j=i;kmti'hlH;"f

26

158

0

1,023

15

617

16

:w ....-:..: ...

..i~..'ll.'lJf".!f.,i.'".lHt.l'l~L."_....c~ . ,-,,.,.'.

.Jll ]
. :).

. _. l' fi. A-:i
Ii}; . '

'' ..U'1.ftu)\.t.'~<';.1;,.?..11'.'1"1~1"1~ .fJ.'.>~~7l''>lill'."'..- .:;.,;,.,..~.\:11:,1t.u'I,V,..1,',

'

863

20

430

29

232

159

0

-100%

844

21

473

24

215

266

505

3

19%

363 43

160 44

67

73

0

719

29

384

31

95

154

0

527

36

255

36

579

264

0

1,483

3

892

6

253

105

17 1

15

94%

718

30

448

27

8

147

0

707

31

414

30

162

61

3 18

9

53%

488

39

240

39

215

103

0

1,480

4

914

4

233

153

0

1' 196

8

663

14

0

183

0

617

34

248

37

56

122

0

871

19

652

15

281

143

0

748

28

475 23

67

300

43

12~

49

19

- 11 %

1,234

7

' _ _1O,,_ "f"" ~ ~%::If -987: 17

852

7

71Q.~:'' f 2

102

195

288

11

19%

384

42

184

42

110

153

0

673

33

298

33

119

164

242

12

-3%

1,054 14

799

9

347

306

408

6

47%

433

40

242

38

315

159

202

14

21 %

340

45

117

46

15

127

339

8

0%

501

37

182

43

254

115

0

-100%

335

46

150 45

174

169

411

5

26%

750

27

466 25

25

170

0

694

32

349

32

529

200

0

964

18

600

18

104

279

0

838

23

476 22

122

157

3

20

0%

1,173 10

753

11

395

455

613

1

197%

1,093 12

766

10

0

282

0

1,176

9

510 20

432

135

0

\ ,,_,,,00::73"liif.~..!.:!iili'i4~=:t:z::..~~

.u:. 1,020
~

16

611

1'1 , ~{f

17

4 73

113

230

~ i!~..~O

,j '

8 15

25

563

19

v !'

' "4 l~JL,_~;[~1f'Ji&'l~"-

58

168

98

17

88%

829

24

464

26

9 .0 39.3 74.5 54.0 21 .8 47.6 52 .0
7. 5 62 .2 140.7
69.5
29.0 67.5
4 .5 53.0 57 .0 48.5 15 .0 40.7 50 .5 46.7 43.5 36.2 22.0 53.8 52 .2 24.5 49.5 67.3 31 .7 29.8 16.5 13.3 17.5 67 .0 10.5 105 .3 36 .5 24 .5 2 0 .0 38 .0 63 .3
35.0
30.0
21,7
54 .0

44 1.5 43

25, 175

46

24 ,417

46

66

11

19

46 ALAPAHA

24 5.0 36

34,005

31

41,657

25

4

37

37

26 ALCOVY

3 6.5 29

26 ,092

44

28,470

43

58

12

32

29 APPALACHIAN

11

8.0

22

47 ,889

9

50,462

16

130

3

662

1 ATLANTA**

36 8.0 22

31,835

35

37,623

33

77

6

23

40 ATLANTIC

20 6.4 3 1

43,071

14

51,442

12

94

5

59

14 AUGUSTA

16 9.0 15

63,541

4

74,328

4

21

27

63

12 BLUE RIDGE

45 8.5 18

40,497

18

46,689

20

213

1

57

16 BRUNSWICK

9

2.6

41

48,447

8

53,71 0

9

73

9

75

9 CHATTAHOOCHEE

1 8.3 20

35,221

27

4 3 ,410

22

4_}~'h;':3'':..~,1.;:1t!~i~.,f_,,~8: . :'.. .

.~, .~ 1f1t<1f'5.i,..,,fJ~~ l\~~ fi;'m~f't.tl:do~h"fi"j"\%:~ir-~ -RA 313

32

6.3

32

67,354

2

90,026

2

12

30

37

26 CHEROKEE

CLAY..rO. tt- ~:..

73

9

169

3 COBB

5 7.3 25

27 ,768

42

33,722

37

21

27

31

30 CONASAUGA

46

1.5

43

27,851

41

30,807

41

15

29

21

44 CORDELE

14 4 .8 3!3

49 ,394

7

59,078

7

27

24

52

18 COWETA

10 0.7 46

32 , 194

34

35,389

35

26

25

72

10 DOUGHERTY

19

6.5

2!~

42,232

15

52,487

11

58

12

43

22 DOUGLAS**

41

9.5 10

33,685

32

37,768

32

40

18

30

31 DUBLIN

23

7.0

213

37,827

24

45,565

21

4

37

107

7 EASTERN

17 9.0 15

28,170

39

32,949

38

48

16

26

37 ENOTAH

21

9.7

t3

46,983

10

52,578

10

39

19

43

22 FLINT

22 13.5

4

44,557

13

54,338

8

34

21

59

14 GRIFFIN

27 14.7

2

79,667

1 108,455

1

10

32

14 0

4 GWINNETT**

35 18.5

1

50 ,692

5

61,623

6

114

4

67

11 HOUSTON

13 5.0 313

36 ,786

26

40,307

28

26

25

25

38 LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN

15 7.0 26

37 ,923

23

37,391

34

56

14

108

33 1.4.0 - 3

46,qQ:''" "'.; _,,,;. 50- 43

~

6 MACON ~ MIDDLE" .. .:-

18

8.5

18

34,527

29

37,961

31

34

21

46

19 MOUNTAIN

6 12.0

5

42,016

16

50,897

14

74

7

79

8 NORTHEASTERN

29 9.3 13

31 ,189

36

35,151

36

34

21

28

34 NORTHERN

31

9.5 10

34,337

30

38,419

30

43

17

30

31 OCMU LGEE**

40

9.5

10

30, 715

37

32,677

39

3

39

24

39 OCONEE

42 5.7 33

35,149

28

40,080

29

1

42

27

36 OGEECHEE

39 2.0 42

26,225

43

25,948

52

15

22

42 PATAULA

7

7.7

24

28,185

38

32,061

11

31

35

28 PIEDMONT

43 9.5 10

32,610

33

50, 122

0

45

28

34 ROCKDALE

2 10.0

l

28,141

40

30,307

5

35

45

20 ROME

26

5.0

36

38,752

20

40,906

6

34

21

44 SOUTH GEORGIA

33 0.5 46

45,749

12

50,941

201

2

53

17 SOUTHERN

38 9.0 15

38 ,026

22

43,389

1

42

23

40 SOUTHWESTERN

25 6.6 23

8

8.0

22

28

--=-- 65,533

3

79,973

1

42

41 ,104

17

46,988

2

40

'c/d\'.~1.)~, 41,Q.2_4__,,,._,,"""'"....,.""'

174 29

2 STONE MOUNTAIN** 33 TALLAPOOSA
TI Q- '

......,... .. .

30

5.0

36

25,187

45

~i.J't"i.lt!,,,;-lil>i;mlf'J->,;;11,',,,-~.~ ..- -- - ~--.i ~ :~i!n



..
A. .

