CONDUCTING A FELONY CASEFLOW

MANAGEMENT REVIEW:

A PRACTICAL GUIDE

 

Maureen Solomon 

Senior Court Management Consultant 

mlmsolomon@comcast.net 

May 2010 

This report was prepared under the auspices of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Criminal Courts 

Technical Assistance Project at American University, Washington, D.C. This project was supported by 

Grant Nos.2006-DD-BX-K013 and 2007-DD-BX-K094 awarded to American University by the Bureau of 

Justice Assistance. 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. Points of view or opinions in this 

document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 PAGE

INTRODUCTION 1 

SECTION I 

 Effective Caseflow Management 2 

 Fundamental Elements of Effective Caseflow Management 3 

 Judicial Leadership 3 

 Early and Continuous Judicial Supervision of Case Progress 3 

 Credible Hearing/Trial Dates 4 

 Observance of Time Standards and Goals 4 

 An Information System to Support Caseflow Management 5 

 Ongoing Interagency Communication and Consultation 5 

 Effective Criminal Caseflow Management Practices 6 

 Early Availability of Arrest Report 6 

 Early Attachment of Counsel and Prompt Client Interviews 6 

 Realistic Charging 6 

 Early Exchange of Information Between Prosecution and Defense 6 

 Emphasis on Early Disposition 7 

 Case Screening by Prosecution, Defense, and Judge 7 

Early, Realistic Disposition Offers that are Unlikely 7 

to Improve Substantially Over Time 

Cases Assigned Future Date Certain for a Specific Purpose 7 

Every Proceeding Used as Opportunity to Dispose of the Case 

or Move It Toward Disposition 8 

 Trial Dates Scheduled Only if Needed 8 

SECTION II 

 Summary of the Caseflow Management Review Process 9 

 Detailed Description of Each Stage of the Caseflow Management Review 11 

 Stage One – Preparation for the Review 11 

 Stage Two – System Documentation 12 

 Interviews Concerning the Process 12 

 Diagram of the Process 13 

 Interviews to Understand Perceptions, Attitudes, and Beliefs 14 

 Observations of Proceedings 16 

 Review of Caseflow Rules and Statutes 16 

 Data Collection 17 

 Stage Three – Analysis 19 

 Stage Four – Formulation of Conclusions and Recommendations 20 

CONCLUDING COMMENTS 23 

APPENDIX A: PRELIMINARY PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET 24 

APPENDIX B: USING INTERVIEWS EFFECTIVELY 28 

APPENDIX C: INFORMATION TO OBTAIN THROUGH INTERVIEW 33 

APPENDIX D: PREPARATION OF A PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM 42 

APPENDIX E: CASELOAD DATA TO BE OBTAINED 49 

APPENDIX F: SAMPLE DATA COLLECTION FORMS 52

 Suggestions for Developing and Using a Form 52 

 Sample Forms 54 

APPENDIX G: ANALYTICAL CHECKLIST 63
CONDUCTING A FELONY CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT REVIEW

A PRACTICAL GUIDE

INTRODUCTION

his Guide to reviewing and improving a court’s felony caseflow management system is 

presented in two sections with supporting appendices. The first section provides brief 

descriptions of fundamental elements of effective caseflow management systems and 

effective felony case management practices. The material in this section is drawn largely from 

the author’s monograph, Improving Criminal Caseflow, published by the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance in 2008.1

 Although the discussion in Section I and throughout the Guide focuses on 

felony caseflow management, the fundamental elements also are equally applicable to other 

categories of cases. 

T

The second section presents a methodology for assessing the extent to which a court’s felony 

caseflow management system incorporates the elements and effective practices described in the 

first section. It describes approaches to developing a comprehensive understanding of the system 

under review, evaluating the information obtained during the review, and presenting the results 

of the analysis to the court and justice agencies. Finally, the appendices provide guidance for 

conducting effective interviews, suggested interview questions, recommended statistical data to 

be collected, and an analytical checklist to facilitate comparison of existing practices to those 

known to characterize effective systems. 

It is anticipated that the Guide can be used both for analyzing felony caseflow management and 

as a basis for developing a curriculum to train analysts. The effective practices analytical 

checklist in Appendix G also has multiple uses. It can be used (1) in a caseflow management 

workshop curriculum as a self-assessment instrument, (2) as a survey instrument by a court 

conducting an in-house caseflow management review, and (3) by the analyst conducting a felony 

caseflow management review. 

Finally, while the Guide focuses on conducting a felony caseflow management review, its 

applicability is largely generic. With very little modification, it may be used to evaluate civil, 

misdemeanor, juvenile, and family court caseflow management.

 

1 Solomon, Maureen, Improving Criminal Caseflow (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Criminal 

Courts Technical Assistance Project, American University), October 2008.

1
SECTION I

Effective Caseflow Management

t is now generally accepted in the criminal justice community that effective caseflow 

management is characterized by court supervision of the time and events involved in the 

movement of each case from first appearance in the court system to disposition.2 Effective 

caseflow management incorporates early judicial case management to achieve earlier 

dispositions in the great majority of cases that will be disposed of without a trial and to create a 

predictable process and timetable for those cases that may ultimately require a trial. Court 

supervision of case progress conserves the time and resources of judges, lawyers, and staff while 

achieving the ultimate goal of a fair and just disposition in every case.3

I

Achieving this goal requires that the court adopt a Caseflow Management Plan consisting of 

policies and practices that incorporate the essential concept of early and continuous judicial 

supervision to the caseload. Creation of such a plan establishes a common frame of reference for 

case management decision-making within the court and fosters the “expectation of timeliness”4

in the legal community that motivates prompt lawyer preparation and observance of deadlines.5 

A reasonable and predictable process is necessary so that lawyers understand and can depend on 

consistent procedures and timetables. If the court’s philosophy and practices are not rigorous 

and consistent, a lawyer’s preparation efforts may not be completed in the optimal timeframe, 

cases will drift, and dispositions will take longer than cases actually require. 

It is essential that the 

judiciary commit to 

applying the effective 

practices and assume 

an active role in 

assuring that cases 

proceed in a timely 

manner. 

Accordingly, it is not an overstatement to say that the judges’ attitudes are pivotal to success. It 

is essential that the judiciary commit to applying the effective 

practices incorporated into the court’s plan and assume an active role 

in assuring that cases proceed in a timely manner. Reaching this level 

of commitment in the court requires the chief judge’s leadership, a 

shared vision among the court’s judges of how the caseflow 

management system should function, and an agreed-upon body of 

policies/principles designed to achieve that vision. While individual 

 

2

 Solomon and Somerlot, Caseflow Management in the Trial Court: Now and for the Future (Chicago, IL: American 

Bar Association), 1987, 3. 

3

 It is important to recognize that discussions of timely disposition do not contemplate speed for its own sake but, 

instead, recognize that the timeliness of a disposition is a key element of a fair and just outcome. 

4

 This term originated during a major reorganization of felony caseflow management in the Detroit Recorder’s Court 

(the criminal court for the city of Detroit) in the late 1970s. The effort was led by Chief Judges Sam Gardner and 

Dalton Roberson and Court Administrator George Gish. 

5

 The American Bar Association adopted the following principle concerning caseflow management and delay 

reduction: “From commencement of litigation to its resolution, whether by trial or settlement, any elapsed time other 

than reasonably required [emphasis added] for pleadings, discovery and court events is unacceptable and should be 

eliminated. To enable just and efficient resolution of cases, the court, not the lawyers or litigants, should control the 

pace of litigation. A strong judicial commitment is essential to reducing delay and, once achieved, maintaining a 

current docket.” National Conference of State Trial Judges, Standards Relating to Trial Courts (Chicago, IL: 

American Bar Association), 1985, Sec 2.50. 

2
judges’ specific practices may vary, those practices must be consistent with the intent of the 

court’s Caseflow Management Plan. 

Fundamental Elements of Effective Caseflow Management

The elements discussed here are fundamental to successful judicial management of case 

progress, regardless of the types of cases involved. Thus, the analyst conducting a caseflow 

management review will assess the extent to which these elements have been incorporated into 

the system under review. The information obtained will aid diagnosis and remediation of 

problems both at the organizational level and the individual case management level. 

 Judicial Leadership

Leadership by the chief or presiding judge sets the direction and tone for the organization 

and, accordingly, is the cornerstone on which an effective caseflow management structure 

can be created and sustained. This leadership is necessary for creating an atmosphere of 

excellence and for setting the expectation that the caseflow management system will 

incorporate active supervision of case progress to assure a timely, economical, and just result 

in each case. Quoting from Mahoney et al.: 

 

“In studies of corporate innovation and excellence, as well as of courts and criminal 

justice agencies that succeed in attaining significant goals, leadership emerges as a 

critically important factor.” “...when practitioners in successful courts were asked 

[as part of a major study of urban court management] about reasons for the court’s 

effectiveness, one of the most frequent responses was a reference to the leadership 

qualities of the chief judge.”6

 Early and Continuous Judicial Supervision of Case Progress 

The primary purpose 

of early judicial 

involvement is to focus 

everyone on the case at 

the earliest reasonable 

time and, more 

particularly, on the 

time and resources 

each case will require.

Early judicial involvement in case-progress decisions, followed by 

continuous judicial attention to the age and progress of cases, 

characterize systems that assure timely and just dispositions. The 

primary purpose of early judicial involvement is to focus everyone on 

the case at the earliest reasonable time and, more particularly, on the 

time and resources required to assure a timely and just disposition. In 

practice this means that the assigned judge, in consultation with the 

lawyers, plays an active role early to assure case evaluation by all 

parties and creation of an agreed timetable for future case activities. 

Continuous supervision by the judge and his or her staff assures that 

deadlines are met, negotiations regarding disposition occur, motions are filed and disposed of 

promptly, and scheduled hearing and trial dates are firm.7

 

6 Mahoney, Barry and Hoffman, Richard et al. in Improving Your Jurisdiction’s Felony Caseflow Process (Denver, CO: 

The Justice Management Institute), April 2000. 

7 For example, in jurisdictions where judges conduct a case management conference within about 30 days after superior 

court arraignment, judges, lawyers, and administrators who have been interviewed regarding the impact of this process 

often express the views that dispositions occurred earlier and their time was better used in productive activities. 

3
Since in most courts less than 5 percent of cases require a trial, it should be clear that early 

identification and disposition of cases least likely to require a trial will result in earlier 

disposition of most of the caseload. As a result, both the court’s and lawyers’ time will be 

freed for the remaining cases that require more resources and attention. 

 Credible Hearing/Trial Dates 

Effective caseflow management systems create an expectation of timeliness by providing 

credible trial and hearing dates and adhering to those dates. To avoid scheduling conflicts, 

decisions concerning initial scheduling and subsequent requests to reschedule are made by a 

judge based on information the lawyers in the case provide. Reasonable accommodation of 

lawyers’ schedules occurs initially. Subsequent requests by lawyers to reschedule must 

include information advising the court of the reason for the request, when the necessity for 

the request became known, what efforts were made to avoid it, and the earliest time that the 

case can proceed. Stipulation by the lawyers is never an adequate basis for granting a 

continuance.8 

Routine granting of continuance requests, without requiring a showing of exceptional cause, 

signals a lack of judicial control of case progress and produces case delays and backlogs. In 

courts where the prevailing view is that dates are not credible and continuances are easily 

obtained, lawyers are less likely to meet deadlines. 

Finally, it should be noted that processing continuances is not an effective use of resources 

and may increase litigation costs and administrative costs by creating extra paperwork for the 

parties and the court’s administrative staff. 9 Equally important, continuances often cause 

victims, witnesses, attorneys, and defendants to make unnecessary trips to the courthouse and 

ultimately may discourage witnesses from appearing. 

Interviews with judges and 

lawyers suggest that 

standards are generally 

taken seriously, even if no 

sanction is imposed when a 

case exceeds the time 

allowed by the standards.

 Observance of Time Standards and Goals 

Research in the field of caseflow management during the past 40 years supports the need for 

time standards. One study concluded: 

 

“The development and adoption of time standards for the 

processing of cases by the Conference of Chief Justices, the 

American Bar Association, and a number of state court 

systems reflects a widespread feeling...that there are outside 

limits on how long cases should take...Interviews 

with...judges and lawyers suggest that the standards are 

 

8

 Recently a judge reported his experience while sitting as a visiting judge in another county. Lawyers appeared and 

presented a stipulation for continuance, saying: “We’ve agreed to delay the case, your honor.” When the judge 

inquired, “Don’t I have a role to play here?” one attorney handed up the stipulation and said, “Yes, your honor. You 

sign here.” 

9

 A court clerk’s office in one jurisdiction where technical assistance was provided calculated that all the tasks and 

paperwork associated with setting and resetting hearings and trials consumed nearly the equivalent of one full-time 

clerical position. Staff interviewed in other jurisdictions during technical assistance projects sponsored by CCTAP 

have also expressed concern about the amount of staff time required to process continuances and reset cases. 

4
generally taken seriously, even if there is no sanction imposed 

when a case exceeds the time allowed by the standards 

[emphasis added].”10

 

In addition to an overall disposition time standard, or “speedy trial” rule, the court’s caseflow 

management system should incorporate (1) intermediate time goals governing the elapsed 

time between major case events and (2) system management standards concerning such areas 

as continuances and case scheduling efficiency (the ratio of total trial dates set to total trials 

started). These types of operational goals are helpful in managing case progress and assuring 

efficiency and effective use of judge, lawyer, and staff time. 

