Assessment of the Feasibility of Drug Night Courts .


MENU TITLE: Assessment of the Feasibility of Drug
Night Courts
Series: BJA
Published: June 1993
39 pages
85,830 bytes

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Assessment of the Feasibility of Drug Night Courts
Monograph

PREFACE 

This report addresses a variety of issues
associated with establishing and managing a drug
night court. We sought answers to a variety of
questions about how to recruit and retain staff for
such courts, about whether night courts can be as
efficient as day courts, and about whether the
quality of justice dispensed at night compares
favorably with day courts. We addressed these
questions using a variety of methods. Because Cook
County, Illinois, had the Nation's only currently
operational drug night court, we concentrated most
of our efforts there. Officials graciously assisted
us by granting lengthy interviews, giving us access
to court records, allowing us to survey their staff
about working conditions at night, and allowing us
to conduct extensive observations in both day and
night courts. 

In addition to our work in Cook County, we
conducted a survey of court officials in the
Nation's 50 largest counties. We asked whether they
currently have (or ever had) night operations for
caseloads other than arraignments or traffic
offenses. If the answer was "yes," we asked them
about their experiences with those operations. We
also polled respondents about their level of
interest in evening operations and potential
obstacles to implementing an evening court in their
jurisdiction.

In this report, we first describe Cook County's
drug night courts. We then present results of our
interviews with Cook County officials, focusing on
night staffing issues. Next, we discuss results of
analyses of data collected from case records. These
analyses shed light on the questions of efficiency
and quality of justice in the drug night courts.
The subsequent section examines results of a survey
conducted with the people that staff the drug night
courts--judges, prosecutors, public defenders,
probation officers, and court clerks. Finally, we
conclude with the results of our national survey.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Assessment studies such as this necessarily rely on
the willingness of people onsite to open up their
offices and records for scrutiny. The criminal
justice professionals who work in the Cook County
Circuit Court did just that, enabling project staff
to closely examine the only currently operational
drug night court in the country. Without the
participation of court leadership, however, this
would not have been possible. We first wish to
acknowledge, then, the assistance provided by the
Honorable Thomas Fitzgerald, Presiding Judge. With
Judge Fitzgerald's stamp of approval, we were able
to have access to the night courtrooms and court
file data necessary to conduct our assessment. He
was always gracious and generous in responding to
our requests for information. We also wish to thank
representatives of the State attorney's office, the
public defender's office, the Probation Department,
the clerk's office, and the Sheriff's Department,
who took the time to discuss the operation of drug
night courts with us. We would like to extend our
appreciation to all judges who tolerated our
monitoring of court sessions and to the supervisors
and line staff who responded to our surveys.

Our advisory board members were a dedicated and
interested group, and we would like to thank them
individually: Steven Belenko, Joseph Cairone, Hon.
Legrome Davis, Hon. Richard Fitzgerald, Stephen
Goldspiel, Bruce Harvey, John Robinson, Thomas
Schneider, Hon. Michael Skwierawski, and Randolph
Stone. In addition, our advisory board guest,
Melody Hepes, gave her perspective on the issue of
treatment for drug offenders.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface
Acknowledgments
An Introduction to Drug Night Court
How Participants Met the Challenge
Effects of the Drug Night Courts
What Staffs Think of Chicago Drug Night Courts
National Survey Results
Appendix: Detailed Information on the Observation  
 Samples
Sources for Further Information
 Selected Bibliography
 BJA Contact

An Introduction to Drug Night Court

Cook County Circuit Court's drug night court
program, the only one in the Nation, began as an
emergency measure to cope with rapidly expanding
caseloads. In 1975, 6,000 felony cases were filed
in the court. Two years later that number had more
than doubled--to 14,000. In another 10 years,
filings had doubled again to 28,000--largely due to
increased narcotics arrests (half of the 28,000
cases in 1989 were narcotics arrests). That
represents a caseload-to-judge ratio of 500 to 1.
Still, the county board was reluctant to add
courtrooms or additional staff.

Presiding Judge Thomas Fitzgerald and
Administrative Director Jeffrey Arnold decided upon
a dual strategy to cope with the crisis. First,
Chief Judge Harry Comerford invited the National
Center for State Courts to do a thorough analysis
of current resources and caseloads for the entire
Cook County court system. Officials are confident
that, when the results of the 4-year investigation
are in, they will adequately document for the
county board the need for additional courtrooms.

-----------------------------
Principal Findings

This assessment of the feasibility of establishing
night courts for narcotics cases drew heavily on
the experience of Cook County, Illinois, Circuit
Court. To summarize the findings:

o Night operations can be quite efficient.
Coincident with setting up its drug night courts,
Cook County cut processing time for narcotics cases
dramatically.

o Those wishing to set up drug night courts need to
be vigilant to ensure that the quality of justice
in narcotics cases is not compromised. In Cook
County, research found that the establishment of
drug night courts coincided with more lenient
sentences, fewer trials, and a lower rate of
representation by private attorneys for narcotics
defendants. All but the last consequence likely
resulted from segregating narcotics cases with
greater emphasis on productivity, rather than from
evening operations per se.

o Quality staff can be successfully found for
evening hours. Cook County has shown that there are
a number of innovative ways to recruit motivated
people to staff night courts.

o To maintain high morale and efficiency,
jurisdictions considering evening operations must
be alert to special problems their staff members
may encounter when working at night.
------------------------------

The second part of their response to the strains
placed on the system by the increased caseload was
to extend the court's hours of operations to an
evening shift. Physical plant resources were made
to do double duty. Personnel had to be added to
staff the evening courtrooms, but expensive capital
construction costs were indefinitely postponed.

The idea of evening court operations was not new to
Cook County. For years the county has run night
bond courts. The success of the night bond court
helped convince officials that the court could
handle other types of matters at night as well.

Early on, a decision was made to limit the evening
caseload to narcotics cases. That made sense from
several perspectives. First, narcotics cases seldom
involve civilian witnesses. That was important
because officials believed many citizens would be
afraid to venture at night into the neighborhood
where the court is located. Moreover, when
narcotics cases are part of a general felony
calendar, they tend not to compete well with
violent crimes for the court's attention. They are,
as one official put it, the "runt of the litter."
Hearings and trials in narcotics cases are often
postponed repeatedly as officials attend first to
more pressing business. 

Yet, in a segregated calendar, motions usually can
be disposed of efficiently, and narcotics cases can
be swiftly adjudicated. Also, as staff focus on
these types of cases, their expertise would likely
grow. Thus, the new night courtrooms seemed the
perfect environment for handling narcotics cases.

Initially, the public defender's office opposed the
concept. The Cook County public defender at the
time--Randy Stone--worried that specialized drug
courts would induce an "assembly-line mentality."
If specialized drug night courts were to be
created, he would want four public defenders per
courtroom (he ultimately got two). He also endorsed
a plan in which each court would be assigned a
treatment professional qualified to assess
defendants' needs for treatment so that those
convicted could be helped instead of just
processed. This battle he lost (a full discussion
of the concerns of the public defender's office
appears later in this report).

Eventually, the public defender's office was
persuaded to go along with the plan, and five drug
night courts were opened on October 16, 1989. An
additional three courts opened a year and a half
later.

The county board was persuaded to authorize $2.6
million for the first year of drug night court
operations. The county funds were used to offset
the costs of the new prosecutors, public defenders,
clerks, deputy sheriffs, and security officers that
various criminal justice agencies were asked to
contribute.

Probation received a large share of the county
money ($600,000). It turned out to be much needed
because the night courts greatly increased the
disposition rate and the probation caseload began
growing by an average of one probation call (about
80 new probationers) each week to the Probation
Department's caseload.1

The drug night courts open at 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, adjudicating drug sale arrests and
possession cases involving large amounts of a
controlled substance. Some cases remain in day
courts when the night calendar becomes too crowded,
but the preferred route is night court. Cases are
assigned to the drug courts after probable cause is
established at a preliminary hearing. About a
quarter of narcotics arrests are dismissed at the
preliminary hearing, but plea bargaining is saved
for drug court. Defense attorneys prefer to wait to
negotiate until cases are bound over to drug court,
at which time full discovery occurs.

