NINETEENTH ANNUAL REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE GEORGIA COURTS FISCAL YEAR 1992 JULY 1,1991 - JUNE 30.1992 Contents The Courts in Review I Supreme Court 5 Court of Appeals 7 Superior Courts 9 State Courts 13 Juvenile Courts 15 Probate Courts 18 Magistrate Courts 22 Other Courts 25 Judicial Agencies 26 Judicial Council of Georgia 26 Administrative Office of the Courts 27 Board of Court Reporting 29 Council of Juvenile Court Judges 30 Council of Magistrate Court Judges 31 Council of Probate Court Judges 31 Council of State Court Judges 32 Council of Superior Court Clerks 32 Council of Superior Court Judges 32 Georgia Courts Automation Commission 33 Georgia Indigent Defense Council 34 Georgia Magistrate Courts Training Council 35 Institute of Continuing Judicial Education 36 Judicial Administrative Districts 38 Judicial Nominating Commission 39 Judicial Qualifications Commission 39 Superior Courts Sentence Review Panel 42 .Judicial Personnel Changes 43 The Nineteenth Alllll/al Report 011 lilt' Work ofthe Georgia Courts is published by the Judicial Council of Georgia and the Administrative Office of the Courts in compliance with OCGA 15-5-24 and by Order of the Supreme Court of Georgia dated June 12. 1978. All rights reserved. Inquiries for usc of any material contained in this report should be directed to the Senior Communications Officer. Administrative Office of the Courts. Judicial Council of Georgia Administrative Office of the Courts Suite 550 244 Washington Street. S.W. Atlanta. Georgia 30334-5900 JudicialCoullcilofGeorgia - June 1992 Chairperson: Chief Justice Harold G. Clarke Supreme Court Atlanta Vice Chairperson: Presiding Justice Charles L. Wehner Supreme Court Atlanta Judge James G. Bodiford President Council of Magistrate Court Judges Marietta Judge James M. Butterworth President-elect Council of State Court Judges Cornelia Judge Joanne B. Cooper First Vice President Council of Magistrate Court Judges Warner Robins Judge Richard M. Cowart President Council of State Court Judges Valdosta Chief Judge William W. Daniel Fifth District AdministrativeJudge Atlanta Judge Lee H. DeLoach President Council of Probate Court Judges Statesboro Judge G. Mallon Faircloth Eighth District AdministrativeJudge Cordele Chief Judge William M. Fleming, Jr. Tenth District Administrative Judge Augusta Chief Judge Hilton Fuller Fourth District AdministrativeJudge Decatur Judge Loring A. Gray, Jr. Second District AdministrativeJudge Albany Judge Carol W. Hunstein President Council of Superior Court Judges Decatur Judge K. DawsonJackson Ninth District AdministrativeJudge Lawrenceville Chief Judge Walker P. Johnson, Jr. Third District Administrative Judge Macon Judge Allen B. Keeble Sixth District AdministrativeJudge LaGrange Chief Judge Joseph E. Loggins Seventh District Administrative Judge Summerville Judge Steven J. Messinger President-elect Council of Juvenile Court Judges Douglasville Judge Joseph B. Newton First District Administrative Judge Waycross Judge Timothy A. Pape President Council of Juvenile Court Judges Rome Judge Marion T. Pope, Jr. Court of Appeals Atlanta Chief Judge John W. Sognier Court of Appeals Atlanta Chief Judge Robert G. Walther President-elect Council of Superior Court Judges Rome Judge John Wheaton First Vice President Council of Probate Court Judges Leesburg Foreword In 1992. the Georgia judiciary continued to look to the future by emphasizing cooperation between the judicial branch and representatives of the legislature. the legal profession. law enforcement and related agencies in planning to address common needs and accomplish shared objectives. The Georgia Courts Automation Commission expanded its efforts to enhance the flow of information available to the courts and other criminal justice practinoners. The Georgia Court Futures Vanguard-I 00 judges. court officials. lawmakers and lay citizens--continued to delve into the question of how to deal with the increasing needs of the state's courts in the 21st century. The Joint Commission on Alternative Dispute Resolution circulated for review and comment a working draft of a plan for a comprehensive. court-annexed dispute resolution program in Georgia. Following two years of study. research and hearings. the Georgia Commission on Gender Bias released a report on its findings and recommendations. The courts explored innovative ways to do new and better things partly in response to increasing case filings. From 1987 to 1991. total filings in the superior courts rose more than 35 percent. Felony filings increased 55 percent. During that same period, state funds appropriated to the superior courts increased in real terms by only 13 percent. Limited jurisdiction judges assisted by hearing some cases normally restricted to superior courts. An important part of what the judicial branch has is the dedication. ability, ingenuity and wisdom of its people. We look with pride to the judges of this state who serve with honesty and integrity to ensure justice for all. We express appreciation to the courts' staff who are determined to see that the courts operate efficiently and effectively. I commend all who have worked so diligently to achieve progress and call upon you to continue on this upward path. Additionally. I take this opportunity to thank the executive and legislative branches of government for their efforts and continued support. This Nineteenth Annual Report on the Work of the Georgia Courts is presented to inform the governor. the legislature and the public of judicial branch activities carried out in response to the varied duties and responsibilities with which the courts. their officials and administrative offices are charged. Readers are invited to review the following pages and learn in detail about the courts' ongoing advancements. Harold G. Clarke Chairperson Judicial Council of Georgia Filing and disposition figures included ill this report cannot and should 1I0t be considered a complete measurement ofjudicial workload borne by anv given judge ill any given court. Whife more detailed case types and disposition methods may represent more accurately the amount of judicial time required ofjudges in processing their caseloads, statistics alone cannot describe the relative contnbutions by various members of the judiciary III the performance of their official duties, 1I0r are they indicative of the effort a judge has put forth or the hours spent ill performing the duties of office. For example, a judge might spend a week or more presiding over a felony case in which the death penalty is sought. In that same week another judge might hear dozens of uncontested divorces, traffic cases, or minor civil cases without a jury. III the first example. the judge will dispose of only one case, while the second judge disposes of dozens of cases. Both judges, however, may have expended the same amount of time and effort, and both have performed duties of the office and provided required judicial services for citizens of Georgia. Therefore. this report should not be used to evaluate or compare judicial performance. THE CO URTS IN REVIEW: FISCAL YEAR 1992 Coordinated efforts to improve the operation of Georgia's courts continued in 1992as judges and court officialsjoined with representatives of the legislative and executivebranchesand the public to exchange ideasand information in areas of common concern. Some groups charged with studying specificaspects of the Georgia court system reportedon their findings, whileothers examinedsystemic needsand strategies to meet them. Resources Appropriations to the judicial branch for fiscal year 1992 were adverselyaffected by a decline in state revenuesfor the second straight year.Judicial branch appropriations, initially approved for $57.5 million, were reduced to $56 million after a seriesof budget cuts. The General Assembly approved a 1993 budget of $60.6 million for the judicial branch,an 8.3 percent increaseover the previousyear.The significant budget increasewas due primarilyto the legislature's funding for 12 unfilled superiorcourt judgeshipsand relatedpositions and a 2.5 percentcost-of-living increase(with a cap of $1,(00) for judges and judicial branchemployees. Even as the superiorcourts maintained average case processing time at 5.2 monthsin 1990, the number of cases filed continued to rise as did the need for more judgeships to accommodate the increases. The legislature responded to the Judicial Council's recommendation for 25 additional superiorcourt positions by approving one new judgeshipeach for the Dougherty, Griffm,Lookout Mountain and Tallapoosacircuits and twojudgeships for the newly created Enotah Circuit,formed by combining countiessplit from two existingcircuits. Two of the 1992 judgeships,as well as 12 other superiorcourtjudgeships from 1989, 1990and 1991,remained unfilled due to a federal lawsuit challenging at-largeelections of judges in the state of Georgia. The litigation, whichassertsthat the system dilutes minority votingstrength, was still pending at the end of the fiscal year, but effortsat settlement of the suit were ongoing. State of the judiciary In his thirdannual address to a joint session of the General Assembly, ChiefJustice Harold G. Clarkestressed thatduring thecurrent periodof limited means, thejudiciary must aim at themoreefficient use of its resources. Streamlining is extremely important in a time when increasing caseloads continue to tax Georgia's courts. The superiorcourtsfaced a 9% increase in filings in 1990, bringing the levelof new cases to about 300,000, Chief JusticeClarke noted. The average numberof filings per judge increased to more than 2,000 cases. The other courtsfaced similarincreases. He reminded the legislators of the importance of adequate indigent defenseand the state's responsibility to guarantee it. He emphasized that not only does every individual have the right to a fair trial, but that the cost of retrials caused by errors and poor defense is far too great. He cited the strugglelocal governments face in funding indigent defense, whichshould be a state burden. An uneven qualityof representation around the state results, he said, causing untold problems and expense within the court system. Inefficiencies in trying death penalty cases are also a cause of greatexpense to the state. To ensure that these cases are tried correctly, ChiefJusticeClarkerecommended theestablishment of an advisory officefor appointed defense counsel. He also suggested thatan early hearing on the effectiveness of counsel would reduce the numberof undetected errors in trials. Finally,he proposed that the U.S. Congress authorize the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals to answercertifiedquestionsof federal law sent to them by state supremecourts in death penalty cases. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) TheJointCommission on Alternative Dispute Resolu- tion, withrepresentatives from the Supreme Court,the State Bar, thesuperior courts and the legislature, published a preliminary report endorsing the implementation of a statewidecomprehensive ADRplan for Georgia courts. Fiscal Year t989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Five-Year Comparison of Judicial Budget (1989-1993) Total State Appropriation Increase Judldal Appropriation Increase Percent of State Budget $6,399,179,662 7,643,807,302 7,461,512,616 7,390,000,000 8,t74,OOO,OOO $463,066,323 1,244,627,640 (182,294,686) (71,5t 2,616) 784,000,000 $47,673,704 52.212,242 56,234,292 56,004,791 6O,677,78t $4,757,941 4,569,289 4,022,050 (229,501) 4,672,990 0.74% 0.68% 0.75% 0.76% 0.74% Fiscal Year 1992 State Appropriations for the Judicial Branch: Fiscal Years 1991,1992 and 1993 Budget Un it/Age ncy FY 1991 FY 1m Percent 1993 Percent Am en d ed Ame nded Change Ge nera l Change Appro pria tion Appro priation- FY 9192 Appropr iation FY 92-93 Supreme Court $4.532,793 $4,453,544 (1.7)% $4.818,172 8.2% Court of Appeals Superior Courts (Total) Opera t ions Council of Superior Court Judges Judicial Administrative Districts Prosecut ing Attorneys ' Council Sentence Review Panel Council of Juvenile Court Judges Institute of Continu ing Judicial Education (Total) Operations Magistrate Courts Training Council Judicial Council (Total) Operations Board of Court Reporting Case Counting Council of Magistrate Court Judges Council of Probate Court Judges Council of State Court Judges Appellate Resource Center Computerized Information Network Judicial Qualifications Commi ssion Indigent Defense Council Judicial Branch Totals 5.696 ,903 5,458.995 (4.2)% 41.500,121 38,770 .818 97,659 1,073.334 1,402.370 155.940 41,659,778 38.724,169 120,027 1.045,755 1.616,148 153.679 0.4 % (0.\)% (22.9) % (2.6)% 15.2% (1.4)% 833.373 817,431 (1.9)% 584.242 453.712 130,530 592.000 456.000 136.000 1.3% 0.5% 4.2% 1.965,599 894.288 35.689 76,500 26,000 20,000 12,000 240.000 661.122 1.896,572 819,594 39.377 76,500 26.000 20,000 12.000 240.000 663.101 (3.5)% (8.4)% 10.3% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0 % 0.0% 0.0% 0 .3% 124,316 123.179 (0.9)% 996,945 1.003,292 0.6% $56,234,292 $56,004,791 (0.4)% 5.743.669 5.2% 45,423,943 42,280 .230 114,499 1,083.899 1.791.715 153,600 9.0 % 9 .2% (4.2) % 3.6 % 10.9% (0 . \ ) % 847,005 3.6% 634.322 498.322 136,000 7.1% 9.3% 0% 2 ,061,454 986 ,713 40,24 1 76,500 240,000 26.000 20.000 12.000 660.000 8.7 % 20.4 % 2.2 % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% (0.5)% 139,258 13.1% 1,009,958 0.7% 60,677,781 8.3 % The commission recommended that the Supreme Court take the following actions: I) use its rule-making powers to implement a comprehensive statewide ADR system;2 ) appointa successor to the presentcommission to oversee the system. andcreate an Office of DisputeResolution to implement policy and provide assistance; 3) seekpermanent funding through a filing fee surcharge and fees for mediatorcertification; 4) encourage everycourt to use ADR; 5) establish training requirements for neutrals, third-party participants such as arbitrators.mediators and evaluators; 6) seethat the programs arestaffedby a mixture of volunteer. salaried and free-market neutrals; 7) address the issuesof confidentiality and immunity for neutrals; and 8) require a one-time mandatory coursein ADR of everyattorney. The commission workedwith local courts and governments throughout the year on a series of independent ADR projects. Among these were an experimental mediation program in LaGrange, where thirty mediators heard over 200 cases, including criminal,civil and ordinance issuesreferred by magistrate and municipal courts. This program had an 86 percent settlement rate. Another project involved a settlement week in the Appalachian Judicial Circuit. A moratorium on trials was called, and veteran mediators dealt with a varietyof cases including juvenile, domestic relations and personal injury. Court futur es The Georgia CourtFutures Vanguard, organized to study existing courtservices and to formulate recommendations based on futures planning, wasrecognized andcommended by legislators during the 1992 legislative session for itsefforts andforward thinking. Representatives of the Ni nete e n t h Annual R ep ort 2 judicial,legislative and executive branches; judicial educators; lawyers and citizensare included in the Vanguard. Task forces met to examinea broad rangeof issues which were organized into 10categories: alternative dispute resolution; civil and criminal process; constituency services; communication; court automation; funding; image; judicialselection and education; philosophy and structure; and research, evaluation and planning. The groupwill publish a final report of its findings in 1993. Court automation The Georgia Courts Automation Commission (GCAC) continued to develop programsto facilitate and improve information sharing amongcourts and other criminaljustice agencies. During 1992,representatives of all levels of the state court system servedon the commission as voting members.The advisory council (nonvoting members) was composed of representatives of aIlthrcc branches of state government and variousstate agencies. The commission was awarded a $200,000 federal grant to provide local courts access to existing databaseshoused on the state's mainframecomputer through the Georgia On-Line (GO) Network. GCAC also launcheda pilot program to automate traffic conviction reporting in order to eliminate delays in updating driver history recordsand reduceerrors resulting from duplicate data entry. The commission workedwith the state's Code Revision Committee in securing a contract with the Michie Publishing Company to providejudges with the Official Code of Georgia on compact disc at no or reduced cost to the user. Gender Fairness Established in 1989 by Georgia's SupremeCourt, the 30-member Georgia Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System included lawyers, judges, university deans, professors and community leaders from across the state. The commission's final report, presented to the SupremeCourt in August 1991 , concluded that pervasive gender bias, mostly against women, exists in the state's judicial system.The 14sections of the report presented findings and recommendations in the areas of domestic violence,sexual offenses, adult sentencing, the juvenile justice system, child custody, visitation and support, alimonyand equitabledistributionof property, treatmentof participants in the courtroom, treatment of court employees, language in the courts, judicial ethics and discipline, judicial selectionand court facilities. The report was madeavailable to interested partieswho wereencouraged to submitcomments to the Supreme Court. Judicial Branch Budget Units: Funds Available and Expenditures, Fiscal Year 1992 Supreme Court Superior Court of Appeals Courts Council of Juvenile Court JUdges Institute of Continuing Judicial Education Judicial Council Judlclat Indigent Qualifications Defense CommissIon Council Totals Funds Available General Supplemental Total Stale Funds Federal Funds Other Funds Total Funds Available Expenditures Personal Services Operating Expenses Travel Equipment Purchases Computer Charges Real Estate Rentals Telecommunications Per Diem, Fees & Contracts Total ExpendItures 54,712,199 (258.655) 4,453,544 0 454,093 55,753,367 542,506.217 (294,372) (846,439) 5,458,995 41.659.778 0 1,288,356 53.693 1,052.158 5833.878 (16.447) 817.431 821,227 51,913 $4,907637 $5,512,688 ~,OOO,29I $1,690,571 5592,000 0 592.000 17.383 180,795 51,990 ,013 (93,441) 1,896,572 252.333 77,970 $790,178 $2,226,876 5125.000 (1.821) 123,179 0 0 51.005,000 557.517,674 (1,708) (1,512,883) 1.003.292 56,004,791 83.725 2,463.024 342.600 2,213.222 $123,179 $1,429,617 $60,681,037 53,756.135 376,569 17,645 55.535 93.298 291,653 31,918 139,111 54,701,330 540,749.400 110.433 768,898 23,543 560,124 92,118 52,429 67,704 65.298 184,525 143,072 26,060 40,047 25.330 1,175,696 