 An Information System to Support Caseflow Management 

At the most basic level, the court’s information system must provide counts of filings and 

dispositions, tabulate the types of dispositions, and calculate the age of cases at disposition. 

However, the best caseflow management information systems have capabilities well beyond 

generating these statistics or maintaining a register of actions, generating notices, producing 

daily/weekly court calendars, and providing gross statistics. 

Ideally, a court will implement a case management information system that facilitates 

tracking individual case progress, provides up-to-date information on the size and age of each 

judge’s caseload and calendars, and allows measurement of system performance against the 

standards and goals. Without timely information on the status and age of each case and the 

total caseload, it is extremely difficult to sustain an effective caseflow management program. 

 Ongoing Interagency Communication and Consultation

Interagency consultation about policies and practices that affect 

caseflow management is vital for a number of reasons. One is the 

reality that, even though the individual agencies are independent, 

they are part of a procedurally interdependent system. For 

example, in a caseflow management review, it is not uncommon to 

encounter a situation where one agency has adopted internal 

procedures that benefit the agency but have unintended negative 

consequences for other agencies. 

The criminal justice 

system is, procedurally, 

an interdependent 

system even though the 

individual agencies are 

independent.

A second reason is the fact that no single organization, including the court, can create a 

successful caseflow management system by itself, but the problems of a single agency can 

negatively affect the entire system. For the criminal justice system to function effectively, 

inter-agency communication and consultation about perceived problems and proposed 

solutions are necessary. 

Finally, periodic assessments of the caseflow management system are needed to keep even 

the most effective system on track. When the need for change arises, successfully planning 

 

10 Mahoney, Barry et al., Changing Times in Trial Courts (Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts), 

1988.

5
and sustaining improvements requires collegial, constructive, and appropriate participation in 

analysis, design, and implementation—regardless of which agency is the primary focus of the 

effort. 

Nevertheless, it logically falls to the court to play a leadership role and create the structure 

for cooperation. This usually means convening a multiagency task force or planning council. 

Leadership must come from the court, but the participation of all key criminal justice 

agencies is vital to success. Fostering a collegial atmosphere in this manner vastly increases 

the chances of success. 

In the process of collaborating, several important organizational outcomes are achieved. It 

usually becomes clear that—contrary to widespread assumptions—the views of all the 

criminal justice agencies concerning desirable attributes of a caseflow management system 

are highly similar. It also becomes clear that these agencies look to the court to create the 

environment of timeliness and predictability discussed above. Finally, most participants 

ultimately acknowledge that each agency’s success depends in large part on the success of 

the others. 

Effective Criminal Caseflow Management Practices

When consistently applied, the practices listed below help assure that backlogs and delay in 

criminal cases are avoided. Each is concerned with a critical step in the flow of felony cases. 

Determining the extent to which these practices are followed consistently will provide insight 

into causes of dissatisfaction or ineffectiveness in the existing system. 

 Early Availability of Arrest Report 

The law enforcement agency assures rapid transmission of the arrest report to the 

prosecutor, possibly requiring that the report be submitted by the conclusion of the officer’s 

shift. 

 Early Attachment of Counsel and Prompt Client Interviews

Defense counsel is notified of assignment to a case promptly and interviews the client prior 

to his or her court appearance. 

 Realistic Charging 

Experienced prosecutors screen cases and usually charge only what they are confident can 

be proved should the case go to trial. 

 Early Exchange of Information Between Prosecution and Defense 

Basic information, including the arrest report and available discovery, is exchanged early, 

preferably no later than superior court arraignment. Decisions about case disposition can 

be made only when the lawyers have the necessary information. In some courts, a significant 

number of dispositions occur at or before arraignment. 

6
 Emphasis on Early Disposition 

Many courts fail to design the caseflow management system to take advantage of the fact 

that, as shown by published statistics, 95-99 percent of criminal cases will be disposed of by 

guilty plea or dismissal.11 It should be unnecessary for a high percentage of dispositions to 

exceed the established disposition time goals when most do not involve a trial. An “early 

disposition climate” is created by focusing attention on the case at the earliest possible time, 

requiring counsel to meet with the client as soon as possible, creating a structured 

opportunity for serious negotiations between the lawyers, and incorporating meaningful 

judicial participation in the process. 

 Case Screening by Prosecution, Defense, and Judge

Beginning with the initial charging decision and continuing through the early stages of the 

case, the prosecutor’s, defense counsel’s, and judge’s experience is used to assess case 

complexity and the most likely case outcome based on the charge, evidence, and other case 

characteristics. This is facilitated by a judicial conference within 30 days of arraignment. 

Early case differentiation will assist in the identification of cases that can be disposed of 

early. At the same time, the court will be able to flag more complicated cases, which may 

need special attention and a longer disposition timetable. 

 Early, Realistic Disposition Offers that are Unlikely to Improve Substantially Over 

Time 

In addition to early and accurate case evaluation by the prosecutor, timely disposition also 

depends on early, realistic disposition offers based on what the prosecutor believes could be 

proven at trial. In many courts, a major disincentive for early disposition exists because the 

defense knows that the prosecutor’s offer will improve significantly solely due to the passage 

of time. 

 Cases Assigned a Future Date Certain for a Specific Purpose 

Realistically, enforced deadlines should be used to create the essential expectation of 

timeliness that stimulates timely preparation and disposition. If a disposition is not entered 

at arraignment, a future action date for a specific purpose12 (such as a case management 

conference or motions hearing) is assigned before the parties leave. Consultation with the 

prosecution and defense in setting the date helps assure compliance. 

Note that the firm future action dates need not be trial dates. Motions deadlines, case 

management conference dates, and other meaningful events satisfy the requirement for 

always setting a “future action date” deadline. By assuring that the sum of all future action 

deadlines adds up to, or is less than, the outside time limit for disposition (i.e., the disposition 

time standard), the court essentially gives early notice of the approximate trial date if one is 

needed.

 

11 For example, in one jurisdiction with a 1 percent trial rate (i.e., 99 percent of dispositions were guilty pleas or 

dismissals), more than 50 percent of dispositions exceeded the 90-day disposition time standard. This means that it 

took more than 90 days to reach a plea agreement in about half the guilty pleas! In contrast, in jurisdictions where 

judges exerted early control over cases, dispositions of relatively uncomplicated cases occurred within 30-45 days of 

arraignment. 

12 The likelihood of appropriate attorney preparation is enhanced by the knowledge of what the court expects to 

accomplish at the next appearance.

7
 Every Proceeding Used as an Opportunity to Dispose of the Case or Move It Toward 

Disposition 

Each scheduled appearance should have a purpose directly related to making progress 

toward disposition. Conferences or status hearings that are held solely for the purpose of 

inquiring about counsel’s progress or setting a date for another conference should be 

avoided. When the defendant and lawyers are present, it should be for activities that can 

lead to disposition. 

 Trial Dates Scheduled Only if Needed 

Trial dates are assigned only to those cases likely to require a trial and only after other 

hearings have been completed and efforts to reach an alternative disposition appear to have 

failed. This approach produces several positive results. First, it assures early trial date 

availability by not filling the calendar with cases that ultimately will reach a nontrial 

disposition. Second, this availability of early open dates on the trial calendar provides the 

defendant and counsel a higher degree of certainty that the case will proceed as scheduled 

and will not be continued due to over-scheduling. 

8
SECTION II

Summary of the Caseflow Management Review Process

Four Principal Stages of a 

Caseflow Management Review 

Stage One: Preparation for the Review 

Stage Two: System Documentation 

Stage Three: Analysis 

Stage Four: Formulation of Conclusions 

 and Suggestions 

ourt staff, representatives of the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts, or 

consultants may conduct a caseflow management review. Clearly, the ultimate goal of 

such a review is to assist the court in creating a caseflow management system that 

increases the likelihood of a just, fair, timely, and economical result in every case. Accordingly, 

the principal review activities focus on understanding 

current practices, comparing them to the policies and 

practices known to characterize effective caseflow 

management systems, and suggesting modifications, as 

necessary. A secondary objective of the review process is 

to foster the inclination and capability within the justice 

system to engage periodically in self-examination, analysis, 

and change as required. The reality is that continual selfassessment is essential for sustaining improvements. A 

caseflow management review has four principal stages: 

C

 Stage One – Preparation for the Review

Tasks include: 

 Reaching agreement with the court on the scope of the review. 

 Reaching agreement on how the results will be presented to the court and justice 

agencies. 

 Acquiring descriptive information about the court. 

 Acquiring and analyzing available statistics. 

 If possible, conducting a preliminary site visit to establish a relationship with key 

personnel in the jurisdiction and to explore problem areas that these personnel have 

identified. 

 Stage Two – System Documentation

Facts 

Perceptions 

Successfully completing this review depends on obtaining and analyzing a 

variety of information from a broad range of sources to form the basis for 

system analysis and development of conclusions and recommendations. 

Specifically, one must obtain: 

Attitudes 

Beliefs 

 Facts – “What is happening? How does the caseflow system operate?” 

 Perceptions – “What do key personnel think is happening?” 

 Attitudes – “How do these personnel feel about what is, or may be, happening?” 

 Beliefs – “What do these personnel believe should be happening and why?” 

9
By the time the review is complete, all four types of information will have been considered. 

But, before one can effectively deal with perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs, it is essential to 

have the facts! And that is the primary purpose of the initial documentation effort. 

Stage Two will involve: 

 Onsite documentation of the caseflow management process in considerable detail 

including: 

o The procedural steps in moving a case from filing to disposition. 

o The usual elapsed time between procedural steps. 

o What problems may arise in connection with these events or activities. 

o How such problems are handled. 

o Who makes the critical decisions that affect case progress at each step. 

o The extent to which each step contributes meaningfully to case progress and 

disposition. 

 Documentation of the perspectives and attitudes of key individuals through 

interviews. 

 Collection and analysis of objective data concerning filings, dispositions, clearance 

rates, trial rates, continuances, and other information to obtain a complete profile of 

the present situation. 

 Observation of activities such as arraignments, calendar calls (if these are used), and 

case management conferences. 

 Stage Three – Analysis 

In Stage Three, the analyst will use the combination of objective and subjective information 

to: 

 Evaluate the existing system against the established elements and practices discussed 

in Section I. 

 Compare actual practices to what those in the system think is occurring. 

 Discriminate between “symptoms” and underlying “problems.” 

 Assess the organization’s readiness to undertake changes. 

 Stage Four – Formulation of Conclusions and Suggestions

Observations, conclusions, and suggestions for improvement will be compiled into a report to 

be presented to the court and other justice agencies, sometimes in a bound report and 

sometimes simply in memorandum form. This document has several purposes: 

 

 Convey information. 

 Serve as the basis for change. 

 Encourage a collaborative atmosphere among all stakeholders in the criminal 

justice process. 

 

Careful consideration should be given to the wording and tone of this document to ensure 

that it is constructive. The analyst wants readers to focus on the merits of the arguments 

10
presented, not the manner in which the information is presented. The report should avoid a 

negative tone or outright criticism except under the most extreme circumstances, as this is 

rarely appropriate. Finally, as discussed in more detail on page 20, a draft of the report 

should be reviewed with the court before final submission to assure clarity and accuracy. 

Detailed Description of Each Stage of the Caseflow Management Review

 Stage One – Preparation for the Review 

Before the review 

begins, the analyst 

should be sure that 

agreement has been 

reached with the court 

administrator and 

chief judge concerning 

the review’s purpose, 

scope and outcomes.

Before the review begins, a number of preliminary activities must be completed. The analyst 

should be sure that agreement has been reached with the court administrator and chief judge 

concerning the review’s purpose, scope, and outcomes. Agreement 

also should be reached about who will receive the final report. 

Usually the initial recipients are the court’s chief or presiding judge 

and court administrator, and they in turn make the report available to 

the other criminal justice agencies. The analyst should be explicit 

about the fact that she or he will not discuss the findings and 

conclusions of the review with anyone outside the court or other 

criminal justice agencies. 

A realistic estimate of the time required to complete the felony 

caseflow management review should be presented to the court at this time, although it may 

be revised periodically as the review progresses. Careful planning is required to develop this 

estimate because the time can be highly variable. It depends on factors such as the size of the 

jurisdiction and the number of interviews required, the location and availability of key 

personnel for interviews, the extent of the problems, whether original data collection and 

analysis will be required, the number and length of required observations, the number of 

analysts on the project, and the time required for writing and rewriting the report. 

It usually proves helpful for the chief judge to send a letter to involved agencies to introduce 

the project and the analyst, describe the focus and scope of the project, and solicit 

cooperation. Finally, as the project begins, the court administrator should schedule the initial 

interviews and provide the analyst with interview and office space in the courthouse, if 

possible. 

Time and budget permitting, the analyst may want to make a preliminary site visit to meet 

with the court administrator, chief judge, and other key personnel as part of completing these 

preliminary activities. During this visit, agency heads may be asked to designate 

knowledgeable individuals to be interviewed for the review.13

 

13 In many jurisdictions, felony cases originally appear in the court of limited jurisdiction. Significant case 

management and disposition opportunities occur in this court’s processing of the case. Accordingly, interviews and 

observations should be scheduled with judges and staff of this court, as well as in the superior court. The only 

exception would be a situation where the problems to be solved clearly are exclusive to the superior court. 

