United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

May 1997 COURTHOUSE

CONSTRUCTION

Better Courtroom Use

Data Could Enhance

Facility Planning and

Decisionmaking

GAO/GGD-97-39

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-271180 

May 19, 1997

The Honorable Sam Brownback

Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,

 Restructuring, and the District of Columbia

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Carl Levin

United States Senate

The Honorable Jay C. Kim

Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Buildings and

 Economic Development

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable James A. Traficant, Jr.

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Public Buildings and

 Economic Development

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest

House of Representatives

The General Services Administration (GSA) and the federal judiciary have

embarked on a multibillion-dollar courthouse construction initiative aimed

at addressing the housing needs of the federal district courts and related

agencies. Included in this initiative are plans to construct hundreds of new

district judge trial courtrooms to replace existing ones and to

accommodate future increases in federal judgeships. Using GSA data, we

estimated that the cost to build a typical trial courtroom in 1995 dollars

could range from about $640,000 to $1.3 million depending on geographic

location. The cost in Washington, D.C., was about $800,000. Over the last

few years, various subcommittees and Members of Congress have become

increasingly concerned that courtrooms may be underutilized and that

more costly courtrooms than needed may have been, and continue to be,

constructed. This report responds to your request to (1) determine how

often and for what purposes courtrooms have been used and (2) examine

what steps the judiciary is taking to assess space and courtroom usage

issues.

Page 1 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

Results in Brief The judiciary’s process for administering justice is dynamic and complex.

According to the judiciary, the availability of a trial courtroom is an

integral part of the judicial process because judges need the flexibility to

resolve cases more efficiently. Nonetheless, trial courtrooms, because of

their size and configuration, are expensive to construct, and constructing

any unneeded courtrooms would waste taxpayer dollars. Currently, the

judiciary maintains a general practice of, whenever possible, assigning a

trial courtroom to each district judge.

The extent to which trial courtrooms are utilized for trials and nontrial

activities1

 is one indication of need, but the judiciary does not compile

data on how often and for what purposes courtrooms are actually used or

have analytically-based criteria for determining how many and what types

of courtrooms are needed to effectively administer justice. Therefore, the

judiciary does not have sufficient data to support its practice of providing

a trial courtroom for every district judge.

Our detailed work compiling data at seven geographically dispersed

locations—Dallas, TX; Miami, FL; Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Las Cruces,

NM; San Diego, CA; and Washington, D.C.—showed that courtroom usage

for trials and nontrial activities varied by judge and location. Furthermore,

on many of the workdays during 1995, courtrooms were not used at all for

these purposes. Our analysis for 1995 showed that:

• On average, trial courtrooms were used for trial or nontrial purposes

about 54 percent of all the days that they could have been used. In other

words, these courtrooms were, on average, used for some purpose 135

days and vacant 115 days out of the 250 federal work days in 1995. Overall,

courtroom utilization rates varied by location, from 61 percent in

Washington, D.C., to 43 percent in Las Cruces, NM.

• Courtrooms were used for trials less than one-third of the days, and the

use of courtrooms for trials varied by location. The highest average trial

usage rate was 32 percent in Miami, FL, and the lowest was 13 percent in

Santa Fe, NM. Nontrial activities, such as pretrial conferences, motion

hearings, and grand jury proceedings, consumed the remainder of the days

courtrooms were used. On most of the nontrial days, the courtrooms were

used for 2 hours or less. Figure 1 illustrates the percentage of days

courtrooms were used for trials and nontrial purposes and the percentage

of days with no such use for each of the seven locations during 1995.

1

According to AOUSC, trials are defined as any contested proceeding. Nontrial activities include

motion hearings, arraignments, and other proceedings.

Page 2 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

Figure 1: Percent of Days Courtrooms Were Used

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

56

44 44

56 57

43 43

57

41

59

52

48

39

61

Albuquerque Las Cruces San Diego Washington, DC Santa Fe

24

20

30

26

25

18

32

25

34

25

13

35

27

34

Courthouse locations

No recorded use

Nontrial use

Trial use

Dallas Miami

Source: GAO analysis of data obtained at seven courthouse locations.

• At the six locations with more than one trial courtroom, all courtrooms at

any location were seldom used for trials or nontrial activities the same

day. Of the 250 workdays in 1995, Miami and Washington each had at least

one unused courtroom on each of the workdays; San Diego and Dallas

each had at least one unused courtroom on all but 1 day; Albuquerque had

at least one of its five courtrooms unused on all but 7 days; and Las Cruces

Page 3 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

had at least one courtroom unused on all but 54 days, or about 78 percent

of the work year.

• Senior judges—district judges who are eligible to retire but choose to

continue to carry out judicial duties, often at reduced caseloads—used the

courtrooms assigned to them for trials and nontrial activities considerably

less frequently than active district judges. For example, 41 active district

judges at the locations visited used the courtrooms assigned to them about

65 percent of the days for both trials and nontrial activities, but average

use for 21 senior judges was 38 percent. For trials only, the active district

judges’ average utilization rate was 33 percent and for senior judges it was

17 percent.

Our discussions with district judges in the various locations showed

diverse opinions about changes to current courtroom configurations or

use practices. All preferred having their own courtrooms to help them

resolve cases, but their views on the one judge, one courtroom practice

were mixed. Some district judges, like those in Miami, were opposed to

any type of courtroom sharing if it meant having fewer trial courtrooms

than judges. Other district judges believed that having fewer trial

courtrooms or a mix of full-sized and smaller courtrooms could work if

scheduling and case management were better coordinated. According to

the Chief Judge of the New Mexico District, a new courthouse now under

construction in Albuquerque has been designed with fewer courtrooms

than the projected number of judges and should facilitate sharing among

judges, including magistrates. Likewise, senior judges are to share

courtrooms in the new courthouse annex that is planned for San Diego.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), the judiciary’s

administrative arm, considers the data we developed limited because we

do not capture such other factors as (1) “latent” use whereby the threat of

a trial in an available courtroom can leverage the disposition of cases

before trial; or (2) cases that settle just before a scheduled trial, leaving a

courtroom available that cannot be easily rescheduled. We agree that

these and other factors are important considerations, but the judiciary has

not developed data to show how much of an effect such factors may have

on the number of courtrooms needed.

The judiciary recognizes that it has not developed the data or performed

the research to support its practice of providing a trial courtroom for

every district judge. It has taken some actions intended to help it better

understand courtroom usage, which include commissioning a study on the

impact of providing fewer courtrooms than judges and adopting a policy

Page 4 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

for exploring courtroom sharing opportunities by senior and visiting

judges. However, these actions do not include a plan to produce data on

the actual use of courtrooms for trials or nontrial activities or to

systematically quantify the latent and other usage factors. In fact, the

Federal Judicial Center (FJC), the education and research arm of the

judiciary, and the Rand Institute for Civil Justice separately examined the

AOUSC-commissioned study and said that it had major limitations and that

more research must be done to adequately address the courtroom usage

issue.

Background The U.S. district courts are the federal courts of general trial jurisdiction.

There are 94 district courts located throughout the United States, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories of Guam, the U.S. Virgin

Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. These courts have two

categories of district judges who hear cases and use courtrooms. The first

is “active district judges” who carry full caseloads. The other is “district

judges with senior status”2

 who have resigned from their active judgeships,

but continue to carry some caseload. When an active district judge takes

senior status, he or she creates a judicial vacancy and the president may

nominate a replacement. In this report we refer to active district judges as

district judges and to district judges with senior status as senior judges.

District courts also have magistrate judges, who, according to the FJC, can

use district courtrooms and play an integral part in resolving cases.

Congress authorizes judgeships for each district based largely on the

caseload. As of September 30, 1996, the judiciary reported that there were

647 authorized district judgeships, 44 of which were classified as vacant

positions. In addition, there were 274 senior judges.

Historically, the judiciary’s practice has been to provide one trial

courtroom3

 for each district judge, and in many cases a courtroom is

provided for each senior judge and additional courtroom(s) for visiting

judges.4

 According to AOUSC officials, courtrooms are an integral part of a

court’s ability to discharge its judicial responsibilities, and no two courts

2

Senior status can be achieved when a district judge reaches the age and service eligibility

requirements for retirement.

3

According to the U.S. Courts Design Guide, a district trial courtroom should customarily be 2,400

square feet with a proportional ceiling height (16 feet) and contain a jury box capable of seating 12

jurors and 6 alternates.

4

A visiting judge is usually a district or senior judge who is on temporary assignment to a U.S. district

court to which he or she is not assigned. Other members of the judiciary, such as a circuit judge, can

also use district courtrooms.

Page 5 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

use exactly the same procedure in scheduling cases to be heard or in using

courtrooms. But there are similarities in how courtrooms are used. Cases

are tried, witnesses testify, and juries serve in district trial courtrooms. In

addition to trials, other legal proceedings involving the participation of a

judge, such as arraignments/ pleas and pretrial conferences, are

sometimes held in trial courtrooms.

In the late 1980s, the judiciary recognized that it was facing growing space

shortages, security shortfalls, and operational inefficiencies at courthouse

facilities. To address these problems, the Judicial Conference of the

United States directed each of the 94 judicial districts, with assistance

from AOUSC, to develop long-range space plans identifying where new and

additional space was needed. Generally, these plans were to assume that

each district judge would be assigned a trial courtroom. AOUSC has

provided each of the 94 districts with long-range facility planning guidance

for projecting space shortages. Under the planning process, each district is

to develop space projections that are to be approved by the district’s chief

judge and each district’s circuit judicial council. GSA uses the district

court’s 10 year space projections to develop requests for both new

courthouse construction and expansion of existing court facilities.

GSA requests funding for courthouses as part of the president’s annual

budget request to Congress. Under the Public Buildings Act of 1959, as

amended, GSA is required to submit to the Senate Committee on

Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure detailed project descriptions, called

prospectuses, that contain project cost estimates and justifications for

projects that exceed a certain cost threshold. Under the act, GSA can adjust

the threshold upward or downward on the basis of changes in

construction costs during the preceding calendar year—the threshold for

fiscal year 1997 was $1.74 million. Once courthouses are funded by

Congress, GSA is to contract with private sector firms for design and

construction work.

As a result of its planning process, the judiciary had initially identified

about 200 locations it estimated would be out of space within the next 10

years. Many of these locations also have security concerns or operational

inefficiencies. The judiciary estimated that new courthouses at these

locations would cost about $10 billion. In commenting on this report, GSA

said that expansion of the courts’ housing needs at 40 of these locations is

no longer needed or will be satisfied through leasing actions or building

modernizations. GSA and the judiciary estimate that there are now 160

Page 6 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

locations that need a new courthouse or an annex to an existing building

at an estimated cost of $8 billion. Of the 160 locations, GSA said that 40

projects have received about $3 billion in funding, and the remaining 120

projects will require an additional $5 billion in funding.

The judiciary does not maintain readily available aggregate data on the

number and cost of additional courtrooms that will result from this

multibillion-dollar courthouse construction initiative. However, AOUSC

workload projections indicate that the number of district judgeships could

double or perhaps increase even more significantly by the year

2020—from 647 judgeships in 1996 to between 1,280 judgeships and 2,410

judgeships over this period.5

 Using GSA data, we estimate that the cost to

build a typical trial courtroom in 1995 dollars could range from about

$650,000 to $1.3 million depending on geographic location. The cost in

Washington, D.C., was about $800,000. Using the Washington, D.C., cost,

we estimated that the cost of providing one courtroom for each new

judgeship, in 1995 dollars, could range from about $500 million to

$1.4 billion. This amount does not include the cost of replacing

courtrooms for existing judgeships.

In commenting on the report, AOUSC and FJC pointed out, and we agree,

that factors such as budget constraints and availability of senior judges

will influence the actual number of judgeships that will be added in the

future. However, our intent in using these judgeship projections was to

provide Congress with some perspective on the potential cost associated

with providing a full-sized district courtroom for each of these projected

judgeships.

Scope and

Methodology

We did our work primarily at AOUSC in Washington, D.C., and at seven

courthouses located in five judicial districts. Specifically, we reviewed the

use of 65 district courtrooms—the 8 trial courtrooms located in Dallas, TX

(Northern District of Texas); the 18 trial courtrooms located in Miami, FL

(Southern District of Florida); the 5 trial courtrooms in Albuquerque, the 1

trial courtroom in Santa Fe, and the 2 trial courtrooms in Las Cruces, NM

(District of New Mexico);6

 the 12 trial courtrooms in San Diego, CA

(Southern District of California); and the 19 trial courtrooms in

Washington, D.C. (District of the District of Columbia).

5

Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts, Judicial Conference of the United States, December 1995.

6

In the District of New Mexico, we included courtrooms at multiple locations in our analysis because

many of the judges in this district customarily hold trials and nontrial hearings in courtrooms located

in Albuquerque, Las Cruces, and Santa Fe.

Page 7 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

Recognizing that many variables could be used to select courthouse

locations, we chose to judgmentally select the courthouses we visited on

the basis of geographical location; the size of the courts; and, with the

exception of Dallas, locations where new courthouse construction

projects were planned or already under way. We included Dallas because

some of our staff working on this study were located in Dallas, and we

used the Dallas courthouse to test our methodology before visiting other

courthouses. We limited the number of courthouses and the time period

under review (calendar year 1995) because reviewing courtroom use at

geographically dispersed locations required time-consuming file reviews,

extensive data development, interviews with judges and their staffs, and

significant travel expense.

To determine how often and for what purposes courtrooms were used, we

analyzed data at the seven courthouse locations. Neither AOUSC nor the

courts that we visited compile or routinely use specific data on how often

or for what purposes courtrooms are used. Therefore, we had to compile

information from numerous sources. First, we reviewed the judiciary’s

Monthly Report of Trials and Other Court Activity (JS-10) for all district

judges that were assigned in 1995 to the locations that we visited and for

all visiting judges who heard cases at these locations that year. From the

JS-10 reports we determined the number of days and hours that each judge

was actually in trial and the time spent conducting nontrial court

activities. We considered all times recorded on the JS-10 reports as

courtroom usage by the judges, even though nontrial activities are

sometimes held in the judges’ chambers or conference rooms.

We validated the information taken from the JS-10 reports by analyzing the

judges’ and/or courtroom deputies’ daily calendars, trial/clerk minutes,

and case histories from the Integrated Case Management System, which is

an automated docketing system. Our analyses allowed us to determine

when and how the courtrooms were used by the district judges, senior

judges, and visiting judges for every federal working day in 1995. We also

discussed courtroom usage, including the possibility of courtroom sharing;

case scheduling; and the importance of having available courtrooms with

judges, courtroom deputies, and other court officials at the locations

visited. Also, we reviewed court management statistics and other data that

showed the use of trial courtrooms by individuals other than federal

district judges. After examining all the data, we credited each courtroom

with one day of usage for all days that the records showed that there was

any activity in it. We considered it a trial day if it had any trial activity,

regardless of any nontrial activity that also may have occurred. We

Page 8 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

determined the percentages of days that courtrooms were used for all

purposes by comparing actual recorded usage with the maximum number

of federal workdays on which the courtrooms could have been used (250).