Not only were drug cases reassigned to the newly
created night courts, but a decision was made to
change the way the courts did business. To speed
adjudication, a time line is applied to the drug
night court cases. Instead of considering motions
on trial dates, as is the practice in day court,
judges set hearings to consider motions within 30
days of assignment. Trial dates are normally set
within the subsequent 30 days. Judges in the drug
courts enforce these dates; accordingly, officials
are confident that the vast majority of narcotics
cases can be adjudicated within 60 days, many at
the first hearing date. 

Although bench trials are held at night, jury
trials are scheduled during the day, and holding a
jury trial requires the night court prosecutor,
defense attorney, and judge (and sometimes the
judge's clerk) to come in early to conduct the
trial and then remain to fulfill their night court
duties, thus requiring them to work a double shift.

How the Drug Night Courts Operate

Each night court judge carries hundreds of active
cases on his or her docket. At least 50 cases are
on the calendar each evening, compared to 20 or
fewer for day court. The heavy caseload forces
night court to move at an extremely fast pace.

The first hour or two of the session is spent
rapidly going through all the cases on the court
calendar. Generally the defendants who have private
attorneys are called first. If it is a new case,
the judge arraigns the defendant quickly and either
sets a hearing date or sets the case aside for a
"402 conference" where the judge and attorneys will
try to work out a plea bargain--all in less than 5
minutes. 

If the case is scheduled for a motion or trial, the
judge will ask the attorneys if they are ready to
proceed. Usually they are not, because of missing
information, witnesses, or similar problems, and
the case is continued. Some cases that are up for
hearings are passed and set aside for a 402
conference. Other cases are passed because
defendants, attorneys, or witnesses are not present
at the first call. Sometimes a judge will take time
during the first call to hear motions, hand out
sentences, or accept guilty pleas, but most of
these are left until after the first call. In
general, judges are done with their first call of
50 or more cases in less than 2 hours.

After the first call, the judge usually recesses to
handle the 402 conferences. These conferences take
place in the judge's chambers and are relatively
informal. After the conference, the defense
attorney presents the plea bargain to his or her
client, and most seem to accept them. If the
defendant accepts the agreement, the judge hears
his or her guilty plea when court is back in
session. Any other cases that were passed are
recalled--again, most are continued--and the judge
begins to hear motions and finally conducts any
bench trials that are still left to be heard that
night. To repeat, drug cases are fairly simple; it
is not unusual for a judge to hear several motions
or bench trials in a single night. On occasion,
sessions may last until midnight or even later.

The pace of day felony court stands in stark
contrast to the pace of drug night court. If there
is no jury trial scheduled for that day, the judge
proceeds through his or her first call at a
somewhat leisurely pace. Usually fewer than 20
cases are scheduled for 1 session, and many of
these are probation terminations and other cases
that can be dealt with quickly. Long pauses occur
between cases. The attorneys spend time preparing
their notes and reading files, and the entire
session can be over in as little as 3 hours.

The public defenders and State attorneys who work
in the drug night courts are often seriously
challenged by the pace of the courts. They have
little time to prepare cases or confer with
clients. Often they request continuances to have
extra time for case preparation.

How Participants Met the Challenge

To start and maintain the drug night courts, all
key participants in the system--judges,
prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers,
clerks, and security personnel--had to gear up and
maintain staff for the night courts and implement
strategies to extend their usual day routine into
the nighttime hours.

In the beginning (October 16, 1989), this meant
operating five courtrooms, but that number
increased to eight courtrooms just a year and a
half later. Not all participants were eager to
undertake the new experiment. Objections had to be
overcome, compromises hammered out, and strategies
developed to turn the concept into reality. 

All key participants were faced with a common
challenge--running night courts--but that challenge
proved more or less difficult for each of the
departments involved and was welcomed with more or
less enthusiasm. Therefore, how the night courts
affected each component of the system will be
described in some detail, with an eye toward
developing a model others can replicate and
suggesting improvements learned from Cook County's
groundbreaking experience.

Drug Night Court Judges--What Was Done

Given the relative independence of judges, compared
to line staff in offices of the prosecutor, public
defender, clerk, and probation officers, finding
judges to work at night proved surprisingly to be
the easiest scheduling task. The explanation for
this phenomenon is that a move to night court
represented an upward step for the judges and that
the judges were hand-selected by the presiding
judge. Judge Fitzgerald had previous experience
overseeing these judges in other parts of the
system and thus had prior knowledge of their
criminal law experience, their work ethic, and
their desire to handle more interesting cases than
the minor criminal or traffic cases over which they
had been presiding. 

The upward step was accomplished by reassigning
judges for the drug night courts from a pool of
associate judges presiding over misdemeanor court
and traffic cases. No additional funds were
provided by the State to replace the associate
judges in the courts from which they were
reassigned. However, a new traffic diversion
program that coincided with the creation of the
drug night courts helped ease the loss of the
reassigned judges.1

The decision to use associate judges to staff the
drug night courts was seen as key in finding
enthusiastic candidates for night court duty.
Circuit court judges already assigned to daytime
felony courtrooms would have had little interest in
working at night. But for associate judges, the
promotion assured a group of eager participants. 

Hand-picking the judges helped ensure that their
enthusiasm was matched with prior experience in
criminal law (for example, some had worked with the
State attorney or public defender's office) and a
judicial commitment to expediting cases and
managing their caseload. 

At first among the five--and now eight--night court
judges, there was the expected range of work and
management styles. Some judges routinely finish
their calendars by 7 or 8 p.m., while others are
rarely done until 10 or 11 p.m. Much depends on how
much time they take with each case, especially in
terms of conferencing time. Each judge holds
conference calls throughout the night to discuss
possible dispositions with the defense attorney and
prosecutor. Some judges conference more cases than
others, and some hold much lengthier discussions
than others. The consequence for the clerks, public
defenders, prosecutors, and probation officers
assigned to particular judges is that some line
staff finish court early each night--those assigned
to "fast" judges--while others finish court late
each night--those assigned to "slow" judges.

Line staff are required to stay and complete
paperwork even if their judge finishes early.
Administrators claim that those assigned to judges
who routinely sit until late into the night are not
really disadvantaged when compared to their
colleagues who are assigned to judges who routinely
finish court early in the evening.  

Drug Night Court Prosecutors--What Was Done

Each of the night courts has assigned to it three
assistant State's attorneys--a senior member who
serves as "first" chair, a more junior member who
serves as "second" chair, and the newest member who
serves as "third" chair. Overseeing the assistants
in all the night courtrooms is a single supervisor.
Cook County footed the bill for the assistant
State's attorneys, first for the five courtrooms
and then later for all eight. 

The prosecutors assigned to night court are not
volunteers; they are assigned by the State's
attorney. The first chair is staffed by an
experienced narcotics prosecutor from the day
division (Cook County has a special Narcotics
Prosecution Unit) while the second and third chairs
are entry-level positions. The general practice in
the office is for attorneys to begin in traffic
court, graduate to municipal court, proceed into
the felony review unit, then in turn to preliminary
hearing court, night court, and finally the felony
trial division. 

The chief of the Narcotics Unit (and person in
charge of the drug night court prosecutors), Al
Tomasco, explained that new recruits to the office
are aware of this practice. Thus, from the
beginning they know they are likely to work night
court at some time. He believes this
well-established path results in few complaints
about the night court assignment, since it is
regarded as a natural--and necessary--step up the
ladder. Besides, working at night is also required
for the felony review unit; therefore, night work
is not totally unexpected for the assistants.

Rotation of assistant State's attorneys through
night court results in the first chair serving
about 4 months, while the second and third chairs
remain for longer periods and are moved as the
needs of the office dictate. All the assistants in
drug night court receive special narcotics training
and are given an office manual that provides a
step-by-step guide to the preparation of narcotics
cases and the nuances of search-and-seizure law.

There is no pay differential for prosecutors who
work at night, nor is there any overtime or
compensation time granted. Night court prosecutors
are expected to report to work at 2 p.m. and work
until 11 p.m. (unless the judge continues past 11,
in which case they must stay until court closes).
If a defendant in night court requests a jury
trial, the prosecutor must report at 10 to 11 a.m.
to conduct the trial and then stay through his or
her night court shift. 

When asked whether this proves a disincentive for
holding jury trials (perhaps resulting in better
offers to encourage the defendant to plea), Tomasco
said no, there are just as many jury trials out of
the night division as there are out of the day
division. If a night court prosecutor has a jury
trial scheduled for the day, he or she will be
assisted by a prosecutor from the day trial
division who serves as second chair.

