1997 Annual Report July 1, 1996 - June 30, 1997 judicial Branch in Review Message from the Chief justice 3 Fiscal Year 1997 Highlights 9 Appropriations 12 The Courts Supreme Court 16 Court of Appeals 18 Superior Courts 20 State Courts 24 juvenile Courts 27 Probate Courts 31 Magistrate Courts 37 Special Courts and Municipal Courts 41 judicial Agencies judicial Council 42 Administrative Office of the Courts 43 Board of Court Reporting 48 Council of juvenile Court judges 50 Council of Magistrate Court judges 51 Council of Probate Court judges 52 Council of State Court judges 52 Council of Superior Court Clerks 53 Council of Superior Court judges 54 County and Municipal Probation Advisory Council 56 Georgia Commission on Dispute Resolution 57 Georgia Courts Automation Commission 58 Georgia Indigent Defense Council 60 Georgia Magistrate Courts Training Council 62 Georgia Municipal Courts Training Council 63 Georgia State-Federal judicial Council 64 Institute of Continuing judicial Education 65 judicial Administrative Districts 67 judicial Nominating Commission 68 judicial Qualifications Commission 68 Supreme Court Commission on Equality 71 judicial Appointments and Elections 73 Pubh-hcd hy the judicial Council of Cel1l"gia and the Administrauv Ulhce <11 the C<1un" III compliance with l'Cl~.'. ~ 15-5-2-+ .md hy l )rdcr <11 tlw Suprclllc Court <11 Ce<1rgla dated june 12. ILJ7i"\ .'.11 nght,; rc-crvcd judicial Council of CCllrgla .Adnuni-arauvc UliJce l11 the Coun , 244 \\a"hillglllll Streel. S\\. SUlle 550 Ail.uua. l;e<1rgla 3033-+-5LJl)0 (-+0-+) h5h-5171 \\W\\."t,lle.ga.us/Cllun"/Suprelllel Otl"(lt,,,. R"!',Tt L 0,1\, fr . "(111,11" Ct"JIlll1llli'dti,llll OIt'"T. Billi, B,'/t"1l Edil,". '\ll/Il v 1'. PtT(\ ,:) l'ruucd on recycled paper Judicial Council of Georgia June 1997 Chief Justice Robert Benham Chair Supreme Court Atlanta Presiding Justice Norman S. Fletcher Vice Chair Supreme Court Atlanta Chief Judge Gary B. Andrews Court of Appeals Atlanta Judge A. Wallace Cato Second District Administrative judge Bainbridge Judge Rita L Cavanaugh President Council of Magistrate Court judges Griffin Judge Howard Cook President -C lect Council of State Court judges Lawrenceville Judge Daniel M. Coursey Jr. Fourth District Administrative judge Decatur Judge E. Purnell Davis II Tenth District Administrative judge Warrenton Judge Philip F. Etheridge Fifth District Administrative judge Atlanta Judge Stephen E. Franzen President Council of juvenile Court judges Lawrenceville Judge John E. Girardeau President Council of Superior Court judges Gainesville Judge Edward H. Johnson Court of Appeals Atlanta Judge Sanford j. Jones President -elect Council of juvenile Court judges Atlanta Judge William F. lee Jr. Sixth District Administrative judge Newnan Judge Jeannette L little President Council of State Court judges LaGrange Judge George F. Nunn Jr. President-clcct Council of Superior Court judges Perry Judge Johnny R. Parker President -elect Council of Probate Court judges Calhoun Judge Floyd E. Propst President Council of Probate Court judges Atlanta Judge Dorothy A. Robinson Seventh District Administrative judge Marietta Judge Richard W Story Ninth District Administrative judge Gainesville Judge T.O. Sturdivant III P r e s i d e n t - e lect Council of Magistrate Court judges Marietta Judge William M. Towson Sr. Eighth District Administrative judge Dublin Senior Judge E. Mullins Whisnant Third District Administrative judge Columbus Judge Amanda F. Williams First District Administrative judge Brunswick 2 1997Annual Report on the Work of the Georgia Courts Message from the ChiefJustice ChicJ justicc Robcrt Bcnham made his third State oj the judicimy Address to the Georgia Gcncral Assembly on[anuaiy 16, 1998. His remarks Jollow. Introduction Lt. Governo r Howard , Speaker Murphy, officers and members of the Senate and House, constitutional officers, my colleagues on the Supreme Coun an d the Cou n of Appeals, members of the judiciary, fellow citizens and visitors, I conside r it a high hon or and a distin ct privilege to be invited to appear before a joint session of the Senate and House to deliver the State of the judiciary Addr ess. I would like to begin tod ay with a sho rt poem by an unknown au thor which it seems to me places our sha red respo nsibility as gua rdians of the law in prop er perspective: You are your countrys keepCl;your government is butyou, You arc thc wooJ oj thcJab ric, whether she be strong or wcak or true. Yes, you arc your countrys kecper; andyours[crever the blame, Whether she rises in her glOly, or withers in her shamc. Quality of justice My colleagues and I are here to rep on th at the state of the judiciary is fine; the spirit of coo peration is at an all-time high , and our ent husiasm in performing our duti es is boundless and beyond measure. We are excited about wha t we do; we un denake our task with fervor and vitality, and we have no hesitation abo ut mann ing the labori ng oar when just ice hangs in the balance. This is my four teenth appearance as a judge at the State of the judiciary Address and my third appearance to deliver the State of the judiciary Address as the Chief justice of the Georgia Sup reme Coun . I am jus t as awed and humbled today by this occasion as I was 14 years ago when I served as a junior judge on the Cour t of Appeals. The awe and humility t 997 Annual Rt~"ort on the Work of the {;eorgia Courts :1 Judicial Branch in Heview come not from fear or apprehension, but from my respect for the occasion, my abiding faith in the rule of law and the role of government in bringing about orderly change where necessary, and preserving tradition where appropriate through the democratic process. Public service is a high calling. It requires integrity, fairness, honesty, truthfulness, respect for all citizens, and respect for the proper role of government in addressing societal concerns. We recognize that you are responsible for making the laws, and that we are responsible for interpreting them. We appreciate the sincerity with which you undertake your responsibility, and we solicit your prayers and support as we undertake ours. The better the laws you make, the fewer interpretations we will have to make. Before I present the state of the judiciary, I would like to express our deep gratitude and thanks for the moral and financial support you have given the judicial branch during my term as Chief Justice. Your support has allowed us to address many Significant issues in a forthright and realistic manner. We deeply appreciate what you have done for us in the past and we fervently solicit your support in the future. It is customary on occasions such as this to give you not only general information about the courts, including statistics, but also to share our vision with you. While I will not deviate from custom and tradition, I will furnish you relevant statistical information in the written supplement to my address so that I can spend my limited time informing you about our vision and about some overriding concerns and considerations in the areas of resources, Judicial independence, technology and modernization, access to the courts, fairness and diversity in the courts, and community involvement. Initiatives In my State of the Judiciary Addresses in 1996 and 1997, I discussed the need for adequate resources for the judicial branch, more judges for the Court of Appeals and trial courts, a comprehensive study of the judiciary, increased use of technology, and cooperation between the three branches of government. You responded by providing funding for some of these requests, and we appreciate the attention you gave to these important matters. I am also happy to report that we have been able to begin a comprehensive study of the judicial system without asking for financial support. We are well on the way to organizing a Blue Ribbon Commission to perform this comprehensive study. In order to enhance the quality of justice and public service provided by our court system, this month we will name a Blue Ribbon Commission to perform a long-overdue examination of our system and make recommendations for improvement. In order for any long-range planning to be effective, the Georgia Supreme Court must be actively involved in the process and take a leadership role in identifying systemic problems and recommending comprehensive solutions to these problems. Many of our trial court councils have a history of involvement in strategic and longrange planning through internal committees. These groups continue to develop and implement strategies to efficiently manage resources and respond to spiraling caseloads. I am confident that these planning efforts by the trial courts and other classes of courts, together with the work of the Blue Ribbon Commission under the leadership of the Supreme Court, and with the cooperation and participation of all classes of courts, will increase public .. 1997Annual Report 011 the Work of the (;eor!!ia t.ourt Judicial Branch in Review understanding of and trust in the judicial process. Such effort will ensure that Georgia has a court system that is both functioning well in the present and ready to assume potentially greater challenges in the future. Our goal is simple: make Georgia's courts the best in the nation. We must work to improve our system so that victims of crimes are protected, individual rights are guaranteed, due process is assured, and meaningful access to the courts is a reality for all of our citizens. We must haw a court system in which judicial independence is treasured and accountability is endemic. Additionally, we must haw a court system in which judges are highly competent, administrators are dedicated public servants, lawyers are competent, civil, professional and civic-minded, and citizens respect and trust the rule of law because fairness and justice abound. Over the years the role of the court has changed although our commitment to justice has not wavered one bit. Courts often carry out their functions in the quiet atmosphere of a courthouse where adversaries present their competing interests while the courts seek to provide certainty, predictability and stability in the law. In carrying out our constitutional and statutory functions, we must sometimes do so with limited resources and personnel while case loads continue to grow and the issues increase in complexity and profundity. Ordinarily, Judges must be referees; sometimes we must be managers; on a few occasions we must be players. But whatever our role, we stay in the game and see the matter in controversy to a satisfactory conclusion. Requests Please allow me to turn my attention to several items on the legislative agenda of the judicial branch. Time will not permit me to mention all of the items; however, my failure to mention some of them should not be viewed as a lack of support for these items. The most important resource to the judicial branch is, of course, judges. And we need more. The Court of Appeals continues to be one of the most overburdened appellate courts in the nation. Support for a fourth panel of judges on the Court of Appeals, as recommended by the Commission on Appellate Courts of Georgia, is imperative. Additionally, there have been no new superior court judgeships created since 1995. This year the Judicial Council, after careful consideration, recommended the creation of six new superior court judgeships. It is impossible for the Judiciary to meet the demands of burgeoning case loads without additional judgeships on our Court of Appeals and superior courts. Attracting quality judicial candidates without minimum compensation standards is also wry difficult. I urge you to provide the needed relief and thereby avoid a negative impact on the qualit y ofjustice for all Georgians. This will be an exciting year in the courts, as we hope to take on our first pilot project for a court with non-uniform Jurisdiction, made possible by the passage of enabling legislation two years ago. The Judicial Council has recommended that you approve and fund a family court pilot project in Fulton County. This project will provide a holistic approach to address and adjudicate all issues affecting the same family in a single court system, with emphasis on the best interests of children. Under the present system, family matters are often split among several courts, resulting 1997 Annual Rt'port on the Work of the t;t'orl!ia t:ourt~ ;) Judicial Brunch in Reyit,w in fragmented services, delay and loss of efficiency. The expectation is that a family court will ensure that judicial resolution of family disputes will be comprehensive, quick and certain. Moreover, a family court may help to diminish the adversarial nature of the current system and more effectively address the interests of children and the family unit affected by the process. We seek your favorable consideration of our first pilot project request. We appreciate the funding you have provided for the Georgia Appellate Practice and Educational Resource Center in the past, especially in light of the withdrawal of federal funding in the area of habeas corpus relief. We are committed to bringing capital appeals to a just conclusion, but we cannot do so without adequate representation for defendants at critical stages of the proceedings. We urge you to increase funding to the Resource Center consistent with the budgetary recommendation so that we can process capital appeals fairly and expeditiously. Domestic violence is a serious problem in this state. Its effects can be seen throughout our society in the form of increasing court caseloads, skyrocketing hospital costs, growing numbers of dysfunctional families, and plummeting school performance. The State justice Institute recently awarded a grant to pilot an Internet-Based Domestic Violence Court Preparation System in Georgia. This project will provide online computer-assisted preparation of the court papers domestic violence victims need to obtain protective orders. The superior and magistrate court judges, shelter programs, and Legal Services Corporation are testing this online project in Douglas, Cobb and Gwinnett Counties. The judicial Council, in partnership with the State Bar, is tackling the problem of legal assistance for victims of domestic violence. In 1996 alone, it is estimated that over 530,000 Georgians were victims of domestic violence. Programs set up to assist these families are stretched thin and do not have the expertise to respond to their legal needs. Our budget this year will include a request to fund this public service. Please help us address this problem. Last year our request for a lower age threshold retirement bill for appellate courts, similar to that of the trial courts, was referred for an actuarial study. We hope you will look on it with favor when it comes to you for consideration. Accomplishments Now let me turn to several ongoing projects initiated by the courts. A key component of a modern judicial system is the appropriate use of technology. The Georgia Courts Automation Commission (GCAC), under contract with the Georgia Tech Research Institute, has embarked on an ambitious project to create a statewide courts database. This database will compile detailed criminal and civil case information that will be accessible to all superior and state court judges. At the request of legislators, we are developing a similar database for the juvenile courts. Ultimately, these databases will help provide for annual case counting, electronic inquiries on individual cases, and compliance with the mandatory reporting requirements of state and federal agencies. They will also be a useful tool for providing crime statistics and trends in litigation, and will allow for better allocation of resources based on more accurate information. judges on the bench must have the ability to retrieve the most current information if 6 1997 Annual Rl'I)()rt on the Work of the (;t'or~ia (ourts Judicial Branch in Heview they are to make reasonable and wise decisions. An automated criminal justice information system that integrates all court