To examine the steps the judiciary has taken to evaluate space and

courtroom usage issues, we interviewed AOUSC officials and reviewed

pertinent documents and studies on courtroom use. Specifically, we

reviewed AOUSC documentation on initiatives to manage judicial space and

engaged an operations research consultant to assist us in evaluating an

AOUSC-commissioned study of the impact of providing fewer than one

courtroom per judgeship.7

 Lastly, we reviewed documents prepared by the

Federal Judicial Center 8

 and the Rand Institute for Civil Justice9 that

separately (1) examine various aspects of AOUSC’s impact study and

(2) make suggestions for further research on courtroom usage and

courtroom sharing.

We cannot project the results of our work to the universe of district

courtrooms nationwide, within the district where they were located, or to

the locations visited in other time periods. We did our work between

January 1996 and April 1997, in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards. Appendix I discusses our objectives,

scope, and methodology in greater detail.

Courtroom Usage According to the judiciary, courtroom availability is a key component in

providing judges the flexibility to resolve cases more efficiently.

Nonetheless, trial courtrooms are expensive to construct, and any

unneeded courtrooms would waste taxpayer dollars. The extent to which

trial courtrooms are utilized for trial or nontrial activities is one indication

of need, but the judiciary does not compile data on how often and for what

purposes courtrooms are used or have analytically-based criteria for

determining effective courtroom utilization. Therefore, the judiciary does

not have sufficient data to support its practice of generally providing a

trial courtroom for every district judge. Our detailed work compiling data

at seven geographically dispersed locations—Dallas, TX; Miami, FL;

7

The Impact of Providing Fewer Than One Courtroom Per Judgeship: Report to the Committee on

Security, Space, and Facilities of the Judicial Conference of the United States; Edward H. Leekley and

William T. Rule II, Washington, D.C., March 1996.

8

Federal Judicial Center Research Note on The Impact of Providing Fewer Than One Courtroom Per

Judgeship, Federal Judicial Center, August 28, 1996.

9

Research on Courtroom Sharing, Project Memorandum, Terrence Dunworth and James S. Kakalik,

Rand Institute for Civil Justice, PM-598—1-ICJ, September 1996.

Page 9 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Las Cruces, NM; San Diego, CA; and

Washington, D.C.—showed that courtroom usage for trials or nontrial

activities varied by judge and location. Furthermore, on many of the

workdays during 1995, courtrooms were not used at all for these purposes.

Our analysis of use data for the 65 courtrooms we reviewed showed they

were used for trials or nontrial activities an average of 54 percent of the

workdays in 1995. Stated another way, they were not used for any of these

recorded purposes 115 out of 250 possible days that year. Utilization rates

varied widely from one location to another—the highest rate being

61 percent and the lowest 43 percent. It was seldom that all courtrooms at

any location were used for trial or nontrial activities on the same day.

Specifically, at two locations—Miami and Washington, D.C.—there was

not 1 day of the 250 workdays when all courtrooms were used; and at

Dallas and San Diego, there was only 1 day when all the courtrooms were

used. Table 1 shows the number of days in 1995 during which all

courtrooms at each location were used on the same day.10 Appendixes II

through VI provide greater detail on the use of courtrooms at each

location.

Table 1: Number of Days All

Courtrooms at a Location Were Used

for Trial or Nontrial Activities on the

Same Day in 1995 (250 Available

Workdays)

Location Number of courtrooms

Number of days all

courtrooms used

Albuquerque 5 7

Dallas 8 1

Las Cruces 2 54

Miami 18 0

San Diego 12 1

Washington, D.C. 19 0

Source: GAO analysis of data collected at six courthouse locations with more than one courtroom

We also found differences in the extent to which courtrooms were used

for trials and nontrial activities. For instance, our analysis showed that:

• Courtroom use for trial purposes varied by location, ranging from a low of

13 percent in Santa Fe, NM, to a high of 32 percent in Miami. At all

locations, courtrooms were used for trials less than one-third of the

available days. On average, each courtroom included in our analysis was

used for trials 27 percent of the time, or 69 days in 1995.

10The seventh location that we visited, Santa Fe, has only one trial courtroom; therefore, we did not

include it in our analysis of how often courtrooms at each location were used simultaneously.

Page 10 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

• Nontrial use—for activities such as motion hearings or arraignments—also

varied by location, ranging from a low of 24 percent in Albuquerque to a

high of 35 percent in Santa Fe. For the most part, on nontrial days, the

courtrooms were used for 2 hours or less.

• Washington, D.C., courtrooms had the lowest incidence of no use for trials

or nontrial activities at 39 percent; courtrooms in Las Cruces, NM, had the

highest incidence of no use for trial or nontrial activities—57 percent.

According to court officials, these differences occurred for a variety of

reasons, including the differences in caseloads and the dynamics of each

individual case. Table 2 shows the percentage of days courtrooms were

used for trials and nontrial activities and the percentage of days with no

use for these purposes for courtrooms in the seven locations visited.

Table 2: Percentage of Days

Courtrooms Were Not Used At All or

Were Used for Trials and Nontrial

Purposes at Seven Courthouse

Locations During 1995

Location Trial use Nontrial use No use

Albuquerquea 20% 24% 56%

Dallas 30 26 44

Las Crucesa 18 25 57

Miami 32 25 43

San Diego 25 34 41

Santa Fea 13 35 52

Washington, D.C. 27 34 39

Note 1: Dallas, Miami, and San Diego reflect some miscellaneous usage in the nontrial category

by court personnel other than district judges.

Note 2: If any time was recorded for the day, we considered the courtroom used for the entire

day. Days when the courtroom was used for both trial and nontrial activities were recorded as trial

days.

aWe developed courtroom usage information for these separate locations because the judges

told us that many of them routinely use each other’s courtrooms. Appendix IV discusses our

analysis of overall usage at all three locations combined and separately.

Source: GAO analysis of data collected at seven courthouse locations

As shown in table 2, courtrooms were used more often for nontrial

purposes than they were for trials at all but two locations (Dallas and

Miami). Furthermore, on most of the nontrial days, the courtrooms were

used for 2 hours or less, which, in our view, raises a number of questions

regarding the utilization of courtrooms. Some of these questions include:

• Could some nontrial activities be scheduled to more fully utilize individual

courtrooms on any given day?

Page 11 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

• Could some nontrial activities be carried out in smaller courtrooms,

hearing rooms, conference rooms, or chambers?

• Would it be feasible for some nontrial activities to be carried out without a

courtroom by using video or audio technology?

We recognize that some trial and nontrial activities demand full-sized trial

courtrooms that accommodate one or several defendants and seat 12

jurors and 6 alternates. For example, our analysis of the total 1995 trial

time at the seven courthouses showed that 70 percent of the more than

4,000 trial days involved civil or criminal jury trials. On the other hand,

many of the courtrooms in the locations we visited were not used on many

of the available days in 1995, and the 30 percent of the remaining trial days

involved nonjury trials or contested proceedings that may not have had to

take place in a full-sized, jury box-equipped courtroom.

Courtroom Usage Varies by

Judge

At all locations we visited, most judges—both district and senior

judges—used the courtrooms assigned to them for trials and nontrial

activities.11 The senior judges used courtrooms assigned to them

significantly less often than the district judges. Specifically, the senior

judges used the courtrooms 38 percent of all days in 1995, whereas the

district judges averaged a 65 percent usage rate. The difference in trial

days was also significant—senior judges averaged 17 percent for trial time

as compared to 33 percent for district judges. Court officials told us that

the lower senior judge usage rates occurred primarily because many

senior judges do not carry full caseloads or do not carry as many criminal

cases as the district judges. Table 3 compares courtroom usage for trial

and nontrial purposes and no use among the district and senior judges in

the seven courthouse locations.

11In Washington, D.C., most of the 22 judges had assigned courtrooms, but since there were only 19

trial courtrooms, 3 of the judges did not have assigned courtrooms. These three judges used one of the

other judges’ assigned courtrooms when it was vacant. In Santa Fe, NM, two judges shared one trial

courtroom; the other six judges, who sat in Albuquerque and Las Cruces, had assigned courtrooms.

However, these judges, as well as the ones in Santa Fe, routinely held court in courtrooms other than

those assigned to them.

Page 12 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

Table 3: Percentage of Days Courtrooms Were Not Used or Were Used for Trials and Nontrial Purposes by District and

Senior Judges at Six Courthouse Locations During 1995

District judges Senior judges

Location Trial use Nontrial use No use Trial use Nontrial use No use

Dallasa 33% 26% 41% N/A N/A N/A

Miamia 45 28 27 25% 20% 55%

San Diegoa 37 34 29 17 26 57

Albuquerqueb 20 27 53 13 8 79

Las Crucesb 18 22 60 18 27 55

Washington, D.C.c 33 41 26 16 22 62

Overall averages 33 32 35 17 21 62

N/A - not applicable because no senior judges used courtrooms.

aEach district and senior judge in Dallas, Miami, and San Diego was assigned his/her own

courtroom. These statistics measure district and senior judges’ usage of their assigned

courtrooms in these locations.

bThe eight judges in New Mexico did not use their assigned courtrooms exclusively. Instead, they

moved between the five courtrooms in Albuquerque, two in Las Cruces, and one in Santa Fe. For

this table, we assumed that four of the courtrooms in Albuquerque were used predominantly by

district judges and the other one by senior judges; and that one Las Cruces courtroom was used

by district judges and the other courtroom was used by senior judges. Santa Fe was not included

in this table because it had only one courtroom, which was shared by both district and senior

judges.

cThere were 19 courtrooms in Washington, D.C. Twelve of these courtrooms were assigned to

district judges and 7 were assigned to senior judges. During 1995, 22 district and senior judges

used these courtrooms. These statistics show all district judge usage in the 12 courtrooms

assigned to district judges and all senior judge usage at the 7 courtrooms assigned to them.

Source: GAO analysis of data collected at six courthouse locations.

We also found wide variances in how often individual district and senior

judges at each location used their courtrooms. For example, although the

41 district judges used their assigned courtrooms on average 65 percent of

the workdays, individual judges’ utilization rates ranged from a low of

32 percent to a high of 82 percent. Courtroom usage also varied widely for

the 21 senior judges—the lowest rate was 16 percent and the highest was

66 percent.

Due to the absence of readily available criteria for measuring effective

courtroom utilization and the limited scope of our review, we did not

attempt to determine the number of courtrooms that are actually needed.

However, our data suggest that there may be opportunities for the

judiciary to reduce costs by building fewer trial courtrooms. Whether

opportunities to reduce costs could be realized would depend on the

Page 13 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

potential impact or benefits and costs of other options, such as instituting

courtroom sharing practices; changing the configuration of courtrooms by

building a mix of full-size and smaller, less expensive courtrooms or

hearing rooms; or holding meetings or proceedings in facilities other than

trial courtrooms, possibly by using audio or video technology. In

commenting on a draft of this report, FJC noted that some federal courts

are now using two-way videoconferencing for some court proceedings. FJC

also said that federal trial judges have used the telephone for hearings or

motions and other matters for over 20 years.

Judiciary’s Views on

Changes to Current

Usage Practices

Our discussions with district judges in the locations we visited indicated a

courtroom for each judge is their preferred approach for ensuring the

availability of a courtroom to try cases and conduct hearings as scheduled.

The judges generally stated that having the courtroom available gives them

the flexibility to manage their own caseloads without having to worry

about scheduling conflicts. On the other hand, some of the judges we

spoke with acknowledged that courtroom sharing is feasible. In fact, some

judges told us they are currently sharing courtrooms.

The Chief Judge of the District of New Mexico is a proponent of

courtroom sharing. According to this judge, the district’s judges are

currently sharing courtrooms. In addition, the new courthouse under

construction in Albuquerque is to have fewer trial courtrooms than judges,

and none of the courtrooms are to be assigned to judges, including

magistrates. The Chief Judge told us that judges in his district can usually

find a courtroom when one is needed. He also said that he believes that

many of the proceedings that a judge does in a courtroom do not

necessarily need to be done in a full-sized trial courtroom. Our work

showed that in several locations, some judges held nontrial proceedings in

chambers or in courtrooms or hearing rooms smaller than the judiciary’s

standard trial-sized courtroom.

In Dallas, the four judges with whom we spoke told us they would prefer

to continue having their own courtrooms to assist them in resolving cases

more efficiently. However, they said that having fewer full-size trial

courtrooms than judges is workable. In their opinion, hearing rooms could

suffice for some criminal case functions as well as for nonjury trials and

motion hearings, if proper security were provided.

In Washington, D.C., three district judges did not have assigned

courtrooms for all months in 1995 because there were more judges than

Page 14 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

courtrooms. The judges with whom we spoke told us they would prefer

that each judge have an assigned courtroom to ensure more efficient case

management. According to the Chief Judge, courtroom sharing was

implemented out of necessity. Two of the judges who shared courtrooms

told us that even without assigned courtrooms, they always had access to

a courtroom when one was needed.

Judges at several locations also told us that courtroom sharing by senior

judges, especially those who do not carry full caseloads, would be easier

than district judges sharing courtrooms. For example, the Chief Judge in

San Diego said that courtroom sharing among senior judges could work. In

fact, she told us that the new courthouse annex will house chambers for

senior judges who will not have assigned courtrooms, but instead will

share courtrooms.

On the other hand, judges at several locations were opposed to district

judges sharing courtrooms. The Chief Judge in San Diego said that

courtroom sharing by district judges would be very difficult because of

their heavy caseloads. In this judge’s opinion, courtroom sharing by

district judges could decrease their case management efficiency because

the availability of a courtroom is a key factor in getting cases to settle

prior to trial. A district judge who shares a courtroom with a senior judge

in Santa Fe told us that in her opinion courtroom sharing may be a good

concept, but in her experience it makes case scheduling more difficult.

She further stated that courtroom sharing has required her to reschedule

hearings or conduct them in her chambers. Furthermore, in Miami, the

judges with whom we met were adamantly opposed to having fewer

courtrooms than judges. In their opinion, having fewer courtrooms than

judges would create a host of scheduling problems resulting in delays and

higher litigation costs for all parties.

If the judiciary were to adopt some form of courtroom sharing, it may need

fewer trial courtrooms than the number of judges, provided that judges

could still effectively discharge their judicial responsibilities. Relatedly, a

mix of full-sized and smaller, less expensive courtrooms could be built if it

is feasible to conduct nontrial activities in courtrooms smaller than, and

perhaps configured differently from, the standard trial-sized courtroom.