Everyone interviewed raised the issue of security
for night court personnel, especially in leaving
the court and getting to their cars safely at the
end of the evening. The court is in what is
generally described as a "bad" neighborhood. 

This concern has resulted in an informal buddy
system among the prosecutors, defense attorneys,
judges, clerks, and probation officers whereby they
escort each other to their cars. They may also
request the sheriff to escort them, but they have
to wait until he or she is available; as a result,
most use the informal system and head for home as
soon as possible. 

Despite concerns about safety, there have been no
incidents since the court began operating.
Courtroom security appears not to be a problem; it
was seen as every bit as good as it is during the
day. 

Access to information does not appear to be a
problem at night. The State's attorney's office is
open 24 hours, and lab report information is
available from the computer throughout the night.
PROMISTM (prosecutors' information management
system) is also operational at night, and access is
available to the evidence room. Whenever
information is needed in the courtroom that cannot
be located in the file or by talking with a police
officer, the third chair is available to go to the
office on the 14th floor and use the computer or
check the evidence room; therefore, prosecuting
cases at night presents no problems of efficiency. 

From Tomasco's perspective as chief of the drug
night courts, night court cases are not relegated
to a lower standard of justice, nor is there any
more of an "assembly-line" justice system than is
found during the day. He doesn't believe
dispositions are overly pressured, nor does he see
the sentences as unduly lenient. Tomasco views the
fact that probation is the most frequent outcome as
appropriate, given the prior history of most
defendants and the amount of drugs typically
charged in the indictments. 

Assistant State's attorneys do get involved in
setting conditions of probation, such as home
confinement, community service, curfews, fines, and
treatment. When asked about the small proportion of
defendants being sentenced to treatment, Tomasco
had several explanations. First, he noted that many
defendants have no desire for treatment and cannot
be forced into it. Second, TASC (Treatment
Alternatives to Street Crime) applies stringent
conditions on who qualifies for treatment.2 One of
those conditions is that TASC will not accept
anyone for treatment who has been convicted of drug
sales. In Cook County, there are few simple
possession cases--most have a sales charge
attached. Thus many defendants fail to qualify for
TASC for this reason alone. 

Third, Tomasco acknowledged, cutbacks in available
treatment positions in both inpatient and
outpatient centers limit the number of defendants
who might be sentenced to treatment. The county is
currently reviewing treatment and diversion issues
with an eye toward adding more treatment
alternatives. 

Fourth, many ideal candidates for treatment are
filtered off early in the adjudication process. The
State's attorney's office runs its own "drug
school." Those caught with small amounts of drugs
are diverted at the preliminary hearing stage and
sent for five sessions of education and counseling.
Last year 2,087 defendants went to this school.
Those who remain in the system and are assigned to
night court are likely to be those caught with more
drugs or those who have lengthier records than
those who are diverted into treatment early in the
process.

Drug Night Court Defense Attorneys--What Was Done

Without question, public defenders were the most
outspoken critics of night court. When the idea was
first proposed, they were strongly opposed, fearing
it would lead to "assembly-line justice." The
private defense bar also resisted the concept,
contending that its members would have to work two
shifts--the day shift for their clients in day
court and the night shift for their clients in
night court. The public defender at the time--Randy
Stone--foresaw that this burden would result in
pushing the private bar out of night court and, as
a consequence, compromise defendants' rights to
select an attorney of their choice. 

Despite vigorous protest, the public defender's
office was compelled to accept the night court.
Although the defenders tried to have a treatment
specialist in each courtroom, they lost this
battle. They wound up with half the county funds
they sought--enough to support two public defenders
per courtroom plus one supervisor, one
investigator, and one support person to cover all
five night courts.

When the first five courtrooms opened, the public
defender's office asked for volunteers to staff
them. Because the office is unionized, it was
constrained from pressing attorneys into night
duty. The office was able to get the volunteers it
needed for a variety of reasons--some attorneys had
child care responsibilities that fit nicely into
night work; some wanted to do felony trial work and
saw the night courts as a step up from their day
misdemeanor work; some liked the narcotics
specialty; and so on. 

Although one might speculate that the volunteer
route would only yield junior personnel, this did
not happen, and the defenders were fortunate enough
to obtain a mix of junior and senior attorneys.
When the night courtrooms expanded to eight, the
volunteer route again scored the same success.
Currently a total of 16 assistant public defenders
(2 per courtroom), 2 supervisors, 4 investigators,
and 3 support personnel staff the 8 night
courtrooms.

Like the prosecutors, public defenders receive no
pay differential for working at night, nor do they
receive compensation or overtime. They arrive for
work at 2 p.m. and work until 11 p.m. (If court
finishes early, they are supposed to remain in the
office and catch up on paperwork.) Between 2 and 4
p.m., they either go to the Detention Center
(located next to the courthouse) to consult with
their clients or schedule interviews with those not
in custody. 

In their minds, this is far too little time, and
they find they have to come in earlier to do their
jobs effectively. Of course, if a jury trial is
requested, they must come in about 10 or 11 a.m.
and work a double shift--like their counterparts in
the State's attorney's office--without
compensation. 

The defenders do not see this double shift as a
disincentive to try cases, as the new attorneys are
eager to obtain trial experience. They do, however,
believe it is a disincentive for the judge, who
consequently offers more attractive deals to avoid
trials. As the defenders put it, "As we get closer
to trial, the judge's offer gets better and
better." 

Staff tend to stay in night court for 9 to 10
months on average and then transfer into day court-
-although some attorneys prefer the night work and
elect to remain. Night court is generally seen as a
good route to felony day work; as a result, many
young attorneys vie for night court openings when
they are announced.

The public defenders continue to worry that the
private bar is being pushed out of drug cases
because they refuse night work. Private attorneys
willing to take on night cases are given priority
on the calendar and are called before the public
defenders' cases. This causes some discontent among
the assistant public defenders, but the rationale
is that they are obligated to stay until 11 p.m.
anyway, whereas the private attorneys may leave as
soon as their cases are done. 

The defenders saw no differences between the
efficiency of day and night court or their ability
to obtain missing elements in the file. However,
they remain opposed to the night court concept for
several reasons. 

First, they do not believe that it is a good idea
to segregate narcotics cases into specialized
courtrooms (they said they would have the same
objection to concentrating drug cases in day
courtrooms). They argue it leads to "tunnel vision"
and doesn't allow judges to evaluate the worth of a
case in light of all the other cases heard. It also
leads to "canned" offers (routinely packaged,
nonindividualized bargaining offers) and works
against individual attention to cases. To quote the
defenders, "They are just shuffling people through
the system with no thought given to what the
sentence should be." 

Second, public defenders contend that the constant
pressure to "move the calendar" results in very
light sentences. They believe police officers count
on defendants snatching these light sentences, so
the police make bad arrests knowing that issues of
probable cause and search and seizure will almost
never be raised. (The defenders say that when drug
cases were in day court more cases were thrown out
for lack of probable cause and for bad search and
seizure than in night court.) 

In their opinion, "The lenient offers given in
night court just make clients' rights go away."
Probation is the norm, and their clients are all
too eager to accept this sentence so they can walk
out of the courtroom that evening. (This is
especially true for those in custody.) The problem
is that there are alarming rates of violation of
probation, and their clients wind up back in court
facing jail sentences. As the defenders put it,
"They give them just enough rope to hang
themselves." 

Public defenders would like to see a much greater
emphasis on drug treatment to help their clients
clean up their acts and stay out of the system.
They would also like to see more pretrial drug
diversion so that their clients could be spared a
criminal record. 

They noted differences among night court judges in
the care taken with cases, but said these
differences exist in the day session as well. There
was no difference in the atmosphere in night and
day court, just differences from one judge's
courtroom to another's. 

On a positive note, they believe there are fewer
bench warrants issued at night than during the day,
as their clients are more likely to meet their
night court dates. To sum up their position, acting
public defender Rita Frye said, "If I had my
druthers, there would not be a night court. If
there is a night court, then it should not be
assembly-line justice." (Neither the chief of the
State's attorney night court unit nor the
administrative judge characterized the night courts
as administering "assembly-line justice.") 

