-- -~.-------

National Criminal Justice Reference Service 

-----------~~--------------------~------ nCJrs 

This microfiche was produced from documents received for 

inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise 

control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, 

the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on 

this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. 

1.0 :; IIIII~~ 11111

2

.

5 

I~ 11111

3

.

2 

tJ 

w II~~ t:.ll 

CI I~ 1.1 ~ 

L;, ~ 

t.wuu. 

--

----- ---

--

111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART 

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-\963-A 

Microfilming procedures used to create this fiche comply with 

the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-1l.504. 

Points of view or opinions stated in this document are 

those of the author(s) and do not represent the official 

position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. 

National Institute'of Justice 

United States Department of Justice 

Washington, D. C. 20531 

Date Filmed 

3/11/81 

---,.--------~--~---------- -----------------

.. t.-

Citizen Court 

Watching: 

The Consumers 

Perspective 

-

o 

~ 

~ 

L .. w ••••••• "" •• _ 

;.. .. 1 

II Office of Technology Transfer 

National Institute of Law Enforcement and 

Criminal Justice I Law Enforcement Assistance Administration 

~ U.S. Department of Justice 

i 

I 

~ , 

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.
-- -~~------- --~ .. .-----~-......--------

r 

I 

t 

I 

i 

1, 

I 

j' 

CITIZEN COURT WATCHING: THE CONSUMERS' PERSPECTIVE 

Kenneth Carlson 

Lewis Morn~ 

Robert Spangenberg 

Debra Whitcomb 

October 1977 

Prepared for the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice, by 

Abt Associates Inc., under contract number J-LEAA-030-76. Points of view 

or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Office of Development, Testing, and 

Dissemination 

National Institute of Law Enforcement and 

Criminal Justice 

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration 

U.S. Department of Justice 

* d' . j 
• 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT 

AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE 

Blair Ewing, Acting Director 

LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION 

James M. H. Gregg, Acting Administrator 

For snl0 by tho Superlnt~ndcnt of DocnnlPnt-q, U.S. Govcrnmcnt Printing Offico 

Washington, D.C. 2()'!O2 

Stock No. 027-000-00503-4 

) 

'1 

I 

il il 

'I 

d 

:1 

I 

J 

i 

I 

ABSTRACT 

Citizen court watching efforts have proliferated with the recent trend toward open 

government and decision-making at all levels. By observing a court's proceedings on 

a regular basis for a specified period of time, trained court monitors are able to 

recognize and document inadequacies and to press for their remediation. Their 

accomplishments range from installing information booths in courthouse lobbies, to 

posting daily calendars and notices of defendants' rights outside courtroom doors, 

to developing standards for determining indigency for assignment of public defenders. 

This report begins with a "state-of-the-art" review of current court watching projects, discussing their broad range of goals, objectives, and day-to-day operations. 

Two particularly well-documented projects - the League of Women Voters' Court 

Watching Project in Illinois and the Family Court Monitoring Project of the Fund 

for Modern Courts in New York - are described in detail, focusing on development, 

operations, findings and results. Several other projects are briefly summarized. 

Drawing on the successes and failures of these experiments in court watching, the 

review turns to a synthesis of the various elements necessary to a successful citizen 

effort in court improvement. Among the issues considered are establishing appropriate goals and objectives, recruitment and training of monitors, proper use of 

the media, communications with the judiciary, and evaluation. 

By developing a sufficiently rigorous program of observation and documentation, 

court watchers can insure that their findings and recommendations will warrant 

serious consideration and stand up to judicial scrutiny. Existing projects as well 

as those in formative stages can benefit from understanding the issues and suggestions contained in this document. 
For further information concerning the policies 

and procedures of the Illinois Court Watching 

Project and the New York Court Monitoring 

Project, contact: 

Barbara Fenoglio 

Project Director 

League of Women Votors of Illinois 

67 E. Madison St., Room 1408 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

(312) 236-0315 

Sondra Solomon 

Project Director 

Court Monitoring Project 

The Fund for Modern Courts, Inc. 

36 West 44th Street 

New York, New York 10036 

(212) 869-1130 

CHAPTER I: 

CHAPTER II: 

CHAPTER III: 

CHAPTER IV: 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

STATE-OF-THE-ART 

1.1 Overview 

1.2 Who Participates in Court Watching Projects 

1.3 What Types of Court Watching Projects Exist 

ILLINOIS COURT WATCHING PROJECT 

2.1 Organizational Structure 

2.2 Soliciting Cooperation with the Judiciary 

2.3 Court Selection 

2.4 Recruiting Monitors 

2.5 Training Monitors 

2.6 Operational Procedures 

2.1 Results 

2.8 The Future 

- Toward Institutionalization 

COURT MONITORING PROJECT OF THE FUND 

FOR MODERN COURTS OF NEW YORK CITY 

3.1 Monitoring the Criminal Courts 

3.1.1 Recruitment and Training 

3.1.2 Cooperation of the Judiciary 

3.1.3 Findings, Recommendations and Results 

3.2 Monitoring the Family Courts 

3.2.1 Special Considerations 

OTHER COURT WATCHING PROJECTS 

4.1 Criminal Court Projects 

4.1.1 Arizona 

4.1.2 California 

4.1.3 Ohio 

4.1.4 Pennsylvania 

4.1.5 Washington 

4.2 Civil Court Projects 

1 

1 

3 

3 

7 

8 

10 

10 

11 

12 

13 

15 

23 

27 

27 

28-

29 

30 

32 

33 

35 

36 

36 

37 

38 

40 

41 

42 

_ .. A 
CHAPTER V: PROGRAM GUIDELINES 45 

5.1 Establishing Goals and Objectives 45 

5.1.1 Clearly Defined Go~ls 45 

5.1.2 Objective vs. Subjet;tive Goals 46 

5.1.3 Project Capabilities 47 

5.2 Types of Program Goals 47 

5.2.1 Assessing Court Personnel and Facilities 48 

5.2.2 Assessing Court Organization and 48 

Procedures 

5.2.3 Assessing Inequities in the Administration 49 

of Justice 

5.3 Program Management and Administration 53 

5.3.1 Advisory Committee 54 

5.3.2 Funding Requirements and Staff 54 

5.3.3 Recruitment 56 

5.3.4 Training 59 

5.3.5 Communications with the Judiciary 64 

5.3.6 Use of the Media 66 

5.4 Assessment of Ach ievement 68 

5.5 Summary 71 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Data Collection Forms, 73 

Illinois Court Monitoring Project 

Appendix B: Summary of Recommendations, 87 

Illinois Court Watching Project 

Appendix C: Court Monitor's Handbook 91 

(Criminal Courts), Fund for Modem 

Courts, New York 

Appendix D: Court Monitor's Handbook 121 

(Family Courts), Fund for Modern 

Courts, New York 

GOT A MOMENT? 

We'd like to know what you think of this document. 

The last page of this publication is a questionnaire. 

Will you take a few moments to complete it? 

The postage is prepaid. 

Your answers will help us provide you with more 

useful documentation. 

__________ • ____ • __ ~ _______ ~~~ _________ ........-.011. ___ ~ _______ ~ 
-~---------------- ~----

CHAPTER I: STATE OF THE ART 

1.1 Overview 

Organized citizen courtwatching is a relatively new phenomenon 

that has grown rapidly in the last ten years. until the last 

decade, ordinary citizens were seldom able to assume a constructive role in the judicial process. Historically, even the legal 

system's critics, trained in the Anglo-Saxon tradition of American 

law, assumed that justice was the exclusive province of a legally 

trained elite. Besides, it was argued, the constitutional guarantee of the right to trial by jury of one's peers seemed to assure 

the proper measure of democracy in the courtroom. 

Recent years, however, have seen a precipitous decline in public 

confidence in the major institutions of society, the courts among 

them. The lower criminal courts have begun to receive intense 

public scrutiny. The 1967 President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice reported that it was 

, •••. shocked by what it has seen in some lower courts ... It has 

seen cramped and noisy courtrooms, undignified and perfunctory 

procedures, and badly trained personnel ... " According to the 

Commission, the outcome was "assembly line justice." 

Many citizens have had contact with the courts as jurors or witnesses, experiences which have provided them with an inside view 

of the current problems of the courts. Long docket delays, multiple continuances of criminal cases, and physical decay of many 

local courthouses have aroused increasing public concern. 

The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards 

and Goals has recently stated: 

1 

j.J 
" ..• court processing of criminal defendants as well as 

the interfacing of that process with other aspects of the 

criminal justice system takes place within the realm of 

legitimate public scrutiny •.. For those directly involved 

in criminal matters, as victims, witnesses, or df~fendants, 

the way in which the case is treated is of immediate importance. Even individuals not directly involved in 

particular cases often exhibit interest in judicial 

activity related to crime, both because of a legitimate 

interest in being protected against criminal behavior, 

and because of widespread interest in crime and criminals as a general matter .•. A law-abiding atmosphere is 

fostered by public respect for the court process. Such 

attitudes correspondingly suffer when public scrutiny 

results in public dissatisfaction. The.perception the 

community has of the court system also may have a direct 

impact on court processes, as when it affects the willingness of members of the community to appear as witnesses, 

serve as jurors, or support efforts to provide courts 

with adequate resources." 

The problem has been stated best perhaps by Leonard Downie, Jr., 

in his recent book, Justice Denied, The Case for Reform of the 

Courts. Mr. Downie declares, "It is not enough for worried Americans to lock their doors, buy guns, complain about Supreme Court 

decisions, or conversely, to criticize those who do. It is not 

enough to complain that the law is wrong, the courts are unresponsive, the judges lazy and the lawyers greedy ... lt is time 

instead for citizens to go down to the local courthouse, look 

around, and learn to understand what happens there." 

In the last decade, organizi~d groups of citizens in California, 

Connecticut, Ohio, Missouri, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York 

and many other states have been doinv just that. They have been 

recruiting and training citizens to serve as unofficial court 

monitors, observing court proceedings and identifying problems 

from a consumer's perspective. 

2 

1.2 Who Participates in Court Watching Projects 

Unde~ the best possible circumstances, court watching projects are 

staffed by relatively heterogeneous groups of people who have received intensive training in the nature of the project in which 

they are participatin<;l", as well as in court procedures and observational techniques. Diversity among the group is desirable in 

that it permits the group as a whole to relate both to th~ crosssection of society which appears before the courts, and to the 

officials of the courts themselves. Training is important, since 

the language and procedures used in public courtrooms can often 

be confusing to uninitiated observers; such confusion may thus 

prevent them from collecting accurate data or drawing informed 

conclusions. 

Clearly, however, many projects are unable to achieve either a 

significant amount of diversity among 'their participants, or to 

provide a significant amount of training. Due to funding constraints, most proj'ects must be staffed primarily by volunteers. 

Since court watching is generally a full-day activity, volunteers 

most frequently are persons who have large blocks of leisure time 

at their disposal--students, homemakers, and retirees, mostly from 

middle-class backgrounds. Moreover, the nature of those organizations which most often undertake court watching projects--including 

the American Civil Liberties Union, the League of Women Voters, 

t:he American Friends Service Committee, church groupo, etc.--

~ore narrowly defines the types of people who will be participating 

in the projects. Funding constraints also influence the amount and 

quality of training provided to participa,nts, since staff time for 

such activities is often limited. Court watchers thus undergo 

training which may last as long as two weeks, but which is often 

as short as a fb; hours. However, several court watching groups 

have now published manuals (e.g., the Court Action Handbook prepared by the Friends Suburban Project in Pennsylvania, or How to 

Watch a Court, published by the League of Women Voters of Illinois) 

which serve as general training tools. 

1.3 What Types of Court Watching Projects Exist 

Court watching projects cover a broad range of activities, from 

general, public education efforts to inform citizens about court 

3 

.. ,4 • j 
• 

procedures and problems, to more specific efforts such as attempts 

to promote certain legislative refo~ms for the judicial system. 

The activities of these projects are naturally related to their 

stated and implicit goals. Thus some projects seek merely to 

maintain a "public presence" in the courtroom, while others make 

detailed recommendations to judges and department heads, and 

lobby to encourage court reform through state legi.slative 

action. 

In a survey of court observer programs, Marianne Stecich has 

characterized projects in three broad groupings: defendant protector projects, law and order projects, and specific data projec·ts. * 

Defendant Protector Projects are those whose aims are: (1) to 

protect the rights of criminal defendants, either through court 

reform or by educating the defendants themselves; and (2) to detect and/or document instances or patterns of discrimination in 

the courtroom. Defendant protector projects are most frequently 

undertaken by libertarian organizations such as the American 

Friends Service committee and the American Civil Liberties Unions, 

and participants frequently view themselves as the "consciences 

of the court." Among the specific projects pursued by defendant 

protector groups are the following: 

• compiling booklets of court procedures and defendants' 

rights, to be distributed in city jails and through 

community agencies; 

• setting up information desks in municipal court 

entry halls; 

• evaluating the methods and procedures used by at~ 

torneys representing indigents in criminal actions; 

• drawing up proposals to be presented to court officials 

(e.g., redistribution of judges' workloads, new methods 

of jury selection, reform of bailor sentencing procedures, institution of public defender programs, provision of interpreters for non-English speaking defendants) • 

* Marianne Stecich, "Keeping an Eye on the Courts: A Survey of 

Court Observer Programs, I' Judicature, Vol, 58, No .. 10 (May 1975), 

pp. 468-479. 

4 

--~ ~~------------------~,.~.----------~----~--------------

Law and Order Projects represent an "opposing viewpoint" to defendant protector groups. Essentially, their goal is to pressure 

judges into delivering more severe sentences in certain types of 

cases, to reduce what they view as a distressing permissiveness 

in courtroom activities. Law and order projects are somewhat less 

common than defendant protector projects; perhaps the best known 

is Citizens for Law and Order (CLO) in California. Court watchers 

in this group publish a monthly newsletter which includes criticisms and commendations of judges, given on the basis of the 

leniency/severity of sentences which they have recently handed 

down, Other specific activities of CLO have included: 

• initiating recall of judges viewed a' unduly 

lenient; 

• opposing liberal judges during reLelections. 

Specific Data Projects may be characterized by their function, 

rather than their particular underlying position. This function 

is usually a research-oriented one; court watchers collect specific information or statistics for various types of studies and 

surveys. Training is especially important for participants in 

this type of project, since accurate data collection often depends on the participant's ability to understand courtroom jargon 

and to perceive certain subtleties in quickly-moving courtroom 

procedures. In addition, consistent attendance on the part of 

observers is essential. While data of a specific nature are 

often required by these projects, some have a more general goal, 

such as describing "conditions" in city courts or reporting on 

the operation of.the bail system. Among the more rigorous 

activities undertaken by specific data projects are the following: 

• a time-cost analysis of a family court system, involving the completion of questionnaires on court 

personnel and attorneys, case types, time elapsed 

per case, number and cause of adjournments, etc.; 

• a comprehensive management study of a statewide 

court system, involving detailed data collection 

on court business, personnel, and physical facilities in the circuit, common pleas, and superior 

COl.':;'tS. 

Many of the issues addressed by all three types of projects require consistent observational data collected by a concerned and 

interested citizenry. Questions such as "Are courtrooms and 

5 

. ___________________________________________________________________ ...L.... ____________ ~ _________ ~ __________ ----~-.... ----"L--.------
• 

facilities readily located by participants and the public?" may 

easily be answered by attentive observation. Other issues require a more thorough orientation to the criminal justice process. 

"Are defendants being properly informed of their rights?" is an 

example of questions in this category. Still others--particularly 

those which relate to questions regarding sentencing practices and 

disparity or inequalities of treatment--require a.heightened sensitivity to the complexity of the criminal justice process and the 

range of variables which affect judicial decisions. 

It is this latter category of questions that should be viewed with 

extreme caution by any project. Attempts to substantiate a claim 

of discrimination or to rank members of the judiciary according to 

perceived leniencies or severe sentencing practices can easily 

result in distorted findings, damaging the credibility of the 

most sincere monitoring efforts. The program guidelines in Chapter V will discuss in greater detail measurement problems associated with this class of questions. 

The purpose of this monograph is to describe some recent court 

watching projects, identify issues and problems, and develop 

solutions to some of ~hose problems. The material that follows 

includes a detailed description of two court watching projects 

(the Illinois Court Watching Project and the Court Monitoring 

Project of the Fund for Modern Courts of New York), a summary of 

other court watching projects, and guidelines to consider in designing a project. 

6 

, 

I 

? 

I 

! 

I i 

CHAPTER II: ILLINOIS COURT WATCHING PROJECT 

Under the leadership of the League of Women Voters (LWV) of 

Illinois, the Illinois Court Watching Project was established in 

~uly ~f 1974. The,project was conceived as a research program to 

~dent~fy proble~s ~n the courts that are causing loss of respect 

and noncooperat~on on the part of the citizens they serve. The 

program was funded by the Illinois Law Enforcement Commission 

(ILEC) and received $50,000 in 1974, $50,000 in 1975 and "'30 000 

in 1976. ' 9, 

During the first year of operations, projects were established in 

four counties throughout the state. Three additional projects 

were added in the second year. The third and final year has involved the development of 10 "mini-projects" downstate. 

Since 1974, over 700 citizen volunteers have been trained to monit~r 7ourts. ?ourt watchers recorded information on continuances, 

v~ct~mle~s cr~mes, and physical facilities as well as on the conduct of Judges and other court personnel. Data were collected on 

more than 81,980 court proceedings. Following analysis of these 

da~a, each local project submitted confidential reports to the 

Ch~7f,Judges of the Circuits observed, other appropriate court 

off~c~als, local bar associations and the state project. 

~s a result ~f these efforts, a number of improvements are being 

7mplemen~ed ~n many of these courts, mostly in the area of better 

~nformat~on for and treatment of defendants, victims and witnesses. Specifically, ~hey include: 

• the ~osting ~f defendant's rights, daily calendars, 

and ~nstruct~ons about procedures to be followed; 

7 

• z& d Ie ftn J 
I 

I 

I 

~ I 

• 

• establishment of central information ~a~~lities; 

• preparation of informational brochures for witnesses 

and jurors; 

• stricter procedures for granting continuances; 

• explanations by judges about procedures addressed to 

the public; 

• stationing of bailiffs in courtrooms before sessions 

to ~nswer the public's questions; ~nd 

• better training of bailiffs and other court officers 

for their jobs. 

In addition, the League's State Project Steering Committee has 

evaluated the local reports and has made recommendations for rule 

changes and procedural reform to the Illinois Supreme Court. 

C~~ttees of the Illinois Judicial Conference are presently rev1ew~ng the reports. The Steering Committee is also considering 

~~El~1ble recommendations for legislative change. 

2.1 Organizational Structure 

Following receipt of grant funds in July of 1974, the League 

of Women voters of Illinois established a State Steering Committee composed of representatives of the Illinois State Bar Association and other organizations interested in the criminal justice 

system. Later, local project chairpersons and criminal justice 

experts were added to the Committee. The State Steering Committee 

was charged with the responsibilities of setting policy, advising 

staff and local projects, acting as liaison with the local jUdiciary and bar, and preparing final reports on the state project for 

the LWV, ILEC, the Illinois Judicial Inqui~' Board, the judiciary and the publi c. 

In the early stages of program development, information was circu~ 

lated around the state announcing the new program and encouraging 

local Leagues to apply for project funds. The original projects, 

except for the predetermined Cook County project, were selected 

by the League of Women Voters of Illinois; these projects were 

8 

, 

i 

! I located in DuPage, Champaign, and Warren Counties. The decision 

to provide support for the three projects in 1974 was based upon a 

review of 14 applications submitted by local Leagues requesting 

the ~nitiation of a project in their communities. In the second 

year court watching projects were initiated in st. Clair, Rock 

Island and Winnebago Counties. 

Once a project site was selected, the local LWV was responsible 

for establishing an advisory committee and hiring a project coordinator. The size of the committee varied with the size of the 

community, numbering from six to twelve. In new project areas, the 

LWV representative served as temporary chairperson until the group 

could elect its own. The local committee was responsible for: 

• the recruitment and training of monitors; 

• selection of courts to be monitored; 

• tabulation of the data; and 

• preparation of the draft report. 

During the first year of operation, paid project staff consisted 

of two full-time persons in the state project office, a law student 

research assistant for six weeks, and five part-time local project 

coordinators (two in Cook County and one in each of the three 

downstate counties). The second year staff remained the same 

except for an increase to eight part-time local project coordinators (two in Cook County and one in each of the six downstate 

counties). Because of funding cutbacks in the final year, paid 

staff now consists of only two full-time persons in the state 

office and one part-time (2 days a week) executive director for 

the Cook County project. 

The state program provided both fiscal and technical support to 

local projects during the first two years of operation. Funds 

were provided to employ the local coordinator on a one- or two-daya-week basis. Additional funds were available for such items as 

supplies, postage, typewriters and some travel. Technical assistance from the state office included answering questions on a 

daily basis, providing contacts with the local judiciary and local 

bar association, supplying copies of the training manual and 

observation forms, and assisting the local project in preparing 

and publishing the final report. 

9 

• ... . J 
• 

To insure the continuation of the project following funding cutbacks in 1976-77, several orgrulizational changes had to be instjtuted. Paid staff were eliminated in all downstate projects 

except Winnebago, where local funds were raised. This placed the 

responsibility for scheduling and supervising monitors and tabulating data on volunteers. The lack of this one-day-a-week staff 

person may discourage some local Leagues from starting even limited demonstration projects. 

In addition, due to the size of Cook County and the same reduction 

in funding, that project was localized to a greater extent in 

1976-77. Subcommittees comprised of court monitors were set up in 

each municipal district by the project's Citizens' Con~ittee, 

which in turn is served by 0..'1 advisory board made up of at·torneys 

and other criminal justice experts. 

2.2 Soliciting Cooperation with the Judiciary 

Unlike some court monitoring projects, the Illinois program actively sought cooperation from the judges at the start of each 

local project. It was felt that doing so would not only aid the 

project in its practical operation but would also interest judges 

and other personnel in the project, thus setting the stage for a 

more sympathetic reception to later project recommendations. All 

projects were instructed to explain the program to the chie~ 

judge and to ask his help in training monitors, providing special 

courtroom seating arrangements and supplying court calendars in 

advance. Judges were assured that draft reports of monitors' 

findings and recommendations would be discussed with, them and 

where appropria·te, their supplemental coIni:nents woulc!.i be added to 

final reports before they were released to the public. 

2.3 Court Selection 

Under guidelines set down by the state office, local groups were 

permitted only to watch the lower criminal courts during the 

project's first two years. Most chose to observe either courts 

conducting misdemeanor cases or lower courts handling preliminary 

hearings in felony cases. In three of the downstate counties, 

10 

the local committee simply selected the courtrooms in the county 

courthouse that had jurisdiction over misdemeanor cases. 

In Cook County, with 150 such courtrooms hearing lower criminal 

cases, greater selectivity was required. The local committee 

chose to concentrate on those courtrooms in the city of Chicago 

where certain types of offenses were assigned to specialty sessions such as gun sessions, women's sessions and shoplifting 

sessions. Additional criteria were the availability of parking 

facilities and public transportation. 

During the last year, some changes are taking place in the types 

of courts to be observed. Several downstate projects have recently explored the possibility of watching juvenile sessions, but 

this will probably be delayed for another year. In DuPage County, 

monitors are observing small claims courts. In Champaign County, 

the monitors are observing jury selection sessions. Finally, 

projects that are in their third year are beginning to return to 

courts that were monitored in the first year to assess whether 

project recommendations have been implemented since the original observations. 

2.4 Recruiting Monitors 

Recruitment ~f monitors is the responsibility of the local court 

watching cOI!lI[littee. Volunteers have been recruited through a 

variety of methods including: 

• Articles about the project in the local newspaper; 

• Articles in bulletins or newsletters of various civic 

and religious organizations; 

• Arrangements made with universities for stUdents to 

receive credit for participation in the project; and 

• Personal recruitment of volunteers by local steering 

committee members. 

A profile of 309 monitors for the second year revealed the following demographic characteristics: 

11 
Under 30 

30 to 60 

Age 

22.7% 

54.0% 

Raci.::!/Ethnic Background 

White ........... . 

Black .' .......... . 

Latino .......... . 

95.2% 

4.5% 

.3% 

TABLE 1 

Sex 

Women .. 

Men .......... . 

Occupation 

Employed Persons .. 

Housewives ..... . 

Students ....... . 

Retirees* ....... . 

77.7% 

22.3% 

11.7% 

49.8% 

24.6% 

13.9% 

-Included refked teachers, professors, e presIdent of a large industrial company, nurse, publisher, 

surgeon, t:hurch missionary, civil servent 

As with most court watching efforts, the fact that the work is to 

be performed during the day results in the heavy use of housewives, students, and retirees. 

About one-third of the monitors were LWV members. Other organizations contributing monitors included: the Voluntary Action 

Centers, Pre-Law Club of the university of Illinois, American 

Association of University Women, Parents without Partners, American Association of Retired Persons, 14th District Women's Club, 

Church Women United and other church groups, the Junior League of 

Chicago and Evanston, National Retired Teachers Association and 

the Illinois Farm Bureau. 