Some of these nontrial activities might be candidates for hearing rooms,

conference rooms, or chambers; or, if feasible, they could be held in

multiple locations using video and audio conferencing technology, thereby

eliminating the need for fully equipped courtrooms.

Page 15 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

AOUSC believes that it would be premature to change the practice of one

courtroom per judge or to build courtrooms smaller than the standard

trial-sized courtroom solely on the basis of actual courtroom utilization

data. It maintains that the courtroom is a tool the judge uses to bring cases

to resolution, and unimpeded availability of a courtroom is critical to

ensuring that justice be dispensed and cases resolved in a timely manner.

According to AOUSC, one important element of the one judge, one

courtroom practice is “latent” use whereby a judge is able to use an

available courtroom and the scheduling of that courtroom as leverage to

encourage a case to settle without going to trial. AOUSC officials also

believe that when a case settles at the last minute—the day before or the

day of the scheduled trial—a judge often cannot immediately reschedule

another case. AOUSC and the courts we visited were unable to provide data

on how often this occurs.

According to AOUSC, another important element is the dynamic nature of

the justice system. An AOUSC official said that judges cannot be certain

when, or even if, a specific case will go to trial or how long the trial will

take to complete; they cannot anticipate the filing of motions that must be

dealt with expeditiously; nor can the judges predict when criminal

defendants will be arrested and arraigned. Therefore, to effectively deal

with all of these situations, AOUSC believes that judges must have

courtrooms available, and the best way to ensure that courtrooms are

available is for each judge to have a courtroom. In commenting on a draft

of this report, AOUSC cited as additional evidence that a recent survey had

been issued showing that state courts also have policies of providing one

courtroom for each judge.12

The judiciary has not developed data to substantiate the degree to which

these factors affect the number of courtrooms needed. Thus, neither we

nor others are able to quantify how scheduling issues or the dynamic

nature of the justice system might affect the number of courtrooms

needed. For example, we were unable to determine how often the

availability of a courtroom causes civil litigants to settle or criminal

defendants and U.S. Attorneys to plea bargain before trial. Judges and

other court officials with whom we spoke told us that many cases settle

prior to trial after a firm trial date is set. Therefore, some judges schedule

more than one case for trial on the same day with the expectation that all

cases will not go to trial. In fact, an AOUSC study13 showed that most cases

12Dan Hardenbergh, “Courtroom Sharing Practices Among State and Local Trial Courts,” September 13,

1996.

13Leekley and Rule, op. cit.

Page 16 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

filed in federal district courts in 1994 settled prior to trial—only

3.5 percent of all civil filings reached trial, and only 7.5 percent of criminal

filings went to trial.

Our work was designed to examine actual courtroom usage at the

locations we visited. We recognize that other factors are important

considerations in determining the need for courtrooms. Information on

usage as well as other relevant factors can only enrich the courtroom

usage analysis and provide a better context for discussing actions needed

and identifying opportunities to achieve overall efficiencies.

Judiciary Has Taken

Some Steps to

Examine Courtroom

Use

The judiciary is aware of growing concerns about the cost and use of

courtrooms and has made some attempts to measure and examine

courtroom use and its related policy issues. It views these efforts as a

starting point in resolving the debate over the number of courtrooms

needed and the practice of providing one courtroom for each judge. For

instance, until recently, neither GSA nor the judiciary had readily available

data on the total number of federal courtrooms in buildings nationwide.

During the middle part of 1996, AOUSC began surveying courts to not only

determine the number of courtrooms, but also to obtain information about

those courtrooms, such as jury box capacity and the general functionality

of the space. AOUSC is currently verifying the information from this survey

and plans to use it to analyze space rental costs and compare and contrast

the amount of space occupied by the courts. In commenting on this report,

AOUSC pointed out that the judiciary has efforts under way to improve

space management, control rent costs, improve facility use, and examine

the need for facilities with no permanently assigned judge.

The judiciary has also started an effort to explore a courtroom sharing

policy. In March 1996, the Judicial Conference directed its Court

Administration and Case Management Committee and the Bankruptcy,

Magistrate Judges, and Judicial Branch Committees to address the concept

of courtroom sharing and its implications for case management and

administration. According to AOUSC, the Committees are to examine

courtroom sharing for district and senior judges and determine whether

sharing would delay or otherwise adversely affect case processing. As part

of this effort, each judicial council was encouraged to submit a position on

courtroom sharing. Furthermore, the Subcommittee on Space

Management Initiatives developed a survey instrument that was sent to all

chief judges to solicit input on courtroom sharing, and a consultant was

retained to survey state and local sharing practices. In commenting on a

Page 17 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

draft of this report, AOUSC said that the Judicial Conference adopted a

policy related to courtroom utilization during its March 1997 session. The

policy retains the practice of providing one courtroom for each district

judge, and it encourages each judicial council14 to examine opportunities

for senior and visiting judges to share courtrooms. The policy, which was

incorporated in the United States Courts Design Guide, recognizes several

factors, such as the anticipated number and types of cases and the number

of years judges are likely to be located at a facility, that should be used to

evaluate whether courtroom sharing opportunities exist.

One important aspect of the judiciary’s efforts is focused on an assessment

of the impact of changing the ratio of courtrooms to judges. In March 1996,

AOUSC released a report on the impact of providing fewer than one

courtroom per judgeship,15 which examined some of the potential

operational issues associated with providing fewer than one courtroom

per judgeship. The report used case studies and the data provided by the

courts and the judiciary to test the applicability of mathematical models

for predicting the impact of fewer courtrooms than judges. Among other

things, the study said that (1) case delays would increase when district

judges are provided fewer than one trial courtroom each, and (2) the cost

savings resulting from not building and maintaining a new courtroom must

be weighed against staff costs resulting from the additional scheduling

workload and the cost to litigants for delays imposed by additional

congestion. The report recommended that the judiciary and GSA

• continue to build one courtroom for every district judgeship;

• consider the direct court construction costs and the indirect costs to

litigants in determining the number of courtrooms to be built in new

courthouses; and

• consider building more courtrooms than there are judges to avoid the

greater costs of subsequently adding additional courtrooms for new

judgeships.

In June 1996, the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Court

Administration and Case Management asked the Federal Judicial Center

(FJC), the education and research arm of the judiciary, to review the

March 1996 report. In August 1996, FJC issued a detailed critique that

focused on many of the technical and nontechnical aspects of the AOUSC

14Circuit judicial councils consist of the chief judge of each circuit and an equal number of appellate

and district judges. The councils manage caseloads and carry out related administrative

responsibilities.

15Leekley and Rule, op. cit.

Page 18 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

report. FJC praised the March 1996 report for pointing out some of the

limits of current data and the complexities of dealing with matters like

courtroom scheduling, but it reported that the “limitations of the analysis,

some of which are acknowledged in the report, substantially limit its value

as a basis for any policy decision.” FJC went on to discuss the major

limitations that led it to caution against relying on the recommendations.

For instance, FJC found that the quantitative analyses used were not as

sophisticated as they could have been, and other more useful techniques

might have been developed; the objectives of the study were unclear, and

the findings and recommendations went beyond the data presented; and

the conclusions and their corresponding recommendations failed to

consider alternatives other than fully equipped courtrooms or chambers

where nontrial proceedings could be held.

The Rand Institute for Civil Justice also expressed similar concerns about

the March 1996 AOUSC report. In September 1996, the Institute issued a

project memorandum entitled Research on Courtroom Sharing. The

memorandum, prepared under contract for AOUSC, was designed to review

the most important research on courtroom sharing and determine whether

additional research was needed. The Institute found that prior research is

limited and does not resolve the one courtroom-per-judge issue. In fact,

only one of five studies discovered during Rand’s research—the

March 1996 report—had a federal court focus, and none “satisfactorily

resolve the courtroom-per-judge issue and do not offer a solid empirical or

theoretical basis for federal court facilities decisionmaking.”

Like FJC, the Institute also critiqued various aspects of the March 1996

report. For example, the Institute questioned whether the report fully

explored some of the analytical techniques available and suggested that

the techniques employed might have been more fruitful had they been

further explored or more detailed data incorporated. In another instance,

the Institute expressed concern about a key assumption made in the

report—specifically, that additional staff, a full-time scheduler, would be

needed to manage courtroom scheduling if judges were required to share

fewer courtrooms. In its critique, the Institute stated that it could not

assert with confidence that no additional staff would be needed but found

it difficult to accept the assumption. Furthermore, the Institute pointed out

that even if a scheduler were needed, fewer courtrooms might reduce the

need for other personnel, such as courtroom deputy clerks or security

personnel.

Page 19 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

Research Groups

Emphasize Need for

Additional Study

The growing debate over courtroom use and construction costs, coupled

with the limitations of available research on courtroom usage and sharing

issues, has prompted both FJC and Rand to suggest further study on

courtroom utilization and related operational issues. For example, FJC

noted that “it seems likely the judicial branch can expect the current

pressure for economy, efficiency, and effectiveness to continue and quite

probably to intensify” and that “expenditures for features beyond the most

Spartan will have to be defended with hard data.” Furthermore, FJC

proposed major changes to the judiciary’s regular data collection “so that

the elements, dynamics, and effects of court operations can be

substantively reported without assembling an ad hoc study each time a

specific aspect of the system is questioned and singled out for scrutiny.”

FJC went on to suggest that there may be more to be learned by exploring a

more sophisticated use of the analytical techniques than those used in the

March 1996 study. In addition, FJC proposed two other possible

research-based approaches for further examining this and other policy

issues facing the judiciary.

First, FJC suggested that the judiciary do short-term research to address

the effect of abandoning the practice of assigning a full-time, fully

equipped courtroom for each district judge. As part of this research, 10 to

15 courts would be asked to continue to manage actual operations in

existing facilities, but they would establish a staff to simulate operations

as if there were fewer courtrooms than those available. The simulation

would then allow judges and staff to deal with scheduling issues and their

resolution and collect data and information on such things as the type of

activities planned by judges, scheduling and other problems that arise

under realistic conditions, and solutions to problems caused by fewer

courtrooms. In FJC’s view, such an approach would help the judiciary

(1) formulate criteria for allocating facilities for various situations and

circumstances; (2) build a database about the scheduling and proceedings;

and (3) show a good faith effort to develop tools to cope with resource

reduction or, if no tools are available, help justify the one judge, one

courtroom policy.

Second, FJC suggested a longer term commitment to improvements in the

judiciary’s data collection systems so that it could more fully describe the

activities of the courts. In FJC’s view, such an effort would anticipate the

types of information needed to build a database that could respond to

various questions and future scenarios, ranging from the types of activities

that need to be held in a courtroom to the features of a case or proceeding

that make a courtroom environment essential.

Page 20 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

As mentioned earlier, Rand’s Institute for Civil Justice also emphasized the

importance of further study on courtroom utilization issues. Specifically,

the Institute stressed the need for the judiciary to understand the effects of

courtroom sharing on the judicial system when making facility decisions

and concluded that:

“Making decisions without such an understanding presents two kinds of risks. On the one

hand, reducing the courtroom-per-judge ratio may unacceptably impair the ability of the

federal court system to meet its judicial obligations and may have other potentially

negative effects. On the other hand, not reducing the ratio may forego an opportunity to

save taxpayer dollars.”

The Institute suggested that the judiciary, Congress, AOUSC, and GSA would

be well served by a methodologically sound empirical study that would

require investigating the effects of varying the courtroom-to-judge ratio.

Furthermore, the Institute proposed a research process that would

• examine existing courtroom sharing systems and data, including data on

the number and adequacy of courtrooms from AOUSC’s recent space

inventory; information on courtroom and event scheduling; actual usage

data from JS-10 reports, real time observation, and other supplemental

data sources; and information on intangible factors, such as latent

usage—and develop a research design;

• use a sample of district courts to collect new data and develop analytical

methods and research findings based on the results of stage 1, including,

again, information on actual courtroom utilization as well as information

on case management, budgets and expenditures, and practitioner views on

the latent affects of courtroom availability; and

• incorporate and operationalize the results of data collection and analysis

into AOUSC’s facility planning process to extend the results to other

districts and judges, and revise and update the analysis as necessary.

The Institute also offered suggestions for selecting districts to study as

well as requirements for data to collect and reviewed various analytical

methods.

Conclusions The judiciary’s process for administering justice is complex and dynamic,

and courtrooms are an integral part of making it work. Nonetheless, trial

courtrooms are expensive to build, and unneeded courtrooms would

result in wasted taxpayer dollars. The extent to which courtrooms are

utilized is one indication of need, but the judiciary does not compile data

Page 21 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

on how often and for what purposes courtrooms are actually used for

trials or nontrial activities or have analytically-based criteria for

determining effective courtroom utilization. Furthermore, it has only

recently begun to collect information on the total number of courtrooms in

the federal judicial system and consider the possible impacts of providing

fewer than one trial courtroom per judge. Therefore, the judiciary does not

have sufficient data to support its practice of providing one trial

courtroom for every district judge or for projecting how many new

courtrooms should be built.

Our analyses of actual courtroom usage for trials and nontrial activities at

seven courthouse locations suggests there may be opportunities to reduce

costs by building fewer full-sized trial courtrooms in the judiciary’s

multibillion-dollar courthouse construction initiative. In 1995, courtrooms

at the locations we visited were, on average, not used for trials or nontrial

activities about one-half of the days they were available, and they were

used for trials—a major factor in determining the size, configuration, and

overall cost of district courtrooms—less than one-third of the days. It is

also important to recognize that on most nontrial days, the courtrooms

were used for 2 hours or less and that senior judges’ usage, on average,

was substantially less than district judges’ usage. Whether opportunities to

reduce costs could be realized would depend on the need for the one

judge, one courtroom practice and the potential impact or benefits and

costs of other options.

Other factors, such as latent use and scheduling issues, are important

considerations in determining the need for courtrooms. However, the

judiciary has not developed data to substantiate the degree to which these

factors affect the number of courtrooms needed. The judiciary recognizes

that the courtroom usage issue needs to be examined in more depth and

has made initial efforts to explore the issue. However, one of these

efforts—a study commissioned by AOUSC—was found to have major

limitations by FJC and the Rand Institute for Civil Justice. Both FJC and

Rand believe that more research is needed to adequately address the

courtroom usage issue, and each had a number of ideas to get the process

started.

