U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs 
Bureau of Justice Statistics

State Court Organization 2004

Courts and judges
Judicial selection and service
Judicial branch
Appellate courts
Trail courts
The jury
The sentencing context
Court structure


August 2006, NCJ 212351


-------------------------------------------------------
This file is text only without graphics and many of the
tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in
spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including
tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/sco04.htm

This report is one in a series.  Most recent editions
may be available.  To view a list of all in the series go to
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#sco
-------------------------------------------------------

Alberto R. Gonzales
Attorney General

Office of Justice Programs 
Partnerships for Safer Communities 

Regina B. Schofield 
Assistant Attorney General 

World Wide Web site: 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

World Wide Web site:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs 

For information contact 
National Criminal Justice Reference Service 
1-800-851-3420 

David B. Rottman, Project Director 
Shauna M. Strickland,
Research Analyst 

A joint effort of the Conference of State Court
Administrators and National Center for State Courts 
This project was supported by BJS grant number
2003-BJ-CX-K003. The opinions, findings, and 
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this 
publication are those of the authors and do not 
necessarily reflect the views of the Department 
of Justice. 

Office of Justice Programs 
Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Jeffrey L. Sedgwick 
Director, BJS
 
This Bureau of Justice Statistics report was 
prepared by the National Center for State Courts 
under the Supervision of Steven K. Smith and Thomas 
Cohen of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The 
project was supported by BJS grant number
2003-BJ-CX-K003. Principle staff for the project 
at the National Center for State Courts were David 
B. Rottman and Shauna M. Strickland. Marianne 
Zawitz, Carolyn C. Williams, and Thomas Cohen 
provided editorial review. Jayne Robinson 
administered final printing production. 

This report was made possible by the support and 
guidance of the Court Statistics Committee of the 
Conference of State Court Administrators. 

Suggested Citation: David B. Rottman and Shauna 
M. Strickland, State Court Organization, 2004, 
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, Washington, D.C. USGPO, 2006. 

Please bring suggestions for information that 
should be included in future editions to the 
attention of the Director of the Court Statistics 
Project, National Center for State Courts, 300 
Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia
23185-4147 

An electronic version of this report may be found 
on the Internet at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/. 

Conference of State Court Administrators, 
Court Statistics Committee 

Dr. Howard P. Schwartz  
Judicial Administrator, 
Kansas Judicial Center  

Debra Dailey               
Manager of Research and Evaluation      
State Court Administrator's Office, Minnesota 

Theodore Eisenberg 
Cornell Law School  Director 

Donald Goodnow, Director 
Administrative Office of the Courts, 
New Hampshire 

Senior Judge Aaron Ment 
Supreme Court of Connecticut 

William C. Vickrey, Administrative Director 
Administrative Office of the Courts, 
California 

J. Denis Moran, Ex-officio 
Director of State Courts (Retired) 

Wisconsin 

Dr. Hugh M. Collins 
Judicial Administrator, 
Supreme Court of Louisiana 

Thomas B. Darr 
Deputy Court Administrator 
Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts 

James D. Gingerich 
Director
Supreme Court of Arkansas 

John T. Olivier 
Clerk Supreme Court of
Superior Court of Louisiana 

Collins E. Ijoma 
Trial Court Administrator, 
Superior Court of New Jersey 

Robert Wessels, Court Manager,
County Criminal Courts at Law
Texas 

Thomas Cohen, Ph.D., Program Monitor 
Bureau of Justice Statistics     
Wisconsin Washington, DC

State Court Organization 2004 Advisory Committee 

J. Denis Moran, Chairman               
Director of State Courts (Retired)     
Wisconsin                                         

Collins E. Ijoma                           
Trial Court Administrator                
Superior Court of New Jersey                  

John T. Olivier                         
Clerk                                      
Supreme Court of Louisiana                    

Donald D. Goodnow, Director 
Administrative Office of the Courts 
New Hampshire 

Honorable Aaron Ment 
Chief Court Administrator(Retired) 
Supreme Court of Connecticut 

Thomas Cohen, Ph.D., Program Monitor 
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Washington, DC 

National Center for State Courts, Board of 
Directors 

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, Chair 
Supreme Court of Indiana

Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Past Chair 
Supreme Court of Wisconsin 

Curtis (Hank) Barnette 
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP 

Ruben O. Carrerou
Court Administrator, 11th Judicial Circuit,
Florida 

Zelda M. DeBoyes 
Court Administrator, Aurora Municipal Court, 
Colorado

James D. Gingerich
Director, Arkansas AOC, Supreme Court of Arkansas

Judge Eileen A. Kato
King County District Court,
Seattle, Washington 

Chief Judge Rufus G. King, III
Superior Court of District of Columbia 

Associate Circuit Judge Brenda S. Loftin 
St. Louis County Circuit Court 
St. Louis, Missouri 

Mary McCormick 
President 
Fund for the City of New York 

E. Leo Milonas, Partner 
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 

Charles B. Renfrew
Law Offices of Charles B. Renfrew 

Lee Suskin
Court Administrator,  
Supreme Court of Vermont 

Mary C. McQueen, ex officio 
President, National Center for State Courts 

Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman,  
Vice Chair 
New York State Unified Court System 

Daniel Becker, Past Vice-Chair  
State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Utah 

Chief Judge Robert M. Bell 
Court of Appeals of Maryland 

Howard "Skip" Chesshire
Court Administrator, Cobb County Superior Court, 
Georgia 

Judge Gerald T. Elliott 
Trial Court, Division 4, 
10th Judicial District of Kansas

Thomas A. Gottschalk 
Executive Vice President & General Counsel 
General Motors Corporation 
Judge Elizabeth (Beth) Keever 
12th Judicial District,  
Fayetteville, North Carolina 

Presiding Judge Dale R. Koch
Multnomah County Courthouse, 
Portland, Oregon 

Vice-Presiding Judge Gary L. Lumpkin
Court of Criminal Appeals,  
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma  

Charles W. Matthews, Jr.
Vice President & General Counsel 
ExxonMobil Corporation 

Robert S. Peck, President
Center for Constitutional Litigation, P.C. 

Associate Justice Ronald B. Robie
Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District,  
California 

Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal 
Supreme Court of South Carolina

Acknowledgments 

This edition of State Court Organization, like the 
other four volumes in the series, is a product of 
the state court community. The Conference of State 
Court Administrators sponsors the series and makes 
available its Court Statistics Committee to guide 
compilation of each edition. The contents of each 
edition are determined by canvassing the issues 
and information items of primary concern to state
court administrators and in consultation with staff 
from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. A special 
subcommittee of the COSCA Court Statistics Committee 
participated in all stages of work on the new edition. 
Their keen attention to matters of substance and 
format went beyond what reasonably can be expected, 
and their unflagging good spirits made our work
enjoyable as well as productive. We are grateful for 
their continued active participation in the State 
Court Organization series. 

State court administrators and appellate court clerks
are the primary source of the information included 
in this volume. Their generous investment of time and 
effort makes the State Court Organization series 
possible. Their patience and perseverance is greatly 
appreciated.  
 
Staff from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, notably
Steven Smith, Ph.D. and Thomas Cohen, Ph.D., 
contributed their expertise on topics from survey 
design to the visual display of information. The 
Bureau's funding makes the entire State Court 
Organization enterprise possible. 

Neal Kauder of VisualResearch, Inc. provided the 
design concept and later refinements for the tables 
of information that follow, making the contents 
easier on the eye and patterns in the data easier 
to grasp.  
 
Finally, we are grateful to our NCSC colleagues who
provided insight and assistance on specific topics. 
Special thanks are due to Paula Hannaford-Agor, 
Pamela Casey, William Hewitt, and Nicole Waters in 
the Research Division and to Carol Flango, Madelynn 
Herman, Jennifer Elek, and Anne Skove in Knowledge 
and Information Services.  
 
Despite all of the guidance, advice, and assistance
received, responsibility for the accuracy of all 
contents of this volume rests with the project 
staff. 

Project Staff 

David B. Rottman 
Project Director 

Shauna M. Strickland 
Research Analyst 

Ann Keith 
Research Associate 

Amy E. Smith 
Senior Administrative Specialist 

Lynn Grimes 
Administrative Manager 

Interns: 
Juan Alarcon 
Steven Durbin 
Cynthia Lee 
Brian Hendricks 
Michael Zose 

Contents 

Introduction 1 

Glossary 5 

Part I. Courts and Judges  7 
Table 
1 Appellate Courts in the United States Court of 
last resort: name, place of session *Intermediate 
appellate courts: name, place of session, # of 
Chief Judges 

2 Number of Appellate Court Judges Number of court 
of last resort (COLR) and intermediate appellate 
court justices and judges * Length of Term *Gender 
*Race and ethnic composition 

3 Trial Courts and Trial Court Judges of the United 
States Number of judges *Length of term *Gender 
*Race and ethnic composition 

Part II. Judicial Selection and Service  23 
Table 

4 Selection of Appellate Court Judges Method of 
selection: unexpired term, full term *Method of 
retention *Geographic basis for selection *Method 
of selection/appointment of chief justice/judge 
*Length of term of chief justice/judge
 
5 Qualifications to Serve as an Appellate Court 
Judge Residency requirements: state, local 
*Minimum and maximum age *Legal credentials 

6 Selection of Trial Court Judges Method of 
selection: unexpired term, full term  *Method of 
retention *Geographic basis for selection *Method 
of selection of presiding judge * Length of term 
of presiding judge 

7 Qualifications to Serve as a Trial Court Judge 
State and local residency requirements in years 
*Minimum and maximum age *Legal credentials 

8 Judicial Nominating Commissions 
Name of the commission *Offices encompassed 
*Authorization *Year created and revised *Term 
covered 

9 Provisions for Mandatory Judicial Education
Initial/pre-bench education for general 
jurisdiction court judges *Continuing education for 
general jurisdiction court judges *Initial/pre-bench 
education for limited jurisdiction court judges 
*Continuing education for limited jurisdiction court 
judges *Initial/pre-bench education for appellate 
court judges *Continuing education for appellate
court judges 

10 Judicial Performance Evaluation Evaluating body/
authorization *Evaluation committee composition 
*Evaluation procedures 

11 Judicial Discipline: Investigating and Adjudicating
Bodies Name of investigating body *Number of judges  
Number of lawyers *Number of lay persons *Name of
adjudicating body *Appeals from adjudication are 
filed with * Name of final disciplining body *Point 
at which reprimands are made public 

Part III. The Judicial Branch: Governance, Funding, 
and Administration 61 
Table 
12 Governance of the Judicial Branch Who is the 
head of the judicial branch * What authority 
establishes the head of the judicial branch *Source 
of authority 

13 The Source of Rule Making Authority of Courts 
of Last Resort by Specific Areas Appellate and trial 
court administration *Appellate Procedure *Civil 
and Criminal Procedure *Evidence Judicial and 
attorney discipline *Trial court costs and fee 
assessment 

14 Judicial Councils and Conferences
Name of council/conference *Function *Authority 
*Year established *Reports to 

15 Judicial Compensation Commissions Authorization 
* Number of members- appointment process * Does 
commission review non-judicial positions? * Meeting 
schedule * Commission reports to * Effects of 
commission recommendation 

16 Preparation and Submission of the Judicial Branch 
Budget for State Funding Who prepares the budget? 
*Who reviews the budget? *Budget submitted to *Budget 
period * Can funds roll over from one year to the 
next? *Judicial % of state budget *Can executive 
branch amend the budget?  * Is the judicial 
appropriation filed as a separate bill? * Number 
of budget line items *Can the Judicial Branch move 
funds between line items? 