2.5 Training Monitors 

The local court watching committee is also responsible f:or training monitors. New recruits are supplied with copies of How to 

Watch a Court (about misdemeanor proceedings), and How 1:0 Watch a 

12 

. --~~----- - -~'.~-----~----~---------------

Court, Part II (about felonies), which are required reading before 

the first training session. 

At the first two training sessions, the local project coordinator 

and a volunteer lawyer explain local court rules and procedure. 

The typical agenda also includes a review of the handbook, information about local court personnel, practical instructions about 

where to sit in court and a detailed explanation of how to fill 

out the various forms (see Section 2.6). Monitors are then asked 

to observe several court proceedings on their own. Their work is 

reviewed and if w1acceptable, they are given a less demanding 

court watching assignment. The final training session, which is 

usually held after the regular court monitoring has started, has 

a question and answer format intended to solve problems that have 

arisen and to answer monitors' questions. 

2.6 Operational Procedures 

Each monitor was asked to observe the proceedings in a particular 

court one day every two weeks for four to five months. Scheduling 

was arranged by the local coordinators to assure as much coverage 

as possible for each session of the court without placing an unusually heavy burden on any individual monitor. 

Two basic forms were used by the volunteers in their monitoring 

work: the Case Observation Form and the Daily Summary and Evaluation Sheet (see Appendix A). These forms were designed to facilitate recording and tabulation of case=by-case information in busy 

courtrooms. 

On the Case Observation Form, monitors catalogue information on 

each proceeding observed in the courtroom including: the name of 

the defendant and charge, whether it was a victimless crime (as 

defined by the project), requests for continuances·' (who made them, 

reason given, whether granted), pleas and whether admonishments 

were given before a guilty plea was accepted. 

Totals for each category are entered on a four-page Daily Summary 

and Evaluation Sheet; additional information is recorded concerning 

13 
• 

promptness and length of session, conduct of judges, clerks and 

bailiffs, and physical facilities. 

Data recorded by monitors and appropriate narrative comments and 

explanations are submitted to the local coordinators who tabulate 

the information on Weekly Tabulation Forms. A separate set of 

forms is kept for each courtroom lmder observation, thus providing 

a week-by-week picture of its proceedings. Two copies of each 

form are made, with the original sent to the state project office 

and the carbon kept for the local committee. 

Each local project is pro'V'ided with a form to f~cilitate its yearend reporting of project findings, recommendations, and judges' 

responses to the state project, the judiciary and the public. The 

form includes the following elements: 

• A brief introductory history of how, when and why 

the project came about with emphasis on local 

conditions. 

• A narrative summary highlighting the monitors' 

findings and committee recommendations as well as 

responses of court officials to those recommendations. 

• Profiles of individual courtrooms. 

• Recommendations including a compilation of data for 

all local courts observed covering Information and 

Service Facilities, Physical Facilities, Procedures, 

Prosecutions of Victimless Crimes, and Behavior of 

Judges, Clerks and Bailiffs. At the end of each 

category is a space for committee recommendations 

and judges' comments. 

• Conclusions, including suggestions for further study 

and changes in methodology. 

• Appendices (List of all local courts hearing misdemeanors; monitor profile by age, sex, occupation, 

racial/ethnic background, organizational affiliation; 

and a list of local committee members.) 

14 

I 

• 

~ 

~ 

R i 

I 

i 

I 

I 

II 

11 

1\ 

II 

~ 

The entire report is sent to the local judiciary with a request 

for a conference to answer any questions and to begin the process 

of negotiating for the recommendations contained in the report. 

The final report is then sent to the state steering committee and 

ultimately becomes a part of their final report to the Illinois 

Law Enforcement Commission. The introduction and summary are 

written so that they can be used separately in a report to the 

local community. 

2.7 Results 

The goals and objectives of the Illinois Court Watching Project 

have been many and varied throughout the life of the project. At 

the outset, the immediate goals were to collect baseline data on 

factors affecting the quality of justice in selected lower criminal courts, to analyze such data and to recommend and support 

changes where ind.icated. To accomplish this: 

• 

• 

• 

250 monitors were trained by volunteer attorneys and 

assigned to courts in 1974-75; 309 in 1975-76; 370 

in 1976-77. 

22 courtrooms were observed daily, or as often as 

they were in session from January through June of 

1975 and 27 courtrooms from January through May of 

1976. In 1977, 39 courtrooms are under observation 

for periods ranging from one to four months. 

In the first two years of operation, data on over 

65,000 proceedings in the lower criminal courts were 

collected. The performance of 78 judges was observed 

and evaluated in that period. 

A variety of improvements in a ntmmer of courts are underway as a 

direct result of the project. The following examples are excerpted 

from "Citizens Size Up Their Courts," the 1975-76 report of the 

Illinois Court Watching Project. 

15 
THE PROBLEM: NOWHERE TO TURN FOR DIRECTION 

Finding the proper courtroom at the proper time may present a 

serious problem for people unfamiliar with the courthouse. Monitors found that only two of the six courthouses observed in Cook 

County provided adequate information facilities. In Champaign 

county, there is no information desk or graphic locator even 

though two courts are housed in outlying buildings. The consequences of reporting late to a trial or hearing, or of waiting 

in the wrong courtroom, may be serious--

Today a party to a civil suit missed his hearing. I 

don't think he understood what was going on and went 

to the main courthouse instead of the Annex. Judgement was passed against him. (Champaign) 

In response to the monitors' findings and recommendations, chief 

judges in DuPage, Winnebago, St. Clair, and Warren Counties have 

required their circuit courts to post daily calendars. In DuPage 

County a bailiff or other court officer is stationed in or near 

high-volume courtrooms 15 minutes before the start of each session 

to answer questions; red information telephones, manned by 

specially designated secretaries, have been installed on each 

floor of the courthouse. In Winnebago county funds have been requested for a "roving" bailiff to act as an information officer. 

THE PROBLEM: TOO LITTLE INFORMATION ABOUT RIGHTS AND PROCEDURES 

Monitors frequently observed that explanations of rights and procedures were inadequate or simply nonexistent. Many lay persons 

sitting in a courtroom for the first time are thoroughly confused 

by the proceedings and "legalese" jargon. 

People don't know what the disposition of their 

case was, confused as to what they were to do when 

case dismissed, or how to handle fines. (St. Clair) 

I had the distinct impression (today) that the judge 

sitting last week had not explained rights adequately 

to some persons. Appearing today, they felt they had 

already made a plea or were not allowed to make the 

plea they wanted. It appeared they did not understand 

16 

the proceedings h Island) or w at was expected of them. (Rock 

Ignorance of rights and f d court proceed' , or efendants. Illinois stat t ~~gS ~s a serious problem 

dants' rights be posted in allu 

e requ~res that notices of defenare heard. Monitors found the ~~u~troo~s in Which criminal cases 

the 22 courts Observed in Cook C t~ce d~s~layed in only two of 

two Y7ars. In some courtrooms t~unty ~ur~ng the project's first 

consp~cuous: in DuPage Count th: not~ces were there but not 

on t~e a~torneys' table in th~ felo~ot~ces,w~re kept under glass 

and ~n W~nnebago County th y prel~m~nary hearing court 

Courtrooms in Rock Island :;dw~~e pos~ed behind the jury box. ' 

these notices at all. . Cla~r Counties did not display 

Mo 't , n~ ors also Observed that ' , ~shments to defendants who iUdges d~:lnot ~lways,give the admonof the nature of the char p eaded,g, ty (~.e., ~nfor.ming them 

the right to 1 d ' ge, the m~n~mum and maJeimum 

p ea gu~l ty or not ' sentences, dant pleads guilty th ' gu~lty, and that if the defenere w~ll be no trial). 

Judge ~ ____ ~gave no admonishm t 

three defendants who pleaded ~n s whatsoever to 

~n four others, he asked if gu~lty to reduced charges. 

~nformed the defendants f ~he defense attornev had 

(Cook) 0 r~ghts they were waiv_1.ng. 

Judge, t , old me it wasn't 1 g~ve admonishments b a ways necessary to 

tt ecause he has r t' 

a orneys and assumes th h appor w~th the 

the admonishments (W' ey ave given the defendants . ~nnebago) 

These problems are all com 0 

deaf defendants. Monitor P ~ded for non-English'speaking or 

courts in the availabilit; ~fs~r~ed great disparities runong the 

servers in DuPage Count 's ~n erpre~e~s. For example, obrecorded the appearanceYof :~lony prel~m~nary hearing court 

the 398 proceedings observed n~n-Engl~sh speaking defendants in 

their own interpreters or US·d n most cases, defendants brought 

or sheriff's office; two wer: ~ersons working in the courthouse 

In the remaining ,:three inst g~ven court-appointed interpreters 

fend ants went ahead on thei;n~es, ~ases were continued or de- . 

slowly enough to be understood~ w~th the judge trying to speak 

17 

.. A 
• 

In response to the court watchers' recommendations, notices of 

defendants' rights are now prominently displayed in all courtrooms 

of Warren County. The First Municipal District of Cook County has 

prepared multi-lingual notices detailing defendants' rights. To 

further alleviate the problems of non-English speaking defendants, 

the state project recommended that the Illinois Supreme Court 

institute a system for certifying qualified court interpreters and 

for circulating lists of such interpreters to all judges who hear 

criminal cases. 

THE PROBLEM: FRUSTRATING DELAYS 

Observers in nearly all the courts under study noted that continuances were freely granted, thus contributing to a large backlog 

of cases and the impression that justice would be delayed indefinitely. In Cook County, 58 percent of all the 6,528 felony preliminary hearings observed were continued; one suburban court had 

the highest rate (74%) of any of the 18 courts monitored throughout the state in 1975-76. A court in St. Clair county had a 73% 

continuance rate. 

Court watchers also noted that few motions for continuances were 

denied: 

COOK DUPAGE CHAM- WARREN ST. WINNE- ROCK 

City Suburbs PAIGN CLAIR BAGO ISLAND 

Total 

Requested 2760 1056 129 40 0 361 533 354 

Percent 

Denied 1. 596 .6% 4.0% 0 0 7.2% 6.0% 2.8% 

Their comments illustrate their sense of frustration. Note that 

some perceptive individuals were able to pinpoint the causes of 

these delays. 

Of 38 cases heard, 21 were passed--four because 

defense attorneys were not in court. (Cook) 

18 

L 

Today's p d' , , ro~ee ~ngs .•• plodding ••. make a mocker of 

Just~ce. W~tnesses sitting around all day onl~ t 

be tO~d a continuance has been granted or a lea 0 

~7got~ated. ~r?bation officers spending unp~oduc- ~ ve ours wa~ t~ng . ',' (DuPage) 

I felt Judge was far toq 

continuances. Out of 57 -aases 

of, rest continued. (Cook) , 

lenient in granting 

only 7 were disposed 

There is only one police lab with two chemists for 

all narcotics cases. Lab reports take five to six 

weeks before they're ready. Th' 

1 ~s makes the "30-day ru e" impossible to enforce. (Cook) 

Although no specific actions have been implemented 

continuance rate, the state proJ'e t d'd to reduce the 

ob Ill" c ~ recommend that J'ud 

se7ve ~no~s Supreme Court Rules t ' ges cont s at~ng that requests for , ~nuance should be considered "so t~on of matters before the court". as to expedite the disposiTHE PROBLEM: INEQUITIES 

Court watchers observed two areas in which ' 

courts and judges resulted in the pract~ce of various 

pre-trial release and assignm u~equfal tr7atment of defendants: 

en 0 publ~c defenders. 

A "mini-study" of 740 bond hear' , DuPage and Champaign Countie .~~~s ~n three courts in Cook, 

is released on cash b~il s ~~,~cated that whether a defendant 

~epend on (1) the county ~~ ~~ic~\~W~ recognizance appears to 

Judge happens to preside at his bond ~s a7rested, and (2) whi.ch 

table reflects the variation amon ea:~ng: The following 

of defendants released on th' g count~e~ ~n the percentage e~r own recogn~zance. 

19 
• 

ROR'S BY COUNTY 

Observed 

County Total # Hearings Percentage ROR's # Judges 

425 32% 7 

Cook 

(Markham) 

207 26% 10 

ouPage 

1 

Champaign 108 18% 

TOTALS 740 27% 

The variation among judges in the same county was even wider. In 

Cook County the percentage of ROR's granted per judge varied 

between 16 and 61 percent; in ouPage between none and 48 percen~. 

In Champaign county, 19 pe~cent of defendants with lawyers rece~ved 

ROR as compared to six percent of those without counsel. 

When questioned about the kind of information he hU.d 

that was not brought out in open court, Judge 

explained that he had been sitting on that bench for 

20 years and had seen a number of defendants more than 

once--in som.e cases had had their fathers in court. 

He also said that he felt that a defendant ~hO was 

represented by an attorney was more :espons~ble and 

a better candidate for ROR. (Champalgn) 

As a result of the Court Watching project's recornrne~dations, the 

Illinois supreme Court Judicial conference held sem~nars fo: 

judges on conducting a proper bond hearing. The state comm~ttee 

also recommended a standardized system of pre-trial release procedures which utilizes non-judicial staff to interview defendants, 

record answers on a point-card scoresheet, ve:ify data and present 

it to the judge to make the decision as to ba~l or ROR. 

The court watchers also noted apparent discrepancies in the 

assignment of pup~ic defenders to indigent defendants. 

I have been somewhat disturbed throughout my court 

watching experience by the ease with which po's 

are as.signed. The procedure is invariably, "Can 

20 

-- , 

you afford a lawyer? NI? Here's a PO." (Cook) 

Judge was strict about defendants' getting PO 

if they had any money up as bond. One black woman 

had borrowed $1,000 for her son's bond and had no 

money for a lawyer. The defendant is unemployed 

and apparently had no money for a lawyer, but the 

judge told him that since he had that bond his 

mother had paid for, he could not have PO ... (Cook) 

Some court watchers questioned the quality of representation provided indigents by public defenders. 

Defendant had less than 15-minute discussion with PO 

to learn of and decide alternative ... which will be 

1-3 years in state penitentiary ... (OuPage) 

If I were a defendant, I would want more thought and 

time to go into my case than is allocated by PO's ..• 

I understand this is because of the volume of cases. 

(Cook) 

In an effort to provide more uniform assignment of public defenders, the state project recommended that the Illinois Supreme Court 

establish a standard to determine indigency. 

THE PROBLEM: POOR PHYSICAL FACILITIES 

Court watchers were only expected to assess elements of the court's 

physical facilities that directly confronted citizens in the 

courts. Monitors were often impressed by the poor audibility, 

lack of space for people to confer with attorneys, discomfort for 

jurors and witnesses, and poor holding facilities for defendan·ts 

brought from jail. 

Witnesses are frequently asked to leave the courtroom 

and they must stand for long periods in dimly lit, 

smoke-filled hallways. Lawyers confer with clients 

any place, often within earshot of spectators. 

(OuPage) 

21 

---- ~.-- - -~-~ - --- ~~ ----"il- _____ ~ ___________ .............. ___ .a............. ________ ~ 
• 

Defendants and their families and lawyers mill 

around, filling the courtroom and backing up into 

the tiny hallwa,y. It is difficult to keep the 

courtroom doors closed because space is so limited. 

(Champaign) 

In St. Clair County, the court moved to a new County Services 

Building during the period of observation. Court watchers found 

that the new facility had quite a positive effect both on proceedings and the demeanor of court personnel. 

Court proc€!edings were much improved over past 

Belleville and East St. Louis proceedings. Sound 

is great a,nd court moved in very orderly, judicial 

fashion. 

Now the jurors act more dignified. ·In East st. Louis 

they had a "so what" attitude and seemed more depressed. 

Among the many recommendations dealing with courtroom'facilities 

were closing the courtroom doors while in session and providing 

conference rooms for counsel and their clients. In addition, the 

steering committee suggested that the Illinois State Bar Association 

establish a st.atewide "Lawyer/Citizen Conunittee for Better Court 

FQcilities". The Illinois Supreme Court has already commissioned 

a survey of all court facilities outside Cook County (which has 

already been surveyed); the Lawyer/Citizen Committee would work 

from the results of this study to help build public support for 

court improvements. 

The court ~~atchers' reports also contained many instances of 

improper or discourteous behavior on the part of courtroo~ personnel. In Cook County, the project's report brought positive 

results: 

• 

• 

All clerks have been cautioned to wear proper 

identification, including the jackets and name 

tags. 

All clerks have been reminded that it is their 

responsibility to be as courteous and efficient 

as possible. 

22 

. 

• The clerk's office has established an Investigative Security Unit to monitor the performance of employees. 

• Training of new employees at the Cook County 

Sheriff Deputy Training Academy has been increased 

from one to two weeks. 

~ Criminal courts deputies assigned to security 

clearance in the Criminal Courts Building will 

attend a training seminar including courtesy and 

information aspects of the security duties. 

Appendix B to this Monograph contains a listing of all reconooendations presented to the Illinois Law Enforcement Commission by the 

Court Watching Project's state steering committee. 

2.8 The Future - Toward Institutionalization 

Two specific long range goals were established and substantial 

efforts are underway to achieve these g·oals. One goal was to 

develop permanent, community-supported groups to monitor local 

courts, communicate their findings to the ju.diciary and the 

public, and support needed improvements. Towards this end, the 

four original projects -- Cook, DuPage, Warren and Champaign __ 

were given additional responsibilities during 1975-76 for their 

own operation wnich they successfully carried out: 

• 

• 

A total of $2,360 was raised locally by the four 

projects. This covered all expenses except salaries of part-time local coordinators and monitors' 

training materials. 

Each "old" project designed its own special study 

in other local courts. DuPage concentrated on 

field courts; Champaign on jury selection and 

jury trials; Cook on checking the 16 misdemeanor 

courts observed in 1975 to note whether promised 

changes had been made; Warren on a more in-depth 

study of its one lower criminal court. 

23 

___ ~_~_~ _______________ .... ~ _Aa-.~~ 
• 

A second goal was to produce an organizational model for citizen 

groups to use in setting up court watching in other communities. 

G Methods and materials developed by the Illinois Court 

Watching project have aided other such citizen programs in Coles, Kane, Will and MCDonough Counties in 

Illinois; a long-standing project in Peoria County 

has adopted the monitor report forms. In Cook County, 

the project has advised the Logan Square Neighborhood 

Association and the Alliance to End Repression. 

• Counseling and sample materials have been provided 

to groups in New Mexico, Wisconsin, Montana, 

North Carolina i Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, 

Colorado, Connecticut, Arkansas, Michigan, New 

Jersey and Canada. 

• Professional organizations have called upon the 

project too. The National Center for State Courts, 

Denver, requested information and purchased monitors' 

handbooks; the Center is now referring other organizations to the Illinois project. The American Bar 

Association solicited advice and materials to aid in 

setting up an educational project for a 4-H convention 

in Washington, D.C. 

In 1976-77, the goal has been to institutionalize the citizen 

Court Watching Project in Illinois, both in existing project areas 

and in additional communities. To accomplish this goal, the project identified four specific objectives: 

1) To self-fund continuing projects in Cook, DuPage, 

Champaign, Warren and tVinnebago Counties on a, volunteer basis; 

2) To provide materials and give advice to citizen groups 

in Illinois and other states interested in developing 

monitoring projects in their local courts; 

3) To set up ten new demonstration projects ("miniprojects") '; and 

4) To prepare a kit on the operation of local court 

watching progrgms so that the expertise developed 

over the past two years by the Illinois project will 

continue to aid citizen groups in Illinois and other 

24 

----- .. ~--------~--r_-------------------------------------------------~ 

<. 

states after the conclusion of the statewide 

project. 

As of January 1977, ten such mini-projects were underway in ten 

downstate counties. The state office has prepared a how-to-do-it 

kit, including memos which instruct potential projects in all 

phases of project development and operation: 

Step 1: Setting up the Committee 

Step 2: Putting the Committee to Work 

Step 3: Introducing the Project to Court Officials 

Step 4: Announcing Project to Community 

Step 5: Recruiting Volunteers 

Step 6: Training the Monitors 

Step 7: Scheduling Monitors 

Step 8: Distributing and Collecting Forms 

Step 9: Tabulating the Data 

Step 10: Making Recommendations for Court Improvements 

Step 11: Negotiating with Court Officials 

Step 12: Reporting to Your Community 

The kit also contains forms, instructions for filling out forms, 

and weekly tabulation sheets. In January 1977, local project 

coordinators attended a training session designed by the state 

staff, during which time the kits were distributed. 

The mini-projects inVOlved court observations for only two 

months, March and April. Data were collected and tabulated and 

local groups submitted final reports to the state office on 

July 1, 1977. Meanwhile, in addition to the preparation and 

distribution of the kit, the state office has continued to provide technical assistance during the life of the mini-projects. 

25 
CHAPTER III: COURT MONITORING PROJECT OF THE FUND 

FOR MODERN COURTS OF NEW YORK CITY 

The Fund for Modern Courts, Inc. is a private not-for-profit organization started in 1955 with a goal of impr9vin9 the court 

system in New York City. In January, 1975, the Court Monitoring 

Project of the Fund for Modern Courts, Inc. of New York City received an eight-month grant of $90,000 from the New York Division 

of Criminal Justice Services. The work on this project was completed in June of 1976 with the publication of a final report. 

Since that time, additional LEAA funds have been secured to continue the court watching effort=-directed now at the Juvenile 

division of various Family Courts throughout New York state. 

New York's Court Monitoring Project was modeled after Illinois' 

project; thus, the procedures and type of data collected are 

virtually identical to those described in Chapter II of this Monograph. The first part of this chapter will focus on differences 

between the Illinois project and New York's effort in the Criminal Courts; the second section will discuss aspects unique to the 

Family Court Project currently underway. 

3.1 Monitoring the Criminal Courts 

As in Illinois, a state advisory board was established to formulate policy and a statewide project coordinator was hired. Court 

watching programs were established in poughkeepsie, Rochester, 

Glens Falls and New York City, each with a local advisory group 

and a local coordinator. In all, 388 volunteers monitored 23 

local courts averaging over 4500 hours per month during the sixmonth observation period. 

27 

Preceding page blank 

-----.-._------ ~~ "~. -----~-...---------

_. _..liL.. _ ... _. _ ............. ...-...-~--------
• 

In June, 1976, the results of this effort were published in a final report with a summary of Statewide Conclusions and Recommendations and reports from each of the local projects. Three of the 

local projects have been institutionalized in their communities 

and are continuing to operate with occasional assistance and advice from the Fund. 

3.1.1 Recruitment and Training 

The approach taken by New York in developing a pool of qualified 

volunteers was somewhat more structured than Illinois' approach. 

Similar to Illinois' experience, however, the New York projects 

report a general ease in recruiting volunteer monitors. In many 

cases, the volunteers found the project after reading of its formation in local newspapers. As contacts were made, applicants 

were sent a brochure describing the project; if the volunteer retained interest, an interview was arranged. Each volunteer was 

interviewed before 'selection. The only initial screening requirements were: 

• The volunteer must be at least 18 years of age. 

• The applicant must commit one-half day per week 

for six months. 

• The applicant must be willing to participate in 

approximately ten hours of training. 

As in Illinois, because the monitoring took place during the day, 

the monitors were mostly limited to retirees, students, and housewives, except in Glens Falls, where the prevalence of night court 

enabled 29 employed persons to participate. 

Training took place in April 1975 (prior to the pilot monitoring) 

and again in October 1975 (with revised forms and a larger population of monitors). The program involved three stages: court 

tours, in-class training, and in-training monitoring. Each monitor participated in at least ten hours of training. 

Monitors were first taken on a tour of the local courts. During 

this process, monitors became familiar with the physical surroundings of the courts, and in many ca~es were able to obtain 

28 

court calendars, identify court personnel and observe some court 

activity after the tour was given. 

In-class training covered a two week period. Guest speakers (e.g., 

members of the judiciary, defense attorneys and District Attorneys) 

described the criminal case process from arrest to final disposition. The interactions of various offices and agencies in the 

system--Public Defenders' Office, Legal Aid Society, court clerks 

and court officers--were also explained to the monitors. A substantial portion of training was devoted to the methods of data 

collection. (The New York Court Monitor's Handbook for criminal 

courts is reproduced in Appendix C.) 

In-training monitoring took place immediately following the classroom discussions and court tours. Volunteers were asked to begin 

trial monitoring with the forms prepared for actual work. The 

local coordinator maintained constant communication with the monitors durin.g this initial period to correct mistakes and to insure accuracy. 

After these three stages of training were completed, the Volunteers were given permanent monitoring assignments. 

3.1.2 Cooperation of the Judiciary 

All four projects in New York reported unusual cooperation from 

judges and court personnel. Some judges conducted tours of the 

local COUrthOUse for volunteer monitors; others met with t~e local advisory groups; still others invited monitors into their chambers to discuss interesting aspects of current cases and trials. 