5619.096 849.192 38,460 11,242 36,995 51.120 14.726 64.463 $4,761,864 $5,231,043 $43,554,964 $1,685,294 50 119.653 0 6,797 63,489 0 8 489.626 5788,414 120.080 19.605 16,513 836,052 38,188 10.179 385,277 $679,573 $2,214,308 570,587 12,512 2,355 5.902 6,569 2,853 1,433 19.777 5252.509 550,937,471 979,307 3,336.644 9.989 671.721 3.675 244.211 2,124 1.171,529 10,800 722,211 4.159 128,530 775 2,300,055 $121,988 $1,263,338 $59,512,372 F i s c a I Yea r 1 992 3 Georgia Court System: July 1, 1992 SUPREME COURT 7 justices Jurisdiction: Appellate jurisdiction over cases of constitutional issue, tide to land, validity of and construction of wills, habeas corpus, 1 - - - - - - - - - - - , extraordinary remedies, convictions of capital felonies, equity, divorce, alimony, election contest. Certified questions and certiorari from Court of Appeals. Capital felonies. Constitutional issues. Tide to land. Wills, equity, and divorce. I COURT OF APPEALS (3 divisions) 9 judges Jurisdiction: Appellate jurisdiction over lower courts in cases in which Supreme Court has no exclusive appellate jurisdiction. I SUPERIOR COURT (46 circuits) 145 judges (159 authorized) Jurisdiction (general): Civil law actions, misdemeanors, and other cases. Exclusive jurisdiction over cases of divorce, tide to land, equity. Exclusive felony jurisdiction. Jury trials. Counties with population over 100,000 where probate judge is attorney practicing at least seven years. Jury trials. I II STATE COURT (62 courts) 87 judges (88 authorized): 43 full-time, 44 part-time. Jurisdiction (limited): Civil law actions except cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of superior court. Misdemeanors, traffic, felony preliminaries. Jury trials. JUVENILE COURT (159 courts) 58 judges: 18 full-time, 40 part-time (2 state court judges serve as part-time juvenile court judges), 42 associate judges. Superior court judges serve in counties without separate juvenile court judges. Jurisdiction (limited): Deprived, unruly, delinquent juveniles. Juvenile traffic. No jury trials. PROBATE COURT (159 courts) 159 judges Jurisdiction (limited): Exclusive jurisdiction in probate of wills, administration of estates, appointment of guardians, mentally ill. involuntary hospitalizations, marriage licenses. Traffic in some counties. Truancy in some counties. Hold courts of inquiry. Search warrants and arrest warrants in certain cases. MAGISTRATE COURT (159 courts) 159 chief magistrates and 304 magistrates; 32 also serve juvenile, probate or civil courts. Junsdiction (limited): Search and arrest warrants, felony and misdemeanor preliminaries, misdemeanor bad check violations. Civil claims of $5,000 or less, dispossessories, distress warrants, county ordinances. No jury trials. I CIVIL COURT (2 courts) 3 judges Jurisdiction (limited): Warrants. Misdemeanor and felony preliminaries. Civil tort and contract cases under $7,500 for Bibb County; under $25,000 for Richmond County. Jury trials. I MUNICIPAL COURT (1 court in Columbus) 1 judge Jurisdiction (limited): Civil law and landlord-tenant cases (civil) under $7,500. Misdemeanor guilty pleas and preliminary hearings. Warrants. Jury trials in civil cases. I COUNTY RECORDER'S COURT (4 courts) 8 judges Jurisdiction (limited): County ordinances, criminal warrants and preliminaries. No jury trials. I MUNICIPAL COURTS (381 courts active) Jurisdiction (limited): Ordinance violations, traffic, criminal preliminaries. No jury trials . Nineteenth Annual Report 4 Supreme Court The Constitution of Georgia gives the Supreme Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction in cases involving the construction of a treaty or of the Constitution of the State of Georgia or of the United States. the constitutionality of a law. ordinance or constitutional provision. and election contests. The Constitution also provides that. unless otherwise provided by law. the court shall have jurisdiction of all cases involving title to land. equity. wills. habeas corpus. extraordinary remedies (mandamus. prohibition. quo warranto. etc.), divorce and alimony and all cases in which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed. The Supreme Court also is authorized to review by certiorari cases from the Court of Appeals and to answer questions of law from any state or federal appellate court. The court has three terms of court each year. beginning in January. April and September. Oral arguments are heard each month. except in August and December. The constitution provides that all cases shall be decided no later than the term following the term to which the case is docketed. Cases are assigned in rotation to the justices. Although the court nearly always hears cases in the Supreme Court courtroom in Atlanta. it occasionally schedules sessions at law schools and other locations. as was done this year at Georgia State University. in order to educate students in court operations. The seven justices serving on the court are elected to staggered six-year terms in statewide. nonpartisan elections. A candidate for judgeship must have been admitted to practice law for at least seven years prior to assuming office. A vacancy on the court is filled by gubernatorial appointment to complete the unexpired term. Each justice has three full-time staff members: two attorneys and one administrative assistant. The duties of the attorneys are to assist the justices in the research and preparation of opinions. The law assistants are not permitted to practice law while employed by the court. The Supreme Court clerk. appointed by the members of the court for a six-year term. is the administrative officer of the court and maintains its records. The opinions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals are published by the reporter, who is also appointed by the court. The justices elect from among themselves a chief justice and a presiding justice. who handle administrative matters for the court. to serve four-year terms. The chief justice serves as chairperson and the presiding justice serves as vice chairperson of the state's Judicial CounciL The Supreme Court has authority to promulgate orders needed to carry out its functions and has rulemaking authority over the lower courts. By these orders the court has directed several agencies to assist it in administrative matters. Among these are the Administrative Office of the Courts. the Institute of Continuing Judicial Education. the Judicial Council of Georgia, the Office of Bar Admissions and the State Bar of Georgia. The Supreme Court's case/oadfor calendar years 1990 and 1991 is shown on the next page. Fiscal Year 1992 5 Supreme Court Caseload: 1990 & 1991 Filed 1990 1991 Disposed 1990 1991 Direct appeals Petitions for certiorari Applications for appeal Habeas corpus Discretionary Interlocutory Attorney disciplinaries Original petitions/motions Extraordinary motions Cross appeals Certified questions Bar admissions Judicial disciplinaries Total 566 604 171 221 44 76 39 37 3 5 3 1,769 541 616 149 238 52 120 21 9 21 5 7 2 1,781 By opinion Affirmed without opinion (Rule 59) Allowed withdrawn Transferred to the Court of Appeals Appeals dismissed Petitions for certiorari Denied Granted Other Habeas corpus applications Denied Granted Other Discretionary applications Denied Granted Other Interlocutory appl ications Denied Granted Other Original petitions/motions Extraordinary motions Bar admissions Judicial qualifications Attorney discipline By opinion By order Attorney and judicial disciplinaries/ Bar admissions decided by order 355 122 488 83 8 109 2 17 149 61 16 29 12 7 41 70 Total 1,629 364' 134 44 60 50 570' 82 6 171 3 I 177' 57 5 24 20 I 23 8 2 2 75' 72 1,959 5 , In 1991. 363 cases were disposed of by 330 opinions written by the Supreme Court. , Includes 13 writs vacated as improvidently granted. J Includes 4 denied applications for interim appellate review. 'In 1991.75 complaints were disposed of by 50 written opinions. 5 Includes 7 cases transferred from the Court of Appeals and later returned to the Court of Appeals and I case that was stricken from the docket. ... A breakdown of these categories was unavailable in 1990: however. the total is inclusive of them. **A breakdown of this category became available in 1991 and is seen in the above figures. iL -.--J N neteenth Annual Report 6 Court of Appeals Following approval of a constitutional amendment in 1906, the Court of Appeals was created in 1907 to alleviate some of the considerablecaseload burden from the Supreme Court. Recent studies have shown that this court has become one of the busiest appellatecourts in the United States. The Court of Appeals has statewideappellatejurisdiction from superior, state and juvenile courts in all cases where exclusive jurisdiction is not reserved to the Supreme Court. Such cases include civil claims for damages, child custody cases, cases involving workers' compensation and criminal cases other than capital felonies. The court may also certify legal questions to the SupremeCourt, but certification is rarely used. The court consists of nine judges who serve on three panels of three judges each. Under the court's rules, the position of chief judge is filled by election for a two-year term, usually upon the basis of seniorityof tenure on the court. The chief judge is responsiblefor the administration of the court and, together with the presiding judges, forms the executive council. The chief judge appointsthe three presidingjudges who head each panel. All other judges rotate annually among the three panels. Any decision rendered by a panel is final unlessa Court of Appeals Caseload: 1990 and 1991 Filed Appeals Discretionary applications Interlocutory applications Total Disposed By opinion By order Discretionary applications Granted Denied Dismissed Transferred to Supreme Court Withdrawn Changed to Interlocutory Total Interlocutory applications Granted Denied Dismissed Transferred to Supreme Court Withdrawn Total Total 1990 2.384 394 400 3,178 1991 2,265 430 450 3,145 1.922 407 98 253 24 8 4 5 392 1.268 358 95 268 33 9 I 3 409 108 243 25 5 3 384 3,105 127 233 39 3 3 405 2,440 singlejudge dissents, whereupon the case is considered by all nine judges. If, after the full court hears a case, the judges are equally divided as to the verdict, the case is transferred to the Supreme Court. Court of Appealsjudges are elected to staggered, sixyear terms in statewide,nonpartisan elections. A candidate forjudgeshipmust havebeen admittedto practice law for at leastseven yearsprior to assumingoffice.In the event of a vacancy on the courtduringa judge's term, the governor appointsa successor to complete the unexpired term. The court has three annual terms, which begin in September, January and April. Although the court usually hears cases in Atlanta, it occasionally schedules sessions at other locations in the state. The constitution provides that all cases shall be decided no later than the term following the term to which a case is docketed (the "two term" rule) or the case shall be affirmed by operation of law. In the history of the Court of Appeals, no case has been affirmed by operation of law. Effective Oct. I, 1989, pursuantto an act of the General Assembly, the Courtof Appeals adoptedRule 52 providing for a voluntary settlement conference procedure in civilcasesaftera notice of appeal is filed in the trialcourt. The procedure is intended to afforda realistic consideration of the possibility of settlement or simplification of the issues of a case prior to the docketing of the appeal in the Courtof Appeals. The court appointeda settlement conference chiefjudge and a clerk in Atlantaand settlement conference judges throughout the state whoconsider those cases in which the partieshave elected to proceed under Rule 52. In calendar year 1991, 67 cases were begun. Thirty-one of thosecases were settled, and 36 were terminated. To date, 39 percentof the cases which have goneto settlement conference havebeen settled. Court ofAppeals filings and dispositions for calendar years 1990 and 1991 are compared in the table at left. Listed below are statistics from October 1989 to March 1993for cases that went to Settlement Conference. Appellate Settlement Conference: October 1989 - March 1993* Cases settled 97 Cases terminated 131 Pending 23 Total cases 251 A fiscal year breakdown of these statistics is unavailable. Fiscal Year 1992 7 JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF GEORGIA Georgia Judicial Districts _ Circuit Boundary _ County Boundary _ o ! ,50 miles N neteenth Annual Report 8 Superior Courts As Georgia's general jurisdiction trial court, the superior court has exclusive, constitutional authority to preside over felony cases (except those involving juvenile offenders, in which jurisdiction is shared with the juvenile court) and cases regarding title to land, divorce and equity. The superior court also has exclusive jurisdiction in such matters as declaratory judgments, habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition. With the exception of certain probate and juvenile matters, the superior court may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over other cases with the limited jurisdiction courts located in the same county. The superior courts arc authorized to correct errors made by lower courts by issuing writs of certiorari, and for some lower courts, the right to direct review by the superior court applies. Located in each of the state's 159 counties, superior courts are organized by judicial circuits, or groups of counties. The 46 circuits vary in size and population, as well as in the number of judges serving them. From one to eight counties comprise the circuits, with the singlecounty circuits generally located in or near the several large metropolitan areas of the state. The number of superior court judges per circuit ranges from two judges in 21 circuits to 15 judges authorized in the Atlanta Judicial Circuit. A chief judge, who in most cases attains the position through seniority, handles the administrative tasks for each circuit. For purposes of administration, the superior courts are grouped into 10 administrative districts. An administrative judge, elected to a two-year term by the superior court judges of each district, performs executive functions in the district and is assisted by a district court administrator who provides technical assistance for the courts. Administrative judges have statutory authority to use caseload and other information for management purposes and to assign superior court judges, with their approval, to serve temporarily in other counties and circuits as needed. Superior court judges are elected to four-year terms in nonpartisan, circuit-wide races. To qualify as a superior court judge, a candidate must be at least 30 years old, a citizen of Georgia for at least three years and have practiced law for at least seven years. Senior superior court judges, who have retired from the bench and attained senior status, may hear cases in any circuit at the request of the local judges, an administrative judge or the governor. All judges must fulfill a 12-hour annual continuing education requirement. As of July I, 1992, there were 145 judges (159 authorized positions) in Georgia's 159 superior courts. Six judgeships, two for the new Enotah Circuit and one each for the Dougherty (3rd), Griffin (4th), Lookout Mountain (4th) and TaIlapoosa (3rd) judicial circuits, were created by the 1992 General Assembly. Recent caseload data for the superior courts is presented on the following pages. Calendar year 1991 total superior court caseload by circuit and case type is presented in the table on pages 10 and 11. The four graphs on page 12 depict total. civil, criminal and average filings and dispositions for calendar years 1987 through 1991. Fiscal Year 1992 9 Superior Court Caseload, Calendar Year 1991 (Docket entries) Circuit Total Criminal Flied Disposed Felony Filed Disposed Alapaha Alcovy Appalachian Atlanta Atlantic Augusta Blue Ridge Brunswick Chattahoochee Cherokee Gayton Cobb Conasauga Cordele Coweta Dougherty Douglas Dublin Eastern Flint Griffin Gwinnell Houston Lookout Mountain Macon Middle Mountain Northeastern Northern Ocmu1gee Oconee Ogeechee Pataula Piedmont Rockdale Rome South Georgia Southern Southwestern Stone Mountain Tallapoosa Tifton Toombs Waycross Western 3,473 4,380 1,168 15,393 2,905 3,258 1,287 2,202 3,237 2,871 2,680 5,055 2,813 1,618 2,857 2,346 2,539 1,028 3,942 1,927 2.352 2,205 1,082 2,621 3,298 1,073 1,196 2,672 1,603 2,978 1,700 1,329 1,209 1,781 740 2,732 1,108 2,828 1,901 7,436 2,328 1,292 1,887 1,451 1,526 3.399 3,970 943 14,379 3,072 3,518 1,254 2,481 3,106 3,112 2,711 4,820 2,743 1,539 2,781 2,039 2,091 1,011 4,106 2,047 2.319 2,089 1,080 2,513 3.386 1,157 1,039 2,946 1,511 2,983 1,607 1,302 1,083 1,729 722 2,663 1,026 2,726 1,860 7,624 2,182 1,434 1,748 1,447 1,501 1,336 1,494 370 12,903 853 1,889 1,008 1,866 2,136 1,013 1,918 4,194 1,061 726 2,154 1,264 751 580 2,917 723 1,455 1,881 725 1,171 2,098 863 684 1,340 909 1,684 665 1,023 629 898 488 750 625 1,722 804 4,527 863 787 483 1,032 1,094 1,294 1,292 292 11,901 986 2,105 971 2,099 2,038 1,139 1,931 3,963 993 661 2,100 894 584 589 3,089 748 1,369 1,765 740 1,088 2,210 944 555 1,464 812 1,643 656 989 545 882 469 702 551 1,606 788 4,711 744 897 427 1,049 1,002 Totals Averageper judge * 119,307 780 116,799 763 70,356 460 68,277 446 Based on 153 superior court judgeships. Misdemeanor Filed Disposed 2,008 2,390 608 31 1,852 478 32 115 877 876 73 122 1,077 552 364 367 1,258 245 0 522 682 0 275 987 243 21 318 1,221 247 1,174 817 33 438 523 71 1,631 103 252 486 30 1,137 305 1,163 247 108 1,976 2,187 461 19 1,886 5 " "~~ 36 162 844 991 91 118 1,075 538 342 430 977 219 0 564 735 0 258 962 219 24 290 1,371 257 1,220 733 31 396 487 70 1,610 95 266 461 34 1,110 337 1,081 222 175 26,359 172 25,882 169 Probation Revocation Filed Disposed 129 496 190 2,459 200 891 247 221 224 982 689 739 675 340 339 715 530 203 1,025 682 215 324 82 463 957 189 194 III 447 120 218 273 142 360 181 351 380 854 611 2,879 328 200 241 172 324 129 491 190 2,459 200 891 247 220 224 982 689 739 675 340 339 715 530 203 1,017 735 215 324 82 463 957 189 194 III 442 120 218 282 142 360 183 351 380 854 611 2,879 328 200 240 176 324 22,592 148 22,640 148 Nineteenth Annual Report 10 Superior Court Caseload, Calendar Year 1991 (Docket entries) Total Civil Filed Disposed General Civil Filed Disposed Domestic Relations Filed Disposed 2.078 4.179 1.529 11.600 3.927 9.676 2.717 4.851 6.621 3,473 4.181 8.916 3.899 2.164 5.640 4.136 2.830 2,915 5.516 4.189 4.909 8.187 3,409 4,483 4,687 2.850 2.293 4.072 3.205 4.622 2,129 3.500 1,820 2.663 1,617 3.044 2.948 5,611 2.039 10,%7 3.349 1.863 1,530 3,409 3.174 2.250 4.201 1,431 11.194 3.862 9,582 2,556 5.539 7.065 3,461 4.299 9.038 4.210 1.970 4.832 3.939 3,381 2.773 5.785 3.714 4,462 7.821 3,146 4.380 4.587 3.250 2.277 4,005 2.903 4.178 1,861 3.554 1.642 2,703 1.564 3,184 2.736 5.329 1.997 13.783 3,422 2.034 1,521 3,434 3.193 905 1.367 635 4.104 835 1.904 730 1.515 1,754 1.700 777 2.169 1,419 837 1.839 8% 1.565 847 1.999 1,860 1.938 3,097 658 973 1,790 924 745 1,306 955 2.139 738 946 532 1.007 617 1.201 741 1.870 862 1.985 1.605 942 552 1.625 1.267 981 1,363 572 3.863 901 1.897 733 1.916 2,055 1.641 800 2.221 1.684 824 1.551 8% 2,042 866 2.276 1,578 1.692 2,787 555 1.043 1.866 1.050 806 1.290 958 2.071 614 987 468 1,029 604 1,264 759 1,760 868 2.824 1.691 990 563 1.630 1.265 1.173 2.812 894 7.4% 3.092 7,772 1.987 3.336 4.867 1.773 3,404 6.747 2,480 1.327 3.801 3.240 1.265 2.068 3,517 2.329 2.971 5,090 2,751 3.510 2,897 1.926 1,548 2.766 2.250 2,483 1,391 2.554 1.288 1.656 1.000 1.843 2.207 3,741 1.177 8.982 1.744 921 978 1.784 1.907 1.269 2.838 859 7.331 2.961 7,685 1.823 3.623 5.010 1.820 3,499 6.817 2,526 1,146 3.281 3.043 1,339 1.907 3,509 2.136 2.770 5.034 2.591 3.337 2.721 2.200 1,471 2,715 1.945 2.107 1,247 2.567 1.174 1,674 960 1.920 1.977 3.569 1.129 10.959 1,731 1.044 958 1.804 1.928 187,417 1,225 188,048 1,229 60,672 397 62,094 406 126,745 828 125,954 823 Total Caseload Flied Disposed 5.551 8.559 2.697 26.993 6.832 12.934 4.004 7,053 9.858 6.344 6.861 13.971 6.712 3.782 8,497 6.482 5.369 3.943 9,458 6.116 7.261 10.392 4,491 7.104 7.985 3.923 3,489 6,744 4.808 7.600 3.829 4.829 3,029 4,444 2.357 5.776 4.056 8.439 3.940 18.403 5.677 3.155 3,417 4.860 4.700 5,649 8.171 2,374 25.573 6.934 13,100 3.810 8.020 10.171 6.573 7.010 13.858 6.953 3.509 7.613 5.978 5,472 3,784 9.891 5.761 6,781 9.910 4.226 6.893 7.973 4.407 3,316 6.951 4,423 7,161 3,468 4,856 2.725 4,432 2.286 5.847 3,762 8.055 3,857 21.407 5.604 3,468 3.269 4,881 4.694 306,724 2,005 304,856 1,993 Total Open Caseload 2,315 3.678 1.827 12.680 1.294 5.843 2,476 3.203 3.534 2.817 2.189 4.709 3.394 1.199 3,486 2.083 3.622 1.541 3.860 4.274 4.176 3,012 1.724 2.821 3.181 2.182 1.309 2.932 2,465 2.702 1.352 726 1.502 1.956 917 2,374 1.242 3.321 1.109 4,354 2.906 2,198 1,371 2.016 2.074 125,946 823 Fiscal Year 1992 11 Superior Courts CY 19R7 5-year trend : total filings! disposition s CY 1988 CY 1989 CY I990 CYI 991 306.724 300 .000 5-year trend: civil filings! dispositions 224.621 ." ." ." ." .:< 260.398 ." ." ." 