functions gives judges and court personnel the information they need to be effective. GCAC is available to all classes of courts to provide technical support and advice on automation. None of this would be possible without the budgetary and programmatic support that the legislative branch offers. Our courts must be accessible to everyone. The Commission on Equality has developed a database of foreign language interpreters available to translate court proceedings. The list can be found on the World Wide Web, linked to the Supreme Court web site. The Supreme Court Commission on Equality has also been working on issues of access for the hearing impaired. The diverse nature of our population makes this kind of help crucial to the fair and impartial administration ofjustice. We must continue our efforts to assure that no person is treated in an unfair manner because of race, gender or ethnicity, and we must put in place mechanisms for addressing these issues in a timely and complete manner. The Judicial Council has appointed a Committee on Pro Se Litigation. Because of the increased number of citizens acting as their own attorneys-a trend not unique to Georgiawe arc developing court policies that will help court personnel deal with the influx of pro se cases. Ultimately, the work of this committee will promote more open access by pro se litigants to the court system and move these cases more effectively through the system. Our Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Commission on Professionalism are considered the best in the nation, and serve as a model for many other state and federal courts in the creation of their programs. We appreciate your continued support of our efforts in this area. The Supreme Court Committee on Substance Abuse is assisting courts throughout this state in addressing the staggering and perplexing problems generated by substance abuse. The Committee has contracted with the Metropolitan Atlanta Council on Alcohol and Drugs to operate a computerized referral database of treatment providers. The database is available on the World Wide Web and contains detailed and frequently updated information on over 600 agencies and programs throughout Georgia. Because of this innovative use of technology, and also thanks to the drug courts now operating in at least three of our counties, more of our citizens are getting the treatment they need. We hope to create at least five more drug courts in metropolitan areas in the next 18 months. We are beginning to address not only the social and criminal symptoms of substance abuse, but finally the problem of substance abuse itself. In a cooperative state and federal effort. the Supreme Court Child Placement Project has recently launched several technology projects. The Fulton County Juvenile Court and the State Department of Family and Children Services arc developing a plan for sharing part of the court's database with five satellite DFCS offices. DFCS caseworkers will be able to obtain client information without phoning or visiting the court. Additionally, Fulton, Rockdale, and Troup Counties are testing a computerized record-keeping system to help citizen review panels track the status of deprived children who come before them. We have developed a comprehensive study dealing with child placement and we will gladly make it available to you upon request. We have only come to you for funding of various projects after we have exhausted all JI}I}; Annual Rt'porl on IIJt Work of lilt' (;t'or~ia t.oun .. Judicial Brandl in Heview other available avenues. We realize that the state has limited financial resources; therefore, we first seek funding at the federal and private levels before we approach you for funds. We will continue to seek funding from outside sources whenever possible, but we hope you will continue to have a receptive attitude when we do come to you for assistance and guidance. Conclusion The judicial branch cannot address and cure all of society's ills. You must be willing to work with us in empowering our communities to address some of their problems and reserve only the most intractable problems for the court system. The founding fathers did not view the court system as a cure-all for society's problems, they viewed the courts as an avenue of last resort after all other avenues had failed. We ask you to help us encourage our communities to make an earnest attempt to address problems at the local level in a meaningful way with an eye toward resolution rather than aggravation. With your help communities can work toward establishing Human Relations Councils, Rites of Passage Programs, Domestic Violence Programs, Alternative Dispute Resolution Models and a host of other programs designed to address problems in a cooperative community setting rather than in an adversarial one. We appreciate this opportunity to share our thoughts concerning resources, Judicial independence, technology and modernization, access to the courts, fairness and diversity in the court system, and community involvement. We appreciate the spirit of cooperation you have shown in the past and we look forward to working with you in a cooperative and concerted effort to improve the quality of life for all our citizens. We invite you to share in our vision to make the Georgia court system the best in the nation, where no one need leave the courts of Georgia in search of justice, for it abideth within, it shields us from wrongdoing, it defends us from evil, and it treats us equally without respect of person or position. As we face the future we call to your attention the words of another unknown poet: We ask that you not walk the smooth path, Nor bear an easy load, Pray for strength andfortitude To climb the mckv mad. Ask for courage To scale the highest peaks alone, So that we CCln turn stumbling blocks Into stepping stones. II t997 Annual Heport on the Work of the (;eor~ia Courts Judicial Branch in Review Fiscal Year 1997 Highlights July 1996 Fiscal year begins with Judicial branch budget of S85,346,4 30 in state funds. The Georgia Indigent Defense Council launches its juvenile Advocacy Division to provide support and consultation to attorneys and guardians ad litem representing clients in juvenile court proceedings. The division offers assistance with issues such as deprivation, delinquency, unruliness, termination of parental rights, mental health, education and government benefits. August 1996 The Senate Study Committee on Civil justice Reform (established by SR '+46) holds its first meeting on August 26 in Atlanta. The study panel's mission is to examine whether reforms to the civil Justice system are necessary and, if so, what specific reforms are recommended. justice Wilson Sandura, the judge president of the High Court of Zimbabwe, meets with Chiefjustice Robert Benham on August 28. The judge's visit is part of a US tour sponsored by the International Visitor Program of the US Information Agency Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs September 1996 The Commission on Appellate Courts holds a public hearing in Atlanta on September 5. The 1996 General Assembly established the commission (HR 1091) to analyze the current structure, jurisdiction and operations of the Georgia appellate courts. Its goal is to determine what changes, if any, should be recommended. Supreme Court justice Carol W Hunstein speaks at the third annual statewide conference of the Georgia Commission on Family Violence held on September 27-28. Representatives from nearly all of the 35 local family violence task forces, along with district attorneys, law enforcement personnel, judges and commission members are among the 200 participants. The Georgia Supreme Court launches its home page on the World Wide Web at www.srate.ga.us/ Courts/Supreme. October 1996 judges, public defenders, district attorneys, court administrators, treatment providers and others gather on October 3 and4 for the Metropolitan Atlanta Drug Court Training Conference. The conference, sponsored by the Metro Atlanta Project PACT (Pulling America's Communities Together) and Mission New Hope, focuses on drug court design and management. The Advisory Committee to the Supreme Court Child Placement Proceedings Project presents its report to the high court on October 9. The comprehensive study assesses juvenile court processes involving abused and neglected children. The 52-page report contains a summary of data collected, findings, and recommendations for changes and improvements. (For more information on the report, see page 44.) November 1996 :'-.leaI'll' 200 candidates for Judicial office participate in the general election. There are 28 contested races for superior court seats: 19 of these races are against incumbents, 9 are for seats of retiring judges. (See page 73 forjudicial personnel changcs.) t1}97 .\l1l1ual Rt'llort 011 th.. Work of th.. (~eorgia tourls I} Judicial Branch in Review December 1996 The judicial Council recommends creation of five additional superior court Judgeships to Governor :"1 iller and the General Assembly The council also votes to carry forward a recommendation made In 1995 to split the Blue Ridge judicial Circuit (Cherokee and Forsyth Counties) into two single-county circuits. The Commission on Appellate Courts Issues its reports and finds that "immediate action is necessary to relieve the cascload currently placed on the judges of the Court of Appeals." The report reveals that the number of matters filed at the Court of Appeals per judge increased from 287 in 1985 to 434 in 1994. The judges also write more opinions than those of any other intermediate appellate court in the country: 278 per Judge in 1993, compared with 137 in second-place California. Among its rccornmcndauons. the commission advocates that "an additional panel of three Judges be added to the Court of Appeals immediately" and "a plan to moderni:e and improve the appellate court system be developed through a continuing study" January 1997 Court of Appeals judge Gary B. Andrews becomes the court's 18th chief Judge in ceremonies on january oth. Chief justice Robert Benham delivers the State of the judiciary Address to the General Assembly After reviewing the events of the past year, he outlines ongoing judicial branch initiatives, such as the Georgia Courts Automation Commission, the Commission on Equality and the Committee on Substance Abuse and the Courts He discusses upcoming legislative initiatives and the appellate courts' increasing cascloads, urging legislators to seriously consider the recommendations of the Commission on Appellate Courts. justice Benham concludes with a description of several upcoming projects, including a blue-ribbon commission to look at the future of the court system. February 1997 The executive summaries of the final reports of the Supreme Court Committee for Gender Equality and the Commission on Racial and Ethnic Bias, along with information about the Supreme Court Commission on Equality, becomes available on the World Wide Web at www.srate.ga.us/Courts/ Supreme. The Fayette County Courthouse, built in 1825, gives up its title as the oldest working courthouse in Georgia when court ends on February 14 The Crawford County Courthouse in Knoxville, seven years younger than the Fayetteville courthouse, assumes the distinction of being the oldest courthouse in Georgia still used for its original purpose. The report of the assessment phase of the Supreme Court Child Placement Project and the full text of opinions issued by the judicial Qualifications Commission become available on the World Wide Web at www. staic.ga.us/Courts/Suprcrnc. March 1997 The 1997 Session of the General Assembly ends without passage of bills to create additional superior court Judgeships, to increase pay for senior superior and appellate Judges, or to add a panel to the Court of Appeals. Local measures were successful in adding Judgeships in De Kalb and Richmond Counties. The budget adopted on March 28 by the Georgia legislature increases the Georgia Indigent Defense Council's budget by nearly 43 percent for fiscal year 1998 The council will receive 54.28 million, an increase of 51.28 million O\Tr the 1997 appropriation. 1II 191)'; Annual RellOrt on the Work of the (;t'orl!ia (.ourts Judicial Brauch in Bevicw The Fulton County Diversionary Drug Court begins hearing cases on March 13. The program is designed to reduce crime by providing expedited case processing and intensive drug treatment to nonviolent drug-dependent felony offenders. The drug court is funded by J grJnt from the county and from the U.S. Dcpartrncm of justice. The Supreme Court Commission on Equality adopts new guidelines to help non-English speakers in Georgias courts. The Code of Professional Responsibility for interpreters is designed to ensure that court interpreters arc qualified, accurate and impartial. The Guidelines for Court Interpreter Usage assist Judges in assessing the qualifications and performance of interpreters. April 1997 The Walton County Courthouse is recognized by the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation on April 26. The Outstanding Restoration Award is gi\'Cn to the county commissioners for the complete restoration of the courthouse, Built in 1883 on the town square III Monroe. the courthouse hJS been described as one of the finest examples of Victorian architecture III the South, May 1997 Governor Miller signs into law a bill creating the Council of Court Administrators (SB 306), comprised of full-time court administrators and court managers, The council's mission is to assist court administrators and managers in the execution of their duties, and to promote and assist in the training of court administrators, managers and support personnel. The council plans to hold two seminars yearly' The Supreme Court Committee on Substance Abuse and the Courts holds its spring planning session on May 9, The goal is to foster communication and develop working relationships among the courts and the many agenCies striving to cope with the impact of substance abuse Chief justice Robert Benham, committee chairperson, presides, The Georgia Courts Automation Commission launches a project in Baldwin County. installing a prototype of the Automated justice lnforrnauon System (AjIS) to link the superior court, state court, juvenile court, magist rate court, offices of the clerkrs) of court (superior, state and juvenile). disi rict attorney and solicitor-general. A major component in the installation is a connection to the county sheriffs case-management system. This will allow the sheriffs system to export data to AjlS for use by prosecutors and court personnel at the various stages of processing each case. June 1997 The judicial Council meets on june II and reviews the preliminary evaluations of four experimental court projects. The proposals will be voted on at the council's December meeting and submitted to the 1998 General Assembly. The State-Federal judicial Council, established to foster a cooperative relationship between the state and federal Judiciaries in Georgia, also meets on june 11, in conjunction with the State Bar of Georgia Annual meeting, The meeting features a program entitled "The Publics Dissatisfaction with the Courts," The Pro Se Litigation Committee holds its first meeting on june 30, The l-l-rncmbcr committee was appointed by Chief justice Robert Benham, chair of the judicial Council, to appraise the status of pro sc litigation in the Georgia courts, The final report to the judicial Council, expected in December 1998, will include information detailing the following: categories where pro se representation most frequently occurs, whether such actions arc increasing in Georgia, difficulties faced by pro se litigants, types of assistance given by other states, and information forjudges and appropriate gUidance for court staff in assisting such litigants. 