Drug Night Court Probation Officers--What Was Done

In terms of creating continuing work, the drug
night courts affect the Probation Department the
most because of their very heavy reliance on
probation sentences. Each week approximately 80 new
probation cases emerge from the 5 night courts.
With the addition of 3 more courts, that number has
increased to 125 cases per week. Not only must
probation officers be available at night to staff
the courtrooms, but officers must monitor the
rapidly expanding number of new probationers. 

As a consequence, probation has been hit the
hardest in terms of long-term workloads. The
Probation Department also received a greater share
of the county money allocated to night court--
$600,000 of the $2.6 million awarded. 

The heavy reliance on probation is of some concern
to the department. Its assistant chief, Jim
Cunningham, expressed some apprehension that
probation is routinely being ordered without
attention to the individual offender's
appropriateness for probation. He also expressed
concern that night court judges were not ordering
special conditions of probation, such as treatment
and home confinement, as often as judges in the
daytime courts. Cunningham worried that offenders
were not receiving the treatment they needed and,
as a result, were frequently violating the
conditions of their probation. He estimated that
twice as many persons sentenced to probation in
night court violated their probation as those
sentenced to probation in day court.  

When the first five night courtrooms were opened,
probation officers were pulled from among a new
class of trainees, all of whom had been informed
that they might be assigned to night duty when they
signed up. There is no pay differential for night
work. If the officer works more than 40 hours,
compensation time is granted at the rate of an hour
per weekday and 1 1/2 hours per weekend for every
hour worked over 40. 

Volunteers for the night court were recruited for
the initial five courtrooms and later for the
additional three. Although night court generally
has a "bad rep" in the office, according to
supervisor Tom Quinn, most officers adjust and bond
with each other. Since the courts have opened, only
one officer has requested a transfer out of night
into day court (officers are not eligible to
request a transfer until they have been in the
position for 1 year). 

That situation may soon change, as the department
plans to add 12 more officers to handle the
burgeoning caseload being generated by the courts.
Because the department has run out of volunteers,
new night court officers will be pressed into
service from their day divisions. In line with the
union contract, they will be recruited from the
least senior officers from each of their divisions;
inasmuch as some divisions tend to have offices
with more senior officers than others, some fairly
senior staff will be reassigned from day into night
court. The deputy chief suspects this will result
in grumbling and discontent among those selected,
but the department has no other option at this
time.

Probation officers assigned to night court work
from 12:30 until 8 p.m. Two officers are assigned
to each night courtroom, and two supervisors
oversee the eight night courts (two more
supervisors will be added next month). Both
officers work from 12:30 to 4 p.m., seeing
probationers and taking care of paperwork. At 4,
one of the two officers (on a weekly rotating
basis) is stationed in the courtroom while the
other remains in the office and continues with
administrative duties. That officer is also
available to help the officer in court with needed
files or information on probationers. 

When night courts began, the Probation Department
had problems getting needed information on
probationers, but that has been solved with access
to the computer and file room being made available
during night hours. Probation officers are given no
special training on the handling of drug cases, but
soon the department will create a new intensive
drug unit with specialized officers, smaller
caseloads, and much more intensive supervision.

The most frequently ordered condition of probation
for those coming out of night court is home
confinement, in which probationers are restricted
from leaving their homes except for work and other
necessities. Of the 12,000 cases in which
defendants were ordered to probation, 841
individuals have been placed on home confinement, 9
have been placed in residential treatment programs,
19 have been evaluated by TASC, and another 1,437
have been placed in a special treatment program,
the Focused Offender Program, funded by the county.
The Focused Offender Program has recently ended,
shutting down the primary treatment road.

Surprisingly few offenders are evaluated or given
treatment, but that primarily results from large
numbers of offenders being ineligible for TASC.
Offenders deemed ineligible for treatment programs
are those charged with a drug sales offense or
those who do not make a commitment to being
treated; combined, these reasons preclude treatment
for many offenders. Judges could, of course, order
a TASC evaluation and force the offender to be
tested, but they are understandably reluctant to
order the evaluation when the offender acknowledges
up front that he doesn't want treatment. Judges
know offenders with that attitude will not be
accepted even if the evaluation indicates a need
for treatment. The evaluation takes 6 to 8 weeks to
be completed--6 to 8 weeks of wasted time and
delay.

Drug Night Court Clerks--What Was Done 

The clerk's office received no new funds to staff
the night court; it had to draw from existing
sources. When the five courtrooms opened, the
clerk's office looked for volunteers, inasmuch as
the office is unionized and the union opposed
forcing people to work at night. 

The union also insisted that the clerks receive a
clerk's courtroom pay, which is higher than that of
some clerks who work outside the courtroom. This
helped provide an incentive to volunteer because it
meant a pay increase, but volunteers were still
hard to find. The office just "squeaked by,"
according to Gerald Sciaraffa, acting chief deputy
clerk of the Circuit Court, Criminal Division. With
five volunteer clerks, they had no backup when
someone became sick, but fortunately they found a
dedicated, and healthy, group and kept the courts
adequately staffed.

Clerks work from 3 to 11 p.m. or until the judge is
finished. If they work late or are required to be
there during the day for jury trials, they receive
time-and-a-half compensatory time. (Normally,
another day clerk handles the trials, but in a
particularly complicated case the judge may request
his or her clerk to handle the trial.) 

Should the judge finish before 11 p.m., the clerks
are required to stay and do paperwork. Since some
judges routinely finish early while others almost
always finish late, we asked if clerks assigned to
judges who work late were routinely disadvantaged.
We were told no. When a judge finishes early, it is
because a fast pace was set between cases, and the
clerk will have lots of paperwork to complete at
the end of court. When a judge finishes late, it is
because a slower pace was set between cases, and
the clerk can usually keep up with the paperwork
throughout the night and be done when court ends.
Because all the judges handle about the same number
of cases, the clerks have about the same amount of
work to do; only the pace varies.

When the number of courtrooms was expanded to
eight, clerks were again recruited on a volunteer
basis, and just enough were found to staff the
courtrooms. In the opinion of Sciaraffa, the night
court experience works because "they didn't force
people to come in. They are here because they
really want to be." 

Supervisors, however, are not volunteers. When no
supervisor wanted night duty, the clerk's office
decided to rotate the position among senior staff.
Each member takes a week at a time every few months
so that no one feels too put upon.

Efficiency at night was assessed as being just as
good as during the day. At first the night
courtrooms did not have their own computer. This
was a problem, but now that they do have one,
clerks have ready access to warrant and other
information vital to a case. Also, the file room is
open until 9 at night should a clerk need to
retrieve a file. (Judges almost always will know by
9 p.m. if they need a file, since they would have
gone through at least the first call.) If a file is
needed, a student intern runs the files back and
forth from the vault to the courtroom.

Drug Night Court Security Personnel--What Was Done 

The Cook County sheriff is responsible for security
at the courthouse. Currently 42 deputies are
assigned to provide security for the drug night and
bond courts. There is no pay differential for night
duty. The department is unionized, and it was
agreed that the night assignment would first be
offered to volunteers and then the least senior
people would be assigned. At first, night duty was
seen as "a nice gig," according to the head of jail
operations, Ed Carrick, but now the courts are
busier and volunteers are harder to find. This
necessitates assignment of least-senior personnel.
Carrick states that the security at night is
comparable to the security provided for day court. 

Conclusion

Each department in the night court system had to be
creative in finding ways to staff the drug night
courts and ensure that their staffs could obtain
necessary information and support after regular
hours. Some struggled more than others, some faced
union concerns, and all developed somewhat
different work hours and staffing patterns. Despite
the obstacles and objections to the idea
(especially by the public defender's office), they
made it work, and the original five thriving drug
night courtrooms have now mushroomed into eight.

Effects of the Drug Night Courts

Officials in Cook County offered many opinions
about how the drug night courts had affected case
processing in both positive and negative ways. Of
course, the primary intended impact of the courts
was to speed up disposition of drug cases. The
courts would accomplish this by removing narcotics
cases from competition with violent felonies in the
general felony courts--a competition in which drug
cases came up short and were postponed--so that
officials could concentrate on disposing the
violent felonies. With the vast numbers of drug
cases removed from the general felony calendars,
some observers thought court officials would have
more time to spend on violent crimes and thus the
"quality of justice" in those cases would be
enhanced.