11
Finally, the analyst should obtain information about the court’s organization, the number and 

type of court staff, and the size and age of the incoming and pending caseloads.14 This 

information will help in final formulation of plans for the onsite portion of the review. 

Statistical reports showing filings, dispositions, and case age usually can be obtained in 

advance of the first site visit; often these preliminary statistics provide clues about issues to 

explore during the review. It also is advisable, if possible, for the analyst to obtain copies of 

relevant statutes and rules before starting the review.15 

 Stage Two – System Documentation 

Interviews Concerning the Process 

The review usually begins with interviews of knowledgeable individuals in the court and 

other criminal justice agencies to document the felony caseflow process. Those interviewed 

should include law enforcement, jail personnel, prosecutors, public and private defense 

lawyers, pretrial services personnel, probation officers, clerk’s office staff, judges, and 

courtroom staff.16 The early interviews will cover a range of facts and perceptions, but the 

analyst must be sure to document precisely how felony cases move through the criminal 

justice system. 

 

This process, known informally as “walking the track,” starts with arrest or citation and 

explores each step in the process. The analyst should determine the following for each step: 

 What agencies are involved? 

 What information is necessary to complete the activity? 

 What is its source? 

 How is it used? 

 What preparation is required of each agency for the activity? 

 What exceptions occur and how are they handled? 

 Who are key decision-makers in the process? 

 How do their decisions affect case progress? 

Early interviews most often will involve a number of individuals at the so-called “process” 

level—that is, those who know how things get done regardless of the governing policy. For 

example, the Chief of Police might say that office policy requires completion of an arrest 

report before the end of the officer’s shift, but interviews with the officers or clerical staff 

might reveal that this rarely happens because of insufficient computer terminals. 

Information about caseflow and relevant paper flow (e.g., preparation of reports, calendars, 

notices, warrants, and ticklers) should be obtained. Much of this detailed information will 

 

14 Examples of information to obtain in advance appear in Appendix A of this Guide. 

15 For a full description of this preliminary stage see Mahoney and Solomon et al., How to Conduct A Caseflow 

Management Review – Guide for Practitioners (Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts), 1992, pp. 9-

10. 

16 Techniques to assure effective interviews appears in Appendix B to this Guide. Suggested questions appear in 

Appendix C.

12
come from clerical staff. In some offices (e.g., the clerk’s office), obtaining detailed 

information will require talking with a number of individuals handling different steps in the 

process. 

These so-called “process” interviews also can yield useful clues for further investigation. For 

example, the clerk who prepares the calendar might mention that there are frequent lastminute requests from courtrooms to add or remove cases from the next day’s calendar. This 

suggests a problem with continuance policies and practices, which the analyst should note for 

discussion with the judges. 

It is recommended that at least two analysts work on a review. This reduces the time 

required for interviews. Equally important, it facilitates accurate interpretation of results. 

Two sets of eyes and ears often prove better than one set when the time for analysis and 

formulation of conclusions arrives. 

Diagram of the Process 

 

Prepare a detailed flow 

diagram of the process. 

Knowledge gaps will 

become apparent 

immediately.

“Process” information will be used by the analyst to prepare a detailed 

flow diagram depicting—step-by-step—the events, hearings, decisions, 

recordkeeping, and other activities associated with movement of felony 

cases through the criminal justice system. In short, the analyst must 

understand the process in sufficient detail to draw a picture of it! This 

is not a trivial exercise. It is a proven way to assure the analyst’s solid 

understanding of the operation and discover areas about which those in the system are 

uncertain. In preparing the diagram, knowledge gaps that require further inquiries will 

become apparent. The diagram, especially if an annotated format like that shown in 

Appendix D is used, also becomes a place to make note of important information about 

specific practices or departures from established policies that may emerge during interviews 

with judges or others. 

Instructions for constructing a process flow diagram are included in Appendix D. An 

example (depicting the lower court stage of felony caseflow) is provided to demonstrate the 

type of diagram and level of detail that is required.17 The diagram would be enhanced by 

including even more detail concerning the nature and timing of paper flow associated with 

the process. A second example is provided to demonstrate how space may be allowed on the 

diagram so the analyst can enter questions and observations beside the steps in the process. 

Review the diagram with principal staff members to verify its 

accuracy, and talk to information sources as many times as necessary 

to form an accurate picture of the process. For example, information 

obtained from one source may be inconsistent with information 

obtained from another, it may not be clear what procedure is followed 

Review the diagram 

with principle staff 

members to verify its 

accuracy.

 

17 Note that the steps and terminology shown in the sample diagram are specific to the court that prepared it and, 

accordingly, may vary somewhat from those of the jurisdiction that are the subject of the analyst’s caseflow 

management review. 

13
when events/hearings do not occur as scheduled, or the objective data from reports or special 

data collection efforts may contradict process descriptions obtained in interviews. 

Interviews to Understand Perceptions, Attitudes, and Beliefs 

 

While it seems tidy to reserve discussions of perceptions and attitudes for interviews 

scheduled specifically for that purpose, in reality perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs arise 

during interviews to document the caseflow management process. In fact, this may help put 

what has been learned about the process in perspective. 

It takes persistence 

to distinguish 

symptoms from 

underlying 

problems. 

In interpreting the perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs expressed by 

interviewees, it often takes persistence to distinguish symptoms from 

problems. For example, during an interview about docket 

management, a judge complains that court time is wasted because the 

public defender frequently fails to appear for initial hearings. When 

asked about this, the defender says he doesn’t appear because he 

doesn’t receive notice of his appointment from the clerk’s office. This leads to an interview 

with the clerk concerning noticing practices, where the analyst learns that the office places 

the appointments in the defenders mail box at the courthouse. Subsequently, the public 

defender concedes that his office staff frequently is late picking up notices. 

In exploring perceptions, 

attitudes, and beliefs, the 

analyst will learn whether 

practice matches policy.

In exploring perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs, the analyst should obtain sufficient 

information to determine whether practice matches policy18 and if 

not, why not. The court may have a written continuance policy 

requiring a showing of exceptional cause to continue a case, but 

careful interviewing may reveal that continuances are easily 

obtained. Or, the Caseflow Management Plan may specify that a 

case management conference be held within 30 days of 

arraignment, but the practice is not consistently followed. 

How do the practices of one agency affect another’s ability to operate effectively? Is the 

prosecutor aware, for example, of the impact of his method of assigning deputies to 

courtrooms on the court’s case scheduling system? Do the court and criminal justice 

agencies consult with the others before implementation of procedural changes? Do the court 

and other agencies communicate with each other at the policy level about problems and 

potential solutions or do they simply complain while taking no constructive action? 

 

18 In a recent review, the analyst was advised that the court rules required that all continuances, whether at the 

request of counsel or on the judge’s own motion, be documented in writing. In the process of examining trial 

calendars, the analyst noticed that one judge’s daily calendars far exceeded the number of cases that could be 

handled each day. She asked the judge how he handled so many cases, especially considering the small size of the 

courtroom. The judge indicated that it wasn’t a problem because most of the lawyers didn’t show up. Puzzled, the 

analyst observed that dealing with all the required written continuance requests must be a significant burden for the 

judicial assistant. “Not at all,” said the judge. “Those motions aren’t necessarily filed with me in advance. All that 

is required is that they eventually get filed in the clerk’s office and put in the file.” The analyst then asked, “Well, in 

that case, how do you know on a Monday morning how many cases you’ll be dealing with?”, to which the judge 

responded, “Oh, I just look out in the hallway and see who’s there.” 

14
To answer these and other questions, consider interviewing at least the following personnel 

in depth. (The interview guidelines in Appendix B are particularly important for these 

interviews since sensitive areas may be explored.) 

 Trial court administrator and selected staff. 

 Chief or presiding judge (Note: as a courtesy, the judge already will have been 

interviewed at the commencement of this project to discuss expectations for the outcome 

of the project). 

 Other judges of the court. Try to speak to all judges who handle felonies unless the court 

is very large. 

 Judges’ courtroom staff, especially on topics concerning case scheduling and continuance 

policies and practices; they often provide extremely important information. 

 Public defender.19

 Several deputy defenders. The option of meeting with the analyst in a group setting may 

be offered. 

 Prosecutor. 

 Chief deputy prosecutor. This person often is most knowledgeable about office policy 

and practices. 

 Several courtroom deputies. Again, they may be given the option of meeting as a group. 

 Deputy prosecutor who screens cases and makes charging decisions. 

 Sheriff and the deputy who manages the office and deputies responsible for pretrial 

detainees. 

 Chief of police and the deputy who manages the office. 

 Several private defense lawyers.20

 Clerk of court and the clerk’s office personnel. 

 Directors of pretrial services and probation. 

 

19 In some jurisdictions, indigent defense is handled by contract attorneys. 

20 Lawyers are an excellent source of information about the extent to which the court is controlling case progress. 

Usually the lawyers are candid. The analyst may be surprised by the extent to which lawyers: a) would like the 

judge to be more involved in managing case progress; b) want more reliable trial and hearing dates; c) want the 

court to enforce deadlines; and d) support the strict limitation of continuances.

15
 County administrator or the chair of the county board or commission. 

Topics the analyst should be sure to address appear in Appendix C, roughly organized 

according to interviewees and to the effective practices discussed in Section I of this Guide. 

Although this list is extensive, as a practical matter it cannot address every eventuality that 

may arise in interviews. It is left to the analyst to make the final determination of which 

questions are most appropriate for each category of interviewee and to augment the list as 

necessary. The analyst is likely to supplement the list as information emerges about existing 

problems/shortcomings and what remedies should be explored. 

Observations of Proceedings 

The analyst should 

conduct structured 

observations of activities 

that have case 

management implications.

Concurrent with conducting interviews, the analyst also should conduct (if possible) 

structured observations of certain activities, like calendar calls (if these are used) or case 

management conferences, and document what is observed. This 

not only will expand his or her understanding of the way cases 

proceed through the court and/or the level of case management 

exercised, but also will suggest productive avenues for further 

interview questions. For example, in a recent caseflow 

management review, observation of the weekly felony calendar call 

revealed that all judges of the court were required to attend the call—a practice that 

sometimes required sitting in the chief judge’s courtroom for most of the morning. 

Discussion with the court concerning the reasons for this practice resulted in the judges 

concluding that this time could be better spent on case-related activities. 

If time permits and/or if staff can be made available for collecting data through observation, 

such activity may be the only way to obtain information such as: 

 

 How many cases were scheduled daily? Of those: 

o How many announced a negotiated disposition? 

o How many were dismissed? 

o How many were continued? 

o How many defendants failed to appear and what action did the judge take? 

o How many hearings proceeded as scheduled? 

 How many lawyers failed to appear or were late and what judicial action resulted? 

 

 In how many cases was the case file or other necessary information unavailable? 

While one might assume that this information could be obtained from a review of the 

calendars or dockets, experience shows that often it is not recorded. 

 

Review of Caseflow Rules and Statutes 

It is important to know what requirements are placed on the process by local and state rules 

and by statutes. Interviewees, including judges, often cite rule-based or statutory constraints 

16
Obtain copies of rules 

and statutes governing 

procedural aspects of 

felony caseflow.

that in fact do not appear in the rules or statutes or that are 

misinterpretations of the rules or statutes. Thus, the analyst 

will find it helpful to obtain copies of rules and statutes 

governing procedural aspects of felony caseflow, particularly 

those governing (1) the time to dispose of a case, (2) time 

limits between case events, (3) the time limits for filing and disposing of motions, (4) case 

scheduling, and (5) continuances. The prosecutor’s office, the defender’s office, or court 

personnel may be able to cite the relevant rules and statutes and even provide copies. 

Otherwise, the analyst will need to do the research. 

Data Collection 

The subjective information obtained through interviews should be supplemented with 

objective data. At a minimum, the descriptive statistics listed in Appendix E of this Guide 

should be obtained. Some of these statistics will be added to the flow diagram (for example 

the usual elapsed time between key events in the process) and compared to the statutory 

times prescribed—such as a requirement that superior court arraignment occur within 30 

days of first appearance. Creativity often is necessary to find relevant statistics. The analyst 

may choose to: 

 Use statistical reports produced by court staff or the state administrative office of the 

courts. 

 Locate recent studies that may contain the required statistics. 

 Collect data from case files, calendars, dockets, or other records using specially designed 

forms. (See examples suitable for adaptation in Appendix F.) 

 Record data on specially designed forms as part of direct observations of court hearings 

and processes such as arraignments and calendar calls (if used), etc. 

The age of the pending 

caseload is an important 

measure because it can 

clearly disclose the absence 

of court supervision of case 

progress.

Since delay and the need to observe disposition time standards usually are major issues in the 

felony caseflow system, the analyst should examine delay from several perspectives. The 

measure most commonly used is the time from filing to 

disposition, usually represented by the median21 time for cases 

disposed of during a specified time period. 

An equally, or possibly more, important measure is the age of the 

currently pending caseload. The best way to portray the age of the 

pending caseload usually is in age categories measured from the 

time of filing (e.g., 0-3 months, 3-6 months) rather than by the median age. Generally, the 

age of the pending caseload is a better indicator than the age of cases at disposition when 

 

21 The median is the value that appears in the middle, when all the disposition times are listed from lowest to 

highest. Thus, unlike the “mean” or “average,” it is not influenced by extremely high or low values in the data set. 