Recommendations We recommend that the Director, AOUSC; the Director, FJC; and the Judicial

Conference’s committees on (1) Court Administration and Case

Management and (2) Security, Space and Facilities design and implement

cost-effective research to fully examine the courtroom usage issue to form

Page 22 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

a better basis for determining the number and type of courtrooms needed,

as well as whether each district judge needs a dedicated courtroom. This

effort should include:

• establishing criteria for determining effective courtroom utilization and a

mechanism for collecting and analyzing data at a representative number of

locations so that trends can be identified over time and better insights

obtained on court activity and courtroom usage;

• designing and implementing a methodology for capturing and analyzing

data on latent usage, courtroom scheduling, and other factors that may

substantially affect the relationship between the availability of courtrooms

and judges’ ability to effectively administer justice;

• using these data and criteria to explore whether the one judge, one

courtroom practice is needed to promote efficient courtroom management

or whether other courtroom assignment alternatives exist; and

• establishing an action plan with time frames for implementing and

overseeing these efforts.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

On April 7, 1997, AOUSC and FJC provided us with their written comments

on a draft of this report and on a related correspondence on courtroom

usage at four selected locations16 (see apps. VII and VIII). GSA’s Public

Buildings Service provided written comments on April 11, 1997 (see app.

IX). An overall description of the comments and our evaluation are

discussed below. Additional evaluations of some AOUSC and FJC comments

are contained in apps. VII and VIII. AOUSC and FJC also provided several

technical comments under separate cover that we considered in finalizing

the report.

Comments From AOUSC AOUSC said that it shared our interest in conserving the judiciary’s

resources and that the judiciary is aggressively exploring opportunities to

save taxpayer dollars by examining and evaluating space needs. For

example, it said that the Judicial Conference of the United States—the

policymaking body of the judiciary—recently adopted a new policy related

to courtroom utilization. This policy continues the practice of assigning

each active district judge a courtroom, but it encourages circuit judicial

councils to examine opportunities for senior and visiting judges to share

courtrooms and to develop a policy on sharing courtrooms by senior

judges. It cites several factors that should be considered when assessing

16COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION: Information on the Use of District Courtrooms at Selected

Locations (GAO/GGD-97-59R, May 19, 1997).

Page 23 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

sharing opportunities, such as the anticipated number and type of cases

expected and the number of years judges are likely to be located at a

facility.

Given this initiative and the judiciary’s continuing facilities planning

efforts to reduce overall space costs, such as controlling rent costs and

closing nonresident facilities, AOUSC requested that we recast our

recommendation. Instead of recommending what it thought could be a

time-consuming and expensive study of the courtroom usage issue, AOUSC

requested that we recommend that the Judicial Conference committees on

Court Administration and Case Management and Security, Space, and

Facilities monitor the implementation of the Judicial Conference’s recent

policy initiatives on courtroom sharing and other facilities planning

activities and their impact on case management and effectiveness in

reducing costs.

We chose not to recast our recommendation as AOUSC requested. We agree

that the Judicial Conference committees mentioned above should be

involved in any research on courtroom usage, and their involvement was

meant to be implicit in our recommendation. To clarify this point, we have

changed the recommendation to specifically include these committees. We

also agree that the judiciary should monitor the implementation of the

Judicial Conference’s policy initiatives and consider any outcomes as part

of its overall evaluation of how to use courthouse facilities most

efficiently. However, just monitoring these initiatives would be an

incomplete basis for making courtroom construction decisions because it

would not include information and analysis on actual courtroom usage.

Without such information and analysis, there will continue to be questions

about how many full-sized trial courtrooms are really needed. Accordingly,

we continue to believe that further study of courtroom usage is warranted.

AOUSC also said that it appreciated our understanding that the process for

administering justice is complex and dynamic but that a simple counting

of the time a courtroom is actually occupied over a short period cannot be

the measure for the number of courtrooms needed at a facility. AOUSC

acknowledged the draft report’s recognition that scheduled and latent uses

of courtrooms are important considerations in determining the number of

courtrooms needed. AOUSC added that the courtroom occupancy rate of

65 percent by active district judges cited in the report is only a fraction of

the real use of the courtroom, given that these latent use factors were not

part of the study. AOUSC also highlighted the scope limitations set forth in

our objectives, scope, and methodology section and reiterated that such

Page 24 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

limitations would not allow a determination of the number of courtrooms

needed.

We agree with AOUSC that the process for administering justice is complex

and dynamic and that a measurement of actual courtroom usage would

not, by itself, be a sufficient basis for determining the number of

courtrooms in a facility. We also agree that scheduled and latent use are

important components that should be considered when analyzing

courtroom usage. However, as discussed in the report, the judiciary lacks

information on how significant an impact these factors have on courtroom

usage rates and how many courtrooms are actually needed. In the absence

of such information, there is no way to determine whether AOUSC’s

observation that if scheduled and latent use were included, the 65 percent

average usage rate for active district judges would be much higher is

correct. As mentioned in our report, individual active judges’ courtroom

utilization rates at the locations we visited ranged from a low of 32 percent

to a high of 82 percent—showing that individual usage patterns vary

significantly. Furthermore, on most of the days active district judges used

their courtrooms for nontrial activities only, the courtrooms were used for

two hours or less.

Although our available resources only allowed us to examine courtroom

usage at a limited number of locations, our work provides insight into how

often and for what purpose these courtrooms were actually used, which is

more information than the judiciary previously had. Further, each location

we visited, with the exception of one, is under consideration for project

funding, according to the judiciary’s March 1996 5-year plan for

courthouse construction. Data on usage patterns like we developed could

aid in planning, designing, and constructing each of these facilities. We

recognize that more study is needed to adequately address the courtroom

usage question and this recognition helped form the basis for our

conclusions and recommendations.

Finally, AOUSC stated that it hoped we understood the consequences of

providing Congress and the public with information that could lead to

unintended and erroneous conclusions. In doing so, AOUSC characterized

our data as “selectively edited.” While it is always possible that someone

will draw “unintended and erroneous” conclusions from any data we

present, we disagree strongly with such a characterization of our data. Our

report clearly describes the data we collected and identifies other relevant

factors such as latent use for which data were not available. We also

clearly state the limitations of our methodology and acknowledge that

Page 25 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

additional data and analysis would be needed to determine the number of

courtrooms needed. Our recommendation addresses what we believe

needs to be done to conduct a comprehensive study. At no time during this

work were any data “edited” in or out of our analysis.

Comments From FJC Many of FJC’s comments were similar to those from AOUSC. To reduce

redundancy, we are not replying separately but note those references in

app. VIII. In general, FJC acknowledged the report’s recognition that

courtroom use policy is a complex matter involving many variables, not all

of which are subject to easy measurement. FJC also stated that it is willing

and able to design research and examine the courtroom usage issue as we

recommended if requested to do so from within the judiciary. It said that

such research should be done in cooperation with the Judicial Conference

and its committees. We agree and have modified the recommendation

accordingly.

Comments From GSA GSA provided updated figures on the universe of 200 locations the judiciary

identified as needing new projects. GSA reported that of the original 200

locations, GSA and the judiciary have now determined that 160 locations

require new construction. In the remaining locations, expansion of the

courts’ housing is no longer needed or will be satisfied through leasing

actions or building modernizations. Of the 160 locations, 40 projects have

received approximately $3 billion in funding. The remaining 120 projects

will require an estimated $5 billion. GSA pointed out that most of the larger

projects are already well into the design and construction process. GSA

said that in general, the remaining projects will be smaller courthouses

and will offer less flexibility for sharing courtrooms.

We recognize that several larger projects are well under way and in some

cases completed. Thus, the judiciary may have missed opportunities to

reduce costs by exploring different courtroom sizes and courtroom

sharing. We do not see the basis for GSA’s comment that there is less

flexibility to share courtrooms in the remaining smaller projects. First, as

outlined in this report, the judiciary does not compile data on how often

and for what purposes courtrooms are actually used or have criteria for

determining how many and what types of courtrooms are needed to

effectively administer justice. GSA’s statement that sharing opportunities

may be limited at remaining locations is therefore not based on any

analysis of usage patterns. In fact, our work at smaller courthouses, such

as Albuquerque, showed some of the lower usage patterns. Second, several

Page 26 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
B-271180 

projects that remain are large. The judiciary’s March 1996 5-year plan for

courthouse construction identifies eight projects that are estimated to cost

more than $100 million each. According to an AOUSC official, another

project not in the plan—Los Angeles—could cost over $200 million. We

issued a separate report in December 1996 on the judiciary’s 5-year plan.17

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman, Judicial Conference

Committee on Security, Space, and Facilities; Director, Administrative

Office of the U.S. Courts; Administrator of GSA; Director, Office of

Management and Budget; and other interested congressional committees.

The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII. If you have

any questions, please contact me on (202) 512-8387.

Sincerely yours

Bernard L. Ungar

Director, Government Business

 Operations Issues

17COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION: Improved 5-Year Plan Could Promote More Informed

Decisionmaking (GAO/GGD-97-27, Dec. 31, 1996).

Page 27 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

32

Appendix II 

District Courtroom

Use in Dallas, Texas

42

Background 42

Overall Courtroom Usage 42

Courtroom Usage by District Judges 43

Courtroom Sharing 44

Appendix III 

District Courtroom

Use in Miami, Florida

45

Background 45

Overall Courtroom Usage 46

Courtroom Usage by District Judges 47

Courtroom Usage by Senior Judges 48

Courtroom Sharing 49

Appendix IV 

District Courtroom

Use in Albuquerque,

Las Cruces, and Santa

Fe, New Mexico

51

Background 51

Courtroom Usage 51

Courtroom Sharing 54

Appendix V 

District Courtroom

Use in San Diego,

California

55

Background 55

Overall Courtroom Usage 55

Courtroom Usage by District Judges 56

Courtroom Usage by Senior Judges 57

Courtroom Sharing 58

Page 28 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Contents

Appendix VI 

District Courtroom

Use in Washington,

D.C.

60

Background 60

Overall Courtroom Usage 60

Courtroom Usage by District Judges 61

Courtroom Usage by Senior Judges 62

Courtroom Sharing 63

Appendix VII 

Comments From the

Administrative Office

of the United States

Courts

65

GAO Comments 82

Appendix VIII 

Comments From the

Federal Judicial

Center

88

GAO Comments 94

Appendix IX 

Comments From the

General Services

Administration

96

Appendix X 

Major Contributors to

This Report

98

Tables Table 1: Number of Days All Courtrooms at a Location Were Used

for Trial or Nontrial Activities on the Same Day in 1995

10

Table 2: Percentage of Days Courtrooms Were Not Used At All or

Were Used for Trials and Nontrial Purposes at Seven Courthouse

Locations During 1995

11

Table 3: Percentage of Days Courtrooms Were Not Used or Were

Used for Trials and Nontrial Purposes by District and Senior

Judges at Six Courthouse Locations During 1995

13

Page 29 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Contents

Figures Figure 1: Percent of Days Courtrooms Were Used 3

Figure I.1: Sample JS-10 Form 35

Figure I.2: Sample JS-10A Form 37

Figure II.1: Overall Usage of Eight District Courtrooms in Dallas,

TX, in 1995

43

Figure II.2: Use of Seven Courtrooms by District Judges in Dallas,

TX, in 1995

44

Figure III.1: Overall Usage of 18 District Courtrooms in Miami,

FL, in 1995

47

Figure III.2: Use of Nine Courtrooms by District Judges in Miami,

FL, in 1995

48

Figure III.3: Use of Five Courtrooms by Senior Judges in Miami,

FL, in 1995

49

Figure IV.1: Overall Usage of Eight District Courtrooms in New

Mexico in 1995

52

Figure V.1: Overall Usage of 12 District Courtrooms in San Diego,

CA, in 1995

56

Figure V.2: Use of Six Courtrooms by District Judges in San

Diego, CA, in 1995

57

Figure V.3: Use of Five Courtrooms by Senior Judges in San

Diego, CA, in 1995

58

Figure VI.1: Overall Usage of 19 District Courtrooms in

Washington, D.C., in 1995

61

Figure VI.2: Use of Courtrooms by District Judges in Washington,

D.C., in 1995

62

Figure VI.3: Use of Courtrooms by Senior Judges in Washington,

D.C., in 1995

63

Abbreviations

AOUSC Administrative Office of the United States Courts

FJC Federal Judicial Center

GSA General Services Administration

Page 30 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Page 31 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to (1) determine how often and for what purposes

district trial courtrooms were used and (2) examine what steps the

judiciary is taking to assess space and courtroom usage issues. We did our

work at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) and the

General Services Administration (GSA) and at 7 courthouses located in 5 of

the 94 federal judicial districts—Dallas, TX, in the Northern District of

Texas; Miami, FL, in the Southern District of Florida; San Diego, CA, in the

Southern District of California; Washington, D.C., in the District of the

District of Columbia; and Albuquerque, Las Cruces, and Santa Fe, NM, in

the District of New Mexico. These 7 locations encompassed 65 district trial

courtrooms.

To meet our first objective, we met with AOUSC and GSA officials to discuss

the judiciary’s practice of providing a trial courtroom for each district

judge, the number of courtrooms nationwide, and the availability of data

on courtroom usage. From these meetings, we learned that (1) AOUSC

does not maintain systematic data on courtroom usage for any location,

(2) neither AOUSC nor GSA maintains an inventory of district courtrooms by

location or courthouse, and (3) each court and each judge tends to manage

cases and courtrooms differently. As a result, we had to analyze usage at

individual courthouses. Many variables, such as judgeship vacancies or

senior judge workload, could have been used to select courthouse

locations. However, we judgmentally selected the seven courthouse

locations considering the availability of staff and travel costs; geographic

dispersion; and courthouse size (small, medium, and large). First, we

selected the Dallas courthouse because it gave us the opportunity to

explore the availability of courtroom usage data, develop data collection

techniques, and learn about the various aspects of courtroom usage issues

at a single, small-sized facility (eight courtrooms and seven judges).

Once we completed our work in Dallas, we selected Miami; San Diego;

Washington, D.C.; and Albuquerque for detailed review because each had a

new courthouse construction project that was either planned or under

way. While making our selections, we took into account the following:

• Miami was considered a large courthouse with 18 trial courtrooms and 14

judges located in 3 separate buildings. According to the judiciary’s 5-year

plan, Miami is slated for $26 million in site and design funding in fiscal

year 1998 and $91.4 million in construction funding in fiscal year 2000.

• San Diego was considered a medium-sized courthouse with 12 trial

courtrooms and 11 judges. According to the judiciary’s 5 year courthouse

construction plan, San Diego is scheduled for $18.2 million in site funding

Page 32 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

in fiscal year 1998, $5.2 million in design funding in 2000, and $91.2 million

in construction funding in fiscal year 2001.

• Washington, D.C., was considered a large courthouse with 19 trial

courtrooms and 22 judges. The judiciary’s construction plan lists

Washington with $5.7 million in design funding for fiscal year 1998 and

$98.2 million for construction funding in fiscal year 1999.