Concerns were voiced, however, about possible
undesirable effects of the new drug courts as well.
Some complained that they promote "assembly-line"
justice for defendants accused of narcotics crimes.
This apparently manifested itself in several ways.
First, said the critics, drug treatment for
defendants is rarely given because defendants
placed on probation have little incentive to
volunteer for treatment, and unless they want
treatment they will not be accepted by TASC. (TASC
also will not accept offenders charged with drug
sales, and according to Judge Fitzgerald, there are
few simple possession cases in Cook County.) As a
result, most defendants are routinely placed on
probation without treatment being made a condition
of their probation.

This is a quick way to get rid of cases, some
officials claimed, but not necessarily in the best
interest of defendants who have serious drug
problems and who may, without treatment, simply run
afoul of the law again and wind up serving a term
in the State penitentiary because of a previous
conviction. Inasmuch as acceptance into the TASC
program is predicated upon the offender's
willingness to obtain treatment, it is unclear how
to encourage less motivated defendants to get the
treatment they need.

Officials who believe that the new drug courts are
making decisions too hastily also believe that the
rate of jury trials has declined. This was said to
result from the fact that jury trials arising from
the night courts are held during the day, but by
night court staff. To hold a jury trial, night
court staff have to come in early and then work
their regular night court shift afterward. Critics
also speculated that the rapid pace of night court
discourages suppression and other motions by
defense attorneys.

Some officials believe that private defense
attorneys, most of whose cases are on the daytime
calendars, dislike night court. These observers
fear that private attorneys are representing
defendants in fewer narcotics cases since the night
courts opened and that private attorneys are more
likely to be absent than they previously were. The
research design for this study sought to ascertain
whether holding court at night might have an
opposite effect on the attendance of defendants.
Would the night courts encourage defendant
attendance by making it easier on those who worked
during the day?

In addition, the research team was concerned with
discerning, based on its own observations, whether
the night courts lost efficiency when additional
information was needed on defendants' probation or
drug treatment histories, on their criminal
histories, or on other ongoing cases in another
courtroom. During day court such information could
be obtained from manual or computer files. But the
question arose whether this type of information
might be less accessible at night because
courtrooms were locked or data clerks unavailable.
If that were true, then missing information might
be more likely to cause postponements at night than
during the day.

Answering these questions required looking at court
files of night court cases and of narcotics cases
that were disposed in the general felony courts
prior to the establishment of the night courts.
Three samples were examined:

o 205 narcotics cases assigned to a circuit court
judge in April and May 1989, 5 to 6 months before
the drug night courts opened on October 16, 1989
(1989 sample). 

o 195 cases from drug night calendars assigned in
April and May 1990, 7 to 8 months after the night
courts opened (1990 sample). 

o 209 cases from drug night calendars assigned in
April and May 1991, 19 to 20 months after the night
courts opened (1991 sample). 

Each sample was drawn in a way to ensure that cases
were representative of all cases during that time
period. For each case sampled, information from
court files was recorded on processing time,
disposition and sentence, failures to appear by
defendants and their attorneys, and motions filed.
These data provided a clear look at how narcotics
cases were processed just prior to creation of the
drug night courts (1989 sample), how cases were
processed shortly after creation of the drug night
courts (1990 sample), and how cases were processed
recently in the drug night courts (1991 sample).

Structured observations conducted in night as well
as day courts sought to determine whether missing
information more often led to continuances at night
compared to day sessions. Thus, 1,469 cases were
observed during 31 night court sessions between
January 6 and January 25, 1992, and 212 cases were
observed during 10 daytime felony court sessions
between January 27 and February 3, 1992.

The observers attended each session from beginning
to end and completed a data form for each case.
These completed forms contained the following
defendant information: name, charge(s), docket
number, type of hearing, type of attorney, and
custody status. In addition, the form provided
space for recording the date of the hearings; the
courtroom number; the time of the first, second,
and third calls, and adjournment; the number of
attorneys, defendants, witnesses, and police
officers; and the action taken on the case during
each of the calls. (Detailed information on the day
and night samples is presented in the appendix.)

Changes in Processing Speed 

There is no question that processing time of
narcotics cases has been dramatically reduced since
the drug night courts were established. Presiding
Judge Fitzgerald said he had hoped for 5,000
dispositions annually from the new narcotics
courts. During 1990 they actually disposed of 9,700
cases.

The sample data showed a large reduction in time
from case assignment to sentencing. Before the
opening of the night courts, only 18 percent of
narcotics cases were adjudicated and sentenced
within 90 days of assignment. After the courts
opened, 52 percent were disposed within 90 days in
the 1990 sample and 48 percent were disposed within
90 days in the 1991 sample. Median time to
disposition fell from 245 days in the 1989 sample
to 86 days in the 1990 sample and 95 days in the
1991 sample.

Sharp declines also occurred in the number of court
dates per case after the drug night courts began.
Data show that the mean number of court dates per
case dropped from about 11 in the 1989 sample
(before drug night court) to just over 6 in both
the 1990 and 1991 samples.

Changes in Disposition Patterns

The sample data showed a statistically significant
shift in disposition patterns for drug offenders
with the opening of the night courts. The rate of
guilty pleas rose from 56 percent in the 1989
sample to 71 percent in the 1990 sample and to 77
percent in the 1991 sample. At the same time,
dismissals fell from 15 percent in 1989 to just 7
percent in 1991. The rate of trials also fell, from
29 percent in 1989 to 20 percent in 1990 and 16
percent in 1991. Surprisingly, the decrease in
trials was primarily in bench trials, not in jury
trials as might have been expected. (Recall that
officials have to work double shifts in order to
hold jury trials.) Jury trials after the inception
of the night courts were virtually nonexistent, but
they were also very rare events (occurring in just
2 percent of the cases) when narcotics cases were
processed in the general felony courts.

Sentencing practices changed as well. Prior to the
opening of the drug night courts, prison was more
common for narcotics offenders than probation. In
the 1989 sample, 55 percent of offenders were
sentenced to prison and 45 percent to probation.
After the drug night courts opened, the reverse was
found: In the 1990 sample, only 32 percent of
offenders were sentenced to prison, and 68 percent
were sentenced to probation. This reversal held up
in the 1991 sample, when 33 percent of convicted
offenders were sentenced to prison and 67 percent
to probation.

Of course, sentencing patterns may have changed for
reasons other than segregating cases in night
court. Judge Fitzgerald and Deputy State's attorney
Al Tomasco believe that sentences became more
lenient because the police began making arrests for
those caught with smaller amounts of drugs than in
the past. They feel this contributes to more
lenient sentences. The willingness of the
prosecutor to plea bargain on drug cases may have
been a factor as well.

Ultimately, whether the change in sentence
disposition is seen as troubling depends on what
one thinks is the appropriate sentence for drug
offenders. If one believes probation is the best
response in many cases, the increased use of
probation by the drug night courts can be viewed as
a positive move away from the unduly harsh
sentences of the past. On the other hand, if one
believes heavy reliance on probation is
inappropriate for many drug offenders, the
increased use of probation will be viewed as
negative and "giving away the courthouse." 

Terms of probation declined significantly after the
drug night courts began. Before the advent of night
courts, terms of probation averaged 900 days for
narcotics offenders. This dropped to 646 days
shortly after the night courts' creation and 728
days in the most recent sample. No significant
decline was observed in prison terms.

Referrals to TASC held constant from the 1989
sample to the 1991 sample. In each year just 4
percent of sampled cases included a provision that
offenders report to TASC as part of their sentence.

Finally, the samples were examined as to whether
the coming of drug night courts changed the rate at
which motions were filed (half of those filed were
to suppress evidence). No significant difference
was found from one year to the next: 22 percent of
the 1989 sample cases had one or more motions filed
compared to 27 percent in the 1990 sample and 21
percent in the 1991 sample.

Changes in Representation by Private Attorneys

The samples next were examined for whether the
proportion of defendants represented by private
attorneys rather than public defenders changed with
the opening of the drug night courts. The rate of
representation by private attorneys did indeed
decline significantly. In the 1989 sample, 37
percent of defendants were represented by private
attorneys. This declined to 23 percent in the 1990
sample and 26 percent in the 1991 sample1.

Changes in Defendant and Attorney Appearance Rates

The last issue explored was whether scheduling
hearings at night rather than during the day had
any effect on the likelihood of defendants and
their attorneys appearing in court. First noted was
a significant decline in the proportion of cases in
which defendants failed to appear one or more
times, from 39 percent in 1989 to 23 percent in
1990 and also in 1991.2 This decline may simply
result from the fact that--as observed above--the
cases of night court defendants had fewer court
dates and, therefore, defendants had fewer
opportunities to miss a date.