4238..,.1t...0...6.~ "~.~.11.~.,,t~l.Ci,!..J,..i,ii.;.i.tilll!~jJ,~-i~m-i-~~ -,~.~ .... ....~..~,,..,5f1i.irran~M 21iillmml

TOOMBS ~~~n,Q!S ;~

~

11 11 .7

S

37,671

25

46 ,881

19

7

33

11 2

5 WESTERN

205

172

126

864

518

42.5

7.5

39,746

46,453

42

66

11

12

13

14

Judicial Council policy continued

2. Criteria for Studying Requests to Alter Circuit

e. Characteristics of populace in areas of allocations. Votes on such motions shall be by

Boundaries

circuits sought to be separated, such as rural secret written ballot. A two-thirds vote of the

The criteria used by the Judicial Council in or urban. (12111/81)

council membership present at the session

!

reviewing proposals to alter circuit boundaries

f. Operational policies of circuit as presently will be required to override an unfavorable

"

' will include the following criteria:

constituted as might involve inattention to recommendation based on the criteria con-

a. Weighted Caseload per Judge - After the smaller counties in circuit. (12/11/81)

tained in these by-laws (policy). After deter-

proposed change in circuit boundaries, case-

g. Whether creation of new circuit would mining those circuits in which the council

load should be more evenly distributed. In obviate necessity of one or two additional recommends an additional judgeship, the

addition, a proposed circuit's workload should judges in parent circuit. (12/11/81)

council will rank the recommendations based

not vary significantly from the statewide aver-

h. Travel and other expenses incident to on need. (6/6/84)

age weighted caseload per judge. (10/27/81) serving smaller counties. (12/11/81)

b. Caseload Growth Trends - Caseload

i. Alleviation of case assignment problems 5. Length of Recommendations

growth trends should be examined so that an in larger counties of circuit. (12/11/81)

Upon a recommendation of an additional

imbalance in growth rates when a circuit bound-

j. Population growth of counties of circuit judgeship or to alter circuit boundaries for a

ary is changed will not necessitate a realloca- which would reflect need for new circuit. judicial circuit by the council, the recommen-

tion of manpower or alteration of circuit bound- (12/11/81)

dation shall remain approved by the-council for

aries again in the near future. Such continual

k. Comparison population per judge in new a period of three years, unless the caseload of

shifts in circuit boundaries or manpower could circuit with standards approved by Judicial that circuit changes by plus or minus ten

be very unsettling and, thereby, significantly Council in recent years. (12/11/81)

percent. (Rev. 12/13/96)

reduce judicial efficiency. (10/27/81)

I. The Judicial Council will presume that a

If a reliable caseload projection method is multi-judge circuit is preferred over a single- 6. Disqualifications

available, this technique will be used to deter- judge circuit. (12/11/81)

Any council member in a circuit or county

mine future case filings; if one is not available,

m. If a county is to be split off from the circuit affected by a council recommendation shall be

caseload growth rates, increases in the num- of which it is a part, the possibilities of adding eligible to vote by secret ballot on motions

ber of attorneys per capita and population that county to another circuit should be ex- affecting that circuit, but shall not be present or

projections will be analyzed. The population hausted prior to the council's recommending a participate in the council's final deliberations

per judge should be evenly divided among the single-judge circuit. (12/11/81)

regarding his or her circuit. (Rev. 6/6/84)

geographical areas affected by the proposed

circuit boundary change if a recommendation Judicial Council Deliberations

Dissemination of Recommendations

is to be made.

1. Testimony

1. Study of the Need for Additional Superior

Secondly, population projections should be

Judges, legislators, and others deemed

Court Judgeships

examined to insure that disparate population appropriate by the chairman shall be invited to

The Administrative Office of the Courts shall

growth rates will not create a great imbalance make written remarks or present data regard- prepare a report, including data required by

in the population to be served by each judge ing the need for judgeships or to alter circuit the council for their deliberations and council

within a short period of time from the date boundaries. Any special circumstance or data policy statement, on the Judicial Council's

of the alteration of the circuit boundaries. of a circuit for which a request is to be made recommendations as to the need for additional

Lastly, the population per judge of the altered must be brought to the attention of the Judicial superior court judgeships. Such report shall

circuit should not be substantially different Council by a judge of the requesting circuit by be distributed to the governor, members of the

from the statewide average population per June 1 of the year prior to the year of the judiciary and special judiciary committees of

judge. (10/27/81)

legislative session during which the judgeship the Senate and House, all superior court judges

c. Changes in Judicial Travel Time - Travel or change in circuit boundaries will be consid- and other interested parties approved by the

time diminishes total judicial time available for ered. The written testimony of the judges, director of the Administrative Office of the

case processing; therefore, travel time should legislators and other persons shall be reviewed Courts. Additionally, the Administrative Office

not be significantly increased for judges in and considered by the Judicial Council in their of the Courts shall prepare and distribute a

circuits affected by a change in circuit bound- deliberations regarding judicial manpower. Oral press release summarizing the council's rec-

aries before such a change should be recom- arguments will not be made. (6/6/84)

ommendations. (10/27/81)

mended. Terms of court in and the number

of times each county was visited on case- 2. Final Deliberations

2. Special Studies of Judicial Manpower,

related business by the judges should be

After all written presentations, th_e Judicial

Including Alteration of Circuit Boundaries

determined and these trips should be trans- Council and key Administrative Office of the

a. The Administrative Office of the Courts

lated into travel time by using official distances Courts staff, in open session, will discuss the shall prepare reports on the Judicial Council's

between courthouses and road conditions merits of each request. (6/6/84)

recommendations for special studies,

determined by the Georgia Department of

including reports on requests to alter circuit

Public Safety. (10/27/81)

3. Staff presentations

boundaries and for judgeships of courts

d. Projected Changes in Cost to State and

The Administrative Office of the Courts will other than the superior court and shall dis-

Local Government- Cost savings or additional present data evaluating the need to add judge- tribute them to the requester and, in the discre-

expenditures required of local and state ships or to alter circuit boundaries based on tion of the director, to other interested parties.

governing authorities should be determined. council approved criteria and will make staff (10/27/81)

Changes in cost for personnel, facilities, and recommendations. (10/27/81)

b. In preparing special reports, written re-

travel should be considered. A recommen-

marks of judges, legislators, and others

dation for change should not be made unless 4. Vote

deemed appropriate by the chairperson shall

additional expenditures required are minimal

After final deliberations, the council will, in be solicited by the Administrative Office of

or balanced by equivalent cost savings. open session, entertain approve or disapprove the Courts and considered by the Judicial

(10/27/81)

recommended changes in judicial manpower Council. (12/11/86)

March 1998

15

Georgia Courts Journal

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
$89,208 24,294
28,806 - 71,511 960- 4,560

.Fringe benefits
$29,565 8,695
10,310 - 25,594

Total range
$118,773 32,989
39,116 - 97, 105 960- 4,560

$6,248
Average $2,403
725 $3,128

$6,248 $191,838 - 259,675
Range $0 - 7,346
0- 6,136 $0-13,482
$191,838 - 273,157

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, 1998). 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 $28,806 to $71,511 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 DA's investigator
Total average/range of variable costs
TOTAL RANGE OF STATE COSTS

Salary $79,458 28,806 - 71,511 42,108 - 68,568 24,426 - 55,620
29,346
Average $1,075 725 1,321 $3,121

Fringe benefits

Total range

$23,950 10,310-25,594 15,070- 24,540
8,742- 19,906 4,094

$103,408 39,116-97,105 57,178 - 93,108 33,168 - 75,526
33,440

$266,310 - 402,587

Range
$0 - 3,675 0- 6,136 0 - 6,300
$0-16,111

$266,310- 418,698

Georgia Courts Journal

16

March 1998

For Your Information ...