17 Trial Court Expenditures and Funding Sources for 
Selected Expenditure Items Judicial expenditures: 
total, paid by state, paid by locality *Responsibility 
of salaries for judicial, clerks of court, trial 
court administrators, court reporters, other court 
personnel *Equipment * Court Record for Appeal 
*Buildings/Real Property * Travel Expenses General 
Operating Expenses * Indigent Defense * Child
Support Enforcement * Juvenile Probation/Detention  
Language Interpreters * Jury Costs * Pretrial 
Services  Adult Probation * ADA Compliance 

18 Appellate Court Clerks' Office: Staffing and
Responsibilities by Function Total staff * Accounting  
Accounts payable * Administrative meetings  
Appointments/assignments for sitting justices, 
supplemental justices, administrative staff * Attorney 
admissions Attorney registration * Audits * Bar 
grievance matters  Budget preparation * Commissions 
and boards * Community outreach * Data processing 
* Facilities management Generate court statistics 
* Information/computer systems Judicial education 
* Judicial qualifications * Law libraries  * Legal 
research * Liaison with legislature * Payroll  
Personnel * Property Control * Purchasing * Records
Management * Research/Planning * Security * Other 

19 Clerks of Appellate Courts: Numbers and Method of
Selection Number of clerks * Method of appointment 
* Term of office * Minimum qualifications 

20 Provisions of Law Clerks to Appellate Court 
Judges Number of Clerks for each Chief Justice/Judge 
* Number of clerks for each associate justice/judge 
* Number of central law staff  

21 Administrative Office of the Courts: Staffing 
and Responsibilities for Trial Court Functions Total 
staff Accounting * Alternative dispute resolution 
* Assignments for sitting judges, supplemental judges 
* Audits * Budget preparation * Facilities management 
* Foster care review Human resources * Data entry 
* Records management * IT staff (technical) 
* Judicial education * Law libraries * Legal research 
(law clerks) * Legal representation (general counsel) 
* Other legal services * Liaison with legislature  
Probation - adult * Probation - juvenile * Public
information * Purchasing * Research/planning 
* Security * Technical assistance to courts * Other 

Part IV. Appellate Courts: Jurisdiction and 
Procedures 131 Table 

22 Mandatory and Discretionary Jurisdiction of 
Appellate Courts Civil Appeals * Criminal Appeals 
* Administrative agency appeals * Extraordinary 
writs * Guilty pleas * Post conviction relief 
* Death penalty cases * Sentencing issues 

23 The Structure of Appellate Court Panels Number 
of panels * Size * Membership(permanent or rotating)
* Frequency of rotation 

24 Reviewing Discretionary Petitions
Number of judges deciding whether to grant review 
* Number of judges necessary to grant review * Who 
makes the decision on granting petitions? 

25 Expediting Procedures in Appellate Cases Types 
of expedited appeals * Types of expedited procedures 

26 Limitations on Oral Argument in Appellate Cases 
Time limit * Must oral argument be formally requested?  
Cases oral argument is automatically scheduled for 

27 Type of Court Hearing Administrative Agency Appeals
Medical Malpractice * Worker's Compensation 
* Public Service * Unemployment Insurance * Public 
Welfare * Insurance * Tax review * Other agencies 
Part V. Trial Courts: Administration, Specialized
Jurisdiction, and Procedures 157 Table 

28 Presiding Judges: Authority and Responsibilities 
Title Source of authority * Geographic extent of 
authority * Extra compensation received? * Continue 
to hear cases? * Reduced caseload? * Supervise non-
judicial employees * Assign cases to judges * Assign 
judges to court divisions * Request and assign visiting 
judges * Select quasi-judicial officers Supervise 
fiscal affairs * Establish special committees Represent 
the court in community relations * Maintain 
statistical and management data 

29 Selection and Number of Trial Court Clerks and 
Trial Court Administrators Number of clerks that 
are elected, appointed by the judicial branch, 
appointed by a non judicial branch body *Trial court 
administrators appointed by AOC, judges, other 
* Number that serve by regions, individual court 

30 Clerk of Court and Trial Court Administrator
Responsibilities by Selected Function Caseflow 
management Collect fines and fees * Courthouse 
facilities management * Jury selection * Maintain 
the court record * Marriage licenses * Mortgage 
records * Record/maintain conveyance records 
* Repository of birth certificates * Supervise court
reporters 

31 Specialized Jurisdiction: Problem Solving Courts 
Community * Drug * Domestic violence * Family 
* Mental health * Re-entry * Other

32 Specialized Jurisdiction: Family Courts Court(year
founded) * Locality * Domestic Relations Jurisdiction:
Marriage dissolution, Paternity, Custody/visitation,
Support, Adoption, Protection order, Other * Juvenile
Jurisdiction: Abuse/neglect, Dependency, Termination 
of Parental Rights, Other * Probate Jurisdiction: 
Guardianship, Other * Civil Jurisdiction: Mental 
Health * Criminal Jurisdiction: Domestic Violence, 
Other 

33 Tribal Courts Number of federally recognized 
tribes Number of Tribal justice forums * Number of 
CFR courts State jurisdiction under Public Law 280 
* Treatment "as if" under Public Law 280 

34 Cameras and Audio Coverage in the Courtroom 
Effective date for each court * Who must consent? 
* Who may object?  Effect of objection * Limitations 
on coverage: cameras and audio, type of proceedings, 
type of participants 

35 The Defense of Insanity: Standards and Procedures 
Pre trial standard of proof * Bifurcated * Trial 
standard of proof * Burden of proof * Jury informed 
of verdict consequences * Test for insanity * Insanity 
verdict *Treatment * Court has release authority 

36 DNA Evidence: Post Conviction Analysis Statute 
* Time limit for relief * Convictions for which relief 
may be sought * Length of time biological evidence 
must be preserved * Standard for granting DNA testing 
(likelihood of producing new evidence) * Court believes 
DNA testing would result in: actual innocence, more 
favorable verdict 

37 Making the Trial Record Does the court make a 
verbatim record of trials? * Methods used to create 
the record: steno type (court reporter), steno mask, 
audio recording, video recording, other 

Part VI. The Jury 213 
Table 

38 Grand Juries: Composition and Functions Indictment
required for all felonies * Grand jury size * Size 
of quorum  * Number needed to indict * Statutory 
term * Special civil duties 

39 Trial Juries: Qualifications and Source Lists 
for Jury Service Statutory authority * Permissible 
sources of master list * Minimum age * Time since 
prior jury service *Convicted felons disqualified? 
* Residency requirement *English required? 

40 Trial Juries: Exemptions, Excusals, and Fees 
Exemptions: age, professions * Term of service 
* Employer pays? * Base pay (per day) * Increase 
at X day of service 

41 Trial Juries: The Allocation of Peremptory 
Challenges Number of peremptory challenges in 
criminal cases: capital, felony, misdemeanor, 
additional * Number of preemptory challenges in 
civil cases 

42 Trial Juries: Size and Verdict Rules 
Felony decision-rule *Misdemeanor decision-rule  
Civil case decision-rule 

Part VII. The Sentencing Context  239 
Table 

43 Sentencing Statutes: Key Definitions and 
Provisions for Sentence Enhancement Felony range 
* Misdemeanor maximum *Felony fine range * Deadly 
weapon use * mandatory minimum * Habitual offender 
* Most serious non-capital sentence 

44 Jurisdiction for Adjudication and Sentencing of 
Felony Cases Does the court have jurisdiction for: 
preliminary hearings, guilty pleas * Can felonies 
in this court be filed, dismissed, sentenced * Can 
the sentence be altered after it begins by the trial 
judge, appellate judge 

45 Sentencing Procedures in Capital and Non-Capital 
Felony Cases Capital felony cases: original sentence 
set by, unanimous jury required, life without parole 
if no jury agreement, judge can alter sentence, 
applicable code provisions * Non-capital felony cases: 
original sentence set by, judge can alter jury 
sentence, separate sentencing hearing? 

46 Active Sentencing Commissions/Sentencing Guideline
Systems Commission name * Year established 
* Membership * Responsibilities * Sentencing guidelines: 
year established, mandatory, voluntary 

47 Collateral Consequences of a Felony Conviction 
Voting rights restorable * Public employment 
* Jury service duty * Firearm ownership * Sex 
offender registration *Offenses for which parental 
rights are terminated 

Part VIII. Court Structure Charts  265 

INTRODUCTION: Purpose, format, and method of 
compilation 

What is the purpose of the volume? 

The fifth edition of State Court Organization 
describes the diverse nature of the State courts 
in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 
Puerto Rico. Information distributed across 47 
tables details the main features of how courts 
operate, ranging from the names of the various
courts established in each State to specific aspects 
of law or procedure such as whether jury verdicts 
must be unanimous to convict in criminal cases or 
to decide on liability in civil matters. 

The primary reason, then, for compiling State Court
Organization 2004 (previous editions describe court
organization in 1980, 1987, 1993, and 1998) is to 
provide authoritative answers in a single volume to 
fundamental questions about the composition of each 
state's court system: How many appellate and trial 
courts have been established? What specific categories 
of cases does each court have the jurisdiction to 
decide? There is no standard, or typical, State court 
system: fundamental matters vary from state to state. 

A second purpose is to determine the patterns across
States that exist amidst this diversity. Most State 
court systems have two levels of appellate courts 
and two levels of trial courts. This edition of State 
Court Organization facilitates examination of differing 
state approaches to court administration and related 
procedures and rules. The volume is also attentive 
to features of state court organization that vary 
within a state, rooted in counties, municipalities, 
townships, or other forms of local government. The 
more important points of variations within states are 
noted, sometimes in the table proper but more often 
through footnotes.  

A third purpose is to permit the analysis of trends 
over time in how states organize their judicial 
branch. Since 1980 significant changes have taken 
place in how judicial branches are governed. Questions 
that can be addressed include: Who is the head of 
the judicial branch? What official or institution 
formulates and submits the budget for operating the 
courts? What is the source of the rulemaking authority 
of State courts of last resort? Over time, editions 
of State Court Organization reveal the advent of 
professional trial court managers: administrators,
clerks, and judges who view their role as managerial 
in nature.  