17
evaluating the extent of case management exercised by the court.22 Two examples are 

provided below to demonstrate why that is the case: 

 In a metropolitan jurisdiction, one judge always led the bench with the shortest times 

between filing and disposition in the monthly statistical report. However, an examination 

of the age of the judge’s pending caseload revealed that he had the oldest pending cases 

in the courthouse. What was the explanation? This judge concentrated on disposing of 

newer, less complicated cases and did not periodically review the age and status of his 

total caseload. Thus, by the particular measure used in this court, he appeared to excel at 

case management. 

 When a court undertakes a delay reduction program, a major focus of the program is, 

appropriately, disposition of the old cases in the pending inventory. Ironically, if the only 

reported statistic is the “age of cases at disposition,” the program will appear to be failing 

because this statistic will show longer disposition times than before the improvement 

project started. This is simply because old cases are being terminated as planned! The 

way to demonstrate the success of a backlog reduction program for the first year or so is 

to chart the gradual decrease in the age of the pending caseload as the delay reduction 

program digs into and disposes of the backlog! 

Two other measures that demonstrate the court’s level of control of the caseflow process are: 

 

 The number of trial dates set, compared to the number of trials started. This sometimes is 

called “trial setting efficiency.” If the ratio of trial settings to trials actually started is 

high, it suggests that case screening and management could be improved. In essence, it 

shows that the court is allowing cases to “go down to the wire” before reaching the same 

disposition that could have been achieved at an earlier time through more effective 

judicial case management and lawyer preparation. 

 The percentage of scheduled hearings that are continued to a future date. This is a good 

indicator of the extent to which the court sets credible dates and holds the lawyers to 

them. Indirectly, it also is an indicator of lawyers’ expectations regarding the credibility 

of scheduled dates and the level of preparation required of them by the court. 

By the conclusion of Stage Two, the analyst will have acquired a 

solid understanding of the process and identified possible 

problems. This will allow an informed comparison of system 

performance to effective caseflow management practices. Followup interviews of key individuals about their policies, perceptions, 

attitudes, and beliefs concerning the felony caseflow process in 

the court can then be conducted effectively. 

After completing Stage 

Two, the analyst 

should have a solid 

understanding of the 

process and identified 

possible problems. 

 

22 Note that cases in which a warrant has been issued for failure to appear should be excluded from these 

calculations. 

18
 Stage Three – Analysis 

 

To this point, the analyst has been engaged primarily in documenting existing practices, 

perceptions, and attitudes. In Stage Three, the combination of objective and subjective 

information obtained will be used to do the following. 

Evaluate the Existing Felony Caseflow Management System 

The analyst will refer to the established principles and techniques of effective caseflow 

management discussed in Section I of this Guide to compare what has been learned about the 

current operation to what is known to be effective. The Analytical Check List in Appendix G 

provides a structured way to begin this comparison and facilitates identification of 

shortcomings. If justice system personnel consent to completing the same or a similar 

checklist on a strictly confidential basis, the results will provide insight into their perceptions 

about the existing system. It is useful—especially when contemplating implementation of 

changes—to be aware of these views and the extent to which perceptions vary across the 

organizations. 

Highlight the reasons 

for and consequences 

of departures from 

the effective practices 

identified in Section I 

of the Guide.

In comparing the existing practices to those in Section I, the analyst 

should not only make note of departures from effective practices, but 

also should highlight the reasons for and consequences of these 

departures. A finding such as “Felony cases experience substantial 

delay in reaching disposition” by itself is not helpful. What is the 

extent of the delays? What are the practices that contribute to the 

delays? If a problem of consistently late arrest reports is documented, 

why are they late? What problems are caused by tardy transmission of arrest reports? This 

type of analysis will substantiate the findings presented in the final report and provide an 

informed basis for recommendations. 

Compare Actual Practices to What Those in the System Think is Occurring 

This is an important comparison because the court and other agencies are unlikely to be 

interested in pursuing possible changes until they have an accurate perception of the current 

situation and the extent of the problems. For example, in one court the project team asked 

permission to document continuance practices by observing and tabulating the results of the 

daily criminal master calendar call over an extended period of time. The presiding judge 

consented but commented that the team would not have much to record because he “only 

continued cases ‘for good cause shown’.” At the conclusion of the observation period, the 

judge was surprised to learn that the team had documented a continuance rate of 75 percent

of scheduled cases. 

Frequently, judges advance as the reason they do not actively supervise case progress the fact

that lawyers oppose judicial involvement in their cases. In most caseflow management 

reviews, however, analysts learn from the lawyers they interview that reality is just the 

reverse. Most lawyers welcome active judicial involvement in the form of meaningful case 

management conferences, deadlines for completion of steps in the case, and court limitation 

19
of continuances—as long as policies are consistent throughout the court and all lawyers are 

treated fairly. Presenting this information to the court addresses the misperception and can 

be instrumental in changing the approach to case management. 

Differentiate between “Symptoms” and Underlying “Problems” 

Those in the 

system may 

confuse cause 

and effect.

The ability of the analyst to think critically is especially important 

here. When interviewees provide their perceptions of the current 

felony caseflow management process, their perceptions may, in 

actuality, be descriptions of the effects of underlying problems. It is 

the analyst’s job to sift through the information obtained in the 

caseflow management review to determine the underlying causes of the perceived problems. 

For example, a commonly cited issue is pretrial jail overcrowding—a problem usually 

ascribed to the size of the jail. However, if it turns out that the prosecutor usually takes 60 

days to make a charging decision or it takes a year to dispose of a significant number of 

cases, it becomes clear that the size of the jail is not the sole cause of overcrowding. 

A common complaint from judges is that the prosecution or defense is not ready to dispose of 

the case by guilty plea on the date set for that purpose. The analyst’s challenge is to 

determine, based on the information that he or she will obtain, why this is the case and what 

remedies may be suggested. Are there communication problems between the prosecutor and 

defender offices? Does the court fail to confer with counsel in setting deadlines for 

disposition negotiations? Does the court routinely continue the case to a future date when the 

lawyers are not prepared? In examining what must be accomplished in order for both sides 

to be prepared to dispose of the case, the analyst should be able to recommend remedies 

concerning policy or procedure (or both) that will ensure that the activities for which dates 

are set will occur as scheduled. 

Assess the Organization’s Willingness to Undertake Changes 

The scope of 

recommendations 

may be tempered 

by the analyst’s 

perceptions of 

readiness for 

change. 

During interviews, the analyst will begin to identify individuals or 

agencies who are genuinely interested in pursuing the possibility of 

improvement and those who seem content to maintain the status quo. 

This will be based in part on views expressed during interviews, the 

history of change efforts in the jurisdiction, and the analyst’s 

understanding of the “local legal culture” mentioned later in this 

Guide. Getting an understanding of the organization’s readiness for 

change is very useful information. The scope of the analyst’s 

recommendations may be tempered by his or her perception of the organization’s receptivity 

and readiness for change. The type of planning structure recommended in the final report 

also may be influenced by this assessment. 

 Stage Four – Formulation of Conclusions and Recommendations 

It is time to put findings, conclusions, and recommendations resulting from the foregoing 

documentation and analysis into a report. As a result of discussions during the review, some 

20
key personnel already may have a sense of what conclusions are emerging. In fact, 

sometimes during the review it is helpful and appropriate to review conclusions and ideas 

preliminarily with interested judges and staff. This allows testing of reactions and provides 

some insight into the likelihood of implementing change successfully. 

Report preparation is a very time-consuming activity. 23 Drafting, redrafting, editing, and 

waiting for clarity and accuracy reviews by the court can easily take as much time as the 

onsite portion of the project. For that reason, especially when the budget for the review is of 

concern, it may be appropriate and agreeable to all involved for the report to be submitted in 

memorandum form rather than as a polished report. Sometimes all parties may agree that an 

oral report, accompanied by a list of “bullet points,” will suffice. Be sure to reach agreement 

regarding the format before starting the review. 

It is important 

to avoid 

surprises in 

the report!

It is important to avoid surprises in the report! Once the report is 

drafted—but before submitting it—discuss the conclusions and 

suggestions with the court and, possibly, with representatives of the other 

agencies. It is advisable to ask certain personnel (e.g., the court 

administrator and chief judge) to review the draft for accuracy and 

clarity. It is unlikely that these discussions/reviews will result in substantive changes, but 

reviewing findings and recommendations with key personnel is a courtesy, can help avoid 

errors of interpretation or fact, and can facilitate implementation activities that may follow. 

The analyst may suggest that a systemwide meeting be convened by the court for the purpose 

of discussing the report’s observations and suggestions and attempting to reach consensus on 

what action should be taken. This would be particularly appropriate if major system changes 

have been recommended in the report. Ideally, the outcome of such a meeting would be an 

action plan leading to implementation of an improved system.24

A suggested organization for the project report or memorandum is presented below. It is 

drawn in part from Improving Your Jurisdiction’s Felony Process25 and from project reports 

prepared by the author. 

 

 Introduction. A few paragraphs describing the review’s background and purpose, who 

conducted the review, the expectations for its usefulness to the criminal justice 

community, thanks to those who assisted/cooperated with the review, and the 

organization of the body of the report. 

 Executive Summary. One or two pages summarizing the principal findings, 

conclusions, and recommendations 

 

23 Preparation of a comprehensive report can take as long as a month. 24 For a description of this process, see Solomon, Maureen, Improving Criminal Caseflow (Washington, DC: Bureau 

of Justice Assistance (BJA) Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project, American University), October 2008, pp. 

3-4. 

25 Mahoney, Barry and Hoffman, Richard et al., Improving Your Jurisdiction’s Felony Caseflow Process (Denver, 

CO: The Justice Management Institute), April 2000.

21
 Established Practices for Effective Felony Caseflow Management. This section 

would be similar to Section I of this Guide, properly footnoted. 

 Highlights of the Current Operation, Caseload Trends, and the Extent of Delay. A 

brief summary of the existing process is appropriate, supplemented by key statistics. 

The level of detail in this section will be guided by the knowledge level of the intended 

audience. If the report will be limited to personnel of the court and other agencies, less 

detail is needed than if a broader distribution (e.g., to the county commissioners or 

legislature) is anticipated. 

 Analysis of the Existing System and Practices. This may be the most extensive 

section in the report. Here the analyst will present perceived strengths and weaknesses 

and explain the benefits of considering alternative approaches. Care should be taken to 

avoid presenting this information in a negative manner. 

 Recommendations. Here the analyst presents specific proposals to improve the 

process. The tone should be positive, highlighting the potential benefits of the proposed 

changes. Rarely will the analyst present a completed system redesign recommended for 

implementation because the best final product will result from a collaborative effort 

involving all concerned agencies.26

 

26 An exception might be a recommendation that concerns mechanical or procedural processes, such as a protocol 

for judge rotation or a case assignment system. In this instance, after completing interviews to determine the needs 

to be met by the system, the analyst appropriately could present a design that the court and affected criminal justice 

agencies then could review and modify before finalization.

22
CONCLUDING COMMENTS

t is important to keep in mind that, while a felony caseflow management review may be 

initiated by the court, the fact that the review usually is conducted by “outsiders” (e.g., 

caseflow management consultants or staff of the state’s administrative office of the courts) 

may create tension in the early stages of the review. Such tension is even more likely if there is a 

perception that the “outsiders” have been brought or sent in to conduct the equivalent of an 

“audit.”27

I

The so-called “outsiders” will increase their chances of building rapport with court staff, judges, 

and representatives of other agencies by acknowledging the following: 

 Representatives of the court and criminal justice agencies need assurance that a caseflow 

management review is not a personnel or performance audit. It is an opportunity for the 

analyst and stakeholders, jointly, to take an objective view of current operations and 

determine whether improvements are possible. 

 Staff members who will be contacted during the review are the “experts” about their own 

jobs. The analyst never will understand the details of the existing system as well as those 

who have worked with it for years. Therefore, the analyst needs to make clear that he or she 

will be grateful for interviewees’ candid responses and explanations of current processes. 

 The staffs of the court and other agencies often have a fairly accurate notion of what 

problems exist and what has caused those problems.28 Even though some of these 

perceptions eventually may prove incorrect, the analyst should be open to exploring them. 

 The reality is that, however dysfunctional the process under study may appear, it is one with 

which the people in the system have become reasonably comfortable even though they may 

acknowledge its shortcomings. This is a common reason that suggestions for change are 

resisted. 

 To increase the probability that suggestions will be given full consideration, the analyst must 

understand the “local legal culture”29 and local norms that will affect people’s understanding 

and acceptance of the analyst’s recommendations. 

 

27 One judge referred to the consultants throughout a project as the “D. O.s” (Dreaded Outsiders). 28 In an extensive caseflow management review, about 3 months after the analysts had started studying the Criminal 

Assignment Court, the Assignment Clerk met the consultants in the hallway and motioned for them to follow him. 

In his office he produced, from the back of the bottom drawer of his file cabinet, 3 years’ worth of statistics on the 

operation of the Assignment Court. When asked whether he had shown these to the chief judge he said, “No. I have 

been waiting for the right people to show them to.” 

29 See Church, Thomas and Carlson, Alan, et al., Justice Delayed (Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State 

Courts), 1978, pg. 54.