COSTS OF A NEW SUPERIOR COURT JUDGESHIP &JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DIVISION

Ill. 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
$79,458 28,806 - 71,511 42, 108 - 68,568 24,426 - 55,620
29,346

Fringe benefits
$23,950 10,310-25,594 15,070 - 24,540
8,742 - 19,906 4,094

Total range
$103,408 39,116 - 97,105 57,178 - 93,108 33, 168 - 75,526
33,440

$89,208 24,294
28,806- 71,511 960 - 4,560

$29,565 8,695
10,310 - 25,594

$118,773 32,989
39,116-97,105 960 - 4,560

$6,248

$6,248 $458,148 - 662,262

Variable costs - travel expenses
For circuit division
District attorney Assistant district attorney DA's investigator
For adding a judgeship
Superior court judge Assistant district attorney
Total average/range of variable costs

Average
$1,075 725
$1,321
$2,403 725
$6,249

Range
$0 - 3,675 0-6,136 0 - 6,300
$0 - 7,346 0- 6,136
$0-29,593

TOTAL RANGE OF ADDITIONAL STATE COSTS

$458,148 - 691,855

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. The Council of Superior Court Judges is budgeting approximately $2,000 for each new judge's automation equipment. Salaries and fringe benefits are calculated from 1/1/98 figures. Travel expenses are calculated from fiscal year 1997 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 1998

17

Georgia Courts Journal

State of the Judiciary Address continued from page 1

Quality of justice My colleagues and I are here to
report that the state of the judiciary is fin'.e; the spirit of cooperation is at an all-time high, and our enthusiasm in performing our duties is boundless and beyond measure. We are excited about what we do; we undertake our task with fervor and vitality, and we have no hesitation about manning the laboring oar when justice hangs in the balance.
Our goal is simple: make Georgia's courts the best in the nation.
This is my fourteenth appearance as a judge at the State of the Judiciary Address and my third appearance to deliver the State of the Judiciary Address as the Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. I am just as awed and humbled today by this occasion as I was 14 years ago when I served as a junior judge on the Court of Appeals. The awe and humility come not from fear or apprehension, but from my respect for the occasion, my abiding faith in the rule of law and the role of government in bringing about orderly change where necessary, and preserving tradition where appropriate through the democratic process.
Public service is a high calling. It requires integrity, fairness, honesty, truthfulness, respect for all citizens, and respect for the proper role of government in addressing societal concerns. We recognize that you are responsible for making the laws, and that we are responsible for interpreting them. We appreciate the sincerity with which you undertake your responsibility, and we solicit your prayers and support as we undertake ours. The

better the laws you make, the fewer interpretations we will have to make.
Before I present the state of the judiciary, I would like to express our deep gratitude and thanks for the moral and financial support you have given the judicial branch during my term as Chief Justice. Your support has allowed us to address many significant issues in a forthright and realistic manner. We deeply appreciate what you have done for us in the past and we fervently solicit your support in the future.
It is customary on occasions such as this to give you not only general information about the courts, including statistics, but also to share our vision with you. While I wW not deviate from custom and tradition, I will furnish you relevant statistical information in the written supplement to my address so that I can spend my limited time informing you about our vision and about some overriding concerns and considerations in the areas of resources, judicial independence, technology and modernization, access to the courts, fairness and diversity in the courts, and community involvement.
Initiatives In my State of the Judiciary
Addresses in 1996 and 1997, I discussed the need for adequate resources for the judicial:~~ariCh, more judges for the Court of Appeals and trial courts, a comprehensive study of the judiciary, increased use of technology, and cooperation between the three branches of government. You responded by providing funding for some of these requests, and we appreciate the attention you gave to these important matters. I am also happy to report that we have been able to begin a comprehensive study of the judicial system without asking for financial support. We are

well on the way to organizing a Blue Ribbon Commission to perform this comprehensive study.
In order to enhance the quality of justice and public service provided by our court system, this month we will name a Blue Ribbon Commission to perform a long-overdue examination of our system and make recommendations for improvement. In order for any long-range planning to be effective, the Georgia Supreme Court must be actively involved in the process and take a leadership role in identifying systemic problems and recommending comprehensive solutions to these problems.
Many of our trial court councils have a history of involvement in strategic and long-range planning through internal committees. These groups continue to develop and implement strategies to efficiently manage resources and respond to spiraling caseloads. I am confident that these planning efforts by the trial courts and other classes of courts, together with the work of the Blue Ribbon Commission under the leadership of the Supreme Court,
Over the years the role of the court has changed although our commitment to justice has not wavered one bit.
and with the cooperation and participation of all classes of courts, will increase public understanding of and trust in the judicial process. Such effort will ensure that Georgia has a court system that is both functioning well in the present and ready to assume potentially greater challenges in the future.
Continued next page

Georgia Courts Journal

18

March 1998

Chief Justice Benham addresses General Assembly continued

Our goal is simple: make Georgia's courts the best in the nation. We must work to improve our system 'so that victims of crimes are protected, individual rights are guaranteed, due process is assured, and , meaningful access to the courts is a reality for all of our citizens. We must have a court system in which judicial independence is treasured and accountability is endemic. Additionally, we must have a court system in which judges are highly competent, administrators are dedicated public servants, lawyers are competent, civil, professional and civic-minded, and citizens respect and trust the rule of law because fairness and justice abound.
Over the years the role of the court has changed although our commitment to justice has not wavered one bit. Courts often carry out their functions in the quiet atmosphere of a courthouse where adversaries present their competing interests while the courts seek to provide certainty, predictability and stability in the law. In carrying out our constitutional and statutory functions, we must sometimes do so with limited resources and personnel while caseloads continue to grow and the issues increase in complexity and profundity. Ordinarily, judges must be referees; sometimes we must be managers; on a few occasions we must be players. But whatever our role, we stay in the game and see the matter in controversy to a satisfactory conclusion.
Requests Please allow me to tum my atten-
tion to several items on the legislative agenda of the judicial branch. Time will not permit me to mention all of the items; however, my failure to mention some of them should not be viewed as a lack of support for these items.