1997 Annual Report on the Work of the (;eor~ia tourb 11 Judicial Brandl in Review State Appropriations for the Judicial Branch: Fiscal Years 1996, 1997 and 1998 Budget Unit/Agency Supreme Court FY 1996 Amended Appropriation $5,570,675 FY 1997 Amended Appropriation $5,965,631 Percent Change FY 96-97 7.1 (X, FY 1998 General Appropriation $6,229,503 Percent Change FY 97-98 4.4(X, Court of Appeals 7,104,204 7,834,049 10.3'X, 7,995,875 2.1 1XI Superior Courts (Total) Operations Superior Court Judges District Attorneys Council of Superior Court Judges Judicial Administrative Districts Prosecuting Attorneys' Council 57,553,333 53,852,565 194, .B. 8 1,290,%7 2,015,363 60,725,063 31,940,998 24,582,316 530,075 1,346,564 2,325,110 S.SIX, 100.0% 100.0% l4.4% 4.](X, 15.4% 65,432,314 )3,461,129 27,396,537 530,257 1,624,344 2,420,047 0.8% 4.8 1XI 11.5'XI 0.0% 20.6(XI 4.1 IX, Council of Juvenile Court Judges 1,077,570 1,093,172 l.4(X, 1,209,812 10.7% Institute of Continuing Judicial Education (Total) Operations Magistrate Courts Training Council Municipal Courts Training Council 711,007 548,459 148,098 14,450 758,378 590,306 151,788 16,284 6.7(X, 7.6 IX, 2.StX, 12.7% 783,(,35 595,490 163,000 25,145 3.](X, 0.8% 7 AtX, 54.4% Judicial Council Opcrations Board of Court Reporting Case Counting Council of Magistrate Court Judges Council of Probate Court Judges Council of State Court Judges Council of Superior Court Clerks BASICS Commission on Family Violence Appellate Resource Center 1,741,322 1,204,16(, 71,281 7(,,500 25,835 20,450 12,050 ll,040 300,000 2,026,094 1,440,558 78,211 76,500 21,385 58,700 24,500 26,240 16.4% 19.6% 9.7(X, 0.0% -17.2% 187.0% 103.3% -15.5% 300,000 0.0% 2,621,870 1,800,l11 86,074 76,500 23,18') 20,450 l7,350 38,000 150,000 90,000 300,000 29.4(}~) 25'(VX, 10.1% 0.0% H.4(X, -6S.2 tXI 52.4 tX, 44.8(~{1 O.OIX, o.oex) O.OIXI Judicial Qualifications Commission Indigent Defense Council 217,718 3,000,000 168,197 3,000,000 -22.7(XI o.o, 166,364 4,284,487 -1.1 IX, 42.8 IX) Georgia Courts Automation Commission Operations State-wide County Computerized Information Net. 1,344,703 660,903 683,800 1,998,90(, 1,l15,106 683,800 48.7% 99.0% O.OIX, 2,2')4,186 1,594,186 700,000 14.8% 21.2(X, 2.4(XI Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution 229,149 249,068 8.7(X) 258,864 3.9 IX, Judicial Branch Totals $78,549,681 $88,020,307 12.1 % $91,276,910 3.7% Appropriations The total state budget rose by 7.4 percent for fiscal year 1997; appropriations to thejudicial branch increased by 6.7 percent. t 2 t997 .umual Report Oil the Work of tilt' (;{'or~ia Cnurts Judicial Brandl in Beview State Judicial Branch Budget Units: Funds Available and Expenditures Fiscal Year 1997 Supreme Court Court of Appeals Superior Courts Council of Juvenile Court Judges Institute of Continuing Judicial Education Judicial Council Judicial Qualifications Commission Indigent Defense Council Georgia Courts Automation Commission Office of Dispute Resolution Total Funds Available Gener.il Supplcmeru.il Tol.11 St.in- Funds Fl'dt-'rdl Funds Other Funds Tr.instcrs to'vtrom Func tion.il l3uc!gph Sh.O 1),h~ 1 -,11.111111 S,9hSJd 1 Sb ..HlH H2i.4HII II F.B'I'.h II -h 1,:)(,2 7.B J4.II~'1 II 11I~.7h J Sh2.~ 11.1121 -1.hH7,274 hO,72S.749 I.BllI.2B2 1,29 .J. ,:,)()l) S 1.11, 1.172 ~II.1)()() 1,Ol).L 172 , Sh,h")! .!9,OHO F,B.17H II 7SH.17H II HB.170 $2,02h,(}l)4 II 2,02h,094 %.B HI 12::;,.).)4 S1hB, 197 0 1hB.1 '17 II II SI.III1I1.I)()(1 II 1.1I1111.I)()(1 II LtJ").!,IS.f $1,7h7',2.sh 2! 1.6,)() I,Y9H.90h S7h.H74 II S2~'1.lIhH 0 2~q.II(,B II S 1h(d SBC,.Hh.430 -1,127,18h Hl.B I '1.2~~ 2,71 h,tJS 1 h.471 .S7 I II II II II II II II II II II Total Funds Available $6,847,419 $7,938,810 $63,850,540 $1,278,909 $846,748 $2,248,478 $168,197 $6,952,154 $2,575,780 $300,731 $93,007,766 Exponditun-s Pl'rsoll,ll Spn'icl's ss.I i 2.424 Rl'guJ,lr ()pl'r,lting E'I'l'lbPS ,11.4SS Tr,l\'{'! .)O.hH2 Equipment Purchase-s I I S.~ ~O Computer Ch,lrg{'s ] b9,99S Rl',11 Estate- Rl'Ilt.lls ll~.'110 Tpl{,u .mmu nicat ions l4.7H' Pl'r Die-m. h'{'s s: Contr.uts 44,. I I h $(d~.S 1,St)q 2Hh,Si{) 2Li24 29,(1]1 ]12,bH2 24~,O2~ (,2,912 ] SO,27(J SSS ..Sih.4L~ iH,39S, U 4~l,()bH 42H,b90 ;,] 32 1,.1 '10 2q~,7hh S27,b2H FIII.274 ~7i""22 42.204 ]~, ~92 20.II'1H 41.7l11 II. i I'I 70,{9b SII 2Ih.]70 0 ] O,2H2 0 0 I h20,294 S I .2h2.H 17 .) ~ L24) 2Lb27 2(1,12h ]]L~7) 40,772 J 7.HI~ 2{S, 1()l) SB lNJ4 7.~IH I ,l~2 4B 1 ~,2h7 (J,()2H HI, 27.4h2 SUl7.7hl ~,l129.ii(1 41.4'JO 1'I.~40 )),] (l2 .)H.2h] 20,240 29,Oih Sl21.1JI 1O.2~h 2H,7Wj :-, ql)~ L ]7L7H7 11.172 12 .2~() 7 ....)2 S21111.4111 ~U,l 4.0,7 (dH H.112 2B,709 h49 I~.BII $7I.HI'I.ill I 1.47l.221 hi] ,9fl9 (l4H,l19) 2,(J(14.H]0 7h' ,79; 4S(l,244 L ]2i,hOO Total Expenditures $6,835,107 $7,763,179 $63,145,439 $1,278,035 $846,747 $2,247,578 $131,004 $4,991,266 $2,574,766 $300,730 $90,113,851 Five-Year Comparison of State Judicial Budget (1994-1998) Fiscal Year Total State Appropriation Percent Change Judicial Appropriation Percent Change Percent of State Budget 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 $9,201,886,925 $10,236,138,444 $10,980,393,127 $11,793,346,344 $12,361,326,273 11.5'1., 11.2(XI 7.3(XI 7 AIYo 4.8(X, $63,674,960 $68,281,297 $78,549,681 $83,819,244 $91,483,223 4.7% 7.2% 15.0% 6.7 1YcI 9.1 (X, 0.69% 0.67% 0.72% 0.71% 0.74% Note: Fiscal year 1998 appropriations represent governor's recommendation tor the amended genor! appropriation bill. 199:' Annual Rl'IHlrt on the Work of the (;('org-ia Courts t:J Judicial Brandl in Review Georgia Court System: June 30, 1997 (showing appellate routes) SUPREME COURT 7 justices. jurisdiction: Appellate jurisdiction over cases of constitutional issue, title to land, valid- ity of and construction or wills, habeas corpus, extraordinary remedies, convictions of capital felonies, equity, divorce, alimony, election contest. Certified questions ami certiorari trorn Court of Appeals. Capital felonies. Constitutional issues. Title to land. Wills, equity, and divorce. j~ COURT OF APPEALS 10 judges 13 divisions and chid judge\. jurisdiction: "'" Appellate jurisdiction over lower courts in cases in which Supreme Court has no exclusive appellate jurisdiction. SUPERIOR COURT 46 circuits, 169 judges. jurisdiction tgenerat): Civil law actions, misdemeanors, and other cases. "'" Exclusive jurisdiction over cases of divorce, title to land, equity. Exclusive ielony jurisdiction. jury trials. Counties with population over 96,000 where probate judge is attorney practicing at jl' least seven years. lutv trials. STATE COURT 66 courts, 97 judges: 51 full-time. 46 part-time. jurisdiction (limited): Civil law actions except cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of superior court. Misdemeanors, tratfir , telonv preliminaries. jury trials. j~ I r----'-------------, r------.-.L---L------, JUVENILE COURT 159 courts, 28 full-time judges, 28 part-time judges, PROBATE COURT 159 courts, 159 judges jurisdiction (limited): 33 associate judges. Superior court judges serve in counties without separate Exclusive jurisdiction in pro- bate of wills, administration of estates, appointment of juvenile court judges. linisdiction (limited): guardians, mentally ill, involuntary hospitalizations, Deprived, unruly, delinquent juveniles. Juvenile traffic. No jury trials. marriage licenses. Traiiic in some counties. Hold courts of inquiry. Search warrants and arrest warrants in certain cases. Miscellaneous misdemeanor cases. MAGISTRATE COURT 159 courts, 1')9 chief magistrates and 317 magistrates; 27 also serve juvenile, probate or civil courts. jurisdiction (limited): Search and arrest warrants, telonv and misderneanor preliminaries, misdemeanor bad check violations, county ordinances. Civil claims of $5,000 or less, dispossessories. distress warrants. No jury trials. MUNICIPAL COURTS 379 courts active. jurisdiction (limited): Ordinance violations, traffic. criminal preliminaries. Miscellaneous misdemeanor cases. No juri' trials. COUNTY RECORDER'S COURT 4 courts, 9 judges. jurisdiction (limited): County ordinances, criminal warrants and preliminaries. No jury trials. 14 1997 Annual Report on the Work of the C;('or!!ia tomb CIVIL COURT 2 courts, 3 judges. jurisdiction tlimited): Warrants. Misdemeanor and telonv preliminaries. Civil tort and contract cases under $7,500 tor Bibb County; under $25,000 tor Richmond County. jury trials. MUNICIPAL COURT 1 court in Columbus, 1 judge. lurisdiction (limited): Civil law and landlordtenant cases (civil) under $7,')00. Misdemeanor guilty pleas and preliminary hearings. Warrants. jury trials in civil cases. Judicial Branch in Review Georgia's Judicial Districts, Circuits and Counties Georgia Judicial Districts Circuit Boundary County Boundary o I miles _ _ _ 50 I THOMAS t 997 Annual Rt'port on the Work of tilt' Gt'orgia Courts 15 Supreme Court The Supre me Court has exclusive ap pellate jurisdiction in the following matters: cases invo lving the construction of a treaty or of the Georgia or U.S. Constitution ; the cons titution ality of a law, ordinan ce or constitu tional provision; and election contes ts. Th e state constitution gives the Supreme Court j urisdiction of all cases involving title to land , equity, wills, habeas corpus, extraordinary remed ies (mandamus, proh ibiti on , qu o warrant o, etc.), divorce and alimo ny, all cases certified to it by the Court of Appea ls and all cases in whi ch a sentence of death was impose d or could be imposed . Add itiona lly, the Supre me Cou rt may answe r any qu estion of law from any state or federal appellate court and may review by certio rari cases in th e Court of Appeals which are of great pu blic importance. Terms of court begin in j anuary, April and September. Oral arguments are heard each month, except Augus t and December. The constitution provides tha t all cases shall be decide d no later than the term following the term to whi ch the case is docketed . Cases are assigned in rotation to th e justices for preparation of opinions and decisions of the whole court. When a justice prepares an opinion , it is circulated for study to the other justices and after discussion en bane the opinion is adopted or rejected by a majority of the justices. If a justice is unable to serve or disqualifies himself or herself in a particular case , a substitu te j udge may be designated by the remaining justices to serve. The seven j ustices are elected to staggered , six-year terms in statewide, nonpartisan elections. A candida te for j udges hip must have bee n admitted to practice law for at least seven years pri or to assu ming office. A vacancy on the court is filled by gubernatorial appoi nt me nt to complete the un expi red term . The jus tices elect the chief jus tice and a presiding j us tice to handle administra tive matt ers for the court . The chief justice also presides as chair of th e judicial Council of Georgia. Each j us tice has th ree full-time staff members: two attorneys and one admi nis trative assistant. The attorneys assist the justices in research and the preparation of opinions . They are not perm itted to prac tice law while employed by the court . The Supreme Court clerk, appointed by the members of the court for a six-year term , is the administra tive officer of the court . The clerk has charge of the court's records and keeps its minutes. The opinions of the Supreme Court are published by the official reporter who is also appointed by the court . The Supreme Court has authorit y to promulgate orders needed to carry out its func tions and has rule-making authority for the superior, state, juveni le, probate and magistrate courts. The Admini stra tive Office of the Courts, the Institu te of Continuing j udicial Education , the judicial Council of Georgia, the Office of Bar Admissions, the Office of Dispute Resolut ion , the State Bar of Georgia an d the Chief justice's Commission on Profession alism assist the Supreme Court in its function and du ties. 1(, 1997 Annual RCJlort on the Work of thc Georgia Courts The Courts Supreme Court Caseload: 1995 and 1996 Filed 1995 Direct appeals (includes cross appeals) 538 Petitions for certiorari 841 Applications for appeal Habeas corpus 277 Discretionary 202 Interlocutory 53 Interim review (death penalty) 12 Attorney disciplinaries 113 Original petitions/motions 10 Certified questions 3 Bar admissions 14 Judicial qualifications 1 Emergency motion 16 Total 2,080 1996 536' 687 283 203 52 13 158 3 7 13 1 19 1,975 Disposed 1995 By opinion Affirmed without opinion (Rule 59) Allowed withdrawn Transferred to the Court of Appeals Appeals dismissed Petitions for certiorari Denied Granted Dismissed Withdrawn Writ vacated Habeas corpus applications Denied Granted Dismissed Remanded Discretionary applications Denied Granted Dismissed Transferred to Court of Appeals Interim review (death penalty) Denied Granted Remanded Stricken from Docket Interlocutory applications Denied Granted Dismissed Transferred to Court of Appeals Withdrawn Emergency motions Denied Granted Dismissed Stricken from docket Bar admissions Judicial qualifications Attorney discipline 421 .: 35 37 91 94 770 73 ' 13 6 6 248 2 7 5 123 35 22 21 7 3 0 1 31 12 4 5 4 1 11 2 1 11 10 2 86 1996 404' 26 33 108' 99 653 45' 26 6 12 254 2 2 3 126 32 14 21 9 1 1 1 22 13 4 4 1 13 4 17 11 1 164" Total 2,196 2,132 , Includes 12 cross-appeals and 1 granted application for interim review. : In 1995,418 appeals and 45 granted writs of certiorari were disposed of by 421 written opinions. , Includes 2 writs granted and remanded to the Court of Appeals, and 4 granted with the notice of appeal directed to this court. I Includes 2 applications granted and remanded to superior court. " In 1996, 399 appeals and 57 granted writs of certiorari were disposed of by 404 written opinions. Includes 10 cases that were returned to the Court of Appeals , Includes 3 writs granted and remanded to the Court of Appeals, and 3 granted with the notice of appeal directed to this court. , Includes 6 replacement special master appointments. 1"97 Annual ReJlort on the Work of the (;eor~ia Courts 17 The Courts Court of Appeals The Georgia Court of Appeals, created in 1907 to alleviate the caseload burden of the Georgia Supreme Court, has constitutional Jurisdiction over appeals from superior, state and juvenile courts in all cases where exclusive or generaljurisdiction is not reserved to the Supreme Court. These cases include civil claims for damages, child custody cases, workers' compensation and other administrative law cases and all criminal cases other than capital felonies. The court may also certify legal questions to the Supreme Court. In 1996, the General Assembly created a tenth Judgeship for the Court of Appeals. The chief judge of the court, usually the most senior judge who has not served as chief judge, is elected by the court to a two-year term and is responsible for the administration of the court. Nine judges serve on panels of three judges each, with the chief judge serving alternately on each panel. The chief judge appoints a presiding judge, usually the most senior, to head each panel and assigns judges to the panels each year. The chief judge and the presiding judges form the executive council which decides anc:lJor advises on certain administrative matters. Panel decisions are final unless a judge dissents. If after a hearing by the full court the judges are equally divided, the case is transferred for decision to the Supreme Court. Court of Appeals judges are elected to staggered, six-year terms in statewide, nonpartisan elections. A candidate for judgeship must haw been admitted to practice law for at least seven years prior to assuming office. In the event of vacancies, the governor appoints successors to complete unexpired terms. The court has terms beginning in September, January and April. The Georgia 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. It is believed that no case has ever been so affirmed. The Court of Appeals has a clerk/court administrator to handle the administrative requirements of the court as well as the court records. t 8 t997 Annual Report on the Work of the (;eor!!:ia Courts The Courts Court of Appeals Caseload: 1995 and 1996 Filed Appeals Discretionary applications Interlocutory appl ications Total 1995 2,883 419 333 3,635 1996 2,546 483 421 3,450 Disposed Appeals By opinion By order Rule 36 Total Discretionary applications Granted Denied Dismissed Transierred to Supreme Court Withdrawn Changed to Interlocutory Total Interlocutory applications Granted Denied Dismissed Transierred to Supreme Court Withdrawn Total Total 1995 1,860 648 239 2,747 117 382 37 10 1 0 547 159 248 68 3 1 479 3,773 1996 1,805 618 91 2,514 100 278 85 13 7 0 483 109 242 57 3 3 414 3,411 1997Annual Report on the Work of the (;t'or~ia t.ourts 19 The Courts Superior Courts The superior court is Georgia's general jurisdiction trial court. It has exclusive, constitutional authority over felony cases, divorce, equity and cases regarding title to land. The exclusive jurisdiction of this court also covers such matters as declaratory judgments, habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition. The superior court corrects errors made by lower courts by issuing writs of certiorari; for some lower courts, the right to direct review by the superior court applies. Superior courts are organized into 46 judicial circuits. Each county has its own superior court, though a judge may serve more than one county. Numbers of superior court judges per circuit range from two judges in each of 16 circuits to 15 judges authorized for the Atlanta Judicial Circuit. A chief judge handles the administrative tasks for each circuit. The superior court circuits are grouped into 10 judicial administrative districts ranging in size from one to 27 counties. Administrative judges for each district have statutory authority to compile caseload data and other information and to assign superior court judges, with their approval, to serve temporarily in other counties and circuits as needed. (Please see page 67 for more information on judicial administrative districts.) 