23
APPENDIX A

FELONY CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT REVIEW 

PRELIMINARY INFORMATION SHEET 

(to be completed before beginning the review)

I. General Information

A. Court Name and Address: 

B. County(ies) Served by this Court: 

 

C. Names, Phone Numbers and E-mail Addresses: 

 Chief/Presiding Judge: 

 Criminal Presiding Judge, if different from above: 

 Court Administrator: 

 Clerk of Court: 

 District/State’s Attorney: 

 Public Defender: 

 Sheriff: 

24
 Chief of Police: 

 Other: 

II. Organizational Information

A. Number of judges in this court: ____ 

B. How are judges selected? 

C. What is the length of a judge’s term? ___________ 

D. Do judges handle Mixed dockets? or  Specialized dockets (e.g., only 

 criminal)? 

E. Cases are assigned to judges on:  A master calendar system. 

  An individual calendar system. 

  Mixed or general dockets. 

F. Is any form of differentiated case management used for criminal cases? _____ 

 If so, please describe: 

G. What is the method for selecting the chief or presiding judge? 

H. How long is the term? ______________________ 

I. Is the term renewable?  Yes  No 

J. Where is the current chief/presiding judge in his/her term? 

25
K. What is the method for selecting the prosecutor? 

L. What is the prosecutor’s term of office? 

M. What is the method for selecting the public defender? 

N. What is the defender’s term? 

O. If there is no public defender, how is indigent defense handled? 

P. If another defense organization handles conflict cases, describe: 

Q. What courtroom staff are assigned to a judge? 

R. Are prosecutors assigned to a courtroom for a period of time? Specify: 

S. Are defenders assigned to a courtroom for a period of time? Specify: 

T. What statutory time standards or local rules apply to felony cases? Cite and provide 

 copies if possible. 

26
27

III. Purpose of Caseflow Management Review

A. Felony caseflow management review was requested by:____________________ 

B. Problems identified by requestor: _______________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

C. Desired outcomes for this review: ______________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

IV. Attach the Court’s Felony Caseflow Management Plan and Continuance 

Policy, If Any.

V. If Available, Attach Statistical Reports Concerning Felony Filings and 

Dispositions, the Pending Caseload, and Numbers of Trials Started and 

Concluded.
APPENDIX B

USING INTERVIEWS EFFECTIVELY

Guidance to assure that interviews yield the desired results is presented here. Effective 

interviews are planned in advance and observe some basic rules. This is true whether 

it is the staff of the clerk’s office or the district attorney who is being interviewed. 

Effective interviews elicit the required information concerning existing policies, practices, 

and procedures. At the same time they yield a sense of how the organization functions 

as a whole and are a window into the attitudes of interviewees. For example: 

 What are the relationships between key personnel (e.g., between the chief judge 

and the public defender or between the chief deputy prosecutor and courtroom 

deputies)? 

 Who believes there are problems in the system? 

 What do they think the problems are? 

 What goals and aspirations are expressed by interviewees? 

 Who seems interested in exploring change? 

 Who seems content to maintain the status quo? 

 Who are the de facto leaders in the organizations? 

In short, while conducting initial interviews to document the existing system, the analyst 

should be tuned into perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs that may explain why the system 

operates as it does and that may affect the prognosis for successfully implementing 

change. 

 

To get the most from interviews, certain pitfalls—many of which occur all too often and 

threaten the effectiveness of the interview—should be avoided. 

 

Pitfalls to Avoid

1. Failure to prepare for the interview. Be sure to (a) know specifically what 

information is desired and (b) formulate questions in advance. Otherwise, the 

necessary information may not be obtained. 

2. Failure to assure the interviewee of confidentiality or to follow through 

on that promise. 

3. Talking too much and listening too little. The purpose of the interview is to 

obtain information, not to demonstrate the interviewer’s knowledge of the 

subject. It is not possible to obtain information while talking! As a general 

rule, the interviewer should limit her comments to those necessary to assure 

a full exploration of the subject matter. 

4. Conveying bias, or the answer that is desired, by the way the question 

is phrased. An interviewer should be neutral. The interviewer must create 

28
an atmosphere in which the interviewee feels comfortable offering candid 

views. 

5. Asking questions of interviewees who could not reasonably be 

expected to have the information. For example, don’t ask a judge what the 

district attorney thinks about differentiated case management. To find out 

what the district attorney thinks, ask the district attorney. 

6. Telling the interviewee what others have said. This is the fast track to a 

failed interview. Why would this interviewee believe a promise of 

confidentiality when the interviewer relates what others have said? Further, 

integrity is sacrificed, and the trust of previous interviewees, is violated by 

“carrying tales.” 

7. Failure to write up the interview notes within a few days. Unless one has 

an incredible memory, the meaning of possibly cryptic interview notes fades 

rapidly. 

Suggestions for Effective Interviews

An interview is a very short period of time in which to build some trust and obtain candid 

responses to questions. Keeping the following in mind will help: 

1. Schedule the interview for a specific length of time—usually not more than 45 

minutes—and arrive on time. Follow-up interviews can be scheduled if 

needed. However, if the interviewee expresses the desire to continue past the 

scheduled time, do so unless it conflicts with other interviews already 

scheduled. 

2. Accommodate the interviewee’s schedule when at all possible; it often is 

necessary to be available before court starts or at the end of the day when 

scheduling interviews with judges. Generally, luncheon interviews are not 

very productive, and it is difficult to take notes. 

3. At the beginning of the interview, inquire about whether the interviewee 

understands the purpose of the interview and why he or she was selected. If 

not, explain why and answer any questions. 

4. Assure the interviewee that views and opinions expressed will be kept in 

confidence and only shared with other members of the project team. For a 

representative of the state Administrative Office of the Courts, this can be 

tricky. Give serious thought to what specific statements are appropriate for 

sharing. 

5. Keep questions short, clear, and relevant to the subject matter of the 

interview. 

29
6. Match questions to the information level of the respondent unless the limit of 

the respondent's knowledge, expertise, or experience is being tested. 

Generally, a good rule is to ask questions for which there is good reason to 

believe that the respondent has the information. 

7. For facts, go to the source. For example, a judge can describe his or her own 

practices with respect to trial scheduling, but is not a good source for the 

practices of the judge in the courtroom next door. Also, keep in mind that 

what the interviewee thinks is a ‘fact” may not be a “fact’. Often, it is wise to 

verify information through data collection if it is germane to the focus of the 

review. 

8. Don’t ask interviewees to speculate about what others think unless there is a 

specific purpose for doing so. For example, one might ask for speculation in 

an attempt to assess the level of the interviewee’s understanding of the views 

of others, but this is rarely applicable. 

9. Maintain neutrality and avoid bias, even with facial expressions. The purpose 

of the interview is to obtain information from the interviewee, not to convey 

personal views or values. Doing so may discourage a candid response. For 

example, don’t ask, “You wouldn’t leave case scheduling to the district 

attorney, would you?” 

10. Indicate that any response from among the range of possible responses is 

acceptable. For example, “Some lawyers find the Assignment and 

Scheduling Notice helpful in setting up their own tickler system; others say it 

is just another annoying piece of paper. What's your view?" 

11. Convey that it's okay if the interviewee doesn’t know the answer to a 

question. Otherwise, the respondent may offer a guess just to please the 

interviewer. For example, "Do you happen to know the percent of your 

scheduled cases that are continued on the trial date? If not, I can check with 

the clerk’s office." 

12. Avoid leading questions like, "Isn't Differentiated Case Management just the 

same old system in a new wrapper?" 

13. Limit each question to a single issue, idea or question. For example, don't 

ask, "Are the DCM Track Information Statements useful, and how often do 

you allow lawyers to waive completion of them?" Instead, ask two separate 

questions. 

14. If seeking specific information, don't ask a general question like, "How do you 

feel about DCM?" Instead, ask something like, “What are the major 

strengths, if any, of DCM?” and follow up with, “Are there any weaknesses 

with such an approach?” 

30
15. Avoid acronyms. For example, refer to forms, notices, and organizations by 

their name, not their initials, unless the initials are commonly used in the 

criminal justice community. 

16. Don’t let the interviewee deflect questions or derail the purpose of the 

interview by turning the question back to the interviewer. Get back on track 

with statements such as, “I’d be glad to talk to you about that later, but right 

now it’s important to get your views...” or, “I’m more interested in hearing your 

opinion.” 

Probing: When, Why, and How

Use probing to clarify, motivate, or control the direction of the interview. This is a good 

skill to cultivate. In spite of care in wording interview questions, responses often are 

unclear or incomplete or there is sometimes reticence to respond to a question. Usually 

the need to probe will arise in an interview concerned with perceptions and attitudes. 

The interviewer wants to be sure to understand the responses and ensure that the 

interviewee has provided a full and complete response. 

 

If it is necessary to ask questions that may elicit only a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, be ready 

with a follow-up question to obtain a more complete and richer response. Usually, 

something like, “Could you tell me a little more about that?” or “What leads you to that 

conclusion?” will work. If the interviewee deflects that question as well, move on. The 

topic clearly is off limits as far as the interviewee is concerned. 

Techniques to assure a complete response include: 

 Using brief encouraging comments to indicate understanding, acceptance 

(Note: acceptance is not the same as agreement), and interest to keep the 

interview rolling. For example, "Uh huh," "I see," or "Tell me more about that" 

are helpful. 

 Summarizing or reflecting to help assure understanding of what the 

respondent has said, and at the same time encourage further response. For 

example, "So, on balance you feel there has been no change in the timeliness 

of discovery completion under DCM?" If the interviewee believes he or she 

has been misunderstood, this provides a chance to clarify. 

 Employing well-timed pauses to encourage a further response. The 

interviewer waits patiently and attentively after the first response without 

saying anything. Usually the silence will encourage further comments from 

the interviewee, especially if there are sensitive issues involved. 

 Neutral probes help clarify without introducing bias. For example: "I'm not 

sure I understand.", "Could you tell me a little more about that?", "Could you 

elaborate?", or "For example?" can help move the discussion along. 

31
32

 Hypothetical questions can elicit more specific responses. For example: 

“Well, what would your response be, for example, if a lawyer...?” Sometimes 

even somewhat argumentative questions are acceptable as in: “Don’t the 

criminal Rules specify that requests for continuance must be in writing?” Or, 

“Wouldn’t that be contrary to the ABA standards?” But, generally, a gentler 

approach is better: For example: “Hmmm...I thought I read somewhere in 

the Rules that requests for continuance must be in writing. Did I misinterpret 

that?” 
APPENDIX C

INFORMATION TO OBTAIN THROUGH INTERVIEW30, 31

 

Information Relating to Leadership in the Felony Caseflow Management System

Most of these issues should be explored first with the chief judge. Later, the same or 

similar issues should be explored in interviews with the prosecutor and public defender 

(and possibly other agency heads) and also with trial judges to allow comparisons of the 

perceptions and attitudes of the leaders in these key agencies in the system. It is highly 

likely that the discussions of these types of issues will surface both the viewpoint and 

knowledge of the interviewee about the system, as well as the interviewees’ perceptions 

of and attitudes toward other criminal justice agencies. 

1. What problems, if any, are you currently experiencing with felony caseflow? 

2. Is delay in felony case disposition a problem here? (Ask if not mentioned in 

response to question 1 above.) 

3. If so, what is the principal cause of delay? 

4. What is the time goal for disposition of most felony cases (recognizing that 

 there are always exceptional cases)? 

5. Is the court meeting this goal? 

6. What are the most significant impediments, if any, to the timely disposition of 

 felony cases? 

7. What do you believe are the causes of these impediments? 

8. What remedies have been attempted to date, and with what results? 

9. Are there problems with felony caseflow other than delay issues? 

10. What is the mechanism by which the court communicates with other key 

criminal justice agencies about these problems? 

11. What is the role of the chief judge in interagency communication about these 

 or other caseflow problems? 

12. In your view, what could be done to improve felony caseflow? 

13. Have there been any special backlog reduction programs? What were the 

 results? 

14. Are any significant changes to the caseflow system contemplated? 

15. What is the role of the chief judge with respect to felony caseflow 

management policy in the court? 

16. Should the chief judge do more, less, or the same in this regard? 

17. Does the chief judge communicate with individual judges concerning their 

 dockets/the age of their cases? 

18. Why or why not? What is appropriate and why? 

19. How often are judges’ meetings held? 

 

30 For an expanded list of potential interview questions, see Mahoney, Barry and Hoffman, Richard et al.,

Improving Your Jurisdiction’s Felony Caseflow Process (Denver, CO: The Justice Management Institute), 

June 2000, Appendix B, pg. 28. 

31 Note that the analyst may decide that it would be wise not to ask some of these questions in as direct a 

manner as they are stated here. The same information may be obtained more indirectly or by inference. 

33
20. Who is invited? 

21. Who usually attends? 

22. Is there an agenda for the meetings? 

23. What typically would be on the meeting agenda? (Get samples of agendas if 

 possible.) 

24. What reports are received, and on what schedule, concerning the age and 

 size of the pending felony caseload? 

25. How are they used? 

26. To what extent are you concerned about the current time to disposition? 

27. If you know, how many felony cases are currently pending? 

28. How old are they? 

29. If you know, what percentage of cases is disposed of by trial? 

30. Ideally, what should be the role of the assigned judge in supervising the 

 progress of felony cases? 

31. What would be the characteristics or attributes of an ideal caseflow 

 management system? 

Procedural Information

The following list concerns procedural information that is needed to understand the 

felony caseflow process and begin analysis. It will be provided by a variety of sources, 

which means that preparation for interviews will require reviewing this list and deciding 

which questions to ask of a particular interviewee. Consideration should be given to 

who would be the best source on each issue and whether certain questions should be 

asked of several different sources to test accuracy and assess interviewees’ levels of 

understanding. 