To determine if there was a difference in defendant
attendance due to the scheduling of cases at night
as such, the research team considered an attendance
rate; that is, missed appearances divided by
required appearances. In the 1989 sample,
defendants missed an average of 7 percent of their
court dates, compared with 6.3 percent in the 1990
and 1991 samples. These differences being too small
to approach statistical significance, the
conclusion was that holding court at night does not
in itself affect defendants' willingness to appear.

Also examined were appearance rates for defense
attorneys, whose dislike of coming to court at
night had been so strongly reported. Virtually no
difference was found in the proportion of defense
attorneys who missed at least one appearance in the
1989 sample (4 percent) to the 1990 sample (2
percent) to the 1991 sample (3 percent). Nor was
there any meaningful difference in rates of defense
attorney absence, which were well under 1 percent
in all 3 years sampled. Last, with public defenders
considered unlikely to be absent when they are
assigned to a particular court, attendance was
examined for private attorneys only. Differences
found between the samples in the proportion of
private attorneys who missed at least one court
date were only slight and nonreliable: 9 percent in
the 1989 sample, 5 percent in the 1990 sample, and
6 percent in the 1991 sample.

Changes in Processing Other Felony Cases

Both prosecution and defense representatives agreed
that opening the drug courts made it possible to
give violent felony cases more time and attention.
After the drug courts opened, 48 percent of all
felony filings were shunted to them. As a result,
caseload-to-judge ratios in the other felony courts
were halved. 

Data show no change in patterns of dispositions and
sentences in nondrug cases as a result of the drug
night courts (data on nondrug felonies were
gathered for 1989 and 1990 only). The data do,
however, show a statistically significant decrease
in processing time for nondrug cases, from a median
of 215 days prior to the drug night courts to 170
days after the drug courts opened. Data depict
processing time for nondrug cases before and after
the drug night court operations began.

Missing Case Information

The last issues explored were whether file
information was more often missing at night and
whether, when information was missing, night cases
more often had to be continued to another date
because the information could not be readily
obtained. Comparing the proportion of cases in
night and day courts in which cases had to be
recalled because file information was missing at
first call revealed only slight differences between
them (10 percent night versus 16 percent day).

Day and night courts were compared also in terms of
what happens when file information is absent. In
the night courts, when file information was missing
at first call, 21 percent of cases were ultimately
continued to another day compared to a 13 percent
continuance rate when no file information was
missing. In the day courts 29 percent of cases with
missing file information were continued to another
day compared to 6 percent when no information was
missing. Thus, contrary to our expectations, it
seems that missing file information has a more
delaying effect on day courts than night courts.

What Staffs Think of Chicago Drug Night Courts

Earlier this report provided the perspective of
supervisors on the problems associated with
staffing night court. We turn now to the
perspective of those directly working those courts.
Those two perspectives are different. Line staff
reported more problems and concerns about the night
court than did their supervisors.

A survey of key professionals assigned to these
courts yielded responses from 6 of the 8 drug night
court judges, 21 of the 24 State's attorneys, 12 of
the 16 public defenders, 7 of the 8 clerks, and 12
of the 16 probation officers. In this sample, 19
percent of the respondents had worked the night
shift for less than 3 months, 28 percent for 4 to 6
months, 29 percent for 7 to 12 months, and 24
percent for 13 to 36 months (n=58).

Problem Areas

To learn the concerns of night court staff, the
survey listed 10 problem areas and asked the
professionals to circle any they believed were more
problematic for night staff than for day court
staff. This procedure sought to discern any
differences between the groups of professionals as
well as any differences in perception among
newcomers as contrasted with veterans working in
night court.

As depicted in data, the most frequently cited
problems were fatigue, access to information,
security problems, time to interact with family,
lack of scheduled breaks (or facilities for
breaks), the fast pace of night court, and
isolation. Few noted problems with transportation,
child care, or other problems. 

Fatigue. One would surmise that working the night
shift would be tiring, especially in a fast-paced
courtroom. Not surprisingly, fatigue was the number
one problem cited by night court professionals.
Fatigue came from a number of factors. By far the
biggest complaint had to do with jury trials, which
are conducted during the day and thus require extra
hours in addition to the regular full evening
shift. A second concern is the level of efficiency,
which seems to decline late in the evening, and
having to work until midnight or later. Others
voice the need for breaks (see below). Finally, the
fast pace coupled with the other three concerns
leads a few night staffers to report feeling
"drained," "fried," and just plain "burned out."

Some of their comments illustrate the problem:

o 4 p.m. is when court starts. That is usually the
end of the day. It is difficult to be as fresh and
energetic as one would be at 9 a.m.

o Even though you may sleep a bit later, you are
still functioning 18 hours a day with the last 8 to
12 hours of your day spent at work.

o Working from 3 p.m. to 11 has caused me to suffer
from severe insomnia--I am not able to unwind after
working 8 hours at an extremely rapid pace.

Access to Information. Over half the respondents in
the survey reported problems obtaining needed case
file or defendant information. For example, the
probation officers noted that while their own file
room closes at 4:30 p.m., night court does not even
begin until 4. Day courtrooms are locked so they
can't look at the judges' sheets for case
dispositions for defendants with multiple cases.
They also complain of a lack of support staff to
help locate files, dispositions, and other
necessary paperwork at night.

The public defenders also have problems with
access, reporting that jail records and records
from the clerk's office cannot be obtained after
4:30 p.m., that the computer is sometimes "down" at
night, and that it is very difficult to order
preliminary hearing transcripts and contact other
attorneys involved with their clients because they
work the "day shift" and are gone by the time the
defenders arrive to work at night.

Security. Over half the respondents reported
concern with security. Judges seemed to be most
concerned, but many public defenders, State's
attorneys, clerks, and probation officers also
noted security concerns, especially in going to
their cars at the end of the night. In an effort to
overcome their concerns, staff commonly escort each
other out to their cars. As one respondent summed
it up, "Going from the court to your car can be
scary, but we usually travel in packs."

Time With Family. Just over half the respondents
cited problems due to the lack of time to see their
family. One married staffer with children said,
"The only time I can see my family is on weekends,
because by the time I get home they are asleep and
they are gone before I get up." A married couple,
both on staff, used the clich "ships passing in
the night" to describe the impact on their
relationship. A staffer who is single reported
isolation from friends as well. Of course, as one
person pointed out, these are problems that "anyone
would have who works at night regardless of what
job they did."

Comments such as these were common:

o Working nights can be isolating as far as
personal life goes because I am off when friends
and family are working or in school, and I'm
working when everyone else is getting home. Until I
worked nights I never realized how much I do in the
early evenings.

o If you have children who are in school, it is
hard to make time to see them during the week. This
is the single biggest problem I have.

o Spouses or significant others often do not like
the hours, especially if they work during the day.

Breaks. Close to half the sample reported problems
with breaks. Many bemoaned the lack of time for
breaks and the fact that snack and sandwich shops
are closed at night. Illustrative comments
included:

o Everyone in the courtroom is in a hurry to leave,
therefore, no one takes lunch hour breaks or
breaks.

o I find it difficult to go straight through
without a cup of coffee or water.

o By the time we get to court the snack shops,
etc., are closed. We go at times for 8 to 10 hours
without eating or taking a break.

Pace. Nearly half the professionals working in the
night courts reported that the pace is too fast.
One attorney characterized the nightly caseload as
"staggering." Some public defenders reported
feeling compelled to advise their defendants to
"plead guilty or not in 5 minutes." 

The pace questions yielded some of the most
colorful and strongly phrased comments:

o I feel that working 2 years at night is like 5
years during the regular day shift.

o Night court is a production line that is going
through the motions and pumping out dispositions
without worrying about rehabilitation.

o Night court is like a cattle call. It does not
engender any respect for the call.

o This is a mill, not a court of law. The caseload
is too high and the expectations for dispositions
are unrealistic if you want justice.

Isolation. Over a third reported isolation from
their regular court colleagues. Attorneys pointed
out that training sessions and meetings are often
scheduled during court hours. Also, they cannot
contact their day court colleagues in order to
discuss ideas and to exchange information. Comments
included the following:

o A real problem exists to the point where one
wonders if a pox is upon us.

o I feel isolated from the assistants who work all
day. There seems to be more of an emphasis on
individuality rather than teamwork amongst the
assistants.  