The most important resource to the judicial branch is, of course, judges. And we need more. The Court of Appeals continues to be one of the most overburdened appellate courts in the nation. Support for a fourth panel of judges on the Court of Appeals, as recommended
It is impossible for the judiciary to meet the demands of burgeoning
caseloads without additional judgeships on our Court of Appeals and superior courts.
by the Commission on Appellate Courts of Georgia, is imperative. Additionally, there have been no new superior court judgeships created since 1995. This year the Judicial Council, after careful consideration, recommended the creation of six new superior court judgeships.
It is impossible for the judiciary to meet the demands of burgeoning caseloads without additional judgeships on our Court of Appeals and superior courts. Attracting quality judicial candidates without minimum compensation standards is also very difficult. I urge you to provide the needed relief and thereby avoid a negative impact on the quality of justice for all Georgians.
This will be an exciting year in the courts, as we hope to take on our first pilot project for a court with non-uniform jurisdiction, made possible by the passage of enabling legislation two years ago. The Judicial Council has recommended that you approve and fund a family court pilot project in Fulton County. This project will provide a holistic approach to

address and adjudicate all issues affecting the same family in a single court system, with emphasis on the best interests of children.
Under the present system, family matters are often split among several courts, resulting in fragmented services, delay and loss of efficiency. The expectation is that a family court will ensure that judicial resolution of family disputes will be comprehensive, quick and certain. Moreover, a family court may help to diminish the adversarial nature of the current system and more effectively address the interests of children and the family unit affected by the process. We seek your favorable consideration of our first pilot project request.
We appreciate the funding you have provided for the Georgia Appellate Practice and Educational Resource Center in the past, especially in light of the withdrawal of federal funding in the area of habeas corpus relief. We are committed to bringing capital appeals to a just conclusion, but we cannot do so without adequate representation for defendants at critical stages of the proceedings. We urge you to increase funding to the Resource Center consistent with the budgetary recommendation so that we can process capital appeals fairly and expeditiously.
Domestic violence is a serious problem in this state. Its effects can be seen throughout our society in the form of increasing court caseloads, skyrocketing hospital costs, growing numbers of dysfunctional families, and plummeting school performance. The State Justice Institute recently awarded a grant to pilot an Internet-Based Domestic Violence Court Preparation System in Georgia. This project will provide online computer-assisted preparation of the court papers
Continued next page

March 1998

19

Georgia Courts Journal

State of the Judiciary Address continued from page 19

domestic victims need to obtain protective orders. The superior and magistrate court judges, shelter progr~ms, and Legal Services Corporation are testing this online project in Douglas, Cobb and Gwinnett Counties.
The Judicial Council, in partnership with the State Bar, is tackling the problem of legal assistance for victims of domestic violence. In 1996 alone, it is estimated that over 530,000 Georgians were victims of domestic violence. Programs set up to assist these families are stretched thin and do not have the expertise to respond to their legal needs. Our budget this year will include a request to fund this public service. Please help us address this problem.
Last year our request for a lower age threshold retirement bill for appellate courts, similar to that of the trial courts, was referred for an actuarial study. We hope you will look on it with favor when it comes to you for consideration.
Accomplishments Now let me tum to several on-
going projects initiated by the courts. A key component of a modem judicial system is the appropriate use of technology. The Georgia Courts Automation Commission (GCAC), under contract with the Georgia Tech Research Institute, has embarked on an ambitious project to create a statewide courts database. This database will compile detailed criminal and civil case information that will be accessible to all superior and state court judges. At the request of legislators, we are developing a similar database for the juvenile courts. Ultimately, these databases will help provide for annual case counting, electronic inquiries on individual cases, and compliance with the mandatory reporting requirements of state and federal agencies. They will also be a

useful tool for providing crime statistics and trends in litigation, and will allow for better allocation of resources based on more accurate information.
Judges on the bench must have the ability to retrieve the most current information if they are to make reasonable and wise decisions. An automated criminal justice information system that integrates all court functions gives judges and court personnel the information they need to be effective. GCAC is available to all classes of courts to provide technical support and advice on automation. None of this would be possible without the budgetary and programmatic support that the legislative branch offers.
We must continue our efforts to assure that no person is treated in an unfair manner
because of race, gender or ethnicity.
Our courts must be accessible to everyone. The Commission on Equality has developed a database of foreign language interpreters available to interpret court proceedings. ~t can be found on the World Wide Web, linked to the Supreme Court web site. The Supreme Court Commission on Equality has also been working on issues of access for the hearing impaired. The diverse nature of our population makes this kind of help crucial to the fair and impartial administration of justice. We must continue our efforts to assure that no person is treated in an unfair manner because of race, gender or ethnicity, and we must put in place mechanisms for addressing these

issues in a timely and complete manner.
The Judicial Council has appointed a Committee on Pro Se Litigation. Because of the increased number of citizens acting as their own attorneys-a trend not unique to Georgia- we are developing court policies that will help court personnel deal with the influx of pro se cases. Ultimately, the work of this committee will promote more open access by pro se litigants to the court system and move these cases more effectively through the system.
Our Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Commission on Professionalism are considered the best in the nation, and serve as a model for many other state and federal courts in the creation of their programs. We appreciate your continued support of our efforts in this area.
The Supreme Court Committee on Substance Abuse is assisting courts throughout this state in addressing the staggering and perplexing problems generated by substance abuse. The Committee has contracted with the Metropolitan Atlanta Council on Alcohol and Drugs to operate a computerized referral database of treatment providers. The database is available on the World Wide Web and contains detailed and frequently updated information on over 600 agencies and programs throughout Georgia. Because of this innovative use of technology, and also thanks to the drug courts now operating in at least three of our counties, more of our citizens are getting the treatment they need. We hope to create at least five more drug courts in metropolitan areas in the next 18 months. We are beginning to address not only the social and criminal symptoms of substance abuse,
Continued next page

Georgia Courts Journal

20

March 1998

State of the Judiciary cont.
but finally the problem of substance abuse itself. In a cooperative state and federal effort, the Supreme Court Child Placement Project has recently launched several technology projects. The Fulton County Juvenile Court and the State Department of Family and Children Services are developing a plan for sharing part of the court's database with five satellite DFCS offices. DFCS caseworkers will be able to obtain client information without phoning or visiting the court. Additionally, Fulton, Rockdale, and Troup Counties are testing a computerized record-keeping system to help citizen review panels track the status of deprived children who come before them. We have developed a comprehensive study dealing with child placement and we will gladly make it available to you upon request.
We have only come to you for funding of various projects after we have exhausted all other available avenues. We realize that the state has limited financial resources; therefore, we first seek funding at the federal and private levels before we approach you for funds. We will continue to seek funding from outside sources whenever possible, but we hope you will continue to have a receptive attitude when we do come to you for assistance and guidance.
Conclusion The judicial branch cannot ad-
dress and cure all of society's ills. You must be willing to work with us in empowering our communities to address some of their problems and reserve only the most intractable problems for the court system. The founding fathers did not view the court system as a cure-all for society's problems, they viewed the courts as an avenue of

Chief Justice Benham receives Distinguished Service Award

The Martin Luther King Jr. State Holiday Commission presented Chief Justice Robert Benham with a Distinguished Service Award on January 16. State Representative Calvin Smyre (right), commission chairperson, made the presentation to Chief Justice Benham (left) during King Day celebrations at the State Capitol.

last resort after all other avenues had failed. We ask you to help us encourage our communities to make an earnest attempt to address problems at the local level in a meaningful way with an eye toward resolution rather than aggravation. With your help communities can work toward establishing Human Relations Councils, Rites of Passage Programs, Domestic Violence Programs, Alternative Dispute Resolution Models and a host of other programs designed to address problems in a cooperative community setting rather than in an adversarial one.
We appreciate this opportunity to share our thoughts concerning resources, judicial independence, technology and modernization, access to the courts, fairness and diversity in the court system, and community involvement. We appreciate the spirit of cooperation you have shown in the past and we look forward to

working with you in a cooperative and concerted effort to improve the quality of life for all our citizens.
We invite you to share in our vision to make the Georgia court system the best in the nation, where no one need leave the courts of Georgia in search of justice, for it abideth within, it shields us from wrongdoing, it defends us from evil, and it treats us equally without respect of person or position.
As we face the future we call to your attention the words of another unknown poet:
We ask that you not walk the smooth path, Nor bear an easy load, Pray for strength and fortitude To climb the rocky road. Ask for courage To scale the highest peaks alone, So that we can turn stumbling blocks Into stepping stones. to

March 1998

21

Georgia Courts Journal

Judge Edward E. Carriere Jr. joins State Court of DeKalb County

Edward E. Carriere Jr. receives congratulations for Gov. Miller after being sworn in as'a judge of the State Court of DeKalb County on January 5. He fills a new judgeship created by the 1997 General Assembly.