Project staff credit their good rapport with the judges to the 

fact that continuous efforts were made by the state advisory board 

and the local groups to keep the judges informed of the progress 

of each project. In each project area, initial contact was made 

with the local administrative judge and other judges in the courts 

to be observed. Project staff also acknowledge the total cooperation of State Administrative Judge Richard Bartlett. 

29 
D fts of the final reports were submitted to the individual 

j~~ges observed. In each case, their supplemental comments were 

attached to the final reports. 

3.1.3 Findings, Recommendations, and Results 

Monitors in New York's courts collected data in five areas: 

1 - citizen access to the courts (directional and 

information aids, daily calendars) 

2 - Defendants' rights 

3 - Physical environment and decorum 

4 - Adjournments (corresponds to Illinois' research on continuances) 

5 - Delays (::;ession start delay, intercase delay, and intracase delay) 

Obviously, the types of data collected in ~ew.York closely parallel the data collected in Illinois. The f~nd7ngs ~r~ ~lso 

similar: inadequate information facilities; ~naud~b~l~ty ~f.the 

judges, attorneys, and other participants; absence ~f prov~s~~ns 

for non-English speaking defendants; infrequent den~al of mot~ons 

for adjournment. Consequently, the court watchers' recommendations echo those reported in Chapter II and will not be repeated 

here. 

Court watchers' records concerning delays (which were not comparable to Illinois' records) revealed that a significant amount of 

time is lost in many courts between the scheduled time for court 

to begin and the actual time that the session begins. (Although 

inter- and intracase delays were also found to exist, the actual 

time lost was minimal.) 

In Manhattan Supreme Court, 92.4 percent of the 

sessions observed were delayed 15 minutes or mo:e. 

The judge was unavailable 28.8 percent of the t~me, 

defense counsel 31 percent, and defendants were 

unavailable 18.2 percent of the time. Monitors 

30 

- - ~ ---------r~--------- -~ >0-". --------..,.--------

I 

! 

i j 

I 

II 

11 

11 

1\ 

II 

II 

i 

[, 

1\ h II 

II 

1\ II 

1\ 

fl 

II 

! 

! 

! 

! 

I 

I 

I 

~ 

observed that in some trial parts prooeedings 

were consistently delayed until 10:30 a.m. 

In its final report, the project notes that the Subcommittee on 

Calendar Practice and Preliminary Procedures of the Advisory Committee on Court Administration of the Appellate Division had recently issued proposed rules prescribing sanctions for lateness 

and nonappearance of attorneys in criminal cases. The project 

further recommended that "additional efforts should be made by 

the judiciary to insure that court business begins promptly." 

The New York project's recon~endations emphasized guidelines and 

standards for various aspects of court proceedings, such as the 

requesting and granting of adjournmen.ts and allowing public ac-. 

cess to criminal proceedings. The project also suggested that 

the New York State Bar Association, in conjunction with interested citizen groups, develop a Statewide Accreditation Board for 

Courthouses to insure adequate facilities. 

At the end of the project's pilot phase, about six months after 

the program began, an Interim Report was issued. Court watchers 

in the second phase were thus able to observe any changes taking 

place in the courts as a result of the findings and recommendations contained in that document. A number of significant positive responses were noted throughout the state, including: 

• Cases being heard in open court much more 

consistently. 

• Judges being more conscious of explaining the 

proceedings both to defendants and to the public. 

• Longer session8 and extra sessions being held 

to deal with the backlog of cases. 

• Court convening on time more c:f.ten. 

• Continually defective sound systems being repaired or replaced. 

• A sound system being installed in a court. 

• Administrative judges issuing a directive that 

presiding judges wear their judicial robes. 

31 
• 

• Distracting conferences in court being eliminated or minimized. 

• Calendars being posted for the public. 

• Judges making further efforts to insist on 

proper decorum being maintained by all participants. 

3.2 Monitoring the Family Courts 

The next phase of court watching activity conducted by the Fund 

for Modern Courts involved observations of the Juvenile term of 

various Family Courts throughout the state. The first round of 

monitoring has now been completed in five areas: Nassau County, 

Westchester County, Erie County, Middletown County, and the boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn in New York City. A First Report 

has recently been issued and another five local projects are underway. 

The demonstration phase of this project was funded for a six-month 

period starting July 1976 with a $36,601 grant from the New York 

State Division of Criminal Justice Services; an additional $3,733 

was awarded by the New York Community Trust. Additional funds 

have been secured from these two sources to allow the Fund to 

sponsor new projects in other locations for another year. 

During the month of November 1976 {the period of statistical analysis, ··220 volunteers observed 3,319 cases in the four areas under 

study. * Thirty-eight percent of all the cases observed were 

Juvenile Delinquency and PINS (Persons in Need of Supervision) 

hearings. Of the remaining types of proceedings observed, half 

were Support and USDL (Uniform Support of Dependents Law) cases. 

Other types of proceedings observed were Child Abuse and Neglect, 

Paternity, Custody, etc. 

* Data from the Middletown project are not included since that 

project had just begun operations at the time of the First Report. 

32 

, 

The format for the Familv Court Watchinq Project is nearlv identical to that for court watching in the criminal courts. The fact 

that these were juvenile rather than adult proceedings had little 

effect on the collection of data or the recommendations made. 

Some projects recommended that Law Guardians (attorneys assigned 

to represent juveniles) and other court personnel be required to 

attend special training in juvenile jus·tice; monitors in New York 

City noted the status of juvenile respondents at the beginning 

and end of each session. On the whole, however, the problems 

were similar to those in the adult courts and, consequently, similar suggestions were voiced. 

3.2.1 Special Considerations 

Although one would expect that serious problems of confidentiality and court decisions requiring private sessions in juvenile 

court would bar monitoring, court rules in New York State have 

recently been amended to begin to open juvenile sessions. Rule 

2501-6.2 entitled Privacy of Proceedings in The Family Court 

states: 

(a) The following persons may be admitted to a 

Family Court proceeding in the discretion of 

the judge who is presiding in the courtroom: 

(I) A person who is present at the request of 

a party or other person having a direct 

interest in the proceedings; 

(2) A member of the bar; 

(3) Any person who is a representative of the 

news media; 

(4) Any person who is a representative of a 

charitable, legal, educational, medical, 

psychological, social, or other similar 

organization, or who is engaged in bona 

fide research or writing involving the 

work of the court. 

33 

oL. • 
• 

Under this new rule, the presiding judge still exercises the discretion to exclude any person from the proceeding who is behaving 

disruptively or whose presence is objected to by one of the parties. 

The opening of the juvenile courts in New York to court watchers 

is almost revolutionary and whether it is repeated in other states 

will be interesting to watch. It seems clear that if these courts 

are opened to public scrutiny, juvenile court watching projects 

will proliferate. 

Another point in the New York rule is worthy of mention. This is 

the first rule brought to our attention which deals with the concept of "bona fide research or writing involving ~he work of the 

court". While the specific definition of "bona fJ.de research and 

writing" is left to the discretion of the presiding judge, it appears, based upon the Family Court ~onit~ri~g Project, .t~a~ volunteer court monitoring presently fJ.ts wJ.thJ.n that defJ.nJ.tJ.on. 

34 

, 

CHAPTER IV: OTHER COURT WATCHING PROJECTS 

There are, of course, numerous examples of court monitoring projects throughout the country. The type and level of court selected 

for monitoring is largely.dependent on the objectives of the project and the part of the judicial system which monitors want to 

influence. 

Most court watching projects choose to focus on the criminal 

courts. The reasons stated by the Illinois Court Watchin.g Project regarding their selection of the criminal courts have been 

somewhat traditional, at least during the first several years of 

court watching in the 1960's and early 70's: "They are the place 

where most people meet the law for the first time. They are the 

place where most citizens receive lasting impressions about the 

quality of our criminal justice." The first section of this 

chapter describes several court watching projects in the criminal 

courts. 

Recently, efforts have begun to monitor courts other than the 

lower criminal court. As the examples in the second section of 

this chapter demonstrate, however, interest in civil courts' is 

still at an early stage of development and the amount of informa~ 

tion available is limited. The discussion of this type of court 

monitoring, then, should be seen as an indication of a potentially 

new direction in the future. 

35 

___ J.iL.... _ ___ _ ---'Il1o. ...-..._..&............ _______ 
• 

4.1 Criminal Court Projects 

4.1.1 Arizona 

A court monitoring project was conducted in the Municipal Court of 

Flagstaff, Arizona to examine the manner in which the civil rights 

and liberties of defendants were being observed. The study was 

designed in response to the findings of observers who attended 

Flagstaff Municipal Court proceedings during the weekend of the 

1974 Flagstaff All-Indian Pow Wow. This observation team concluded that the Arizona Rules of Procedure were being routinely 

ignored and violated in ways which represented serious infringements of defendants' rights. A more extensive study was planned 

to determine whether sUbstantial violations of procedure and 

other rights were common in the Flagstaff Municipal Court and not 

unique to Pow Wow weekend. 

From June 23, 1975 to July 31, 1975, a first-year law student witnessed the arraignment of over 450 defendants and the trial of 25 

defendants. Initially the observer attempted to monitor court 

proceedings anonymously. After two weeks of observing th~ court, 

having gained enough familiarity with the court's proceedings to 

discern changes in procedure should they occur, the observe~ informed the presiding judge of the purpose of the observation. No 

attempts were made to conceal information from the observer or to 

make observation difficult and the attitude of court personnel was 

coopera ti ve .' 

The final report entitled "Flagstaff Municipal Court Proceedings 

and the Rights of Defendants" was sponsored by the Arizona Civil 

Liberties Foundation in cooperation with the State Board of 

Directors of the Arizona Civil Liberties Union and the Northern 

Chapter of the Arizona Civil Liberties Union: The report has 

three main parts: a discussion of the judicial process as faced 

by defendants; an examination of the three basic concerns observed to be adversely affecting the quality of justice in the 

court; and recommendations to the City of Flagstaff and its 

Municipal Court. The three issues that the project focused on 

were (1) rights violations that stemmed from a language barrier 

between judge and defendant, (2) difficulties faced by a defendant 

36 

. 

in obtaining legal counsel, and (3) the inability of non-lawyer 

judges to understand many of the subtle guarantees built into 

criminal procedure. 

Unlike the majority of court watching projects, there were no attempts made to enlist the help of citizen volunteers or to develop 

a base of public support for the project and its report. The 

final report does not discuss plans for follow-up observations to 

see if the project's recommendations have been implemented. It 

is thus unclear whether the court monitoring will have any impact 

on the conduct of the Flagstaff Municipal Court other than a documentation of its procedural inadequacies. 

4.1.2 California 

Over the past seven years, the Citizens for Law and Order (CLO) 

have been working "against the deterioration of law and order" in 

Alameda County through a combination of court monitoring, newsletters and speaking engagements. The general objective has been 

"to educate and inform the silent majority of business, professional men, women and homeowners who want to become involved 

through lawful means in active support of law and order in our 

nation, our state and our local community."* The specific aims 

of the CLO monitoring efforts and reports include (1) to oppose 

"soft-headed" judges when they come up for re-election r (2) to 

initiate recall of judges unduly lenient toward criminals or militants, and (3) to "scare" judges into stricter sentencing and 

handling of criminals. 

The court monitoring effort has been conducted by CLO volunteers 

who watch judges in the criminal department of Superior Court to 

determine which judges are dealing softly with criminals. The 

CLO News, published monthly, contains a "Weekly Scorecard of the 

Courts" listing the sentences imposed for broad classifications 

of offenses. Another regular feature of the newsletter commends 

judges when they are strict. The impact of the monitoring on 

* CLO News, No. 72, February 1977, p. 1. 

37 

________________________________ ~,~L_ _____________ ~ ~-~-~ -~ 
case disposition has not been documented, but even,critics 

concede that the group has influenced a number of Judges. 

director of the Alameda County Bar Association has stated, 

•.• with judges who have guts and reali~e what their 

function is, CLO has no impact. But WLth o~her 

judges, it has had a definite eff~ct on theLr decisions on how to punish. These Judges are very 

concerned about how they'll be written up in CLO's 

little newsletter, where in the past these judges 

might have sentenced differently, they are now more 

concerned about criticism. * 

of CLO 

The 

CLO's method of reporting a judge's sentencing practices ~hrough 

a scorecard points out some of the limitations of evaluatLng 

complex procedures such as sentencing, particularly when done ~y 

advocacy-oriented monitors. For example, the CLO scorecar~ faLls 

to distinguish between the types of crimes within each ~f LtS 

nine crime categories. Offenses ranging from minor famLly squabbles to hatchet attacks are included under "assa';llts". ,In ad: 

dition CLO sometimes ignores or does not take tLme to LnvestLgate b~ckground facts or extenuating circumstances ~hat,lead to 

the sentence it criticizes.** As a res';llt, th~ pr~Ject s attempts to increase citizen involvement Ln the JustLce syste~ may 

actually result in misleading the public and further confusLng 

the issues that affect the courts. 

I' 

4.1.3 Ohio 

In Columbus, Ohio a year-long "citizens' study" of the Franklin 

County Municipal Court was conducted in 1975. The purpose ~f the 

study was to gather information, through courtroom observatLons, 

on conditions, procedures, behavior of defendants and court p~rsonnel, and disposition of cases in order to measure the qualLty 

* Oakland "Judge-Watchers Grow in Stature," Los Angeles Times, 

December 30, 1973. 

** Stecich, p. 473. 

38 

. 

of justice in Criminal Arraignment Court. The project's objective was to provide the public with information about its courts. 

If the information indicated a need for improvements, the study 

could provide officiqls with a well-documented analysis as a basis 

for making necessary changes. 

Between January and July, almost 1,400 criminal cases were observed in the criminal arraignment courtrooms by 24 court watchers. Data were gathered on the four most frequent misdemeanor 

and four most frequent felony offenses; these eight charges accounted for 66 percent of the court's total criminal caseload in 

1974. * Unlike many citizen-based court monito:ring projects, the 

Franklin County Court Study had sufficient funds to hire a parttime research director. As a result, the data collection efforts 

were well-orchestrated, and a comprehensive analysis of the information was possible. The administrative judge of the county 

was informed of the project as were the judges and personnel of 

the monitored courts. 

The final report of the project addressed the problems of extreme 

variation among judges in conducting proceedings, lack of effective courtroom management, the size of caseloads and preferential 

treatment of some defendants. Fundamental changes were recommended to improve the appearance and order of court proceedings 

and to assist both defendants and the general public through 

better communication of information. Due to the quality of the 

information collected by the monitors, the project was able to 

substantiate its report with concrete evidence and reliable statistics. 

Achievements of the project in its first year include more consistent and thorough explanations of rights to the defendant by 

printing this information on the reverse side of the complaint 

form; the establishment of an information booth outside of the 

courtrooms; the installation of private conference rooms; and the 

removal of a police guard felt to be disruptive and openly hostile to defendants. The court watching project has also expanded 

* "A Citizens' Study of the Franklin County Municipal Court," p.4. 

39 
• 

its program during 1977 to encourage more community involvement 

in the courts and to continue the monitoring effort. 

4.1.4 Pennsylvannia 

The Friends Suburban Project in Chester, Pennsylvania was conducted by "middle-class" people who had little first-hand experience with the police and courts and wanted to become more aware 

of the problems of the poor in the criminal j~stice system. ,Th~ 

Chester Magistrate's Court had a poor reputat~on among the c~ty s 

black community and the project chose to observe the court w~th 

the intention of reforming what the project believed were "corrupt and inhumane practices".* 

For six months beginning in January of 1970, over two hundred,volunteers attended sessions of the Magistrate's cou:t. ,The p:oJect 

notified Chester court officials at the onset of ~ts,~ntent~on to 

monitor the court. After an initial "get tough" att~tude toward 

the court watchers by officials, including three arrests,** , 

court monitors were granted permission to take notes, to talk ~o 

those present before and after the hearings, and to hand out leaflets explaining their reasons for being in the courtroom. T~e 

leaflets listed the rights of the accused and sources of ass~stance to them. 

As a result of the monitoring, the project found that Blacks and 

Puerto Rican defendants were suffering harsher treatment than 

whites, that most of them did not have attorneys, that they were 

not aware of their legal rights, and that the atmosphere ~f the 

courtroom and the attitude of court personnel,were,demean~n~. 

The project publicized its findings and met w~th,c1ty o~f~c~als, 

including the chief judge of the court and the c~ty sol~c~tor, to 

* A Court Action Handbook, p. 1. 

** One monitor was arrested when she sat on the courtroom floor 

to protest a lack of seating in the courtroom; the other monitors 

were arrested for disrupting the court while in session. 

40 

j 

discuss the findings and press for certain improvements. As a 

result, Public Defertders are now available for all cases involving 

indictable offenses, arraignments are open to the public and court 

records are accessible. A number of less tangible achievements 

have also been claimed, including more humane and flexible judges 

and increased community confidence in the courts. 

Monitoring of the Magistrate's Court has continued intermittently 

in the hope that the occasional presence of middle-class persons 

would improve the attitude of court personnel. The project has 

published and distributed a Court Action Handbook that details how 

to set up a court monitoring program. The handbook has been 

widely used and as of August 1976, it is in its eleventh printing. 

4.1.5 Washington 

Sponsored by the Rainier Community Action Center in Seattle, this 

court monitoring program was established as part of a larger community effort to increase citizen involvement in the criminal 

justice system. It was the opinion of the Action Center that certain judges were in part responsible for the community's high 

crime rate because they were too lenient in sentencing criminals. 

The objectives of the court monitoring project were to determine 

which judges were "too lenient," and inform the public of their 

poor records, so as to diminish their chances for re-election. 

The court monitoring effort was divided between two committees: 

the Courtwatch Committee, organized for the actual monitoring and 

data gathering, and the Courtwatch Action Committee, organized to 

take political action after analyzing the results of the Courtwatch Committee's research. 

With approximately forty volunteers, the Courtwatch Committee 

studied 500 Superior Court cases for a two-year period ending in 

May, 1976. These cases were evaluated on three factors: how 

well the sentence fit the crime; how well the sentence fit the 

criminal's past record; and, if probation was granted, were there 

adequate safeguards for the public. The cases were then rated on 

a scale from one to ten regarding the perceived adequacy of the 

sentence imposed. The judges hearing these cases were then rated 

on the basis of their sentencing patterns. The survey and rating 

of Superior Court judges were given to the Action Committee, who 

41 
• 

in turn p~o~eeded to publish campaign literature and grant press 

interviews to convey the findings of the research group. 

Ratings of 23 of 29 King County Superior Court judges were released, dividing the judges into "unacceptable," "acceptable," 

and "reconunended" categories. The ratings were intended to influence votexs in the 1976 elections against judges found "unacceptable" by the Courtwatch Action Conunittee. Leaflets describing the rating system and listing the names of the judges in the 

three categories were distributed throughout the Seattle area and 

at voting polls on election day. Of the eight judges that were 

listed as "unacceptable," two were defeated. 

Whether this court watching project has a broader impact on the 

local judiciary is difficult to determine. As Chapter 5 will indicate, the qu~stions addressed are extremely difficult to resolve 

and best approached with caution by most court monitoring efforts. 

4.2 Civil Court Projects 

There has been only a slight movement over the years to monitor 

courts handling civil cases exclusively. Between October 1972 

and January 1973, the Junior League of Brooklyn, an educational 

and charitable organization, observed more than 1,000 cases in 

Brooklyn landlord-tenant court. The observers found the court to 

be decrepit, 'badly overcrowded and degrading. The findings were 

subsequently published in the New York Times which drew the attention of the administrative judge. He agreed that physical 

conditions were atrocious and asked the judges to respond to allegations of improper conduct and attitude. 

The Task Force for Justice of the Presbyte.ry of New York City conducted a court observation project in New York landlord-tenant 

court for three months in 1972-73. Its goals were to "verify and 

document whether there exist judicial practices which prevent the 

successful operation of the court; to educate individuals in each 

conununity about the judicial system and to maintain a public 

presence in the courtroom." Unfortunately, the statistical report that was prepared stated no conclusions and contained no 

recommendations. 

42 

i 

i 

I 

II 

i 

i 

I 

r 

Ii I, 

11 II 

if 

11 

II 

II 

II 

! 

J 

1\ II 

: J 

V 

- --- ._---,---

The Family Court Watching Project discussed in Chapter 3 is a more 

recent example of efforts in the civil courts. That project 

sh~uld serve aS,a model to others, both in the degree of rigor 

wh~ch character~zes the research, and in the unprecedented opening of juvenile courts to limited citizen observation. 

More observations of civil courtrooms can be expected in the future, but one drawback may very well be the lack of court monitoring manuals and forms similar to those available for courtwatching in criminal courts. 

43 

--~-~-----

f 

I 

.-.00&.. ___ ~ ----- --
• 

CHAPTER V: PROGRAM GUIDELINES 

This chapter seeks to synthesize the operational, organizational, 

and evaluative considerations detailed in the p~evious chapters. 

The purpose for this synthesis is to provide insights from the experiences of ongoing programs to aid in the replication of court 

monitoring programs elsewhere. 

After a discussion of the various types of program goa:. s and objectives, specific concerns of program management and administration, as well as assessment of achievement, are addressed. 

5.1 Establishing Goals and Objectives 

Drafting goals and objectives for a court monitoring effort is fundamental if a project is to maintain a sense of direction and purpose. Goals are also needed if a project is to assess its achievements and evaluate the impact it has had on the judicial system. 

The objectives of a court monitoring effort, then, become central 

to its daily activities as well as its long-run impact. Several 

criteria can be used to evaluate the objectives of a court monitoring project, including the degree of objectivity and specificity, the intended level of impact and whether the objectives are 

realistically within a project's capabilities. 

5.1.1 Clearly Defined Goals 

Certain projects, particularly those interested in collecting 

statistical data, have definitive Objectives by their very nature. 

45 

Preceding page blank 

, 

n 

i I 

II 

I 

~ 

• ., . 
• 

These court monitoring projects seek specific information about 

the court; the monitor training, data forms and data analysis reflect that singleness of purpose. At the other extreme, some projects have only vaguely defined goals and often lack the direction 

needed for achieving concrete results. Projects which aim to "keep 

the judges on their toes" or "evaluate the jud~c~al process" 07ten 

flounder in vague generalities, offer few spec1f1c recommendat10ns, 

and usually fail to have any long-range impact. 

In some cases, the project g03.ls are revised after a period of 

court watching to include more concretely defined objectives, The 

initial goal of the Task Force on Courts in Rochester, New York, 

for example, was to provide a presence in the courtroom and evaluate the judicial process. After a period of court watching, it 

became apparent that if the project was to have any impact, more 

clearly defined objectives had to be adopted. The project directors chose to conduct statistical research on the rates of, and 

reasons for, adjournment and delay. This redefinition of the 

project's objectives enabled monitors to more successfully gather 

substantive data. 

5.1.2 Objective vs. Subjective Goals 

When evaluating the objectives of a monitoring project, the potential biases resulting from a project's political ideology or other 

preconceived beliefs should be taken into consideration. Both 

"defendant protector" projects and "law and order" projects have 

goals which obviously reflect their particular perspective (e.g., 

to promote equitable treatment of minority offenders or to pressure judges to hand out harsher sentences). Similarly, ,when , 

projects conduct monitoring to substantiate a p:edetermlned POS1-

tion, the goals of the group are subsequently b1ased. For example, 

the League of Women Voters in Westchester, New York, us~d court 

watchers to gather data which would point to the necess1ty of a 

unifled court system.* 

* Stecich, p. 477. 

46 

. 

- ---.~--~ 

While there is nothing inherently wrong with using court watching 

to prove a point, the impact of such a project's efforts may 

diminish in proportion to the degree that the general public and 

the judiciary view the project's report as the unsubstantiated 

opinion of a special interest group. A lack of objectivity in 

constructing the project's goals thus can work in the long run to 

the detriment of the project. 

5.1.3 Project Capabilities 

While concrete and objectively defined goals are fundamental to a 

project's success, it is equally important that objectives remain 

within the capabilities of the project. As noted throughout this 

monograph, court watChing projects suffer from a number of limitations ranging from the background of monitors to restrictive funding and access to court hearings. Funding expiration dates, the 

abilities and dedication of both monitors and staff, and possible 

resistance from the judiciary or legal profession are additional 

factors to be considered wnen developing project objectives. Without a realistic assessment of its capabilities, a court monitoring 

effort might establish a set of goals far beyond its actual capabilities as a volunteer-based effort. 

5.2 Types of Program Goals 

Project goals may be divided into three broad types of basic objectives: facility and personnel evaluations; assessments of 

court organization and procedures; and examinations of inequities 

in the administration of justice. Each of these objectives requires a specific research design, certain types of data collection and coding skills, and a varying number of volunteer man-hours 

and capabilities. The latter category, in fact, requires an extremely well-defined t rigorous research design that may prove 

overly ambitious for most court monitoring projects. Each of the 

three classes of objectives is discussed below, with special 

emphasis on the latter category. 