The 2004 edition of State Court Organization continues
the attention first given in 1998 to the growing 
importance of specialized State court forums. 
Special forums are divisions, dockets, courtrooms 
or procedures dedicated to a designated set of 
cases and to which a specific judge has been 
assigned. Such forums typically are created through
local court rules or custom, and carry the label of 
"court" as a matter of convenience.  

Information is included on the varieties of
problem-solving courts, the most common form of 
specialized courts today.  A separate table is 
retained on the more longstanding family court. 

How should the volume be used? 

The 2004 edition of State Court Organization contains
428 items of information (up from 397 items in 
1998) spread across 47 tables. Tables are divided 
into seven parts according to broad topical areas: 
1.  Courts and Judges (Tables 1-3) 
2.  Judicial Selection and Service (Tables 4-11) 
3.  The Judicial Branch: Governance, Funding, and
    Administration (Tables 12-21) 
4.  Appellate Courts: Jurisdiction and Procedures 
    (Tables 22-27) 
5.  Trial Courts: Administration, Specialized
    Jurisdiction, and Procedures (Tables 28-37) 
6.  The Jury (Tables 38-42) 
7.  The Sentencing Context (Tables 43-47) 

An eighth part contains a one-page court structure 
chart for each State, Puerto Rico, and the District 
of Columbia. The charts complement the information 
provided in the tables by depicting the essential 
structure of a State's court system in terms of 
subject matter jurisdiction and routes of appellate 
review. Each part begins with a brief explanatory
note and a recommended bibliography of sources 
relevant to the topic under consideration. The 
introductions indicate why the information provided 
is important for understanding the nation's courts 
and notes considerations to bear in mind when using 
the part's tables.  

Two kinds of tables are presented. One kind of table 
is formatted to describe what is defined at the state 
level, such as the juror source lists, definitions 
of a felony offense, the functions of administrative 
offices of the courts, and other aspects of court 
organization that apply to all appellate or trial 
courts within a state. Another kind of table reports 
on features that differ from court to court within a 
state, such as the number of judges or procedures for 
selecting a presiding judge. The "court" in trial 
court generally applies to a statewide court system.
For example, the Circuit Court of Virginia is divided 
into 31 circuits each serving a specific geographical 
area. Some trial courts, though, include an entire 
State within their geographic jurisdiction, as in New 
Jersey's Tax Court. Appellate courts are typically 
statewide in their jurisdiction, but intermediate 
appellate courts are established on a regional basis 
in Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, 
Missouri, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Washington. In 
these States, intermediate appellate courts may 
establish rules and procedures that vary between 
regions (usually called a district or division). 
Several States have multiple intermediate
appellate courts (Alabama, Indiana, New York, 
Introduction 1 Pennsylvania, and Tennessee) and 
two states -Oklahoma and Texas -have two courts of 
last resort. 

Some tables contain extensive footnotes. Footnotes 
tend to appear in tables that cover topics for 
which a simple answer was deemed unhelpful and 
consideration of the footnote's content is necessary 
to make comparisons across states or to grasp fully 
the nature of the arrangements that pertain in 
individual states. A general cautionary statement
is offered here. This volume covers an unusually 
diverse set of topics. There is no single state 
authority that maintains current and complete 
information on each topic. Therefore several sources 
were contacted in each state and extensive searches 
were undertaken of court rules and state statutes.
The next section of this introductory essay 
describes the process by which information was 
obtained and verified. 

How was the volume compiled? 

The contents for this edition were selected and 
the relevant data collected through the following 
main steps. The first step was a project staff review 
of the contents State Court Organization 1998. In 
the course of that review all members of the 
Conference of State Court Administrators were asked 
to evaluate the usefulness of each information
item published in State Court Organization 1998 and 
to nominate additional topics that could usefully be 
included in the new edition. Some information items 
were judged to be essential for the continuity of the 
series, new information was identified to keep pace 
with the changing shape and interests of the court 
community, and still other information items were 
found to be of limited contemporary interest. These 
decisions were made in consultation with other 
National Center for State Court staff members and
relevant academic and research experts on court-
related topics. Staff from the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics also participated in the review process. 
A tentative list of information contents was 
compiled by project staff and then reviewed in 
detail by the members of the Conference of State
Court Administrator's Court Statistics Committee. 
At a subsequent meeting, the Committee members 
reviewed the data collection design and drafts of 
the data collection instruments. The chosen 
information items were divided according to the most 
reliable and cost-effective data collection 
method and included:  

* A survey of administrative offices of the court
designed for distribution by mail to the state 
court administrators of the 50 states, the 
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The 
questionnaire dealt with aspects of court 
organization that are primarily administrative 
in nature and either new to the 2004 edition or 
likely to have changed significantly since 1998. 
Various versions of the new survey were pilot 
tested through the kind cooperation of states 
represented on the Court Statistics Committee. 

* A similar survey relating to information 
concerning appellate courts designed to collect 
new or changeable descriptive information on courts 
of last resort and intermediate appellate courts. 
Approximately 150 surveys were completed and 
returned. 

* A third survey form designed to update some of 
the information items carried over from the last 
edition and judged unlikely to have changed 
significantly over the previous five years. 
Respondents were presented with the information 
published in the 1998 edition and were asked to
update it to be current as of December 31, 2004. 
Separate update surveys were prepared for 
administrative offices of the courts and appellate 
court clerks. 

Protocols were developed to conduct statute and 
rule searches that would compile tables of 
information on specific laws, legal procedure and 
legal practices that applied statewide. Such 
searches were the primary source of data about 
juries and sentencing. Figure 1 indicates the
primary data collection methods for each table of
information. Upon return, surveys were reviewed 
for completeness and clarity by project staff. 
Telephone calls and fax messages were used to ensure 
that accurate and comparable information was 
available from all survey respondents. Information 
collected through update surveys and through statute 
and rule searches were entered in electronic tables.  

The main step in the verification process was to 
return all tables completed through surveys or 
update forms back to state court administrators. 
This provided a second check on the information, 
often by a second pair of eyes, and served as a 
check on the accuracy of any revisions made by 
project staff. All tables compiled through statute 
or rule searches also were sent to the state court 
administrator with a request that the contents be 
examined and modified or corrected as necessary. 
Verification often involved a series of iterations 
passed back and forth between project staff and the 
administrative office of the courts or appellate
court clerk. 

The result is a reference source that covers a 
wide range of information about trial and appellate 
courts and state court administration. There are 
some obvious limitations. Provisions and procedures 
that relate to criminal cases receive more attention 
than those concerning civil dockets. The focus, 
moreover, is on statewide court organization. Within 
states there is significant variation by locality 
that is beyond the scope of this volume to describe. 
Finally, State Court Organization is a companion
series to the annual State Court Caseload Statistics 
reports prepared by the Court Statistics Project of 
the National Center for State Courts. Please bring 
suggestions for information that might be included 
in future editions to the attention of the Director 
of the Court Statistics Project, National Center for 
State Courts, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, 
Virginia 23185. 

What is new to the 2004 edition? 

A glossary defining symbols, abbreviations and 
acronyms has been added to the front of the volume.  
Some tables from the 1998 edition were not repeated 
in 2004: 

Table 21 - Court Automation 
Table 35 - Provisions for Processing Domestic 
           Violence Cases 
Table 47 - The Availability of Intermediate Sanctions 
Table 50 - Good Time Accumulation and Parole 

Tables appearing for the first time in 2004 are: 

Table 31 - Specialized Jurisdiction: Problem Solving 
Courts
Table 36 - DNA Evidence: Post-Conviction Analysis 
Table 37 - Making the Trial Record  
(last covered in 1993) 

There has been some reorganization of the contents: 

Table 5 in 1998  Terms of Appellate Court Judges 
(combined with Table 4-Selection of Appellate 
Court Judges) 
Table 23 in 1998 -- Structure of Panels Reviewing
Discretionary Petitions (divided into two new tables: 
Table 23 --The Structure of Appellate Court Panels 
and Table 24 - Reviewing Discretionary Petitions) 
Table 27 in 1998 --  Special Calendars in Appellate 
Courts (combined with Table 25 -- Expediting 
Procedures in Appellate Courts) 

State Court Organization 2004 enhances the coverage 
of clerks of (trial) courts and trial court 
administrators. The previous edition allocated one 
table to each type of official, and provided 
information only on their method of selection and 
source of funding. For 2004, Table 29 provides
information for both clerks and administrators on 
their method of selection and numbers in each trial 
court system. Table 30 describes the functional 
responsibilities for both sets of officials using 
a common set of responsibilities. 

Glossary of Selected Abbreviations, Definitions, 
and Symbols 

Abbreviations 
ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act 
AOC = Administrative Office of the Courts 
AP = At pleasure 
CASA = Court Appointed Special Advocate 
CJ = Chief Justice 
CLE = Continuing legal education 
CS = Court selection 
DS = District 
DU = Duration of service 
EX = Executive 
GE = Gubernatorial appointment with approval of 
elected executive council 
GJ = General jurisdiction 
GL = Gubernatorial appointment with consent of the
legislature 
GN = Gubernatorial appointment from judicial 
nominating commission 
GNE = Gubernatorial appointment from judicial 
nominating commission with approval of elected 
executive council 
GNL = Gubernatorial appointment from judicial 
nominating commission with consent of the 
legislature 
GU = Gubernatorial appointment 

Definitions: 
A.L.I. = Accused lacks substantial capacity to 
appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his/
her conduct or conform his/her conduct to the 
requirements of law. 

Irresistible Impulse = If a mental disorder caused 
the individual to experience an irresistible impulse 
to commit the offense, even if he/she remained able 
to understand the nature of the offense and its 
wrongfulness. 

M'N = (M'Naghten) The accused party, at the time 
of committing the act, was laboring under a defect 
of reason from disease of the mind, not to know the 
nature and quality of the act he/she was doing, or 
if he/she did not know it was wrong. 

Symbols: 
? = Both mandatory and discretionary jurisdiction 
? = Discretionary jurisdiction 
? = Mandatory jurisdiction 

~ = Not applicable 
* = Mandatory list 

? = No/none 
? = Shared 
? = Total 
? = Yes 

IA = Intermediate appellate court 
ID = Indefinite 
IT = Information technology 
JD = Judicial 
JN = Judicial nominating commission appoints 
LA = Legislative appointment
LD = Locally determined 
LG = Legislature 
LJ = Limited jurisdiction 
LWOP = Life in prison without parole 
NP = Non-partisan election 
NR = No response 
N/S = Not stated 
PE = Partisan election 
RA = Reappointment 
RE = Retention election
SC = Court of last resort 
SCJ = Chief justice/judge of the court of last  
resort appoints 
SN = Seniority  
SW = Statewide 
TCA = Trial court administrator 
US = Federal VA = Varies 

Part I: Courts and Judges 

The number and variety of appellate and trial courts 
is the logical starting point for anyone interested 
in court organization. The fundamental distinction is 
between trial courts, which are courts of first 
instance that decide a dispute by examining the facts, 
and appellate courts, which review the trial court's 
application of the law with respect to those facts. 