• Albuquerque was considered a small courthouse since it had five

courtrooms and five judges. A new courthouse with an expected total

project cost of over $50 million is currently under construction.

We also selected Albuquerque because, during our interviews with GSA, we

learned that the judges in Albuquerque plan to share courtrooms once the

new courthouse is completed. After we started our fieldwork in

Albuquerque, we learned that two judges sitting in Santa Fe share one

courtroom and that many of the judges in the District of New Mexico

customarily conduct trials and nontrial hearings not only in the

courtrooms in Albuquerque, but also in the courtroom in Santa Fe and the

two courtrooms in Las Cruces.1

 Therefore, we decided to include these

courthouses in our study.

At all seven courthouse locations, we toured trial courtrooms and

discussed courtroom usage with judges, District Clerks, and other court

officials involved in scheduling and managing the use of the courtrooms.

Specifically, we discussed how judges schedule cases and use their

courtrooms, the importance of having a courtroom available when one is

needed, and the possibility of district judges sharing trial courtrooms. We

learned that the individual courts also do not compile statistical data

specifically on how often courtrooms are used or for what purposes. Thus,

we had to compile and analyze data from numerous sources. Due to time

constraints and the volume of information and records at each location,

we decided to limit the scope of our detailed review to calendar year 1995.

In doing our detailed audit work, we first reviewed Monthly Reports of

Trials and Other Court Activity (JS-10) compiled by the courts for 1995

pertaining to all district and senior judges assigned to the locations we

visited and Monthly Reports of Visiting Judge Activity (JS-10A) compiled

for 1995 pertaining to all visiting judges who heard cases at these

locations. The JS-10 is supposed to be used to report trials and nontrial

1

According to the judiciary’s 5 year construction plan, Las Cruces is also slated for a new courthouse

project. This project is scheduled to receive $3.5 million in site and design funds in fiscal year 1999 and

$20 million in construction funds in 2001.

Page 33 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

proceedings2 conducted by individual district or senior judges on a

monthly basis. The judiciary requires a JS-10 report for each active district

judge each month even if the judge did not have any trials or proceedings

that particular month. A JS-10 is also required for any senior judge during

each month that the judge had court activity. Likewise, the JS-10A is

supposed to be used to report the court time of visiting judges who are

temporarily assigned to a court and is supposed to be completed by the

court receiving the services. Figures I.1 and I.2 are samples of the JS-10

and the JS-10A forms, respectively.

2

According to the AOUSC, trials are defined as any contested proceeding. Nontrial activities include

motion hearings, arraignments, and other proceedings.

Page 34 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Figure I.1: Sample JS-10 Form

Page 35 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Source: Statistics Manual, Vol. I - Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

Page 36 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Figure I.2: Sample JS-10A Form

Page 37 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Source: Statistics Manual, Vol. I - Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

Page 38 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

According to AOUSC, the JS-10 was not designed to provide information on

how often courtrooms are used. AOUSC officials said the JS-10 was

designed to provide information on (1) the number and length of trials

conducted in district courts and (2) the amount of time judges spend on

other court activities in which both sides of the controversy were

involved. AOUSC officials acknowledge that the JS-10 might allow for an

approximation of courtroom use data in some courts, but it does not

provide a satisfactory substitute for actual data on courtroom usage. They

contend that much of the time courtrooms are in use does not appear on

the JS-10 because it does not capture such things as use by other types of

judges and time when the courtroom must be available to enforce trial

schedules or foster settlement of litigation.

Court officials at all locations we visited told us that (1) active district and

senior district judges are the primary users of the trial courtrooms and

(2) the JS-10 is the best source for determining how often and for what

purposes the judges used their courtrooms. From page 1 of the JS-10

reports, we were able to determine the date that each trial began and the

total number of hours and separate days that each judge spent on each

trial during the month. We were not, however, able to determine from the

JS-10 reports the specific days that the judges used the courtrooms for

trials. Using page 2 of the JS-10 reports, we determined the number of

hours and the specific days that each judge spent conducting nontrial

proceedings, such as arraignments/pleas, motions, pretrial hearings, and

other proceedings. Although these proceedings may have been held in

either the courtrooms or the judges’ chambers, we decided to consider all

of this time as courtroom usage time regardless of the location where the

event occurred.

To determine the specific days that the courtrooms were used for trials

and because of AOUSC’s concerns about the JS-10, we validated the

courtroom usage information taken from these reports by reviewing

various detailed records. Since each of the courts we visited maintain

different daily records pertaining to the activities of the judges, we had to

tailor our detailed analyses for each location. In some cases, we analyzed

the judges’ and/or their courtroom deputies’ daily calendars. These

calendars provided the specific days and types of proceedings that the

judges conducted throughout the year. In other cases, we reviewed the

minute orders or clerk’s minutes maintained by the courts. Like the daily

calendars, these documents provided such details as the dates and type of

hearings that were conducted by each judge on a case-by-case basis.

Finally, for some judges we had to review case histories from the

Page 39 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Integrated Case Management System, which is an automated docketing

system that keeps track of case events, such as trial and hearing dates.

Our detailed analyses of the various daily records showed that the JS-10

data was generally accurate, but when we found errors, we made

corrections before recording the data into our database of courtroom

usage. Identifying errors with the JS-10 data was possible because our

detailed analyses allowed us to determine all the days that the senior,

district, and visiting judges held trials and nontrial proceedings that could

have taken place in a courtroom.

Also, we reviewed court management statistics and other data, where

available, that showed the use of trial courtrooms by individuals other

than federal district judges. This included use by magistrate judges and

administrative law judges as well as various ceremonial uses of the

courtrooms. The miscellaneous usage was included in our overall

calculation of courtroom usage. After examining all the data, we credited

each courtroom with a full day of usage for all days that the records

showed that there was any activity in it. We then determined the

percentage of days that courtrooms were used by comparing actual usage

with the maximum number of federal workdays on which the courtrooms

could have been used (250) in 1995. We recognize that courtroom usage

may be affected by a number of variables, such as the number of judgeship

vacancies in a district and the number and workload of senior judges.

However, the purpose of our work was to determine actual courtroom

usage at the locations visited, not analyze the reasons for the usage

patterns we found. We did determine, on a location-by-location basis, how

many courtrooms were in use on every working day in 1995. This analysis

allowed us to identify the number of days when at least one courtroom

was vacant at each location.

To meet our second objective, we interviewed AOUSC and GSA officials and

reviewed various documents and studies pertaining to courtroom usage.

Specifically, we reviewed AOUSC documents pertaining to its nationwide

inventory of federal courtrooms and initiatives to better manage the

judiciary’s space. We also reviewed, with the assistance of an operations

research consultant, the AOUSC-commissioned study on the impact of

providing fewer courtrooms than judgeships.3

 Additionally, we reviewed

documents prepared by the Rand Institute for Civil Justice and the Federal

Judicial Center that examine various aspects of courtroom usage,

including courtroom sharing. Lastly, we interviewed an official from the

3

Leekley and Rule, op. cit.

Page 40 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

National Center for State Courts to discuss the concept of courtroom

sharing.

The results of our analysis on courtroom usage at the seven locations

visited cannot be projected across all federal district courts, within the

districts where they were located, or to the locations visited in other time

periods. We did our work between January 1996 and April 1997, in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 41 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix II 

District Courtroom Use in Dallas, Texas

Background In 1995, the U. S. District Court, Northern District of Texas was authorized

12 judgeships, but it had two vacancies that remained open at the time of

our review. In addition, there were three senior judges in the district, but

none sat in Dallas. The average number of trial days per judgeship was 76.

The district typically holds court in four locations—Amarillo, Dallas, Fort

Worth, and Lubbock—but in 1995 trials were also conducted in three other

locations—Abilene, San Angelo, and Wichita Falls. Forty-six percent of the

more than 400 trials in the district were held in Dallas, and this was the

only location in the district included in our review.

All eight trial courtrooms in Dallas are located in one building—the Earle

Cabell Federal Building and Courthouse. In 1995, seven of these

courtrooms were assigned to and used predominantly by the seven district

judges sitting in Dallas. Another courtroom was used primarily by visiting

judges. According to the District Clerk, the visiting judge courtroom has

poor acoustics, which makes it difficult to use for jury trials. In addition to

the trial courtrooms, there is a small courtroom (approximately 1,000

square feet) in Dallas that is used for hearings and other nontrial activities.

We did not include this courtroom in our analysis because it is not a

full-sized trial courtroom. A construction contract has been awarded for a

ninth trial courtroom, and a tenth courtroom is planned. According to a

court official, the two new courtrooms are being constructed to

accommodate the two new district judges who have been appointed by the

President but not yet confirmed by the Senate.

Overall Courtroom

Usage

In 1995, seven district judges sitting in Dallas, one visiting judge from

another district, and one district judge from another location within the

Northern District of Texas were the primary users of eight trial

courtrooms in Dallas. Overall, our analysis showed that the eight

courtrooms were used 56 percent of the total workdays in 1995, or 1,131

days of the 2,000 possible days. Trials accounted for 30 percent of the

workdays, nontrial activities accounted for 26 percent, and the courtrooms

were reported not used 44 percent of the workdays. On most of the

nontrial days, courtrooms were used for 2 hours or less. In addition some

of the nontrial time—3 percent of the total workdays—was for

miscellaneous activities by administrative law judges, magistrate judges,

and judges from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Figure II.1 illustrates

overall usage of the eight trial courtrooms in Dallas, Texas.

Page 42 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix II 

District Courtroom Use in Dallas, Texas

Figure II.1: Overall Usage of Eight

District Courtrooms in Dallas, TX, in

1995

44% 

30%

18%

5%

Reported use of courtrooms 56%

3% Miscellaneous activity

No reported use

Nontrial activity over

2 hours only

Trial activity

Nontrial activity of 2 

hours or less only

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. District Court records.

We did a frequency analysis of courtroom usage to determine how often

all eight courtrooms were used on the same day in 1995. Our analysis

showed that all courtrooms were used on only 1 day—in other words, on

249 days of 250 possible workdays in 1995, at least one courtroom was

vacant in Dallas.

Courtroom Usage by

District Judges

The seven district judges in Dallas in 1995 all had assigned courtrooms.

The four judges with whom we spoke told us that they sometimes use

another judge’s courtroom, but most trials and nontrial proceedings are

held in their own courtrooms. They explained that having assigned

courtrooms is preferred because the current culture assumes that each

judge will have his or her own courtroom, and each manages his or her

caseload differently.

As Figure II.2 illustrates, the district judges used their assigned

courtrooms, on average, 59 percent of the workdays in 1995. Most of this

usage—33 percent of the total workdays—was for trials; whereas

Page 43 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix II 

District Courtroom Use in Dallas, Texas

26 percent of the days the courtrooms were used for nontrial activities. On

most of the nontrial days, courtrooms were used for 2 hours or less.

Individual courtroom usage ranged from a low of 48 percent, or 120 days,

to a high of 80 percent, or 199 days.

Figure II.2: Use of Seven Courtrooms

by District Judges in Dallas, TX, in

1995

41%

33%

21%

5%

No reported use

Trial activity

Nontrial activity over

2 hours only

Nontrial activity of 2 

hours or less only

Reported use of courtrooms 59%

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. District Court records.

Courtroom Sharing The judges we spoke with in Dallas said that they prefer to have their own

courtrooms to help them resolve cases more efficiently. They commented

that the current culture assumes that each judge will have his or her own

courtroom. Furthermore, they stated that lawyers, litigants, and the public

have become accustomed to this arrangement, and any change could be

difficult. Nonetheless, the judges said that having fewer trial courtrooms

than district judges is workable. They said that if proper security were

available, hearing rooms could suffice for some criminal case functions as

well as for nonjury trials and motion hearings. However, the judges said

that they and their staffs would have to coordinate more closely with other

judges to ensure that a trial courtroom was available when needed.

Page 44 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix III 

District Courtroom Use in Miami, Florida

Background The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, was authorized 16

judgeships in 1995 but had 2 vacancies at the time of our review. In

addition, there were six senior judges in the district. In 1995, the average

trial days per judgeship was 143 days—80 percent higher than the national

average. The district judges customarily hold court in five

locations—Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Pierce, Key West, and West Palm

Beach. All five sites have at least one trial courtroom. Miami, with most of

the district’s trial activity, has the most courtrooms and was the only

location in the district that we visited.

In Miami, there are 3 separate buildings housing the 18 district courtrooms

that we reviewed. The newest building is the Federal Justice Building,

constructed in 1993. There are six trial courtrooms in this building, and in

1995 all were assigned to district or senior judges. The U.S. Courthouse,

which was constructed in 1983, has nine courtrooms with eight assigned

to district or senior judges and one left unassigned in 1995. This

unassigned courtroom did not have a fully equipped and functional

chamber for the first half of the year, but it was still used by visiting

judges. There are four trial courtrooms in the Old Courthouse (the U.S.

Post Office and Courthouse). This building, built in the 1930s, has two

courtrooms that have been vacant due to air-conditioning and mildew

problems since the Federal Justice Building was occupied in 1993,

according to the District Clerk. The Clerk also said that because the

building lacks secure corridors, the movement of prisoners to these two

courtrooms can occur only in the public corridors. The Clerk explained

that the other two courtrooms in the Old Courthouse do not have attached

chambers; therefore, judges must travel public corridors to and from the

bench. Consequently, these courtrooms are primarily used by visiting

judges for emergency hearings and administrative matters where security

is not an issue.

The Clerk suggested that since two of the four courtrooms in the Old

Courthouse are not used that often for criminal trials, we should exclude

them from our analyses, leaving a total of 16 courtrooms instead of 18.

However, because courtroom usage records showed that all four

courtrooms were used by visiting judges, we included these courtrooms in

our analyses. We did not include the large ceremonial courtroom located

in the Old Courthouse in our analyses because it is primarily used for

ceremonial purposes.

A new courthouse, which is estimated to cost over $100 million, is planned

for Miami. The judiciary’s 5 year courthouse construction plan cites the

Page 45 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix III 

District Courtroom Use in Miami, Florida

Miami project as requiring $26 million in site and design funding in fiscal

year 1998 and $91.4 million in construction funding in fiscal year 2000.

Overall Courtroom

Usage

In 1995, there were nine district judges and five senior judges sitting in

Miami. The district had two vacant judgeships that year. In addition to

these 14 judges, 6 visiting judges from other districts and 5 judges from

other locations within the district conducted trials and held hearings in

Miami in 1995. Overall, the 18 courtrooms were used 57 percent of the

workdays (2,581 days of the total 4,500 workdays). Trials accounted for

32 percent of the workdays and nontrial proceedings accounted for

25 percent. The courtrooms were not used 43 percent of the days. On most

of the nontrial days, courtrooms were used for 2 hours or less. Some of the

nontrial time—5 percent of the total workdays—was for miscellaneous

purposes. Miscellaneous use included proceedings conducted by

administrative law judges, naturalization and judicial swearing-in

ceremonies, jurist training, mock trials, and hearings conducted by

someone other than a federal district judge.