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, be a citizen of Georgia for at least three years, and haw practiced law for at least seven years. Superior coun judges who have retired and taken senior status may hear cases in any circuit at the request of a local judge, an administrative judge or the gowrnor. As of June 30,1997,169 judges serve in Georgia's 159 superior courts. Graphs on page 21 show total, civil, criminal and average pcrjudge filings and dispositions [ov ccdendcu years 1992 through 1996. Case/oad data fOl' the supel'ior courts for calendaJ' year 1996 by cirCltil and case type arc presented on pages 22 and 23. About Filing and Disposition Figures Filing and disposition figures Included in this report cannot and should not be considered a complete measurement ofjudicial workload borne by any giwn Judge in any giwn court. Statistics alone cannot describe the relative contribuuons by various members of the Judiciary in the performance of their offictal duties. nor are they indicauvc of the effort a Judge has put forth or the hours spent in performing the duties of office. Therefore. this report should not be used to evaluate or compare Judicial performance. 20 t997 Annual Report on the Work of the Geor~ia Courts The Courts Superior Court Filing and Disposition Trends, 1992-1996 Total filings/ dispositions Filings - - - - Dispositions Civil filings/ dispositions CY 1992 CY 1993 CY 1994 CY 1995 CY 1996 l25,290 320,000 lOh,93 1 ll(),lh7 <, lOLlO-1 <, <, ....... _ - - - - - ...... .!9:;,()(,.:; .!()/,Rlh lO5,572 II I(},-, %l I I I I I I <, ./ / .!()O,7(}() 310,000 300,000 20h,OH IH6,ll.J - -- uu.ii : 19-1,102 I -- , I HH,III! -, ,-, I I I I I -, I ,-, I I -, I " 17!,9.JO 200,000 190,000 180,000 Criminal filings/ dispositions 120,h'J7 -, II 'I,.JU", -, -, -, -, -, <, "- Ill,H)! 122,2Sb 11h,2hC, 116,76,} "I "- I I "- I / / lli,!OI / -, I /()<),)06 120,000 115,000 110,000 Average per judge, total filings/ dispositions* 2,117 'Between 19QO 3 White Whitfield 66 Wilcox Wilkes 11 Wilkinson 11 Worth 12 Total 4,983 23 17 286 P_"J 115 121 0 790 99') 800 2 1 123 108 24 0 0 100 589 451 6 4 45 1.5 6 9 0 109 7') 97 4 2 33 0 0 10 0 54 305 68 0 0 29 32 5 15 0 90 138 109 2 3 81 21 6 16 0 147 281 167 0 0 13 3 1 0 0 23 40 44 2 3 49 24 8 6 0 110 148 97 1 2 17 7 0 12 0 50 47 40 4 0 60 10 3 4 0 99 146 99 8 0 36 13 1 1 2 68 71 87 6 3 125 27 4 352 0 551 410 142 1 1 89 18 4 29 0 167 427 267 8 1 60 33 6 12 0 146 281 222 2 1 24 1 0 0 0 30 27 7.'1 6 8 191 62 18 .54 0 379 411 366 3 1 35 15 2 2 0 63 7J 38 4 7 16 9 36 0 86 .17 60 0 2 18 2 0 0 28 49 64 9 10 125 79 15 16 4 298 237 285 2 0 39 7 0 17 0 83 186 111 3 2 47 28 5 0 0 'J6 1.52 106 3 3 0 0 12 13 9 17 2 240 34 12 21 0 392 468 436 2 49 18 2 11 0 94 50 .12 0 28 3 1 15 0 59 63 114 3 2 58 29 4 6 0 114 199 190 751 798 14,056 9,849 1,709 2,861 152 35,159 51,284 34,348 Note: 104 of 159 probate courts submitted caseload data for fiscal year 1997. 1*1 Caseload data not submitted. " Reported three quarters, \> Reported one quarter. , Reported two quarters, d Data from calendar year 1996, :J6 199; Annual Report on the Work of the (;eorg-ia Courts Magistrate Courts The Courts Magistrate court jurisdiction includes: civil claims of $5,000 or less; distress warrants and dispossessory writs; county ordinance violations; misdemeanor deposit account fraud (bad checks); preliminary hearings; and summonses, arrest warrants and search warrants. A chief magistrate, who may be assisted by one or more magistrates, presides over each of the 159 magistrate courts in the state. Magistrates may grant bail in cases where the setting of bail is not exclusively reserved to a judge of another court. No jury trials are held in magistrate coun. If a defendant submits a written request for a jury trial, cases are removed to superior or state court. The chief magistrate of each county assigns cases, schedules court sessions, appoints other magistrates (with the consent of the superior court judges) and sets policy for the magistrate court. The number of magistrates in addition to the chief is usually set by majority vote of the county's superior court judges. Most chief magistrates are elected in partisan, countywide elections to four-year terms. In 26 counties, chief magistrates run as nonpartisan candidates. In 19 counties, the chief magistrate is appointed, as provided by local legislation. Terms for other magistrate judges run concurrently with that of the chief magistrate who appointed them. To qualify as a magistrate, an individual must reside in the county for at least one year preceding his or her term of office, be 25 years of age, and han a high school diploma or its equivalent. Other qualifications may be imposed by local legislation. At the end of fiscal year 1997, 159 chief magistrates, 317 magistrates and 14 senior magistrates served in Georgia. A magistrate court judge may also serve as judge of another limited jurisdiction court in the same county. Of the judges serving in magistrate court, 22 were also probate judges, three were also civil court judges, and three were also juvenile court judges or associate judges. Filings and dispositions are presented (or those magistrate courts submitting cascioad data to the Administrative O[{icc of the Courrs. 1(,t'7 Annual Report on the Work of the (;eorl!ia Courts :17 The Courts Magistrate Court Caseload, Fiscal Year 1997 (cases filed) County Appling" Atkinson Bacon Baker Baldwin Banks Barrow Bartow" Ben Hill Berrien Bibb Bleckley Brantley Brooks Bryan!' Bulloch Burke Butts Calhoun Camden Candler Carroll Catoosa Charlton Chatham Chattahoochee Chattooga Cherokee" Clarke Clav" Clayton Clinch Cobb Coffee Colquitt Columbia Cook" Coweta Crawford Crisp Dade Dawson Decatur" DeKalb Dodge Dooly Dougherty Douglas Early Echols Effingham' Elbert Emanuel Evans Fannin Fayette Floyd Forsyth Franklin Fulton Warrants Issued Bond & Commitment Criminal Cases Hearings Filed Disposed 884 587 297 101 802 589 229 253 2,296 756 2,800 2,910 1,470 1,135 8,648 488 487 697 410 6,041 1,255 99 292 1,136 915 950 N/A 4,120 461 426 372 79 296 298 2,187 48 104 1,865 793 N/A 4,090 542 286 44 52 136 7 298 42 104 1,865 586 N/A 3,166 542 286 2 52 141 5 Civil Claims Filed Disposed 493 368 530 530 2,419 289 750 764 886 446 4,548 291 309 819 177 1,242 881 212 282 750 770 800 387 6,824 390 309 816 168 1,645 663 Total Total Other Civil Cases Warrants & Hearings & Filed Disposed Filings Dispositions 150 150 1,824 1,206 261 2,285 138 785 1,139 936 209 2,811 202 81 386 133 1,327 516 225 21 135 785 1,139 936 128 2,466 224 81 372 112 1,400 143 1,822 9,187 1,231 4,439 6,678 4,085 1,790 20,097 1,523 1,163 1,946 772 8,746 2,659 1,597 630 751 2,775 4,689 3,272 515 16,576 1,617 1,102 1,562 411 3,482 1,109 1,551 2,884 N/A 463 8,343 147 1,497 2,232 7,494 126 9,064 373 17,163 4,138 2,385 2,331 654 3,151 213 1,301 607 748 1,167 22,600 892 454 5,682 5,967 656 437 2,122 764 655 1,161 3,232 769 11,576 1,081 1,947 N/A 364 8,663 164 533 1,077 3,285 44 12,006 5 17,183 944 575 105 17 246 131 997 298 644 198 46,426 48 7,062 562 149 77 908 619 208 848 2,253 562 27,601 837 2,193 400 233 5,774 20 254 174 4,479 N/A 3,611 19 6,792 1,090 N/A 1,873 212 1,708 84 1,038 116 20 N/A 2,045 366 72 1,702 301 41 22 26 467 376 957 3,203 523 31,077 649 2,168 588 229 6,928 23 N/A 151 2,489 N/A 3,421 N/A 4,825 495 N/A 1,199 N/A 892 53 958 113 N/A 2,935 308 N/A 1,815 292 41 22 25 414 160 670 2,663 461 16,511 766 1,715 475 223 7,543 64 377 543 1,391 54 2,395 185 4,326 1,565 1,929 1,137 278 1,249 293 919 153 283 595 5,432 522 401 3,835 850 534 71 500 1,081 371 643 3,004 612 7,831 477 1,663 409 216 5,235 61 377 354 883 54 1,442 185 2,950 424 784 255 856 158 978 130 483 N/A 2,714 251 396 3,518 767 534 71 442 986 274 1,006 2,161 553 9,549 664 1,560 526 104 10,438 26 284 926 2,193 42 11,682 132 2,560 1,315 868 718 160 1,408 86 962 29 135 433 188 193 236 6,192 2,466 234 68 350 646 115 598 3,362 314 42,572 375 1,457 371 97 2,096 24 284 516 366 40 6,794 106 1,219 475 372 99 976 15 793 28 16 N/A N/A 73 214 5,015 166 228 68 148 368 109 546 1,401 165 19,865 3,818 8,352 1,401 1,023 32,098 257 2,412 3,875 15,557 222 26,752 709 30,841 8,108 5,182 6,059 1,304 7,516 676 4,220 905 1,186 2,195 30,265 1,973 1,163 17,411 9,584 1,465 598 2,998 2,958 1,517 3,359 12,801 2,218 77,625 2,582 7,235 1,368 906 22,922 272 1,194 2,098 7,023 138 23,663 296 26,177 2,338 575 2,460 371 2,970 357 3,726 569 1,143 198 52,075 632 658 17,410 1,787 952 238 1,523 2,387 751 3,070 8,478 1,741 64,237 .:18 t997 Annual ReJlort on the Work of the (;eor!!ia Courts County Gilmer Glascock' Glvnn" Gordon Grady Greene Gwinnett Habersham Hall Hancock Haralson Harris Hart Heard Henry Houston Irwin Jackson Jasper Jeff Davis lerfersonJenkins h Johnson Jones l.arnar!' Lanier Laurens Leei , Liberty Lincoln Long" Lowndes Lumpkin Macon' Madison Marion" McDuffie Mcintosh Meriwether Miller Mitchell Monroe Montgomery" Morgan Murrayh Muscogee Newton Oconee Oglethorpe Paulding " Peach Pickens" Pierce Pike Polk Pulaski Putnam Quitman Rabun" Randolph" Magistrate Court Caseload, Fiscal Year 1997 (cases filed) Tlw Courts Warrants Issued Bond & Commitment Criminal Cases Hearings Filed Disposed Civil Claims Filed Disposed Total Total Other Civil Cases Warrants & Hearings & Filed Disposed Filings Dispositions 2 2,284 3,582 1,354 708 12,833 4,539 333 808 1,206 728 464 2,424 6.172 376 2,672 750 559 296 707 359 449 4,003 334 3,246 331 302 8,194 468 219 1,197 a7 720 72'1 921 1,091 730 480 917 S,338 7,735 348 87 783 407 99 4,049 4.109 122 1,202 446 305 49 84 280 N!A 3,917 334 1,401 149 112 6,08b 524 20 szs 82 52 529 26 1 760 1,466 289 346 2,986 3,335 68 268 225 J06 63 1,14.) 927 1 N!A 316 29a 72 N!A N!A 311 1,174 360 19 54 132 2,222 149 N!A 603 N!A 5S4 75 .337 1 760 413 435 339 1,922 2,426 68 58 17/ 181 78 1,147 1,a36 1 N!A 316 298 N!A N!A 303 1,174 3i>O 21 54 N!A 389 67 N!A 426 4 554 7.1 335 12 1,216 1,548 1,S07 575 4,245 2,12.) 1,008 422 434 S42 249 1,092 2,297 353 873 580 61S S23 647 165 159 1,287 392 1,450 234 176 2,133 14S 89 533 197 1,061 262 636 2 1,216 9S9 1,253 519 4,210 2,443 98) 23S 3bO 420 142 a70 2,109 354 1,101 sao (1) 36 355 13'1 1.19 1,260 385 1,0.12 236 5 279 151 154 286 140 1,061 234 636 5 1,152 927 708 417 'J,79) 2,3<)2 349 276 269 269 125 1,328 2,334 268 904 4O.) J06 2a1 247 153 61 1.191 257 uab 16a 48 2,598 126 102 184 142 786 97 400 1 1,152 240 659 98 9,)78 2,021 222 21'J 246 206 123 l4b 2,.162 2ba 9a2 40S 306 38 209 134 61 U'll 253 699 169 N!A '19 134 143 128 122 7ab 59 40O 20 5,412 7,)23 3,858 2,04b 29,859 12,3 Reported two quarters, , Reported one quarter. 40 1"97 Annual Report on the Work of the (;eorg-ia Courts Special Courts and Municipal Courts The Courts Three hundred and eighty-six local courts are part of the Georgia court system. These special courts and the courts serving incorporated municipalities operate under various names with varying jurisdictions. Originally created by statute or constitutional provision, certain special courts have limited civil and criminal jurisdiction throughout a county. These include the civi] courts in Bibb and Richmond counties and the Municipal Court of Columbus. The county recorders courts of Chatham, Columbus-Muscogcc. DeKalb and Gwinnctt Counties exercise criminal jurisdiction only. Courts of inc or p orat c d municipalities try municipal ordinance viol at io n s. issue criminal warrants, conduct preliminary hearings, and may have concurrent jurisdiction over shoplifting cases and cases involving possession of one ounce or less of marijuana. Local courts originally known as city court, mayors court, municipal court, police court or recorders court were redesignated as municipal courts by the 1983 state constitution. The City Court of Atlanta, which retains its original name, has city-wide jurisdiction over traffic cases and on July 1, 1996, was designated by legislation as a state court of limited jurisdiction. Qualifications of judges and terms of office in municipal courts are set by local legislation. 