Table 1 lists the number and types of appellate courts
in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, 
and Puerto Rico. Appellate courts are divided into two 
basic categories, namely courts of last resort(COLR) 
and intermediate appellate courts(IAC). Each state 
has a COLR, which has final jurisdiction over appeals. 
Oklahoma and Texas split final appellate review between 
separate civil and criminal COLRs. Courts of last 
resort typically were established in the state's 
constitution and sit in one location, the state 
capital. IACs hear initial appeals, the outcome of 
which can be subject to further review by the 
state's COLR. Intermediate appellate courts, a more 
contemporary institution, often sit in multiple 
locations throughout the state. 

Table 2 lists the total number of appellate judges
serving the state courts. Information on term 
lengths as well as the gender and racial and ethnic 
composition of the bench is provided, where available. 
The state appellate bench consists of 1,335 members. 
Term lengths vary between states from four to sixteen 
years; only Rhode Island selects judges to serve 
for life, while Massachusetts and Puerto Rico 
mandate terms that last until retirement at age 
70. 
 
All COLRs are established with an odd number of
justices, in contrast to the structure of the jury 
as a decision-making institution, which usually 
consists of an even number of members. The most 
common arrangement is a seven judge COLR, found in 
28 states and in Puerto Rico. Five justices serve 
on COLRs in 16 states, while five states follow the 
federal nine-justice model as does the District of 
Columbia.  Both Texas COLRs have nine justices.  
Oklahoma has a nine-member Supreme Court and a five 
member Court of Criminal Appeals.  

Intermediate appellate courts often undertake review
through panels of three or more judges rather than 
by the full court sitting "en banc". California has
the largest state IAC, with 105 authorized and 88 
serving judgeships divided into nine divisions.
  
Trial courts are listed state-by-state in Table 3,
noting which are courts of general jurisdiction 
(GJ) and which are courts of limited (or special) 
jurisdiction (LJ). General jurisdiction trial 
courts are the highest trial court in a state, 
where felony criminal cases and high stakes civil 
suits are adjudicated. They often exercise some 
form of appellate review over outcomes in limited
jurisdiction courts or decisions by 
administrative agencies, exercising what is termed 
incidental appellate jurisdiction. 

A limited jurisdiction trial court, one or more of 
which is to be found in all but six states, typically 
holds preliminary hearings in felony cases and has 
exclusive jurisdiction over misdemeanor and ordinance 
violation cases (Table 44 details the jurisdiction 
over felony cases by courts of limited jurisdiction). 
Civil jurisdiction is restricted to a fixed maximum 
amount, and typically includes a separate category 
of small claims cases for which simplified procedures 
are established. Juvenile and domestic relations 
cases are typically heard in a court of general 
jurisdiction, but in some states a special court may
exist for such "family law" cases. 

Table 3 indicates the number of judges serving on 
each trial court statewide. Some courts, especially 
those with limited jurisdiction, use part-time or 
senior judges to help with caseloads. Courts may 
also make use of quasi-judicial staff to hear cases 
as referees, commissioners, or hearing officers. 
Table 3 provides information on term lengths for
trial court judges as well as their gender and racial 
and ethnic composition, where available. The length 
specified is for a "full" term. Judges may be 
appointed to serve an initial term for a fixed 
period of time before becoming eligible to serve a 
full term. Even in states that elect their judges, 
most sitting judges are initially appointed to
the bench to fill an unexpired term created by 
the resignation or death of a judge. 

By and large, general jurisdiction trial courts 
are divided into circuits or districts. In some 
states (e.g., California) the county serves as the 
judicial district. Most states, however, construct 
judicial districts that embrace a number of counties.  
Limited jurisdiction trial courts vary in whether 
they possess county-wide jurisdiction across a 
county or serve a specific local government unit,
such as a city or village. Jurisdiction beyond a 
specific county is rare, except for those courts 
with special jurisdiction that applies statewide 
(water courts and workers' compensation courts are 
examples).  

In comparing court structures, it should be noted 
that even basic nomenclature can vary markedly. 
Supreme Courts are usually courts of last resort 
but in New York "supreme" designates the main trial 
court; the Court of Appeals is the state's court 
of last resort. Justices and a Chief Justice
usually serve on courts of last resort but a number 
of COLRs have judges and a Chief Judge. Judge is 
the standard title for those serving on intermediate 
appellate courts.
      
Select Bibliography: 

The American Bar Association, Facts About the 
American Judicial System, Washington D.C.: 1999. 

Lawrence Baum, American Courts: Process and 
Policy, Fifth Edition 2001, Houghton Mifflin. 

Robert A. Carp, Judicial Process in America, 
Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004. 

Henry Glick, "State Court Systems", Encyclopedia 
of the American Judicial System, Vol. II, R. 
Janosik (Ed.). New York: Charles Scribner's, 
1987. 

William S. Miller, A Primer on American Courts, 
New York: Pearson Longman, 2004. 

David Neubauer, America's Courts and the Criminal 
Justice System: 8th Edition, Wadsworth Publishing, 
2004. 

Robert W. Tobin, Creating the Judicial Branch: The
Unfinished Reform, Williamsburg, VA: National 
Center for State Courts, 1999. 

Tables 2 & 3 

Diana R. Irvine (Ed.). The American Bench: Judges 
of the Nation, Fifteenth Edition 2004/05, 
Sacramento, CA: Forester-Long. 

National Database on Judicial Diversity in 
State Courts, The American Bar Association 
Standing Committee on Judicial Independence 
http://www.abanet.org/judind/diversity/home.html. 

Part II: Judicial Selection and Service 

How judges are selected and their terms of service 
on the bench differ sharply between the federal 
and state courts, and the differences among states 
are often nearly as significant. All federal judges 
are nominated by the President and serve "during 
good behavior" once confirmed by the U.S. Senate 
unless they resign or are impeached and convicted 
by the U.S. Congress. State court judges are likely 
to face an election as a part of their selection
process and to serve fixed terms, which for COLR 
justices range between six and 14 years (15 years 
in the District of Columbia). Only Rhode Island 
offers appellate judges lifetime appointments, while 
the judges of Massachusetts's and Puerto Rico's 
Supreme Court serve until age 70.
 
Judicial selection occurs for three purposes in the
state courts: to fill an unexpired term upon the 
retirement, resignation, or death of an incumbent 
judge; to select for a full term; and at the end of 
a special term. Table 4 describes the various ways 
in which appellate justices and judges are selected, 
for "unexpired" and "full" terms, as well as for 
subsequent terms, while Table 6 describes 
procedures for selecting trial court judges. 

One marker for examining the diverse selection methods
adopted by the states is the "Missouri Plan."  In 
1940, the State of Missouri amended its constitution 
to establish a statewide nominating committee for 
appellate judgeships and circuit-level commissions 
for general jurisdiction trial court judgeships. A 
judge, representatives of the state bar association, 
and non-lawyers appointed by the governor make up 
the committee. The governor must appoint one of the
committee's three nominees to fill a vacancy. The 
new appointee then faces a retention election in one 
year's time, running against their own record and 
further retention elections at 12-year intervals. 
Thirty-seven states use some form of judicial 
nominating commission in judicial selection, which 
became popular in the 1970s, although only 15 combine 
such a commission with retention elections on the 
Missouri model.
 
Since 1998, two states changed from partisan to non-
partisan judicial elections. In Arkansas the public
voted in November 2000 to make all judicial elections
non-partisan. North Carolina made that change for 
District Court trial judges in 2000 and for all 
appellate judges in 2002.  

All appellate courts and most trial courts have a 
chief justice or judge. Table 4 explains how chief 
justices and chief judges of COLRs and IACs are 
selected in each state. The length of their term in 
office can also be found in the table.  How trial 
court chief judges (sometimes termed presiding 
judges) are selected is detailed in Table 6.  The
judges in a district or circuit typically select 
one of their peers to serve as the chief judge for 
a fixed number of years, but the appointment may 
be made at the state level by the governor, Chief 
Justice of the COLR, or the COLR collectively. In 
some instances a specific individual is elected or 
appointed as the chief judge and holds that title
throughout their tenure. In other trial courts, 
seniority establishes who is selected as the chief 
judge. 

Qualifications for service as a judge are stated 
in the constitutions and statutes of the various 
states. Tables 5 and 7 indicate the constitutionally 
or statutorily mandated qualifications in terms of 
residency, age, and legal credentials that are 
mandated for appellate and trial court judgeships, 
respectively. Many states require judges to
participate in some form of legal education 
beyond the Continuing Legal Education expected of 
all state bar members. Mandatory judicial education 
is accomplished through a wide range of judicial 
branch and private entities and is funded by a 
variety of sources. 

Nineteen states, the District of Columbia, and 
Puerto Rico make formal provision for an ongoing 
evaluation of judicial performance.  States with 
retention elections for judges are the most likely 
to evaluate performance and make public the results, 
but some with nonpartisan elections do so as well 
(Minnesota), as do many with a system of judicial 
appointments (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New 
Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont). Table 10 
identifies the body responsible for operating the
program, the implementing authority, the membership 
of the evaluating body, and how the evaluation is 
undertaken.
   
Judicial conduct organizations are the main arbiters 
of what constitutes judicial misconduct in the 
states. Conduct organizations investigate complaints 
against members of the judiciary and typically include 
a mix of judges, lawyers, and ordinary citizens. The 
adjudicatory function is usually exercised by the 
COLR, although sometimes the original conduct 
organization both investigates and adjudicates
complaints.  In such instances there is usually a 
right of appeal to the state's COLR. Table 11 
highlights the various investigating and adjudicating 
bodies as well as their respective organizational 
structure. This table also indicates which court or 
other entity adjudicates complaints, hears appeals, 
has final disciplinary authority, and at what point 
reprimands are made public. 

Select General Bibliography: 

American Bar Association, Standards on State 
Judicial Selection: Report of the Commission on 
State Judicial Selection Standards, Chicago, IL: 
2001. 

Call To Action: Statement of the National Summit 
on Improving Judicial Selection: Expanded Edition 
with Commentary, Williamsburg, VA: National Center 
for State Courts, 2002. Available online: 
http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/CallToActionCo
mmentary.pdf. 

Philip J. Dubois, From Ballot to Bench: Judicial 
Elections and the Quest for Accountability. Austin, 
TX: University of Texas Press, 1980.  