234.946 270.000 240 .000 188.048 190.000 144.081 150,460 .... 162.429 176.722 170.000 150 .000 5-year trend: crimin al filings! di spo sition s 5-year trend : average per judge, total filings! dispositions 80.290 1.640 119.307 130.000 110,000 90.000 1.980 2,005 1.993 2.000 1.800 1.600 Filings - - - - - CY 1987 CY 1988 Dispositions - - - - CY 1989 CYI990 Nineteenth Annual Report 12 CYI991 State Courts A 1970 legislative act established Georgia's state court system by designating as such certain existing countywide courts of limited jurisdiction. In counties where they are located. these courts may exercise jurisdiction over all misdemeanor violations. including traffic cases. and all civil actions. regardless of the amount claimed. unless the superior court has exclusive jurisdiction. State courts are authorized by statute to hold hearings regarding applications for and issuance of search and arrest warrants and to hold preliminary hearings. These courts may also punish contempt by imposing a fine of up to $500 and/or a sentence of up to 20 days in jail. The Georgia Constitution grants state courts the authority to review lower court decisions. if this power is provided by statute. Specified in the Uniform Rules for State Courts. procedures in the state courts generally parallel those of the superior courts. The General Assembly may create new state courts by local act in counties where none exists. In the same manner. the legislature also establishes the number of judges to preside in state courts and whether the judges arc to be full or part-time. Part-time judges are permitted to practice law. except in their own courts. In fiscal year 1992. 62 state courts operated in 63 counties. Georgia's only multi-county state court serves Cherokee and Forsyth counties. Of the 88 judgeships authorized. 87 were filled; 43 were full-time and 44 were part-time. One additional part-time state court judgeship was authorized for Hall County by the 1992 legislature. State court judges are elected to four-year terms in nonpartisan. countywide elections. Candidates must be at least 25 years old. have been admitted to practice law for at least five years. and have lived in the state for at least three years. If a vacancy occurs in a state court judgeship. the governor may fill the office by appointment. Calendar or fiscal year 1991 filings and dispositions are listed in the table on the following page for 35 courts that voluntarily submitted caseload data. Fiscal Year 1992 13 State Court Caseload, 1991 Reporting Year (Docket entries) County Reporting Year Misdemeanor Filed Disposed Traffic Filed Disposed Civil Filed Disposed Total Filed Disposed Baldwin FY Bibb CY Bryan FY Burke CY Carroll FY Chatham FY Chattooga CY Cherokee' FY Clayton FY Cobb CY Coffee CY Coweta FY Decatur FY De Kalb CY Early FY Effingham FY Elbert FY Evans CY Fulton FY Glynn FY Gwinnett FY Hall FY Houston FY Jefferson CY Jenkins FY Liberty FY Lowndes CY Richmond FY Screven FY Stephens FY Sumter FY Thomas CY Toombs FY Troup FY Wayne CY 2.370 7.221 329 641 550 2.153 879 14.408 7.364 1.021 641 7.656 147 500 541 14.895 2.269 6.393 2.295 332 130 2.160 4,434 306 461 907 1,435 541 2,301 783 1.953 4.136 6.154 3.601 219 4.722 602 2.563 4% 5.558 2.071 1.012 756 2.070 10.753 13.673 23.347 9.652 102.614 3.994 768 6.313 1.164 8.229 4.093 139 1.316 466 3.144 408 966 612 12,343 23.724 9.257 2.234 1,342 5.584 7.893 2,332 12.598 328 1.841 118 1.592 2.059 8.267 13.815 3,466 18,459 277 1.306 321 1.159 934 1,515 21 2.124 495 1.634 2.175 4.849 695 ._ _I_IOL 3.539 3.601 6.188 2,469 5,577 974 1.853 9.869 22.744 133.318 3,125 5.556 1.728 2.780 1.290 2.822 663 603 11.312 8.225 1.156 7.793 11.674 1.825 1.569 8.267 12.756 13.637 1.268 852 1.515 52 1,550 4.849 1.002 3 1,348 74 149 664 2.512 89 1.304 7.162 24.773 281 550 66 62.209 26 1% 61 31 97.113 238 6,154 928 895 65 16 150 438 801 31 203 81 100 66 333 106 I 1.337 40 30 497 3.105 49 972 6,364 30.043 166 267 38 33.264 26 135 40 II 32.940 157 5.840 588 956 59 16 95 333 293 23 103 71 18 45 221 53 6,509 12.170 5.125 3,353 6.772 5.677 3.038 12.057 44.917 134.751 4.275 7.884 1.871 73.958 1,489 3.840 1,568 643 135.732 9,495 9.765 15.214 15.788 2.238 1.738 10.577 14.253 23.694 1.643 1.823 2.503 3.659 2.241 7,483 1.992 5,493 11.092 6,447 3.101 6.570 6.150 2.658 10.841 42.781 173.013 3.291 6,591 1.766 44.273 1,455 3,423 1,111 614 56.595 8.382 9.230 13.%5 14.962 2.2]2 1.703 10,421 13.089 17,396 1,568 1.276 2,520 91 2.090 7.245 1.750 Totals 86,063 78,968 294,456 298,001 209,216 118,196 589,735 495,165 Note: 35 of 62 courts submitted data for this report. These counties did not separate misdemeanor from traffic cases in the casecount of criminal actions. 1 Cherokee and Forsyth counties comprise one court; data submitted by Cherokee County only. Nineteenth Annual Report 14 Juvenile Courts The purpose of Georgia's juvenile courts is to protect the well-being of children, to provide guidance and control conducive to a child's welfare and the best interests of the state and to secure as nearly as possible care equivalent to parental care for a child removed from the home. The juvenile court's exclusive original jurisdiction extends to cases involving delinquent and unruly children under the age of 17 and deprived children under the age of 18. Juvenile courts have concurrent jurisdiction with superior courts in cases involving capital felonies, custody and child support cases. and in proceedings conducted to terminate parental rights. The superior court has the authority to terminate parental rights in adoption proceedings. These courts administer supervision and probation cases for those persons under 21 who were sentenced for a delinquent offense com milled before age 17. In addition, the juvenile court has jurisdiction over cases involving enlistment in the military services and consent to marriage for minors and cases that fall under the Interstate Compact on Juveniles. Most cases appealed from the juvenile courts are heard by the Court of Appeals. although they may be heard by the Supreme Court, depending on the specific mailer. There are eighteen full-time and 40 part-time juvenile court judges. In counties or circuits with no separate juvenile court judge, superior court judges hear juvenile cases. Forty-two associate judges, who must be admitted to the State Bar or have graduated from law school, serve in 42 counties to assist the juvenile or superior court judge with handling cases. Like the other trial courts, juvenile courts adhere to a set of uniform rules concerning procedures. In all cases, except in Floyd County, juvenile court judges are appointed by superior court judges of the circuit for either a four- or six-year term. (The juvenile court judge of Floyd County is elected.) Judges must be at least 30 years of age, have practiced law for five years and have lived in Georgia for three years. Full-time judges cannot practice law while holding office. State law requires that juvenile court judges participate in one annual continuing education seminar sponsored by the Council of Juvenile Court Judges in conjunction with the Institute of Continuing Judicial Education. Juvenile court filings and dispositions for calendar year 1991 are presented in the table on the following pages for 109 counties that submitted caseload data. Fiscal Year 1992 15 Juvenile Court Caseload, Calendar Year 1991 (Number of children) County Appling Bacon Baker Baldwin Banks Barrow Bartow Ben Hill Bleckley Brantley Bryan Bulloch Burke Calhoun Candler Charlton Chattahoochee Chattooga Cherokee Clay Clinch Cobb Columbia Crawford Crisp Dawson Decatur DeKalb* Dodge Dooly Echols Effingham Elbert Emanuel Evans Fannin Franklin Fulton Gilmer Glascock Grady Greene Gwinnett Habersham Hancock Haralson Harris Hart Houston Irwin Jackson Jasper Jefferson Jenkins Johnson Jones Lee Liberty Lincoln Long Delinquent Filed Disposed 112 37 5 256 24 184 439 137 48 31 86 184 173 27 9 35 II 68 207 7 21 2,028 446 23 210 45 124 5,006 83 78 4 129 114 40 85 35 36 6,531 24 6 61 41 1,409 74 12 49 54 58 501 11 143 29 41 19 23 34 73 468 7 25 98 36 5 246 23 170 380 119 45 21 87 175 151 24 9 27 61 63 167 6 18 1,612 411 31 236 37 135 62 66 4 126 108 38 86 26 35 4,075 28 5 54 37 980 67 II 53 129 52 443 9 140 29 40 19 16 120 234 475 II 22 Unruly Flied Disposed 30 23 8 5 I I 26 25 6 6 64 62 128 106 30 23 7 7 9 5 37 28 34 33 7 6 3 3 0 0 4 4 19 16 47 20 134 117 0 0 4 3 666 548 III 100 3 0 51 47 14 14 17 II 1,261 12 12 7 7 I I 38 37 19 17 5 5 30 20 5 2 9 8 516 321 32 26 0 0 23 23 3 3 398 349 30 26 2 2 17 10 50 45 3 2 234 206 3 3 28 24 5 5 9 9 6 6 16 12 12 12 59 55 204 191 3 2 II 10 Traffic Filed Disposed 4 0 0 48 7 39 119 6 4 0 16 43 10 4 0 0 I 38 237 I 2 1,656 135 6 14 2 15 1,420 16 4 0 84 44 I II 0 14 1,292 0 4 17 18 1,124 33 2 18 15 16 236 11 27 17 5 4 3 34 12 76 8 12 3 0 0 45 7 38 99 6 3 0 15 42 9 3 0 0 3 35 215 I 2 1,536 144 18 14 2 15 II 4 0 84 44 I 10 0 13 1,089 0 2 17 18 1,010 33 2 16 56 15 231 II 31 18 5 4 3 119 68 93 14 15 Deprived Filed Disposed 38 32 24 8 0 0 113 33 5 3 45 20 211 180 8 9 6 6 34 27 32 34 22 17 48 39 0 0 8 6 22 12 I 9 31 23 218 173 9 9 4 3 787 674 24 29 18 32 75 68 18 14 28 46 1,281 6 4 31 25 0 0 32 28 23 10 16 15 30 25 13 9 25 20 582 385 7 7 0 0 16 14 0 0 301 283 92 75 10 10 62 57 9 27 14 3 500 481 21 8 16 12 52 45 27 21 10 10 22 20 40 120 19 53 148 147 7 II 13 7 Special Proceedings Filed Disposed II 7 6 5 7 7 5 5 2 2 56 37 77 69 0 0 9 8 0 0 I I 6 5 19 18 3 3 3 4 12 II 0 I 0 0 81 69 7 7 7 5 193 157 I I 0 0 I I 0 0 0 0 72 5 2 17 II 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 I 0 3 0 759 549 0 0 2 2 21 21 0 0 580 450 I 0 I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 52 0 0 2 0 6 5 7 7 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Caseload Filed Disposed 195 75 13 446 44 388 974 178 74 70 167 289 257 37 20 73 20 166 877 24 38 5,330 707 47 348 75 181 9,040 122 137 8 283 203 62 152 54 87 9,680 55 12 138 62 3,812 228 27 144 102 91 1,537 46 212 109 89 61 64 112 121 850 24 58 163 54 13 354 41 327 834 157 69 53 165 272 223 33 19 54 90 141 741 23 31 4,527 685 81 366 67 207 91 113 8 275 182 59 141 37 76 6,419 61 9 129 58 3,072 201 26 136 257 72 1,413 31 207 102 82 61 51 371 410 906 38 54 Nineteenth Annual Report 16 Juvenile Court Caseload, Calendar Year 1991 (Number of children) County Lumpkin Macon Madison Marion McDuffie Mcintosh Mitchell Montgomery Morgan Murray Oconee Oglethorpe Paulding Peach Pickens Pierce Polk Pulaski Putnam Rabun Randolph Richmond Schley Screven Stephens Stewart Talbot Taliaferro Tattnall Taylor Telfair Terrell Tift Toombs Towns Treutlen Turner Twiggs Union Warren Washington Webster Wheeler White Whitfield Wilcox Wilkes Wilkinson Worth Delinquent Filed Disposed 53 79 52 26 106 52 95 20 57 154 44 15 169 98 27 36 163 36 18 38 30 1.591 14 72 84 30 19 0 102 12 82 119 310 92 3 37 71 47 46 25 141 8 13 29 351 18 26 19 181 61 197 49 44 98 51 86 17 84 164 34 15 177 197 23 25 154 91 16 29 30 1,430 52 69 73 75 24 0 100 32 79 106 282 89 3 34 60 III 40 24 129 II 13 20 277 17 23 56 116 Unruly Filed Disposed 24 12 46 33 4 2 12 12 44 39 30 17 10 8 2 I 7 7 145 99 25 22 2 2 96 80 47 43 35 32 12 9 66 61 33 25 I 0 9 8 I I 338 333 13 13 17 17 13 II 32 29 14 14 0 I 32 29 2 1 31 31 18 18 142 100 6 5 2 2 14 13 17 II 33 33 7 7 2 2 10 10 5 5 I I 40 17 240 203 0 0 2 I 2 2 122 59 Totnls 25,190 16,980 6,317 4,1+1 Note: 109 of 159 counties submitted data for this report. * Data reported is based on charges: disposition data not available. Traffic Filed Disposed 0 0 12 29 52 51 6 15 42 31 10 16 19 20 2 2 29 32 16 16 25 22 6 5 33 36 2 2 2 4 8 8 II 9 0 0 I 1 9 9 1 I 100 93 8 17 3 3 48 43 3 10 2 5 1 1 22 23 II 27 10 10 4 4 57 55 6 7 3 3 II II 18 16 5 25 17 17 7 0 0 0 5 7 0 0 9 2 187 165 4 4 II 10 5 14 48 43 7,876 6,216 Deprived Filed Disposed 22 13 44 92 20 7 13 14 5 4 24 28 18 28 4 3 26 22 69 59 17 II 12 5 18 18 40 152 25 21 21 15 86 87 4 6 63 6 18 7 19 19 379 325 29 47 19 10 66 54 9 26 9 13 I I 27 26 39 89 7 7 23 27 33 27 63 68 7 3 10 2 20 18 7 27 9 7 2 2 16 21 0 2 0 0 18 19 195 161 4 3 13 II 44 62 21 11 6,892 5,124 Special Proceedings Filed Disposed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 11 4 4 0 0 3 2 0 0 5 2 21 16 10 9 0 3 0 0 0 0 19 15 I I 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 I 60 53 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 56 55 4 4 I I 0 0 0 0 8 5 0 0 I I 0 0 4 4 0 0 142 125 2 I 4 4 0 0 0 0 Total Caseload Filed Disposed 90 158 128 48 212 113 142 31 119 339 132 45 298 146 86 96 318 50 83 76 53 2,468 56 113 208 57 39 3 182 64 130 161 511 222 19 73 123 71 87 36 168 16 18 68 1,115 28 56 69 334 86 351 109 85 183 116 142 25 145 340 105 36 314 394 80 72 312 122 23 55 52 2,234 129 101 181 140 56 6 178 149 127 156 464 224 15 61 105 196 76 28 161 25 18 58 931 25 49 134 229 2,445 1,874 48,720 34,338 Fiscal Year 1992 17 Probate Courts Located in each of Georgia's 159 counties. the probate court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction in the probate of wills. the administration of estates, the appointment of guardians and the involuntary hospitalization of incapacitated adults and other dependent individuals. If provided by statute, probate judges may serve a" election superintendent, appoint persons to fill public offices. administer oaths of office, issue marriage licenses. hold habeas corpus hearings or preside over criminal preliminary hearings. In those counties where there is no state court, probate courts may also hear traffic cases and try violations of state game and fish laws. unless there is a demand for a jury trial, in which instance a case would be transferred to the superior court. In counties with a population greater than 100.000 and where the probate judge has practiced law for at least seven years. a party to a civil case has the right to a jury trial if so asserted by a written demand with the first pleading. Appeals from such civil cases may be to the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals. depending on the particular matter. Most probate court judges are elected to four-year terms in countywide. partisan elections. A candidate for office must be at least 25 years of age. a high school graduate. a U.S. citizen and a county resident for at least two years preceding the election. In counties with a population over 100.000. candidates must fulfill additional qualifications concerning age and practice of law. Newly elected or appointed judges must complete an initial training course in probate matters. All judges are required to attend annual continuing education courses and seminars approved by the Executive Probate Judges Council and the Institute of Continuing Judicial Education. Fiscal year 1992 criminal caseload data voluntarily submitted by 46 of the 96 probate courts exercising criminal jurisdiction and civil caseload data voluntarily submitted by 85 probate courts are presented in the tables on the follov..'ing pages. Nineteenth Annual Report 18 Probate Court Criminal Caseload, Fiscal Year 1992 (Docket entries) County Baker Banks Barrow Bartow Ben Hill Brantley Butts Crawford Dawson Echols' Fannin Fayette Glascock' Grady Greene Haralson Henry Jasper Jones Laurens' Lee Macon McDuffie Monroe' Morgan' Murray' Oconee Oglethorpe Paulding' Peach' Polk Randolph Seminole Telfair Terrell Thomas Towns' Turner Union Upson' Walton Wheeler White Whitfield' Wilkes' Wilkinson Misdemeanor Filed Disposed 0 2 86 100 0 0 350 350 33 38 58 58 133 124 80 40 83 74 0 0 123 106 38 ~------~-O---~ 26 0 57 117 109 98 100 67 59 83 0 0 64 47 132 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 106 250 250 180 180 0 0 0 0 296 162 0 0 41 41 0 0 57 57 53 53 114 92 27 29 44 42 0 0 82 73 38 10 106 98 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 48 Traffic Filed Disposed 681 674 992 1,065 3,231 3,231 5,696 5,705 908 764 924 924 1,523 1,561 1,336 1,338 1,096 1,068 184 185 601 553 2,251 2,170 146 136 0 0 1,279 1,211 2,761 2,297 4,008 4,039 667 667 2,988 2,318 3,083 2,564 1,891 1,977 958 705 2,547 2,548 8,928 7,962 5,146 5,173 1,868 1,868 2,144 1,922 642 646 768 471 3,014 3,014 2,056 2,010 1,200 1,200 1,243 1,238 936 948 1,416 1,426 0 0 219 185 5,030 3,638 560 536 1,256 1,115 3,325 3,281 639 639 763 468 4,026 4,026 248 284 243 196 Toto/s 2,991 2,683 85,421 79,946 Note: 46 of 96 courts with criminal jurisdiction submitted data for this report. , These counties reported for three of four quarters for this fiscal year. , These counties reported for one of four quarters for this fiscal year. , These counties reported for two of four quarters for this fiscal year. , This county reported for three of four