47 
• 

5.2.1 Assessing Court Personnel and Facilities 

A number of court monitoring projects focus on the quality of the 

environment within the courthouse, ranging from the physical condition of the facility to the presence of information booths and 

cooperative court personnel. Because many of the factors affecting the courtroom environment are directly observable (e.g., the 

sound system works or it doesn't) I projects of this kind requira 

very little technical assi~tance. Only basic coding forms are 

needed, monitor training can be done quickly, and there is no need 

for elaborate (and expensive) statistical analysis. 

The implementation of recommendations concerning specific features 

of the court environment--the need for a waiting room, for example--

are often within the capacities of a court administrator or judge. 

Furthermore, by limiting the court watching to a study of observable factors, the proj ect 's impact can be easily assessed by returning to the court to verify the adoption of project recommendations. 

While this type of project objective is relatively easy to implement, and is accessible to almost all types of monitoring projects, 

it can have an important impact on the quality of justice: courteous court officers, clean and well-lit waiting rooms, and a supportive environment, free from the intimidations and confusion that 

often typify people's court experience, all contribute to the imp~ovement of the judicial system. 

5.2.2 Assessing Court Organization and Procedures 

Court monitoring projects may also select objectives which pertain 

to specific elements of the trial procedure, often in the area of 

due process. Issues such as delays, continuances, the availability of counsel, litigant preparation and the defendant's understanding of his rights are often selected as indicators of the 

quality of justice being dispensed in the monitored court. Unlike facility assessments, where the only requirement for successful monitoring is an ability to be observant, evaluating procedural issues requires some technical training. For example, unless 

a monitor knows what procedural safeguards a defendant is 

entitled to, he or she obviously cannot begin to accurately 

48 

- -~ - ----.----------- -----,.~.----------~---------------

assess a court's performance in this area. Also, more elaborate 

data c071~ction devices will be required to gather information 

on spec~f1c pro7e~ural questions, which in turn has implications 

for mo~1tor tra1n1ng needs as well as funding support for the data 

analys1s. 

5.2.3 Assessing Inequities in the Administration of Justice 

The th~rd,possible area of court monitoring activity is the 

m~st d~ff1cult for projects to achieve \'!ith limited staff and 

f1na~c1~1 resources. The following discussion highlights the 

stat1~t1ca7 diffi7ulties inherent in attempts to investigate 

perc~1ved 1ne~ua11ties in a court's release disposition and sentenc1ng pract1ces. 

Many of the most interesting court behaviors cannot be inferred 

f:om a single obs~rvnt~0~. on~ of the great strengths of organ1zed court watch1~, Jects 1S their ability to accumulate large 

numbers of systemat1~u~ly related observations from which the 

patte:ns underlying the court's actions may be inferred. The 

tec~n1cal,requirements for gathering the data necessary to make 

rel1abl~ 1nferences of inequality are, however, difficult to meet. 

The ~on1tor~ must have a sophisticated understanding of the law 

and,1ssues 1nvolved; they must be sensitive to the nuances in 

var1~us fact situations; they must be aware of the legitimate discretLon allowe? to judges; and their sample of observations must 

be la:ge,enough and unbiased enough to support their conclusions. 

The d1ff1culty of meeting these requirements may explain why there 

have been no documented court watching studies concerning inequi--

ties of judicial treatment. 

There ~a~e been, however, instances of systematic statistical 

~nal~s1s ~f,cou:t behavior for the purpose of alleging and chang1ng 1nequ1t1es 1n the administration of justice. While the 

~o71owing st~dies did not result from actual court watChing activ1t1es, they 11lustrate some of the concerns which would also face 

court watchers who attempt to analyze, through observation of 

~our~ behavior, the degree of equality in the administration of 

Just1ce. 

49 

_~ _~ ____ ~ ________ ----'lIlt. ~ ... _..t............ _______ _ 
One of the earliest examples of 

analyses of court behavior came 

tion of juries. 

the use of systematic statistical 

in a case involving the composiI 1934 a black man who had been convicted of a felony by a white 

j~ry appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that he had been 

denied due process by the systematic exclusion of blacks :rom 

jury service (Norris v. Alabama, 294 u.s. 587, 1935): ~~7e he 

was not able to produce witnesses who co~fessed to d~scr~m~natory 

action or any written evidence of a pol~cy to exclude blacks, 

he did' claim that jury composition statistics showed the :es~lt of such policies. Specifically, in the county where th: ~nd~ctment was brought, no one was able to remember any occas~on w~en 

a black had served on any jury, although 7.5% of the populat~on 

was black. Similarly, no blacks in living memory h~d been on 

juries in the county where the trial was held, desp~te ~he fact, 

that 18% of the population there was black. On the bas~s,of th~s 

evidence, the court was able to infer a discriminatory tr~al, and 

granted relief.* 

This logic has been extended from nonrepresentation to,und:r:epr:-

sentation, with judges generally finding evidenc: of d~scr~~~~at~on 

when it became sufficiently improbable that the Jury compos~t~on 

could have been produced by a race-blind,draw fro~ the legally 

eligible population. Conspicuous except~ons pers~st~ however. 

In one case,** the percentage of blacks on grand Jur~es had no~ 

exceeded 15% for over 15 years, even though 26% of the pop~lat~on 

was black. No precise statistical calculations were used,~n ~he 

case and the court said it was not convinced of systemat1c d~scrimination. However, the actual probabilitY,of ~uch underrep:esentation given the hypothesis of fair select:~r ~s about one 1n 

a billion trillion (more precisely, 4.63 x 10 ). 

* This case and several similar cases are descri~ed ~n,J.G: 

Hawor th nd C T Haworth "Statistical Inferences ~n C~v~l R~ghts a .., , f th 

Decisions," American Statistical Association, Proceed1ngs 0 e 

Social Statistics Section, 1976. 

** Finklestein, "The Application of statistical Deci~ion Theory 

to the Jury Discrimination Cases," 80 Harvard Law Rev~ew 338 

(1966) . 

50 

Data from court behavior have also been applied to the relationship between procedure and fipal results. A number of stUdies 

conducted in the early 1960's suggested that defendants who were 

unable to post bond (and were thus detained prior to trial) were 

much more likely to be convicted and sentenced to prison than 

those who were at liberty during at least part of the pretrial 

period. One defendant who was detained, convicted, and sentenced 

to prison by New York City courts brought a class action on behalf 

of indigent detained defendants against the judges who had established the release conditions.* 

The evidence for the case was drawn from statistical observations 

on a sample of 857 adult males charged with a crime in Manhattan 

whose cases had involved some bailor release decision and who 

had been represented by members of the Legal Aid Society of the 

City of New York. The plaintiff's attorneys showed that while 

17% of the defendants who were free before trial went to prison, 

62% of those who were held in jail received prison sentences. 

They went on to demonstrate that comparable disparities persisted 

within types of crime, that finding evidence on the accused did 

not seem to reduce the disparity, that prior records were only 

marginally related to severity discrepancies, and so on. The 

plaintiff claimed that these results showed a consistent denial 

of equal protection to those who were too poor to meet the bail 

amoun"ts set by the court. He fUrther claimed that bail which a 

defendant could not afford to pay, and which resulted in a weakened 

defense, was excessive. 

Attorneys for the judges attacked the data and analysis on methodological grounds, attempting to show that the same factors which 

legitimately influenced bail setting (strength of evidence, possible motives for flight, prior record) were the cause of conviction disparities, and not the bail decision itself. Given these 

ambiguities, the court sided with the judges in ruling that there 

was no conclusive demonstration of harm resulting from the bail 

decision, and that in this particular case they did not consider 

the $500 bail amount excessive, since it was the one customarily used for such offenses. 

* E.W. Single, "The Unconstitutional Administration of Bail: 

Bellamy v. the Judges of New York City," 8 Criminal Law Bulletin 

459 (1972). 

51 
• 

These examples illustrate ways in which courts have used analyses 

of the results of their actions in determining whether the policies 

which produced those results could be considered consistent with 

the requirements of due process and equal protection. Four points 

may be drawn from these cases in formulating methods whereby 

court watchers may turn the results of their observations to 

greatest advantage. 

Successful cases have addressed a single, well-defined issue. The 

evidence which was presented described essentially one outcome 

and attempted to demonstrate only a single causal relationship 

involving that outcome (e. g. race -7 jury exclusion I detenti'on + 

conviction). The inference which was to be drawn was based on a 

single clear discrepancy between actual results and those which 

would have been expected had the putatively illegitimate policy 

not been in effect. 

The data have been systematically gathered. A recurring theme in 

higher court decisions is a reaf,firmation of the latitude of 

discretion accorded to the original judge and the reluctance of 

higher courts to interfere with individual exercises of that discretion. Only when the purported wrong has emerged as systematic 

discrimination have remedies based on statistical analysis been 

considered. 

Thus, it has been necessary to argue that the data presented were 

representative of the kind of case which was being deliberated. 

This meant showing that the period over which the data were gathered 

reflected the policy in question: that the cases chosen were either 

a 100% census of recent relevant experience, a random sample from 

the applicable population, or at least drawn in such a way as to 

preclude possible bias from the means of selection. It seemed 

generally necessary to show that the number of observations used 

was large enough to indicate a pervasive pattern of behavior 

rather than an individual aberration. 

The materials have been carefuLly documented. The findings in these 

cases have been contested--often vigorously, sometimes successfully. 

In general it may be anticipated that the degree of opposition 

will rise to match the importance of the case. Such a response 

is understandable, and it is usually possible to anticipate and 

forestall the lines such criticism would take. While criticisms 

52 

I 

may vary with the substance of the problem, the following are 

likely to be recurring themes: 

• selection of cases for observation; 

• completeness and integrity of data collection; 

• observer competence and training; and 

• possible loss of information or introduction 

of error between observation and analysis. 

A project which can produce written procedural records documenting 

the precautions used to forestall distortion in these areas is in 

a strong position to respond to such questions. 

The analysis is thorough. The most effective approaches appear 

to be those which combine detailed observation of individual cases 

with statistical records showing that these cases are examples of 

a systematic policy which has beenin existence for a significant 

period of time. In any individual case it may be possible to 

identify complicating factors justifying a broad range of judicial 

discretion. When such cases are compounded over a long period of 

time, however, it becomes i'ncreasing1y plausible that such incidental factors always occur in the same way. Thus, the general approach is to gather data not only on the outcomes of cases, but on 

the incidental factors surrounding the cases, either to show that 

these incidental factors are equally distributed among all kinds 

of cases, or to demonstrate that decisions are not affected by 

them. 

5.3 Program Management and Administration 

Once a court watching project has determined an appropriate 

set of goals and objectives, this decision will influence the remainder of the project's management and administrative decisions. 

Whether simple or complex, goals and objectives must be kept in 

mind when recruiting volunteers, developing a training program, 

det,ermining staff requirements, and charting out day-to-day activities. Recommendations and suggestions for each such element 

of a court monitoring project are presented below, noting where 

appropriate any special requirements for projects with each of the 

three types of objectives described above. 

53 

• 

distribute essential information to every member 

of the group. 

This list represents the five functional areas necessary for a 

statewide, Goordinated monitoring effort which involved over 500 

monitors. Smaller court watching projects, of course, can function 

well without this hierar~hy, although the areas of responsibility 

listed here still need to be addressed by the project's steering 

committee or chairperson. 

In addition to these personnel costs there are a number of other 

items of expense to be considered including clerical; data processing; printing of questionnaires, court monitor forms and final 

reports; office space; telephone; and the cost of preparing materials for the training program. 

Fund ra~s~ng, while essential, can often be frustrating and timeconsuming. The most obvious source of funds may well be state 

block grant funds from LEAA through a contract with the State 

Planning Agency. A number of court watching projects have been 

funded through this source. Other sources of funding have included 

local private foundations, local and state bar associations, local 

Leagues of Women Voters and private donations. 

5.3.3 Recruitment 

The strategy used to recruit volunteers to work as court monitors 

depends in part on the objectives of the particular project. If 

the project intends to gather data in order to SUbstantiate preconceived ideas or to advance specific reforms, the group will 

want to recruit individuals sympathetic to the established objectives, thus maintaining the homogeneity of the organization. The 

Friends Suburban Project, a Quaker group in Pennsylvania, for 

example, has been a court watching project which reflects the 

organization's political attitudes and belief in passive resistance. 

The project attracts liberal volunteers who support the views and 

tactics of the project, including the use of leafletting and sitdown protests. The belief that the magistrate's court is "corrupt 

and inhuman" reflects the basic attitude of the project as well as 

its volunteers. 

56 

However, most court monitoring projects try to maintain an unbiased 

approach to the issues and want to produce a study which reflects 

the "average citizen's" view of the judicial system. With an 

objective as direct as conducting a study done by citizens and 

for citizens, recruitment can be directed at any individual who 

is willing to devote the necessary time and participate in the 

training process. Civic groups, religious and sehior citizen 

organizations, and other community groups provide an ideal forum 

in which to present the ideas of the project and interest members 

in becoming court monitors. News releases in the local newspapers 

and other weekly publications reach a large audience and can attract volunteers. In many cases, in fact, citizens joined a court 

monitoring project after reading of its formation in newspapers. 

Local colleges and universities often will offer academic credit 

for court monitoring and thus provide an excellent source of student volunteers. 

Generally, projects have reported with pleasant surprise the ease 

with which volunteers were found. In fact, some projects found 

themselves in the unique position of having to expand their operation or turn away excess volunteers. However, while there may be 

an abundance of volunteers, it is not necessarily true that they 

are a representative sample of the local citizenry. Because court 

'watching is a 9-to-5 activity, the volunteer population is largely 

restricted to individuals free during the work week--housewives, 

students and retirees. Indeed, 80 percent of the Illinois Court 

Watching group, sponsored by the League of Women Voters, are women. 

Many projects have thus unintentionally recruited volunteers from 

a limited portion of the population. 

Furthermore, volunteers receive no reimbursement for expenses, 

which limits the participation of those unable to afford the carfare, lunches, etc., that are incidental to the task. This lack 

of funding may explain, at least in part, the minimal participation of minority group members in court watching projects. To 

increase minority representation, special efforts should be made 

to contact local civic organizations such as the NAACP, as they 

may have access to funds for reimbursing their volunteers. 

An alternative method of recruiting which has been implemented by 

at least one monitoring project is to enlist a predetermined, representative sample of the community instead of a random crosssection. In view of the limitations inherent in attempting to get 

57 

--- ----~------'--- -------~~-~~ 
• 

a representative cross-section, recruitment under this second 

strategy is restricted to a population which reflects the average 

income, educational level and race of members of the community. 

This profile of an average citizen of the community can be based 

on available statistical and demographic records and then modified 

to include individuals needed to provide a balanced perspective. 

The court watching project in Columbus, Ohio, for example, recruited monitors based on a profile of individuals who had a 

$12,000 income and a high school education. In addition, they 

wanted the monitors to be over 21 years of age and from different 

sections of Columbus and its suburbs; 15 or 20 percent of the 

monitors were to be black. 

using this alternate method of selecting volunteers has an obvious 

impact on the recruitment methods used by the project. Because 

selection is based on a volunteer profile, recruitment cannot be 

done through general publicity without having to turn away large 

numbers of people who volunteer. Instead, recruitment must be 

done by the project director or staff through direct contact with 

individuals who fit the profile. This process can be made more 

efficient by selecting organizations in areas fitting the profile 

in general and asking a representative to select persons. who might 

be interested and who fit the profile. 

A final step in the recruitment process taken by some projects is 

a screening of the potential monitors with a personal interview. 

The interview allows for a fuller explanation of the goals and 

methods of the project as well as the functions and responsibilities of the monitors. A discussion of the extent of the time commitment involved also helps to minimize the problem of dropouts 

and sporadic court attendance that has adversely affected some 

projects. One project in Connecticut, for example, was compelled 

to lower the reliability factor in the statistics gathered by the 

project as a result of spotty attendance. (Most projects that 

have been successful have required an individual monitor to record 

data at least once every two weeks for a six-month period.) 

In some instances, an interview may reveal a personal bias that 

will prevent the volunteer from completing the monitoring in a 

thorough and objective manner. At that point, the person may be 

given some alternative volunteer assignment (telephoning, clerical 

work, data compilation, etc.) or if this is not acceptable, he can 

be excluded from the project. The interview also has the more 

58 

positive benefit of revealing special talents or interests on the 

part of volunteers, e.g., newspaper experience that might be useful 

in a public relations effort. 

5.3.4 Training 

The amount and type of training required for court watchers depends 

largely upon the goals of the project, the quality of the data 

sought and the ultimate results the project is looking for. A 

project concerned primarily with such things as the physical environment of the courtroom and citizen access to the courts will 

need a far different training program than one which attempts to 

document the degree to which indigent defendants' due process 

rights are being observed in a given courtroom. 

Whatever the type of program, however, it is crucial that all 

monitors participate in thEl full training program and that they 

are available to observe the court on a regular basis. It is 

also extremely important~~at the training provide sufficient 

time for instruction in the proper use of data forms. 

It may be argued that training every monitor with pre-selecte4 

information in a uniform way destroys a uniqueness of outlook 

which is fundamental to a citizen-based project. However, all 

projects have found that training is an essential element of successful court watching. Any loss of freshness in attitude on the 

part of volunteers will be more than offset by the greater depth 

of understanding and insight that each one will bring to his observations. 

Most court watching volunteers have had minimal contact with the 

judicial process in court, yet the more they understand about the 

judicial process and the roles of the cast of characters they will 

see in the courtroom, the greater the likelihood that they will 

record information accurately. Projects have also found that 

retirees, housewives and students for the most part have had 

little training or experience in research methodology or data 

collection. Therefore, specific skills relating to data collection 

and analysis should be built into the training course, including a 

background in key research concepts, a demonstration of how the 

59 
• 

collected information will be used, and an explanation of the data 

form item by ~.tem. 

In addition the training provides an opportunity for the project 

administrat~r or supervisor to interact with the volunt:ers, 

identify those who should not have been selected as mon~tors and 

find a more appropriate position for them. Volunteers f~r ~h: , 

most part are in awe, intimidated and/or confused by ~he~r ~n~t~al 

courtroom experiences. Many courtrooms are ch~racter~zed by no~se, 

confusion delays, continuances, summary handl~ng of a large docket 

and in ma~y cases, indifference t,o the public-at-Iarge, whether 

they be defendants, witnesses, or court watchers. Some vOlun~eers 

thus may find it difficult to "sort the wheat from,the chaff. 

It is perhaps in this area where training is most ~mportant. 

Thus the structure of the training program will depend upon the 

population ' of volunteers w h h b 0 ave een rec ru;ted ~ and the goals of 

the project. 

One project in Ohio that has an emphasis on citize~ a~areness as 

its main goal has produced a training program cons~s~~ng of , four 

two-hour sessions. At the first session, the co-cha~rman d~scusses the purposes of the project r with a study of background 

materials included in a "kit." The volunteers are then taken on 

a tour of the courthouse. The next two court visits are conducted 

on a "do it yourself" basis. In the final session, all volu~t:ers 

re-group to discuss their experiences and to ask further quest~ons. 

Instructions are also given on filling out forms. The voll'''''teers 

are then given their court assignments. 

A far more detailed training program has been designed bY,The , 

People First in Boston, where the central goal of the proJect,~s 

to monitor the manner in which due process safeguards are ava~lable 

to defendants in the lower criminal courts. 

This latter program begins with three two-hour sessions devoted 

to an overview of the criminal justice system in that,state, a , 

review of criminal practice and procedure, and a deta~led descr~ption of the role of each of the actors in the criminal justice 

system to be found in the courtroom under observation. 

60 

, 

Following these three sessions, the program direc'tor accompanies 

the monitors to the local courthouse for a general orientation 

session. The main purpose of this session is to familiarize volunteers with the personnel, workings, cast of characters and oper- ations of the local court. 

The next session involves a two-hour practice session in court 

monitoring. The monitors are requested to record as much as they 

can about each case., Immediately following this session, the 

coordinator participates in an informal session in which monitors 

discuss what they have observed. This process is then repeated 

for a second time. Following the third practice run, the coordinator begins to participate in the discussions of what, in fact, 

took place and provides a series of helpful keys to the process. 

Two additional sessions follow this format. 

On the next court date, the. coordinator accompanies the monitors 

into the courtroom and the training becomes somewhat more refined 

through a series of questions and answers conducted quietly in 

the courtroom. Two additional sessions of this type are then held. 

It is only in the fourteenth session that the data forms are introduced into the training program, and described at length. Two 

periods of court observation are allotted to test their use, followed by a question-and-answer session. 

The last two sessions of the training program are devoted to verification of information. Monitors frequently face the problem 

of not being able to hear much of what is going on in the courtroom. This is aggravated by frequent bench conferences. In these 

two final sessions, monitors are instructed how to verify information that was not gathered during the session by seeking additional 

information from the judge, prosecuting attorney, probation officer 

or sessions clerk. In addition, the monitors are instructed how 

to obtain information on cases from the clerk's office. 

It is obvious that this program has an ambitious format and requires a large block of time from volunteers. All of this is 

spelled out clearly in the initial orientation session. 

61 

_______ ~ ___ ~ __ ---L---~ ______ ---'iL....--.jt ~"-'---~ .. --
• 

Most of the court watching training programs fall somewhere between 

these two examples. In each there appear to be several key ele- ments: 

• Orientation and Class Sessions. To be effective the 

classroom sessions must include a number of important 

subject areas, ranging from the structure of the local 

criminal justice system to the specific types of problems that court watchers can anticipate during their 

time as monitors. Ideally, one training session should 

be devoted to an overview of the basic operation and 

jurisdiction of the court, including the relevant 

criminal or civil laws and procedures in force. 

• Tou~s of the Courthouse. The tour of the local courthouse should be conducted by a person not only familiar 

with the process, but who can introduce monitors to 

the key personnel in the court. 

• A Number of Practice Court Watching Sessions. The 

practice monitoring should have some structure. 

Court watchers should not be told to simply locate a 

court and start observing. Courts should be preselected and a member of the project staff should 

accompany the monitors on the practice runs. Thiswill 

permit a worthwhile debriefing and make the practice 

sessions far more meaningful. 

• Instruction in Data Collection. Assuming that the monitoring project intends to~er information about 

some aspect of court operations, the last phase of 

training should prepare monitors in data collection 

techniques. Perhaps the single most important concept 

to emphasize is the obje~ recording of what is seen 

in the exact manner specified by the data collection 

forms. Any deviation in the manner of recording will 

make statistical proof of program objectives harder to 

achieve and will weaken the credibility of the project's 

findings. A discussion of key research concepts and 

standards for doing scientific research can contribute 

to impartial moni~oring and strengthen the monitors' 

sense of professionalism. Having presented the fundamentals of data collection, the data forms should be 

explained item by item. If time permits, court watchers 

should use samples of the form to practice in court 

during the week before the next training session, thus 

62 

----,~. ----------~---------

clarifying any questions or problems before the actual 

monitoring begins. Most programs have found that the 

first several recordings of most monitors have to be 

discarded because the forms are incomplete and/or inaccurate. A careful check of the volunteers' recordings 

over the first several observation sessions will in most 

cases substantially improve the quality of the data collection effort. 

Once the structure of the training program has been determined, it 

remains to be decided the type of personnel who should conduct the 

training program. Many projects have successfully enlisted the aid 

of defense and prosecuting attorneys for presenting an overview 

of the judicial system and explaining courtroom jargon. Attorneys 

are an asset to the training program both because of their legal 

expertise and because they can acquaint the observers with varying 

perspectives on the court. Occasionally, court personnel have 

also been recruited to assist in familiarizing monitors with courtroom procedures through mock trials and explanations of their 

responsibility. Several court monitoring projects have even persuaded courtroom personnel, particularly bailiffs and clerks, to 

lead tour.s of the court buildings and facilities. These tours 

help familiarize monitors with the location of,courtrooms ~nd 

other key areas and, in addition, the issues dlscussed durlng the 

classroom training become less abstract. 

Recruiting personnel for monitor training in data collection techniques can present somewhat more of a problem. Unless t~e project 

has a professional research director--which usually re~lres t~a~ 

the project be well-funded--it is often difficult to flnd quallfled 

persons willing to volunteer the necessary time. The lack of volunteers in this area probably has less to do with the willingness 

of the individual statistician or researcher than with the capacity 

of a project to initially locate qualified individuaL!: in their 

community. When court monitoring projects have only limited dataoriented objectives, the lack of professional research assistance 

can be compensated for somewhat by careful monitor training by , 

the project director and those responsible for the data collectlon. 

However, when a project's objectives include a major data collection effort (developing statistics on adjournment rates, for 

example), the ability of untrained personnel to succe~sfullY prepare monitors in collection techniques is less certaln. As a 

result, one of the initial determinations a project di~ect~r or 

steering committee must make is whether the project Ob]ectlves 

63 
• 

are within the capabilities of the staff as well as the volunteers. 

The training schedule will depend in part on the amount of information the monitors must learn, but most projects devote between 

one and two weeks to classroom training. If possible, it is best 

to schedule each training session on two different days at different 

times to allow for variations in the availability of volunteers. 