If, as previously suggested by the District Clerk, we excluded two of the

four courtrooms in the Old Courthouse from our analysis, the overall

courtroom usage rate in Miami would have been 65 percent instead of

57 percent. Figure III.1 illustrates overall usage of the 18 district

courtrooms in Miami during 1995.

Page 46 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix III 

District Courtroom Use in Miami, Florida

Figure III.1: Overall Usage of 18 District

Courtrooms in Miami, FL, in 1995

43% 14% 5%

32%

6%

Miscellaneous activity

Trial activity

Nontrial activity over 

2 hours only

Nontrial activity of 2

hours or less only

No reported use

Reported use of courtrooms 57%

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. District Court records.

We did a frequency analysis of courtroom usage to determine how often

all 18 courtrooms were used on the same day. We found that all of the

courtrooms were never in use on the same day in 1995. In fact, there were

no days when more than 15 courtrooms were used on the same day. In

other words, on any given day in 1995, there were at least three trial

courtrooms reported as vacant.

Courtroom Usage by

District Judges

The nine district judges sitting in Miami in 1995 all had assigned

courtrooms, which they used for most trials and nontrial activities. The

five judges with whom we met told us that they sometimes borrow another

judge’s courtroom, but most trials and nontrial proceedings are held in

their assigned courtrooms. They explained that having their own

courtrooms is important because each judge manages his or her caseload

a little differently, and with an assigned courtroom they always know

when they can schedule a trial or hearing. The judges pointed out that

Page 47 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix III 

District Courtroom Use in Miami, Florida

having a courtroom available at all times is important because they are

frequently called upon to issue temporary restraining orders, many of

which must be completed immediately.

As figure III.2 illustrates, the district judges used their nine assigned

courtrooms, on average, 73 percent of the workdays in 1995. Most of this

usage—45 percent of the total workdays—was for trials; whereas

28 percent of the days the courtrooms were used for nontrial activities. On

most of the nontrial days, courtrooms were used for 2 hours or less.

Individually, the district judges’ courtroom usage ranged from a high of

80 percent, or 200 days, to a low of 59 percent, or 147 days.

Figure III.2: Use of Nine Courtrooms by

District Judges in Miami, FL, in 1995

20%

45%

27%

8%

No reported use

Trial activity

Nontrial activity over

2 hours only

Nontrial activity of 2 

hours or less only

Reported use of courtrooms 73%

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. District Court records.

Courtroom Usage by

Senior Judges

The five senior judges sitting in Miami in 1995 also had assigned

courtrooms, which they used for most trials and nontrial activities. Most of

the senior judges carried reduced caseloads in 1995, but according to the

court officials with whom we spoke, all of them need their own

Page 48 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix III 

District Courtroom Use in Miami, Florida

courtrooms to ensure that scheduled trials and hearings are not delayed.

Our analysis showed that the senior judges used their five courtrooms, on

average, 45 percent of the workdays in 1995. The courtrooms were used

25 percent of the days for trials and 20 percent for nontrial proceedings.

The senior judges used their courtrooms considerably less than the district

judges used their courtrooms. The senior judges’ courtroom utilization

rates varied from a high of 66 percent, or 164 days, to a low of 20 percent,

or 50 days. Figure III.3 shows the use of five assigned courtrooms by

senior judges in Miami.

Figure III.3: Use of Five Courtrooms by

Senior Judges in Miami, FL, in 1995

55%

25%

14%

6%

No reported use

Trial activity

Nontrial activity over

2 hours only

Nontrial activity of 2 

hours or less only

Reported use of courtrooms 45%

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. District Court records.

Courtroom Sharing The judges in Miami are opposed to courtroom sharing if it means having

fewer trial courtrooms than judges. The judges that we spoke with said

that they believe that every district judge and senior judge in the Southern

District of Florida should have his or her own courtroom. In their opinion,

anything less would create a host of scheduling problems, which would

lead to an increase in case continuances and delays and higher litigation

costs for all parties. Furthermore, the district’s official position is that

Page 49 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix III 

District Courtroom Use in Miami, Florida

each facility occupied by resident judicial officers should also have a fully

functional visiting judge courtroom with a 14-person jury box and

furnished and equipped judge chambers.

Page 50 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix IV 

District Courtroom Use in Albuquerque, Las

Cruces, and Santa Fe, New Mexico

Background The New Mexico District covers the entire state of New Mexico. In 1995,

the district was authorized five judgeships and had no vacancies. In

addition to the five district judges, three senior judges served in the

district that year. The district averaged 74 trial days per judgeship, which

was slightly below the national average. Court is customarily held in three

locations—Albuquerque, Las Cruces, and Santa Fe. There are five trial

courtrooms located in Albuquerque, two in Las Cruces, and one in Santa

Fe. A ninth courtroom is located in Roswell, but there was no recorded

use of this courtroom by the district or senior judges in 1995. According to

the District Clerk, the courtroom in Roswell is leased by the District of

New Mexico, but it is used almost exclusively by a judge from the Tenth

Circuit Court of Appeals. We did not visit or include this courtroom in our

analyses.

In 1995, the five courtrooms in Albuquerque were assigned to four district

judges and one senior judge. According to the District Clerk, one of these

courtrooms is not a full-size trial courtroom; consequently, using it for jury

trials is difficult. The Clerk suggested that because of its limitations we not

include this courtroom in our analyses of trial courtrooms. However, we

included it because the courtroom was assigned to a senior judge who

used it for trial purposes in 1995, and it is still used for trials.

One of the two courtrooms in Las Cruces was assigned to a senior judge,

and the other was used by other judges from within the district who

routinely hold court in Las Cruces. The one trial courtroom in Santa Fe

was shared by a senior and a district judge. Despite having assigned

courtrooms, many of the judges in the District of New Mexico customarily

hold trials and conduct nontrial proceedings in courtrooms located in

cities other than where they are sitting. Therefore, in the chief judge’s

opinion, the judges are sharing courtrooms.

Courtroom Usage Because the judges customarily hold trials and nontrial proceedings in the

three separate locations, we examined courtroom usage from two

perspectives—districtwide and each of the three locations separately. We

found that the eight courtrooms in the District of New Mexico were used

by the eight judges from the district and four visiting judges from other

districts 44 percent of the total federal workdays in 1995. As illustrated in

figure IV.1, the courtrooms were used 19 percent of the days for trials and

25 percent for nontrial proceedings. The courtrooms were not used

56 percent of the workdays. Further, on most of the nontrial days,

courtrooms were used for 2 hours or less. If, as suggested by the District

Page 51 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix IV 

District Courtroom Use in Albuquerque, Las

Cruces, and Santa Fe, New Mexico

Clerk, we excluded the small courtroom in Albuquerque from our

analyses, the overall courtroom usage rate would increase to 51 percent.

Figure IV.1: Overall Usage of Eight

District Courtrooms in New Mexico in

1995

56% 17%

19%

8%

No reported use

Trial activity

Nontrial activity over

2 hours only

Nontrial activity of 2 

hours or less only

Reported use of courtrooms 44%

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. District Court records.

The following discusses overall courtroom usage and usage by district and

senior judges at each of three locations. Our analysis of district and senior

judges reflects their usage of all courtrooms where they tried cases and

held hearings, not just their usage of courtrooms located where they were

assigned. This approach was taken because the judges routinely hold court

throughout the district.

Albuquerque Courtroom

Usage

During 1995, the five courtrooms in Albuquerque were used for trials and

nontrial proceedings 44 percent of the workdays. Trials were conducted

on 20 percent of the workdays and nontrial proceedings on 24 percent of

the days. On most of the nontrial days, courtrooms were used for 2 hours

or less. If we excluded the small courtroom from our analyses, the

Albuquerque courtroom usage rate would increase to 55 percent.

Page 52 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix IV 

District Courtroom Use in Albuquerque, Las

Cruces, and Santa Fe, New Mexico

We did a frequency analysis of the courtroom usage in Albuquerque to

determine how often all five courtrooms were used on the same day. Our

analysis found that all courtrooms were used on 7 of the 250 workdays in

1995. In other words, on 243 days there was at least one courtroom vacant

in Albuquerque.

We also examined how district and senior judges used the five courtrooms

in Albuquerque. The district judges used the courtrooms in Albuquerque

considerably more often than the senior judges used the courtrooms. The

district judges used the courtrooms a total of 474 days, or 47 percent of the

workdays (20 percent for trials and 27 percent for nontrial purposes); the

senior judges used the courtroom 53 days, or 21 percent of the workdays

(13 percent for trials and 8 percent for nontrial purposes).

Las Cruces Courtroom

Usage

Although there is only one senior judge sitting in Las Cruces, two trial

courtrooms are located there. According to the Chief Judge and the

District Clerk, one-half of the district’s criminal caseload originates from

the Las Cruces area, and they anticipate that this caseload will grow.

Therefore, a second courtroom is needed for the judges who regularly

travel from Albuquerque or Santa Fe to hear cases in Las Cruces.

Our analysis showed that the two courtrooms were used for trials and

nontrial activities 43 percent of the workdays in 1995. Trial days

accounted for 18 percent of the days, and nontrial proceedings accounted

for 25 percent. On most of the nontrial days, courtrooms were used for 2

hours or less. We also found that both courtrooms in Las Cruces were

used on 54 of the 250 workdays in 1995; or, stated another way, a

courtroom was vacant in Las Cruces on 196 days that year.

Unlike Albuquerque, we found that the senior judges recorded more

courtroom usage in Las Cruces than the district judges. Our analysis

showed that the senior judges used the courtroom a total of 113 days, or

45 percent of the workdays; the district judges’ used the courtroom 101

days, or 40 percent of the days.

Santa Fe Courtroom Usage As previously stated, a senior judge and a district judge share one trial

courtroom in Santa Fe. In addition to these two judges, we were told that a

judge from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals who sits in Santa Fe also

uses this courtroom when he hears cases for the district. We discussed

this sharing situation with the district judge and two clerks involved in

Page 53 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix IV 

District Courtroom Use in Albuquerque, Las

Cruces, and Santa Fe, New Mexico

scheduling cases for trials and other hearings. These court officials told us

that sometimes the competing demands on the courtroom caused

scheduling conflicts that resulted in a few hearings being rescheduled or

the district judge being required to conduct hearings in chambers. The

district judge told us that on a few occasions she had to travel to

Albuquerque to find a courtroom in which to conduct a hearing.

The courtroom in Santa Fe was used for trials and nontrial proceedings on

48 percent of the total workdays. The courtroom was used 13 percent of

the total workdays for trials and 35 percent of the total workdays for

nontrial activities. On most of the nontrial days, the courtroom was used

for 2 hours or less. Our analysis of courtroom usage in Santa Fe also

showed that the courtroom was used by district judges for trial and

nontrial activities a total of 74 days, or 30 percent of the 250 workdays.

Senior judges used the courtroom 40 days, or 16 percent of the workdays.

Courtroom Sharing The Chief Judge and several other court officials told us that although the

district has assigned courtrooms, the judges are now sharing courtrooms

because they travel between locations so frequently to conduct trials and

other hearings. Their opinion is bolstered by the fact that we identified five

instances when four judges recorded courtroom activities in two different

locations in a single day. The Chief Judge also said he believes that

courtroom sharing will become more widespread in the future because the

judiciary will continue to grow, but its budgets are likely to tighten. He

added that as budgets tighten, court administrators and judges will be

forced to choose between people or space.

According to the Chief Judge, courtroom sharing will increase in the

District of New Mexico after the courthouse now under construction in

Albuquerque is completed. In the new courthouse, he said he envisions

that courtrooms will not be assigned because the 15 judges’ chambers will

be located on different floors from the 10 courtrooms. Initially, there will

be as many courtrooms as there are judges, but on the basis of the

judiciary’s 10-year projection, 15 judges (5 district, 4 seniors, and 6

magistrate judges) are expected to share the 10 trial-sized courtrooms.

The district judge who shares a courtroom in Santa Fe told us that

although sharing may be a good concept, it makes case scheduling more

complex and difficult. She stated that courtroom sharing would probably

work best if senior judges, especially those who do not carry criminal

caseloads, shared courtrooms.

Page 54 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix V 

District Courtroom Use in San Diego,

California

Background The U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, was authorized

eight judgeships in 1995 but still had two vacancies in August 1996. In

1995, six district judges and five senior judges tried cases and conducted

hearings in the district. The district averaged 63 trial days per judgeship,

which was slightly below the national average.

The District Clerk’s office occupies space in the Edward J. Schwartz

Federal Building located in San Diego. The district judges and their staffs

are located in the adjacent Edward J. Schwartz Courthouse, where all

trials were completed in the district’s 12 trial courtrooms during 1995.

Because of the anticipation of additional judges and the growing space

needs for the court, the judiciary asked GSA to construct four additional

trial courtrooms in the Edward J. Schwartz Courthouse. These courtrooms

became operational in early 1996. Additionally, the judiciary plans to

construct a new courthouse annex that will include additional trial

courtrooms. The new courthouse annex is listed in the judiciary’s 5 year

courthouse construction plan and is slated to receive $18.2 million in site

funding in fiscal year 1998, $5.2 million in design funding in fiscal year

2000, and $91. 2 million for construction in fiscal year 2001.

Overall Courtroom

Usage

In 1995, the six district judges and five senior judges sitting in San Diego

each had an assigned courtroom that they used for conducting trials and

nontrial proceedings. The twelfth courtroom was used primarily for trials

and related activities by a magistrate judge and seven visiting judges from

other districts. This courtroom was previously assigned to another senior

judge, but because of illness he recorded court time on only 1 day in 1995.

Our analysis in San Diego showed that the 12 courtrooms were used

59 percent of the workdays in 1995 and not used 41 percent of the days.

On 25 percent of the workdays the courtrooms were used for trials, and on

34 percent of the workdays they were used for nontrial activities. On most

of the nontrial days, courtrooms were used for 2 hours or less. Included in

the nontrial activities were miscellaneous activities, such as hearings

conducted by magistrate judges, grand jury proceedings, training, and

meetings. Figure V.1 shows overall usage for trial and nontrial activities

and nonusage of the 12 courtrooms in San Diego during 1995.

Page 55 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix V 

District Courtroom Use in San Diego,

California

Figure V.1: Overall Usage of 12 District

Courtrooms in San Diego, CA, in 1995

41%

25%

19%

9%

No reported use

Trial activity

Nontrial activity over

2 hours only

Nontrial activity of 2 

hours or less only

Reported use of courtrooms 59%

6%

Miscellaneous activity

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. District Court records.