Updated "Guide to Georgia Courts" available

A revised and updated version of the "Guide to Georgia Courts," a brochure explaining the state court system, is available at no cost from the AOC.
The guide provides a detailed summary of appellate and trial

court jurisdiction. A schematic diagram shows the organizational structure of the state, county and local court systems with appellate routes.
To request copies, contact Nancy Pevey at the AOC (404-656-5171).

Georgia Courts JOURNAL
Vol. 25 No. 3
Georgia Judicial Council
Chief Justice Robert Benham, Chair Presiding Justice Norman S. Fletcher,
Vice Chair Chief Judge Gary B. Andrews
Judge Robert J. Castellani Judge A. Wallace Cato
Judge Rita L. Cavanaugh Judge Howard Cook
Judge E. Purnell Davis II Judge Philip F. Etheridge Judge Richard S. Gault Judge John E. Girardeau Judge Edward H. Johnson
Judge Sanford J. Jones Judge William F. Lee Jr. Judge George F. Nunn Jr. Judge Johnny R. Parker Judge C. Donald Peppers Sr. Judge Floyd E. Propst Judge Dorothy A. Robinson Judge T.O. Sturdivant III Judge William M. Towson Sr.
Judge A.J. Welch Jr. Senior Judge E. Mullins Whisnant
Judge Amanda F. Williams
Administrative Office of the Courts
Director Robert L. Doss Jr.
Senior Communications 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.
www.state.ga.us/Courts/Supreme/

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
{ ) Printed on recycled paper.

\:.It\

Jioo

, Pi

Vol. 25 No. 3 March 1998

G4

Z.Si3

~.:,l':,.1':1.',:~.:,'~:.',:.':,.:-~.:,:'.:,~:.,l:w~,. ,,tf'''"cl:,.,f'u''=.:::~:it.':;:t{i:f;{:J@f;i._. Courts 1

..,1.,..::.:

.. .';..

1
""'~.,._ H~''""' ' ::::: < 0< <>' ::::::;:;:;: :;::::::::::

::;:;:::::::. :::::::;:;:

-.:::1r:::'\l!! ,f,,,,,,,,t'~t'~:'~t'~:'~

:;:;:;:;:;

;:;:;:;:;:

:;:;::::::. .'.::''''.''''''''.'..:.:::::'.''.'.,:.':':

JOURNAL

Judicial Council meets
Six new superior court judgeships recommended for five circuits; pilot project approved

At its December meeting, the Judicial Council recommended creation of six additional superior court judgeships in five judicial circuits for consideration by the 1998 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

Pictured here (jrom left): Judges William F.
Lee Jr., Philip F. Etheridge and Robert J.
Castellani consider new judgeship requests.

Chief Justice Robert Benham addresses 1998 General Assembly

Chief Justice Robert Benham made his third State of the Judiciary Address to the Georgia General Assembly on January 16, 1998. His remarks follow.
Lt. Governor Howard, Speaker Murphy, officers and members of the Senate and House, constitutional officers, my colleagues on the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, members of the judiciary, fellow citizens and visitors, I consider it a high honor and a distinct privilege to be invited to appear before a joint session of the Senate and House to deliver the

State of the Judiciary Address. I would like to begin today with a
short poem by an unknown author which it seems to me places our shared responsibility as guardians of the law in proper perspective:
You are your country's keeper, Your government is but you, You are the woof of the fabric, Whether she be strong or weak or true.
Yes, you are your country's keeper, And yours forever the blame, Whether she rises in her glory, Or withers in her shame.
See State of the Judiciary, page 18

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 6) Atlanta (Fulton County), 17th judgeship.
Circuit boundary changes The council also carried forward
a 1996 recommendation that the Blue Ridge Circuit (Cherokee and Forsyth Counties) be divided into two single-county circuits. A new request to divide the Flint Judicial Circuit (Butts, Henry, Lamar and Monroe Counties), creating a singlecounty circuit for Henry County did
See Judicial Council, page 4
Inside
Family violence protective orders ............ 3 Amended State Bar rule .............................. 3 Technology Talk ............................................. 6 Commission on Family Violence .............. 7 Pilot projects deadline ................................... 8 JQC and AG opinions .................................. 8 Bibb County Drug Court .............................. 9 Key to the caseload data chart .................. 9 Judicial Council policy ............................... 1O Caseload data chart ................................... 11 Costs of new judgeship/circuit split ...... 16 Chief Justice honored ............................... 21 New state court judge ............................... 22

In Brief ...
Appointments State Court, DeKalb County
Judge Edward E. Carriere Jr. was appointed for the term January 5, 1998 through December 31, 1998. (See photo, page 22.) Superior Court, Enotah Judieial Circuit Darrell E. Wilson was appointed district attorney for the term January 7, 1998, through December 31, 1998.
Richard W. Story becomes federal judge Judge Richard W. Story, who had served as a superior court judge of the Northeastern Judicial Circuit since 1986, was sworn in as a U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Georgia on February 10. A formal ceremony will be held on March 13 at the Richard Russell Federal Building in Atlanta. He fills the post vacated when Judge William C. O'Kelley became a senior judge.
In memoriam Judge Dunbar Harrison of Savannah died on January 2 at the age of 94. Judge Harrison was appointed to the Superior Court of the Eastern Circuit in 1956 by thenGov. Marvin Griffin. He retired in 1976 and took senior status. Judge Robert J. Noland of Douglasville, a superior court judge of the Douglas Judicial Circuit for 14 years, died on January 2. He was 74. Judge Noland was appointed to the Superior Court by then-Gov. George D. Busbee in 1977.
Chief Justice receives Trumpet Award Chief Justice Robert Benham was honored at Turner Broadcasting System's Sixth Annual Trumpet Awards ceremony on January 12. The Trumpet Awards salute African-American achievement in many fields, including law, religion, medicine, politics and entertainment. Along with Chief Justice Benham, the program recognized the five other African-American chief justices: Chief Justice Robert M. Bell of Maryland, Chief Justice Ernest A. Finney Jr. of South Carolina, Chief Justice Charles E. Freeman of Illinois, Chief Justice Conrad L. Mallett Jr. of Michigan and Chief Justice Annice M. Wagner of the District of Columbia.
Court Administrator of the Year named The Georgia Council of Court Administrators honored Skip Chesshire as court administrator of the year at its inaugural meeting in late 1997. Mr. Chesshire, administrator of the Cobb Judicial Circuit, was concluding his term as first president of the group he helped found. Richard Jugar, administrator for the Stone Mountain Judicial Circuit, was also recognized and received the 1997 President's Award. He now serves as vice-president. The council's current president is John Zoller of the DeKalb County Juvenile Court.