It is also important to leave time at the end of each session so 

that monitors can ask questions and problems can be clarified 

before the actual monitoring takes place. Once monitoring has 

begun, any misunderstanding that may have developed during the 

training period will be compounded over the following months of 

court monitoring. Some court monitoring projects conduct monthly 

meetings with their monitors to answer questions and get feedback 

about the data forms and other potential problem areas. Guest 

speakers with a perspective on the criminal justice system can 

make such meetings informative and may suggest other areas of the 

system that warrant citizen involvement. These regular meetings 

not only provide the volunteers with useful information but also 

give them another opportunity to get to know each other and feel 

they are a part of an overall effort. 

5.3.5 Communications with the Judiciary 

In the early days of court watching, it was the general practice 

not to communicate with a judge before the monitoring began, lest 

the project compromise its objectives. In many cases this resulted in confusion and misunderstanding. 

Perhaps the best way to approach the situation is to prepare a 

letter to each judge whose court will be monitored containing 

the following information: 

• Names and affiliations of local advisory committee; 

• Goals of the project; 

• A statement indicating the desire for cooperation, 

ideas and suggestions from the judge; 

• A request for a meeting to discuss the project 

before the monitoring begins. 

64 

, '. 

This letter should be followed shortly by a telephone call to the 

judge requesting an interview to discuss the project goals in 

greater depth. 

It is frequently helpful to have three or four persons share in 

this meetin~ incl~ding the chairperson of the advisory committee, 

the program coord~nator and perhaps one or two volunteer monitors. 

The main reasons for this suggestion are: 

,1) It helps everyone's recollection when there are more 

than two people remembering what is said at an interview; 

2) The discussion process may be more creative and meaningful when three or four people are involved; 

3) Participating in an interview with a judge is an 

extremely positive way to further involve volunteers. 

After the decision is made on who is to attend the meeting, it 

usually proves helpful to designate one member of the group as the 

spokesperson and another to take extensive notes. 

Furthermore, it is always helpful for the interviewing group to 

prepare an agenda prior to the meeting. Items to consider for 

discussion might include the specific goals and objectives of the 

project; any particular problems the judge has with the program as 

a whole; enlisting the judge's cooperation with opening up lines 

of communication ,with other appropriate court personnel; a discussion of the logistics of cour~ watching (some judges are willing 

to set aside a portion of the courtroom for the monitors); a discussion of how the draft report will be prepared and the nature of 

the input available to the judge before final pUblication. 

This initial meeting is basically intended to lay the groundwork 

for the court watching project. It may also lend itself to a discussion of some of the technical problems, such as how the observers 

may secure a copy of the daily or weekly calendar. 

Once the project has completed its in-court observations, the draft 

report should be carefully prepared by the staff and discussed with 

the local advisory committee. When this process is completed, the 

65 
• 

draft should be sent to each of the ' 

cover letter inviting their Judges obser~ed along with a 

discuss the report At th tcomm~~ts and suggest~ng a meeting to 

gestions or change~ sUbmit~edmbee t~hng ~he staff should evaluate sug- y e Judge. 

Two final points should b.e emphasized again F' t 

of all this communioation with the' d" " ~rs , the purpose 

curacy and cooperation Se d JU ~c~ary ~s to emphasize acfacts as found by th' con ~ ev~ry report must state the 

e court mon~tor~ng project C 

suggestions made by judges should be r ' ed' omments and 

the final analysis the pro' t ev~ew carefully, but in o t f ,Jec must prepare a final report withu ear of or intimidation by the local judge. 

5.3,6 Use of the Media 

One of the primary goals f raise the community's int~r m~st ~ourt monitoring projects is to 

in the courts Furth es an awareness about the problems 

cial system i~ likAlye~:o~e, r.uy pressure for change in the judiof a wide segment ~f the c~~~~~tsUCcessfuI if it has the support 

the press and other media has an r~po~~:~ the successful,use of 

each stage of a court monitoring effort. effect on the ~pact of 

At the onset of the ' th 'd I proJect, the local newspaper can function as 

e ~ ea means of announcing the t bl' ing effort and thus interest t e7 a ~shment of a court monitorSeveral ongoing projects haveP~ ent~al volunteers in the project. 

monitors volunteered even befor:P~~eed t~at ~ large ~umber of , their 

began, after learning of the pr ' t ~roJect s recru~tment dr~ve initial pUblicity also ins~es ~~:~ t~n the ,newspapers. The 

cretive and that its objectives are no~ p:oJect does not appear s7-

or members of the judiciar " . m, sunderstood by the publ~c to enhance the credibilityy'f M~s~nfor~at7on ~nd rumors do little 

o a court mon~tor~ng effort. 

Perh~ps the most powerful service the med' " publ~cize a project's find' ~a can prov~de ~s to 

court monitoring efforts h~~gsband recommendations once the actual 

of a final report not only ,e een c~ncluded. Newspaper coverage 

will reach a large portion ~~s~~es t at ~he proje~t's findings e commun~tYI but ~n addition, the 

66 

. 

~ ~ 

I 

II 

II 

t 

!I 

II 

'I ), 

ii 

t 

I 

'. 

widespread publicity makes ignoring the report that much more 

difficult for a resistant or uncooperative judiciary. 

However, the tremendous power of the media brings with it certain 

responsibilities. Before releasing the report, it is important to 

inform the monitored judges of the project findings and solicit 

their comments on the report. While this courtesy will in no way 

diminish the quality or content of the report, any misinformation 

or misrepresentations may be pointed out before causing public 

embarrassment for both the judge and the project. More importantly, distributing rough drafts of the report helps to preserve an 

atmosphere of cooperation which can be essential if any constructive changes are to come of the monitoring effort. To this 

end, some co~t watching projects have omitted specific names of 

judicial personnel from their public report, while including the 

names in the drafts submitted to the judges. The Illinois Court 

Watching Project, for example, would not release the names of 

court personnel mentioned in their report, but referred inquiries 

to the Illinois Law Enforcement Commission. The ILEC had been 

given copies of the unedited reports and could release the confidential material as it saw fit. 

The withholding of specific names in the public report also limits 

the potential misuse of the report in the future. One incumbent 

judge, mentioned in the League of women voters' Illinois Court 

Watching project, stated in an election campaign brochure that he 

had been given a high rating by the project, implying that the LWV 

was in support of his re-election. Such tactics can threaten the 

integrity of a ,court watching project that has maintained a nonpartisan perspective throughout the court monitoring. The project 

has since asked judges not to cite the report in their campaign 

literature and copies of the report sent to judges are now marked 

confidential. 

It should be noted that not all projects are opposed to their 

findings being used to advance political candidacies. The Rainier 

Community Action Center of Seattle, Washington, rated incumbent 

judges "unacceptable," "recommended," and "acceptable" based on 

the sentencing practices of the monitoI'ed judges. Those judges 

found to be "too soft on the criminal" were unacceptable, and 

leaflets distributed at the voting polls by the Action Center 

opposed their re-election. At the same time, those judges who 

received favorable ratings were supported in their re-election 

bid and their campaign literature reflected that support. 

67 
• 

When the court monitoring report is finally released to the public, 

a timely use of the media can contribute to the recognition and 

implementation of the report's recommendations. A well-planned 

news conference, during which the recommendations are outlined 

and the report is released to the press, can attract both newspapers and television coverage and result in a major media event. 

Once the project's findings have gained some attention, follow-up 

stories, editorials and even interview programs can serve to perpetuate public interest in court reform in general and the project's recommendations in particular. Once a sufficient degree of 

public support has been reached , the press and other media are 

likely to reflect the public concern and exert pressure for 

judicial reform. 

Because a successful media campaign can have a significant influence on the impact of the project's final report, there is a strong 

argument for designating one member of the project as the media 

coordinator. The coordinator's responsibilities might include 

preparing news releases, making contacts with reporters and 

editors, and keeping the media informed of the progress of the 

monitoring efforts. The media coordinator might also serve as 

the spokesperson for the court monitoring projec,t, appearing on 

interviews and presenting the project's position on the relevant 

issues. Appointing a spokesperson for the group also minimizes 

the problem of self-appointed spokespeople speaking on behalf of 

the project and thus misrepresenting or confusing the issues. 

Although well-intentioned, these "spokespeople" often make statements which are damaging to the integrity of the monitoring effort 

and give the impression that the project is poorly organized. 

Some projects, including the Illinois Court Watching Project, have 

instructed their monitors not to discuss the project or its 

findings with the press but to refer the press to a representative 

of the steering committee. 

5.4 Assessment of Achievement 

To assess achievement in court watching projects is a most difficult task if one intends to go beyond the assumption that the 

existence of a program to place volunteer citizens in courts is 

itself a measure of success. If one supports the premise that it 

is desirable to open the courts to public review (a premise with 

which few would disagree), then the continued ability of local 

68 

units to draw volunteer support serves as an important measure 

of achievement of this basic goal. 

Frequently, goal statements imply that changes in the court system 

are to occur as a result of observations, data collection, analysis 

and recommendations of court watchers. Therefore, the more narrowly 

defined the goals and the more carefully designed the methodology, 

the easier it is to assess the project's achievements. For example, projects collecting statistical data can be evaluated on 

the reliability of the data, monitor attendance, and questionnaire 

format. If court watchers are concerned with the quality of court 

personnel and facilities, what problem areas are pinpointed? How 

carefully are they documented? What recommendations are made? 

In short, measuring the attainment of project goals requires an 

assessment of: 

• Whether new information was generated by the project; 

• Whether court behavior was changed in response to this 

information; and 

• Whether the resultant changes had salutary effects. 

Evidence on the first of these questions frequently comes from 

the reports and press releases generated by the project or its 

volunteers. The press materials provided by the New York and 

Illinois projects quote extensively from the projects' formal 

reports, which appear to be the principal vehicle of information 

dissemination. 

Assessing the extent of court behavior modification and determining the role of the court watchers in effecting change is far less 

straightforward. Recommendations range from actions which are 

directly observable--posting of signs, repair or replacement of 

facilities, publication of documents--to actions which may be 

difficult either to define or to observe--better preparation by 

litigants, improved communication between judges and administrators, discouraging "unnecessary" adjournments. An evaluator can 

deal with the first class of recommendations by observing welldefined events: the sign is there, or it isn't; the sound system 

works, or it doesnit. TO approach the second class, which clearly 

contains the more interesting and far-reaching implications of 

court watching, one must first operationalize the recommendat.i.ons 

at a fairly detailed level: In what areas should litigants be 

69 

~ . 

I 

) 
• 

better prepared? When, and by what standards of preparation? 

What infonnation needs to be transmitted from judges to administrators (01= the other way)? How soon, with what reliability, in 

which cases, and what is to be accomplished as evidence that the 

communication has occurred? 

Reaching this level of quantification is (1) essential for measurement to make any sense, and (2) substantially more technical than 

most of the work evidenced by the projects reviewed in this Monograph. 

Given the rather limited involvement that can be demanded of most 

volunteers, as well as their apparent skill mix, it is neither 

fair nor realistic to demand high leveis of professionalism in 

their articulation of objectives. Even in their most general 

form, the projects' recommendations may serve important purposes 

of raising public consciousness, keeping the system aware of citizen concern, and identifying the prevalence of court problems. 

They are not, however, specific enough for measurement purposes. 

A further complication arises from the concurrence of other changes 

in the court system with court watchers' recommendations. The temptation of court watchers to "adopt a position" on current issues 

such as plea bargaining, mandatory sentences, and treatment of 

juveniles is seemingly inevitable. In each of these highly sensitive issues the cour~s may take some action, whether watched or not. 

There is no direct empirical way to separate instances where project recommendations influenced decisions from those where the 

watchers and the courts simply happened to choose the same side 

of an issue. One could construct designs where delays or local 

variations in the publication of reports recommending revised court 

procedures would be used as a quasi-experimental manipulation 

to test the response of the system to the publication. It is 

not likely that such complexity is a realistic option in many 

court watching projects, however, where getting the recommendations published will assume priority over experimental considerations. 

Dealing with the third question--effects of project-supported 

change--is even less manageable. Each such action requires the 

construction of a set of objectives, different from the implementation questions discussed above, which are subject to empirical 

measurement. For each measure, an experimental or quasi70 

_ • ___ 1 

experimental test is required, and except in extremely blatant 

cases, such tests must be fairly sensitive--hence requiring a 

large-scale data collection effort and/or a long period of time. 

Once again, such designs are likely to exceed the technical capacity and available resources of a small Volunteer staff. 

5.5 Summary 

In summary, court watching projects are perhaps best viewed both 

as a vehicle for practical improvements in court procedure and 

as a method for raising the public consciousness on significant 

criminal justice issues. With respect to the former, most projects have served to make the courts more accessible to participants in the criminal justice process as well as the public. 

As the New York report notes, 

"Perhaps most important is that the citizens and their 

local judiciary are beginning to meet and to listen to 

one another's problems, suggestions and attitudes. It 

is hoped that this momentum will continue and be built 

upon to create a real community dialogue that will have 

a chance of bolstering the public's confidence in the 

system and of making real and lasting improvements in 

the criminal justice process." 

71 

----------~----~-----
• 

Preceding page blank 

APPENDIX A 

Data Collection Forms, 

Illinois Court Monitoring Project 

73 

-, 

tel t .,. b 
• 

RmlRT FO~ FOR PINS I CAL / INFO~TI~ FACILITIES 

(One time only!) 

Instructions: Please f11l out this form only once and return it to your 

local coordinator with your regular report forms. 

County ot: _________ _ Date - I 

MOnth Day 

Type of facillty in which courtroom i5 located For example: courthoU5e, municipal bUildln-g-, -p-o""'l""'i-c-e-s""':tC-a"""t ... i"'"on-j..-----

Room number _-----

Name of IOOni tor ---. ________________ _ 

1. What information facill ties are there to direct' p lOple to proper courtroom, an5wer 

questions from the public etc,? (Describe.) 

Do you consider them adequate? [ 1 

Yes 

[ ] 

No 

2. Are pamphlets availahle to the publlC explaining proc.edures, rights? If "yes," 

enclose sample. (1 [] 

Yes No 

3, 1s the current day's calendar posted? [1 [1 

Yes No 

If "yes," where? (Inside courtroom. JUSt outside the door to the courtroom, dwon 

the 'hall. .•. :) 

4. Is notic.e of defendant's right5 posted inl'ide the courtroom? [ ] 

Yes 

[ 1 

No 

If "yes," is notice provided in any language other than English!? [] Yes 

[ 

What language? ___ ........ ____________ _ 

S. Is there a 5pecial waiting room fer witnesses? [ 1 Yes 

If not, where do they assemble? _____________ _ 

[ 

No 

1 

No 

[ 

] 

1 6, Are thele rooms for PO's, state's attorneys, other lawyers to [1 

c.onfer Wl th their client5.'r Yes No 

If not, where do they confer? _____________________ . 

74 

(1) 

_ of DoIf_t 

2 

" U1 

6 

14 

15 

TOTALS I 

___________________________________ ~~ _______________ ...J.. 

COde , I (DII~) 

(~) 

Did:l~ HIt .-t. (-) 

(J) 

i h J · 

(5) (6) (7) 

(2) I Did ••• t :l ~ _"., (8.9 ••• )'>v 10n9 in 

·~~~trr· i ; )~ 'rfpa of_ 

1~~t1:. 

CUIIt.ody? If _II red\sction or 

Set. inc ......... ed. "".t happoonotd? 

a.arq. raa No :.,a 1Ia11 _ If c ... dillai.M4, note bere. Contin ... on back if nacaanry.) 

$ 1 

2 

. J 

7 

8 

9 

10 

12 

14 

15 
, 

.. 

EXPLANATIONS (IF NEEDED) 

40. CLERKS --

41. INFORMING PUBLIC --

45. INTERPRETERS --

46. AIJ-DNISIMENTS --

49. DISCRIMINATION? .. -

50. FAVORITIs.1? --

58. APpr:MANCE OF IMPROPRIETY? --

S9. OOI'OOR'llIY ASPECTS 

60. IMPRESSIONS --

76 

46. 

47. 

48. 

49. 

so. 

EVALUATION (CONTINU!:D) 

Before accepting a guilty plea, did the judge always give the 

proper admonishments? (Refer to Column S on CASE OaSERVATION 

REPORT.) If "no," explain circumstances on back page. 

Be,fore granting a continuance, did the judge usually make an effort to find out why it was necessary? 

Did the judge seem to exert proper control over attorneys and 

court personnel to give the courtroom a businesslike atmosphere? 

Did the judge appear to discriminate against certain groups or kinds of ])eople (e. g. minorities, "long hairs," ethnic 

gr

0 4Ps)? II ''yes,'' explain on back page. 

Did the judge give the appearance of favoring either defense or prosecution? 

If ''yes'', which? 

(Explain on back page.) 

51. Did the judge usually give the defendant a chance to tell his 

side of the stOlj'? 

52. Did he usually try to explain the sentence to the defendant? 

53. Did the judge use language that most defendants appeared to understand? 

54. Did ~ usually understand the judge? 

55. Was he attentiVe when someone.spoke to him? 

56. Was he patient when someone did not fully understand or was not satlsfied? 

57. In general, which of these best describe the courtesy and 

respect the judge showed to: ' ~:lllJetimes 

58. 

59. 

Excellent Adequate Inadequate 

[ I [I [I a. Defendants 

b. Defense attorneys I [I c. State's ;.;i t~,<;sses/c:,~ :air:a~,ts [ I 

d. prr.ls~:utlJrs ( J 

WiiS there an,thir.g about tJ;.e,j uc.§e'!? co~du'tt "on the benlcb that gave the appearance 01 1111propnety. I. yes, exp am on back page. 

If you wish, describe on back any noteworthy aspects--good or bad--of the judge's performance such as: decisiveness 1 legal ability, dignity, competence, discipline of unprofesslonal conduct of attorneys, diligence in trying to ascertain the facts. • 

60. Put yourself in the place of a defendant, complainant or witness in the .courtroom you have just obsen'ed. Taking everything into account--actions and attitudes of judge, haHiffs, clerks: heilllvior of prosecut'Jr and defense attorney; thc: general fc:c:lin;: of the place· -\,o'lld you ha\'c left 

thr: court \o,'j ti, troe fceling that justice ,,'as being fairly ailininistercd? If not, explain on back, 

PLEASE BE SURE YOU JIi\VE ANSWERED ALL QUESTIONS. 

77 

[ I I I 

Yes No 

1 I I I 

Yes No 

I I I I 

Yes No 

I I I I 

Yes No 

I I I I 

Yes No 

I I [ I 

Def. Pros. 

I I I I 

Yes No 

I I I I 

Yes No 

I I [ I 

Yes No 

I I [ I 

Yes No 

I I [ I 

Yes No 

[ I [ I 

Yes No 

Often 

Inadequate 

I I 

r I 

I 

I 

[ ) I ) 

Yes No 

[ I . Check here 

if described 

( ) [ I 

Yes ~o 

-- -~ - -----
~, 

@ , 

• 

EVALUATION OF FACILITIES AND PERSONNE~ 

50. Seating sp,\ce in the courtroom today was: I 1 

Adequate 

[ 1 Inadequate_ 

31. Upkeep and cleanliness in courtroom were: [ I 

Adequate Inadequate 

32. "ow nruch of the proceedings could you hear? 

Nearly all 

[ I 

Some Almost none 

33. Ibw nruch of the proceedings do you think the 

audience could hear? [ I [ I 

Nearly all Some Almost none 

34. Did the judge usually speak loudly and distinctly enough to be heard by the audience? 

35. Did any of the following interfere with the 

Yes No 

audience'S ability to hear? Yes No 

a. Talking among audience ................................ [ 

b. Talking among court personnel (other than judge, lawyers on case) .•.............••. [ c. Noise of audience entering, leaving, 

moving about ...•.•.•...••.•.............••........••. [ 

d. Noise of court personnel entering, 

leaving, moving about ..••.•.•••..•..•..•.•...••••••.. [ 

e: "eating or cooling systems ............................ [ 

f. Sounds from outside courtroom ......................... [ 

g.Other: _______________ _ 

[ I 36. Did bailiffs adequately explain to people when to step [ I 

forward, where to stand, when to exit? Yes Sometimes 

37. Were they courteous when doing so? 

38. Were they patient, polite and dignified in keeping order and answering. questions? 

39. Was the c~erk polite in calling cases and answering questIons. 

40. Did the clerk appear to accord special treatment to cer- tain individuals? If yes, explaIn on back page. 

41. With what questions and problems did people most often 

turn to bailiffskand clerks? Put typical questions and 

responses on bac page. 

[ I [ I 

Yes Sometimes 

[ I [ I 

Yes Sometimes 

[ I 

Yes 

[ I 

Yes 

[ I 

No 

[ ) 

No 

[ I 

Check here if 

answered 

[ 

No 

[ 

No 

[ 

No 

on reverse side. 

42. Did you see any non-English speaking defendants or wit- nesses today? 

How many? ____ _ 

43. If "yes": how many were given court-appointed interpreter? 

44. How many provided own interpreter? 

[ 1 

Yes 

45. ~f neither of above, what happened? Please explain on back. [I 

[ ) 

No 

I 

I 

I 

Check here if 

answered on reverse side. 

78 

I...,u", " -.,.,-i.(~--' ..,,,,-_-,,..,-

(Date) (Room 1/) "l"(I1:':"o-n'"'i""to-r-""") 

DAILY SUMMARY SHEET 

[one a day per courtroom) 

county' _____________ __ 

Location of 

courtroom' ____________ _ 

Name of judge' __________ _ 

Type of proceedings 

being heard today' ________ _ 

Uame of moni tor ' ___________ _ 

~O~I~~;_----------------------------------------------__ ~ rime court scheduled 

to start 

rime 1st case called 

rime adjourned 

for lunch 

AFTERNOON 

rime court scheduled 

to start 

rime 1st case called 

Time adjourned 

.for lunch 

Total 1/ a.m. hours in 

session 

Total 1/ p.m. 

hours in 

session 

I f late start, 

how late? (9) L-__ ...Jlmim 

If late start, 

how late? (10) L-I __ ---ll mim 

TOTAL TIME COURT IN SESSION FOR DAY (Add a.m. and p.m. hours above.) 

TOTAL * CASES ON CALENDAR 

(11) 1 __ --'1 hI'S. 

(12) 1-1 ----J 

TOTAL 1/ CASES REPRESENTING VICTI~~ESS CRIMES 

CONTINUANCES 

TOTAL * REQUESTED BY: 

Defense 

Prosecution 

Agreement 

Order of Court 

REASONS GIVEN: 

Obtaining defense counsel 

Jury Demand 

Defense not ready 

Defense lawyer busy 

Prosecution not ready 

(14)C] 

(15)[=:J 

(16)t=) 

(17)c::J 

(20) c::J 

(2l)L] 

(22) c=J 

(23)Cj 

(24)Cl 

Complainant or witness absent (25) c=J 

Deferred Prosecution/OWl School (26) CJ 

Other (27) [:=J 

None (28) c=J 

Don't know (29) c=J 

79 

(13) 1-1 __ 

TOTAL H CmmNUANCRS GRANTED (18) I 

TOTAl. N CO>iTl:-''UA.'lCRS REFUSED (19) :::[=. == 
co 

(;) 

• 

llUnol. Court !fetchlng Project 

BASIC INRl!W.TICt/ 

(1) 

~3JOO or 

defendant: 

(I 1St) 

, 

----_. 

I 

- ----_.- t 

-- .. -.------. t 

_ '-' ___ 4~" 

.. 

" ._-----

I 

--"---" 

1 

3 

~ I 

(2) 

~ 

.. 

E>RANATICflS (I F fflIE) 

37. CLERlcs --

3B. INPORKIMG POi!LIC -- • 

42. IN'l'ERPRETERS --

43. ADMONISHMENTS --

46. DISCRIMINATION? --

MISDEMEANOR 

CASE OBSERVATION REPORT 

Code I --1. __ -___ -__ _ 

(D.otel (Roo", II (Monitor I) 

OJNrI~ AlM)NISlNENrS 47. FAVORITISM? --

(3) Req~:ied by: (5) (6) (7) (8) 

Reason :liven: 

J/IIJHiM)4ii~~Jj~ ~t~ ~Plea 

adiiiOnlshments 

VC? @lven? 

G. N.G. Yes ~ 

54 • APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY? --

I 

2 55. 1IO'l'nORl'RY ASPECTS --

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 56 •. GENIRAL IMPRESSIONS --

B 

9 

10 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

81 
• 

III 

6 

H 

III 

III 

[:l 

!l! 

H 

tvNJJATIOO (aMIrtJED) 

43. Before accepting a guilty plea, did the judge always give 

the proper admonishments? (Refer to Col. 9 on Preliminary 

Hearing Report.) If "no," explain circumstances on back 

page. 

44. Before granting a continuance, did the judge usually make an effort to find out why it was necessary? 

45. Did the judge seem to exert proper control oYer attorneys 

and court personnel to give the courtroom a businesslike 

atmosphere? 

46. 

47. 