Transportation and Child Care. Compared with other
problems, few noted problems with transportation or
child care. For those who said child care was a
problem, it was jury trials that threw a wrench in
their carefully constructed child care plans, due
to the fact that jury trials are held during the
day.

Other Problems. Those surveyed were asked to
describe any other problems they have working in
night court. Nearly a fifth of the sample listed
other problems. Some comments not covered by
preceding sections include: "makes a numbers game
out of serious crime and no attention toward
treatment"; "single-issue courtroom; assembly-line
justice"; and "lack of flexibility. . .we would
like to be able to work a flex-shift when we are
not in court."

Problems Associated With Job Role

The research team examined differences in the
frequency with which judges, State's attorneys,
public defenders, clerks, and probation officers
cited particular problems working at night. Clerks
noted the fewest problems overall--none of the
problems elicited a positive concern by more than
half the clerks. More than half the judges
mentioned fatigue, security, and the lack of time
with family. The majority of State's attorneys
noted these problems, plus an access problem. Over
half the public defenders and probation officers
added pace and the lack of breaks to the list,
while more than half the public defenders also said
isolation was a problem.

Based on the number of problems each group checked,
one can determine how problematic it is for persons
in their professional role to work in night court.
Of the 10 problems about which the survey inquired,
the mean number checked was 3.94 (n=58). Public
defenders rated the highest on the problem scale
with a mean response of 5.08 (n=12), followed by
probation officers (4.33, n=12), State's attorneys
(3.71, n=21), and judges (3.50, n=6). Clerks
reported the fewest problems (2.43, n=17).

Problems by Length of Tenure

Wondering whether newcomers or veterans had more
problems working at night, the researchers found
that those with the most problems are in the 7- to
12-month group (5.12, n=17), followed by the new
staffers (1 to 3 months, 3.91, n=11), and the 4- to
6-month group (3.38, n=16). Those reporting the
fewest problems were those in night court the
longest, 3.21 (n=14), although no clear linear
relationship was found. 

Data reflect the type of problems staff reported by
the length of time they worked in night court.
There is no clear pattern--some problems increased
and some decreased over time.

Job Interference. Respondents were given the
opportunity to describe the kinds of things they
feel interfere with their ability to do their job
well. This open-ended question yielded three common
responses: a lack of time/too high a caseload (64
percent); a lack of access to information (14
percent); and a lack of resources/lack of support
staff (8 percent). 

Job Facilitators. Respondents were then asked to
list things about night court that made their jobs
easier. Six categories of facilitators emerged:
increased autonomy/lack of interruptions (58
percent); days are free/less commuting time (17
percent); increased efficiency with specializing in
drug cases (13 percent); increased pleas (4
percent); feeling that they were making a
difference by being part of new experiment (4
percent); and increased access to clients in jail
during the day (4 percent).

Comments such as these were common:

o It gives you an opportunity to do other things in
the morning. You don't have many distractions.

o My colleagues have a good blend of youth and
experience. They are able to handle this difficult
high-volume court call.

o You see the same type of cases. You are able to
do one or two things at once very well. It gets to
be pretty routine.

o After 4 p.m., it's quiet in the office and you
can concentrate better. And there is no waiting
time to get on the computers. 

Advice for Other Courts. What advice would night
court staffers give to a jurisdiction considering
initiation of a drug night court? Our respondents
came up with four categories (n=40): have enough
trained staff at all levels (40 percent); don't
start a night court/or start it cautiously (35
percent); offer compensation/or only use volunteers
for staffing the night court (13 percent); increase
access to information (5 percent); and a variety of
"other" responses (7 percent, n=3). The following
comments were given:

o Ask for volunteers and give a night court bonus
for those who do volunteer. It is definitely a
hardship for mothers. There should be some
compensation to make up for the hardship.

o Urge legislators to look at the source of this
drug epidemic, or you'll soon be having 24-hour
drug courts to try and accommodate the volume.
We're just spinning our wheels in court--education
and better allocation of resources is the key.

o The drug night program in Cook County is a farce
implementing cattle-call justice, half-baked
trials, and the inconvenience of choosing a jury
trial infringes on defendants' constitutional
rights and makes "jury tax" formidable.

o Run your night courts like your day courts.Do not
overload them with cases. Do your jury trials at
night just as the day court does its juries during
the day.  

Preference for Night Duty. Finally, given the
opportunity to do the same job, would the staff
persons prefer night or day court work? In the Cook
County sample, 46 percent of the respondents
overall strongly prefer days, followed by 24
percent who somewhat prefer days, 12 percent who
somewhat prefer nights, 9 percent who state no
preference, and 9 percent who strongly prefer
nights. Differences by role are reflected in data,
which show that most judges, State's attorneys, and
public defenders prefer day work, but half the
probation officers and four-fifths of the clerks
prefer night work.

Conclusion

Line staff pointed out many problems with working
at night and a few advantages. It is important to
note that day court staff were not surveyed.
Problems mentioned by the night court staff may
well be shared by their colleagues in day court,
and day court staff might list problems not
experienced by the night staff. The intent was not
to compare day and night workers but to ferret out
problems associated with night court to help other
jurisdictions. Indeed, along with criticisms, some
of our respondents had some helpful suggestions for
those contemplating implementation of night courts.

National Survey Results

A national survey sought to determine whether
cities other than Chicago had experience with
running court sessions at night. Respondents were
asked whether they currently operated courtrooms at
night, whether they had operated courtrooms at
night in the past, and if not, whether they had
ever considered nighttime operations.
Questionnaires went to the presiding judge,
district attorney, and public defender in the
Nation's 50 largest counties. Responses came back
from 130 officials, representing all the
jurisdictions sampled.

Eight courts had current nighttime operations. Six
courts replied that they had nighttime hours in the
past, and 10 courts said they had considered
implementing nighttime hours.

Only 18 percent of respondents believed that
officials in their cities would support the idea of
nighttime operations. Obstacles that were cited, in
order of frequency, included:

o Insufficient resources (80 responses).

o Security concerns (21 responses).

o Insufficient interest (19 responses).

o No need for night court (12 responses).

o Problems with jurors or witnesses (11 responses).

o Reluctance of staff to share office, court, and
parking space with night shift (11 responses).

o Not as productive as day court (5 responses).

o Quality of justice likely to be poorer at night
(5 responses).

Aside from Cook County, all current night
operations were only for arraignments, and
therefore not directly relevant to the current
research. Two courts that had previously run night
operations had relevant experiences, however.
Brooklyn, New York, had received a Justice
Department grant in the early 1980's to hold felony
jury trials at night. The project lasted only a
year, conducting jury trials between 6 and 11 p.m.
Exit surveys with jurors and witnesses showed that
they generally had no objection to coming at night.
Most jurors liked it because they were able to
continue working at their jobs while they served.
Van transport home was provided to both jurors and
witnesses to blunt concerns about safety.

The district attorney manned the night part with
staff who volunteered for the assignment. The night
supervisor was promoted into the slot and was,
therefore, happy for the opportunity. The judge was
an acting State Supreme (felony) Court judge, and
also happy for the assignment. However, there was
one major problem encountered with staffing the
experiment: the Legal Aid Society did not
participate, apparently because its union refused
to work at night. The project had to get its cases
from private attorneys who volunteered to have
their cases tried at night. In spite of strenuous
efforts by the district attorney's office to
solicit cases from private attorneys in the
arraignment parts, the project was never able to
establish a sufficient caseflow to justify its
existence.

Another serious problem for the project was that
the presiding trial judge refused to establish a
backup case system. As a result, the court would
simply close for the evening on days when the case
scheduled for trial was disposed by a guilty plea
during jury selection. Staff members considered
this a privilege that helped compensate them for
working night hours, but going home early further
reduced the efficiency of the night operation.

Los Angeles operated a night court from 1985
through December 1991. Three Superior Courts and
one Municipal Court (to handle arraignments and
preliminary hearings) operated from 2:30 until
10:30 p.m. in their main downtown location. Unlike
those in Cook County, these courts handled a
variety of cases but excluded death penalty cases,
cases with more than three defendants, and sex
crime cases because the courts wanted to avoid
cases in which lengthy trials were expected.