quarters of calendar year 1991. Total Caseload Filed Disposed 681 676 1,078 1,165 3,231 3,231 6,046 6,055 941 802 982 982 1,656 1,685 1,416 1,378 1,179 1,142 184 185 724 659 2,289 2,196 146 136 57 117 1,388 1,309 2,861 2,364 4,067 4,122 667 667 3,052 2,365 3,215 2,668 1,891 1,977 958 705 2,547 2,548 9,054 8,068 5,396 5,423 2,048 2,048 2,144 1,922 642 646 1,064 633 3,014 3,014 2,097 2,051 1,200 1,200 1,300 1,295 989 1,001 1,530 1,518 27 29 263 227 5,030 3,638 642 609 1,294 1,125 3,431 3,379 647 647 763 468 4,026 4,026 248 284 307 244 88,412 82,629 Fiscal Year 1992 19 Probate Court Civil Caseload, Fiscal Year 1992 (Docket entries) County No Administration Probate Administration Necessary Common Solemn Year's Habeas Guardianship Support Hospitalization Corpus Licenses Marriage Pistol Baker Baldwin' Banks Barrow Bartow Ben Hill Bibb Brantley Bryan Bulloch Butts' Candler' Cherokee Clarke Clayton Oinch' Cobb Coffee' Colquitt Coweta Crawford Dawson Decatur DeKaib Dougherty' Douglas Early' Echols' Emanuel Evans Fannin Fayette Forsyth Glascock' Glynn' Grady Greene Gwinnett! Hall Haralson Henry Houston Jackson' Jasper Jeff Davis Jones Laurens' Lee Liberty Long Lowndes Macon McDuffie Mitchell Monroe' Morgan' Murray' Muscogee' Oconee Oglethorpe 1 0 7 8 9 4 18 4 30 7 15 2 70 26 6 1 10 2 27 5 10 1 4 1 38 16 23 9 70 21 1 0 205 41 16 6 II 13 33 9 7 I 10 I 21 0 599 79 25 7 33 9 7 0 I I 16 7 11 2 16 8 15 8 20 I I 2 67 4 38 10 22 4 42 20 69 4 34 0 46 16 52 18 11 3 2 0 11 2 12 6 15 13 7 3 46 0 2 0 41 15 9 3 13 4 11 5 6 4 4 12 15 3 130 19 I 2 17 8 1 14 0 0 13 3 58 40 2 186 0 30 8 8 7 0 66 31 7 22 0 136 58 6 82 3 38 6 4 11 25 437 90 45 40 0 23 12 1 0 1 20 IS 3 12 3 103 23 4 18 2 34 5 6 8 1 13 2 0 0 12 145 47 26 42 4 118 81 8 66 17 259 349 50 50 1 6 3 1 0 31 728 514 74 144 3 65 21 4 0 4 118 9 6 10 2 114 59 25 44 I 15 12 2 0 I 22 8 4 4 5 78 14 3 10 131 768 1,052 131 394 4 158 70 6 106 5 142 51 29 2 0 18 7 3 2 0 3 I 0 0 4 56 18 2 41 0 14 7 I 8 0 31 21 8 0 4 97 49 19 0 2 101 16 10 0 0 7 7 0 I 15 154 57 63 21 2 43 55 2 47 6 22 10 3 17 15 270 131 13 0 9 229 54 20 68 I 53 17 4 24 13 142 94 24 31 2 172 113 6 75 2 37 13 8 0 3 22 6 1 5 0 22 5 0 0 4 53 18 2 12 2 63 22 8 59 3 21 28 0 28 3 64 173 2 29 0 10 3 I 0 6 168 43 17 34 4 26 7 13 4 I 68 36 9 17 2 49 6 I 9 7 23 10 3 3 2 23 16 11 10 0 33 18 7 11 21 443 165 90 70 4 25 14 0 5 0 28 23 7 16 3 19 26 0 249 201 0 68 67 0 192 194 0 434 488 0 177 64 1 1,623 533 0 121 53 0 116 172 0 338 186 0 81 63 0 44 6 0 506 472 1 562 279 0 2,160 849 0 35 9 15 4,201 1,966 0 320 152 0 323 103 0 504 386 0 61 53 0 83 90 0 201 74 27 3,366 1,998 0 702 408 0 835 438 4 36 55 0 10 5 0 192 260 0 87 86 0 114 120 0 491 419 0 429 365 0 19 16 0 564 317 0 159 64 0 70 59 I 1,605 1,038 0 882 436 0 248 178 I 500 497 0 865 495 0 160 77 0 39 51 0 154 59 0 146 124 0 287 262 0 154 152 0 642 104 0 39 25 0 897 291 65 90 72 0 149 104 0 144 89 0 107 71 0 87 71 0 175 151 0 1,928 417 0 144 143 0 96 74 Total Civil 32 304 66 148 319 79 734 43 63 183 66 21 326 310 816 12 1,752 115 I7I 286 38 50 131 3,181 376 271 41 6 144 43 84 192 150 18 381 197 84 492 453 133 367 438 74 39 40 107 182 90 317 16 324 131 148 83 56 78 87 938 51 99 Nineteenth Annual Report 20 Probate Court Civil Caseload, Fiscal Year 1992 (Docket entries) County No Administration Probate Administration Necessary Common Solemn Year's Habeas Guardianship Support Hospitalization Corpus Licenses Marriage Pistol Paulding' Peach' Polk Randolph' Richmond Seminole Spalding Tattnall' Telfair Terrell Thomas Tift Towns' Troup' Turner Union Walton Ware Washington Wheeler White Whitfield' Wilkes' Wilkinson Worth 13 3 5 0 27 2 14 3 140 53 10 4 25 13 20 2 5 I 12 I 31 8 18 3 4 I 21 6 12 8 11 2 48 8 29 16 7 4 I 2 4 3 24 20 I 0 13 I 17 0 I 71 31 5 0 0 26 3 I 0 2 103 17 3 66 1 33 4 0 0 33 393 147 145 140 I 38 9 0 8 2 142 54 23 62 0 45 24 7 10 I 26 4 I 0 4 34 9 I 0 I 125 12 4 487 0 57 11 3 15 0 17 0 0 0 13 124 28 9 37 I 44 20 0 14 7 13 20 6 0 7 104 41 17 50 4 103 40 18 27 3 31 3 0 I 0 4 3 0 0 4 38 2 I 26 2 133 29 3 44 0 15 6 0 5 0 24 6 I 22 0 43 16 I 24 0 225 137 0 51 38 0 238 183 0 58 65 0 2,433 820 0 596 43 I 555 264 0 129 105 0 80 65 0 84 115 0 380 115 0 403 154 0 58 55 0 384 333 0 68 49 0 103 44 8 289 242 0 374 170 0 60 23 0 27 20 0 155 75 0 330 238 0 20 2 0 55 80 0 176 110 Totals 2,621 644 484 8,084 4,382 1,062 2,956 127 36,361 19,622 Note: 85 of 159 probate courts submitted data for this report. , These counties reported for three of the four quarters of this fiscal year. 'These counties reported for two of the four quarters of this fiscal year. , These counties reported data for the period January Ito December 31, 1991. Total Civil 124 35 220 55 1,051 70 322 108 38 61 668 107 22 238 99 59 283 237 49 10 78 255 27 67 101 20,360 Fiscal Year 1992 21 Magistrate Courts A statewide system of magistrate courts was constitutionally created in 1983 to replace justice of the peace, small claims and other similar courts. A chief magistrate. who may be assisted by one or more magistrates, presides over each of the 159 magistrate courts in the state. Magistrate court jurisdiction encompasses civil trials for claims of $5,000 or less; issuing distress warrants and dispossessory writs; trials for county ordinance violations; trials for misdemeanor violations of bad check laws; holding preliminary hearings; and issuing summonses. arrest warrants and search warrants. Magistrates may grant bail in cases for which the setting of bail is not exclusively reserved to a judge of another court, administer oaths and issue subpoenas. as well as sentence and fine for contempt up to 10 days imprisonment and/or $200. No jury trials are held in magistrate court, and cases involving county ordinance violations in which the defendant submits a written request for a jury trial are removed to superior or state court. In addition to hearing cases, duties of the chief magistrate include assignment of cases. setting of court sessions, appointment of other magistrates (with the consent of the superior court judges) and deciding disputes among other magistrates. Unless otherwise provided by local law, the number of magistrates in addition to the chief is set by majority vote of the county's superior court judges. Chief magistrates are either appointed or elected in partisan. countywide elections to serve for a term of four years. Terms for other magistrate judges run concurrently with that of the chief magistrate who appointed them. The authority to appoint a replacement if a vacancy occurs in the office of chief magistrate usually resides with a circuit's superior court judges. To qualify as candidates for magistrate office, persons must reside in the county for at least one year preceding their term of office, be 25 years of age. and have a high school diploma or its equivalent. New magistrates, unless they are active members of the State Bar. must complete an initial 40-hour course for certification and all magistrates must satisfy an annual 20-hour continuing education requirement. The Georgia Magistrate Courts Training Council formulates the curricula for the seminars and sets the standards for certification. and the training courses are coordinated by the Institute of Continuing Judicial Education. As provided by law, judges of other limited jurisdiction courts may also serve in the capacity of magistrate in the same county. At the end of fiscal year 1992,26 probate judges. three civil court judges. and three juvenile court judges and associate judges also served as chief magistrate or magistrate. Fiscal year 1992 magistrate court caseload is presented on the following pages for 131 counties submitting data. Submission of data is required by the Uniform Rules for the Magistrate Courts. Nineteenth Annual Report 22 Magistrate Court Caseload, Fiscal Year 1992 (Cases filed) County Bacon Baker' Baldwin' Banks Barrow Ben Hill Bernen Bibb Bleckley Brantley' Brooks Bryan' Bulloch Burke Camden Candler Carroll Catoosa Charlton Chatham Chattahoochee Chattooga' Cherokee Garke Gay' Gayton Ginch Cobb' Coffee Colquitt Columbia Coweta Crisp Dade Dawson Decatur DeKa1b' Dodge Dooly Dougherty' Douglas Early' Echols' Effingham Elbert Emanuel Evans Fannin Fayette' Floyd' Forsyth Franklin Fulton Glascock' Gordon Grady' Greene Gwinnett Hall Hancock Bond and Warrants Commitment Issued Hearings 554 17 2,047 499 1,972 1.261 999 5,526 809 238 575 617 5,357 1,154 1.736 596 2,782 2,312 475 9.870 153 981 5,153 10,614 97 11,316 366 9,424 4,532 2,406 1,484 3,659 1,992 803 561 1,098 14,532 1,213 527 3,447 4,363 609 41 1,164 1.394 966 481 535 677 3,868 1,904 978 16,967 30 3,643 1,008 609 9,766 1,978 314 377 12 117 50 936 597 0 5,725 375 123 372 134 200 362 929 301 3 585 419 4,027 135 183 2,139 2.860 38 15.178 10 9,077 82 234 292 13 1,031 544 337 454 28,006 0 120 1,431 166 108 0 136 432 596 229 121 570 1,133 553 622 27,036 4 640 242 853 3,836 5,677 234 Criminal Cases Filed Disposed 358 3 0 35 73 489 0 3,264 0 30 137 92 6 0 247 45 970 525 158 1,718 I 0 268 172 0 1,996 0 1,957 10 0 2,013 972 574 0 17 0 3,409 244 0 831 231 0 0 508 0 376 201 123 434 1,170 347 117 20,032 4 201 98 90 2,991 3,232 109 273 12 5 41 18 494 5 614 5 35 114 97 5 5 220 32 887 68 147 2,116 5 5 174 31 5 1,120 5 1,923 15 5 1,178 650 484 5 12 5 583 5 5 510 213 5 5 172 5 371 122 128 115 1,185 63 168 5 5 174 268 60 1,237 3,093 114 Civil Claims flied Disposed 436 21 2,070 182 604 812 443 3,552 253 169 364 404 1,347 734 427 241 2.152 506 875 7,043 47 305 1,567 1,528 29 2,400 224 1,797 1,147 1,760 1,231 1,786 866 112 493 802 3,710 511 438 1,668 1,146 374 15 352 472 598 210 310 552 1,835 534 587 6,936 37 1,855 438 641 4,373 2,145 668 291 5 2,070 185 265 675 361 4,640 274 155 191 378 2,341 704 326 183 1.767 611 583 4,918 42 160 2,327 1,349 27 2,283 204 1,598 133 114 1,088 1,319 706 136 457 145 1,771 344 326 1.389 830 212 14 252 460 598 89 244 423 1,120 534 570 2,655 18 1,526 422 720 4,080 2,980 668 Other Total Warrants Total Civil Cases and Hearings and flied Disposed Filings Disposi lions 232 11 1,715 86 602 631 236 1,963 211 28 198 81 701 357 290 114 1,454 413 100 10,177 19 93 1,584 1,961 14 11,239 64 1,034 822 737 533 1,185 687 65 56 335 62 238 136 2,383 1,946 97 0 196 345 296 139 62 446 1,984 354 245 44,024 10 915 195 331 8,752 2,015 242 222 11 1,766 89 633 630 204 1,963 209 35 193 75 690 259 278 113 1.383 409 100 10,224 18 93 1,593 1,994 15 10,730 64 1,034 815 737 495 1,173 679 66 50 323 53 240 136 1,715 1,935 100 1 244 348 298 135 66 518 1,976 336 244 46,413 10 909 192 319 8,851 2,067 244 1,580 52 5,832 802 3,251 3,193 1,678 14,305 1,273 465 1.274 1,194 7,411 2,245 2,700 996 7.358 3,756 1,608 28,808 220 1,379 8,572 14,275 140 26,951 654 14,212 6,511 4,903 5,261 7,602 4,119 980 1,127 2,235 21,713 2.206 1,101 8,329 7,686 1,080 56 2,220 2,211 2,236 1,031 1,030 2,109 8,857 3,139 1,927 87,959 81 6,614 1,739 1,671 25,882 9,370 1,333 1,163 40 3,958 365 1,852 2,396 570 12,942 863 348 870 684 3,236 1,330 1,753 629 4,040 1,673 1,249 21,285 200 441 6,233 6.234 85 29,311 283 13,632 1,045 1,090 3,053 3,155 2,900 751 856 927 30,413 589 587 5,045 3,144 425 20 804 1,245 1,863 575 559 1,626 5,414 1,486 1,604 76,109 37 3,249 1,124 1,952 18,004 13,817 1,260 F i s c a I Yea r I 992 23 Magistrate Court Caseload, Fiscal Year 1992 (Cases filed) County Bond and Warrants Commitment Issued Hearings Criminal Cases Filed Disposed Civil Claims Filed Disposed Haralson Harris Hart Henry Houston Irwin' Jasper Jeff Davis Jefferson' Jenkins Johnson Jones' Lamar Lanier Laurens Liberty Lincoln Long Lowndes Lumpkin Macon Madison Marion McDuffie Mcintosh Meriwether Miller Monroe Morgan Muscogee' Oglethorpe Paulding Peach Pickens Pierce Pike Pulaski Putnam Rabun Randolph Richmond Rockdale Schley' Seminole Spalding Stephens' Stewart Sumter Tallnall Telfair Terrell Thomas Tift Toombs' Towns' Troup Twiggs Union Upson Walker 893 844 825 1,658 12,716 168 342 592 759 455 417 542 631 666 3,322 3,258 182 298 6,677 606 539 777 158 1,004 6% 1,221 204 730 581 0 400 1,019 917 740 660 332 423 258 615 385 12,406 2,574 125 302 5,441 468 283 1,940 626 727 466 3,019 6.144 687 195 2,856 472 405 1,448 1,882 61 7 320 2,517 6,454 2 156 861 377 39 40 78 83 0 3,213 1,039 39 87 2,349 348 150 266 84 117 549 41 0 249 232 0 358 357 553 41 163 200 192 320 28 0 2,358 1,622 61 80 3,636 6 37 1,033 333 217 390 941 440 36 9 33 145 17 91 486 0 6 115 662 921 0 0 381 187 0 50 0 0 0 1,047 0 106 39 1,582 204 78 177 26 116 17 0 0 59 267 0 135 180 482 15 48 137 0 0 9 0 2,953 1,470 I 114 1,633 100 81 19 505 0 42 1,603 7 234 5 6 18 0 427 288 5 9 166 619 746 5 5 344 146 5 43 5 5 5 1,052 5 49 5 18 132 5 172 5 121 19 5 5 44 13 5 152 245 278 12 11 72 5 5 18 5 1,209 772 6 119 1,522 94 45 5 499 5 47 1,761 5 239 10 5 18 5 19 281 320 613 463 1,228 2,285 220 206 565 613 414 283 409 474 182 892 622 274 94 2,131 246 447 399 155 976 261 1,036 189 775 462 1,447 261 503 517 211 269 318 300 186 330 226 5,401 929 52 242 2,139 199 105 748 640 488 283 1,825 1,198 192 34 5,541 281 270 1,162 9% 170 554 456 1,316 2,161 220 218 549 588 299 270 324 498 84 719 561 9 94 694 91 290 255 163 882 349 1,036 0 757 415 258 265 612 176 176 I 318 189 141 409 226 2,358 612 22 175 1,935 53 69 773 272 406 276 1,647 338 164 51 4,502 251 143 721 680 Other Total Warrants Total Civil Cases and Hearings and Filed Disposed Filings Dispositions 182 259 330 786 3,023 126 129 358 382 169 134 162 254 68 841 7% 124 26 1,877 127 220 100 92 623 53 424 46 364 260 0 73 338 476 55 120 83 102 91 76 34 5,886 966 33 77 3,086 35 49 571 233 331 214 1,290 898 171 10 4,757 117 28 761 630 176 256 326 814 2,358 113 129 356 382 169 132 184 261 76 826 820 95 21 1,834 117 212 95 91 612 49 419 46 355 222 0 70 396 484 48 116 83 46 91 77 55 5,880 803 27 70 3,108 35 46 548 233 328 214 1,302 846 84 10 5,435 121 28 759 563 1,395 1,722 1,733 4,334 18,945 514 677 1,8% 1,941 1,038 884 1,113 1,359 916 6,102 4,676 686 457 12,267 1,183 1,284 1,453 431. 2.719 1,027 2,681 439 1,928 1,570 1,447 869 2,040 2,392 1,021 1,097 870 825 535 1,030 645 26,646 5,939 211 735 12,299 802 518 3,278 2,004 1,546 1,005 7,737 8,247 1,284 244 13,160 888 703 3,798 3,796 412 826 1,268 5,266 11,719 340 508 2,110 1,493 512 485 591 847 165 5,810 2,425 192 207 4,895 688 657 788 343 1,732 966 1,501 51 1,405 882 263 845 1,610 1,491 277 291 673 432 557 532 286 11,805 3,809 116 444 10,201 188 197 2,359 1,337 956 927 5,651 1,629 523 80 9,975 535 193 1,590 2,010 Nineteenth Annual Report 24 Magistrate Court Caseload, Fiscal Year 1992 (Cases filed) County Bond and Warrants Commitment Issued Hearings Criminal Cases Filed Disposed Civil Claims Filed Disposed Walton Ware' Warren Washington Wayne' Webster' Wheeler Whitfield Wilkes Wilkinson Worth 2,543 757 614 638 950 839 1,793 564 688 110 418 306 153 0 0 5 315 304 1.662 8 320 304 1,659 1,658 628 219 150 239 299 299 54 21 0 5 59 45 58 21 0 5 149 25 5.998 3 472 416 2.595 2,595 364 126 0 5 482 482 409 81 25 13 559 559 313 27 0 5 87 87 Other Total Warrants Total Civil Cases and Hearings and Filed Disposed Filings Dispositions 1,332 385 166 508 214 20 39 1,843 252 199 56 1,113 474 172 505 195 20 38 1,826 247 203 41 5,439 3,284 634 4,149 1,291 133 246 10,908 1,098 1,192 456 3,347 1,454 481 2.475 952 91 89 4,840 860 856 160 Totals 269,000 156,764 69,699 32,403 121,233 94,696 144,381 145,001 604,313 428,864 Note: 131 of 159 magistrate courts submitted data for this report. I These counties reported one of four quarters of data. 2 These counties reported three of four quarters of data. , These counties reported two of four quarters of data. This county reported data for civil caseload only. Other Courts Along with the two appellate and five classes of trial courts, approximately 400 local courts form the Georgia court system. Several special courts and numerous (390) courts serving incorporated municipalities operate under a variety of names with varying jurisdictions. Originally created by statute or constitutional provision, certain special courts have limited civil and criminal jurisdiction throughout the county. Such courts include the civil courts located in Bibb and Richmond counties and the Municipal Court of Columbus. Special courts authorized to exercise criminal jurisdiction only are the county recorder's courts of Chatham, DeKalb and Gwinnett counties and those of the consolidated govem- ment of Columbus-Muscogee County. At the local level, Georgia has courts of incorporated municipalities that try municipal ordinance violations, issue criminal warrants, conduct preliminary hearings, and may have concurrent jurisdiction over shoplifting cases and cases involving one ounce or less of marijuana. Although first established under various names (city courts, mayor's courts, municipal courts, police courts, recorder's courts), these courts were redesignated as municipal courts by the 1983 state constitution. (An exception is the City Court of Atlanta, which retains its original name.) Qualifications of judges and terms of office in municipal courts are set by local legislation. Fiscal Year 1992 25 JUDICIAL AGENCIES Judicial Council of Georgia Since its creation by statute in 1973, the Judicial Council has served the Georgia judiciary and citizens as the state-level judicial agency for coordinating administrative efforts for and recommending improvements in the state judicial system. An administrative arm of the Supreme Court since 1978, the council advises the legislature and the governor on the need for additional superior court judgeships by evaluating circuit caseloads. demographics and special circumstances. The council also responds to legislative directives and individual requests for studies and initiates projects to generate efficiencies in the state's courts. Twenty-four representatives of the appellate and trial courts serve on the Judicial Council. The Supreme Court's chief justice and presiding justice act as the chairperson and vice chairperson, respectively. The chief judge and another member of the Court of Appeals; the presidents and presidents-elect of the superior, state, juvenile, probate and magistrate court councils; and the 10 superior court district administrative judges complete the council's membership. The full council meets at least twice each year, as it did in December 1991 and June 1992, to consider its committees' recommendations regarding specific studies and ongoing projects. The council oversees the activities of the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Board of Court Reporting. The Judicial Council continued its contract with the 10 judicial administrative districts for district personnel to conduct the annual casecount. Raw data obtained by the districts was analyzed by the Administrative Office of the Courts and the results were submitted to the council for use in evaluating requests for additional superior court judgeships. In considering additional judgeships. the Judicial Council seeks a balanced and equitable distribution of superior court case load to promote speedy and fair