Did the judge appear to discriminate against certain 

groups or kinds of people (e.g. minorities, "long hairs," 

ethnic groups)? If "yes," explain on back page. 

Did the judge give the appearance of favoring either 

defense or prosecution? 

'If "yes," which? (Explain on back page.) 

48. Was the defense precluded from presenting evidence? 

49. Did the judge use language that most defendants appeared 

to understand? 

50. Did ~ usually understand the judge? 

51. Was he attentive when Someone spoke to him? 

52. ~~~ ~:t~:~t:a~ when someone did not fully undertand or was 

[ ] [ 1 Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

[ ] 

Def. Pros. 

Yes No 

[ ] [ J 

Yes No 

[ ] [ 1 

Yes No 

[ ,J 

Yes No 

Yes No 

53. In general, which of these best describe the courtesy and 

respect the judge showed to: 

Excellent Adequate 

Sometimes 

Inadequate 

Often 

Inadequate 

54. 

55. 

a. Defendants [ 1 [ 1 

b. Defense attorneys [ 1 [ 1 

c. i~t;e's witnesses/complain- [ 1 [ 1 

d. Prosecutors 

Was there anything about the judge's conduct on the hench that 

gave the appearance of impropriety? If "yes," explain on hack 

page. 

If you wish, describe on back any noteworthy aspects--qood or bad--of the judge's performance such as: decisiveness r legal ability, dignity, competence, discipline of unprofesslonal 

conduct of attorneys, diligence in trying to a~certaill the 

facts, crite~ia used for appointing a public defender. 

56. Put yourself in the place of a defendant, complainant or wit- nesa in the courtroom you have just observed. Taking every- thing into account--actions and attitudes of judge, bailiffs, clerke; behavior of prosecutor and defense attorney; the gen- eral feeling of the place--would you have left the court with 

the feeling that jut;tice was being fairly administered? If not, 

explain on back. 

82 

[ 1 

[ J 

[ 1 

[ 1 

[ 1 

[ ] 

[ ] 

[ 

[ 

[ 1 

Yes No 

[ 1 Check here 

if described 

[ 1 

Yes No 

' . 