1. How long after arrest or citation is the police report completed? 

2. To whom is it sent? 

3. When is the police report, or a redacted version, provided to defense 

counsel? 

4. When does the first appearance/advisement occur? 

5. Is counsel always present at this hearing? 

6. What is the process for notifying defense counsel of assignment to a case? 

7. When does this occur? 

8. Who is responsible? 

9. When does counsel interview the defendant? 

10. Does the same lawyer remain with the case until disposition? 

11. How is eligibility for appointment of public defense established? 

12. When does this occur? 

13. When is the preliminary hearing held (if used)? 

14. How often is preliminary hearing waived? 

15. What dispositions occur at this stage? 

16. How are they processed (e,g., sentenced by lower court judge, if guilty plea)? 

17. What is the process? 

18. When and how is the case assigned to a superior court judge? 

34
19. When is the first superior court hearing date set, and what type of event is it? 

20. Who selects the date? 

21. How is the defendant notified? 

22. How is the arrest/incident report transmitted to the prosecutor’s office? 

23. What happens when it arrives at the prosecutor’s office? 

24. Describe the process for screening the case and making a charging decision: 

a) Is there a single charging desk, or are cases screened by the deputies 

to whom they are assigned? 

b) If a single charging deputy, what are the qualifications for this position? 

c) Does this responsibility rotate? If so, describe. 

d) How much time usually elapses between receipt of the report and the 

decision? 

e) Is this time interval governed by statute? Rule? Custom? Nothing? 

f) To whom is the charging decision provided? And how? 

25. How soon is the information filed? (If a grand jury jurisdiction, describe that 

process.) 

26. What happens at superior court arraignment? 

27. Who is present? 

28. What future dates are set, if any? 

29. When is the police report (and other discovery) provided to the defense? 

a) Prior to superior court arraignment? 

b) At superior court arraignment? 

c) After superior court arraignment? If so, how long after? 

d) What problems, if any, exist in defense receipt of discovery? 

30. When is defense disclosure provided to the prosecution? 

31. What problems, if any, exist with this process? 

32. What is the first court appearance of a management nature (e.g., case 

management conference, status conference, motions hearing)? 

33. For the steps in the process covered up to this point, what are the goals, 

rules, and/or statutes governing the following:32

a) Arrest/citation to filing of information or indictment. 

b) Arrest to initial court appearance. 

c) Initial court appearance to filing of information or indictment. 

d) Arrest/citation to appointment of counsel. 

e) Prosecutor’s disclosure to defense. 

f) Prosecutor’s first disposition offer to defense. 

g) Defense response to offer. 

34. Which of these, if any, are cited as points of delay? 

35. Is there a standard practice in the court regarding when pretrial motions are 

 filed and heard? Describe. 

36. If each judge follows a unique practice in scheduling motions, obtain this 

information from each judge. 

37. What statutes or rules, if any, govern the timing of scheduling motions? 

 

32 See Mahoney, Barry and Hoffman, Richard et al., Improving Your Jurisdiction’s Felony Caseflow 

Process (Denver, CO: The Justice Management Institute), June 2000. 

.

35
38. Are pre-sentence reports usually requested? 

39. When are pre-sentence investigations initiated? 

40. How long does it take, usually, to provide the pre-sentence report? 

41. What are the paperwork and recordkeeping processes in the clerk’s office 

when trials or hearings are continued? 

Information about Judicial Case Management Procedures

The following information will come largely from interviews with judges because it 

concerns policies and practices for case scheduling, continuances, motions practice, 

and similar topics. Nevertheless, some of these same areas should be explored in 

interviews with the private lawyers, deputy public defenders, and deputy prosecutors 

who practice in the courtrooms. Their perspectives may differ from those of the judges. 

If the court operates a master assignment system rather than an individual docket 

system, it will be necessary to allocate questions/issues between the master calendar 

judge and trial judges, as appropriate. 

1. Could you briefly walk us through the felony caseflow process in your 

courtroom from the first time a case appears on your docket?33

2. What is your first intervention/hearing in the case of a management nature? 

3. What activities of a case management nature occur at this point? 

4. What future dates, if any, are set for a case at the conclusion of a hearing? 

5. About how far in the future are these dates? 

6. Do cases always have a future action date assigned for a specific purpose? 

7. Please provide a few examples of the types of dates that are assigned. 

8. If not covered above, when are trial dates assigned in a case? 

9. Who sets the trial date? 

10. Are lawyers consulted when dates are being set? 

11. Are the dates set in open court, or are they set later and lawyers notified? 

12. If set later, please describe the notification process. 

13. About how many cases are set on the same day or same week? 

14. How likely is it that a case will be tried on the first scheduled date? 

15. What arrangements are made to avoid continuances if too many trials are 

ready to go on the same trial date? 

16. What is the usual trial length? 

17. What proportion of trials are jury? Non-jury? 

18. What is the process for obtaining a continuance of a scheduled hearing? 

a) How far in advance must it be requested? 

b) Is a reason required? 

c) In what form must the request be? Oral? Written? By telephone? 

d) Who decides the request? 

e) What are considered adequate grounds? 

f) If this varies, can you give us some examples? 

g) What tends to be the most common reason given for a continuance? 

 

33 Note that in courts where a master calendar, rather than an individual docket, system is used, this and 

related questions will need to be tailored to the situation. 

36
h) How far in the future, usually, is the new date set? 

i) If the answers to the above vary between trial settings and other 

hearings, please describe the differences. 

j) Do you have a limit beyond which you will not grant a request (e.g., 

number of previous requests or elapsed time since filing)? 

19. Is any form of differentiated case management used? 

20. If so, please describe the screening process, criteria, and the “tracks” to 

which cases are assigned. 

21. Do you encounter any delays associated with exchange of discovery? 

22. If so, please describe. 

23. Is a plea “cutoff” policy imposed by the court? By the prosecutor? 

24. When is this “cutoff” in relation to other case events? 

25. Is the “cutoff” enforced? 

26. What is the consequence, if any, of a plea not being entered by the “cutoff” 

date? 

27. Do you hold a pretrial conference? 

28. If so, when (in relation to the scheduled trial date) is it held? 

29. What happens at this conference? 

30. What preparation is required of the lawyers? 

31. Are lawyers required to estimate how much more time will be required to 

reach a disposition? 

32. Is this a form of trial management conference? 

33. When are motions scheduled? 

34. What are the processes for requesting and scheduling a motions hearing? 

35. What time limits apply to filing, responding to, and scheduling a motions 

hearing? 

36. What staff are assigned to the courtroom? 

37. How long are these assignments (e.g., 6 months? 1 year? Indefinite?) 

38. Is delay a problem in felony cases? 

39. Could you briefly describe how your workload is distributed throughout a 

week’s calendar (e.g., motions on Monday morning, trials start Tuesday, 

etc.)? 

40. Do you happen to have any statistics concerning delay? Size of your 

caseload? Number of cases currently pending? Number of trials started in a 

month? A year? If so, how do you use them? 

41. Are there generally any problems with the sentencing process, including presentence reports? 

42. Are there any problems in the area of probation revocations? 

43. In your view are there issues in either the prosecutor’s office or the public 

defender’s office that have a negative impact on felony caseflow? 

44. In particular, are lawyer scheduling conflicts a problem? 

45. Is there anything else you think we should know about felony caseflow in this 

court? 

37
Information Relevant to the Offices of the Public Defender and Prosecutor

Many of the same questions discussed with judges also will be appropriate for the 

offices of the public defender and prosecutor. It is wise to determine who are the best 

people to speak with in each office. Sometimes, only a courtesy call is needed for the 

head of the office. During this visit, a general discussion of perceived problems with the 

existing felony caseflow management system can be held. The prosecutor or defender 

may be asked about any initiatives recently instituted or contemplated that may affect 

felony caseflow. 

It is appropriate to ask (with an assurance of confidentiality) certain questions about 

perceptions of the extent of leadership exercised by the court and the relationships 

among criminal justice agencies in the jurisdiction. Views on such sensitive topics as 

the diligence or qualifications of individual judges may emerge spontaneously in these 

interviews; otherwise, as a general rule, the analyst should not raise these topics. 

In conducting interviews with lawyers in these offices, it is important to be alert to 

contradictions that may occur in the descriptions of practices between the two offices. 

For example, deputy prosecutors may say that the disposition offer does not get better 

over time, while defense counsel may say they delay disposition as long as possible to 

get a better offer. This presents a fruitful avenue for further exploration. 

Usually, after a brief visit with the prosecutor or defender, his or her advice and 

agreement should be sought concerning which deputies will be interviewed as part of 

this project. At a minimum, the analyst will want to talk to the personnel who screen and 

charge felonies, as well as the courtroom deputies who handle them. 

Deputy Prosecutors

1. What problems, if any, are you currently experiencing with felony caseflow? 

2. Describe the process for screening cases to determine whether information 

will be filed. 

3. How long does it usually take to make the charging decision after the police 

report is received? 

4. What influences the time required? 

5. What is your assessment of the quality of police reports? 

6. How and when is a case assigned to a courtroom deputy? 

7. Is this a permanent assignment or only for purposes of the first superior court 

appearance? 

8. If only for the arraignment, describe the process for assigning a case to a 

“trial deputy.” 

9. Does the system of assigning cases to deputies and/or assigning cases to 

judges cause any scheduling conflicts? Other problems? 

10. What problems, if any, are encountered in connection with interviewing the 

defendant or witnesses? 

11. When is a disposition offer transmitted to defense counsel? Before 

38
arraignment? At arraignment? After? How long after? 

12. If before arraignment, how do you identify defense counsel in the case? 

13. How is the offer transmitted? 

14. Is a time limit for response established? 

15. Do you establish a plea “cutoff” date? 

16. Describe how this works in practice. 

17. Do prosecution and defense confer in person? By telephone? By E-mail? 

18. Describe problems, if any, in making arrangements for plea negotiations. 

19. How soon after being assigned the case do you have a pretty solid idea of 

what outcome is likely in the case or whether a trial will be required? 

20. How likely is it that the offer will improve as time passes? 

21. Tell us more about that. 

22. In your view, is the judge actively involved in assuring cases progress toward 

disposition? 

23. In your view, is this appropriate? Why? Why not? 

24. Do you believe the judge could play a more active role? 

25. If so, please describe. 

26. How often do hearings proceed as scheduled and achieve the result for 

which they were scheduled? 

27. When a trial date is assigned, what is your expectation about whether the 

trial will start on that date? Explain. 

28. In your view, are there any issues concerning motions practice? 

29. How much of your time would you say is occupied just waiting around? 

Explain. 

30. Do you think delay is a problem in felony cases? 

31. If so, what are the causes of delay? 

32. What do you think would improve the process? 

33. In your opinion, what would characterize an ideal caseflow management 

system? 

Deputy Defenders, Contract Attorneys, or Private Counsel

Most of the process questions listed for the prosecutors can be used in interviews of 

defenders. It can be particularly instructive to ask all interviewees to describe their 

vision of the ideal caseflow management system (as in question 33, just above). 

Usually, the responses of all groups are very similar, but as indicated above perceptions 

may differ, and these differences should be probed. 

Important questions specific to the defense are: 

1. When are you notified of assignment to a case (or if private counsel, when 

are you contacted by the client)? 

2. What is the notification process? 

3. Are there any problems with the notification process? 

4. How soon after notification do you interview the defendant? 

39
5. Are there any problems associated with obtaining access to your client for 

interviews, either initial or subsequent? If so, please describe. 

6. Is your assignment permanent or only for purposes of the first hearing? 

7. See prosecutor’s list for additional questions related to this topic. 

8. Roughly how early, in most cases, do you have a reasonably good idea of 

what the outcome will be or whether a trial will be needed? 

Court or District Administrator

1. What problems, if any, are you currently experiencing with felony caseflow? 

2. What problems, if any, currently exist with felony caseflow management? 

3. Does the court have explicit goals concerning felony caseflow? 

4. To what extent does the chief judge exercise a leadership role in the court? 

5. Could you give us some examples of the exercise of leadership? 

6. In your view, are the judges committed to the concept of court responsibility 

for supervising case progress? 

7. How would you characterize the relationship among the judges in the court? 

8. How would you characterize the relationship between the court and the 

prosecutor? The defender? The defense bar? 

9. In your view, is delay a problem in felony caseflow? 

10. If so, what are the causes of delay? 

11. How do you define “backlog”? 

12. Is there a currently “backlog” of felony cases? 

13. Are there any other problems with felony caseflow? 

14. Do the judges hold regular judges’ meetings? 

15. If so, who sets the agenda? Is it written? 

16. How frequently are the size and age of the pending caseloads discussed at 

the meetings? 

17. Are minutes of the meeting produced and distributed? 

18. If so, by whom? 

19. What statistical reports are produced on a regular basis? 

20. Are they distributed to the judges? 

21. Are there any accountability mechanisms in the court (e.g., reports ranking 

the judges by age of their pending caseloads)? 

22. Are there any “sanctions” for poor management of a caseload? 

23. What rewards exist, if any, for achieving disposition time goals or for 

minimizing the age of a judge’s pending caseload? 

24. Do specialty or “problemsolving” courts exist in this jurisdiction? 

25. If so, describe their organization and operation. 

26. What is the nature of the court’s management of cases on these dockets 

(e.g., does the court track the status of cases)? 