trials. Recommendations are based on information that clearly and convincingly depicts the necessity of additional judicial personnel. The council compares a requesting circuit's situation. in terms of weighted caseload, average filings, jury trials, open caseload, population and days of senior judge assistance, to that of the remaining circuits. In fiscal year 1992, the council recommended to Gov. Zel1 Miller and the General Assembly the creation of 25 new superior court judgeships in the following 23 judicial circuits (they are listed in the council's recommended order of priority): Lookout Mountain (4th judgeship), Dougherty (3rd), Tallapoosa (3rd). Northeastern (4th), Griffin (4th), Conasauga (4th). Macon (5th), Cobb (8th), Western (3rd), Augusta (7th). Alcovy (3rd), Stone Mountain (lOth), Northern (3rd), Douglas (3rd), Piedmont (3rd). Ogeechee (3rd), Middle (3rd), Southern (5th), Chattahoochee (Sth), South Georgia (3rd), Mountain (3rd), Stone Mountain (II th), Brunswick (5th), Atlanta (16th) and Atlanta (17th). In addition. the council voted to recommend that the legislature split the Northeastern and Mountain Judicial Circuits and create a 46th circuit which was later named the Enotah Circuit. The 1992 General Assembly created the Enotah Circuit with two new judgeships. In addition, one new judgeship each was approved for Dougherty (3rd), Griffin (4th), Lookout Mountain (4th) and Tal1apoosa (3rd). The judgeships for Dougherty and Griffin remained unfilled due to a federal lawsuit challenging the way Georgia's superior court judges are elected. At the end of the 1992 fiscal year. the council authorized the Administrative Office of the Courts to study 1991 caseload data to determine the need for new superior court judgeships in answer to 14 requests pending at that time. At the end of the year there were 14 superior court judgeship positions unfilled due to the pending voting rights litigation. Fourteen other judgeships remained on the list as recommended by the Judicial Council in previous years but were not created by the General Assembly. Council policy allows previously recommended judgeships to remain on the list for two additional years assuming caseload data stays (relatively) the same. In each year from 1989 to 1992. the General Assembly created at least five judgeships from the council's recommended lists that grew longer each time. Lawmakers consistently followed the council's priority ranking. As a result, the council's ranking became more significant than ever. Lack of sufficient funding is one of the primary reasons lawmakers have not created al1 of the recommended judgeships. Nineteenth Annual Report 26 Administrative Office of the Courts The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) provides fiscal, communications, research and staff support services for the state court system and serves as liaison with other state and national judicial agencies. The AOC also serves as staff to the Judicial Council, working closely with its chairperson, the chief justice of the state Supreme Court. Fiscal support The administration and operations division performs fiscal support services that involve coordinating the judicial branch appropriations request and serving as accounting officer for 15 judicial agencies. The fiscal office performs payroll, accounts payable, cash management. purchasing, inventory control, personnel records and financial reporting functions for these agencies. In fiscal year 1992, the AOC managed 59 separate funding sources comprising all or part of six of the eight budget units in the judicial branch. These funding sources included 27 state fund allocations, 13 federal grants and 19 fee or other revenue accounts. Information exchange Information dissemination to judges, court support personnel and public and private judicial organizations comprised another facet of services. The exchange and release of information was accomplished primarily through the production of publications, including the Georgia Courts Journal, a periodical that informs readers of changes in court procedure, judicial personnel appointments and elections, recent legislation, court management activities and other events. During fiscal year 1992, five issues of the Journal were published and distributed to more than 3,000 local, state and national officials. The AOC prepared and distributed 10 weekly issues of the Judicial Legislative Log, a digest of court-related legislation, to approximately 800 judges, county officers and court administrative personnel during the 1992 session of the Georgia General Assembly. Legislation of interest to the judiciary was monitored and tracked. The AOC also produced the 1991-1992 Georgia Courts Directory, which contains address information for Georgia county, state and federal judicial branch officials, and distributed 2,800 copies at no cost to judicial branch personnel and at cost to attorneys and others. The judiciary's Eighteenth Annual Report on the Work of the Georgia Courts was produced and distributed to judges, court personnel and individuals seeking information on the state's court system. Twelve issues of the Public Relations Digest, abstracts of news and feature items about the judiciary, were compiled and circulated to members of the Judicial Council to gauge public opinion about court activities and to identify matters of concern. Other communications efforts included coordinating media relations and information releases pertaining to the Judicial Council's activities and providing public and media relations support for the Georgia Courts Automation Commission and the Georgia Court Futures project. Research, court services The research and court services division gathers sta- tistical, financial and other information on the work of the courts so that it can identify current and future needs and propose recommendations for improvement. The AOC responds to requests for studies from the General Assembly and the judicial community and initiates projects to fulfill its legislatively prescribed duty to serve the courts. The staff also responds to requests for information from national organizations, other states, Georgia court personnel and the public. Each year the staff supervises the collection of caseload and other data on the trial courts' work. Calendar year 1990 superior court caseload data submitted by district personnel was audited and analyzed in terms of circuit workloads and presented to the Judicial Council to formulate recommendations on the need for additional superior court judgeships. In-house computer programs were updated to prepare case load reports for trial courts, and a survey was made of the computer hardware and software used by the superior courts. In addition, the research staff generated 1990 census figures for use by the courts in preparing jury boxes. The calendar year 1991 salary survey was completed for all trial courts and included questions about salary, staffing and funding. For the first time, superior court clerks, probate judges and magistrates were asked about county retirement and health plans, and magistrate courts were surveyed about their budgets as well. A study of weighted caseload data, demographics, costs and travel was prepared for the proposed division of the Northeastern Circuit. The staff advised the Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts concerning the judgeship needs policies and Fiscal Year 1992 27 weighted caseload formula s used by Georgia. The staff also consulted with Cobb County concerning case automation needs. The staff ass isted the Georgia Courts Automation Commission in developin g a needs requ irement study for a case management sys tem and disposition reporting. A study was made of court reform in Georgia from 1966 to the present in conjunction with the Institute of Continuing Judici al Education specia lty course "Preparing Court Futures for Georgia." The staff also repre sented the agency concernin g court records retention with the State Records Committ ee. Duties of the Administrative Office of the Courts (OCGA 15524) t ) Consult with and assist judges, administrators, clerks of court and other offi cers and employees of the court perta ining to matters relating to court administration and provide such servi ces as are requested 2) Examine the administrat ive and busine ss method s and systems employed in the offices related to and serving the cou rts and make recommendations for neces sary impro vement 3) Compile statistical and financial data and other information on the jud icial work of the courts and on the work of other offices related to and serving the court s, which shall be provided by the courts 4) Examine the state of the dockets and practices and procedures of the courts and make recommendation s for the expedition of litigation 5) Act as fiscal officer and prepare and submit budget estimates of state appropriations necessary for the maintenance and operation of the judicial system 6) Perform such additional duties as may be assigned by the Judicial Council 7) Prepare and publish an annual report on the work of the court s and on the activities of the Administrative Offi ce of the Courts 8) Receive grants from any source , public or private , and expend funds and perform services in accordance with the terms of any grant 9) Prepare, publish and distribute, from time to time, studies and reports relating to the admin istration of ju stice, impose reasonable charges for such reports where appropriate on either an individual or subscription basis and retain any proceeds of such charge s 10) Provide clerical, technical, research or other assistance to individual court s to enable them more effect ively to discharge their dut ies II) Enter into contracts as necessary to perform its other duties. A presentation on court record s retention processes and scheduling was made to the Georgia Certified Court Reporters Association. The research and court services division prov ides support for the following organizatio ns: the Law-Related Education Consortium, composed of criminal justice and education field personne l who promote the incorporation of law-related education into school curricula; the Statistical Analysis Bureau, a joint effort between the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, state-leve l criminal ju stice agencies and Georgia State University to provide systematic research on Geor gia's criminal ju stice system using existing data from state age ncies; and the Child Abuse Task Force, an advisory committee responsible for federal grants for the prevention and treatment of child abuse. Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System AOC staff, adm inistrati ve and techn ical support was given to this Supreme Court-ordered commission as it investigated possible gender bias in the state jud iciary . The 30-member group included lawyers , judges, university deans, professors and community leaders from across the state. After two years of hearing s, research and evaluation, the commission presented a report to the Supreme Court and published its findings and recommendations. Two thousand copies of the report were distributed to the governor and lieutenant governor, members of the General Assembly , judges and others by request. Secretariat, publications, administrative services As required by statute, the AOC continued to provide secretariat services to related agencies and organizations: the Georgia Magistrate Courts Training Council, including updating the Council ofMagistrat e Court Judges Benchbook, serving on the training council, producing the council's newsl etter and coordinating the purchase and distribution of compact disc read ers and laptop computers. the Municipal Courts Training Council, including establishing training policies, implementing the first year of mandatory recertification training and preparing a directory of certified participants. the Board of Court Report ing, includ ing revising and updating the Georgia Certified Court Reporters Handbook , developing long-range plans for continuing education and administering certification tests. N i n e t e e n t h A n n ua l R e p ort 28 The AOC staff also provided staff assistance to: o the chief justice of the Supreme Court. o the Council of Superior Court Judges, in efforts to update judges' trial manuals and modify uniform rules for court procedures. The staff provided editorial and administrative support to the Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions and to the Benchbook Committee for their revisions to the charge books and benchbooks. Staff assisted the Uniform Rules Committee as it examined proposals for new and amended procedural rules. o the Executive Probate Judges Council, including assistance from the AOC's judicial liaison officer in developing training curricula; distributing the Uniform Forms; and coordinating the legislative, nominating, and scholarship committees. o the Councils of State and Probate Court Judges. o the Superior Court Clerks Training Council, concentrating on establishing a written policy for training and a long-range curriculum plan. o the State-Federal Judicial Council (comprised of Georgia's federal court judges, Supreme Court justices, and Court of Appeals, superior court and state court judges), including staff assistance in coordinating the annual meeting and participation in the executive committee. o the Georgia Courts Automation Commission. The AOC staff also provided computer and other technical support to the judiciary, and three staff members attended the Third National Court Technology Conference in Dallas. Board of Court Reporting The Board of Court Reporting operates under authority of the 1974 Georgia Court Reporting Act to assist the state's judiciary by insuring minimum proficiency in the practice of court reporting and encouraging high standards of professionalism among reporting practitioners. The Judicial Council of Georgia appoints board members and governs official court reporting fees through regulation and adjustment of an established fee schedule. Certification and permits The state certification exam consists of a skills test in one of three elected methods of takedown, including machine shorthand, manual shorthand or Stenomask. Certificates are maintained by submitting a renewal fee and form each year. The board held two tests during the fiscal year and certified 84 reporters, five of whom upgraded their certificates. On June 30,1992, there were a total of 1,141 certified court reporters in the state. Court reporters who have not been certified are required to obtain a temporary permit from the board or from a judge in order to practice. Board permits are issued for a single testing period and may not be renewed. Persons holding board permits may work in a freelance or official capacity until the permit expires or the reporter becomes certified. Twenty-one board permits were issued during the year. Eleven judicial permits were issued by the board upon the sponsorship of a judge. Reporters working under judicial permits are restricted to the sponsoring judge's court and may not freelance. These permits may be revoked by the board only with the approval of the issuing judge. Reporters on judicial permits who report more than 100 hours per year must attend each certification exam until certified, or until the judicial permit is rescinded. The National Court Reporters Association, which represents shorthand reporters, and the National Stenomask Verbatim Reporters Association, which represents Stenomask reporters, both issue proficiency certificates for reporters meeting standards which exceed those required in Georgia. The Board of Court Reporting issued 17 certificates to reporters who met these stringent national requirements and other basic criteria. Formal complaints The board investigates complaints filed against court reporters and administers disciplinary action when warranted. The board remedies are restricted to revocation or suspension of a court reporter's license, except in the case of a fee dispute involving an official court reporter. Five complaints were filed during the year, all of which were dismissed. The complaints alleged various practices, including a fee dispute, failure to produce a proper hearing transcript, improper partiality to a case and preferential treatment to the hiring attorney. Administrative activities The Georgia Certified Court Reporter's Handbook was completely revised to reflect changes in statutory and case law since 1985 and reprinted during the year. New case cites, opinions and code sections were added, and the Rules of the Board and fee schedule for official reporters were updated. The board proposed several changes to the official Fiscal Year 1992 29 court reporters fee schedule and presented them to the Judicial Council at the June 1992 meeting. A joint committee was formed of the members of the Board of Court Reporting and five representatives of the Georgia Certified Court Reporters Association to proceed with implementation of mandatory continuing education for Georgia's court reporters. Through an agreement reached with the Department of Human Resource Development at the University of Georgia, a needs assessment was commissioned and completed in June. Council of Juvenile CourtJudges (Annual report for fiscal year 1992, as required by OCGA 15-11-4,) The Council of Juvenile Court Judges (CJCJ) is composed of all judges of the courts exercising jurisdiction over juveniles. Council membership for fiscal year 1992 included 58 full-time and part-time juvenile court judges and 55 superior court judges exercising juvenile jurisdiction. Forty-two associate juvenile court judges assist these judges in hearing cases. Council personnel provide assistance to judges and local court staff regarding matters of court administration, court services. probation and intake standards and procedures, foster care review, uniform dockets, automation, uniform court rules and other issues relating to the special functions of the juvenile court. Judges and associate juvenile court judges receive yearly certification training at biannual seminars conducted in conjunction with the Institute of Continuing Judicial Education. During the past fiscal year, 98 judges were certified by the council. During fiscal year 1992, the CJCJ co-sponsored the first continuing legal education juvenile law course, which was held at Spelman College. Other sponsors were the Atlanta Bar Association, Georgia Indigent Defense Council, Children and Youth Coordinating Council and Gate City Bar Association. The first scholarship funded through the Chris Perrin Memorial Fund at Georgia State University was awarded to a student in the School of Social Work. Substance Abuse Program The Adolescent Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) assists juvenile offenders in changing