III 

~ 

H 

E-< 

H 

H 

H 

~ 

~ >- E< 

H 

H 

H 

III 

H 

~ 

I>: 

~~~ til U III 

l!l 

~ u 

~!il~ OE-<1Il 

~ ~ 

EVIlJJJATIOO (J= FACILITIES AND PERSmMl -------

27. Se&tiug space in the courtroom today was: [ ] [ ] 

28. Upkeep and clean1-.Lness in courtroom were: Adequate Inadequate 

.[ ] Adequate Inadequate 

29. How much of the proceedings could you hoar] 

Nearly all Some Almost none 

30. How, much of the proceedings do you'. think the 

audlence could hear? ~;ei\rly all Some Almost none 

31. Did the judge usually speak loudly and distinctly enough to be heard by the audience? 

Yes No 

32. Didd.any of th~ following interfere with the au lence's ablllty to hear? Yes No 

33. 

34. 

a. Talking among audience................ .r 

b. Talking among court personnel •.•••.•..•••••• 

(other than judge, lawyers on case) ................... .r c. Noise of audience entering, leaving, 

moving about •••••••••••••••••••.••••.•••••••••••••••• I 

d. Noise of court personnel entering 

leaving, moving about ............ : ................... I 

e. Heating or cooling systems ••••••••••••••••.•••••••••• I 

f. Sounds from outside courtroom ••••••••••••••.•.••••••• I 

g. Other: 

--------------------- Did bailiffs adequately axplain to people when to step forward, where to stand, when to exit? 

Were they courteous when doing so? 

Yes 

[ 1 

35. Were they patient, polite and dignified in keeping 

order and answering questions? 

Yes 

I 1 

Yes 

36. Was the clerk polite in calling ca d ' questions? ses an anSWcrlng I J 

37. Did the clerk appear to accord special troatmcmt t~. certain individuals? If yes, explain on back paq". 

Yes 

Yet; 

Sometimes 

[ 1 

Sometimes 

I 1 

Sometimes 

[ 1 No 

No 

No 

[ 1 No 

[ 1 

No 

38. With loll at ~u~stions and problems did peoPl-e--mo-s--t-o-f-t-.e-.n·------------------------------

turn tv ball1ffs and clerks? Put typical questions 'lnd 

responses on back page. Check here if. 

answered on reverse side. 

I 

--!:!H--t---______________________ .. __ .. ___ . __ .. ___ ---:-_____ _ 

39. D~d you see any non-English speaking def~II.3ant.s <'I' wltnesses today? 

How many? ______ _ 

40. If "yes": how many were given court-appal nted intr.'r!'~eter? 

41. How many provided own interpreter? 

42. If neither of above, what happened? P1CdS" explair. ')~ bat:k. 

83 

J [ 1 Yes No 

[ ] 

Check here if 

answered on reverse side. 
• 

ILLINOIS COURT WATCHING PROJECT Code " / -rvat-;;r- (Rooll1 I/) ("oni tor I) 

County: 

Location of courtroom: 

Name of monitor: 

MORNING 

FPH DAILY &.tf1l\RY SHEH 

(one a day per courtroom) 

Name of judge: 

Type of proceedings being heard today: ________ _ 

rime court scheduled to start _____ _ 

Time 1st case called _____ _ 

Time adjourned for lunch how 

If late 

late? 

start, 

(1) 

~~ 

~.-J 

Total H a.m. hours in session 

AF"I'ERNOON 

Time court scheduled to start _____ _ 

Time 1st case called ____ _ 

Time adjourned _____ _ IE late start, how late? 

Total N p.m. hours in sessio1l ____ _ 

TOTAL TIME COURT IN SESSION FOR DAY (Add a.rd. and p.m. hours above.) 

TOTAL * CASES ON CALENDAR 

TOTAL * CASES REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC DEFENDER 

TOTAL * REDUCED CHARGES 

CONTINUANCES 

TOTAL * REQUESTED BY: 

Defense 

State 

Agreement 

Order of court 

REASONS GIVEN: 

For defendant to obtain lawyer 

Delense lawyer not present 

Defense lawyer present but not 

Negotiations underway 

State not ready 

Other 

None 

Don't know 

(7) (8) ~_" (9) 

(10) 

(11) 

(12) 

ready (13) 

(14) 

(15) 

(16) 

(17) 

(19) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

~~-.!L C0tlTII!!-~'!.NCF.S GRANTED (19) 

TOTAL_tEoW~!.!I'y~~CES DENIED (21) 

DISPOSITIONS 

Waive FPH 

BFW 

NP/SOL/DWP 

~ probable cause found 

Probable cause found 

HOC ,fter probable cause 

(22) (21)~ 

(23) (24) . _=~ ...j 

(25) -=--=-_j (26) • __ _ 

Guilty, pleas (See pago 3 of this form.) 

84 

mins. 

min!!. 

] 

- '. 

IUJ""J. Court W.tchJng Project 

~ INFORMATION 

(1) (2) (3) 

Name of 

defendant: Original charge; (IIit) I PI>; (list) 

1 

2 

) 

4 

-

5 

-

6 

- CO 

C11 7 

-

a 

-

9 

11 

12 

U 

15 

TOTI\LS I 

I 

(4) 

Reduced? 

(If so, check) 

PfalMI rwN ffARlfli IffillT 

CONTINUAIICES 

Coda I / --:=:=-.;;- _=--,.,.-..,..-:;-;- -;:(D=-.-'::t-"I-:-- (Roo," II (llonitor II 

DISPOSITION 
• 

\ ' 

;  .. ------,

"';' 

@ • ........ _ ... A_ 
APPENDIX B 

Summary of Recommendations, 

Illinois Court Watching Project 

87 

~ t 

I 

\ 

I 

I 

If 

II 

! 

~ 

I 

tl 

---~,.~.------------~------------- --------------------
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

Illinois Court Watr.hing Project 

1975-76 

That chief judges or circuit clerks submit budget requests to 

county boards for establishing and maintaining staffed information 

desks in the lobbies of all courthouses in which high-volume courts 

are located. 

That the Illinois Supreme Court require all circuits to post daily 

calendars outside the door of all courtrooms used fnr the prosecution of misdemeanors and felonies. (The calendar should include, 

at the minimum, defendants' names, offenses charged, starting time 

of court call and name of judge.) 

That the Illinois Supreme Court require that a bailiff or other 

court personnel be stationed in or near high-volume courtrooms 15 

minutes before the start of each session to answer questions from 

the public or direct them to the proper person to answer their 

questions. 

That a notice of defendant's rights be posted in each courtroom in 

which criminal proceedings are held "in a conspicuous place where 

it may be read by persons in custody and others ... " as required 

by law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 38:103-7). 

That the Illinois Supreme Court prepare an authorized version of 

the notice of defendant's rights in language more easily understood by lay persons and that this version be posted prominently 

in addition to the one copied from the statutes. 

88 

, 

That the Illinois Supreme Court direct judges to adhere to Supreme 

Court Rule 402 which requires them to give proper admonis~~ents 

to a defendant before accepting a guilty plea "by addressing the 

defendant personally and in open court" to assure he is informed 

and to determine that he understands the consequences of the plea 

and that it is voluntary. 

That the Illinois Supreme Court require thC:;.·~ judges in courts 

hearing misdemeanors, traffic cases and felony preliminary hearings 

open each call with explanations of the type t order and purpose 

of proceedings to be conducted at that session and of defendant's 

rights; directions for any special procedures to be followed, such 

as payment of fines or application for bail refunds. 

That the Illinois Supreme Court add the following to Rule 61, Standard (C) (8) "Consideration for Counsel and Others" at the end of 

the first paragraph: "The judge should take special care that 

parties, witnesses and others in attendance upon the court understand the nature of the proceeding, their rights and obligations 

and especially the Ultimate disposition of the case." 

That the Illinois State Bar Association update its brochure "Your 

Rights if Arrested" and arrange for wider distribution of it to 

provide such practical information as: rights on arrest, explanation of how bail is set and what information would be useful to 

a judge in setting or reducing bailor granting release on recognizance; right to counsel and suggestions about how to obtain a 

private attorney or public defender; explanation of rights and 

procedures in misdemeanor trials and felony preliminary hearings. 

That the Illinois Supreme Court institute a system for certifying 

qualified interpreters for persons who do not speak or understand 

Enqlish and for deaf persons; that it require lists of such interpreters to be maintained by the chief judge of each circuit and to 

be circulated to all judges in the circuit who hear criminal cases. 

That the Illinois Supreme Court instruct judges to strictly observe the present rules and statutes dealing with continuances, 

especially the following: Illinois Supreme Court Rule 16, Standard 

(C) (17) which states, "In considering applications for continuances, 

a judge, without forcing cases unreasonably or unjustly to trial, 

89 

,,, 

} 

I 
should insist upon a p:roper observance of their dUlties to their 

clients, and to adverse parties and their counsel, so as to expedite the disposition of matters before the court." 

That the Illinois Supreme Court Judicial Conference hold seminars 

for judges on conducting a proper bond hearing. 

That the Illinois Supreme Court undertake a study of standardization of pre-trial release procedures. 

That the Illinois Supreme Court establish a standard to determine 

indigency for the purpose of assigning a public defender or other 

court-appointed counsel. 

That the Illinois State Bar Association take the lead in establishirig a statewide "Lawyer/Citizen Committee for Better Court 

Facilities" to be composed of representatives of the civic, 

business, religious and professional communities. 

That the Illinois Attorney General's Office provide voluntary 

training for assistant state's attorneys on a statewide basis. 

That the Illinois Supreme'Court consistently remind trial judges 

of their obligations under Supreme Court Rule 61, Standard (C) (8), 

"Consideration for Counsel and Others." 

90 

________ _

------,~.-------------~-------------------------------------

APPENDIXC 

Court Monitor's Handbook (Criminal Courts) 

Fund for Modern Courts, New York ' 

91 

l 

~~ ~ _____ ~ ___ ~ _______ ......-01.. ...-..._~ ________ _ 
COURT MONITOR'S HANDBOOK 

92 

Published by the 

Fund for Modem C.ourts. Inc. 

Court Monitoring Project 

Under a grant from the N. Y. State 

Division of Criminal Justice Services 

October. 1975 

~'!.tI. 

Project Director - Fern Schair 

Administrative Assistant - Bernice Stone 

Research Assistant - Karla· Spaulding 

Local Coordinators 

Glens Falls - Jeanne Moore 

New York City - Sondra Solomon 

Poughkeepsie - Kirk Rumble 

Rochester - Anne Nelson 

--- -~~---------

---"~----~---------------------------------~ 

\ 

\ 

I 

I) 

[i 

rl 

Ii 

/. 

, 

, 

I 

THE PROBLEM 

COURT MONITORING PROJECT 

I - INTRODUCTION 

The advice given years ago by Charles Evans Hughes, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme 

Court (1930-41). still seems appropriate: "The Supreme Court of the United States and the courts of 

appeal will take care of themselves. Look after the courts of the poor. who stand most in need of 

justice. The security of the republic will be found in !he treatment of the poor and ignorant: in 

indifference to their misery and helplessness lies disaster." 

The message that all is not right with the administration of these courts has come through clearly 

enough. However, people are confused about what is wrong and what might be done about it. 

The need for significant change in this area is well-documented. In mid-1970, the New York State 

legislature created a Temporary Commission on the New York State Court System. chaired by S,tate 

Senator D. Clinton Dominick. After nearly two years of extensive work. it produced a report in 

January. 1973 which recommended sweeping reforms. In the words of the report: 

.. Although the Commission found much that is right with the state court system. it found too 

much that is wrong. Administrative responsibility is fragmented. Criminal and civil case 

backlogs are too large. The need to resort to plea bargaining in criminal cases is too prevalent. 

Judges and other court personnel are allocated unevenly. Coordination with court-related 

agencies is insufficient. Long-range planning and the collection and analysis of data are 

deficient." Dominick Comm;~sion Report. p. I. 

Some citizen groups criticize antiquated procedures. Judges cite an increasing volume of cases. 

inadequate courtroom space. lack of personnel. and excessive demands for continuances. 

Criminologists point accusing fingers at laws attempting to regulate morality for jamming the courts 

with "victimless" crimes. 

To what extent these factors affect the quality of justice administered in the state's criminal courts is 

uncertain. The Fund for Modem Courts. Inc. believes that this monitoring project provides one way 

for interested citizens to assess the various charges being leveled at their courts and to work with the 

judiciary and the public toward improving the system. 

93 

t 

" 

\ 
Introduction 

If Crimes 

MONITOR'S HANDBOOK 

CONTENTS 

Iff The Criminal Justice Process 

IV Defendant's Rights 

V Role of the Prosecutor and Defense Attorney 

VI Additional Personnel 

VII Glossary 

VIff Bibliography 

Appendix A - New York State Court Structure 

Appendix B - Instructions for Monitors 

---~'~.--------~---r----------------------------

THE PROJECT 

The Fund for' Modem Courts. Inc. is sponsoring a program of court monitoring that is funded by the 

N. Y. State Division of Criminal Justice Services. This project is designed as the first half of a 

three-year program to utilize trained volunteers to monitl)r and report on the trial process within 

selected courts in New York State .. 

Demonstration projects are being initiated in four areas - New York City. Rochester (upstate urban). 

Glens Falls (upstate rural). and Poughkeepsie (mixed). 

Our goals are: I) Collecting and evaluating data on factors affecting the quality of justice and 2) 

developing a universal model for citizens to use in other communities in monitoring their courts. 

The ari.iicipated results are: 

Specific recommendations for upgrading the courts. They may include suggestions for I) 

improvement of physical facilities. 2) addition of personnel. 3) changes in the law or 

procedures. 

Belter public understanding of problems in administering justice and support for improving the 

system. 

Establishment of a continuing dialogue between citizens and their judiciary. 

. , 

The criminal courts were chosen for the first phase of the project because they are "the people's 

courts." the place where most offenders meet the law for the first time. As such. they should be 

models which exemplif~ justice under law. 

THE FUND FOR MODERN COURTS, INC. 

The Fund for Modem Courts. Inc. is an organization of people who are concerned about the system 

of administering justice in New York State. The Fund does research on practices and institutions of 

our courts and related services and seeks to educate the public about the nature and problems of our 

court system. 

Through its individu~1 members. professional staff and Board of Directors. the Fund coordinates the 

activities of regional chapters in key cities throughout the State. among them Albany. Buffalo. 

Syracuse. Rochester and Rome-Utica. In addition. it is the focal point of a coalition of organizations 

which support the Fund and share its vital concern for court reform in New York State. 

95 

.. A 
11- CRIMES 

In New York State there are no longer any common law crimes. All crimes are statutory; i.e. created 

and defined by laws made by the legislative branch of the State and Federal government. 

Acts that are contrary to these laws may be classified as violations, misdemeanors or felonies. A 

violation is a relatively minor offense which is punishable by up to fifteen (15) days in jail and/or a 

fine of up to $250. Misdemeanors and felonies, however, are considered crimes. The punishment for 

a Class A misdemeanor may be a prison sentence of up to one year or probation of up to three years 

or a fine of up to $1,000. For a felony the penalty may be imprisonment for more than one year or a 

sentence of up to five (5) years of probation supervision. 

On the following pages we have listed the offenses and crimes found in the Penal Law. By using this 

list, you will be able to translate the numbers of the charge you hear in court to the actual cl'ime 

being charged. 

In order to beller understand the infllnnation on our list, please read the following keys 

Abbreviation Category 

Fel Felony 

Misd Misdemeanor 

Viol Violation 

100 

100.00 Criminal Solicitation (Viol) 

100.05 Criminal Solicitation (A Misd) 

100.10 Criminal Solicitation (0 Fel) 

lOS 

105.00 Conspiracy 4th Deg. (B Misd) 

105.05 Conspiracy 3rd Deg. (A Misd) 

105.10 Conspiracy 2nd Deg. (E Fel) 

105.15 Conspiracy 1st Deg. (B Fel) 

115 

115.00 Criminal Facilitation (A Misd) 

115.05 Criminal Facilitation (C Fel) 

96 

Class Possible Sentence 

A 

B 

C 

o 

E 

Life Imprisonment 

up to 25 years 

A 

B 

120 

120.00 Assault 3rd Deg. 

120.05 Assault 2nd Deg. 

120.10 Assault 1st Deg. 

120.15 Menacing 

up to 15 years 

up to 7 years 

up to 4 years 

up to I year 

up to 3 months 

up to 15 days 

120.20 Reckless Endangerment 

120.25 Reckless Endangerment 

120.30 Prom. or Suicide Alt. 

125 

125.10 Homicide 

125.15 Manslaughter 2nd Deg. 

125.20 Manslaughter 1st Deg. 

125.25 Murder 2nd Deg. 

125.27 Murder 1st Deg. 

(A Misd) 

(D Fel) 

(C Fel) 

(B Misd) 

(A Misd) 

(D Fel) 

(E Fel) 

(E Fel) 

(C Fel) 

(B Fel) 

(A Fel) 

(A Fel) 

, 

I 

I· 

i 

I 

I, 

IJ 

It ,! 

! 

! 

-~"~.--------------~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------~----

125.40 Abortion 2nd Deg. (E Fel) 155.30 Grand Larceny 125.4S.Abortion 1st Deg. (0 Fel) 

125.50 Self-Abortion 2nd Deg. (B Misd) 

155.30 Grand Larcery 3rd Deg. (E Fel) 

125.55 Self-Abort 24 Wks. preg (A Misd) 

155.35 Grand Larceny 2nd Deg. (0 Fel) 

125.60 Issuing Abort. Articles (B Misd) 

155.40 Grand Larceny 1st Deg. (C Fel) 

130 160 

130.20 Sexual Misconduct (A Misd) 160.05 Robbery 3rd Deg. (0 Fel) 

130.25 Rape 3rd Deg. (E'Fel) 160.10 Robbery 2nd Deg. (C Fel) 

130.30 Rape 2nd Deg. (0 Fel) 160.15 Robbery 1st Deg. (B Fel) 

130.35 Rape 1st Deg. (B Fel) 16S 130.38 Consensual Sodomy (B Misd) Q 

130.40 Sodomy 3rd Deg. (E Fel) 165.00 Misapplication of Property (A Misd) ~ 

i 

130.45 Sodomy 2nd Deg. (0 Fel) 165.05 Unauthorized Use Vehicle (A Misd) I 

130.50 Sodomy 1st Deg. 165.07 Unlaw use Secret Science Mat. I 

(B Fel) (E Fel) 

130.55 Sexual Abuse 3rd Deg. (B Misd) 165. 15 Theft of Services (A Misd) 

130.60 Sexual Abuse 2nd Deg. (A Misd) 165.17 Unlawful use credit card (A Misd) 

130.65 Sexual Abuse 1st Deg. (D Fel) 165.20 FraUd. Obtained Signature (A Misd) 

13S 

165.25 Jostling (A Misd) 

165.30 Fraudulent Accosting (A Misd) 

135.05 Unlaw Imprisonment 2nd (A Misd) 165.35 Fortune Telling (B Misd) 

135.10 Unlaw Imprisonment 1st (E Fel) 165.40 Crim. Poss Stolen Prop. (A Misd) 

135.20 Kidnapping 2nd Deg. (B Fel) 165.45 Crim. Poss Stolen Prop. 2nd Deg. (E Fel) 

135.25 Kidnapping 1st Deg. (A Fel) 165.50 Crim. Poss Stolen Prop. 1st Deg. (0 Fel) 

135.45 Custodial Interfere 2nd Deg. (A Misd) 

135.50 Custodial Interfere 1st Deg. (E Fel) 170 

135.55 Substitution of Children (E Fel) 170.05 Forgery 3rd Deg. (A Misd) 

135.60 Coercion 2nd Deg. (A Misd) 170.10 Forgery 2nd Deg. (0 Fel) 

135.65 Coercion 1st Deg. (0 Fel) 170.15 Forgery 1st Deg. (C Fel) 

140 

170.20 Poss. Forged Instrument 3rd Deg. (A Misd) 

170.25 Poss. FOfged Instrument 2nd Deg. (0 Fel) 

140.05 Crim. Trespass (Viol) 170.30 Poss. Forged Instrument 1st Deg. (C Fel) 

140.10 Crim. Trespass 3rd Deg. (E Fel) 170.40 Crim. Poss. Forged Device (0 Fel) 

140.15 Crim. Trespass 2nd Deg. (A Misd) 170.45 Criminal Simulation (A Misd) 

140.17 Crim. Trespass 1st Deg. (0 Fel) 170.55 Unlaw. Using Slugs 2nd (B Misd) 

140.20 Burglary 3rd Deg. (0 Fel) 170.60 Unlaw. Using Slugs 1st (E Fel) 

140.25 Burglary 2nd Deg. (C Fel) 170.65 Forged Vehicle 10 No. (E Fel) 

140.30 Burglary 1st Deg. (B Fel) 170.70 Illegal Poss. Vehicle ID (E Fel) 

140.35 Poss. Burglary Tools (A Misd) 

140.40 Unlawful Poss. Radio Device (B Misd) 17S 

175.05 Falsifying Bus. Rec. 2nd (A Misd) 

14S 175.10 Falsifying Bus. Rec. 1st (E Pel) 

145.00 Crim. Mischief 4th Deg. (A Misd) 175.20 Tampering Pub. Rec. 2nd (A Misd) 

145.05 Crim. Mischief 3rd Deg. (E Fel) 175.25 Tampering Pub. Rec. 1st (0 Fel) 

145.10 Crim. Mischief 2nd Deg. (0 Fel) 175.30 Offer False Instrument (A Misd) 

145.12 Crim. Mischief 1st Deg. (B Fel) 175.35 Offer False Instrument (E Fel) 

145.15 Crim. Tampering 2nd Deg. (B Misd) 175.40 Issuing False Certificate (E Fel) 

145.20 Crim. Tampering 1st Deg. CD Fel) 175.45 Iss. False Financial Stat (A Misd) 

145.25 Reck. Endanger Property (B Misd) 175.50 Pres. False Insur Claim (A Misd) 

145.30 Unlawful Posting ads (Viol) 

ISO 

ISO 180.00 Commercial Bribing (B Misd) 

150.05 Arson 4th Deg. (E Fel) 180.05 Comm. Bribing Received (B Mi~) 

150.10 Arson 3rd Deg. (C Fel) 180.15 Bribing Labor Official (0 Fel) 

150.15 Arson 2nd Deg. (B Fel) 180.25 Bribe Received by Labor Off. (0 Fel) 

150.20 Arson 1st Deg. (A Fel) 180.40 Sports Bribing (0 Fel) 

ISS 

180.45 Sports Bribe Receiving (E Fel) 

180.50 Tampering Sports Event (A Misd) 

155.25 Petit Larceny (A Misd) 180.55 Rent Gouging (B Misd) 

97 
210. 10 Perjury 2nd Degree 185 210.15 Perjury I st Degree 

185.00 Fraud in Insolvency (A Misd) 210.35 Making Apparent false statement 

185.05 Fraud·Security Interest (/\ Misd) 2nd Degree 

185. 10 Fraud Disp. Mortgaged Prop. (A Misd) 210.40 Making apparent false statement 

185.15 Fraud Disp. Prop. Subject 1st Degree 

to Condo Sales Contract (A Misd) 210.45 Making a punishable false wrinen 

statement 

190 

190.0S Issuing a Bad Check (B Misd) 215 

190.20 False Advertising (A Misd) 215.00 Bribing a witness 

190.25 Crim. Impersonation (A Misd) 21S.05 Bribe receiving by witness 

190.30 Unlaw Concealing Will (E Fell 215.10 Tampering with a witness 

190.3S Misconduct Corp. Off. (B Misd) 215.IS Bribing a juror 

190.40 Criminal Usury (E Fel) 21S.20 Juror receiving a bribe 

190.4S Poss. Usurious Loan Rec. (A Misd) 215.25 Tampering with a juror 

190.50a Unlawful Collection Practice (B Misd) 215.30 Misconduct by a juror 

190.50b Making false statement of credit terms (A Misd) 215.40 Tampering with physical evidence 

215.45 Compounding crime 

195 215.50 Criminal contempt 2nd Deg. 

195.00 Official Misconduct (A Misd) 215.51 Criminal contempt lSI Deg. 

195.0S Obstruct Gov!. Admin. (A Misd) 21S.56 Bail jumping 2nd Deg. 

195.10 Refusing to aid peace officer (B Misd) 21S.57 Bail jumping 1st Deg. 

195.15 Obstruct Firetighting Oper. (A Misd) 215.S8 Fail. respond on appear. ticket 

2IS.60 Criminal contempt of Legislature 

200 21S.65 Criminal Contempt Temp. State Com. 

200.00 Bribery (public servant) 2nd Deg. (D Fell 215.70 Unlawful Grand Jury disclosure 

200.04 Bribery (public servant) 1st (B Fel) 215.7S Unlawful disclosure of indictment 

200.10 Bribery Receive (pub. serv.) 2nd (D Fe\) 

200.12 Bribery Receive (pub. serv.) 1st (B Fell 220 

220.03 Crim. Poss. controlled 200.20 Rewarding Official Misconduct (E FeI) 

200.25 Receive Reward of Misconduct (E Fe\) ~ub. (Drugs) 7th Deg. 

200.27 Receive Reward of Misconduct (C Fe\) 220.06 Crim. poss. controlled 

(A Misd) sub. (D~ugs) 6th Deg. 200.30 Give Unlaw Gratuities 

220.09 Crim. poss. controlled 200.35 Receive Unlaw Gratuities (A Misd) 

200.45 Bribe given for Pub. Office (D Fe!) sub. (Drugs) 5th Deg. 

200.50 Bribe receive for Pub. Office (D Fel) 220.12 Crim. poss, controlled 

sub. (Drugs) 4th Deg. 

205 220.16 Crim. poss. controlled 

(A Misd) sub. (Drugs) 3rd Deg. 205.05 Escape 3rd Degree 

205.10 Escape 2nd Degree (E Fel) 220. I H Crim. poss. controlled 

sub. (Drugs) 2nd Deg. 

205.15 Escape I st Degree (D Fel) 2W.21 Crim. poss. controlled 

205.16 Inmate Absconding 2nd (A Misd) sub. (Drugs) 6th Deg. 

205.17 Inmate Absconding Hidden (E Fe\) 220.34 Crim. sale controlled 

205.18 Inmate Absconding (Furlough) (A Misdl slJb. (Drugs) 5th Deg. 205.20 Promote Prison Contraband 2nd Degree (A Misd) 220.37 Crim. sale controlled sub. 4th Deg. 205.25 Prom. Prison Contraband 1st Degree (0 Fell 220.39 Crim. sale controlled sub. 3rd Deg. 205.30 Resi~ting Arrest (A Misd) 220.41 Crim. sale controlled sub. 2nd Deg. 205.55 Hindering Prosecution 3rd (A Misd) 220.43 Crim. sale controlled sub. 1st Deg. 20S.60 Hindering Prosecution 2nd IE Fel) 220.45 Poss. hypodermic instrument 

20S.65 Hindering Prosecution 1st (D FeI) 220.4S Crim. injection narcotic drug 

220.50 Crim. use drug paraphernalia 2nd Deg. 210 220.S5 Crim. use drug paraphernalia lSI Deg. 

210.05 Perjury 3rd Degree (A Misd) 220.60 Crim. poss. precursors controlled sub. 

98 

~-- --.~--~--------~--------------

-- ---.-.--.--~'---------~ 

(E Fell 

(0 Fel) 

(A Mi~d) 

(E Fe\) 

(A Misd) 

([)Fc\) 

(0 Fel) I 

(A Misd) II 

(0 Fell 

1\ (D Fell i 

(A Misd) I 

" 

(A Misd) 

II 

(E Fell 

(A Misd) 

(A Misd) 

(E Fel) II (A Misd) ! (E Fel) I 

(Violl 'I 

(A Misd) I (A Misd) 

il (B Misd) 

(8 Misd) 

j 

II !t 

'i 

(A Misd) II 

I 

(0 Fel) 11 d 

)J ,! 

(C Fel) 

IB Fel) 

(A Fel) 

(A Fel) 

(0 Fel) 

(C Fel) 

(B Fe\) 

(A FeI) 

(A Fel) 

(A Fell 

(A Misd) 

(E Fell 

(A Misd) 

(0 Fel) 

(E Fel) 

,. 

-~"~.-----------------~--------------------------------------------------------------

125 

225.0S Prom. Gambling 2nd Deg. 

225.10 Prom. Gambling 1st Deg. 

225. IS Poss. Gambling Rec. 2nd Deg. 

225.20 Poss. Gambling Rec. 1st Deg. 

225.30 Poss. Gambling Device 

l30 

230.00 Proslitution 

23O.0S Patronizing Prost. 

230.20 Promoting Prost. 3rd 

23O.2S Promoting Prost. 2nd 

230.30 Promoting Prost. 1st 

230.40 Permitting Prost. 

135 

23S.0S Obscenity 2nd Deg. 

23S.06 Obscenity 1st Deg. 

23S.21 Give Indecent Mat. to Minor 

140 

240.05 Riot 2nd Deg. 

240.06 Riot 1st Deg. 

240.08 Inciting to. Riot 

240.10 Unlawful Assembly 

240. IS Criminal Anarchy 

240.20 Disorderly Conduct 

240.21 Disrupt Religious Service 

240.25 Harrasment 

240.30 Aggravated Harrasment 

240.35 Loitering 

240.36 Loitering for Controlled Sub. 

240.40 Public Intmtication 

240.45 Criminal Nuisance 

240.50 Falsely Report an Incident 

240.S5 Falsely Report lin Incident 

240.60 Falsely Report an Incident 

:Z45 

245.00 Public Lewdness 

24S.0S Offensive Exhibitions 

150 

250.05 Eavesdropping 

250.10 Poss. Eavesdropping Devices 

250.15 Failure to Report Wiretap 

250.20 Divulging Eavesdrop Order 

25O.2S Tampering Private Communication 

250.30 Unlawful Obtaining Info. 

250.35 Fail to Report Crim. Communication 

(A Misd) 

(E Fel) 

(A Misd) 

(E Fel) 

(A Misd) 

(B Misd) 

(Viol) 

(A Misd) 

(0 Fel) 

(e Fel) 

(B Misd) 

(A Misd) 

(0 Fel) 

(E Fel) 

(A Misd) 

(E Fel) 

(B Misd) 

(B Misd) 

(E Fel) 

(Viol) 

(A Misd) 

(Viol) 

(A Misd) 

(Viol) 

(B Misd) 

(Viol) 

(B Misd) 

(B Misd) 

(A Misd) 

(E Fel) 

(B Misd) 

(Viol) 

(E Fel) 

(A.Misd) 

(B Misd) 

(A Misd) 

(B Misd) 

(B Misd) 

(B Misd) 

99 

255 

255.00 Unlawful Solemnizing Marriage 

255.05 Unlawful Issuing Dissolution Decree 

255.10 Unlawful Procuring Marriage License 

255.15 Bigamy 

255.17 Adultery 

255.25 Incest 

~ 

260.00 Abandonment of Child 

260.05 Non-Support of Child 

260.10 Endangering Welfare of Child 

260.20 Unlawful!y Dealing with Child 

260.25 Endangering Welfare of JIll Incompet~nt 

Ui5 

265.01 Crim. Poss. Weapon 4th Deg. 

265.02 Crim. Poss. Weapon 3rd Deg. 

265.03 Crim. Poss. Weapon 2nd Deg. 

265.04 Crim. Poss. Weapon 1st Deg. 

265.05 Unlawful Poss. Weapoll Person 

Under 16 Yrs. 

265.10 Mfg. Transport. Deface Weapon 

(A Misd) 

(A Misd) 

(A Misd) 

(E Fe\) 

(B Misd) 

(E Fel) 

(E reI) 

(A Misd) 

(A Mis(!) 

(B Misd) 

(A Misd) 

(A Mis(!) 

(D Fel) 

(C Fel) 

(B Fel) 

(Juv. Del) 

265.10-! (0 Fel) or (A Misd) 

265.10-2 (0 Fel) or (A Misd) 

265.10-3 (D Fel) 

265.10-4 (A Misd) or (D Fel) 

265.10·5 (A Misd) 

265.10-6 (D Fel) 

265.10-7 (A Misd) 

265.25 Certain Wounds to be Reported (A Misd) 

265.35 Prohibited use of Weapons (D Fel) or (E Fel) 

or (A Misd) 

170 

270.00 Fireworks 

270.05 Poss. Noxious Material 

270.10 Creating Hazard 

270.15 Refusing to Yield Party Line 

(B Misd) 

(B Misd) 

(B Misd) 

(B Misd) 

-.l1li.. ___ ~ _______ _ 
III - THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS 

Criminal Case Processing Chart 

Arrest 

Booking 

Complaint 

Arraignment 

Plea Bargaining 

Preliminary Hearing 

Grand Jury 

Supreme Court 

Trial 

Youthful Offender 

Jury Selection 

Sentencing 

j 

100 

- - -~ - ------.--------~ -~ ,.~----~~.....-------~ -----

CRIMINAL CASE PROCESSING CHART 

RELEASED. 

SUMMONS TO 

APPEAR DEPT. OF 

CORRECTiONS 

CUSTODY 

'--------1 CO~66~NT t-I-----..... NO CHARGES 

+ I DOCKETING] 

+ 

CHARGES REDUCED -----I MISDEMEANOR 1 ____ CHARGES DISMISSED 

COURT 

ARRAIGNMENT· 

CHARGESREDUCED~---~ 

1-----..... NOT GUII.TY 

101 

.--"'. -....... -~--- ---
ARRES'T 

Most 0 Ie are familiar with the commonest form of arrest, the "on view" arre~t. As the term 

implie~ fhis occurs when a police officer sees someone committing a felo.ny, misdemeanor, or 

offense' and immediately apprehends the offender. New York law allows a pohce officer to make an 

arrest for a crime not committed in his or her sight. and without a war:ant for a felony whenever 

there are "reasonable grounds" to believe that the cnme has bee~ com~nted and that the defendant 

is the perpetrator. An arrest may be made at any time when there IS a vahd arrest warrant. 

Another type of arrest is a "citizen's arres~." In that cas~, the arrestin~ person must state the 

defendant's right to remain silent and report directly to the pohce for processmg. 

BOOKING 

O t has been made the accused is brought to the police station and is booked. This is a nce an arres , . hr' t d fingerprinting the clerical procedure which involves entering the charges mto t e po Ice. r~gls er an . 

accused. A date is then set for appearance at court for arraignment, wnhm 24 hours, If the defendant 

is held, or the defendant may be given a summons to appear. 

COMPLAINT 

o n arrest has been made, a formal complaint is filed against the accused with a prosecutor in 

th~c~:al criminal court by the arresting officer and/or complaining .witness, on tx:half of the peopl~ of New York State. This verified written accusation must be obtamed, along With the ~efendant s 

criminal history (called a NYSIIS report, or yellow sheet) before the defendant can be arraigned. 

While the formal complaint is being sworn to, the ,defe~dant is often interviewed by the Probation 

Department, a report is made, and a docket number IS assigned. 

ARRAIGNMENT 

The accused is brought before a judge in the local criminal court for arraignment. There defendants 

are: 

I-Informed of and then given a copy of the formal charges against them. 

"-Informed of their right to counsel. 

:i-Bail conditions may be set for the release of the defendant 

Bail is an amount of money set by the court to be p~id by the defendant as a guar~n~ee of his or her 

arance in court on a designated date. Once ball has been met, the defendant IS released from 

~apr tod The amount assigned by the judge depends on the circumstances of the case. Cash 

~!~ :eu~e~~ited as bail in lieu of a bond. When, however, the defendant is unal>le to deposit the 

102 

~~ -------.~--------

-----,.~------------~------------

ful.1 amount of security required, bail may be arranged through a bondsman. The accused pays 'the 

ball ,bondsman a percentage (established by statute) of the amount of bail set by the judge. The 

bondsman agrees to pay the full amount should the defendant not appear at the next designated court 

appearance, The bondsman may also demand collateral, which is not controlled by state law. When 

the accused appears as required, the bondsman is no longer liable if the collateral is returned. The 

percentage stated above is kept as the fee. 

In several places throughout New York State, groups of private citizens have organized to provide bail for indigent persons awaiting trial. 

The defendant may also be released on his own recognizance (ROR), pending future action, or ordered detained in custody by the judge. 

At this stage the judge may dismiss the case for lack of sufficient evidence to proceed. He or sh~ may 

reduce a felony charge to a misdemeanor. If the charge is for a misdemeanor or less, the defendant 

may enter a plea at this time, or may obtain an adjournment umil a future date. 

If the arraignment is for a felony charge, the defendant never enters a plea in criminal court. He or she 

may request a hearing (called a peliminary hearing) to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to 

warrant holding the case for action by the Grand Jury, ut the defendant may waive the right to a preliminary hearing. 

WHEN THE PLEA IS GUILTY - PLEA BARGAINING 

If a defendant pleads guilty, before accepting this plea the court must inform him or her of (and 

determine that he or she understands): ~ 

1-The nature of the charge 

2-The maximum and minimum penalties for the offense 

3-The right to plead guilty or not guilty 

4-The consequence of a guilty plea - forfeiture of a trial of any kind and waiver of the 

right to be confronted by witnesses against him or her. .. 

The court must also determine whether there is a factual basis for the plea and whether the plea is 

voluntary. To accomplish this, the judge must directly question the defendant. The defendant may 

plead any time throughout the whole court process; in arraignment, preliminary hearing, various 

court appearances, or during the trial. 

Often the plea is entered after a process of pleo bargaining, an agreement between defense and 

prosecution to lessen the charge and/or recommended penalty in return for a plea of guilty. After a 

plea agreement is stated in court, the judge must confirm the terms by personally questioning the 

defendant to determine whether force, threats or promises outside of the agreement were used to 

obtain the plea. 

A jud,ge may not initiate plea negotiations, but he or she is not explicitly prohibited from pilrticipating 

in them once they have begun. The parties involved can either request the judge's concurrence in court 

prior to entering the plea or his or her previous agreement can be stated when the plea is entered. The 

judge then will either sentence the defendant or adjourn to a later date to wait for a pre-sentence 

investigation report by the Probation Department. 

103 
PRELIMINARY HEARING . 

with a misdemeanor is entitled to a preliminary heanng In New York City, a defen?ant. charge~ fficient evidence to believe that the crime charged was 

~oh=i:~~ j:n~~h:i~~~~;:~:n:f~::~:So~~ ~ho committed it. 

. . nt u se than for misdemeanors. A hearing may be Preliminary hearings for felomes serve a dlffere h p. rpo f arraignment in a local criminal court. The 

requested by a perso~ ch~ged wi~h a ~~~~~ta~~i:e~:e t~ warrant submitting the case to the Grand 

purpose is to detenmne If there IS su . be waived by the defendant, or by-passed by the Jury for consideration. A felony heanng can 

issuance of a Grand Jury indictment. 

MOTIONS AND APPLICATIONS 

b either the defense or prosecuting attorney t~at help .to These are often procedural moves made y d' h as a motion to postpone a heanng or tnal d d I for the procee Ings, suc . .. efine and set the groun ru es ., b d I'n any stage: arraignment, eXaminatIon, . Th e motions can e ma e . date or to delay sentencing. es. h motion to suppress evidence because It was Oth r motIOns suc as a 'al pleading, trial or sentence. e , onfession are always made before a tn . seized by illegal methods, or to suppress a c , 

GRAND JURY 

. be sent to the Grand Jury. This panel, consisting of From the preliminary heanng, a felony c~se :a~ . harged with the determination of whether there 

from 16-23 persons chosen on a countywide ~~IS, IS Cut indicate that both a felony was committed. is sufficient evidence to prosecute. Enough eVI ence m s 

and that it was committed by the accused. . 

. (f a trial a "true bill" is returned. If It If at least 12 jurors decide the case. is ~trong t~~O~!:~ ~~~ ~turns .~ "no bill." If the Grand Jury 

is found that the case should be dismissed, .. d uate but enough to believe a misdemeanor 

determines that the evidence of a felony charge IS dina ~q ent' back to the local rriminal courts on has been committed, the charges can be reduce an s 

infomlation as a misdemeanor. 

. ., . i h allow it to make fuJI investigations into cases. They A Grand Jury has Inquisltonal powers wh c . ~ ation of any kind from any source deemed 

may investigate on their o~n kn~wledge ord ur~h~ o:ecuting attorney against the accused. At the 

reliable. Evidence and testlmon~ IS presentc al:o testffy The secrecy of proceedings before a Grand 

discretion of the Grand Jury, witnesses may . . to give full disclosure of their knowledge Jury is zealously guarded ~n order to encourage witnesses 

about possible criminal actIOn. 

104 

. --~.---------------- ---'-'.~------~--------