We did a frequency analysis of courtroom usage to determine how often

all 12 courtrooms were used on the same day. This analysis showed that

all the courtrooms were used on only 1 day in 1995. In fact, on 97 percent,

or 242, of the 250 workdays in 1995, there were at least 2 courtrooms

reported as vacant.

Courtroom Usage by

District Judges

We were told that the district judges use their courtrooms nearly every

day. As a rule, the judges hear motions and other short matters on

Mondays, and on the remaining days they hold trials and conduct longer

hearings. Our analysis found that the six district judges used their assigned

courtrooms, on average, 71 percent of the workdays and had no reported

use 29 percent of the days. District judges used their courtrooms for trials

slightly more often than for nontrial activities—trials consumed 37 percent

of the workdays, and nontrial activities represented 34 percent of the days.

On most nontrial days, courtrooms were used for 2 hours or less. The

Page 56 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix V 

District Courtroom Use in San Diego,

California

district judges’ courtroom usage ranged from 143 days, or 57 percent, to

198 days, or 79 percent. Figure V.2 illustrates the district judges’ average

use of their courtrooms for trial and nontrial purposes.

Figure V.2: Use of Six Courtrooms by

District Judges in San Diego, CA, in

1995

29%

37%

20%

14%

No reported use

Trial activity

Nontrial activity over

2 hours only

Nontrial activity of 2 

hours or less only

Reported use of courtrooms 71%

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. District Court records.

Courtroom Usage by

Senior Judges

The five senior judges also had assigned courtrooms that they used for

conducting trials and nontrial activities. The senior judges used their

courtrooms considerably less than the district judges, averaging 43 percent

of the workdays. The courtrooms were used 17 percent of the workdays

for trials and 26 percent of the days for nontrial activities. Only one senior

judge, who recorded 156 days of usage, exceeded 50-percent usage. The

minimum usage was 59 days, or 24 percent. Figure V.3 shows the senior

judges’ average usage of their courtrooms for trials and nontrial purposes.

Page 57 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix V 

District Courtroom Use in San Diego,

California

Figure V.3: Use of Five Courtrooms by

Senior Judges in San Diego, CA, in

1995

57%

17%

22%

4%

No reported use

Trial activity

Nontrial activity over

2 hours only

Nontrial activity of 2 

hours or less only

Reported use of courtrooms 43%

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. District Court records.

Courtroom Sharing We were told by the Chief Judge and other court officials that courtroom

sharing by district judges would be very difficult because of their heavy

caseloads. The Chief Judge said that sharing may decrease the efficiency

of the judiciary because the availability of a courtroom is a key factor in

getting cases to settle, along with an available judge and a firm trial date.

The absence of one or more of these factors, according to the Chief Judge,

could hamper the settlement of cases and increase case backlogs. She also

stated that sharing could have consequences further down the judicial

process, affecting marshals, jail staff, juries, and other people involved.

This is because sharing might necessitate longer days in court, thus

requiring longer or additional shifts for these personnel. Ultimately, she

said, the cost savings from having fewer courtrooms than judges may be

more than offset by other costs imposed on the system.

The court officials with whom we met did say that courtroom sharing

could be possible among the senior judges. In fact, the Chief Judge said

there are plans for three senior judges to share a courtroom when a senior

judges’ suite is constructed in the current courthouse. She added that if

necessary, these judges would also use other available assigned

Page 58 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix V 

District Courtroom Use in San Diego,

California

courtrooms. Also, she stated that the district will be in a sharing mode

when the vacant judgeships are filled and new judgeships are assigned, as

they will then have more district judges than courtrooms.

Page 59 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VI 

District Courtroom Use in Washington, D.C.

Background The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is located in

Washington, D.C. The district was authorized 15 judgeships but had 3

vacancies at the time of our review. At the start of 1995, the district had 15

district judges and 7 senior judges. In July and August 1995, two of the

district judges took senior status. Also, in August 1995, one of the senior

judges died. Thus, by mid-August, the court had 13 district judges and 8

senior judges. The district averaged 80 trial days per judgeship in 1995,

which was equal to the national average.

The district holds court in one location, the United States Courthouse in

Washington, D.C. This building contains 19 trial courtrooms plus 1 larger

ceremonial courtroom. Because the district had more judges than trial

courtrooms, up to three district judges did not have their own assigned

courtrooms during 1995. Instead, these judges used courtrooms assigned

to other judges when they were available. Construction of a new

courthouse annex is planned in Washington, D.C. The judiciary’s 5 year

courthouse construction plan calls for this project to receive $5.7 million

in design funding in fiscal year 1998 and $98.2 million in construction

funding in fiscal year 1999.

Overall Courtroom

Usage

In 1995, a total of 22 district and senior judges used the district’s 19 trial

courtrooms. These courtrooms were used for trials and nontrial activities

on 61 percent of the workdays. The courtrooms were used 27 percent of

the workdays for trials, 34 percent for nontrial activities, and they were

not used 39 percent of the days. On most of the nontrial days, courtrooms

were used for 2 hours or less. Figure VI.1 illustrates overall usage of the 19

trial courtrooms in Washington, D.C., during 1995.

Not included in Figure VI.1 is the use of the district’s ceremonial

courtroom. This courtroom was not assigned to a particular judge, but

rather was used by judges primarily for naturalization ceremonies,

attorney admission ceremonies, and for trials and related activities that

required additional seating and space. During 1995, the ceremonial

courtroom was used on 80 days, or 32 percent of the total workdays. On 44

days, the courtroom was used for trial and related activities. The

remaining 36 days were for miscellaneous uses by court and other

personnel, such as educational institutions’ mock trials, school tours,

other training events, and meetings.

Page 60 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VI 

District Courtroom Use in Washington, D.C.

Figure VI.1: Overall Usage of 19

District Courtrooms in Washington,

D.C., in 1995

39%

27%

27%

7%

No reported use

Trial activity

Nontrial activity over

2 hours only

Nontrial activity of 2 

hours or less only

Reported use of courtrooms 61%

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. District Court records.

We also did a frequency analysis to determine how often all 19 trial

courtrooms were used on the same day. This analysis showed that all of

the courtrooms were never used on the same workday in 1995. In fact, on

over 95 percent of the workdays, or 239 days, there were at least three

courtrooms reported as vacant.

Courtroom Usage by

District Judges

In 1995, the district had 13 district judges for the entire year and 2 others

who took senior status during the summer of that year. In determining

district judge use of the courtrooms, we prorated the courtroom use of the

two judges who took senior status during the year based on their time in

district judge status.

Figure VI.2 shows that district judges’ average use of the courtrooms was

about 74 percent of the workdays in 1995. Thirty-three percent of the days

the courtrooms were used for trials, 41 percent of the days they were used

Page 61 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VI 

District Courtroom Use in Washington, D.C.

for nontrial activities, and 26 percent of the days the courtrooms were not

used. On most of the nontrial days, courtrooms were used for 2 hours or

less. The number of days that district judges used a courtroom during 1995

ranged from 80 days, or 32 percent, to 205 days, or 82 percent of the

workdays.

Figure VI.2: Use of Courtrooms by

District Judges in Washington, D.C., in

1995

31%

33%

26%

10%

No reported use

Trial activity

Nontrial activity over

2 hours only

Nontrial activity of 2 

hours or less only

Reported use of courtrooms 74%

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. District Court records.

Courtroom Usage by

Senior Judges

In 1995, the district had six senior judges for the entire year, two district

judges who took senior status during the year, and one senior judge who

died. Thus, the district ended the year with eight senior judges. In

determining the senior judges’ use of the courtrooms, we prorated the

usage time of the two judges who took senior status during the year based

on the number of days they were in senior status and included all of the

courtroom time of the senior judge who died during the year.

Figure VI.3 shows that senior judges’ average use of the courtrooms was

about 38 percent—considerably less than district judges’ average use.

Nontrial activities accounted for the most usage at 22 percent of the

Page 62 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VI 

District Courtroom Use in Washington, D.C.

workdays; whereas trial usage was only 16 percent and the courtrooms

were not used 62 percent of the workdays. The number of days that senior

judges used a courtroom ranged from 40 days, or 16 percent, to 128 days,

or 51 percent of workdays in 1995.

Figure VI.3: Use of Courtrooms by

Senior Judges in Washington, D.C., in

1995

62%

16%

19%

No reported use

Trial activity

3% Nontrial activity over

2 hours only

Nontrial activity of 2 

hours or less only

Reported use of courtrooms 38%

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. District Court records.

Courtroom Sharing The Chief Judge, two district judges who had tried cases without assigned

courtrooms, and other court officials told us that courtroom sharing is

possible, as evidenced by their actual experiences. The Chief Judge stated

that sharing had been implemented out of necessity when the number of

judges exceeded available trial courtrooms. However, the judges said that

they preferred that each judge have a courtroom to ensure more efficient

and effective case management. The Chief Judge said that he was

concerned that sharing on a larger scale might adversely affect the

flexibility that the judges have in individually managing their cases and

setting case schedules.

The judges stated that in addition to the availability of a judge and

maintaining firm trial dates, the availability of a courtroom has been

another key element in achieving case settlements and closures rather

than proceeding with actual trials. None of the judges that we spoke with

Page 63 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VI 

District Courtroom Use in Washington, D.C.

could recall any instance when a judge without an assigned courtroom had

not been able to find an available courtroom when needed. Courtroom

sharing, they noted, had caused some inconveniences, such as having to

move trial exhibits and participants’ materials from one courtroom to

another or having delays because jurors or participants had gone to the

wrong courtroom. They also indicated that the proximity of their

chambers to an unassigned courtroom could be a problem because they

were not always able to quickly return to chambers to handle other

business during short court recesses.

One judge noted that the successful implementation of courtroom sharing

had been due in part to the large number of trial courtrooms in the

courthouse. Sharing, he said, in smaller courthouses might be more

difficult. Further, the judges interviewed said that sharing is more feasible

among senior judges, particularly those who carry smaller caseloads.

Page 64 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

See p. 23.

Page 65 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

See pp. 23-26.

Now on pp. 22-23.

Now on p. 4.

See p. 25.

Page 66 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

Now on p. 9.

See p. 25.

Now on pp. 4-5

and pp. 17-19,

respectively.

Modified text. See

p. 17 and GAO

comment 1.

Page 67 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

Now on pp. 4-5 and

pp. 17-19, respectively.

Modified text. See

pp. 17-18 and GAO

comment 2.

Now on pp. 4-5 and

pp. 17-19, respectively,

See GAO comment 3.

Page 68 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

Now on p. 2 and p. 5,

respectively,

Modified text.

See p. 16

and GAO comment 4.

Modified text.

See p. 7

and GAO comment 5.

Now on p. 7.

Now on p. 7.

Page 69 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

Now on p. 21.

See GAO comment 6.

Page 70 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

Now on p. 18.

See GAO comment 7.

Now on p. 16.

Now on p. 4.

Modified text. See

pp. 4, 16, and 22;

See GAO comment 8.

Page 71 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

Now on p. 16.

Now on p. 12.

Page 72 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

Now on p. 15.

Modified text. See

p. 12 and GAO comment

9.

Now on p. 12.

Now on p. 15.

See GAO comment 10.

Page 73 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

Now on pp. 11-12.

See GAO comment 11.

Now on p. 15.

Modified text.

See p. 14

and GAO comment 12.

Page 74 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

See GAO comment 13.

See GAO comment 14.

See GAO comment 15.

Page 75 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

Now on p. 9.

Modified text. See

pp. 9 and 41; see

GAO comment 16.

Now on p. 9.

Page 76 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

Now on p. 10.

See GAO comment 17.

See GAO comment 18.

Page 77 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

See GAO comment 19.

See GAO comment 20.

Page 78 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

See pp. 25-26.

See p. 24.

Page 79 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

Page 80 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

See GAO comment 16.

Page 81 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

GAO Comments 1. AOUSC observed that the judiciary had undertaken a comprehensive

plan to improve space management and indicated that our report should

recognize those actions. Although our objectives were to evaluate

courtroom usage rather than assess the judiciary’s space management

program, we have noted the judiciary’s space management activity in the

report.

2. AOUSC noted that the judiciary has recently adopted a policy change

that includes consideration by judicial councils of the feasibility of

courtroom sharing for senior and visiting judges. We have included that

information in the report. However, AOUSC acknowledges that the policy

reaffirms the practice of providing one courtroom for each active judge.

Accordingly, we believe the additional analyses we recommend are still

necessary to fully evaluate the need for courtrooms.

3. AOUSC noted that the Judicial Conference has adopted criteria for

judicial council’s to consider in establishing or closing nonresident

facilities, that is facilities that do not have permanently assigned judges.

We did not include detailed information about this initiative in our report

because the use of nonresident facilities was outside the scope of our

review.

4. AOUSC cited a survey report that indicated that states also have

policies of providing one trial courtroom for each judge and suggested that

we include this information in our report. Although state court activities

were outside the scope of our review, we did discuss courtroom usage

issues with a representative of the National Center for State Courts, who

was unaware of any completed research on the issue at the time of our

meeting. As a result, we had not included information about state courts in

our draft report. However, we have added information to the report

concerning the September 1996 study referred to by AOUSC.

5. AOUSC stated that the cost estimates used to provide background

information about the significance of the issue of courtroom use were

misleading given that other factors—such as congressional restraint or

availability of senior judges—would influence actual costs in the future

and recommended that the discussion of cost be deleted. It was not our

objective to project future courtroom costs in this report. However, we

believed that some information about possible costs was important to

provide an understanding of the significance of the assignment and

construction of courtrooms. We recognized that costs vary by location and

selected the estimate for Washington, D.C., because it is used by GSA as a

Page 82 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

benchmark and because it was representative of the lower part of the

overall range of costs; thus, it was intentionally conservative. AOUSC also

stated that our use of the judiciary’s “Long Range Plan for the Federal

Courts” to estimate the number of judgeships needed in the future as a

basis for an overall estimate of potential costs was misleading because it is

unlikely that Congress would authorize the number of judgeships called

for in that plan. Although we recognize that many factors will have an

effect on the actual costs of building courtrooms in the future, the

judiciary’s estimates of the need for judges was the best available estimate

at the time of our study.

6. AOUSC cited the RAND study of courtroom utilization, in particular its

observations about the complexity and importance of any research on

courtroom usage. We discuss the RAND study on pages 19-21 of our report

and agree with its observations that many factors and trade-offs must be

analyzed to fully evaluate courtroom utilization. The need for a

comprehensive study of this sort is the principal basis for our

recommendation.