Judicial Merit Selection: Current Status, The 
American Judicature Society, Des Moines, IA, 
2003. 

Richard C. Kearney, "Judicial Performance Evaluation 
in the States" Public Administration Quarterly 22, 
no. 4 (Winter 1999). 

Doris Marie Provine, Judging Credentials: Nonlawyer 
Judges and the Politics of Professionalism, 
Chicago, IL:, University of Chicago Press, 1986.  

Malia Reddick, Merit Selection: A Review of the 
Social Scientific Literature, American Judicature 
Society, 2003, Available online:
http://www.ajs.org/js/LitReview.pdf. 

Judith Rosenbaum, Practices and Procedures of 
State Judicial Conduct Organizations, Chicago, 
IL: American Judicature Society, 1990. 

Elliot E. Slotnick (Ed.), Judicial Politics: 
Readings from the Judicature, Washington, D.C.: 
CQ Press, 2005. 

Standards on State Judicial Selection: Report of 
the Commission on State Judicial Selection Standards, 
American Bar Association, Standing Committee on 
Judicial Independence, Chicago: 2001. 

Mary Volcansek, Judicial Impeachment: None Called 
for Justice, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois 
Press, 1993.  

Penny J. White, "Judging Judges: Securing Judicial
Independence by Use of Judicial Performance 
Evaluations," Fordham Urban Law Journal 29, no. 3 
(February 2002): 1053-78. 

Tables 4 & 6 

Hunter Center for Judicial Selection (American 
Judicature Society), Judicial Selection in the 
States http://www.ajs.org/js provides a comprehensive 
state-by-state resource on current methods of 
judicial selection for all court levels and extensive 
background material on the history of judicial 
selection. 

Part III: The Judicial Branch: Governance, Funding, 
and Administration 

Each state as well as the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico has an independent judicial branch. As 
indicated in Table 12, either the Court of Last 
Resort(COLR) (fifteen states) or the Chief Justice 
of the Court of Last Resort (34 states, Puerto Rico, 
and the District of Columbia) is the designated 
head of the judicial branch. In Utah, the Judicial 
Council is the designated head. 

The formulation of rules for court procedure is 
basic to the governance of the judicial branch. 
Table 13 indicates whether the state constitution 
or the legislative branch grants the rule-making 
authority of the COLR in key procedural areas. The 
specific areas covered in Table 13 are appellate 
and trial court administration; appellate, civil, 
and criminal procedure; rules of evidence; attorney
and judicial discipline; and trial court costs and 
fees assessment. 

Many state judicial branches incorporate councils 
or conferences in either a policy-making or 
advisory capacity. Table 14 lists the relevant 
bodies that report to the state's COLR and cites 
their purpose, statutory or constitutional authority, 
and the year in which they were established. Most 
councils or conferences are established by statute, 
but they may also be established by the state
constitution or by a COLR rule.  

Twenty-three states have established Judicial
Compensation Commissions that meet periodically to 
set the salaries of judicial officials. Table 15 
offers information on the statutory or constitutional 
authority, composition, and meeting schedule of 
these commissions. Whether the respective 
commissions report to the legislature, executive,
or the judiciary as well as the effects of their
recommendations is also stated in this table. 

Table 16 explains the preparation of the judicial
branch's budget. In most states the budget is 
initially prepared by the state's administrative 
office of the courts, generally followed by a 
central review of budget submissions by the state's 
COLR or administrative office of the courts. The 
situation in many states is complex, which is reflected
in the number of footnotes appended to the table. 
Table 16 also focuses on the role of the executive 
and legislative branches in submitting and possibly 
amending the judicial branch budget, and provides an 
estimate of the percentage of the total state budget 
accounted for by the judicial branch. There is some 
new budget-related information in the 2004 edition. 
Specifically, the table gives the number of budget
line items in the judicial branch budget and states 
whether that branch can move funds between those 
budget lines. 

Table 17 begins with the expenditures for trial court
operations, distinguishing (where possible) between 
state and local funding sources. The table also 
describes some specific expenditures that fall within 
the trial court budget. Table 17 lists 18 expenditure 
areas, noting whether the source of funding is the 
state, county/local government, or fees. Often 
expenditures are funded through several sources. In 
using this table it should be noted that it refers 
only to the funding of trial courts, and is therefore
not directly comparable to the dollar amounts 
offered in Table 16, which describes the entire 
judicial branch budget. Table 17 highlights important 
differences in the scope of state judicial branches, 
specifically whether they encompass functions such 
as child support enforcement, juvenile probation and 
detention, or indigent defense.  Such differences 
in scope, along with differences in which
expenditures are state funded and which are locally 
funded or fee supported, explain to a substantial 
extent differences in the proportion of the state 
budget designated for the judicial branch as well 
as staffing levels of administrative offices of the 
courts.
 
Appellate courts have a designated clerk with
responsibilities that range from administrative 
tasks to legal research. Table 18 indicates whether 
a clerk's office has total, shared, or no 
responsibility for 29 functional areas. In addition, 
this table reports the total number of full time 
equivalent staff that report to the clerk of court. 

In most states, the appellate court clerk is appointed
by the members of the court and serves at the 
pleasure of the court. (The clerk of the Supreme Court 
in Montana is an elected official, as are the clerks 
of the 12 regional intermediate appellate courts in 
Ohio). In 14 states, the clerk of the court of last 
resort also serves as clerk of the state's other 
appellate court(s). Minimum qualifications for 
clerks vary dramatically between states. Some call 
for a high school diploma, while others require 
admittance to the state bar. Details are in Table 
19.  
 
Law clerks provide direct support to appellate court
justices and judges, or to the court in general 
through a central staff.  The number of law clerks 
allocated to the chief justice or judge and to the 
associate justices or judges of each appellate court 
can be found in Table 20. The number of central law 
staff is also indicated. 

Every state has a central office that has day to 
day administrative responsibilities for the state 
courts.  The head of that office, the state court 
administrator, is usually an appointee of the state 
judiciary, with the chief justice or the COLR 
exercising the appointment authority. The 
administrative office's role in the budget process 
was described in Table 16. A more comprehensive 
description of what administrative offices do is 
provided in Table 21, which indicates the nature 
of the responsibility of the administrative office 
for 25 functional areas relating to a state's trial 
court. The first column of the table reports the 
number of staff in the administrative office, 
expressed as full-time equivalent positions.  The 
size of the administrative office staff reflects 
both the degree to which there is centralized
coordination of key functions and the allocation 
of some substantial responsibilities, such as 
juvenile probation, to the administrative office 
of the courts.  

Select Bibliography: 

American Bar Association (Judicial Administration 
Division), Standards Relating to Court Organization: 
1990 Edition, Chicago, IL: The ABA Press, 1990. 

Larry Berkson and Susan Carbon, Court Unification: 
History, Politics and Implementation, Washington, 
D.C.: National Institute of Law Enforcement and 
Criminal Justice, 1978. 
 
Thomas Henderson, et al., The Significance of 
Judicial Structure: The Effect of Unification on 
Trial Court Operations, Washington, D.C.: National 
Institute of Justice, 1984.  

Robert G. Nieland and Rachel N. Doan (revised by 
Mayo H. Stiegler),State Court Administrative 
Offices: Second Edition, Chicago, IL:, American 
Judicature Society, 1982. 

Court Watch of North Carolina, Nationwide Report 
Comparing State Trial Judges and their Support 
Staff, Greensboro, NC, 1997. 

Survey of Judicial Salaries, National Center for 
State Courts, Williamsburg, VA, Vol. 30, No. 1, 
2005 (semiannual series). Available online:
http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/KIS
JudComJudSal040105Pub.pdf. 

David B. Rottman, Trends and Issues in the State 
Courts: Challenges and Achievements, Williamsburg, 
VA: National Center for State Courts, 2004. 
Available online: 
http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/
Res_WorkLd_TrendsIssuesStateCourtsPub.pdf. 

Brian J. Ostrom, Matt Kleiman and Nicole L. Mott, 
Minnesota Court Workload Assessment, 2004, 
Williamsburg, VA, National Center for State 
Courts, 2004. Available online: 
http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/
Res_WorkLd_MinnCtStaffWkLdAs_04Pub.pdf. 

Table 13: 

Donald Pugh, et al., Judicial Rulemaking: A 
Compendium, Chicago, IL:, American Judicature 
Society, 1984.  

Felix F. Stumpf, Inherent Powers of the Courts, 
Reno, NV: National Judicial College, 1994. 

Part IV: Appellate Courts: Jurisdiction and 
Procedures 

Appellate courts do not determine guilt in criminal
cases, or liability in civil cases, nor do they 
ensure that trial proceedings in lower courts are 
flawless. Instead, appellate courts are charged with 
assessing whether or not errors have been committed 
at trial.  

Courts of last resort were established early in a
state's history, while intermediate appellate courts 
are a more contemporary development. In 1957, only 
13 states had a permanent intermediate appellate 
court. Some states, however, had previously 
established and then disbanded such a court. Currently 
39 states have both types of appellate courts. In 
these states parties wishing to challenge a trial 
court decision typically bring their appeal first to 
the intermediate appellate court. For most criminal 
appeals the intermediate appellate court must accept 
the case because the court's jurisdiction is mandatory. 
Because intermediate appellate courts tend to have 
some discretion to decide whether to hear civil 
appeals, not all civil cases are necessarily accepted.   

Once the intermediate appellate court hears a case 
and reaches a decision, a dissatisfied party may 
petition the court of last resort for further review. 
The COLR, which generally has broad discretionary 
jurisdiction in both civil and criminal appeals, must 
first decide whether to accept the case for review. 
If the petition is granted, the court hears the case 
and renders a decision. However, if the petition is 
denied, the litigation is terminated and the ruling 
of the intermediate appellate court stands. The major 
exceptions to this scenario are death-penalty cases. 
In those states with capital punishment, death-
penalty appeals are invariably filed directly in 
the court of last resort as a mandatory appeal.  

Table 22 describes the allocation of mandatory and
discretionary jurisdiction for eight types of appeal.  
In ten states and the District of Columbia, there is 
a single appellate court. Generally, a court of last 
resort in a state with no other appellate court 
has mandatory jurisdiction for most categories 
of appeal. There are exceptions to this rule 
such as West Virginia which has discretionary 
jurisdiction. 

Intermediate appellate courts typically conduct 
their business in panels rather than en banc. The 
information on panel structure contained in Table 
23 is therefore basic to these courts. The number 
of panels in each appellate court, their size, 
whether they are permanent or rotating, and the
frequency of rotation are indicated in this table. 