Fees increase for court reporters A 4% rate increase for official court reporters will take effect on April 1. The new fees are as follows: per diem rate, $147.64 per day ($17.72 per hour after the initial eight-hour day) page rate, $2.95 per page copy rate, $1.18 per page expedited copy rate (within 48 hours), $4.43 per page daily copy rate (within 24 hours), $5.90 per page For more information, please contact the Board of Court Reporting (404-656-6422).
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council schedules spring events
CJCC Spring Meeting. The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) will hold its spring meeting April 5-7 at St. Simons Island. The executive committee meets on April 5, followed by other committee meetings on April 6. The council itself meets on Tuesday, April 7. To register, contact Jeannette Huckaby (404-559-4949).
Fifth Annual Victims Conference. The conference will be held on May 11 and 12 at the Georgia Public Safety Training Center in Forsyth. This training and technical assistance conference will address victim issues and is aimed at direct service providers, including law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges and private nonprofit organizations. Pre-registration is required, but there is no registration fee. Forms will be mailed to prospective attendees in the near future. No registrations will be taken by telephone.
National association seeks nominations for court management awards
The National Association for Court Management's Justice Achievement Award program publicly recognizes courts and related organizations for meritorious projects and exemplary accomplishments that enhance the administration df justice. Nominations for 1998 may be submitted by any pers~n, court, related agency or organization. All nominations must be received by April 15. For information about submission procedures, contact Terry Anderson at the NACM (757-259-1841).
The National Association for Court Management Award of Merit is presented annually to an individual who has demonstrated distinguished service and outstanding contributions to the profession of court administration. NACM is seeking nominations of individuals whose work reflects a dedication to the ideals embodied in NACM and its purposes. The Award of Merit is NACM's most prestigious award. Deadline for submissions is May 1. For more information, contact Diana Jones (316-272-3532).

Georgia Courts Journal

2

March 1998

Study of family violence protective orders is first step toward statewide tracking system

Aproject to develop an effective
statewide system for monitoring and tracking family violence protective orders has been launched. This cooperative effort is being managed by the AOC and involves the Georgia Courts Automation Commission, the Georgia Commission on Family Violence and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.
As a first step in the project, researchers from Kennesaw State University have collected preliminary data on the origins of family violence protective orders in Georgia, the numbers of petitions and final orders, and the content of forms used.
Collecting data In July 1997, survey instruments
were mailed to the 159 superior court clerks in the state and 113 agencies that serve victims of domestic violence. Eighty-seven clerks and 84 agencies completed and returned the surveys.
The clerks' surveys included questions about the number of petitions filed and issued, forms used, agencies available to assist individuals filing petitions and any special conditions imposed on petitioners or included in orders. Agency personnel were asked about similar matters, including the type of assistance offered in preparing petitions and the difficulties (if any) encountered in the issuance and enforcement of family violence protective orders. Respondents were also asked to provide copies of documents used in their jurisdictions.

in very different ways. Kennesaw State University's report suggests that an estimate of the need for family violence protective ordersand the computer capability required to track them-can be based most reliably on the number of petitions filed. In 1996, the 89 responding counties filed 4,381 petitions. The report projects that the total number of petitions filed statewide may be as high as 8,273.
Forty-eight agencies stated that they help individuals prepare petitions. In 1996, they reported having assisted with 2,995 petitions, as provided by the Georgia Family Violence Act.
The forms collected from the clerks and agencies show many variations, but also some common ground. Many respondents use forms developed by Georgia Legal Services and Atlanta Legal Aid. Many others use these as base documents, tailored to meet their needs. The style and content of forms used to file and issue protective orders are topics of concern if a

statewide tracking system is to be developed.
Implications The 86-page report finds a great
deal of interest in and concern about family violence protective orders, particularly on the part of responding agencies. It also finds a lack of standardization,$hich adds to the difficulty of developing a statewide database. In some circuits, there appears to be a lack of communication and/or understanding among the groups who assist with, issue and enforce protective orders. The work of Georgia Legal Services and Atlanta Legal Aid provides an important common denominator that can be used as a basis of any future efforts to standardize forms statewide.
For more information about the report, "Design and Issuance of Family Violence Protective Orders in Georgia from the Perspective of Clerks of the Superior Courts and Agencies that Serve Victims," contact Marla Moore at the AOC (404-
656-5171). tc.

Results Surveys collected from the supe-
rior court clerks reveal that courts count and track protective orders

March 1998

3

Georgia Courts Journal

Highlights of the Judicial Council meeting continued from page 1

not win enough votes to secure the council's recommendation.
Fam' ily court pilot project In addition, the council voted to
recommend to the General Assembly that the family court pilot project proposed for Fulton County be approved.
The Fulton County Family Court proposal is based on the "one family, one judge" principle, designed to eliminate duplicative hearings, delays, and sometimes contradictory rulings. Jurisdiction of the new court will include: divorce, child support, custody, legitimation, paternity, visitation, termination of parental rights, name change, contempt, deprivation, abandonment and neglect, adoption, adult and minor guardianships and felony and misdemeanor domestic violence cases. These matters are presently handled by superior, state, juvenile, magistrate, probate and municipal courts.
According to the proposal, family court judges and attorneys practicing in the court will receive special training in family law issues and non-adversarial methods of dispute resolution. The court will be userfriendly and constituent-focused. All cases will be screened at the time of filing to promote earlier, more effective resolution of family

issues. Other goals include reducing case-processing time and providing such services as: mediation, counseling, parental education and referrals to child-care facilities.
The court is scheduled to begin operation on July l, 1998. Atlanta Judicial Circuit Superior Court Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore serves as the project coordinator. Judge T. Jackson Bedford Jr., Judge Alford J. Dempsey Jr., Judge Gail S. Tusan and Judge Cynthia D. Wright have been named to serve rotating terms during the court's initial three-year lifespan.
The majority of the court's funding will be provided by Fulton County. Some additional funding is being sought from the state.
The council also reviewed, but did not approve, proposed pilot court projects in Cobb County and the Tifton Judicial Circuit.
New members welcomed The council welcomed the follow-
ing new members: Judge Robert J. Castellani (Stone
Mountain Judicial Circuit), Fourth District Administrative Judge, replaces Judge Daniel M. Coursey Jr.
Judge Richard S. Gault (Blue Ridge Judicial Circuit), presidentelect, Council of Superior Court Judges, replaces Judge John E. Girardeau.

Pictured here (from left): Judges George F. Nunn Jr., Richard S. Gault and Rita L. Cavanaugh cast their ballots on the proposed family court pilot project.