1I)1)7\lIl1l1al ReJlorl 011 lilt' Work of lilt' (;eor!!ia Courts 41 Judicial Council The judicial Council (OCGA 15-5 -20 ) is the state-level j udicia l agency cha rged with developing policies for administering and improving the cou rts . The state legislature created th e judicial Counc il in 1973 ; in 197 8 the council officially becam e an admini strative arm of the Georgia Supreme Cour t. Th e counc il cons ide rs requ ests for new su perior court judgeships and oversees th e acti viti es of th e Ad mi nistra tive O ffice of the Co urts (AOC) and the Board of Court Rep orting. Twent y-four rep resentati ves of th e ap pe llate and trial co u rts mak e up th e judicial Counci l. Th e chief jus tice and presidi ng justice of th e Supreme Court act as th e cha irpe rso n an d vice chairperson , resp ectively. The chief judge and ano the r j udge of the Cou rt of App eals; the presidents and president s-elect of th e superior, state, juvenile, probat e and magistrate court councils; and the 10 supe rior court distr ict ad min istra tive j udges co m plete co u nc il m e m b er s h i p . The full counci l meets at least twice each year, as it did in December 1996 an d june 1997 . A primary respo nsibility of the counc il is to advise the legislature and governor on the need for new su perior court judgesh ips. In cons ide ring judges hip requ ests, th e judicial Co uncil seeks to main tain a balan ce in caseload distribution in the superior courts. Each year a careful evaluation ofcircuit caseloads, demographics and spec ial circums tances is prep ared for each of the 46 judicial circuits. The AOC ana lyzes caseload data collected by the judicial ad ministra tive districts and presents th e results to the counci l for th eir cons ide ration . Further inform ation is collected from those circuits requ esting a new judgeship. The comprehe nsive data co llection effort allows statistical com parisons to be mad e a mo ng circ u its ba sed o n es ta b lis he d criteria: weight ed caseload , average filings, number of jury trials, open cases, circuit p opul ati on and d ays o f se n io r j u dge assistance . In fiscal year 1997 , the judicial Council recommend ed to the legislature and governor th e crea tion of five new su perio r cour t judgeships. Ranked by the counci l in pri ority orde r, th e recommendation s were for : a l Oth j udges hip in th e Sto ne Mountain judicial Circuit, a 7th judges hi p in the Gwinne tt judicial Circuit, a 16th judgesh ip in th e Atlant a judicial Circuit, a 3rd judges hip in the Dou glas judicial Circuit , and a 5th judgeship in the Oc m ulgee judicial Circuit. The co uncil also voted to carry for ward a recommendation mad e in fiscal year 1996 to sp lit th e Blue Ridge judicial Circu it (C he ro kee and For syth Count ies) in to two single-county circuits. The 1997 General Assembly did not create any new superior court judgeships. Legislation autho rizing division of the Blue Ridge Circuit was uns uccessful. In othe r matt ers before the council, a resolution in su p po rt o f th e Co u rt o f Appea ls' effort to add judges and create a 42 1997 Annual RCJlort 0 11 thc Work of the (;corgia Cnurts Judi('ial A~en('ies fourth panel on the court was approved. Two decisions made by the Board of Court Reporting and appealed to the council were reviewed. The board's decisions were affirmed. The council also approved curricula for the Georgia Magistrate Courts Training Council and the Georgia Municipal Courts Training Council. The council meetings continue to provide a forum for judicial branch agencies to report on their projects and share ideas. Administrative Office of the Courts The Administrative Office of the Courts (OCGA 15-5-22 and Supreme Court Order, August 5, 1983) provides fiscal, communications, research and support services to all classes of courts. It is liaison to other state and national judicial agencies and staffs the judicial Council, working closely with its chairperson, the chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. Research and court services The research and court services divi- sion generates court statistical information and analyses to identify system needs and propose recommendations for improvement. The research staff provides information to national organizations, other states and the public on topics such as judicial compensation and benefits, court organization and jurisdiction, jury and records management and others. Studies are also conducted upon request of members of the judiciary and the General Assembly. The research staff supervises yearly collection of caseload and other data from the trial courts. Calendar year 1996 superior court case load data submitted by district personnel was audited and analyzed in terms of circuit workloads. Information on cascloads in each of the 46 judicial circuits was presented to the judicial Council for use in making recommendations on the need for additional superior court judgeships. Projections of case load were made for several local jurisdictions where adding personnel or remodeling courthouse facilities is being considered. Caseload information was also provided to determine revenues that might be generated from court fees for alternative dispute resolution programs authorized by OCGA 15-23-1 et seq. An analysis was made of appellate court cases to investigate a possible link between domestic violence and homicide. The research division assisted the Georgia Courts Automation Commission staff and contractors in defining data elements for a statewide database of criminal and civil case information. Staff also assisted in conducting research on fees, penalties and court costs as part of an effort to establish accounting standards for the Council of Superior Court Clerks. Working with a committee of judges, court administrators and clerks of the superior courts, staff helped draft a new Court Information Rule (which became Uniform Rule 39.9 on Feb. 13, 1997) to improve the data available to judges. The rule has been submitted to the Supreme Court for approva I. A policy statement for the judicial Council to use in evaluating proposals for experimental courts of nonuniform jurisdiction was prepared. Staff completed 191'7\l1l1l1al Rt'lHlrt 011 the Work of tilt' (;eor~ia fOllrb tJ preliminary evaluations of proposals from the Atlanta judicial Circuit, Cobb County, the Tallapoosa judicial Circuit and the Tifton judicial Circuit. After providing staff support to the Commission on Appellate Courts, the research division worked in conjunction with legislative counsel to prepare a final report for presentation to the 1997 General Assembly The calendar year 1996 salary sunTy was compiled for personnel from all trial courts. Detailed information on salary, staffing and funding is collected in this annual survey Data was provided to the Council of State Court judges and the Council of Magistrate Court judges to use in preparing proposals for presentation to the 1997 General Assembly On records management issues, staff met with representatives of the Council of juvenile Court judges to revise retention schedules for juvenile courts. A presentation on records retention scheduling was made during the juvenile court clerks seminar. At the annual Law-Related Education Conference, a presentation on court technology was made. An inventory of the records in the superior court clerks office in Paulding County was conducted with the assistance of the district court administrator and the Department of Archives and History. The research division provided staff support to committees and projects of the Equality Commission. The Foreign Language Interpreters Database was expanded and revised. This database was made accessible in I997 to judges and others on the Supreme Courts World Wide Web page. Oversight and assistance was also provided to the Supreme Court Child Placement Proceedings Project. Staff support to judicial commissions and committees Georgia Courts Automation Commission. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOO provided staff and project management for the activities of the Georgia Courts Automation Commission. Establishing commission objectives, obtaining funding and providing administrative, clerical and fiscal support are among the functions performed, (For more information on the commission, sec page 58.) Supreme Court Child Placement Proceedings Project. The AOC provided project coordination and staff support to the Child Placement Proceedings Project. The project, under the direction of an advisory committee appointed by the Georgia Supreme Court, is part of a nationwide effort to assess and improve child placement proceedings in the courts, During fiscal year I 997, the project completed its assessment phase, presenting a report to the Supreme Court on October 9. This initial phase of the project found that although most children who enter the Georgia court system because of abuse and neglect move to a permanent home in a relatively smooth manner, there are many ways in which refinements in the system could improve the handling of these cases. While a survey of Georgia laws, rules and procedures relating to deprived children shows that the states juvenile code follows federal guidelines, consistent policies and uniform practice are lacking. The report focuses on these issues and makes recommendations to improve practice in Georgia. The project has now entered its implementation phase, launching pilot record-keeping projects, cross-training programs, a newsletter and web page. Supreme Court Commission on Equality. The AOC provided administrative H t""7 Annual Rt'JlOrt 011 the Work of the (;('orl!ia (:ourt~ Judidal Ag-elH'ies and technical support to the commission during fiscal year 1997, Staff coordinated production of a 40-minute training video featuring scenarios in which actors display gender, racial or ethnic bias, The "Guide to Bias-Free Communication," a brochure on bias-free language, was developed and published, Staff also worked with the National judicial Education Program to Promote Equality for Women and Men in the Courts to develop a curriculum to be piloted in Georgia and California, Other activities included attending the American judicature Society Workshop on Improving Access to the Courts for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired and the National Consortium of Racial and Ethnic Bias Task Forces and Commissions, (For more information on the commission, see page 71,) Supreme Court Committee on Substance Abuse and the Courts. A program manager was provided to the Committee on Substance Abuse and the Courts, established by the Supreme Court to follow up on the recommendations made at the Georgia Conference on Substance Abuse and the Courts, Financial support for the committee comes from the Criminal justice Coordinating Council and state funds appropriated to the Supreme Court, The membership is comprised of representatives from the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government; the legal profession; court administrators; and civic leaders, During fiscal year 1997, the committee continued to hold regular meetings and produced a series of videotapes dealing with the impact of substance abuse on society and the judicial system, The tapes feature round-robin discussions and question-andanswer sessions with superior court judges, On May 9, the committee held its spring planning meeting, The goal was to foster Duties of the Administrative Office of the Courts (OCGA 15-5-24 and Orders of the Supreme Court) 1) Consult wuh .md assLSt Judges, uduum-ar.uor-, clerks of court .md other ollicc r- ,-lI1J cmploycc IJ[" the court perL.lIning tl) m.utcrs rl'i<.llll1g tn court admuu-tr.uion and provide such St'l"\']LCS as ,-U"t' requested 2) Ex.urunc the .ulmuu-a r.u ivc <.UH.! hus1I1c::,s methods JnL! SySlL'l1b employed in till' l)ITtccs rcl.ucd Il) ;\11<.'\ scrnng till' u'urb .md m.ikc rccomnund.mon-, It)!" I1l'l'CSsary 1I1lPl\)\"L'Il1CIll ,1 Ct>ll1l'de sutLSlical .md tin.uur! d.u.i and other inlorm.iuon on the IULlIcl,d work o! the cnurts and on the work (>1 t>ther (>lIlces rcl.ucd t .md SlTYlllg the (nuns, whi.h shall he pnn'llkd hy the L\'urt..- -j) Fx.unin thL' sute (>1 the dncke'ts .ind I'r,Ic'llces and !)I't'cL'durL" nl thL' U1ll1TS .md make n'u)mll1l'ndatlllll~ lor thl' cxpcdiuou ol htlg,ltll)!1 ~) ,\ct ,LS ""c,11 (>lIIeer .md prepare .md -ubmu hudgL'1 L'slillUll'S o! ,I,ltt' .ippropn.uion I1l'ccssary lor till' m.unu-u.mo .md opcr.uion o! ihr ju.h(lal SYSll'll1 ()) l'crtorm such adrluional duuc-, as Illay he- 'LSSlgIlL'd hy the judlL'lal Counri! ,) Prq)arL' .md publish all .muu.il report on Ihe work nl the Lt>UI'!S and on the aCl!\'ltles of the Adnunistrauvc Uilice of the Ct'urts H) Receive grants "\>111 any source, pubhc "I' pnv.uc. .md expend tunds .md perform serl'lces 111 .u.cordancc wuh the tcrrn- "I any gr.llll L)1 Prepare, publish .md dtsmhutc. [rom tunc In lime, StllL"eS .md repnrts rclauru; to the administr.mon of justice. 11l1]1lbl' 1\\lSl)llahk chargl's tor such reports where appropn.uc on either an mdivrdual or suhscnpuon has is .md rct.un .224 tiLl7 20.077 58,389 1.1 '54 2('>.('>02 1',1'30 2.l)('>0 42.2('>3 81,017 Superior State Probate i\lagistrale Murucipal Total 1('> 2('> so )L) 46 '52 22 32 2l)O 223 314 363 Total court-collections 1996 1997 S12.71('>.10S" S3l\'5H0.H'5'5 ;j(1 1997Annual Beport on the Work of the (;t'org-ia Courts Judicial A~(,I1('ies promulgating rules and regulations for the registration of all private entities; producing an annual summary report; promulgating rules and regulations requiring criminal records checks of all private probation officers. The council's uniform standards include regulations governing professionalism of private probation officers, contract terms for probation services, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, registration and training. Eleven voting members comprise the council. They include: a superior court judge, a state court judge, a probate court judge, a magistrate court judge and a municipal court judge, each designated by the respective judges' councils and representing a judicial circuit, county or municipality contracting with a private probation company; a sheriff; a mayor or member of a municipal governing authority; a county commissioner; a public probation officer; a private probation officer or individual with expertise in the field; and the commissioner of corrections or a designee. The council holds quarterly meetings. Georgia Commission on Dispute Resolution The Georgia Commission on Dispute Resolution (established by Georgia Court and Bar Rules-Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules II) succeeded the Joint Commission on Alternative Dispute Resolution in February 1993. This policy-making body is appointed by the Georgia Supreme Court to oversee the development of courtannexed and court-referred alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs in Georgia. The members of the commission are judges, lawyers and nonlawyers who meet regularly to consider issues important to the development of court-connected ADR in Georgia. l\leetings of the commission are open to the public. The Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution serves as staff for the Georgia Commission on Dispute Resolution. Its responsibilities include: 1) to serve as a resource for ADR education and research; 2) to provide technical assistance to new and existing court-connected programs at no charge; 3) to provide training to neutrals in courts throughout the state at no charge; 4) to implement the commission's policies on qualification of neutrals and quality of programs; 5) to maintain the registry of neutrals; and 6) to collect statistics and monitor program effectiveness. In fiscal year 1997, the Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution continued its on-going project to implement uniform, statewide collection of ADR statistics. Of the 29 existing ADR programs, 20 are currently collecting data using a customized computer database. Five more programs will begin using the database before December 1997. The next phase of the project will be the creation and implementation of a uniform exit survey for neutrals, parties to dispute resolution, and attorneys. The commission and the Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution work closely with the existing 29 court programs. In many instances, training and other technical assistance has been provided. Grants to local ADR programs have been made t99:' \nnual Rel)Ort on the Work of the (;eorg-ia t:ollrts ;):' Judicial Agen('ies using funds from the Georgia Bar Foundation. In addition, staff are available to assist new court programs in the design and implementation of their programs. ADR court-connected services are now available in 79 counties. Permanent funding for ADR programs was established in April 1993 through authorization of a filing fee surcharge of up to 55.00 in participating counties (OCGA 15-23-1-13). This statute was amended in March 1997, to allow for a fee increase effective january 1,1998. During the year, the commission developed procedures for use by the commission's ethics committee when a complaint is made against a neutral or a neutral violates the law or is disciplined by a professional organization. The procedures were adopted in April. In addition, in the spring of 1997 the chair of the commission appointed a longrange planning committee to consider the work of the commission as it enters the next century. The committee is considering four topics: 1) the central structure of the commission and office; 2) quality control of programs and neutrals; 3) innovative concepts and processes; and 4) outreach. Four subcommittees, each dealing with one of the topics under consideration, met during the summer of 1997 and have prepared preliminary findings. Their report to the commission will be completed in the fall. The office has turned its attention to the ongoing issues of quality control for court programs, continuing education for neutrals, mentoring, training and statistics. Georgia Courts Automation Commission (Annual Report for calendar year 1997, as required by OCGA 15-5-82.) GCAC, the Georgia Courts Automation Commission (OCGA I 5-5-80), provides automation products and services to all levels of courts. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOe) provides project direction, staff, fiscal services, and budget coordination for the commission. Additional staff support is provided by the Computer Services Division of the Department of Administrative Services (DOAS). A primary duty of the commission is to define, implement and administer a statewide courts automation system, including data collection and entry into the system, data storage and processing, and information retrieval and distribution. The commission's strategic planning focuses on adding local courts to the statewide automation network and coordinating court automation technology to eliminate duplication of effort and reduce costs. Advisory services are offered to local officials for automating their court procedures and operations. Automated case management in the superior courts The SLq,\I:\ court case management software system has now been installed in 30 of Georgia's superior courts. The Douglas judicial Circuit was the first single-court site, and the Middle judicial Circuit (Candler, Emanuel, jefferson, 58 1997Annual Report 011 the Work of the (;eor!!ia (.ourts Judicial Agentics Toombs and Washington Counties) was the first multi-county Judicial circuit to install the system under GCACs statewide license. Twenty-four other superior courts are now using this software, including the Rome Circuit and all five counties in the Northern Circuit. Thirteen more courts are in line for installation of the new Windows version of the software. The accounting module of the software has been installed in Elbert and White Counties. Further installation of the accounting module is pending, as GCAC, the Council of Superior Court Clerks and the Clerks' Association work to develop standard accounting policies. The Washington County Superior Court was the first SlSTAl\: site to report automated criminal case dispositions electronically to the Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIO. Data from the SLSIAl:\ system is transferred electronically on the Statewide Computerized Information Network to the GCIC database. Electronic data transmission reduces or eliminates the need for local counties to submit data in paper form, and improves the timeliness, accuracy and completeness of information. During 1997, this disposition capability was installed in 23 more courts. Any court using the SlST:\I:\ software can transmit dispositions electronically to GCIC. During 1997, Sl'STAll\ software was installed in three probate, five magistrate and three juvenile courts. Prosecutors can use the SLSIAll\ database as a persons-based casemanagement system. The system has been installed in the Ogeechee and Houston judicial Circuit district attorneys' offices, and additional installations are pending in the Cordele and Flint judicial Circuits. The new Windows-based Georgiajustice Information System, which incorporates the persons-based manager, case manager and associated supporting modules of the SlST,l,I\: suite of products, can process data from law enforcement offices, the prosecutors office and the court. This new version of the software is to be tested in Baldwin County. The sheriff, magistrate court, district attorney, solicitor general, and superior court clerk are project participants. The GCAC Help Desk is accessible to SLSL\I\: users and superior court judges via a toll-free number. Users may contact state staff with questions about the hardware, software and use of the Georgia Online (GO) Network. The Help Desk includes general support for superior court judges in personal computer operating systems, word-processing applications, electronic mail and Internet access. Georgia Online Network GCAC maintains and supports the GO Network connections for courts and court personnel through a cooperative agreement with DOAS. In fiscal year 1996, the GO Network was expanded to include superior court judges through the judges Online project of the Council of Superior Court judges. In fiscal year 1997, full-time state court judges were added to the network. Clerks of superior courts have been the backbone of the courts' portion of the GO Network since 1989. In 1997, the replacement of outdated equipment in the clerks' offices was completed. In addition, probate judges who also serve as the elections officials in their counties were added to the network through a voter project sponsored by the Secretary of State. Additional activities Georgia jury is a jury-management software system that includes jury-selection, check-writing and summons-producing 1997 Annual RqlOrt on the Work of the (;eor~ia ('ourts ;)9 Judicial A~('ndts capabilities. This service is currently used by 42 superior courts. The program allows automated transfer of registered voter lists into jury boxes for use by Jury commissions and the courts. The Michie Company of Charlottesville, Virginia brings Georgia Law On Disc to approximately 500 judicial branch subscribers at no cost in most cases. Georgia Law On Disc contains the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA), the rules of court, and decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Requests for this product are processed through GCAC. Additionally, Law Office Information Systems (LOIS) of Van Buren, Arkansas, has provided the Georgia code on CD-ROM to over 200 fulltime judges at no cost in most cases. The Georgia Uniform Traffic Citation System (GAUTC) is available to municipal, probate and state courts for processing traffic citations. This product was tested in the Municipal Court of Lake City and has been adopted by over 40 courts handling traffic cases. A fee-and-fine system was incorporated into the UTC to create the Georgia Traffic Management System. The system provides for a docket, fee and fine collection and disbursement, and for electronic reporting of citations to the Department of Public Safety. This software system can reduce the time required to post new information on driver records from several months to a matter of days. In fiscal year 1997, the Georgia Tech Research Corporation remained under contract to provide statewide databases for superior, state and juvenile courts. This project involves the determination of data to be collected for state statistics, case counting' reporting to various state agencies, and inquiry data for judges and other authorized court staff. The design phase of this multiyear project has been completed. Georgia Indigent Defense Council The Georgia Indigent Defense Act (OCGA 17-12-32) provides a program of legal representation for indigent defendants and created the Georgia Indigent Defense Council (GIDO. The councils 15 members are appointed by the state Supreme Court. Membership includes one lawyer from each of the 10 judicial administrative districts, three nonlawyers from the state at large and two county commissioners. The purposes and duties of the council are: 1) to administer funds provided by the state and federal government to support local indigent defense programs~ 2) to recommend uniform guidelines for local programs; 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 budgets, reports and management information required for implementation of the Georgia Indigent Defense Act. The council monitors implementation of Supreme Court guidelines for operation of local indigent defense programs. These guidelines cover appointment of counsel on a timely basis; eligibility determinations and criteria to qualify indigents: standards for 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; (,II 199:' Annual Report on tilt' Work of tilt' (;t'or!!ia Courts Judicial A~el1('i('s roles and responsibilities of local indigent defense governing committees; and the mechanism for distribution of stateappropriated funds. During fiscal year 1997, monetary assistance was provided to 136 counties for operation of their indigent defense programs. These grants, totaling nearly $3.5 million, were funded from state appropriations, the Georgia Bar Foundation and the Sheriffs and Clerks Trust Account Program. During fiscal year 1998, 141 counties will receive state funds for indigent defense programs. The council provides significant inkind assistance to local programs: The Compliance Division distributes state funding to the counties for their individual indigent defense programs. The division monitors and evaluates county indigent defense programs statewide and assists with improving representation. The division also responds to requests for assistance from jail inmates and directs defendants to appropriate legal resources. The Appellate Division was established recently to: 1) afford appointed counsel a source for consultation, research and advice on appellate issues and procedures; 2) assist the other divisions (particularly the Multicounty Public Defenders Office) in preparing appeals: and 3) prepare and submit on behalf of GlDC amicus briefs on issues significant to indigent defense. The Mental Health Advocacy Division (MHAD) is a statewide resource center for attorneys and service providers who work with mentally ill criminal defendants. Attorneys who represent indigent criminal defendants having mental health problems can consult MHAD on pretrial motions, strategies, and interpretation of mental health information. Recent legislation allows MHAD attorneys to directly represent defendants who have already been found not guilty by reason of insanity. Where there is a local attorney, MHAD will provide ongoing support and consultation. During fiscal year 1997, MHAD initiated 180 cases, closed 144 and, at the end of the fiscal year, had 194 open cases. MHAD conducts seminars for attorneys, hospital staff and community mental health service providers. The Multicounty Public Defenders Office (MPD) is a trial resource center for attorneys handling death penalty cases. The office provides assistance in three areas by: 1) providing training and assistance to any attorney who has been appointed to defend a person charged with a capital offense; 2) serving as co-counsel to assist locally appointed lead counsel in the trial and direct appeal of cases where the defendant faces the death penalty; and 3) accepting appointments to provide direct representation as lead counsel in death penalty cases. The Professional Education Division sponsors seminars specifically designed for indigent defense attorneys. These seminars are conducted throughout the state with local experts and prominent criminal defense attorneys serving as faculty. As a sen-ice to counties, these seminars are offered "at cost" to attorneys accepting appointed cases. The goal is to enhance the abilities of defense attorneys to provide effective representation for indigent clients. The Juvenile Advocacy Division began work in July 1996 to provide support and consultation to attorneys and guardians ad litem who represent clients in actions and proceedings of the juvenile courts. In fiscal year 1997, the staff provided individual case consultation, conducted training seminars, provided training materials to judges and attorneys, and tracked the effects of legislation impacting juveniles. JI'97 Annual Report on the Work of tilt' (;eor~ia t.ourts (JI Judicial A~{'ndes Georgia Magistrate Courts Training Council (Annual Report for calendar year 1997, as required by OCGA 15-10-134J The Georgia Magistrate Courts Training Council (OCGA 15-10-132) supervises continuingjudicial education requirements for magistrate court judges and prescribes minimum standards for magistrate training curricula and the criteria for magistrate certification. The council approves instructor qualifications and issues training certification to chief magistrates and magistrates who satisfactorily comply with mandatory continuing judicial education programs. The membership, comprised of five magistrate court judges, is appointed by the president of the Council of Magistrate Court Judges to two-year terms. Prior to changes in the statute made by the 1997 General Assembly, members were appointed by the gll\'ernor. The director of the AOC serves as non-voting secretary. Nonlawyer magistrates who are newly elected or appointed must attend the first scheduled certification course after assuming office and successfully complete 40 hours of training. To maintain certified status, all magistrates (including those who are members of the State Bar of Georgia) must fulfill an annual 20-hour recertification training requirement. In calendar year 1997, the training council sponsored two 40-hour seminars covering civil and criminal matters. Georgia Magistrate Courts Training Council: 1997 Seminars Seminar 40-Hour Certification judging and Humanities Domestic Violence Constitutional Criminal Procedure judicial Use of Computers 2l)-Hour Recertification -ln-llour Certification 20-Hour Recertification Domestic Violence Constuuuonal Criminal Procedure Location Athens Athens Columbus Columbus Athens Sa\'annah Athens Duluth St. SII110nS St. Simons Attendees 75 13 25 20 12 H7 70 02 39 42 Total 511 Notes: 483 magistrates were certified by training in ILJLJ7. Additional attendees included magistrates wh o attended more t han o nc program. Judges of other courts. and trumcrs. One Judge attended trainiru; at the National judicinl College in Reno. Nevada. One Judge attended the National Court Technology Conference in Detroit. l\lichigan (,2 1997Annual Report on the Work of the Geor!!ia tourb Judicial A~endes Magistrates needing recertification training may attend part of a 40-hour program to fulfill the 20-hour requirement. Two 20-hour recertification programs were held. In addition, four specialty courses were offered: Domestic Violence judging and Humanities; judicial Use of Computers; and Constitutional Criminal Procedure. The council also sponsored training for magistrate court clerks and secretaries. The training council allows recertification credit for attendance at programs other than the traditional 20-hour programs. Up to four hours of credit per year may be obtained by attending training at the Council of t--Iagistrate Court judges quarterly meetings. In conjunction with the Council of Magistrate Court judges, the training council continued its mentor judges program. The Institute of Continuing judicial Education assigns new judges to mentor judges. No more than two judges are assigned to each mentor. The following pu b lica tions we re distributed: the Magistmtes Benchbook (to new magistrates) or its update (to sitting magistrates), the Georgia Magistmte Court Handbook or its supplement by judge Wayne 1\1. Purdom, and the Magistmtc Court Guide by judge johnny W Warren. In addition, magistrates were given a choice of receiving either the Gcorgicl LuwEn(OI'CL'men! Handbook published by the Harrison Company or the Michie Company's GeOlgia Crimin(1I (mel Tm[fic Luw Mmllwl. The council also provides the Automated Fee and Fine Accounting System to judges on request. Georgia Municipal Courts Training Council (Annual Report for calendar year 1997, as required by OCGA 36-32-24) The Georgia Municipal Courts Training Council (OCGA 36-32-22) prescribes minimum course requirements and training criteria for municipal court judges and supervises completion of the continuing education requirements. The council sets minimum qualifications for instructors, approves schools, keeps training records, and issues certificates of course completion. Newly appointed or elected judges must attend a 20-hour certification course within twelve months of assuming office. All other municipal court judges must attend 12 hours of instruction annually to maintain their certification. All pro hac vice or pro tem app otnt ecs must also be certified. With the Institute of Continuing judicial Education (lCjE), the training council offered two initial and eight recertification courses during fiscal year 1997. The initial certification course includes the following topic areas: serious traffic offenses, case load management and court administration, judicial ethics and discipline, professionalism, local ordinance ,1dj u die a t ion, and c r i min a I la wan d procedure. In calendar year 1997, the recertification courses focused on traffic case adjudication and criminal procedure. Course offerings also