Appellate courts with discretionary jurisdiction 
require procedures for selecting the cases to be 
reviewed. Table 24 indicates who makes the decision 
to grant a petition in each appellate court with 
discretionary jurisdiction: the court en banc, a 
panel, a commissioner, or a single justice. The
decision-ratio used for granting review is also 
indicated where the decision is made by the court 
en banc or a panel of justices/judges. In all but 
four states and the District of Columbia, the 
court of last resort reviews petitions en banc(the 
exceptions are Florida, Iowa, Virginia, and
Washington), although some COLRs use a combination 
of en banc proceedings, panels, or a single justice 
depending on the nature of the case. A majority of 
the court or panel must agree to accept the case in
most courts of last resort. In 15 states, a minority, 
and, in a few courts, a single member of the full 
court or panel can grant review. The decision rule 
may vary by the type of case under consideration. 

Most appellate courts provide for expediting 
procedures that allow especially time-sensitive 
cases to be heard more expeditiously. Table 25 
describes the types of expedited appeals for each 
appellate court as well as the respective
procedures applied in processing appeals. 
  
Appellate courts may restrict oral argument for 
routine cases. Table 26 indicates the time limit 
imposed on both appellants and respondents, whether 
a formal request for oral argument must be filed, 
and under what circumstances oral argument is 
automatically scheduled.  

Appellate courts often review the decisions of
administrative agencies. Table 27 describes which 
courts have jurisdiction to review the decisions 
made by eight categories of administrative agencies 
in each state. That review is sometimes undertaken 
by trial courts exercising their "incidental 
appellate jurisdiction."   

Select Bibliography: 

Carol Flango, Roger Hanson, and Randall Hansen, The 
Work of Appellate Court Legal Staff, Williamsburg, 
VA: National Center for State Courts, 2000. 
Carol R. Flango and David Rottman, Appellate Court
Procedures, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for 
State Courts, 1998. 

Victor E. Flango and Carol R. Flango, A Taxonomy 
of Appellate Court Organization, Williamsburg, VA: 
National Center for State Courts, July 1997. 
Available online: 
http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/csp/
Highlights/V ol3No1Taxom.pdf. 

Roger A. Hanson, Appellate Court Performance 
Standards, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for 
State Courts, 1995.  

Roger A. Hanson, Appellate Court Performance 
Standards and Measures, Williamsburg, VA: National 
Center for State Courts, 1999. 

Roger A. Hanson, Jurisdiction, Caseload, and 
Timeliness of State Supreme Courts, Williamsburg, 
VA: National Center for State Courts, 2001. 

Robert A. Leflar, Internal Operating Procedures 
of Appellate Courts, Chicago, 1976. 

Daniel J. Meador, et al., Appellate Courts: 
Structures, Functions, Processes, and Personnel, 
Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company, 1994.  

Robert L. Stern, Appellate Practice in the United 
States: Second Edition, Washington, D.C.: The 
Bureau of National Affairs, 1989.  

Paul Brace and Kellie Sims-Butler, "New 
Perspectives for the Comparative Study of the 
Judiciary: The State Supreme Court Project," 
The Justice System Journal, Volume 22, Number 3
(2001). 

Part V: Trial Courts: Administration, Specialized
Jurisdiction, and Procedures 

Perhaps the most fundamental feature of state trial
court systems is the distribution of subject matter
jurisdiction. The pattern followed in each state 
and the differences among states are most readily 
identified by means of the court structure charts 
found in Part VIII. 

Trial court administration generally involves judges
with managerial responsibility (presiding, chief, 
or administrative judges of the court or of divisions 
within the court), clerks of court, and trial court 
administrators. A chief or presiding judge generally 
serves as an executive overseer who ensures that court 
policy is implemented. Their method of selection and 
terms of office are described in Table 6, whereas 
Table 28 highlights their specific responsibilities 
across nine areas. This is a substantially enhanced 
coverage of the role of the administrative judge
from that provided in 1998. 

The vital administrative tasks of a clerk of court 
are typically the responsibility of an elected or 
appointed official. The method of selection may 
vary among the general jurisdiction courts of 
the individual states. Court administrators, by 
contrast, are not elected officials and are most 
often appointed by the chief or presiding judge.
Table 29 reports the number of clerks and 
administrators serving each court system in a state 
and their method of selection. 

A clerk of court typically has responsibility for
docketing cases, collecting court fees, overseeing 
jury selection, and maintaining all court records. 
While clerks of court are traditional positions in 
almost all state court systems, trial court 
administrators are more recent participants in the 
management of court operations. They are responsible 
for the non-judicial aspects of court administration 
including staffing, budgets, efficient caseload 
processing, etc. In some trial court systems, the
same official is both the administrator and the 
clerk. Information on the specific responsibilities 
in ten functional areas of both clerks of court and 
trial court administrators can be found in Table 30. 

Problem solving courts have emerged in most states 
over the past several years and specialize in 
targeting issue areas such as domestic violence and 
drug addiction. Table 31 lists six different types 
of problem solving courts and indicates the number 
of each type operational in the individual states. 
By far, the most common problem solving courts are 
drug courts and family courts. In most cases,
family courts are a unit of a district, circuit, 
trial, or superior court rather than being 
independent. The jurisdiction assigned to family 
courts in each state is detailed in Table 32. The 
table also indicates whether family courts exist 
statewide or only in a limited number of local 
jurisdictions. 

Table 33 recognizes the significant role that Native
American tribal courts have in many states by 
indicating the number and types of tribal courts that 
are in place in each state. Public Law 280 (1953) 
extended state jurisdiction over civil and criminal 
cases to Native American lands. Table 33 indicates 
whether a state has assumed that jurisdiction. This 
listing is not a comprehensive guide to the presence 
of tribal courts. The table is compiled from several 
sources, listed below, and cannot be regarded as
definitive. The territory of tribal lands is not 
necessarily bounded within a state, making the 
presentation of accurate descriptive information on 
tribal courts problematic for this volume's format. 
Moreover, there is a complex division of 
jurisdiction over civil disputes and criminal offenses
between federal, state, and tribal courts. As such, 
there are Tribal Court-State Court Forums in a 
number of states, with the Tribal Courts and State 
Courts:  The Prevention and Resolution of 
Jurisdictional Disputes Project, established
in 1989, as an example. Additional information on 
tribal courts can be obtained by contacting the 
organizations responsible for the volumes used as 
sources or the individual courts. 

The status of cameras in trial and appellate courts 
is described on a state-by-state basis in Table 34. 
Television cameras may be allowed in some courts and 
for some types of proceedings within a given state. 
Whether camera coverage is carried out on an 
experimental basis or has permanent status is 
indicated, as is whether the consent of the parties 
is required. 

All but three states (Idaho, Montana and Utah) 
provide for an insanity defense. For the other 
states, Table 35 indicates the legal test for 
insanity and highlights pre-trial, trial, and 
post-trial standards and procedures for each 
state. 

Recent scientific advances have enabled law 
enforcement to solve crimes by extracting DNA from 
a mere speck of blood or a strand of hair left at 
a crime scene. Table 36 provides information on 
the 45 states that have adopted a statute regarding 
post-conviction analysis of DNA evidence. This
table, included for the first time in the 2004 
edition, specifies the time limit for relief, 
convictions for which relief may be sought, the 
length of time biological evidence must be 
preserved, and the standard for granting DNA 
testing. 

Finally, the methods employed by each state's trial
courts to make the trial record available can be 
found in Table 37. This topic was last addressed 
in State Court Organization 1993. The table first 
indicates whether or not a trial court makes a 
verbatim record. If a record is made, four 
specific methods are listed, with a provision for 
states to fill in any other methods being used. 

Select General Bibliography: 

Pam Casey, Trial Court Performance Standards: 
Implementation Profiles, Williamsburg, VA: National 
Center for State Courts, 2003. 

Fred L. Cheesman, et al., Developing Statewide 
Performance Measures for Drug Courts, Williamsburg, 
VA: National Center for State Courts, 2004. 

Steven W. Hays and Cole Blease Graham, Jr., Handbook 
of Court Administration and Management, New York: 
Marcel Dekker, 1993. 

Martindale Hubbell, United States Law Digest, 
Summit, NJ: Martindale Hubbell, 2004 (Up-to-date 
digests of the laws of the 50 states and text of 
more than 50 uniform codes and model acts). 

F. Dale Kasparek, Leading the Unfinished Reform: 
The Future of Third Branch Administration, 
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State 
Courts, 2005. 

Ruthie Elizabeth Reeves Stewart, The Changing 
Relationship Between Cameras and the Courts, 
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 1998. 

Table 31: 
 
Pam Casey and David Rottman, Problem Solving 
Courts: Models and Trends, Williamsburg, VA: 
National Center for State Courts, 2003. 
Available online: http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/
Publications/COMM_ProSolProbSolvCtsPub.pdf. 

C. West Huddleston, III, Karen Freeman-Wilson, 
Douglas Marlowe, and Aaron Rousell, Painting the 
Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug 
Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs 
in the United States, Vol 1, No. 2 (May 2005). 

Robert W. Tobin, Creating the Judicial Branch: 
The Unfinished Reform, Williamsburg, VA: 
National Center for State Courts, 1999. 

David B. Wexler, " Therapeutic Jurisprudence: It's 
Not Just for Problem-Solving Courts and Calendars 
Anymore ," Williamsburg, VA: National Center for 
State Courts, 2004. Available online: 
http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/SpeP
roTherapTrends2004.html#_Therapeutic_ Jurisprudence _
and. 

Table 32: 

American Bar Association, United Family Courts: 
A Progress Report, 1998. 

Contents originally derived from Barbara A. Babb, 
Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court 
Reform in Family Law: A Blueprint to Construct a 
Unified Family Court, Southern California Law Review, 
Vol. 71, No.3, University of Southern California: 
March, 1998.  

Carol R. Flango, "Trends 2002: Family Friendly 
Courts." Williamsburg, VA: National Center for 
State Courts, 2002. Available online: 
http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/KIS_FamJus
Trends02_FamFriendPub.pdf. 

Table 33:  

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Native American Tribal 
Court Profiles, Washington, D.C., 1985. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
Indian Entities Recognized as Eligible to Receive 
Services for the United States Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (also Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 234, 
December 5, 2003). 
 
William C. Canby, Jr., American Indian Law in a 
Nutshell: Third Edition, St. Paul, MN: West 
Publishing, 1998. 

Carol Goldberg-Ambrose, Planting Tail Feathers: 
Tribal Survival and Public Law 280(UCLA American 
Studies Center: 1997) (with Time Seward). 

H. Clifton Grandy and Ted Rubin, Tribal Court--State 
Court Forums, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for 
State Courts, 1993.  

National American Indian Court Judges Association, 
Tribal Court Database, May 28, 1998. 

National Indian Court Justices Association, Indian 
Court Judges Directory: Third Edition, Washington, 
D.C., 1991. 

Native American Tribal Court Database, 
http://www.tribalcourts.com/ 
(last visited December 7, 2005). 