behavior to eliminate patterns of substance abuse and delinquency. During fiscal year 1992. new units began operation in Cherokee, DeKalb, Fulton and Walton counties. Programs continued in Bartow, Cobb. Douglas, Floyd, Gwinnett and Houston counties. The budget for each unit provides for a full-time intervention officer. administrative assistant. and urinalysis and outpatient treatment services. For the past three years, the program has been funded through a $1 million, multi-year federal grant administered through the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. Additional funds to continue operation of the ASAP units have been sought. ASAP staff evaluate all 13- through 17-year-olds placed on probation using prescribed identification measures for alcohol and drug abuse. If substance abuse is indicated, the teenager is evaluated further to determine the nature and extent of the problem. For those children identified as users. predisposed or at risk of use. ASAP staff develop an individualized treatment program. ASAP has contracted with Georgia State University's Department of Clinical Psychology for clinical management of the ASAP units. During the year, a total of I,SOO children were screened for signs of alcohol and drug abuse in the 10 ASAP counties. Purchase of Services Program This program provides funds for community-based services to juvenile offenders in 104 counties. Juvenile court judges may select from a variety of services to provide assistance to children under their jurisdiction. The services available include counseling and diagnostic testing, tutoring, symbolic restitution, transportation and short-term placements. More than 2,000 children were involved in the program during the year. The program, now in its 13th year of operation, is funded through a $225,000 grant from the Children and Youth Coordinating Council and state appropriations. Permanent Homes Program Permanent Homes for Children (PHC) staff provide support and technical assistance to juvenile court judges and judicial citizen review panels in carrying out the obligations and duties set forth in OCGA 15-11-4 I relative to children placed by the courts in foster care. Four PHC field representatives are assigned to work with individual Nineteenth Annual Report 30 counties. In addition, the Department of Human Resources provides two staff positions to assist with panel reviews, and the University of Georgia School of Social Work provides master's level interns. In fiscal year 1992, PHC staff provided technical assistance to 123 citizen review panels in 51 counties. In these counties, 4.393 children are placed in paid foster care or in institutional placements; reviews of these cases are carried out by the panels once every six months. After interviewing all parties (children, parents, caseworkers, etc.) the panels make recommendations regarding future arrangements for returning children to their families or continuing out-of-home placements. The goal of panel reviews is to ensure reunification of the child and parents if possible. If reunification is not feasible, panels work with the Department of Family and Children Services and other agencies to find another permanent home situation (such as adoption) for each child. Panels are comprised of volunteers appointed by local juvenile court judges and represent a cross-section of the community. Volunteers are trained to serve as panel members by council staff. During the last year, approximately 900 volunteers served on panels. A nine-minute video entitled "Children in Peril" was produced during fiscal year 1992 to provide information on the PHC program. Copies of the video and a companion brochure were made available by the council office to judges and members of the public concerned with child welfare issues. The Permanent Homes State Board met in January to discuss legislative issues and expansion of the Permanent Homes Program. Juvenile Information System In fiscal year 1992, a special study committee evalu- ated options for the council's information system. In accordance with the committee's recommendation, the juvenile courts participating in the council's system will convert to a PC-based system in fiscal year 1993. The committee will continue to evaluate and recommend software options. Council of Magistrate Court Judges The Council of Magistrate Court Judges was statutorily created in 1988 to carry out responsibilities conferred upon it by law, to further the improvement of the magistrate courts and the administration of justice, to assist magistrates throughout the state in the execution of their duties and to promote and assist in their training. It is composed of all chief magistrates and magistrates in Georgia. The executive committee, comprised of six officers, two representatives from each of the 10 judicial administrative districts and two members at large, carries out the administrative duties of the council. The council met four times in fiscal year 1992. The meetings were held in Jekyll Island, Marietta, Savannah and Warner Robins. Topics covered during the meetings included Compact Disc Read Only Memory (CD-ROM) technology for legal research, a fee and fine accounting system, criminal appearance bonds, legislation affecting magistrate courts and ethics. During the 1992 General Assembly, the council's legislative agenda focused on a bill allowing judges to be compensated for wedding ceremonies performed outside of normal working hours. Five issues of the Georgia Magistrate Court Newsletter were published during the year. Council of Probate Court Judges The Council of Probate Court Judges was created by statute in 1988 to further the improvement of the probate courts and the administration of justice. Composed of judges and retired judges of the probate courts, the council has developed uniform rules and forms and a benchbook. The council met four times during fiscal year 1992, three times in conjunction with meetings of the County Officers' Association of Georgia and once in Athens for training and the annual election of officers. The council completed publication of the Handbook for Probate Judges which was to be delivered to probate judges at their November 1992 meeting. The handbook was also made available for purchase for $150. During the 1992 General Assembly, the council had a varied and successful legislative package. Efforts included working with the Council of Magistrate Court Judges on a wedding ceremony compensation bill, increasing the amount of retirement benefits and changing fiduciary law provisions. Fiscal Year 1992 31 Council of State Court Judges Originally a section of the Trial Judges and Solicitors Association, the Council of State Court Judges established its separate identity in 1985. A 1988 statute officially created the council to further the improvement of the state courts, the quality and expertise of the judges and the administration of justice. The council seeks to coordinate its activities with the other councils of trial court judges in order to assure some "vertical uniformity" in the court system as welJ as "horizontal uniformity" within each class of courts. In developing uniform rules in particular, state court judges have worked closely with superior court judges to establish a degree of uniformity in their recommendations to the Supreme Court. During fiscal year 1992 the council co-sponsored the 1992 Bar and Media Conference and initiated the development of reference materials for new judges participating in the council's mentor program. In addition to two annual general meetings held in conjunction with the spring and fall continuing education programs, the council has an active committee system. This includes standing committees on racial and gender bias, mandatory continuing judicial education, uniform rules and criminal sanctions and facilities. Council of Superior Court Clerks The Council of Superior Court Clerks of Georgia was created by an act of the Georgia General Assembly in 1990. Its purpose is to further the improvement of superior courts and the administration of justice, to assist superior court clerks in the execution of their duties and to promote and assist in their training. The council is composed of Georgia's 159 superior court clerks. In fiscal year 1992, the council, in conjunction with the Superior Court Clerks' Association of Georgia, commissioned a comprehensive classification and compensation study for superior court clerks. The study, conducted by an independent firm specializing in human resources, produced a position classification system with a recommended salary schedule, new job descriptions and a formal evaluation of every clerk's position, including internal and external equity analysis. The council also developed a Code of Conduct, including ethical guidelines, for superior court clerks. Representatives of the council attended the annual National Association for Court Management (NACM) conference in New Orleans, NACM's annual technology conference in Dallas and many other national and state conferences during the year. In addition, the council assisted NACM and the Georgia Supreme Court in promoting Law Day 1992, with over 85% of the superior court clerks in Georgia reporting sponsorship of one or more Law Day programs in their counties. Council of Superior Court Judges The Council of Superior Court Judges was formalJy created by an act of the legislature in 1985 (OCGA 15-637). The primary purpose of the council is the improvement of the superior courts of Georgia and the furthering of the administration of justice. AlJ superior court judges and senior (retired) superior court judges are eligible for council membership. The law establishing the council provides for officers and an executive committee. The executive committee is composed of the officers of the council, the immediate past president and the administrative judges of the 10 judicial administrative districts. The council holds two business meetings each year in conjunction with its continuing education programs and may be calJed into special session upon direction of the president or the executive committee. The executive committee meets at least four times a year and receives reports from the standing and special committees. Recommendations are then made to the fulJ council. During 1992, the council adopted a uniform rule which mandates continuing judicial education for each superior court judge. It has been the goal of the council to continue education opportunities for judges so they may keep abreast of current laws, as welJ as innovative methods of conducting affairs of the court. There are a number of standing committees of the council which operate to provide support to the judges in various areas, including mandatory continuing education, pattern jury instructions, uniform rules, long-range planning and gender/racial/ethnic fairness. The council makes every effort to cooperate with the legislative and executive branches of government, Nineteenth Annual Report 32 although being mindful of the unique role filled by the judicial branch. One hundred twenty-three superior court judges attended the summer 1991 continuing education program. Participating in the fall 1991 program were 135 superior court and senior superior court judges. Georgia Courts Automation Commission The Georgia Courts Automation Commission (GCAC) was created by the legislature in 1991. Its duties are to define, implement and administer a statewide automation system for the collection, entry, storage, processing, retrieval and distribution of court-related information; coordinate statewide strategies and plans for incorporating county and local governments into the courts automation system; establish policies and procedures, rules and regulations and technical and performance standards for county and local government access to the courts automation system network; and offer advisory services to county and local governments to assist in guiding their efforts toward automating their court procedures and operations. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) provides project direction, staff support and fiscal coordination for the commission. GCAC held monthly meetings to provide policy guidance on individual projects. Information access A major goal of GCAC has been to develop an auto- mated, user-friendly system that would allow local courts to access the information contained on various state agency computers via the Georgia On-Line (GO) Network. Work was begun on an easy-to-use system for use by all courts and justice system practitioners. It will replace the current array of procedures required to access individual agency databases. Available information will include criminal history records from the Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) database, offender records from the Department of Corrections Offender Tracking Information System, driver history information from the Department of Public Safety driver history database and electronic mail. Disposition reporting Criminal justice records that are complete, accurate and up-to-date are important to corrections and law enforcement as well as the courts. Improving these records has been a high priority of GCAC. A $159,000 grant from the Governor's Office of Highway Safety was awarded to the Department of Public Safety/GCAC in 1991 for the development, implementation and pilot testing of an automated traffic case management/disposition reporting system. The software for the system, developed by the Department of Administrative Services (DOAS) Computer Services Division, was implemented successfully in eight counties using various media for electronic reporting. The actual time lapse between court disposition and the updating of the driver history records at the Department of Public Safety was evaluated and found to be reduced dramatically through automation-from nine months to three weeks. Criminal history records maintained at the GCIC were also targeted for improvement through electronic reporting. A $500,000 discretionary grant was awarded to the commission in September 1991 by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) for use in automating the transmission of Georgia court-related case disposition information. The DOAS Computer Services Division is developing the data screens required by local courts for the submission of this data. Completion and implementation is scheduled for June 1993. The commission has expanded the original scope of this project to include selection of case management software for the courts. Automated case-management Work began on efforts to develop a data dictionary (terms commonly used by the courts) and to identify common, standardized data elements required to process a case within the judicial system. Meetings were held with members of the judicial community, resulting in the development of criminal and civil data models that define the overall process involved in handling each case. Following development of these models, a decision was made to seek assistance in software evaluation from the National Center for State Courts. When a basic outline of the court's needs has been developed and software evaluated, a Request for Proposals will be mailed to software vendors. A 1991 study of the automated juvenile justice information system revealed a need for significant changes in hardware and software to improve the timeliness and flow of data. The DOAS was commissioned to analyze the possibility of rewriting the current system to operate on the state's mainframe computer and linking all of the juvenile courts through the GO Network. During the Fiscal Year 1992 33 second quarter of 1992, a personal computer-based software was evaluated and selected as the best local user solution. A decision to purchase was delayed until the software could be installed and pilot tested in the DeKalb County juvenile court. Long-range planning The Report on the Automation Needs of the Georgia Courts, published in December 1990, still serves as the guide for GCAC's ongoing efforts. The planning process continued in FY 1992 with the creation of a Criminal Justice Records Improvement Task Force. The task force was charged with developing a utilization plan for the 5 percent set-aside funding, money awarded annually to the states for improvement of criminal justice system records. to be received by Georgia from the BJA for fiscal year 1992 and subsequent years. The task force began its work in 1992 by initiating a user needs assessment for criminal justice records improvement, establishing criteria for reporting data on the convictions of illegal aliens and initiating an audit of the state's current criminal justice records housed at the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. A Georgia Justice System Automation Improvement Plan was developed by the task force during the last half of the year. This multi-year plan for improving the productivity and proficiency of the state's justice system focused on ways to increase the scope, validity and availability of information. Careful attention was given to eliminating or reducing duplicate data entry and backlogs of information, improving the accuracy and timeliness of data updating and reporting, managing and controlling court-related information and exceeding federal requirements on data reporting. Electronic legal research During 1992, some 300 judicial and executive branch subscribers received the Official Code of Georgia on compact disc. The disc, supplied to the courts by The Michie Company, provides automated, on-site legal research capabilities to the local courts and assists in reducing the time required to research pertinent Georgia laws. The product is acquired for judicial branch users through the GCAC. Quarterly updates are mailed directly to each subscriber. Georgia Indigent Defense Council The Georgia Indigent Defense Council was statutorily created as a judicial branch agency in 1979 to provide a program of legal representation for indigent defendants. The council is composed of 13 people appointed by the Supreme Court, including one lawyer from each of the 10 judicial administrative districts in Georgia and three lay members from the state at large. Four meetings were held during fiscal year 1992, and 113 counties were awarded funds from the Council's $1 million state appropriation to assist with the operation of their indigent defense programs. The council's four statutory purposes and duties are: 1. to administer funds provided by the state and federal government to support local indigent defense programs; 2. to recommend uniform guidelines within which the local indigent defense programs will operate; 3. to provide local programs and attorneys, who represent indigent defendants, with technical and research assistance. clinical and training programs and other administrative