included constitutional 1"1':' Annual ReJlort on the Work of tilt' t;eorl!ia t:ourb (,:l Judicial Agencies criminal procedure, domestic violence, computer applications for the courts, judicial ethics and a judging and humanities specialty course. There were 35 new judges certified in 1997, and 290 judges were recertified. Courses sponsored by the training council are usually creditable as mandatory continuing legal education hours for part-time Judges who practice law. Municipal court judges have the option of attending nationally sponsored Judicial training such as the annual ABA traffic seminar, National judicial College courses, and those of the Institute for Court Management. Other ICjE training is creditable if the Georgia Municipal Courts Training Council: 1997 Seminars Seminar 12-Hour Rccerulicauon 211-Hour Ccrufic.uion Judicial Usc of Computers Judicial Ethics Constitutional Criminal Procedure 2l)-Hour Ccrulicauon Judging and Humanities Domestic Violence Spccialtv Course lor t--Iagistrate and xlunicipal Court judges Consututional Criminal Procedure Domestic Violence Scmmar Location S'II"1I1nah Athens Athens Unicoi Lnicoi Athens Athens Columbus Columbus Columbus Attendees 1'511 0'5 12 18 12 -+7 22 2-+ 18 o Total 374 Notes: Some Judges attend more than one scm mar. and municipal COUrl Judges ma) attend other IC.!E-sponsl)J'ed seminars lor judges 01 other trial ourt s or national judiciul educational programs relevant io thcir duties as municipal counjudgcs Therefore. total numbers certified do not match attendees. I L) Judges were required to uuend calendar )e'lr I L)L)7 tr.urung courses to complete their I L)L)0 training requirements. subject matter is relevant to the duties of a municipal court judge. During 1997, the training council made revisions to its benchbook which will be distributed in 1998. The council also provided each judge with a copy of the Georgia Law Enforcement Handbooh published by Harrison Company. Georgia State-Federal Judicial Council The State-Federal judicial Council (Supreme Court Order, Nov, 9, 1990) was established to foster a cooperative relationship between the state and federal judiciaries of Georgia. Council membership includes all federal judges in Georgia, justices of the Georgia Supreme Court, judges of the Georgia Court of Appeals and judges of the superior courts. The executive committee is comprised of the chief judge of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals; three U.S. District Court judges and one U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge named by the chief judge of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals; the chiefjustice of the Georgia Supreme Court; the chief judge of the Georgia Court of Appeals; five superior court judges named by the chief justice; the president of the Council of Superior Court judges; and the president-elect and immediate pastpresident of the State Bar of Georgia. The june 1997 annual meeting, planned by the executive committee, featured a program entitled "The Publics Dissatisfaction with the Courts." The program was presented at the State Bar of Georgia annual meeting. (14 1997 Annual Report on the Work of the (;eor~ia Courts .Iudidal A~en('i{'s Institute of Continuing Judicial Education More than 2,900 judges, clerks, court administrators, judges' secretaries, juvenile court probation officers and administrative law judges attended programs delivered by the Institute of Continuing judicial Education (ICjE) in fiscal year 1997. Attendee contact hours for the year totaled 49,469.5, a new record for the ICjE, surpassing the 46,165 hours delivered in fiscal year I995. As an administrative arm of the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Order, jan. 26, I979), the Institute has had responsibility for the training of all judicial personnel since 1981. Training standards for members have been adopted by the various courts and judges' councils. 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 of the State Courts mandates that state court judges attend continuing legal and/or judicial education courses totaling 24 hours every two years. The total must include two ethics hours. juvenile court judges are required to complete 12 hours of continuing education each year. The Probate judges Training Council requires that probate court judges complete a training program for new Judges and 12 hours of continuing education annually, Magistrate court judges fulfill an initial 40-hour training requirement (attorney magistrates are exempt) and annually attend 20-hours of recertification training. Municipal court judges complete an annual 12-hour certification course, New judges must fulfill a 20-hour training requirement. Superior court clerks complete 40 hours in basic certification and I5 hours in yearly recertification training courses. Seminars In fiscal year 1997, the institute offered programs for judges of the superior, state, juvenile, probate, magistrate and municipal courts. In addition, training was providcd for clerks of court, judges' secretaries, juvenile court probation officers, court administrators and admirustrat ive law judges. For more information on seminars, please refer to the chart on page 66. During the year, ICjE continued to conduct mentoring activities for new judges. Scripts dramatizing a mock DUI trial and a commercial landlord/tenant dispute were created for use in the Institute's new trial practice courtroom. The clinical experience for new Judges included critiques of their hearing supervisory skills, focusing on decision-making in questions of evidence and on the skills and techniques necessary for courtroom proceedings to run smoothly, Other IC]E initiatives during fiscal year I997 included the following: More than 500 copies of Harrison's Georgia LuI\' Enforcement Hundbooh and Michie's Georgia Tw[{ic and Criminal LuI\' Manuul were distributed to magistrates and municipal court judges. To foster cultural diversity and equality in the courts, the Anti-Defamation t997 Annual RqlOrt 011 the Work of tilt' t;t'or~ia t:ourt~ (,;) Judicial Agent'it's Leagues curriculum, "A Workplace of Difference" was presented to Juvenile court probation officers, state court judges, magistrate court judges and municipal court judges. Training sessions for superior court judges will include this video in 1998. The race, gender, erhnicity and status fairness provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct were examined in Judicial ethics and professionalism instruction for newly selected state, probate, magistrate and municipal court judges. Handling domestic violence cases received special emphasis in recertification and specialty courses for magistrate and municipal court judges, the spring seminar for probate court judges (focusing on elder abuse), as well as in humanities and judging courses for probate, magistrate and municipal court judges. ICjE hosted judges from Brazil (in Institute of Continuing Judicial Education: Fiscal Year 1997 Instructional Activities Date Program location Attendees Date Program location Attendees Augus111-14 August 26-28 Sept. 8-11 Sept. 2.1-27 Sept. 25-27 Sept, 2h-27 Oct. 2-4 Oct. 2-4 Oct. 1h-18 Oct. 21-2S Oct. lD-Nov. Oct. lO-Nov. Oct.lD-Nov. Oct. 30-Nov. Nov. 4-6 Nov. 19-21 Nov. 19-21 Nov. 20-22 Dec. 5-b Dec. 5-6 o. 10-11 1,111. 27-lD 1,1I1.21l-.lO MUl1i,ip,,1 court juelgps tr.ut: rpcprtiiic,ltion Savannah Superior court judgl'S surnrner serru n.ir St. Simons I\'.lgislratps 2o-hour recl'rtificdlion Savannah i\l.lgistrtltt's 40-hour cprlific,ltion Athens i\1unicipal 20-hour certitication Athens M,lgistr,ltt's 20-hour r('Cl'rtific.ltion AlI,1I1t,1 Iv\ul1i,ip,,1 court iudges speci.iltv course: Judici.II LISP of computers Athen s Probate court clerks se-minur Ht'It'11 1\1agistrate court judges spf'ci hO 11 110 73 13 22 1h4 27 Fph. 2-7 !V1.lgistratps -to-hour ce-rtification Athens 75 Fpb.7-9 Municip,ll court judgps 20-hour cprtific.ltion Athens 47 M,lrch .l-S /Vtlgistr,ltp court clerks ,H1d spcret,Hips .mnu.il seminar S,)\",1I1I1ah I\I,uch 10-12 Municip,,1 court iudge-s 'pt'Ci,llty course: Judging and hurn.mities Athens 22 M,mh 10-12 M,lgistratt' court juelgps SpPCi,llty COlJrSP: Judging and humanities Athens I\\"rch 24-2h Workers' compe-ns.ition judges! adrnirustr.itivo l.iw ludgps .mnu.il seminar Pine Mount.rin April 2-4 ludici,ll sec ret.uies .mnu.il seminar 51. Simons 121 April 9-11 Probate court iudges spring sernin.ir Athe-ns 175 April 28-30 luvenile court judgps spring seminar St. Simons April 29-M"v Supe-rior court clprks spring seminar lS7 Apri I .lD-M,)\" 2 luvenile court ch'rks .mnu.il seminar lekvll lsl.ind S9 M,l\"' 7-9 SI"lp court judgps spring seminar k-kvll lsl.md h1 Ma\' 7-9 tv\,lgistr,lte .ind rnururip.il court iudges specialty course: Domestic viol(-'nce Columbus 24 fv1agistr.lte court judg(-'s specialtv course: Constitutional crimin.il procedure Columbus M,)\" 21-2.\ Municipal court judges speci,llty course: Constitutional cnrnin.il procedun- Columbus III Mal' 28-30 Juvenile court probation ()....iu'rs spring seminar Sav.inn.ih M,)\" 29-lO Foste-rc.ire- review workshop Athe-ns 2S lune 11-13 Probate court c1prks spring seminar [ekvll Isl,1I1e1 69 IUIlt' 24-10 COAC ior superior court cle-rks lekvll Isl,1I1d lO lum- 25-27 M"gistr"lp court judgps specialty course: ludici.t] uSP of computers Athe-n-, 11 lJ() t997 Annual Report on the Work of tilt' (;eor~ia (.ourts Judicial A~('nd('s collaboration with the UGA Institute of Government) and Ukraine (in cooperation with the UGA Center for Higher Education) and made presentations to these groups. Computer training for judges continued to focus on legal research (Georgia Law on Disc). Administration The IC]E fiscal year 1997 operating budget of $1 ,080, 128 was initially allocated as follows: $40,000 for nationally based travel of superior court judges; $289,288 for administration and training of magistrate court judges and staff; $96,534 for administration and training of municipal court judges and staff; $590,306 for general administration operations; $56,500 for on-site services, mandatory continuing legal education fees and special projects; and 57,500 for training of court reporters. Forty-one applicants for financial aid were granted some level of funding to attend national courses. The IC]E board of trustees is made up of representatives from the courts and judicial organizations. The board includes one Court of Appeals judge; two members of the Council of Superior Court judges; a representative from the councils of state, juvenile, probate and magistrate court judges; one representative from the Superior Court Clerk's Association; one member of the State Bar of Georgia; and an appointee of the judicial Council. Ex officio members include the immediate past chairpersons of both ICjE and the Institute of Continuing Legal Education boards of trustees, and the deans of Georgia's four accredited law schools. A liaison member representing the Supreme Court and an advisory member also serve on the board. The board met three times during the year. Judicial Administrative Districts Regional court administration for the superior courts is organized through the judicial Administration Act of 1976 (OCGA 15-5-2-4). Each of 10judicial administrative districts is served by an administrative judge and district court administrator selected by the superior court judges and senior judges of that district. Administrative judges have statutory authority to compile case load data and other information and to assign superior court judges, with their approval, to serve temporarily in other counties and circuits as needed. District court administrators assist chief judges in preparing, presenting and managing local court budgets and function as liaisons between superior courts and local government officials, court personnel and the criminal justice system. They also screen and interview applicants for trial court administrator, law clerk, court reporter and other court support positions. District staff assist chief judges and clerks in automated jury selection, revision of jury boxes and orientation sessions for jury commissioners. District coun administrators have been instrumental in implementing alternative dispute resolution projects and educating court staff and local bar associations on the value of such projects. In at least three districts, ADR programs operate on a district -wide basis with funding from joint county boards of trustees of ADR funds. 1",,; \nnual ReJlort on IIw Work of the (;eor!!ia f:ourts (,; Judicial Agenties Other projects and activities by district court administrators include: grant applications and grant management; space and facilities management; courthouse renovation and planning; video arraignment and conferencing; court delay reduction; records retention and management; indigent defense programs; sponsorship of divorcing parent seminars; and management of high-profile cases. District court administrators work with committees of the Council of Superior Court judges and the judicial Council of Georgia and serve on local, state and national committees for the administration of justice and court management. Judicial Nominating Commission The judicial Nominating Commission (Executive Order, February 27, 1995) solicits nominations of qualified individuals to fill vacant or newly created judgeships. The governor selects new judges from a list of candidates prepared by the commission. Qualifications for judicial offices are specified either by the state constitution or statute. The commission seeks nominations from civic leaders and the legal community. Commission members evaluate each candidate based on a standard questionnaire and a legal article or brief submitted by the candidate. The commission also interviews the candidate and attorneys who know the candidate. The commission held 4 meetings in fiscal year 1997 to consider candidates for a total of 5 judicial vacancies. These included: one superior court vacancy in the Lookout Mountain judicial Circuit, one superior coun vacancy in the Atlanta judicial Circuit, one state court vacancy in Forsyth County, and two state coun vacancies in Richmond County. Since originally founded by executive order in 1973, the commission has acted on a total of 292 judgeships, including 17 Supreme Court vacancies, 17 Court of Appeals vacancies, 173 superior court seats, 76 state court posts, two municipal court judgeships and three civil court vacancies. The nine-member commission includes three individuals appointed by the governor who must be members of the State Bar and four non-lawyer positions-two appointed by the governor, one by the lieutenant governor and one by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Members serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. The president of the State Bar of Georgia and the state Attorney General are ex-officio members. Judicial Qualifications Commission The judicial Qualifications Commission OQC) responds to inquiries fromjudges regarding appropriate judicial conduct, directs investigations into complaints involving members of the state judiciary and holds hearings on allegations ofjudicial misconduct. Its powers derive from the Georgia Constitution (Art. VI, VII, 9(6). Grievances against judges are usually initiated by a written, verified complaint to the commission. Alleged misconduct or protests must be based on one of the canons of the Code of judicial Conduct. Grounds for lJ8 l'J97 Annual R,,"ort on tilt' Work of th.. (;..or~ia tourts Judicial Agendes action include: 1) willful misconduct in office, 2) willful and persistent failure to perform duties, 3) habitual intemperance, 4) conduct prejudicial to the administration ofjustice 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 1997, the commission held 8 meetings. In addition, the commission received and acted upon 97 new matters, including 84 complaints and 13 requests for opinion. At the beginning of the year, 16 complaints were still pending from fiscal year 1996. At year end, 16 complaints were pending. The 82 judges named in the 84 new complaints (one judge was named in three separate complaints) included: one Court of Appeals judge 35 superior court judges three senior judges five state court judges nine probate court judges 21 magistrate court judges two juvenile court judges three municipal court judges one recorder's court judge one judge pro tern (municipal court) one candidate for judicial office. Including carryovers from fiscal year 1996, the commission handled and concluded 97 matters. Eighty-four complaints were disposed of as follows: nine dismissed as appropriate for appeal as a matter of law, unsupported or without merit 49 dismissed after minimal investigation one dismissed after a conference with the judge two dismissed after substantial investigation (two judges were named in one complaint) one judge resigned voluntarily one judge was removed five judges were privately reprimanded 13 judges were admonished or cautioned by letter to avoid recurrence of the action giving rise to complaint one judge lost his bid for re-election (and was therefore no longer under the commission's jurisdiction) one judge was dismissed due to a Rule 20 (Confidentiality and Exceptions) violation two complaints were withdrawn. The seven-member commission operates under established procedural rules. All proceedings-including complaints, conferences, communications and decisions-i-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. For the first time in its history, the commission utilized the exception set forth in Rule 20 and issued a public statement with respect to the status and handling of pending complaints. As part of an agreed upon disposition, the commission required three judges to publish public apologies at their own expense. Thirteen requests for advisory opinions were disposed of as follows: 6 formal opinions were issued; the commission declined to give an opinion in one case; 4 informal opinions were issued; one request was found to be moot; and one request was withdrawn. Sources of complaints and requests for opinions for the fiscal year included: 60 litigants or their relatives, 13 judges, one auxiliary judicial personnel, seven attorneys, one nonlitigant, two public officials, three anonymous complainants, and ten others. 