27. Are management/statistical reports prepared concerning these dockets? 

40
41

Law Enforcement34

1. Describe the booking process for a felony defendant. 

2. Who prepares the arrest report? 

3. Is this a handwritten report? Typed? Entered on the computer? 

4. How much time elapses between arrest and completion of the report? 

5. What problems, if any, are encountered in preparation of the report? 

6. What materials are transmitted to the prosecutor in addition to the arrest 

report? 

7. How and when are these materials transmitted? 

8. What types of communication do you have with the prosecutors after 

submitting the report? For example, concerning the charging decision? 

Further investigation? 

9. How often is it necessary to do further investigation prior to charging? 

10. How often is it necessary to rewrite the arrest report? 

11. How do you receive notice of court dates at which an officer is expected to 

appear? 

12. Are there any problems with notification? 

13. If so, please describe. 

14. For what court events/hearings is the presence of the officer required? 

15. Are statistics available concerning the amount of time officers spend waiting 

at the courthouse or the number of officer appearances when the scheduled 

hearing is continued? 

16. Are there any problems with prisoner transport for court hearings? 

17. If so, please explain. 

18. From your perspective, what improvements could be made in the felony 

caseflow process? 

 

34 See Mahoney, Barry and Hoffman, Richard et al., Improving Your Jurisdiction’s Felony Caseflow 

Process (Denver, CO: The Justice Management Institute), June 2000. 
42

APPENDIX D 

PREPARATION OF A PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM 

PURPOSE: To begin the process of analyzing and evaluating the felony caseflow 

management system. By creating a diagram showing key events/activities and the 

deadlines and usual processing times associated with them, the analyst will have a 

basis for conducting further interviews and discussing possible enhancements to the 

system. 

PROCESS: Include all activities and steps, starting with arrest, whether they are court 

events or activities conducted by other agencies. Be sure to show as much detail as 

possible, including associated paperwork where possible. 

Address the following in preparing the flow diagrams: 

 Show key activities and events for both the court and other agencies in squares 

or rectangles—include status monitoring and preparation of calendars, notices, 

etc., by the clerk’s office. 

 Show the usual processing paths and alternative pathways, if any, for different 

“tracks” or for cases in which a guilty plea is entered early or which are 

continued. 

 Show what happens when activities don’t occur as planned or are not completed 

as planned. 

 Annotate the diagram with comments, questions and observations (See 

suggested format on page 48). 

 Indicate who has responsibilities for preparation to assure each event or activity 

occurs as scheduled. 

 Indicate who must be present for the event or activity. 

 Note what occurs at that event to move the case forward. 

 Highlight decision points in the flow (e.g., where disposition may occur, a caseprogress decision is made, or cases are referred or diverted to another agency) 

by putting them in a diamond shape. 

 Enter the usual elapsed time between events; if the time shown is an estimate, 

 indicate the basis for the estimate (e.g., sample of cases, best guess, etc.); 

 if applicable, indicate the time allowed by statute. 

 Highlight possible disposition points in the flow and estimate the number of 

cases, if any, usually disposed of at each. 
Page 1 of 5 

EXAMPLE OF A FLOW DIAGRAM DEPICTING 

FELONY CASEFLOW FROM ARREST TO UPPER COURT ARRAIGNMENT

(This diagram was prepared by a court during a project to improve felony caseflow management) 

 . 

ARREST 

43

 No further action 

 No 

 

 Yes 

 Probable Cause Affidavit to DA. 

 from Police. 

 

 

 Yes 

 

 10 days

 

 No 

 

 

 

 Yes 

 No 

 

 

Police 

Elect to 

Proceed?

Does Def. 

Bond Out? 

Next Appearance 

is Advisement of 

Charges 

Transport to County 

Jail

D.A. Notifies 

Victim re: filing of 

Charges and 

Right to Be 

Heard on Bond 

Police Notify 

Victim if this 

is a Victim’s 

Rights Case 

Defendant Interviewed 

by PT Services 

Elapsed 

Time: Up to 

48 Hours 

Superior Court Judge 

Assignment Noted in 

the Case File Warrant 

 to Issue 

Def. 

FTA?

 First Advisement and 

Probable Cause Determination 

 (10 AM Daily) 
Page 2 of 5

 

 No 

 

44

 

 Yes 

 

 How much time elapses? 

 

 Up to 60 days allowed by Code 

 

 

 No

 

 Yes 

 

 

 

 Yes 

 No 

 

 No 

 

 

Y 

 Yes 

 

 Probable 

 Cause 

Established

Defendant 

Released 

Police Submit All 

Available Discovery 

to District Attorney 

 D.A. Screens. 

Does D.A. File 

Charges??

File to Judge 

for Release 

File given to 

Deputy DA in 

20-25 days. 

Unknown When 

Discovery Will Be 

Available to 

Defense. 

Set for Alternate 

Defense Counsel 

Appearance Next Friday

Public 

Defender 

Conflict?

Set Prelim Date; 

This Triggers 

Assignment of 

Deputy D.A. 

Defendant

Released 

on Bond?

Elapsed Time 

Variable 

Charges Filed 
Page 3 of 5

 

 No 

 

 Yes 

 

 

 

 No 

 

 Yes 

45

 Set Appearance of Counsel Date 30-45 days?? 

 14–30 days?? 

 No 

 

 Continuance 

 Yes

 (first time) No

 

 

 (second time) what happens? Yes 

 Query: how long can 

 def. delay getting counsel?? 

 

 30-45 Days 

 30 - 45 Days 

 

 

 

30 - 45 Days 

Eligible for 

Public 

Defender?

Defendant to 

Obtain Counsel 

Counsel 

Obtained?

Judge Sets 

Preliminary Hearing 

and Appointment of 

Counsel Date

Public 

Defender 

Conflict?

Set Date for 

PH which 

Triggers DA 

Assignment. 

Assign Alternate 

Defense Counsel 

by Next Friday 

Assign Public 

Defender

Defendant Applies 

for Public 

Defender? 

 
46

Page 4 of 5 

 To Mandatory Dispo. To Preliminary Hearing 

 Conference 

 

 

 

 

 

 Yes 

 

 

 No 

 

 

 

 

No 

 

 

 

 Yes 

 

 

 

 

 

 No 

 

 

 Yes 

Mandatory Disposition 

Conference Held 

 Dismissed 

 w/o Prejudice 

(appeal possible)

Plea Offer 

May Occur 

Waives 

PH? 

Preliminary Hearing 

Held 

Misdemeanor 

Disposition? 

Probable 

Cause 

Found? 

Set for 

Sentencing in 

Superior Court 

 
 Page 5 of 5 

47

 

 

 

Defendant Bound Over and District 

Court Arraignment Date Set Based 

on Calendar Dates Provided by 

Previously Assigned Judges 

 60-90 Days 

 

 

 

 

Elapsed time at this stage depends on 

superior court judge’s calendar, 

custody status, possible mental health 

Arraignment in 

Superior Court 

or substance abuse issues, 

investigations, etc. 

 

 
FORMAT FOR AN ANNOTATED FLOW DIAGRAM 

 EVENT/ACTIVITY COMMENT/OBSERVATION 

 Note to self: Find out why it takes a 

 week or more to get the 

 7 -10 Days arrest report prepared 

 

 

 

ARREST 

 

 

 

REPORT FILED BY 

OFFICER 

 etc. 

 

 

48
APPENDIX E 

CASELOAD DATA TO BE OBTAINED 

THROUGH DATA COLLECTION AND/OR OBSERVATION

(or from existing statistical reports) 

The data suggested here are considered the minimum that will provide an overall sense 

of the extent to which the court is controlling case progress and paying attention to the 

age of the caseload and to the case management process, if any.35

Note: Indicate the source for each measure. For example: Is it information 

that is readily available or was it obtained through a special data collection 

effort? 

1. Total annual felony filings for each of the past 3 years, broken down by most serious 

charge, if possible. Specify whether defendants, cases, or charges are counted. 

2. Total annual felony dispositions for each of the past 3 years, broken down by most 

serious charge, if possible. 

3. Total felony cases pending at the end of each of the 3 past years. Again, break 

down by charge, if possible. 

4. Total felony cases now pending, by most serious charge if possible. 

5. Felony cases now pending in age categories measured from arrest or measured 

from first court appearance (e.g., 0-30 days, 31-60 days, 60-90 days, etc., or some 

other age categories that may be readily available). 

6. Number of pending felony cases that currently are older than the disposition time 

standard for this jurisdiction. This is the so-called “backlog.” 

Note: Attention to the currently pending caseload is especially important 

because these are the cases that can benefit from case management 

improvements. 

7. For each of the past 3 years, or for the last year, if that is all that is available: 

 a. The number of trials scheduled and the average number scheduled per trial 

 calendar. 

 b. The number of trials started (define “trial” and define “trial started”, for 

 example, jury seated? First witness sworn?). 

 

 

35 For an expanded discussion of useful data, see Steelman, David et al., Caseflow Management: The 

Heart of Court Management in the New Millennium (Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts), 

2000, Chapter VI. 

49
 c. The number of trials completed to verdict or judgment. 

 d. The percentage of scheduled trials that started on the first scheduled date, 

 second scheduled date, third scheduled date, etc., or never started 

 because of non-trial disposition. 

 e. For trials started, the average number of trial dates set per case. 

 f. For scheduled trials that ultimately were disposed of by plea or dismissal, the 

 average number of trial dates set per case. 

8. Tabulate, for a sample time period, the reasons for which cases (at all stages of the 

felony case flow) were continued. The source of this information may be a court 

record or it may be necessary to observe what happens in the courtroom. In short, 

some imagination may be necessary to find a way to document the reasons for 

continuances. Some reasons are shown here: 

 a. Defendant failed to appear. 

 b. Attorney unavailable. 

 c. Judge’s calendar over-scheduled. 

 d. Non-trial disposition has been reached. 

 e. Disposition discussions ongoing. 

 f. Discovery has not been provided. 

Note: Emphasis is placed on exploring scheduling practices and the 

 frequency of, and policies governing, continuances because it is in this 

 area that many courts lose control of case progress. 

 

9. Types of dispositions, as a percentage of all dispositions, for each of the past 3 

years or for the most recent year available: 

 a. Jury trial (as defined above). 

 b. Court trial. 

 c. Dismissal. 

 d. Guilty plea. 

 e. Nolle pros. 

 f. Other (define). 

10. Median time, and range of times, from arrest or first appearance in lower court to 

disposition by type of disposition. Define disposition; is it judgment/verdict or 

sentencing? 

11. Median time, and range of times, from arraignment in upper court to disposition. 

12. Time from arrest to first appearance for custody cases. The choice of measures 

may be dictated by the data available. The median time probably is the most 

informative. 

13. Time from arrest or first appearance to the prosecutor’s filing of formal charges. 

 The median time probably is the most informative and readily available. Compare 

 this to the time allowed by statute or court rule. 

50
14. Percentage of arrests that result in felony charges being filed. 

15. Percentage of dispositions taking longer than the court’s disposition time standard. 

16. For a sample of cases, document for the first hearing/event of a management 

nature after arraignment: a) What is the purpose of this hearing usually? b) What 

is the median interval, and range of intervals, from arraignment to this hearing? 

17. Median time, and range of times, from arraignment to sentencing or to disposition, if 

 not guilty. 

51
APPENDIX F

SAMPLE DATA COLLECTION FORMS

Suggestions for Developing and Using a Form

Here are a few tips for designing a data collection form:36

1. Take a look at the source from which data will be obtained to see whether it is 

feasible to obtain the required information. For example, it may turn out that open 

and closed cases are not segregated in the file room. In this case, a way to 

distinguish closed from open cases must be found. Possibly, the automated system 

can provide case numbers of disposed cases so that they can be located on the 

shelves or in the register of actions. Selection of the best information source is 

important. It may be necessary to try out a few sources before deciding which is 

best. 

2. Provide instructions for the data collection effort based on the type of survey (e.g., 

pull every 10th case folder for cases disposed of in the following date range; or 

explain how the data collector can determine whether a continuance has occurred, 

or specify the correct format for entering dates). 

3. Organize the data on the form in the same order it will be found in the source. 

 

4. Provide definitions for all terms on the back of the data collection form, not in a 

separate document. For example: 

a. When is a case considered “disposed of?” 

b. If information about the crime charged is being collected, make clear how 

to identify the “most serious charge” in the jurisdiction—possibly by listing 

charges on the form in order by most serious possible penalty. 

c. What activity is considered the start of the trial (e.g., jury sworn or first 

witness sworn)? 

5. Set up the form to assure ease of reading and tabulation/data entry. Among other 

issues, this means putting case codes on the form for such elements as type of 

case. 

6. Pull 10 cases, test the form, then revise the form. The first draft of a data collection 

form is rarely the final version. In short, it takes time and planning to develop a 

workable data collection instrument and methodology, so plan ahead. 

The data collection forms shown on pages 54-62 have been adapted from How to 

Conduct a Caseflow Management Review,

37 referenced earlier. Although used 

 

36 For more information about data collection, see: Mahoney, Barry et al., Changing Times in Trial Courts 

(Williamsburg: National Center for State Courts) 1988, Appendix A, pg. 219. 37 Mahoney and Solomon, et al., How to Conduct A Caseflow Management Review – Guide for 

Practitioners, (Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts) 1992, pg. B-3. 

52
53

 

successfully many times, these are only a suggestion. The analyst should develop a 

form that is tailored to the sample (e.g., pending cases, closed cases, only 

continuances, etc.), incorporates local terminology, and includes additional data 

elements relevant to areas of special concern to the particular court under study. 