This variety was critical to maintaining staff for
the courts in the opinion of Bob Jordan, the deputy
district attorney in charge of night courts. He
believes it would have been hard to find staff who
would only get drug cases to handle. In Los Angeles
all of the staff were volunteers. Observers
believed the duty was welcomed by judges, public
defenders, prosecutors, and police officers
assigned to night court. There were no reported
problems with witnesses, victims, or jurors
attending night court. An evaluation performed by
Harvey Rose Accountancy Company assessed the night
court favorably. Despite this, Superior Court
judges resisted the idea from the beginning,
fearing that all courts would be scheduled to run
double shifts. Eventually these judges were able to
stop the night courts by refusing to assign judges
to them.

Appendix: Detailed Information on the Observation
Samples

Number of Cases Heard. Night court judges heard a
total of 1,469 cases, day court judges a total of
212 over the 3-week study period. Overall, night
court was much busier than day court. In night
court the range of cases processed per session was
24 to 74. In day court it was only 12 to 27. Data
presents the mean (average) number of cases heard
in each of the observed day and night courts.
Considerable differences appeared in these
averages. There were differences both between and
among day and night court judges. Night court
judges handled a significantly greater number of
cases (M = 46.97) when compared to day court judges
(M =21.20) [t(39) = 27.83, p <.0001]. In addition,
night court judges were considerably less alike
than were day court judges in the number of cases
they processed per court session. The variability
of the number of cases heard each session among
night court judges (s2 = 175.50) was more than four
times greater than the variability among day court
judges (s2 = 41.07) [F(30.8) = 4.28, p < .05].

Types of Charges. The State leveled a total of
2,343 charges against the defendants processed
through the observed night (n = 1,912 charges) and
day court (n = 431 charges) sessions. Night and day
court differed significantly on the average number
of charges pressed per case (M day court = 2.03) (M
night court = 1.31) [t(1679) = 10.54, p < .0001].
As expected, the vast majority (83 percent) of
charges against night court defendants were for
drug crimes. The most common charge was possession
of a controlled substance with intent to deliver
(34 percent), followed by possession of a
controlled substance (21 percent), delivery of a
controlled substance (19 percent), and manufacture
and delivery of a controlled substance (9 percent).
Other common night court charges were for armed
violence (6 percent), unlawful use of a weapon (3
percent), and violation of probation (3 percent).

Data show that there was a much larger variety of
charges brought against day court defendants. Half
the day court charges (50 percent) were for crimes
against a person such as murder, battery, sexual
assault, robbery, and armed violence. Burglary (10
percent), unlawful use of a weapon (7 percent), and
violation of probation (4 percent) were also fairly
prevalent. Less than 10 percent of charges in day
court were for drug-related charges.

Defendant Representation and Status. Night and day
court defendants were compared on their legal
representation (public defender versus private
attorney) and their status at the time of the
hearing (in custody versus not in custody). The
majority of all the defendants (60 percent) were
represented by the public defender's office.
However, a significantly higher percentage of day
court cases had public defenders (71 percent day
court versus 59 percent night court) [x2(1) =
11.65, p < .001]. In addition, a significantly
higher percentage of day court defendants were in
custody when their cases were heard (65 percent day
court versus 32 percent night court) [x2(1) =
81.23, p < .0001).

Types of Hearings. Seven types of hearings were
coded. The most frequent types of hearings in both
courts were for adjudications (47 percent), status
checks (19 percent), and arraignments (18 percent).
Overall, hearings for sentencing (2 percent) and
bail forfeiture warrants (BFW's) (2 percent) were
relatively rare. Some significant differences
between day and night court emerged on types of
hearings [x2(6) = 49.90, p < .0001]. Status checks,
BFW, and violation of probation (VOP) hearings were
more likely to take place in day court. Also, the
percentage of "other" types of hearings was three
times higher in day court, suggesting a much wider
breadth of activities there. The most dramatic
difference between day and night court was in the
percentage of arraignments. Defend-ants were
substantially more likely to he arraigned in night
court than in day court.

The overwhelming majority of night (94 percent) and
day (93 percent) court hearings were of a singular
variety, which is to say that hearings were
conducted for only one purpose, such as
adjudication, status check, or sentencing. A small
but notable percentage of night (6 percent) and day
(7 percent) court sessions were held to achieve two
or three purposes. Although night and day court
were no more likely overall to conduct dual-purpose
hearings [t(1654) = -.46, p > .60], there was a
difference between the two in the frequency of
violation of probation/arraignment hearings, which
were significantly more common in night court
[t(1679) = 3.41, p < .001].

Notes

1. Probation's workload also increased because the
court's sentences began to shift away from
incarceration to a heavy reliance on probation for
drug offenders.

2. Associate judges are drawn from a wide spectrum
of lawyers and are elected to the position by
circuit court judges. Although associate judges
normally are not empowered to adjudicate felonies,
felony jurisdiction can be conferred on them by an
order of the State Supreme Court.

3. TASC is the coordinating treatment referral
service used by the county. Originated in 1972,
TASC programs attempt to use pressures generated
through the criminal justice system to motivate
drug-dependent offenders to seek treatment. The
National Consortium of TASC Programs is funded by
the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

4. Chi-square (x2) = 10.30 with 2 degrees of
freedom (df); p < .01.

5. x2 = 13.51 with 2 df; p < .001.

Sources for Further Information

Selected Bibliography

Belenko, Steven. 1990. "The impact of drug
offenders on the criminal justice system." In
Drugs, Crime and the Criminal Justice System ed. R.
A. Weisheit. Cincinnati, Ohio, Anderson Publishing.

Belenko, Steven, R Davis, and T. Dumanovsky. 1992.
Drug Felony Case Processing in New York City's N
Parts: Interim Report. New York, New York City
Criminal Justice Agency.

Cooper, Caroline S., M. Solomon, H. Bakke, and T.
Lane. 1990-91. BJA Pilot Differentiated Case
Management (DCM) and Expedited Drug Case Management
(EDCM) Program: Overview and Program Summaries.
Vols. 1 and 2. Washington, D.C., Bureau of Justice
Assistance.

Davis, Robert C. 1993. The Queens County (NY)
Narcotics Courtroom: A Case Study. New York, New
York City Criminal Justice Agency.

"Drug cases clog the courts." ABA Journal, April
1989.

Goerdi, John, and J.A. Martin. 1989. "The impact of
drug cases on case processing in urban trial
courts." State Court Journal, Fall: 4-12.

Goldkamp, John. 1988. The Impact of Drug Cases on
the Processing of Criminal Cases, Jail Crowding,
and Public Safety: Significant Problems and Issues.
Philadelphia, Crime and Justice Research Institute.

Jacoby, Joan E., Edward C. Ratledge, and Heike P.
Gramckow. 1992. "Expedited Drug Case Management
Programs: Issues for Program Development."
Washington, D.C., National Institute of Justice
Evaluation Bulletin.

Lipscher, Robert D. 1989. "The judicial response to
the drug crisis: a report of an executive symposium
involving judicial leaders of the Nation's nine
most populous States." State Court Journal, Fall:
13-17.

Press, Aric. 1988. "Piecing together New York's
criminal justice system: the response to crack."
Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of
New York 43, 5: 541-569.

Smith, Barbara E., R.C. Davis, and S.R. Goretsky.
1991. Strategies for Courts To Cope With the
Caseload Pressures of Drug Cases. First report to
the State Justice Institute. Chicago, American Bar
Association.

BJA CONTACT

The following BJA contact will provide program 
support and technical assistance:

Court/Prosecution Branch
Bureau of Justice Assistance
633 Indiana Avenue NW.
Washington, D.C. 20531
Telephone 202-514-5943

------------------------------
This document was prepared under grant number 91-
DD-CX-K045 awarded by the Bureau of Justice
Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. Opinions or
points of view expressed in this document are those
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.

This document was written by Barbara E. Smith,
Robert C. Davis, and Sharon R. Goretsky of the
American Bar Association and by Arthur J. Lurigio
and Susan J. Popkin of Loyola University of
Chicago. Opinions or points of view expressed in
this document are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official position or
policies of the American Bar Association, or the
ABA's Criminal Justice Section, which conducted
this project in cooperation with Loyola University
of Chicago.
------------------------------

Bureau of Justice Assistance
633 Indiana Avenue NW., Washington, D.C.  20531 
(202) 514-6278

------------------------------
The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of
the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes
the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National
Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office
for Victims of Crime.