Part VI: The Jury 

This section uses several tables to describe jury
selection, jury verdict rules in the state courts, 
and the composition and function of the grand jury 
in state courts. 
 
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, 
or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or 
indictment at a grand jury."  That clause from the 
Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies to 
all felony prosecutions in the federal courts. The 
information in Table 38 shows that while most states 
retain the option of a grand jury indictment, few 
require it to begin felony proceedings. A diminished 
role for the state grand jury in processing felony 
cases can be seen early in this century. Grand jury
indictments were largely replaced by the practice 
of prosecutors filing a document called a criminal 
information, a practice ultimately upheld by the U.S. 
Supreme Court (In re McNaught, 1909; Palko v.
Connecticut, 1937). Table 38 indicates whether a 
grand jury indictment is required for all felony 
prosecutions, the size of the grand jury, the number 
needed to indict, the statutory term of grand jury 
sittings, and the civic duties undertaken by grand 
juries. 
 
Table 39 starts the description of trial juries by
indicating the basis for the master list from which 
the jury pool is drawn and the relevant state statute. 
Most states use a variety of sources to compile a 
master list. Sources followed by an asterisk must 
be used; others are generally used at the discretion 
of local jury commissioners. Qualifications for 
jury service in terms of age, time elapsed since a 
prior jury service, residency, and English 
proficiency are specified. The table indicates, 
through footnotes, the states that have adopted the 
provisions of the Uniform Jury Selection and Service 
Act, which was drafted in 1970 by the National 
Conference of Commissions on Uniform State Laws. 

Table 40 lists the factors that exempt an individual
from jury duty. Exemptions are generally based on 
age or occupation. Twenty-four states and the District 
of Columbia do not grant automatic occupational 
exemptions; several other states limit exemptions to 
those on active military service. Excusals from jury 
service follow from claims of undue hardship, extreme 
inconvenience, public necessity, or mental disability. 
Table 40 also details the obligations that employers 
bear in each state toward maintaining the salaries of 
employees while on jury service. The daily fee, if 
any, paid to serving jurors is also indicated. 

The allocation of peremptory challenges is described 
in Table 41. The number of peremptory challenges 
available to the parties to a dispute is indicated 
for civil and criminal cases. Criminal cases are 
subdivided into capital, felony, and misdemeanor 
cases. In criminal cases, the number of peremptory 
challenges may be different for the state and the 
defense. Additional provisions for peremptory 
challenges are sometimes specified for the selection 
of alternate juries and in cases involving multiple
parties. 

Since 1970, U.S. Supreme Court decisions have allowed
states to move away from the traditional federal jury
standard of 12 members who must reach a unanimous 
verdict. Specifically, six-member juries were found 
to be constitutional in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 
78 (1970) and non-unanimous verdicts in Apodaca v. 
Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972). Table 42 specifies jury 
size and verdict rules for felony, misdemeanor, and 
civil cases. The relaxation of traditional size and 
verdict requirements is most prevalent for misdemeanor 
criminal cases.  Four states use eight-(Arizona and 
Utah) or six-member juries (Connecticut and Florida) 
in their courts of general jurisdiction for non-
capital felonies, and two states (Louisiana and 
Oregon) and Puerto Rico do not require a unanimous 
verdict in such cases. States that continue to use 
a 12-member, unanimous verdict jury typically allow 
the parties to agree to a smaller, non-unanimous 
jury. 

Select Bibliography: 

Jeffrey B. Abramson, We, The Jury: The Jury System 
and the Ideal of Democracy (with new preface), 
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001. 

Paula L. Hannaford, et al., Are Hung Juries a 
Problem?, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for 
State Courts, 2002. 

Paula L. Hannaford, A Profile of Hung Juries, 
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State 
Courts, State Justice Institute, 2003. 

Paula L. Hannaford-Agor, Making the Case for Juror 
Privacy: A New Framework for Court Policies and 
Procedures, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for 
State Courts, State Justice Institute, 2001. 

Juries in Depth: Jury Decision Making, American 
Judicature Society. Available online:
http://www.ajs.org/jc/juries/jc_decision_overview.
asp. 

Gerbert L. Litan (Ed.), Verdict: Assessing the Civil 
Jury System, Washington, D.C., 1993. 

Nicole Mott, Jury Size, Williamsburg, VA: National 
Center for State Courts, 2003. 

G. Thomas Munsterman, Paula L. Hannaford, and G. 
Marc Whitehead (eds.), Jury Trial Innovations, 
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State 
Courts, 1997. 

G. Thomas Munsterman and Paula L. Hannaford, 
"Reshaping the Bedrock of Democracy: American Jury 
Reform During the Last Thirty Years", Judicature, 
Vol. 36, No. 4, 1997. 
 
G.T. Munsterman and Paula L. Hannaford, The Promises 
and Challenges of Jury System Technology, 
Williamsburg, VA: Research Division, National Center 
for State Courts, 2003. 

Thomas Munsterman and Paula Hannaford-Agor, "Building 
on the Bedrock: The Continued Evolution of Jury Reform" 
Judges' Journal, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2004. 

G.T. Munsterman, Multi-Lingual Juries, Williamsburg, 
VA: National Center for State Courts, State Justice 
Institute, 2000. 

Henry Stacey, Evaluation of Grand Jury Cases Ignored 
and Indicted Within Sixty Days: Resources Used by the 
Criminal Justice Community, Williamsburg, VA: National 
Center for State Courts, 2004. 

Michael Vitiello and J. Clark Kelso, Final 
Recommendation Reform of California Grand Jury 
Statutes, Sacramento, CA: Capital Center for 
Government Law and Policy, 2003. 

Michael Vitiello and J. Clark Kelso, Grand Jury 
Background Study, Sacramento, CA: Capital Center 
for Government Law and Policy, 2001. 

For links to prominent web-sites devoted to jury 
issues, see http://www.ncsconline.org/Juries/ 
links.htm. 

Table 42: 

NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Death Row 
U.S.A. (a periodical). 

Patrick E. Higginbotham, "Juries and the Death 
Penalty," Case Western Reserve Law Review, Volume 
41, Number 4, 1991.  

"'Black Box Decisions' on Life or Death--If They're
Arbitrary, Don't Blame the Jury:  A Reply to Judge 
Patrick Higginbotham," Case Western Reserve Law 
Review, Volume 41, Number 4, 1991. 

Part VII: The Sentencing Context 

The five tables in this section describe facets of 
the sentencing process. The fundamental statutory 
framework for felony and misdemeanor sentencing is 
outlined in Table 43. Minimum and maximum sentences 
are indicated for both felonies and misdemeanors 
followed by the dollar fine range for felonies. 
Mandatory minimum sentences facing those convicted 
of a felony involving a firearm or deadly weapon
also are described. The definition, if any, of a 
habitual offender is given and the attendant 
penalties stated. Finally, the table indicates the 
most severe sentence other than the death penalty 
in a state. In most states, provisions exist for a 
sentence of "life without the possibility of parole" 
(LWOP). For those states with capital punishment, 
that sentence is often the default if the jury 
cannot agree on the appropriate sentence. 

Courts of general jurisdiction have unlimited 
authority to hear and dispose of felony cases.  
However, courts of limited jurisdiction in most 
states conduct preliminary hearings and bind over 
felony defendants for trial and in the course of 
doing so may have the jurisdiction to accept a
guilty plea to a misdemeanor and then impose 
sentence. In some states, this extends to accepting 
a guilty plea to a felony charge but rarely to 
imposing a sentence. Table 44 describes how 
jurisdiction over felony cases is distributed within 
each state's court system. The authority of a trial
court judge or an appellate court to alter a 
sentence once it has been implemented also is 
indicated.   

Table 45 describes the sentencing responsibilities 
of judges and juries for both capital and non-capital 
felony cases. The table indicates whether the judge 
or the jury sets the original sentence in death penalty 
cases, whether it must be unanimous, if there is an 
automatic default to life without parole if the jury 
fails to agree, and whether the judge can alter the 
jury's sentence. Table 45 also explains who is 
responsible for sentencing in non-capital cases. 
Most states have a sentencing hearing that is
separate from the trial for non-capital felonies. 
In Blakely vs. Washington (June 2004) the U.S. 
Supreme Court ruled that a judge may not increase 
a sentence beyond what is known "solely on the basis 
of the facts related in the jury verdict or admitted 
by the defendant." The implications for the judicial 
role in sentencing are reviewed in the Wool and
Stemen reference in the bibliography.  

Table 46 offers a detailed look at sentencing
commissions. Topics covered include the name of the
commission, when it was established, membership 
composition, and responsibilities. The table notes 
whether guidelines developed by a commission are 
voluntary or mandatory. 

Conviction for a felony offense can bring certain 
"civil disabilities" in the form of collateral 
consequences. These typically extend beyond the 
point at which a person leaves prison or is released 
from probation or parole supervision. However, 
states differ in whether collateral consequences
apply to all convicted felons or only to those 
incarcerated. Table 47 considers the impact that a 
felony conviction has on voting rights, eligibility 
for public employment, jury service, firearm 
ownership, and parental rights. Whether there is a 
registration requirement for convicted sex-offenders 
is also described. 

Selected General Bibliography: 

"A Symposium on Sentencing Reform in the States," 
University of Colorado Law Review, 64, No. 3, 1993. 
 
Fred L. Cheeseman, "Blended Sentencing in Minnesota: 
On Target for Justice and Public Safety?" 
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 
2002. 
 
William L. Gillespie, "State Sentencing Policy: 
Review and Illustration." Williamsburg, VA: National 
Center for State Courts, 2003. Available online: 
http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/KIS_SentenJ
SJV24No2.pdf. 

Brian Ostrom, Offender Risk Assessment in Virginia,
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 
2002. 

Brian Ostrom, Neal Kauder, David Rottman, and 
Meredith Peterson, Sentencing Digest: Examining 
Current Sentencing Issues and Policies, Williamsburg, 
VA: National Center for State Courts, 1998. 

Ann L. Pastore and Kathleen Maguire (Eds.), 
Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2003, 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 
Bureau of Justice Statistics, USGPO, 2003. 
Sandra Shane-DuBow, Alice Brown, and Erik Olsen, 
Sentencing Reform in the United States: History, 
Content, and Effect, Washington, D.C.:  U.S. 
Government Printing Office, 1985. 

Cyrus Tata and Neil Hutton, Sentencing and Policy:
International Perspectives. Aldershot: Ashgate, 
2002. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal 
Sentencing Statistics, 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/sent.htm. (last
visited December 7, 2005). 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Felony
Sentencing in the State Courts, 2002, 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fssc02.htm. 
(last visited December 12, 2005) 

Capital Punishment: 
Holly Shaver Bryant, Trends 2002: Capital Punishment/
The Death Penalty, Williamsburg, VA: National Center 
for State Courts, 2002. 