Judge C. Donald Peppers Sr. (Walker County), president-elect, Council of State Court Judges, replaces Judge Jeannette L. Little.
Judge A.J. Welch Jr. (Butts, Henry, Lamar and Monroe Counties), president-elect, Council of Juvenile Court Judges, replaces Judge Stephen E. Franzen.
Meeting highlights Judge Gibbs Flanders of the
Dublin Judicial Circuit, chair of the Pro Se Litigation Committee, reported that the committee has met four times since it was formed in May. The committee has begun assessing the status of pro se litigation by querying judges and judicial personnel and providing questionnaires to pro se litigants. Plans are underway to schedule followup interviews with these litigants and hold focus groups. The committee is surveying information about projects that have proven successful in other states. Another project involves attempting to determine information and services that can be made available to pro se litigants without being considered unauthorized practice of law.
The Supreme Court Commission on Equality reported completion of a training video, Let Justice Be Done. Another project, the commission's "Guide to Bias-Free Communication," is being reprinted. In September, the commission sponsored a one-day training workshop for 55 foreign language interpreters. The commission's juvenile justice committee is also working to encourage agency programs that will help minority youth at risk. The Supreme Court Commission on Racial and Ethnic Bias Report found that these children are heavily represented in the juvenile justice system.
The Board of Court Reporting Continued next page

Georgia Courts Journal

4

March 1998

Highlights of the Judicial Council meeting continued

requested approval of proposed changes to their regulations. The , board, which tests prospective court reporters, sought to raise its minimum proficiency requirements. These changes include: increasing the number of words per minute required on the questionand-answer dictation portion of the exam, requiring reporters to pass all dictation tests in one sitting rather than being able to retain credit for up to four testing periods, and slightly raising the required accuracy percentage for the written test. The Judicial Council approved these changes without opposition.
Judge Hilton Fuller of the Stone Mountain Judicial Circuit, chair of the Georgia Courts Automation Commission (GCAC), reported on a project with the Georgia Tech Research Institute to create a statewide database for superior and state courts. A separate database for juvenile courts is also being developed. The databases will allow judges to research cases sharing similar issues, track domestic violence cases and accumulate statistical information. GCAC is also working with the superior court clerks to develop standard procedures for fee and fine accounting.
The Georgia Commission on Dispute Resolution is now working with 29 court-connected programs in 81 counties. The commission provides training, technical assistance and funding through the Georgia Bar Foundation for the design and implementation of alternative dispute resolution services. Working with the Council of Juvenile Court Judges, the commission is fostering alternative dispute resolution programs in the juvenile courts. Other recent projects include a code of ethics for mediators and domestic violence mediation guidelines.
Michelle Barclay, coordinator

of the Supreme Court Child Placement Project (CPP), reported that in 1997 CPP has focused on increasing education for all parties and creating standards of professional practice. The project has also funded two studies to learn more about the processing of child deprivation cases. One study, conducted by the Emory University School of Public Health, is designed to determine the number of children adjudicated as deprived who eventually appear in a delinquency proceeding. The other study,
Judge Gibbs Flanders reports on the activities of the Pro Se Litigation Committee.
conducted by the University of Georgia, will track time elapsed from filing to disposition in deprivation cases. Recent statutory changes were designed to reduce delay in the court process.
Institute of Continuing Judicial Education (ICJE) Director Richard D. Reaves reported that ICJE has begun serving three new constituencies: law clerks of trial court judges, foster care review panelists and deputy superior court clerks who work primarily with juvenile courts. ICJE is also working with the Supreme Court and State Bar of Georgia to train special masters.
Judges councils The Council of Superior Court
Judges will propose legislation this year to remove the cap on the number of law clerks available to superior court judges. Support of a bill authorizing six-person juries in

civil cases will continue. The council has produced an orientation video to be shown to jurors summoned for service.
The Council of State Court Judges reported that the state courts have implemented Uniform Rule 39.9 for a uniform case-counting system. During the 1998 legislative session, the council will continue to pursue passage of a minimum compensation bill for full-time state court judges. The council's strategic planning committee has been authorized to develop a process for recommending establishment of new state courts to county governing bodies. A process to recommend when a part-time judgeship should become a full-time position will also be created. All full-time state court judges now have access to the GO Network and/ or the Internet, and the council is developing a web page.
The Council of Juvenile Court Judges is working with the Supreme Court Child Placement Project and GCAC. The council reported that the first integrated juvenile courts database in Georgia will soon be operating in five metropolitan counties.
Over the past year, the Council of Probate Court Judges has been working on substantive revisions to Title 53 regarding decedents' estates. The changes were effective January 1. The second edition of the Handbook for Probate Judges of Georgia has been published and distributed to all judges. Twenty-six standard forms have been revised and printed in the Advance Sheets.
The Council of Magistrate Court Judges has published benchbook updates and a new pictorial directory. The council has formed two new committees: one to create standard forms and one to handle and monitor complaints about the magistrate courts. tc

March 1998

5

Georgia Courts Journal

Talk . .. Technology Talk . .. Technology Talk . .. Technology Talk . .. Technology Talk . ..

~winnett County launches video warrant system

Gwinnett County recently introduced a high-tech system allowing magistrate judges to issue warrants via computerized video-conferencing and electronic transmission of signatures. The new system was demonstrated to judges, police officers and guests on February 6 at the Gwinnett Justice and Administration Center.
Allen Camp, a systems specialist with the Gwinnett County Administrative Office of the Courts, worked with Magistrate Court Judge Joseph Iannazzone and Federal Data Systems, Inc. (Marietta, GA) to develop software and hardware for the electronic warrant process. A video-conference work station has been installed in the magistrate court and another has been installed at Gwinnett County police headquarters.
Approved as a demonstration project by the Supreme Court, this joint effort of the Gwinnett County AOC, Magistrate Court, and Police Department will significantly reduce the time Gwinnett police officers spend obtaining arret>t warrants and increase their time patrolling the community.
Gwinnett's new system allows an officer to enter data on a computer at the police precinct, rather than filling out forms and taking them to the magistrate judge. Basic information need only be entered-once. Pull-down menus and simple keystrokes generate much of the standardized and/ or duplicate information. Since the data is stored on a central server, the information entered by the police officer can be called up on a computer in the

judge's office. The police officer and the judge then communicate "faceto-face" via video telephone, with a small video window appearing on each monitor. Using signaturerecognition software and a digitizer pad, the judge and officer also witness each other "signing" the paperwork electronically. A patented process identifies each user's unique handwritten signature.
Once the process is completed, the Electronic Warrant Interchange (EWI) generates all forms necessary to complete the warrant process. Both the judge and officer can then print legally valid copies at their own workstations.
Gwinnett estimates that it takes an average of 45 minutes for a police officer to travel to and from the Justice and Administration Center to obtain a warrant. In rush-hour traffic, it can take up to three hours. The EWI program

reduces the amount of time it takes to secure a warrant to about 25 minutes.
The system allows other courts, support agencies and law enforcement organizations to access the records, eliminating the need to distribute duplicate reports. Data can be retrieved from the warrant database server using a person's name, social security number or past warrant history. A photo of the subject can be scanned and added to the record.
The first official video-conference warrant will be issued in early March. Additional work stations will be added at all police precincts and the Detention Center by April. Mr. Camp said, "As far as I know, we are the first jurisdiction in the country to do this. This is a great example of technology improving local government services."
Continued next page

Judge Joseph Iannazzone demonstrates the video-conference work station.

Talk . .. Technology Talk . .. Technology Talk . .. Technology Talk . .. Technology Talk . ..

Georgia Courts Journal

6

March 1998

... Technology. Talk . ..
Warrant system continued
State Bill 411, which has passed the Senate and is under consideration by a House committee, would make use of electronic warrant sys. terns legal in any court in Georgia. This is one of the goals of this test project, Judge Iannazzone said. "We want to make it available to everyone."
For more information about the project, contact Art O'Neill, court administrator (770-822-8564).
System components: Pentium PC with Windows 95 PictureTel/Intel video-conference
unit Compaq server with Windows NT Federal Data Electronic Warrant
Interchange software with signature verification, digitizer pad
and database software tc.
Staffers provide support to superior court judges
Two new staffers, Molly Mooken and Ross Moroz, joined the Georgia Courts Automation Commission (GCAC) last November to provide computer training and technical support services to superior court judges and their staffs. Ms. Mooken and Mr. Moroz, who came to GCAC from the private sector, have begun traveling throughout the state responding to requests for technical assistance. Superior court judges needing computer assistance should contact Victor Webb, coordinator of these services, at the
AOC (404-656-5171). tc.
... Technology Talk . ..