services; and 4. to prepare budget reports and management information required for implementation of the Georgia Indigent Defense Act. All county commissions, superior court judges and bar association presidents are notified of the availability of state funds to assist their local indigent defense programs. The guidelines and application forms are mailed to each local governing committee and the chief judges of those counties without local committees. The council answers inquiries from throughout the state and also initiates contact with counties that have not initially expressed awareness of or an interest in participation. The council implements Supreme Court-adopted guidelines for the operation of local indigent defense programs covering appointment of counsel on a timely basis; eligibility determinations and criteria to qualify indigents; standards for the operation of public defender offices, panel attorney programs and hiring of contract defenders; appointed attorney fees; procedures to insure the independence of court-appointed counsel; roles and responsibilities of local indigent defense governing committees and the mechanism for distribution of state-appropriated funds. Nineteenth Annual Report 34 Georgia Magistrate Courts Training Council (Annual Report for calendar year 1992, as required by OCGA 15-JO-134.) The Georgia Magistrate Courts Training Council supervises continuing judicial education requirements for magistrate court judges by prescribing minimum standards for curricula and criteria for magistrate training. Specifically, the council approves instructor qualifications and issues training certification to chief magistrates and magistrates who satisfactorily comply with established programs. Nonlawyer magistrates who are newly elected or appointed must attend the first scheduled certification course after assuming office and successfully complete 40 hours of basic training in the performance of their duties. In order to maintain certified status, all magistrates (including those who are members of the State Bar of Georgia) must fulfill an annual 20-hour training requirement. In fiscal year 1992, the council sponsored two 40hour seminars, one addressing civil matters and the other dealing with criminal matters. (In previous years, both topics were covered in a 40-hour program.) Magistrates who were already certified were allowed to attend 20 hours of the 40-hour instruction for recertification credit. Three 20-hour recertification programs were held. The council also began sponsoring additional events offering 20 hours of credit in fiscal year 1992. The first such option was provided when the council contracted with Alternative Dispute Resolution Associates from Palo Alto, California, to provide an introductory course in basic mediation skills to magistrates. The 24-hour course took place in Athens. Forty-seven magistrates and one administrator attended the program, with 43 magistrates receiving 20 hours of recertification credit for their participation. The council also contracted with Georgia College to provide 10 days of training in use of software such as WordPerfect, Q&A and Lotus. Up to 20 persons per site were offered introductory and advanced courses, although no certification credit was given. Another contract with the college provided for the maintenance of 10 notebook computers purchased by the council to train magistrates in software applications. A third contract provided technical expertise to develop two artificial intelligence programs to be used as training tools in the areas of bad check cases and bond-setting guidelines. With the Institute of Continuing Judicial Education, the council created a mentor program for new judges, which includes a notebook of materials, video and audiotapes, a notebook of activities and suggestions for interviews as well as opportunities for observation that may be arranged with experienced judges. During the past year, new judges received the updated Benchbook, Michie's Criminal and Traffic Update, Dawkin's Landlord and Tenant, Warren's How to Collect Your Small Claims in Georgia and the American Judicature Society Handbookfor Judges. Other judges received the Benchbook update and Michie's Criminal and Traffic Update. Expenses were paid to send five representatives to the Third National Court Technology Conference in Dallas. Three requests for out-of-state training were approved. The council contracted with the Department of Administrative Services to develop software for a fee and fine accounting system in the magistrate courts. The system was piloted in Crisp and Washington counties. A poll determined that 38 counties are interested in obtaining the software when testing has been completed. The council continued its support of the Magistrates Benchbook, and an update was published in June and distributed to all magistrates. The council continues to provide the book to magistrates and to make it available to others at a cost of $50. The Judicial Qualifications Commission removed from office one chief magistrate who did not attend training for two consecutive years. The council, funded through a combination of state appropriations and participant fees, approved a budget for fiscal year 1993 of $388,371. Georgia Magistrate Courts Training Council: 1992 Seminars Date Feb. 16-21 June 3 July 22 Aug. 5 Aug. 30 Sept. 28-30* Location Athens Savannah Columbus Atlanta Athens Athens *Mediation Training Hours 40 20 20 20 40 20 Attendees 50 136 60 91 5 48 Fiscal Year 1992 35 Institute of Continuing Judicial Education More than 2,800 judges, court officials and judicial personnel attended programs delivered by the Institute of Continuing Judicial Education (lCJE) in fiscal year 1992, a record number. It placed ICJE among the top state and national continuing judicial education agencies in the country. Georgia ranked fourteenth among states in fiscal support for professional education programs for state court personnel. As an administrative arm of the Supreme Court, the institute has had responsibility for the training of all judicial personnel since 1981. The various courts and judges' councils have since adopted training standards for their members. Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges must complete a minimum of 12 hours of instruction each year, with at least two hours devoted to legal or judicial ethics. Superior court judges are required to attend judicial education programs totaling at least 12 hours per year, including two hours of judicial ethics every two years. Rule 43 of the Uniform Rules for the State Courts mandates that state court judges attend continuing legal and/or judicial education courses totaling 24 hours, two of which must be devoted to ethics studies, every two years. As prescribed by the Executive Probate Judges Council, probate court judges must complete initial training and 12 hours of continuing education annually thereafter. By law, magistrate court judges must satisfactorily fulfill an initial40-hour training requirement (attorney magistrates are exempt) and attend an annual 20-hour recertification course. Superior court clerks are also required to complete 40 hours in basic certification and 15 hours in yearly recertification training courses. Beginning in calendar year 1992, municipal court judges are required to complete an annual 12-hour certification course, and new judges must fulfill a 20-hour training requirement. Training, education In fiscal year 1992, the institute offered its traditional calendar of annual and semi-annual training seminars. This included programs for judges of the superior, state, juvenile, probate and magistrate courts, together with training for clerks of the superior, state, juvenile and magistrate courts, as well as events for secretaries to trial judges and magistrates, juvenile court probation officers, court administrators, and administrative law judges of state executive branch agencies and of the workers compensation board. Complementing this regimen were a variety of new programs. Probate court clerks received training; special masters for the lawyer disciplinary proceedings conducted by the State Bar of Georgia participated in an experimental round of training; municipal court judges took part in their first year of fully comprehensive training, and county law librarians attended a day of activity in connection with judicial secretaries training. The ICJE's specialty course on futures thinking as applied to the Georgia courts, funded by the State Justice Institute, proceeded through its intermediate stage of task force meetings. The Magistrate Courts Training Council furnished a series of specialty courses to train that court's personnel in the use of pertinent computer software. Training on computers for other court officials was emphasized throughout the year. For the fourth consecutive year, a basic course was conducted to introduce superior court judges to a variety of judicial applications for personal computers. Both state court and juvenile court judges were introduced to "Georgia Law on Disc:' a commercial software product of the state's statutes, appellate cases and court rules. The Magistrate Courts Training Council also initiated a variety of product development experiments during the year. Training on one of these products, a customized fee and fine accounting system, will be integrated into the computer programs for magistrates during the upcoming year. The ICJE cooperated with the Georgia Center for Continuing Education in seeking State Justice Institute funding for development of interactive compact disc training programs targeting evidence law. Similarly, use of artificial intelligence software platforms to manage rational decision-making procedures was considered as an educational resource. Finally, during fiscal year 1992, a committee of probate judges completed work on a videotape to aid each court in teaching guardians of the property of minor children how to perform their duties. Faculty development continued, incorporating a track of training for new participants separate from activity for experienced teachers. Administrative highlights The ICJE's operating budget ($612,000) was initially appropriated with the following allotments: $136,000 for Nineteenth Annual Report 36 Institute of Continuing Judicial Education: Fiscal Year 1992 Instructional Activities Date July 10-12 July 18-19 July 21-24 July 24-26 August 1-2 August 8-9 August 14-16 August 22-23 August 28-30 Sept. 11-13 Sept. 8-13 Sept. 8-13 Sept. 18-20 Sept. 25-27 Oct. 9-10 Oct 21-25 Oct. 22-24 Oct. 23-25 Nov. 14 Nov. 15 Nov. 20-22 Nov. 20-22 Jan. 16 Jan. 17-18 Jan. 23-24 Jan. 24-25 Feb. 16-21 Feb. 17-20 Program Magistrates 20-hour recertification Probate court clerks seminar Superior court judges sununer seminar Magistrates 20-hour recertification Probate court clerks seminar Probate court clerks seminar Magistrates 20-hour recertification Probate court clerks seminar Magistrates 20-hour recertification Juvenile court judges fall seminar Magistrates 40-hour certification Magistrates 20-hour recertification Magistrates 20-hour recertification Georgia Association of Independent Juvenile Courts Personnel fall seminar Administrative law judges, Georgia executive branch agencies fifth annual seminar Superior court judges fall seminar Court administrators annual program State court judges fall seminar Basic WordPerfect 5.1 Basic Lotus 1-2-3 Probate court judges fall seminar Superior court clerks fall seminar County Officers Association of Georgia. clerks Judicial writing Basic WordPerfect 5.1 Special masters for lawyer disciplinary hearings Magistrates 40-hour certification Municipal court judges 20-hour certification Location Attendees Athens 50 DublinlSavannah 30 St, Simons 123 Dalton 36 RomelHelen 53 Athens/Forsyth 67 Savannah 50 Albany/Douglas 36 Columbus 40 Hiawassee 70 Athens 29 Athens 40 Jekyll Island 48 UnicoilHelen 117 Athens 66 Athens 135 Athens 27 Amicolola Falls 49 Athens 13 Athens II Savannah 102 Savannah 121 Atlanta 69 Athens 9 Macon 18 Athens 13 Athens 50 Athens 29 Date Program Feb. 28-29 Special masters for lawyer disciplinary hearings March 13-14 Special masters for lawyer disciplinary hearings March 16-18 Judicial secretaries annual seminar March 26-27 Magistrates computer course March 28-29 Judicial writing March 29-31 Faculty development, magistrates March 29-31 Faculty development, municipal Mar. 31-Apr. I Workers' compensation administrative law judges annual seminar April 1-2 Mentor judges seminar April 13-14 Juvenile court clerks annual seminar April 13-14 Special masters for lawyer disciplinary hearings April 15-17 Superior court clerks spring seminar April 15-17 Probate court judges spring seminar May 4-6 Juvenile court judges spring seminar May 8-10 Magistrates 20-hour recertification May 13-15 Georgia Association of Independent Juvenile Courts Personnel spring seminar May 20-22 State court judges spring seminar June 3-5 Magistrates 20-hour recertification June 4-5 Probate court clerks seminar June 8-10 Municipal court judges 12-hour recertification June 16 County Officers Association of Georgia, clerks and judges June 18 Basic WordPerfect June 19 WordPerfect - Q&A Location Attendees Athens 21 Athens 19 Macon 167 Milledgeville 7 Athens 6 Athens 10 Athens 15 Athens 23 Athens 21 Macon 60 Athens 19 Macon 144 Athens 168 St, Simons 80 Athens 48 Savannah 124 Jekyll Island 67 Savannah 136 Jekyll Island 19 Macon 65 Jekyll Island 91 Milledgeville 13 Milledgeville 9 annurustrauon and trammg of magistrate court judges and staff; and $456,000 for administration and continuing operations of the ICJE. In addition, $20,000 was appropriated for nationally based training of superior court judges. The University of Georgia Law School continued its contribution of certain overhead resources for operating the institute, including office and storage space, telephone equipment and other administrative support. Due to Board of Regents' cutbacks, however, the law school was compelled to eliminate its longstanding financial support for ICJE personnel expenses. A $50,000 grant award from the Georgia Bar Foundation made up this shortfall. Of 29 applications received in fiscal year 1992 for financial aid to attend national courses, 25 were granted some level of funding (usually 80 percent) and 17 applicants took advantage of the assistance. The above table lists the institute's state-based instructional activities. Members of the ICJE board of trustees primarily represent client groups of state courts and judicial organizations. The board includes one Court of Appeals judge; two members of the Council of Superior Court Judges; one member from each of the councils of state, juvenile, probate and magistrate court judges; one representative from the Superior Court Clerk's Association; one member each from the State Bar of Georgia and the Judicial Council; and five ex officio members, including the immediate past chairpersons of the institute's board of trustees and the board of trustees of the Institute of Continuing Legal Education and the deans of the state's four accredited law schools. A liaison member representing the Supreme Court and an advisory member also serve on the board. Fiscal Year 1992 37 Judicial Administrative Districts The Judicial Administration Act of 1976 established 10 judicial administrative districts in Georgia and created district councils, composed of all superior and senior superior court judges within the respective districts. These 10 regional councils elect administrative judges who serve on the Council of Administrative Judges, which was formed to provide unified administrative rules and continuity of operation among the districts. Each administrative district is served by a district court administrator who provides staff support for judges of the district. Under the guidance of district administrative judges, district court administrators were involved in a number of activities in fiscal year 1992. The collection and evaluation of data relevant to the operation and management of the superior courts was continued. Computerized lists detailing open cases were prepared for superior court judges in each of Georgia's 159 counties. Also, support was provided to administrative judges in assigning senior judges and judges within the districts to serve both in the district and elsewhere at the request of other administrative judges and the governor. District court administrators functioned as liaisons between superior courts and local government officials, court personnel, various components of the criminal justice system, interested citizens and others on the local, state and regional level. District administrators also assisted chief judges in the preparation, presentation and management of local court budgets. A number of innovative circuitwide budgets were formulated and administered during the fiscal year. Additionally, personnel policies and procedures for local court systems were developed and updated and district court administrators screened and interviewed applicants for trial court administrator, law clerk, court reporter and other court support positions. District staff served as the local resource for information on educational programs and activities for superior court judges and other judicial support personnel. Orientation sessions for jury commissioners and seminars for courtroom bailiffs were conducted on a local basis. District staff assisted chief judges and clerks in local jury management projects and coordinated jury management services provided by other court agencies and vendors. Jury selection was automated in many circuits during the last fiscal year. Technical assistance was provided for the revising of county jury boxes. As specified by the Uniform Rules for Superior Courts and authorized by the chief judges, district staff conferred with attorneys, media representatives, court staff, law enforcement personnel and the public regarding court activities. These efforts included the preparation of news releases, speeches for civic groups and educational programs and other public relations activities. District court administrators advised local courts on records management issues, assisted in developing records retention schedules and coordinated records management or technical assistance services provided to local courts by other state agencies and vendors. The administrative judges authorized assistance to individual circuits, bar associations and governmental units in the establishment, funding and management of local indigent defense programs. Several district court administrators served on county or circuit tripartite committees within their districts. In an effort to meet the needs of the superior courts, assistance was provided to local trial courts and governments by preparing grant applications, managing grant programs and evaluating