Felony Laws: 
Wayne Logan, Lindsay Stellwagen, and Patrick Langan, 
Felony Laws of the 50 States and the District of 
Columbia, 1986, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau 
of Justice Statistics, Washington, D.C.:  U.S. 
Government Printing Office. 

Habitual Offender Statutes: 
William McDonald, Repeat Offender Law in the United 
States: Their Form, Use, and Perceived Value, 
Washington, D.C.:  National Institute of Justice, 
1986. 

Paul H. Robinson, "Punishing Dangerousness: 
Cloaking Preventive Detention as Criminal Justice," 
Boston: Harvard Law Review, 2001. 

Judge and Jury Sentencing: 
Jon Wool and Don Stemen, Aggravated Sentencing: 
Blakely v. Washington, Practical Implications for 
State Sentencing Systems, Vera Institute of Justice,
August 2004, Available online:
http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/242_456.pdf. 

Life Without the Possibility of Parole: 
Julian H. Wright, "Life-Without-Parole: An A
lternative to Death or Not Much of a Life at All?," 
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 43, 1990. 

Derral Cheatwood, "The Life-Without-Parole Sanction:
It Current Status and a Research Agenda," Crime and
Delinquency, Volume 34, Number 1, January 1988. 

J. Mark Lane, "Is There Life Without Parole?: A 
Capital Defendant's Right to a Meaningful 
Alternative Sentence," Loyola of Los Angeles Law 
Review, Volume 26, January 1993. 

Mandatory Minimums: 
Lawrence Brinkley, Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: 
Overview and Background, Hauppauge, NY: Novinka, 
2003. 

Kent H. Ronhovde and Gloria P. Sugars, Survey of 
Select State Firearm Control Laws, Federal 
Regulation of Firearms, Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Government Printing Office (prepared for the U.S. 
Senate Judiciary Committee), 1982. 

Barbara S. Vincent and Paul J. Hofer, The 
Consequences of Mandatory Minimum Prison Terms: A 
Summary of Recent Findings, Washington, D.C.: 
Federal Judicial Center, 1994. 

Table 47: 

Background Information About Offender Re-Entry and 
the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions. 
New York: New York State Judicial Institute, 2005. 
Available online: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ip/
partnersinjustice/Offender-Re-Entry.pdf. 

Velmer S. Burton, Jr., Francis T. Cullen, and 
Lawrence F. Travis III, "The Collateral 
Consequences of a Felony Conviction: A National 
Study of State Statutes," Federal Probation, 
September 1987. 

Walter Matthews Grant, John LeCornu, John Andrew 
Pickens, Dean Hill Rivkins, and C. Roger Vinson, 
"The Collateral Consequences of a Felony Conviction," 
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 23 Number 5, October 
1970. 

Margaret Colgate Love, "Relief From The Collateral
Consequences Of A Criminal Conviction: A State-By-
State Resource Guide," Washington: The Sentencing 
Project, 2005. Available online:
http://www.sentencingproject.org/rights-restoration.cfm. 

Debra Parks, "Ballot Boxes Behind Bars: Toward the 
Repeal of Prisoner Disenfranchisement Laws," 
Philadelphia: Temple Political & Civil Rights Law 
Review, 2003. 

Richard G. Singer, "Conviction:  Civil Disabilities,"
Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, Vol. I, S. 
Kadish (Ed.). New York:  The Free Press, 1983. 

Part VIII: Court Structure Charts 

The court structure charts summarize in one-page
diagrams the key features of each State's court
organization. The format meets two objectives: (1)
it is comprehensive, indicating all court systems 
in the state and their interrelationship, and(2)it 
describes the jurisdiction of the court systems, 
using a standard set of terminology and symbols. 
The court structure charts employ the common 
terminology developed by the National Center for
State Courts' Court Statistics Project (CSP) for 
reporting caseload statistics. 

The first chart is a prototype. It represents a state
court organization in which there is one of each of 
the four court system levels recognized by the Court 
Statistics Project: courts of last resort, 
intermediate appellate courts, general jurisdiction 
trial courts, and limited jurisdiction trial courts. 
Routes of appeal from one court to another are 
indicated by lines, with an arrow showing which court 
receives the appeal or petition. 

The charts also provide basic descriptive information,
such as the number of authorized justices, judges, 
and magistrates (or other judicial officers).  
Each court system's subject matter jurisdiction is 
indicated using the Court Statistics Project case 
types. Information is also provided on the use of 
districts, circuits, or divisions in organizing the 
courts within the system and the number of courts. 

CSP Case Types 
The State Court Guide to Statistical Reporting 
organizes cases into a three-level hierarchy.  The 
first, and broadest, level is the case category, 
which consists of civil, domestic relations, criminal, 
juvenile, and traffic/other violations cases. The 
second level, the case sub-category, refers to 
classes of cases within the case category. For example, 
tort cases are a sub-category of civil cases and 
felony cases are a sub-category of criminal cases. 
The third level of the organizational hierarchy is 
the case type. The case type is the most precise 
descriptor of the case in question. Case types can 
further refine the cases within a sub-category (e.g., 
DWI/DUI is a case type within the sub-categories of 
both felony and misdemeanor cases) or they can describe 
a case within a case category (e.g., adoption is a 
case type within the domestic relations case category). 

For the purposes of both simplicity and consistency 
with previous volumes of this publication, the court 
structure charts use the term "case type" to refer to 
each court system's subject matter jurisdiction, even 
if the jurisdiction listed is actually a case category 
or a case sub-category. In most instances, the case 
category is listed when the court in question has 
jurisdiction over all of the case types within the 
category.  In turn, the case sub-category is listed 
when the court has jurisdiction over all of the case 
types within the case sub-category. Case types are 
listed individually when (1) the case type does not 
fall under a case sub-category, (2) the court has
jurisdiction only over that specific case type, or 
(3)specific attention is being drawn to the case 
type(such as DWI/DUI and domestic violence 
jurisdiction). 

Appellate Courts 
The rectangle representing each appellate court 
contains information on the number of authorized 
justices; the number of geographic divisions, if
 any; whether court decisions are made en banc, 
in panels, or both; and the Court Statistics
Project case types that are heard by the court. The 
case types are shown separately for mandatory and 
discretionary cases. The case types themselves 
are defined in other Court Statistics Project 
publications, specifically the State Court Guide 
to Statistical Reporting. 

An appellate court can have both mandatory and
discretionary jurisdiction over the same Court 
Statistics Project case type. This arises, in part,
because the Court Statistics Project case types are 
defined broadly to be applicable to every State's 
courts. There are, for example, only two appellate 
Court Statistics Project case types for criminal 
appeals: capital and noncapital. A court may have
mandatory jurisdiction over felony cases, but 
discretionary jurisdiction over misdemeanors. The 
list of case types would include "criminal" for both 
mandatory and discretionary jurisdiction.  The 
duplication of a case type under both headings can 
also occur if appeals from one lower court for that 
case type are mandatory while appeals from another 
lower court are discretionary. Also, statutory
provisions or court rules in some states 
automatically convert a mandatory appeal into a 
discretionary petition for example, when an appeal 
is not filed within a specified time limit. A more 
comprehensive description of each appellate court's 
subject matter jurisdiction can be found in
Appellate Court Procedures, 1998. 

Trial Courts 
The rectangle representing each trial court also 
lists the applicable Court Statistics Project case 
types. These include civil, domestic relations, 
criminal, traffic/other violation, and juvenile. If 
a case type is simply listed, the court system shares 
jurisdiction over it with other courts. The presence
of exclusive jurisdiction is always explicitly stated. 

The absence of a case type from a list means that 
the court does not have that subject matter 
jurisdiction. The dollar amount jurisdiction is shown 
when there is an upper or a lower limit to the cases 
that can be filed in a court. A dollar limit is not 
listed if a court does not have a minimum or maximum 
dollar amount jurisdiction for general civil cases. 
In criminal cases, jurisdiction is distinguished 
between "felony," which means the court can try a 
felony case to verdict and sentencing, and
"preliminary hearings," which applies to those 
limited jurisdiction courts that can conduct 
preliminary hearings that bind a defendant over 
for trial in a higher court. 

Trial courts can have what is termed incidental
appellate jurisdiction. The presence of such 
jurisdiction over the decisions of other courts is 
noted in the list of case types as either "civil 
appeals," "criminal appeals," or "administrative 
agency appeals."  A trial court that hears appeals 
directly from an administrative agency has an "A" 
in the upper-right corner of the rectangle. 

For each trial court, the chart states the authorized
number of judges and whether the court can impanel 
a jury. The rectangle representing the court also 
indicates the number of districts, divisions, or 
circuits into which the court system is divided. These 
subdivisions are stated using the court system's own 
terminology.  The descriptions, therefore, are not 
standardized across states or court systems. 

Some trial courts are totally funded from local 
sources; others receive some form of State funds. 
Locally funded court systems are drawn with broken 
lines. A solid line indicates that some or all of 
the funding is derived from State funds. 

Symbols and Abbreviations 
An "A" in the upper-right corner of a rectangle,
representing either an appellate court or a trial 
court, indicates that the court receives appeals 
directly from the decision of an administrative agency. 
If "administrative agency appeals" is listed as a 
case type, the court hears appeals from decisions 
of another court on an administrative agency's actions. 
It is possible for a court to have both an "A" 
designation and to have "administrative agency 
appeals" listed as a case type. Such a court hears 
appeals directly from an administrative agency ("A") 
and has appellate jurisdiction over the decision of 
a lower court that has already reviewed the decision 
of the administrative agency. 

The number of justices or judges is sometimes stated 
as "FTE." This represents "full-time equivalent" 
authorized judicial positions.  "DWI/DUI" stands for 
"driving while intoxicated/driving under the influence." 
The dollar amount jurisdiction for civil cases is 
indicated in parentheses with a dollar sign. Where 
the small claims dollar amount jurisdiction is 
different, it is noted. 

The court structure charts are convenient summaries. 
They do not substitute for the detailed descriptive 
material contained in the 47 tables of State Court 
Organization 2004. Moreover, they are based on the 
Court Statistics Project's terminology and categories. 
This means that a state may have established courts 
that are not included in these charts. Some states 
have courts of special jurisdiction to receive
complaints on matters that are more typically 
directed to administrative boards and agencies. 
Since these courts adjudicate matters that do not 
fall within the Court Statistics Project case 
types, they are not included in the charts. The 
existence of such courts, however, is recognized 
in a footnote to the state's court structure
chart. 

Finally, the Court Statistics Project updates court
structure charts in its annual State Court Caseload
Statistics series.  For current court structure 
information, access http://www.ncsconline.org/D_
Research/csp/CSP_Main_Page.html. 


End of file
08/30/06 ih