New members of Commission on Family Violence sworn in

Fifteen new members appointed to the Commission on Family Violence by Gov. Miller were sworn in on January 23. The ceremony was held in the Senate Chambers. The new members are:
Dick Bathrick, Acting Executive Director, Men Stopping Violence
Bryant Bradley, Fiscal Grants Manager, Citizens Against Violence
Dr. Betty Ann Cook, Board of Pardons and Paroles
Richard Darby, Executive Director, Georgia P.0.S.T. Council
Robert L. Doss Jr., Director, Administrative Office of the Courts
Carla V. Hungate, Assistant Project Director, Men Stopping Violence
Judge Cliff Jolliff, Juvenile Court, Hall County
Dr. Arthur Kellermann, Director, Center for Injury Protection at Rollins School of Health, Emory University
Chief Joseph Lumpkin, Athens-Clarke County Police Department
Tim Madison, District Attorney, Piedmont Judicial Circuit
Barbara McBrayer-Brice, Elder Rights and Advocacy Section Manager, Division of Aging Services, Department of Human Resources
Kristin Pope, Director, Project Safe (also elected secretary on January 23)
Meg Rogers, Director, Cherokee Family Violence Center
Sheriff Jamil Saba, Dougherty County Sheriff's Department
Sandra Wood, Director, Georgia Council on Child Abuse
Continuing members:
Judge Clarence Seeliger, Superior Court, Stone Mountain Judicial Circuit chairperson
Judge James E. McDonald Jr., Juvenile Court, Clarke County - vice-chairperson

The swearing-in ceremony for the Family Violence Commission was held at the State Capitol. Pictured here, District Attorney Tim Madison.
Judge John D. Allen, Superior Courts, Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit
Representative Roy E. Barnes, District 33
Ralph T. Bowden Jr., Solicitor-General, State Court of DeKalb County
Sylvia Caley, Atlanta Legal Aid Society
Martha Gilland, Director, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council
Annette Z. Henderson, Department of Corrections
Judge Jeannette L. Little, State Court of Troup County
Judge Willie E. Lockette, Superior Court, Dougherty Judicial Circuit
Judge LaVerne C. Ogletree, Probate Court, Greene County
Senator David Scott, District 36
Representative Georganna T. Sinkfield, District 57
Representative Jimmy Skipper, District 137
Senator Connie Stokes, District 43
Senator Steve Thompson, District 33
Judge Cynthia Wright, Superior Court, Atlanta Judicial Circuit tfc,

March 1998

7

Georgia Courts Journal

Mark your calendar:
Deadline for court 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, Chief Justice Robert Benham.
The deadline for submitting pilot project 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 required under Judicial Council policy.
According to criteria approved in December 1997, the Judicial Council will recommend a pilot project only if it will move the Georgia court system toward consolidation of trial courts. A unified, single-level general jurisdiction trial court was proposed in the Report of the Governor's Judicial

Process Review Commission, Justice 2000, of November 1985. Pilots, ultimately, should result in less fragmentation of the system, less overlapping jurisdiction and greater efficiency. As long as the pilot is a step toward structural consolidation, it may include variances in procedures and operation which seek to accommodate the local environment.
The Judicial Council will recommend family court projects only if they adhere to the recommendations of the State Bar of Georgia Commission on Family Courts. Principally any family court pilot should be organized as a division of the superior court, rather than as a separate independent court. Generally, the guidelines and principles outlined in the Commission's report of December 31, 1995, should be followed.
For a copy of the complete Judicial Council policy, contact the AOC (404-656-5171).
Judgeship/circuit split requests According to Judicial Council
policy, a circuit seeking a new

Judicial Qualifications Commission

Opinion 224 Practicing attorneys who serve as part-time magistrates should not appear as counsel in any magistrate court sitting in the same county, regardless of the frequency of such service.
Opinion 225 It is inappropriate for any judicial officer to accept and/ or use "Official Documents" envelopes provided at no cost to the court by advertising agencies for com-

mercial banks and bearing advertisements naming both the court and the bank. Any judicial officer who may have heretofore unknowingly failed to follow the dictates of this opinion is directed to take such action as may be necessary to come into compliance.
Copies of the complete opinions can be obtained from the Judicial Qualifications Commission (770587-5208 or www.state.ga.us/ Courts/Supreme). to

judgeship or boundary change must submit its request in writing to the Judicial Council by September 1, prior to the session of the General Assembly during which the judgeship or boundary change is sought. For more information about the Judicial Council policy for judgeships and circuit boundary studies, see page 10. to
Attorney General's opinions
Official opinions
Fingerprinting; misdemeanor criminal offenses. Updating of crimes and offenses for which the Georgia Crime Information Center is authorized to collect and file fingerprints. (12/23/97 No. 97-33)
Crimes; statute of limitations. A prosecution for a misdemeanor violation of OCGA 16-9-20, deposit account fraud, is commenced when a citation meets all the requirements of OCGA 15-10-202(b) and OCGA 15-10-202(c) including the signing of the citation by a judge or clerk of the magistrate court and proper service of the citation by a law enforcement officer. (1/7/98 No. 98-1)
Firearms. A plea of nolo contendere to a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as defined under the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 921 et seq., does not result in the imposition of a civil disability so as to prohibit the right to ship, transport, possess or receive firearms under the Act. (1/9 /98 No. 98-2) to

Georgia Courts Journal

8

March 1998

Bibb County Drug Court marks fourth year

The Bibb County Drug Court held a graduation ceremony on December ~5 for 12 defendants completing the drug-treatment program. The event also marked the fourth anniversary of the drug court program. Judge Tommy Day Wilcox, who has led the drug court effort since its beginning, presided at the ceremony.
Chief Justice Robert Benham, an early advocate of drug courts, spoke at the graduation. The chief justice praised the court for its "cuttingedge solution" to the problems caused by substance abuse. He noted that Judge Wilcox was the first judge in the state to put theory into practice. "I applaud this community for having the foresight to take on some of the problems that

other communities have not taken on," Justice Benham said in his remarks.
Judge Wilcox, who said that he
The chief justice praised the court for its "cutting-edge solution" to the problems caused
by substance abuse.
has enjoyed the work, is turning over leadership of the drug court to Chief Judge Walker P. Johnson Jr. at the four-year mark. "Finally
you find you need to take a break
from this kind of work, and that is

what I am doing," Judge Wilcox explained. He will remain on the superior court bench.
The drug court program allows nonviolent, drug-dependent felony offenders to enroll in a year-long treatment program, rather than be prosecuted for a criminal offense. Participants are required to make frequent court appearances, undergo random and scheduled drug tests and take part in counseling. For those who complete the program successfully, all charges are dropped. Offenders who fail to comply with the regimen face reprimands, fines and jail time. Approximately 124 offenders have successfully completed the program in Bibb County. tc

Key to the caseload data chart: calendar year 1996

The chart on the following pages 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.
About the caseload data chart 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. 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 % Chan~1 a noticeable change in superioi- 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 1996 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. tc

March 1998

9

Georgia Courts Journal