funded projects. District staff also consulted with local trial courts about space and facilities management, including serving as the liaison for architects and contractors during the construction and renovation of courthouses. District court administrators assisted in the development of projects on arbitration, mediation, video arraignment, court delay reduction and alternative sentencing. District court personnel aided superior court judges in dealing with local jail overcrowding problems. Studies of court systems and evaluations of court programs were conducted upon the request of local officials. Staff support was provided to special projects and committees of the Council of Superior Court Judges, the Judicial Council of Georgia, the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council and other court-related groups. District court administrators served on the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, the Georgia Court Futures Vanguard and other local, state and national organizations concerned with judicial administration. Nineteenth Annual Report 38 Judicial Nominating Commission The Judicial Nominating Commission assists the governor in appointing highly qualified people to judicial office by soliciting nominations for judgeships filled by gubernatorial selection. The nominating procedure is often undertaken to fill judicial vacancies, although nominations may also be processed in designating candidates for newly created judgeships. Certain qualifications must be met prior to consideration of any candidate for judicial office. While the prerequisites vary according to the type of court, most candidates must meet residency and age requirements. Judges of appellate and superior courts must have maintained an active membership in the state bar for seven years, and state and juvenile court judges must be admitted to practice law in the state for at least five years. Qualifications for all judges are specified either in the state constitution or in pertinent statutes. The commission begins the selection process by seeking nominations from local individuals and leaders among the civic and legal communities. The commission members evaluate candidates based on a questionnaire concerning their qualifications and a legal article or brief that each candidate has written. The nominees are then investigated through interviews with attorneys familiar with them and by personally interviewing the candidates. The nominating body held 12 meetings in fiscal year 1992 to consider candidates for one vacancy on the Supreme Court, one vacancy on the Court of Appeals, seven superior court vacancies and six state court vacancies. Since 1973, the commission has acted on a total of 213 judgeships, including 13 Supreme Court vacancies, 14 Court of Appeals vacancies, 123 superior court offices, 54 state court posts, two municipal court judgeships and two civil court vacancies. The nine-member commission includes the president of the State Bar of Georgia and the state attorney general as ex-officio members. Three other members, who must be members of the State Bar, are appointed by the governor. The four remaining positions must be filled by nonlawyers-two appointed by the governor, one by the lieutenant governor and one by the speaker of the House of Representatives. The appointed members serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Judicial Qualifications Commission The Georgia Constitution empowers the Judicial Qualifications Commission to respond to inquiries from judges regarding appropriate judicial conduct, to direct investigations into complaints involving members of the state judiciary and, when it deems necessary, to hold hearings concerning allegations of judicial misconduct. Grievances involving judges are almost always initiated by a written, verified complaint (which may be filed anonymously), although the commission may act upon its own motion in cases where it considers such action appropriate. Alleged violations of misconduct or protests against judges must be based on one of the seven canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, last revised March 15, 1984. Grounds for action include: 1) willful misconduct in office, 2) willful and persistent failure to perform duties, 3) habitual intemperance, 4) conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute, and 5) disability which seriously interferes with the performance of judicial duties and which is or is likely to become permanent. During fiscal year 1992, the commission held 12 regular monthly meetings and disposed of two formal complaints against judicial officers by submitting proposed findings and recommendations to the Supreme Court, which recommended removal from office of two magistrates and suspended two magistrates indicted for felonies. At the beginning of the year 25 complaints and one request for opinion were pending from fiscal year 1991. During fiscal year 1992, 184 matters were received, including 161 complaints and 23 requests for opinions. At year end, 14 complaints and three requests for opinion remained pending. One hundred and seventy-two complaints were disposed of during the year for the following reasons: 81 were dismissed as appropriate for appeal as a matter of law, unsupported or without merit; 61 were dismissed after minimal investigation; four were dismissed after substantial investigation; two were dismissed after personal conference with the judge; three judges resigned; three judges were removed (two magistrates were removed pursuant to one complaint, and another magistrate was removed under a separate complaint); six judges were suspended; one judge was publicly reprimanded; nine judges were privately reprimanded; one was found to have no jurisdiction; one was withdrawn; and in one, no written complaint materialized. Fiscal Year 1992 39 In one formal proceeding, the commission recommended to the court that a judge be given a public reprimand administeredin such manner as the court deemed appropriate. This recommendation was approvedand the reprimand was administered in open court by the chief judge of the circuit. The misconduct giving rise to this proceeding consisted of injudicious and intemperate remarks made by the judge in open court to an attorney with the public defender's office. In a second formal proceeding, the commission recommended that a judge be suspendedfrom office without pay for a period of thirty days upon the condition that she not seek re-election and further ordered the respondent to remain physically away from her chambersduring such suspension. This recommendation was approved by the court. The misconduct giving rise to this proceeding consisted of numerous acts of improper treatment and blatant racial bias by a chief magistrateagainst an associate magistrate in the same court. While no formal proceedings were conducted, the court also approved separate recommendations of the commission to remove two magistrates from office for failure to attend the training sessions requiredby law. Known sources of complaints for the fiscal year included 154 litigants or their relatives, 17judges, four auxiliaryjudicial personnel, eight attorneys,five anonymous, two nonlitigants, one public official and two others. Twenty-one requests for Advisory Opinions were received. Twelve formal opinions were rendered (two of the requests were handled with the same opinion) and eight were denied. In response to a request from the Chief Justice, the commission preparedand submitteda draft of a proposed revision of The Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct. The seven-member Judicial QualificationsCommission operatesunder procedural rules revised as of May I, 1985. All proceedings of the commission-including complaints, conferences, communications and decisions-are confidential, with the exception of notice of formal hearings, formal hearings, reports recommending discipline and decisions after a hearing in which a judge was found not guilty of misconduct. Members of the commission include two judges of courtsof record appointed by the Supreme Court, three attorneysnamed by the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Georgia and two citizens selected by the governor. A directorand an investigatorserve as the commission's staff. During fiscal year 1992,a new director took office. Synopses offiscal year 1992 Judicial Qualifications Commission Opinions appear on the following page. Nineteenth Annual Report 40 Synopses of fiscal year 1992 JQC Opinions Opinion 159: In light of the opinion of the Supreme Court 10 State v. Agan, 259 Ga. 54 I, it is the opinion of the commission that it is inappropriate for a judge to accept gratuities for the performance of marriage ceremonies. Moreover, it would make no difference whether the ceremony is performed on a weekend on private property rather than at the courthouse in office hours. Opinion 160: It would not be inappropriate for a chief magistrate to serve as manager of an historic hotel building which has been renovated for use for elderly housing, but in the event of any proceedings in his court involving the hotel building, the chief magistrate would be required to disqualify. Moreover, if such conflicts were to be frequent, the judge should not accept the employment, but should disqualify himself ab initio. Whether this is required, only he is in a position to judge at this time. . not include any language "welcoming" additional contributions. (Canons 2B, 5B(2) and 7B(l )(b Opinion 165: By reason of the provisions of Canon 7A(l), a judge or candidate for a judicial position may neither continue to serve nor be elected to a county Democratic or Republican committee, even if he or she is not an officer on that committee. For the same reason, a judge or candidate may not be elected as a delegate to a district, state or national political convention. Opinion 166: A judge is not obligated to report a violation of the Internal Revenue Code to the IRS even if a violation is admitted by a witness under oath, although nothing would appear to prohibit the judge from reporting such suspected criminal act. Note: the commission declines to opine upon the effect of such report upon the judge's judicial immunity. Opinion 161: It would not be inappropriate for ajudge who serves as an officer or board member of a United Way agency to participate in meetings to consider funding requests of such an agency provided that the judge does not participate, either directly or indirectly, in any fund-raising activities on behalf of said agency of United Way. Opinion 162: For the reasons expressed in Opinion No. 10!, it would be inappropriate for a part-time magistrate to also work as a paid mediator for the district attorney's office in criminal cases. Opinion 163: A campaign committee composed solely of the spouse of a judicial candidate does not comply with the provisions of Canon 7(B)(2). Opinion 164: Ajudge may neither solicit funds nor permit the use of his name or the prestige of his office for this purpose regardless of the objectives to be achieved. Additionally, judges should not allow any person to do for them what they are prohibited from doing. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate for the juvenile court judges of Georgia, individually or collectively, to either announce the existence of a proposed college scholarship in memory of a former executive director of the Council of Juvenile Court Judges or solicit contributions for that purpose. While the council may appropriately announce the existence of the scholarship, neither it nor the current executive director may solicit contributions. either directly or indirectly. Appropriate thank you letters, including information about the scholarship, may be sent to those who have already contributed, but council stationery should not be used and such letters should Opinion 167: A lower court part-time judge who is not an incumbent in the judicial office to which he aspires may appropriately refer to himself as "Judge" in political advertising so long as the judicial position which he currently holds is clearly specified therein and such advertisements are not otherwise misleading. Opinion 168: A chief magistrate may not hear civil suits filed by a loan company managed by her husband and having her daughter as his secretary, but unless some circumstances exist by reason of which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, there is no reason why she should not preside in civil suits filed by other competing loan companies. In addition, there appears to be no reason why associate magistrates, although hired by the chief magistrate, may not hear the cases outlined above provided, however, that such assistant magistrates entertain no doubt as to their impartiality. Opinion 169: Opinion No. 159 is modified to conform to the 1992 amendment to OCGA 19-3-49 relating to accepting gratuities for performing marriage ceremonies other than during normal office hours. Opinion 170: A person who has acted as a judge pro tempore in the past, but no longer does so, and is a full-time, elected prosecutor, is precluded by Section B of the Compliance Section of the Code of Judicial Conduct from litigating on behalf of the state a revocation of a probated sentence he imposed while acting as a judge pro tempore. Whether other members of his staff are similarly disqualified is an issue not within the jurisdiction of the commission and the commission declines to opine regarding this issue. F i sea I Year 1992 41 Superior Courts Sentence Review Panel Georgia's Superior Courts Sentence Review Panel has operated since 1974 to review defendants' sentences to assure they are not excessive in relation to other sentences for similar crimes. In comparing sentences. the panel considers the nature of the crime and the defendant's prior criminal record. Cases subject to the panel's jurisdiction are those sentences totaling five or more years set by a superior court judge without a jury. sentences set in misdemeanor cases and murder cases where a life sentence has been applied. The panel has the authority to reduce sentences but is prohibited from increasing punishments. reducing sentences to probation or suspending any sentence. The Sentence Review Panel reviews sentences upon application of a defendant. who must act within 30 days of the date on which the sentence was ordered by the superior court judge, or after the remittitur from the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court affirming the conviction of the sentencing court, whichever occurs last. The applicalion for sentence review must be transmitted by the clerk of the trial court to the panel within 10 days of its filing. along with copies of any pre-sentence or post-sentence report. Both the defendant and the district attorney have the right to present written arguments relative to the harshness or justification of the sentence. A defendant may not file more than one application for review of a sentence and the panel's action reducing or declining to reduce a sentence is not reviewable. Panel orders relating to an application are binding on the defendant and the superior court which imposed the sentence. The panel affirmed 2,557 cases and reduced 57 cases in fiscal year 1992, for a total caseload of2,614. The reduction rate for the year was 2.2 percent. The Sentence Review Panel meets in two concurrent panels, each composed of three superior court judges. Panel members are appointed and chairpersons are designated by the president of the Council of Superior Court Judges to serve three-month terms. A supernumerary member is also appointed for each term and is authorized to substitute for any member who cannot attend a meeting or who is disqualified. An administrative board of three judges maintains continuity between the various panels. The board prepares an annual budget. considers revisions to the panel's procedural rules and supervises the activities of the clerk and support staff. Superior Courts Sentence Review Panel Caseload Summary Fiscal Year 1992 Panel 69 Panel 70 Panel 71 Panel 72 Total Cases Cases Cases Percent Affirmed Reduced Reviewed Reduced 754 13 767 1.7% 571 7 578 1.2% 632 28 660 4.20/0 600 9 609 1.5% 2.557 57 2.614 2.2% 10-Year Comparison of Cases Reviewed 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Cases Affirmed 2.359 2.335 2.137 1.769 2,485 2.273 1.889 2.804 2,790 2.557 Cases Reduced 88 119 100 67 63 87 74 72 113 57 Percent Reduced 3.6% 4.9% 4.5% 3.7% 2.5% 3.7% 3.8% 2.5% 3.9% 2.2% Nineteenth Annual Report 42 JUDICIAL PERSONNEL CHANGES Supreme Court Justice Leah Sears-Collins, appointed March 6, 1992 Dec. 31, 1992. Court of Appeals Judge Edward H. Johnson, appointed Feb. 28, 1992Dec. 31, 1992. Superior Courts Atlanta Judicial Circuit Judge William B. Hill, appointed April 20, 1992Dec. 31,1992. Judge Elizabeth E. Long, appointed April 20, 1992 Dec. 31, 1992. Augusta Judicial Circuit Judge J. Carlisle Overstreet, appointed Nov. 1, 1991 Dec. 31, 1992. Blue Ridge Judicial Circuit Judge C. Michael Roach, appointed July 17, 1991 Dec. 31, 1992. Gwinnett Judicial Circuit Judge Fred A. Bishop, Jr., appointed July 17, 1991 Dec. 31, 1992. Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit Judge Kristina Cook Connelly, appointed April 20, 1992 - Dec. 31,1992. Rockdale Judicial Circuit Judge Robert F. Mumford, appointed Sept. 12,1991 Dec. 31, 1992. State Courts Cobb County Judge Beverly M. Collins, appointed Jan. 9, 1992 Dec.31,1992. Coffee County Judge Earl M. McRae, Jr .. appointed Feb. 17,1992Dec. 31, 1992. Gwinnett County Judge Robert W. Mock, Sr.. appointed Sept. 23, 1991 Dec. 31, 1992. Screven County Judge Grady K. Reddick, appointed Jan. 9, 1992Dec. 31,1992. Treutlen County Judge John J. Ellington, appointed July 3,1991 Dec. 31, 1992. Juvenile Courts Alapaha Judicial Circuit Judge Maldine E. Barnhill, appointed Sept. I, 1991 April 16, 1993. Coweta Judicial Circuit Judge Joseph P. McNabb, appointed Dec. 1,1992November 30, 1995. Fulton County Judge Sanford J. Jones, appointed Jan. 10, 1992Jan. 10, 19%. Gwinnett County Judge Robert V. Rodatus, appointed July I, 1991 June 30, 1995. Judge Stephen E. Franzen, appointed July 1, 1991 June 30,1995. South Georgia Judicial Circuit Judge Randall E. Chew, appointed Oct. 1,1991 Sept. 30, 1995. Judge Edwin J. Perry, 1II, appointed Oct. I, 1991 Sept. 30, 1995. Probate Courts Dade County Judge Barbara Jan Ellison, appointed Aprilll, 1992Dec. 31, 1992. Lowndes County Judge Ruby Sirmans, appointed August 1, 1991 Dec. 31,1992. Polk County Judge Joyce B. Jones, appointed July 1,1991 Dec. 31,1992. Chief Magistrates Baldwin County Judge T. Dorsey Yawn, appointed April 1, 1992 Dec. 31,1993. Grady County Judge Fred E. Pearce, appointed Jan. 15, 1992Dec. 31,1992. Screven County Judge D.H. "Bo" Parker, appointed Feb. 13, 1992Dec. 31,1992. Fiscal Year 1992 43