1')97 Annual Rt'lulrt on the Work of tilt' (;t'or~ia t:ourt~ (II) Judicial A~elwies No formal hearings were held during the year. In addition to the complaints filed and disposed of during the fiscal year, the commission staff processed 654 requests for complaint forms. From these, 93 complaints were filed. Forty-three were docketed and 50 were returned to the complainant without action because they involved rulings of law or discretionary matters over which the commission has no jurisdiction. In addition, some 77 complaints filed on outdated forms, State Bar grievance forms or by letter were returned to complainants for the same reason. The commission staff also handled telephone inquiries from citizens and judges and conferred privately with four judges about instances of conduct not warranting formal charges, with one such complaint remaining open at end of the year. During the year, the commission director and another member were invited speakers at the 15th National College on judicial Conduct and Ethics in Austin, Texas. Other commission representatives participated as requested in various continuing education programs on judicial ethics and the role of the commission in governing judicial conduct. With the cooperation and assistance of the Supreme Court, the commission named a special committee to study and make recommendations for proposed changes to Canon 7 (dealing with political conduct and elections). The special committee was chaired by a former chief justice of the Supreme Court and composed of judges and lawyers. The final report of the special committee was reviewed by the commission and submitted to the Supreme Court for its approval. Members of the commission include two judges of courts of record appointed by the Supreme Court, three attorneys named by the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Georgia and two citizens selected by the governor. A director, investigator and secretary serve as staff. Synopses of fiscal year 1997 jQC opinions Opinion 215. It is inappropriate for any judicial officer to endorse or otherwise publicly align himself or herself with any private, for-profit probation service. Opinion 216. All judges have a legal and ethical duty to make timely rulings in all cases, especially those in which the writ of habeas corpus is sought, and undue delay cannot be countenanced under any circumstances. Opinion 217. A superior court judge-elect is neither an officer of a judicial system nor an individual performing judicial functions and thus is not subject to the requirements of the Code of judicial Conduct prior to formally assuming office. Accordingly, such individual may appropriately continue the active practice of law and appear as trial counsel for clients during the interim period between election and assumption of office. Opinion 218. Because a hearing on the merits of a Petition for Revocation of Probation is a separate and distinct "matter in controversy" from the proceeding giving rise to the original sentence, Canon 3E(l )(b) docs not require automatic disqualification of a newly appointed superior court judge who previously served as district attorney when the alleged probation violation occurs subsequent to the date of the judges swearing in. 70 t1)1)7 Annual R('I)ort on the Work of tilt' (;('orl!ia [ourls Judicial A~('n('i('s Opinion 219. It is inappropriate for any judge to use the power and prestige of Judicial office to advance the private interests of a spouse or immediate family member. Hence, a juvenile court judge should not order children and/or parents to obtain counseling from an organization from which the Judges spouse receives remuneration as executive director. Opinion 220. Even without a showing of actual bias, prejudice or unfairness, and regardless of the merits or timeliness of a Motion to Recuse, it is inappropriate for any trial court judge to preside in any action wherein one of the parties holds a judicial office on the same or any other court which sits in the same circuit. Supreme Court Commission on Equality A Supreme Court order established the Supreme Court Commission on Equality on December 13, 1995, for one year. In 1996, the Supreme Court extended the term of the commission until December 13, 1998. The Equality Commission was formed to continue the work of the Supreme Court Committee for Gender Equality (established in 1992) and the Supreme Court Commission on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts (established in 1993), which had reached the ends of their initial terms. The general objective of the commission is to address concerns related to bias or prejudice in Georgias court system that are based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status. The commissions tasks include: formulating and proposing guidelines, standards and procedures to implement the commission's recommendations; developing appropriate mandatory judicial and legal education course material; serving as a resource to the media; educating the public about domestic violence, resources for its victims and protection available under Georgia law; dew loping a mechanism for processing bias complaints about the behavior of judges and lawyers; and working with the Judicial Nominating Commission to encourage more individuals from racial and ethnic minorities to apply for judgeships. During fiscal year 1997, the commissions six subcommittees continued their efforts: The Complaint Committee devised a form and procedures for submitting to the commission complaints that are based on any kind of bias. The commission decided that its proper role would be to serve as a clearinghouse for bias complaints against any court officer or employee, making referrals to the appropriate group or agency. The Court Interpreters Committee completed development of a code of professional responsibility for foreign language interpreters, guidelines for interpreters, and draft benchbook materials for judges. These materials were distributed to court interpreters, judges and court administrators. The registry of foreign language interpreters created by the Administrative Office of the Courts was updated to provide the courts with current data on the qualifications and availability of interpreters. At the end of fiscal year 1997, the committee )1)1); Annual Report on the Work of tlu- (;eorl!ia fourts ; 1 Judicial A~cndes began planning a seminar to educate interpreters about the state court system. The seminar will be held in the fall of 1997. The committee continued to work on a certification process and, with the assistance of benchbook committees of the trial court councils, materials for benchbook updates. The Diversity in the Workplace Committee updated information on the demographic composition of the judiciary. Members met with law school placement directors from the four law schools in Georgia accredited by the American Bar Association to discuss programs involving minority and women students and judicial and other court-related agencies. Development of a Career Day package which can be used by local courts in their recruitment process is planned to publicize the types of work available in the courts. The Juvenile Justice Committee reviewed the recommendations of the Supreme Court Commission on Racial and Ethnic Bias. Interest was shown in creation of uniform intake forms and processes for all juvenile intake programs and public social service agencies. The Mandatory Training Committee maintained a comprehensive listing of all training/informational materials available through the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the Institute of Continuing Judicial Education (ICjE) for use in Judicial training. The committee contracted for the development of a training video, featuring scenarios in which actors display gender, racial or ethnic bias in a court context. The video production was completed in Iune 1997. It will be used to foster discussion and help train Judicial personnel in bias-free behavior. The committee also reviewed judicial education programs conducted by ICjE and continued to work to include diversity issues in judges' training. The Programs Committee completed a bias-free language brochure to be distributed to all judges and attorneys. The committee renewed the commission's request that the Supreme Court adopt a uniform rule requiring each court to haw a sexual harassment policy. Executive summaries of the final reports of the Supreme Court Committee for Gender Equality and the Supreme Court Commission on Racial and Ethnic Bias, as well as the order creating the Commission on Equality and a list of its current membership, became available on the Internet in late 1996. 72 t997 Annual Report on tilt' Work of the (;eor~ia I.ourts Judicial Appointments and Elections Fiscal Year 1997 The iollowing new judges were elected for the term of January 1, 1997, through December 31,2000, unless otherwise Indicated. COURT OF APPEALS Judge Frank M. Eldridge, appointed July 16, 1996 - Dec. 31, 1998. SUPERIOR COURTS Alapaha Judicial Circuit Judge Dane Perkins Atlanta Judicial Circuit Judge Cynthia D. Wright, appointed Nov. 1, 1996 - Dec. 31, 1998. Judge T. Jackson Bedford Augusta Judicial Circuit Judge Neal W. Dickert Coweta Judicial Circuit Judge John Simpson Dougherty Judicial Circuit Judge Willie E. Lockette Houston Judicial Circuit Judge Edward D. Lukemire (Though elected tor the term beginning Jan. 1, 1997, Judge Lukemire was appointed by the governor on Sept. 13, 1996, to complete the term of a retiring judge.) lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit Judge Ralph Van Pelt [r., appointed Sept. 20, 1996 - Dec. 31,1998. Northern Judicial Circuit Judge Lindsay A. Tise Ogeechee Judicial Circuit Judge John R. Turner South Georgia Judicial Circuit Judge J. Richard Porter III Tifton Judicial Circuit Judge Gary McCorvey Toombs Judicial Circuit Judge Roger W. Dunaway Jr. Waycross Judicial Circuit Judge Stephen L. Jackson STATE COURTS Brooks County Judge William R. Folson Bulloch County Judge F. Gates Peed Clayton County Judge Morris Braswell Colquitt County Judge Richard T. Kent Fayette County Judge Fletcher Sams Fulton County Judge M. Yvetter Miller, appointed Nov. 1, 1996 - Dec. 31, 1998. Forsyth County Judge Jeiirey S. Bagley, appointed Jan. 1, 1997 - Dec. 31, 1998. Habersham County Judge Linton Crawford Jr. Jefferson County Judge John R. Murphy III Mitchell County Judge Michael Bankston Putnam County Judge Jesse Copelan Jr. Screven County Judge Lisa Gross JUVENILE COURTS Bibb County Judge Quintress J. Gilbert, appointed Feb. 1, 1997 - Dec. 31, 2000. Judge Thomas J. Matthews, appointed Feb. 1, 1997 - Dec. 31, 2000. Cherokee County Judge Jackson Harris, appointed Jan. 1, 1997 Jan. 1,2001. Forsyth County Judge Jefirey S. Bagley, appointed Jan. 1, 1997 1- Jan. 1, 200l. Houston County Judge Deborah E. Edwards, appointed July 1, 1996 - July 1, 2000. Murray and Whitfield Counties Judge Connie Maples Blaylock, appointed July 1, 1996 - July 1, 2000. PROBATE COURTS Atkinson County Judge leffrev Paulk McGowan Ben Hill County Judge Tommy Walton Ash Bleckley County Judge Kenneth Powell Burke County Judge Preston B. Lewis III Carroll County Judge Betty B. Cason Charlton County Judge Bob Phillips Cherokee County Judge Kip McVay 1997Annual Report on the Work of the (;t'or~h, [ourb 7:J Judicia! Appointnwnts and Elections Clarke County Judge Susan P. Tate Dawson County Judge lennirer Evans Burt Floyd County Judge Steve Burkhalter Franklin County Judge Eddy Fowler Houston County Judge Janice Davidson Spires Long County Judge Marie H. Middleton Pike County Judge Lynn Brandenburg Putnam County Judge Patrice Howard Taliaferro County Judge Martha R. Mayo Terrell County Judge Nancy P. Fryer Union County Judge Dwain Brackett Wilkinson County Judge Vivian Cummings CHIEF MAGISTRATES Atkinson County Judge Rowan Sirmans Baker County Judge Wanda 1. Floyd Barrow County Judge Michael A. Barnette Bartow County Judge Tom Moseley Bryan County Judge Dale Mitchum, appointed March 1, 1997 - Dec. 31, 2000. Burke County Judge Alma Young Tuff Candler County Judge Mary L. Skene, appointed Jan. 31, 1997 - Dec. 31, 2000. Catoosa County Judge Donald Caldwell Charlton County Judge Reginald F. Todd Chattooga County Judge Tracy L. Maddux, appointed April 10, 1997 - April 10, 200l. Clayton County Judge Michael P. Baird Cook County Judge Vicki S. Parrish, appointed Jan. 1, 1997 - Dec. 31, 2000. Coffee County Judge Betty S. Lanier Coweta County Judge James C. Stripling Decatur County Judge Billy G. Mills Effingham County Judge Preston G. Exley Elbert County Judge l.anie Simmons, appointed July 20, 1996 - Dec. 31, 2000. Floyd County Judge Jerry Wood Gilmer County judge Roger Kincaid Glascock County Judge Terry Usry Hall County Judge Charles S. Wynne Houston County Judge David M. Pierce, appointed Jan. 1, 1997 - Dec. 31, 2000. Jeff Davis County Judge Chris Davenport Lamar County Judge Brenda Williamson Laurens County Judge Thomas C. Bobbitt III Lee County Judge Jim Thurman Lumpkin County Judge William "lett" Lowe Montgomery County Judge james L. McCall [r., appointed Jan. 1, 1997 - Dec. 31, 2000. Putnam County Judge Ellen Rudder, appointed Jan. 1, 1997 - Dec. 31, 2000. Spalding County Judge Rita L. Cavanaugh Stewart County Judge George Hancock Sumter County Judge R. Lawton Lesueur [r, Taliaferro County judge Martha Mayo, appointed Jan. 1, 1997 - Dec. 31, 2000. Telfair County Judge Vickie Scarborough Terrell County Judge Linda Freeman Union County Judge Charles Dwain Brackett, appointed Jan. 1, 1997 - Dec. 31, 2000. Ware County judge Lawton G. Taylor Washington County Judge Clayton Sheppard Webster County Judge Frank Walker, appointed Jan. 1, 1997 - Dec. 31, 2000. White County Judge Maylon K. London Wilkinson County Judge Vivian L. Cummings, appointed Jan. 1, 1997 - Dec. 31, 2000. :'4 JI,I,:' Annual Report on the Work of tilt' C;eor!!ia fourb