A form for use in studying the pending caseload begins on page 61. As mentioned 

earlier, the age and status of pending cases are key indicators of the level of court 

supervision of case progress. Usually in pulling a sample of open cases it is best not to 

include the very oldest cases because frequently, the oldest cases represent 

exceptions. For example the oldest civil cases may be inactive because they have 

been stayed awaiting the outcome of related bankruptcy proceedings. The oldest 

criminal cases may be those in which a warrant has been issued for failure to appear in 

court. In jurisdictions where warrants are not actively worked by law enforcement, these 

cases may be many years old.38 

It is more useful to pull a sample of cases that fall somewhat beyond what is considered 

the outside time limit for case disposition. This yields a more accurate picture of the 

condition of the court’s pending caseload and the most common reasons for delay. Pull 

a minimum of 100 cases for the sample. As shown on the sample form, the analyst will 

determine such things as the last action in the case and when it occurred, what action is 

needed to move the case forward or dispose of it, how many times it has been set for 

hearings and trials, and how many times these have been continued. If reasons for 

continuances are available, these should be recorded, too. Using this information, it is 

possible to reach informed opinions regarding the sources of delay in the jurisdiction. 

 

38 While that fact is a finding in itself, it is not directly pertinent to the court’s caseflow management 

policies.
Felony Case Data Collection Form for Disposed Cases 

Court Location Identifier: 

Case Number: ___________ 

Name of First Defendant: ____________________________________ 

Most Serious Felony Charge (circle only one): 

 Homicide 01 

 

 Rape 02 

 Robbery 03 

 Assault with a Deadly Weapon 04 

 

 Drug Distribution 05 

 Drug Possession 06 

 

 Possession of a Weapon 07 

 Burglary 08 

 Theft 09 

 Felony DWI 10 

 Other: Specify 11 

Arrest Date: __________ 

 

Date of First Appearance 

 in Lower Court: __________ 

54
Date Indictment or Information 

 Filed in Superior Court: ___________ 

Check Here if Defendant Remained 

 in Custody Pending Arraignment: 

Date of Arraignment: ___________ 

Date of First Scheduled 

 Hearing after Arraignment: ___________ 

Type of Hearing: 

 Case Management Conference 01 

 Motions Hearing 02 

 Calendar Call 03 

 Pretrial Conference 04 

 Trial 05 

 Other: Specify 06 

First Scheduled Trial Date: ____________ 

If No Trial Date Scheduled, 

 Disposition Date: ____________ 

Check Here if Defendant Ever Failed to Appear: 

Number of Trial Dates Scheduled: ____________ 

55
Number of Trial Continuances 

 Requested by Defendant: ____________ 

 Requested by Prosecutor: ____________ 

 Due to Overscheduled Calendar: ____________ 

Check Here if A Trial Commenced: 

Date Trial Started: ____________ 

Length of Trial: ____________ 

Type of Disposition (circle only one): 

 Dismissal/Nolle Pros 01 

 Diversion 02 

 Guilty Plea to Original Charge 03 

 Guilty Plea to Reduced Felony 04 

 Guilty Plea to Misdemeanor 05 

 Guilty Verdict – Jury Trial 06 

 Guilty – Nonjury Trial 07 

 Acquittal/Not Guilty – Jury Trial 08 

 Acquittal/Not Guilty – Nonjury Trial 09 

 Other: Specify 10 

 

Disposition Date: ___________ 

56
Most Serious Charge Convicted (circle only one): 

 Homicide 01 

 Rape 02 

 Robbery 03 

 Assault with a Deadly Weapon 04 

 

 Drug Distribution 05 

 Drug Possession 06 

 

 Possession of a Weapon 07 

 Burglary 08 

 Theft 09 

 Felony DWI 10 

 Misdemeanor 11 

 Other: Specify 12 

Date of Sentencing 

 (if applicable): ___________ 

Type of Defense Counsel: 

 None 01 

 Public Defender 02 

 Conflict Counsel 03 

 Private Attorney 04 

 Unknown 05 

 

57
Short Form for Data Collection on 

Felony Case Dispositions39 

Occurring During the Period___________ 

Case Number: _________________ 

Most Serious Charge (circle only one): 

 01 Homicide 

 02 Rape 

 03 Robbery 

 04 Assault with a Deadly Weapon 

 05 Drug Distribution 

 06 Drug Possession 

 07 Possession of a Weapon 

 08 Burglary 

 09 Theft 

 10 Felony DWI 

 11 Other (specify): _________________________________ 

 

Date of Arrest/Citation/Summons: ____________ 

 

Date of First Appearance in Lower Court: ____________ 

 

Date Indictment or Information Filed: ____________ 

First Scheduled Preliminary Hearing Date: ____________ 

Check Here if Preliminary Hearing Waived 

Number of Times Preliminary Hearing Continued 

Date of Preliminary Hearing, if Held: ____________ 

Check Here if Defendant Remained in Custody Pending Arraignment 

District Court Arraignment Date: ____________

Number of Times Arraignment Continued 

First Scheduled Case Management Conference Date ____________ 

 

39 For purposes of this survey, consider a case disposed of when a) the case is dismissed or b) a 

sentence is imposed, or c) or the defendant is placed in a diversion program. 

58
Number of Times this Hearing Continued 

Date Case Management Conference Held ____________ 

First Scheduled Pretrial Conference Date: ____________ 

Number of Times this Hearing Continued 

Date Pretrial Conference Held40: _____________ 

Number of Times this Hearing Continued  

 

First Scheduled Trial Date: _____________ 

Number of Times Trial Date Continued  

Check Here if A Trial Started: 

Trial Date, if Trial Held: ____________ 

Length of Trial (days): ____________ 

 

If No Trial, Plea or Dismissal Date: ____________ 

Sentencing Date (if conviction): ____________ 

Type of Disposition (Circle One): 

01 Dismissal/Nolle Pros 

 02 Diversion 

03 Guilty Plea to Original Charge 

 04 Guilty Plea to Reduced Felony 

 05 Guilty Plea to Misdemeanor 

 06 Guilty Verdict – Jury Trial 

 07 Guilty – Non-jury Trial 

 08 Acquittal/Not Guilty – Jury Trial 

 09 Acquittal/Not Guilty – Non jury Trial 

 10 Other (specify): ________________________________ 

 

40 If any hearing not held, enter N/A 

59
Check Here if Defendant Ever Failed to Appear 

Length of Time Defendant on FTA Warrant ____________ 

Type of Defense Counsel (circle one): 

01 None 04 Private Attorney 

02 Public Defender 05 Unknown 

03 Conflict Counsel 

60
Felony Case Data Collection Form for Pending Cases 

Date of Data Collection: ____________ 

Case Number: ___________ 

Name of First Defendant: ____________________________ 

Most Serious Felony Charge (circle only one): 

 Homicide 01 

 Rape 02 

 Robbery 03 

 Assault with a Deadly Weapon 04 

 

 Drug Distribution 05 

 Drug Possession 06 

 

 Possession of a Weapon 07 

 Burglary 08 

 Theft 09 

 Felony DWI 10 

 Other: Specify 11 

Arrest Date: __________ 

 

Elapsed Time Since Arrest (in days): __________ 

 

Date of First Appearance in Lower Court: ___________ 

 

Elapsed Time Since First App. (in days): ___________ 

61
62

Date of Arraignment in Superior Court: ___________ 

Elapsed Time Since Arraignment (in days): ___________ 

 

Date of Last Appearance or Action: ___________ 

Elapsed Time Since Last Appearance/Action 

(in days): ___________

 

Type of Appearance/Action: ___________ 

Number of Trial Dates Scheduled: ____________ 

Number of Trial Continuances 

 Requested by Defendant: ____________ 

 Requested by Prosecutor: ____________ 

 Due to Overscheduled Calendar: ____________ 

Next Scheduled Action Date (if any): ___________ 

Type of Action/Hearing Scheduled: ___________ 

Action Needed to Dispose of the Case: ___________ 

 

____________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 
APPENDIX G 

FELONY CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT REVIEW

ANALYTICAL CHECKLIST

PURPOSE: To assist in analysis of the status of the felony caseflow management 

 system. 

PROCESS: Record perceptions of the current system using the following scale: 

 1 = Definitely Not 

 2 = It’s Hard to Tell 

 3 = Application is Inconsistent/Happens Occasionally 

 4 = Appears Mostly True 

 5 = Definitely True/Consistently Observed 

1. The court has a written caseflow management Plan _____ 

2. The chief or presiding judge demonstrates commitment and 

 active leadership to achieve effective caseflow management _____ 

3. The chief or presiding judge reviews the statistics of all judges 

 and discusses apparent problems with the judges _____ 

4. Caseflow management issues and caseflow statistics appear 

 on the agenda of judges’ meetings frequently _____ 

5. The chief or presiding judge discusses caseflow issues with the 

 court’s administrators _____ 

6. Judicial commitment to the concept of court responsibility for 

 assuring timely case progress is evident on the part of most or all judges _____ 

7. If this is a multi-judge court, caseflow management policies and 

 procedures are reasonably uniform among the judges _____ 

8. There is frequent communication between the assigned judge 

 and his/her courtroom staff about the caseload and/or case delays _____ 

9. The court uses statistics/information prepared by the state 

 Administrative Office of Courts or other sources to evaluate 

 its caseflow management system _____ 

10. The court administrator is an active participant with the 

 chief judge in addressing caseflow management issues _____ 

63
11. Every scheduled appearance of the defendant serves as a meaningful 

 opportunity to either dispose of the case or make significant progress 

 toward disposition; status calls or calendar calls are not used _____ 

12. Trials or hearings usually occur on the first scheduled date _____ 

13. If this is a multi-judge court, judges take cases from each other 

 when schedule problems arise so that continuances can be avoided _____ 

14. Cases always have a future action date or deadline assigned _____ 

15. The court has a written continuance policy in place _____ 

16. The court’s policy requires requests to be made in writing _____ 

17. The court’s policy requires a showing of good cause for the request _____ 

18. The court’s policy requires requests to state what efforts have been 

 made to avoid the request _____ 

 

19. Only a judge can decide a request for a continuance _____ 

20. There are statutory disposition time standards for felony cases or 

 goals to which the criminal justice community has agreed _____ 

21. The extent to which these goals are met is monitored by the court _____ 

22. The age of each judge’s pending caseload (or the court’s, if a master 

 docket system is used) is considered a key case management statistic _____ 

23. There are guidelines governing the time between each 

 event in the felony case flow from initial appearance to disposition _____ 

24. The court monitors the time between events to identify lagging cases _____ 

25. There is regular communication between the court and other 

 justice agencies and the private bar regarding caseflow issues _____ 

26. Incident/arrest reports are received from law enforcement within 

 3-5 days of the incident _____ 

27. Incident/arrest reports are clear and complete _____ 

28. Defense counsel for indigent defendants are appointed and notified 

 promptly _____ 

64
29. Defense counsel receive the arrest report before the first court 

 appearance _____ 

30. Appointed counsel interview detained clients within 24 hours _____ 

31. Appointed and retained counsel interview noncustody clients promptly _____ 

32. The prosecutor’s case screening and charging decision occurs 

 promptly after receipt of the arrest report _____ 

33. Defense lawyers receive disposition offers by first appearance in the _____ 

 superior court 

34. Discovery is exchanged early enough to facilitate early disposition (e.g., 

 at or shortly after arraignment in the superior court) _____ 

35. Disposition offers are perceived by defense as realistic, usually _____ 

36. Offers do not improve substantially solely due to the passage of time _____ 

37. A case management conference between the judge and lawyers 

 occurs within 30 days of the first appearance in the superior court if no 

 disposition is announced at first appearance _____ 

38. Defense counsel and the prosecutor confer on possible disposition 

 of the case prior to the case management conference _____ 

39. The judge, prosecution, and defense in the case make an early 

 assessment of case complexity and the time needed to dispose 

 of the case _____ 

40. A timetable for disposition of the case is established early _____ 

41. Unavailability of defenders and prosecutors for hearings or trials 

 due to scheduling conflicts is rare _____ 

42. Cases appropriate for early plea or other disposition are identified 

 early and placed on a fast track for disposition _____ 

43. The caseflow management system has an explicit goal of disposing 

 of cases at the earliest possible time consistent with the characteristics 

 of each case _____ 

44. Deadlines for filing and hearing motions are set and enforced _____ 

45. Motions deadlines and hearings are timed to facilitate early disposition _____ 

65
66

46. Trial dates are set only when it is clear that a trial will be needed _____ 

47. The responsible law enforcement agency is reliable in transporting 

 defendants to court hearings on time _____ 

48. Conference, hearing, and trial dates are perceived by the legal 

 community to be credible and firm _____ 

49. Preparation of presentence reports is not a source of delay _____ 

50. The court’s information system allows easy identification of cases in 

 danger of exceeding established time standards _____ 

 TOTAL 

Add the scores and divide the total by the number of questions. A perfect result 

would be “5.” The extent to which the actual result departs from “5” gives an 

indication of how far the caseflow management system departs from the practices 

generally accepted as characterizing effective criminal caseflow management. 

It is recommended that when this instrument is used in a system-wide meeting or 

workshop, the leader should first have each individual answer the questions and 

compute the total score privately and then share them with the other members of his 

or her discussion group. Discussion of the reasons group members’ scores differ on 

the individual items can be enlightening and can assist in the process of developing 

improved processes.