7. AOUSC noted that until the study it commissioned (the Leekley and

Rule study discussed on page 18 of our report), there was no research

available on the impact of changing the ratio of courtrooms to judges, and

it suggested that we further emphasize the importance of this study in our

report. We agree that research on this issue has been limited. However,

our and others’ assessments of the Leekley and Rule study indicated that it

has limited value in meeting its objective of determining the ratio of

courtrooms to judges. We believe we have provided sufficient information

about the study for readers to understand its contribution to debate on

this issue.

8. AOUSC stated that court scheduling data were offered to our staff

during this work but were not considered. We acknowledge that some

judges in some locations maintained data on how their courtrooms were

scheduled (as opposed to used), and they discussed those data with us.

However, the statement that the data were not considered is incorrect. We

did consider whether such data could be used in our methodology but

concluded that it could not be used for several reasons, including (1) such

data were not available for all judges in all locations; and (2) even if such

data had been available, translating them into estimates of courtroom

usage was methodologically difficult because, for example, scheduling

multiple events at the same time was a common practice. We acknowledge

in the report that other factors, such as latent use and scheduling, should

Page 83 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

be considered in any comprehensive study of courtroom usage, and we

have revised our report to clarify that such data exist in some locations.

9. AOUSC noted that courtrooms are either necessary or the best venue

for certain pre-trial activities and suggested that our report acknowledge

this. The draft report stated that nontrial (including pre-trial) activities

could potentially be held in some cases (and our work showed that they

sometimes were) in hearing rooms, conference rooms, or chambers.

However, we have added language to the report to make explicit that in

some cases trial courtrooms may be the best venue for such activities.

10. AOUSC observed that security issues might arise if conference rooms

were used instead of courtrooms in criminal cases and that in some cases

appropriate space must be provided for press and the public who have a

right to attend many proceedings. We agree that security is an important

issue and that many other factors need to be considered in determining

the number of courtrooms that are needed. We believe our

recommendation for a comprehensive study of courtroom usage should

include all of these relevant factors.

11. AOUSC expressed concern that if varied sizes of courtrooms are built

to reduce costs rather than one standard sized courtroom for each judge,

other costs will be incurred because of complications of coordinated

scheduling or possible delays in proceedings if a courtroom of appropriate

size is not available. We agree that consideration should be given to other

costs that could arise from alternatives to the

standard-sized-courtroom-for-each-judge practice. Our recommendation

specifically includes consideration of a wide range of factors. We note,

however, that judges we met with during this review told us that hearing

rooms were used for some nontrial activities or even criminal case

functions when security was provided. Additional information as

contemplated in our recommendation is necessary to assess the likelihood

that such additional costs would occur.

12. AOUSC noted that videoconferencing is not a substitute for a fully

equipped courtroom, and suggested we eliminate consideration of such

alternatives from our discussion. We did not suggest that

videoconferencing be used when a full-sized courtroom is needed.

However, enhanced technology such as videoconferencing may be

effective for certain proceedings, and thus reduce the need for as many

full-sized courtrooms or other space. FJC, in its comments on the draft of

this report, said that some federal courts are using two-way

Page 84 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

videoconferencing for some civil proceedings and that federal judges have

used the telephone for hearing motions and other matters for more than 20

years. We believe that this technology could be one tool to help the

judiciary use its limited resources effectively.

13. AOUSC pointed out that money is saved when a case is settled before

trial and that such savings should be considered in evaluating the need for

courtrooms. We agree that savings are derived when cases settle before

trial, and the role courtrooms play in achieving them should be part of the

judiciary’s consideration of how many and what types of courtrooms are

needed. Currently, the judiciary does not make this type of comparison.

14. AOUSC stated that our audit team should conduct the promised exit

conferences with each chief judge whose court was studied, and the

judges’ views should be included in our report. Our staff did meet with the

chief judges or their designees at all locations visited to obtain their views

on the importance of an available courtroom and on courtroom sharing.

We summarized those views in our report. We also shared and discussed

the data we developed at each location with the judges and other court

officials with one exception, Denver. In Denver, we collected data on

courtroom usage that are presented in a separate letter on courtroom

usage in locations additional to those discussed in this report, and we

issued that data in response to another congressional request

(GAO/GGD-97-59R). In that case, court officials were unable to schedule an

exit conference at the time we completed our detailed field work (in

February 1997), although we did provide the court with a copy of our

analysis and findings. Since then we have made numerous requests to

arrange an exit conference. We discussed this problem with AOUSC officials

during our exit conference with them on March 21, 1997, and those

officials told us that the chief judge and district clerk were probably too

busy with the Oklahoma City bombing trial to return our calls.

AOUSC officials also said that several judges stated that the audit team’s

members’ minds were made up before they entered the court and they

were not interested in hearing how to get the complete picture. AOUSC also

noted that our audit team did not follow up on a suggestion to interview a

particular judge who had significant experience with courtroom sharing in

state court. AOUSC did not provide any specific information that would

permit us to comment further on those observations. However, our work

was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards. Those standards include rigorous processes,

procedures, and internal controls to ensure objective analysis and

Page 85 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

reporting of our findings. The reviews inherent in those processes have

provided no evidence that the work was not conducted in accordance with

our standards. We acknowledge that we were unable to talk to every judge

or other official suggested to us in the course of our review, but we note

that we did meet with a number of judges and others who had experience

or views on courtroom sharing, both positive and negative.

15. AOUSC observed that obtaining the views of other court users such as

U.S. attorneys would have provided additional information about

courtroom sharing. Our objective for this review was to obtain information

about how often and for what purposes courtrooms have been used in

selected locations and examine steps the judiciary has taken to assess

space and courtroom usage issues. Accordingly, the views of other

possible participants in courtroom activities were outside the scope of our

review. However, we agree that the views of such participants could be

important in a comprehensive assessment of courtroom usage as we

recommend.

16. AOUSC stated that the data collected should not be used to project

courtroom usage for other time periods, even in the courts that were

studied. AOUSC offered some additional data concerning districtwide trial

rates as evidence that our data may not be representative. We agree that

our data cannot be used to project usage for the courts generally or for the

locations or districts we visited, and we have added language to our

discussion of methodology to clarify that point. For a variety of reasons,

we do not believe that the trial rate data provided by AOUSC is a definitive

indicator of courtroom usage. For example, because some trials can take a

few hours to complete while others take months, the relationship between

the number of trials and courtroom usage is uncertain.

17. AOUSC stated that the courtrooms that were not usable should not

have been included in our data, and in particular we should have deleted

three specific courtrooms in Miami from our analysis because they were

not assigned to a full-time judge. Our analysis included only the

courtrooms assigned to or used for trials or other legal proceedings by

active and senior district judges and by visiting judges. Thus, we did not

include unused or unusable courtrooms, and we adjusted our data where

appropriate to take into consideration courtrooms that were temporarily

out of service. The three unassigned courtrooms in Miami were included

in our analyses because they were used for trials and other proceedings by

visiting judges from other locations.

Page 86 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts

18. AOUSC stated that vacant judgeships should not have been counted in

the courtroom usage data we reported. We did not do so. Our analysis

included information on the usage of district trial courtrooms at each

location by the judges who used those courtrooms. We provided

information on judicial vacancies as background to inform the reader that

some courts had fewer judges than they were authorized.

19. AOUSC observed that our analysis contained “distortions” because of

our inclusion of courtroom usage in districts where judges routinely heard

cases in courtrooms located in different cities many miles apart, such as

New Mexico and Miami (where judges hear cases in Key West). We do not

agree that the data we reported for New Mexico or Miami were distorted.

We recognized that these situations were different from the other

locations we reviewed. In the case of New Mexico, we presented

courtroom usage data from two perspectives—districtwide and for each of

the three locations we visited. (Another location—Roswell—was not

included because there was no district judge sitting there, and district

judges did not use that courtroom in 1995.) AOUSC officials told us that they

believed that when judges were holding court in other locations, we

should not have considered their assigned courtroom available for use.

However, Miami court officials told us that when Miami district judges

visited other locations in the district, their assigned courtrooms were

available for use by other judges. Thus, we included in our analyses the

use of the Miami courtrooms by any judge.

20. AOUSC stated that 250 days is an unrealistic number of days to use as

the number of days court could be held. In particular, AOUSC stated that

there are days when all judges in a district are required to be in

districtwide meetings. We recognize that there are reasons, such as

districtwide meetings or other factors such as illness or vacations, that

may result in judges not being available to use a courtroom. In fact, AOUSC

could consider such factors when deciding how many full-sized

courtrooms are needed. We focused our work on how often and for what

purposes courtrooms were used, not the reasons why judges did not use

them. In the absence of any other estimate of available days, the number

of federal workdays in 1995—250—seemed like a reasonable starting point

for such an analysis.

Page 87 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the Federal Judicial Center

See p. 26.

Now on pp. 22-23.

Modified text.

See pp. 22-23.

Now on p. 18.

See p. 26.

Now on pp. 22-23.

Page 88 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the Federal Judicial Center

Now on pp. 22-23.

Modified text.

See pp. 17-18.

Now on p. 17.

Now on p. 9.

Modified text.

See pp. 8-9, 32, and 41.

Now on p. 41.

Now on pp. 7-8.

Now on p. 7.

Modified text. See

p. 7 and app. VII,

GAO comment 5.

Page 89 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the Federal Judicial Center

Now on pp. 2 and

21, respectively.

See GAO comment 1.

Modified text. See

p. 11 and app. VII,

GAO comment 4.

Now on p. 2.

Now on p. 11.

Modified text.

See p. 12.

Page 90 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the Federal Judicial Center

Now on p. 12.

Modified text. See

p. 12.

Now on p. 22.

Now on p. 21.

Now on p. 12.

See GAO comment 2.

Now on p. 4.

Now on pp. 14 and 15,

respectively.

Modified text.

See p. 14 and

app. VII, GAO comment

12.

Modified text.

See p. 5.

Now on p. 5.

See GAO comment 3.

Page 91 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the Federal Judicial Center

Now on p. 11.

Now on p. 42.

Now on p. 46.

Now on p. 55.

Now on p. 13.

Now on p. 40.

Now on p. 12. See app.

VII, GAO comment 2;

and app. VIII, GAO

comment 4.

Now on p. 16.

See GAO comment 5.

Page 92 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the Federal Judicial Center

Now on p. 20.

See GAO comment 6.

Page 93 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the Federal Judicial Center

GAO Comments A number of FJC’s comments were essentially the same as those provided

by AOUSC. To avoid redundancy, we do not comment if the matter was

addressed in our response to AOUSC’s comments.

1. FJC observed that many parties—not just judges—influence

courtroom use. We agree that judges do not have total control over the

process and that numerous factors can and do influence it. However, as

discussed in our report, the judiciary has not analyzed how these factors

affect courtroom usage, compiled data on how often and for what

purposes courtrooms are actually used, or developed criteria based on

such analyses for determining how many and what types of courtrooms

are needed to effectively administer justice. Without these basic data and

criteria, the judiciary is not in a good position to fully assess how other

factors, such as national and local changes in prosecution policy, influence

judges’ control and courtroom usage.

2. FJC points out that courtrooms not in use on a specific day may not be

available for other needs such as a longer trial. We recognize that when

some courtrooms are available on a particular day, they may not always be

suitable for meeting all court needs. On the other hand, as mentioned in

the report, on most nontrial days, courtrooms were used for 2 hours or

less. Therefore, opportunities may exist to use courtrooms that become

available unexpectedly to more efficiently manage those activities that

take up shorter blocks of time. Further analyses could include exploring

how different-sized blocks of unused courtroom time could efficiently

accommodate different types of court activities. We agree with FJC that the

judiciary currently lacks data to adequately analyze this possible use. Our

data on unused days offer useful insights that could be a starting point for

a thorough examination of courtroom usage patterns and, relatedly,

courtroom needs.

3. FJC noted that the use of courtrooms by other parties, such as

magistrate judges, further complicates analysis of courtroom usage. We

agree this could add to the complexity of the analysis. However, our

methodology centered on trying to determine how each district courtroom

was used. In general, we found that magistrate judges at the locations we

visited typically conducted proceedings in their own courtrooms or

chambers. In the few instances where magistrate judges used a district

courtroom, we verified this type of use with court personnel and recorded

it as district courtroom use.

Page 94 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the Federal Judicial Center

Essentially, we recorded magistrate judges’ trial and nontrial activities

conducted in district courtrooms using the same criteria that we used for

district judges.

4. FJC pointed out that not all senior judges carry reduced workloads and

thus this factor cannot be assumed to reduce the need for courtrooms. We

recognize that senior judges can carry full caseloads and agree this should

be taken into account as part of any attempt to change how they are

assigned courtrooms. However, our data clearly show that on average,

senior judges used their courtrooms significantly less frequently than

active judges. Further, as mentioned in the report, judges we talked to said

that if changes are to occur related to assigning courtrooms, senior judges

are the most likely candidates for courtroom sharing. Also, according to

AOUSC’s comments, the Judicial Conference recently adopted a policy

change related to courtroom use that included an effort to explore

courtroom sharing among senior judges.

5. FJC said it was unclear whether our observation that the judiciary does

not have data to substantiate the extent to which latent use affects

courtroom use implied that the judiciary’s standard statistical data system

should be revamped to include such information, which FJC said would be

impractical and undesirable. We did not intend to imply that the judiciary’s

lack of data in this regard should be remedied by changing the reporting

system. We believe there could be alternative methodologies for gathering

data on latent use and other factors so that the impact of these factors can

be assessed. We believe that the methodology for capturing this

information should be left to the discretion of the judiciary or the study

group doing the research.

6. FJC expressed concern that we avoid the implication that courtroom

use policy should be based solely on quantifiable measures. It is not our

intent to limit the judiciary’s flexibility in determining how best to develop

courtroom usage data, consider other factors, or fully explore this issue. It

seems reasonable that qualitative and quantitative measures would both

be used in developing the evidence needed to determine the number, type,

and location of needed courtrooms.

Page 95 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix IX 

Comments From the General Services

Administration

See pp. 26-27.

Page 96 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix IX 

Comments From the General Services

Administration

Page 97 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Appendix X 

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Gerald Stankosky, Assistant Director, Government Business Operations

Issues

John F. Mortin, Assignment Manager

William J. Dowdal, Senior Evaluator

David E. Sausville, Senior Evaluator

Martin H. de Alteriis, Senior Social Science Analyst

Dallas Field Office,

Dallas, Texas

Sherrill H. Johnson, Assistant Director, Government Business Operations

Issues

James G. Cooksey, Evaluator-in-charge

J. Paul Rodriguez, Senior Evaluator

Patricia Sari-Spear, Senior Evaluator

Dorothy M. Tejada, Evaluator

David W. Bennett, Evaluator

(240195) Page 98 GAO/GGD-97-39 District Courtroom Use
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100