SUPREME COURT 

The first procedural step following indictment by the Grand Jury is arraignment in the court that tries 

felonies (a process identical to that in the criminal court). In that court, the defendant may now plead 

guilty to the felony charges in the indictment; or at the discretion of the prosecutor, to a lesser charge. 

Should the defendant plead not guilty at the arraignment, he or she might next appear at a pre-trial 

conference. There the judge, prosecutor and defense counsel will attempt to settle the case by 

dismissal or plea of gUilty. Failing such settlement, the case will be assigned to trial, where motions will be decided and trial will be held. 

TRIAL 

Upon pleading not guilty, on arraignment, the defendant is often asked by the presiding judge in open 

court, whether he or she wants a trial by jury or trial by a judge (a bench trial). If the accused waives 

his or her right to a jury trial, the court has the burden to insure that the choice was made knowingly and voluntarily. 

The purpose of the trial, be it bench or jury, is to examine the evidence, hear the testimony and determine the innocence or guilt of the accused. 

All violations and misdemeanors with less than a possible six month maximum senten~e are tried by 

the judge only. Persons eligible for YOllthful Offender Treatment and Who have no prior record of 

conviction, are given bench trials. Most trials in misdemeanor cases are such trials. These trials may 

sometimes be rather perfunctory, with the judge reaching a verdict after brief questioning of the 

defendant. complainant and witness (if any). However there are, of course, many bench trials in 

which defense and prosecuting attorney find thorough examination of witnesses necessary. 

YOUTHFUL OFFENDER 

A person between 16 and 19 (at the time of the crime) who has committed a crime not punishable by 

death or life imprisonment, and who has not previously been convicted of a felony. may be treated as a Youthful Offender (Y.O.). 

At the time of arraignment (if the circumstances warrant it) the judge must inform the defendant that 

he appears to be eligible for Y.O. Treatment, and explain the meaning of such treatment. The 

decision to grant Y.O. treatment is made now aft::r a conviction by jury or judge. 

Before sentencing, the court must request an investigation by the probation department, and on the 

basis of this. will decide whether to grant Y.O. treatment. If it is granted. the main features are: 

a-the books will be closed and no criminal record will be entered against the defendant, and 

b-the defendant may be sent to a special slate institution rather than jail or the penitentiary 

105 
JURY SELECTION 

Once the panel of prospective jurors (selected randomly from the county's registered voters list) is 

ready, the judge should introduce the parties and their counsel and outline the nature of the case. The 

judge may then initiate the voir dire examination, during which he or she and the attorneys question' 

the potential jurors to ascertain their qualifications and to assure that they will be free of biases or 

prejudices in reaching a verdict. Both the defense and p~.·{\secution have the right to three peremptory 

challenges (asking to bar a person from the jury panel) and one additional for each alternate juror, in 

misdemeanor trials. When all jurors are selected and approved, they are sworn in. 

SENTENCING 

Upon conviction of a misdemeanor. after trial. or upon a plea of guilty, the defendant will be 

sentenced immediately unless a pre-sentence report (or application for a stay of execution) is 

requested. In this event, the case is adjourned to a later date for the sentencing. All felony 

convictions require a pre-sentem:e investigation. The defendant's final appearance in the trial court 

will be for the purpose of sentencing. 

No person convicted for any misdemeanor. except minor driving infractions, can be sentenced until 

the judge has received and considered information as to the defendant's previous criminal record. 

Pre-sentence reports are prepared by the prohation department servicing the court. They are mandated 

in all cases where the possible sentence can exceed a period of 90 days incarceration. and up to the 

discretion of the judge for lesser charges, except when the defendant is sentenced to Probation or to a 

Reformatory (youth). 

The reports provide the judge with information on the defendant's background. possible mitigating 

circumstances involved in the crime, chances for successful probation, and suggested programs of 

rehabilitation. The judge is under no legal obligation to follow the probation department's 

recommendation. however. 

In New York State, as in many other states and in the federal system. a judge usually has a broad 

range of discretion in determining what type of sentence to impose on a person convicted of a crime. 

Some alternatives 10 a sentence of incarceration are: 

a-Unconditional discharge: open court - the offender may be released subject to no 

conditions. 

b-Conditional discharge: the defendant is released on the promise to comply with 

court-imposed rules governing his conduct. 

c-Fine: A monetary sentence may be given alone or with a reformatory or prison term. 

d-Probation: The defendant is placed under the supervision of a probation officer to 

whom he must report periodically. 

Some judges prefer probation and conditional discharge sentences because they feel they offer great 

hope for rehabilitation and are much less expensive than imprisonment. A defendant assigned 

probation or conditi.onal discharge is released under conditions set by the judge: such as attending 

Alcoholics Anonymous or a drug program, or participating in a work program. 

106 

---~"~.----------~----'---------------------------------------------------------

IV - DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS 

THE ARRAIGNMENT 

In New Yor~. arraignment must occur without unnecessary dela ; but before . . court the pohce must fingerprint photograph and d th I' ~ . b~ngmg the arrestee to • 0 0 er pre Immary pohce dutIes. 

Where the arrest is not for a felony witho t ' 

person before a court with reasonabie promUpt:s:7h~yW;'arryant. and the police are unable to bring the . • I serve an appearance summons. 

In setting bail. great weight must be given to the'd f r .. the defendant. The defendant will be asked certaine~!b e~c;. 0 .r; ~ab~IIY and the financ.ial resources of 

long the defendant has lived in the communit t .a acts y II e attorney or the Judge: e.g. how 

fan:tily ties and family responsibilities. reliabilii; i:etl~e e;!:oy~en~ record. e~ucational backg~und. senousness of the alleged crime and the defendant' . . ' ~ cj ese questIons, together WIth the 

court may consider in setting bail. s prtor cnmma record. are the only factors that the 

It is illegal for the court to set bail in such an extremely h' h . defendant cannot post it. ju~t to keep the defendant in jail. Ig amount that the court knows the 

RIGHT TO COUNSEL 

The accused has the right to have a lawyer with him or her 

arrest through appeal. except inside a grand' F at any stage of the criminal process from 

must furnish a lawyer free of charge. JUry room. or those Who cannot afford a lawyer, the state 

Juveniles are also entitled to free c ! h . 

cUi1ailed. even though the proceeding~u~:e ~ lerebelthdere I~ ~ possibility that their freedom will be 

y a e as CIVIl rather than criminal. 

The right to counsel is not limited to the trial itself . proceedings. When someone is being held for 1'" It extends to every "critical stage" of the 

free if they cannot afford their own and th ques 10m,;! b~ the police, they have the right to counsel 

whether or not they are actually in ~ustody ?s ~ust ~nfom:h .. ed of that right. The right attach"~ freedom in any way. ' ong as t ey ave somehow been deprived of their 

RIGHT TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE 

When evid~nce is illegally obtained. it is not admissable at . make a motIon to exclude the evidence and usuall . I ahetn~1. ~edurally. the lawyer must 

, y a pre-tna anng IS held on the motion. 

107 
Four common motions to exclude evidence. are: 

I-To suppress p h YSlca . I evidence on the grounds that it was siezed during an illegal search by the 

police without a warrant. 

hounds that the affidavit presented to obtain the warrant did 

2-Tt ~~~~ti~:e:r~i:n~rcf~c%:7~~~~::ti~ng~0 show probable cause to believe that a crime was or is no . being committed on certain premIses. 

. t the defendant on the grounds that they were 

~i;;al~~P~~:~n~~.nh~I~%:F;~;::~:~~,:i!~~ ~otth:~~~,~::,~:: ;~:~ ::'::;~~~,~~::~~ pressure. tncks. treats. etc. or.. .' he said mi ht be used in evidence against 

that he or she had a right t.o remain lSI lent. t(~at t%~hglnag f~e/one if th:y are indigent). The defendant them and that they had a right to a awyer inC u . 

must knowingly waive these rights to make his or her statement admissable. 

4-To suppress evidence of an ·Identification. where a lineup or showup was held in an illegal or 

suggestive manner. 

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL 

A d ~ dant's right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment of the United s~a~7s 

Con:ti~~tion. According to New York statute. a person in custody must be brought to a court wit In 

two days after the arrest. 

Under New York State's "ready rule". the prosecution must be ready to prosecute: 

I-a felony within 6 months after arraignment 

2-a misdemeanor within 90 days 

3-a violation within 30 days 

However. if the defendant is in custody. he or she must be released from jail if the prosecutor is not 

ready to proceed within: 

1-90 days for a felony 

2-30 days for a misdemeanor 

3-1.5 days for a violation 

A defendant may move to d· Ismls. . s the charges for unreasonable delay if these standards have been 

violated. 

108 

------,- ~----~ 

( , 

v - ROLE OF THE PROSECUTOR AND DEFENSE ATTORNEY 

PROSECUTOR 

The chief function of the prosecutor is supposed to be to seek justice, not merely to convict. The 

District Attorney (D.A.). the prosecutor. or any other public servant who represents the people in a 

criminal action. is responsible for the prosecution of all crimes committed within that district and 

brought to his or her attention by police or private citizens. 

A prosecuting atlorney is elected in each county every four years. D.A.s may be in the most 

potentially influential positions of the court system. because of their pivotal position in the criminal 

justice system. They are the only officials who work with all other persons of the court system: the 

police. defense atlorneys, probation officers. and others. 

They are also,the only attorneys allowed to be present when a case is heard by the Grand Jury. 

DEFENSE ATTORNEY 

The defense atlorney's major role is to represent the accused in criminal matters. 

The Public Defender (as set forth by the 1965 legislature) is a defense attorney who represents. 

without fees. indigent persons (persons financially unable to obtain private counsel) at every stage of 

a criminal proceeding. The Legal Aid Society in some areas of New York State fulfills the role of 

the Public Defender for indigents in that county. 

Lawyers have special responsibilities in the administration of justice and their admission to practice and subsequent conduct is carefully supervised. 

A defender must represent his or her client zealously and within the bounds of the law _ he or she is 

forbidden to make a defense unwarranted by law, to advise the client to do something illegal or to 

employ coercion. A defender is supposed to tell the client about trial risks and range of sentences and 

relay to them any prosecution offers. 

Attorneys guilty of serious misconduct may be disbarred or temporarily suspended from practice by 

the Appellate Division. The defense atlorney is guilty of misconduct when he or she participates in any 

activity with the intent to deceive the court or any party. or wilfully delays the clients suit with a view 

toward their own gain. 

109 

--~----- -
VI - ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL CONCERNED WITH THE COURTS 

WITHIN THE COURTROOM 

Court clerk - Assists the judge in record-keeping and other clerical duties. 

Stenographer or Court Reporter - Takes verbatim record of court proceedings 

Interpreter - (When necessary) 

fi 0 I . New York City - They are distinguished by their blue and gold badge and 

Court Of Icer - n y In 'bl f, security in the court room. They are usually armed. They shoulder patches, and are responsl e or. . 

often assist the clerk of the court with clencal dutIes. 

Sheriff - Outside New York City - They are responsible for security in the courtroom. 

STATEWIDE AGENCIES 

. . found in each county of New York, is the soci~1 ~ ?f the 

Probatton Departm~nt - ThIs age~c~, d rehabilitation of persons placed on probatIon In lIeu of 

court. It is respo~slble for supervl~on an tence investigations used by judges when determining imprisonment. ThiS department con ucts pre~sen 

sentences. 

. . h' h I ex and the role of the Probation Department. T~ey Some counttes are t~sttn~ ~rograms w 1(' .v:st ~-a:aignment functions such as helping to determIne 

are experimenting With glvmg them e~tenslv a~ount of bail the eligibility for legal aid, etc. Some 

if the accused sh?uld have to pay d

ball, th~. t d use of 'all public and private soc'ial service counties are tryIng expanded an coor lOa e 

organizations. 

. . .. h of all persons in detention. They can be 

[)epa.rtment ofh cborred ctitohnst -ylS~I'~pg;n~~ ~~r:ct~o:~~ and a pin in their collar saying "DC". This identified by tea ge a sa . 

department also transports prisoners to and from court. 

110 

---~'.~--------~----------

-----------'-------'----- -_._. 

VII - GLOSSARY 

ABATED: A possible disposition of a case. The case is dismissed, usually because of the death of a party to the case. 

ACCESSORY: A person Who contributes to or aids in the commission of a crime. One who aids 

without being present at a crime. 

ACQUITTAL: A verdict or finding of not gUilty by a jury, or a judge in the case of a bench trial. 

ADJOURN: To postpone the case to a later time. 

ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL (ACD): An option not to prosecute in 

exchange for the fulfillment of certain conditions in cases involving a misdemeanor or less for a set 

period of time. If at the end of the time, the charges haven't been reinstated, and the conditions were 

met by the defendant, the case is automa'tically dismissed and the charge is erased from the record. 

ADJUDICATE: To hear (or try) and determine a matter before the court. 

ADMIssmLE EVIDENCE:, Evidence or testimony which is allowed by the judge to be introduced during the trial. 

AFFIDA VIT: A written declaration or statement sworn to and affirmed. 

APPEAL: To ask for review by a higher court of the baiJ, the sentence, a decision, a motion or the 

verdict handed down by a lower court. 

APPEARANCE TICKET OR SUMMONS: A summons to appear in court on a particular date. 

Issued by a police officer after or in lieu of arrest. 

APPLICATIONS OR MOTIONS: Procedural moves made by either attorney and submitted to the 

court. They help to define and set the ground rules for the proceedings of a particular case. 

ARRAIGNMENT: The appearance before the'court of a person charged with a crime; at this time he or she is advised of the charge(s) against them. 

ARSON: The willful or malicious burning of, or setting fire to, a dwelling or other structure or personal property. 

ASSAULT: An unjustified attack upon a person with an intent to injure or kill him or her. 

BAIL: Security given a court in exchange for the release of a person in custody to assure their 

appearance later. 

BAIL BOND: An obligation to pay the amount of bail if the person fails to appear in court When requested. 

111 
BAR: Refers to attorneys, counsellors & advocates of the court collectively. 

BENCH-WARRANT: A direction by the court for the apprehension and arrest of a defendant or one 

in civil contempt or sought in a civil case. 

BRIDGE: The table behind which the defendant stands when he or she comes before the judge. The 

bridge man is the person who handles the routing of the documents between the judge, the clerk, and 

the attorneys. 

BURGLARY: The entering of another's property without permission and with intent to commit a 

crime. 

CALENDAR: The list of cases which are to be heard in a particular court. 

CASE LAW: Non-statutory law, based on past decisions, opinions, interpretations, traditions. 

CHALLENGE: The right of one party to object to a juror during the selection of the jury before the 

trial. 

CHANGE OF VENUE: Transfer of a case for trial to another county or district. often because of 

claimed prejudicial publicity in the original district. 

CHARGE: [n criminal law. the accusation made against a person. In civil and criminal law, it also 

refers to the instructions on law that the court gives the jury at the end of the trial. 

COMMITMENT: The order of a court to keep a person in custody in a penal or mental institution 

or hospital. 

COMMON LAW: The vast collection of previous court decisions. customs. and usage. 

COMMUTATION: A reduction of punishment or sentence after conviction. 

COMPLAINANT: The victim of a crime who brings the facts to the attention of the authorities. 

COMPLAINT: The docume'nt prepared by the plaintiff to set forth his or her claims. 

CONCURRENT & CONSECUTIVE SENTENCE: A concurrent se~tence is on7 in w.hich !he 

sentences for different offenses are served at the same time. A consecutive sentence IS one In which 

one sentence is served after another one has been completed. 

CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE: A sentence wherein the defendant is released on certain conditions 

set by the court. 

CONTINUANCE: The postponement of a legal proceeding to another set date. 

112 

COURT ,. REPORTER: A stenographer who records verbatim the proceedings in open court. 

CROSS EXAMINATION: The questioning by a party or the attorney of the opponent's witnesses. 

DECREE: A formal determination of the court. 

DETENTION: The act of holding a person in custody: by police for questioning, by police while 

awaiting arraignment, or in jail while awaiting hearing or trial. 

DEFAULT: Failure to appear and defend a lawsuit. 

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Attorney representing the accused. 

DEMURRER: A defendant's answer to a charge against him or her. It admits the facts while denying 

legal responsibility. 

DEPOSITION: A written statement made under oath. 

DISPOSITION: The outcome of a case. 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY (D.A.) and ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY (ADA): The prosecutor on behalf of the people against the accused. 

DOCKET: The formal record maintained by the clerk or the court. listing all cases to be heard in a 

particular part each day. It often colltains the defendant's name, docket number, charge, date of arrest, 

and the outcome of the case. 

DUE PROCESS: Regular & orderly administration of justice by a court in accordance with established 

rules. 

EXCEPTION: An objection made to a court's ruling or its charge to the jury. 

EXHIBITS: Documents or other tangible evidence. 

EXTORTION: The taking of money or property by threat or force or under pretense of authority. 

EXTRADITION: The process for return of a fugitive from one state to another which wants him or her for a criminal offense. 

FELONY: A crime that may be punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or up to five years of 

probation supervision. 

GRAND JUR¥: A group of citizens that examines evidenc(; against a person suspected of a crime. If it 

decides they should be held for trial. the foreman writes a "true bill" on the indictment and signs it. 

HABEAS CORPUS: A writ that requires a person having another in custody to produce that person 

before the court, to show that they have a right to custody. 

113 
HEARSAY EVIDENCE: Testimony that is brought out by the witness which is based not on his or 

her personal knowledge but rather on information he or she received from someone else. Generally it is 

not acceptable because the informant is not available for cross examination. 

INCARCERA TION: Imprisonment. 

INCOMPETENT: Refers to a defendant who is unfit to stand trial because he or she is unable to 

undl!rstand the nature of the case, due to a mental or physical condition. 

IN CAMERA: In private chambers, in secrecy, off the record. 

INDICTMENT: The document prepared by the District Attorney and approved by the grand jury which 

charges a certain person with a certain crime. 

INFORMATION: The written charge against a defendant filed by the District Attorney without grand jury action. 

INJUNCTION: A court order prohibiting a certain named person from performing certain acts. 

JURISDICTION: The geographical area and the type of case over which a court has authority. 

JUVENILE: An accused person between the ages of 7 and 16. These cases are conducted in Family Court. 

LARCENY: Takill.8. property from another with intent to defraud and deprive that person of it. Petit 

larceny is the charge for amounts up to $250.00; grand larceny is the charge for amounts over that. 

MAGISTRATE: An officer having the power to issue a warrant for arrest of a person charged with a crime. All judges are magistrates but not all magistrates are judges. 

MANSLAUGHTER: The killing of one person by another although without intent to kill, or under the 

influence of extreme emotional disturbance. 

MISTRIAL: A trial which is invalid because of some error in procedure, law, or fact. 

MOTION: (See applications) 

NEGLIGENCE: The failure to use the degree of care required to protect the rights an<J property of others; 

NOLO CONTENDERE: •• I do not wish to contest". A plea made by defendant; while not an admission of guilt, it means the defendant will not challenge the charges but will submit to the court imposed punishment. 

NONSUIT: Dismissal of a lawsuit when the plaintiff abandons it or fails to prove his or her cause. 

NYSIIS: New York State (Investigating Division) - Identification & Intelligence System. A state 

report of a person's previous record, obtained by a person's fingerprints. 

OBJECTION: A protest made to record one party's disapproval of a question asked by their opponent. 

114 

I 

I 

! 

OFFENSE: A violation of a local municipal regulation. The violation of any criminal ordinance or statute is commonly designated an offense. 

ORDINANCE: A regulation established by a local government. 

PARDON: An order releasing a person convicted of a crime from the punishment imposed by the 

court. Only the Governor has that power in the state. 

PAROLE: A conditional release from custody. 

PERJURY: The legal offense of testifying falsely and deliberately under oath. 

PLEA: The reply of the defendant to the charges. 

PRELIMINAR ~ HEAR~NG: To determine if there is sufficient evidence to warrant submitting a felony 

case to the grand JUry; and 10 N. Y.C. to determine if there is sufficient evidence that a crime was committed and the defendant is the offender. 

PRE.SE~ENCE ~VESTIGATI~N: ~ report on the defendant done by the Probation Department and submitted to the JUdge for conSIderation before sentencing. 

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: A meeting, after indictment, in which the judge, defense attorney, prosecutor & defendant try to conclude a case without a trial. 

PRIMA FACIE: "On the face of it". Where sufficient evidence has been produced to obtain a conviction unless overcome by additional evidence. 

PRISONER'S PEN: The detention center where the prisoners wait to be brought before the judge. 

P~IVILEGED COMMUMCATION: A statement made to a person of trust (Minister, doctor, lawyer, WIfe, husband). It cannot be revealed without the originator's consent. 

PROBATION: A sentence that allows a person found guilty of a crime to not be incarcerated but to 

be under the supervision of a probation officer for a definite period of time. ' 

PUBLIC DEFENDER: The attorney representing a defendant Who can not afford private counsel. 

QUASH: To make void, or do away with. Example: an indictment may be quashed if there is not enough evidence to hold a suspect for trial. 

~LEASE ON O~ RECOGNIZANCE: (ROR) The defendant is released without bail, pending a tnal or other court action. 

SEARCH WARRANT: A written order issued by a judge directing a police officer to search a person or place for particular articles specified in the warrant. 

STATUTE: Any law passed by a local, state or federal legislative body. 

115 

." * d • • j 
STAY OF EXECUTION: A temporary delay of the enforcement of sentence after the defendant has 

been found guilty. 

STIPULATION: An agreement between the parties or their attorneys. 

SUBPOENA: A court order requiring a witness to attend; it may also order hirr. or her to bring book~ 

or records with them. 

SUMMONS: The process by which a defendant is advised that there is a claim against him or her; il 

.may also be a notification to a witness or a juror to appear in court. 

TESTIMONY: Words heard from the witnesses in court (as distinguished from evidence derived 

from writings). 

TRANSCRIPTS: An official record of proceedings in court recorded by the court stei1ographer. 

TRIAL: A proceeding in court where the charge and facts in question are reviewed and the guilt or 

innocence of the defendant is determined. 

TRUE BILL: The endorsement of an indictment when the Grand Jury finds it to be sustained by 

the evidence; also, the bill so endorsed. 

UNCONDITIONAL DISCHARGE: A possible disposition of a case; the defendant is rei/eased with· 

out any court-imposed conditions. 

VENUE: The county in which a prosecution or an action is brought to trial. 

WAIVE: Voluntary surrender of a right, claim, or privilege. 

WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA: The court at its discretion, may permit a plea believed to be madf 

unknowingly and involuntarily, to be withdrawn and a plea of not guilty submitted. 

YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (YO): A person who is 16-19 years of age who ~as.not had a prio~ felony 

conviction and who is not currently being tried for an A felony. At any pom~ m the proceedmgs the 

judge has the option of treating that individual as a "YO" rather t~an. a~ adul~ m the eyes of the cou~. 

The individual's records are sealed, the jury dismissed and the mdlvldual IS remanded to a special 

correctional facility if sentence is imposed. 

116 

--~---------------~'~.------~--~------------------------------------------

VIII - BmLIOGRAPHY 

American Bar Association Project on Standards Relating to the Function of the Trial Judge; American Bar Association; 1972 

Autobiography of Malcolm X; Malcom X; N. Y.; Random House; 1967 

Busted; A Handbook for Lawyers and their Clients; Oliver Rosengart; St. Martin's Press; N. Y. 1972 

The Challenge of Crime In a Free Society; President's Commission on Law Enforcement and 

Administration of Justice; U.S. Government Printing Office; 1967 

Comparative Analysis of Standards and Goals of the National Advisory Commission on Criminal 

Justic~ ~ith Standards for Criminal Justice of the American Bar Association; American Bar 

ASSOCiation; 1974 

Court. Survival/n the Liti~ation ~xpwsion; Selected Readings in Court Congestion and Delay; Glenn 

R. Winters; Editor; American Judicature Society; 1971 

Crime in America; Ramsey Clark; Simon and Schuster; 1970 

Criminal Sentences; Law Without Order; Marvin Frankel; Hill and Wang; N. Y.; 1973 

Gilbert's Criminal Law arul Procedures,' James Zeit and David Bertmutter; Matthew Bender; 1974 

Th~ Honest Politician's Guide to Crime Control,' Monis Norval and Gordon Hawkins; University of 

Chicago Press; 1970 

Judicature; The Journal of the American Judicature Society; 1155 East 60th Street, Chicago, III. 

60637 

Judicial Conference Annual Report,· Judicial Conference; N. Y. 

Justice Denied,' The Case For Reform of the Courts,· Leonard Downie; Praeger Publishers; N.Y.; 1973 

Kind and Unusual Punishment; Jessica Mitford; N. Y.; 1973 

McKinney's Consolidated Laws of N.Y.,' West Publisher; SI. Paul, Minn. 

No One Will Listen,' Lois G. Forer; John Day Comp.; N.Y.; 1970 

Report on Courts,' National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals: U.S. 

Government Prilltihg Office; 1973 

Soul on Ice; Eldridge Cleaver; N. Y.; Random House; 1967 

Victimless Crimes; Edwin Shure; Englewood Cliffs; N.J.; 1974 

1117 
APPENDIX A 

PltESENT NEW YORK STATE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 

Court of 

Claims 

Court on the 

Judiclarv 

Surrogate's 

Court 

NYC NYC 

Criminal 

Court 

Civil 

Court 

NEW YORK CITV 

COURT OF 

APPEALS 

APPELLATE 

DIVISION 

of Supreme Court 

tTJ t ~-., 

I 

SUPREME I Appellate I 

COUR;f I Term I 

1'H 

-, I I I 

I I I 

I I' 

I I I 

Family I I I County 

Court I I I Court 

II I 

I J I 

HI .,.tt- 1,1 I , I 

II I I I I 

I ' ·i.J.J----.J i .J,,----*'] 

District Town City Village 

Court Courts Courts Courts 

OUTSIDE NEW VORK CITY 

1 - ... -

118 

--~ .. .,,------------------ -----~,. 

'APPENDIX B 

Instructions for Monitors" 

Specific instructions for filling out court watchers' report forms will be giver. by each local 

coordinator. The following advice is of a more general nature. 

Do your homework! Read the handbook and attend the training sessions. Ask questions about 

anything you do not understand. Go to court on your own at least twice during the training period. 

Once the daily monitoring starts, make every effort to attend court on the day you are scheduled. If 

it is impossible for you to go that day. let your local coordinator know as far ahead of time as 

possible (at least 24 hours) so that she can find an alternate. 

Get to court early - at least 15 minutes before it is scheduled to begin. 

If any effort should be made to bar your attendance. do not argue: merely note the fact on your 

report form. (The same is true if you are denied any reasonable information or the opportunity to 

take notes.) 

Introduce yourself to the judge. if possible, and to the clerk as an official observer from the Court 

Monitoring Project. 

Sit where your local coordinator has suggested. If the judge asks you to sit somewhere else. don't 

argue. 

Be as unobtrusive as possible in appearance and demeanor. NEVER INTERRUPT THE 

PROCEEDINGS. Always be courteous, no matter what the provocation. 

REMAIN NEUTRAL. Do not betray your personal feelings by any facial expression or remark. If a 

judge or anyone else asks your opinion about anything that you have observed, refrain from 

commenting. Emphasize that you are m~iely collecting data and cannot speak for the Project. Refer 

the person to the local coordinator. 

While you are observing. try to jot down all the data requested on the case observation forms. If you 

miss some of it. ask the clerk for the additional information during a recess or after adjournment. 

!vfake no movies, photographs or tape recordings in the courtroom. 

Note any special problems you encounter and any suggestions you wish to make on the back of your 

report form or report them to your local coordinator. 

.. Adapted from How to Watch a Court, by Michael N. Barish and Barbara Fenoglio, Laague of Women 

Voters of Illinois, 1975. 

119 

. ______ '-____ •_______ ~ _________________ ~___L ________ ~ _________ ~ __________ ~ __ ~ __ --....iIil..... ___________ .~~~ ____________ _ 

f 

I 
Preceding page blank 

APPENDIX 0 

Court Monitor's Handbuok (Family Courts), 

Fund for Modern Courts, New York 

121 

~--~-----..... ,,.----~-- -~ '~---~-....-----------------------------

,,"'. -

_____________ . ......-IIIl.. ___ ______ 
Table of Contents 

I Introduction 

II The Project 

l. State Advisory Board 

2. Local Advisory Committees 

3. Project Staff 

III The FUnd for Modern Courts, Inc. 

IV Family Court 

V Procedures within the Family Court 

1. Police Custody 

2. Family Court Referral 

a. Probation Intake 

b. Preliminary Hearing 

c. Fact Finding Hearing 

d. Dispositional Hearing 

VI Case Flow Chart (J.D. and PINS Cases) 

VII Rights of Juveniles 

VIII Legal Representation 

IX Petitions 

X Positions and Personnel in the Family Court in New York 

XI 

New 

Positions 

York City 

and Personnel in the Family Court Outside 

XII Glossary 

Appendix A 

Appendix B 

Appendix C 

Appendix D 

Present New York State Judicial System (Chart) 

Present New York State Judicial System Bibliography 

Instructions for Monitors 

122 

City 

I 

II 

i I 

I 

1 

~.II 1/ 

r 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Brief History of the Family Court 

The first juvenile court was established in the United 

States in Illinois in 1899. Until that time, children of all ages 

accused of crimes were sent to the courts and incarcerated with 

adults. Advocates of court reform endorsed a movement to separate 

child and adult proceedings, arguing that children should receive 

special treatment and that a separate children's court should be 

established to act in the best interests of the juvenile. 

The new children's court was not sUpposed to be "punitive", 

it was to be "fatherly". 'l,'his philosophy, known as parens patriae, 

advocated that a judge act as a surrogate parent rather than sit 

to determine guilt and punisJunent. The judge was to use the professional st~ff of the Court and other agencies to devise a program 

of rehabilitation for the child. The program was NOT designed 

to be proportional to any offense; rather it was to-Correct the 

deficiencies in the child's life which led to his/her behavior. 

The child's age and other social factors were taken into consideration, and social welfare programs and ancillary services were also 

provided for the child's best interests. 

According to this philosophy, the juvenile court was never 

viewed as a criminal court. There was no adversary system as 

practiced in the criminal court. Hearings, records and proceedings 

would be confidential. The child would not be treated as a criminal and the focus of court proceedings would be on determining the 

problem and developing the best course of treatment for the child. 

The terminology used in Family Court differs from that 

used in other courts. Plaintiffs, complainants or the people are 

"petitioners"; defendants are "respondents"; trials are "hearings" and sentences are "dispositional orders". 

There are presently specialized juvenile courts or juvenile divisions of courts in almost all jurisdictions in the United 

States. The Family Court Act in New York State was established 

in 1962 as part of a revision of the State Court structure. "The 

Act unified jurisdiction over legal problems related to family 

difficulties which had previously been splintered. The actestablished a statewide court with jurisdiction over all aspects of 

family life except divorce, separation and annulment".! The latter 

were left with the Supreme Court. 

1 

Besharov, Douglas J. McKinney's Consolidated Laws: 

Judiciary Part, Family Court Act p. 4. Book 29A·. 

123 
The Family Court deals with the problems of children and 

families in crisis. The Court may decide whether an abused or 

neglected child should be removed from his/her parents and placed 

in foster care, whether a youth who is "out of control" should 

be sent to an institution, and whether a parent should be banned 

from the horne to protect family members. The Court also has 

jurisdiction over several other matters including custody of 

children, the failure of individuals to support their families, 

and determination of paternity. 

At the time of the establishment of the Family Court, 

supporters of the system viewed it as a major accomplishment; 

however, despite their hopes, most observers now feel that the 

Court does not fulfill its original purpose. 

"From adjudication to disposition, the Family Court Judge 

is dependent upon the cooperation and assistance of other municipal, private and social agencies, often understaffed, and illequipped to meet even the minimum standards and demands of this 

court and contributing heavily to its inability to become the 

social forum it wa:;; supposed to be".2 

In addition, almost 10 years ago, the 1967 President's 

Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 

speaking of children's courts generally, stated: 

"The great hopes originally held for the juvenile court 

have not been fulfilled. It has not succeeded in rehabilitating 

delinquent youths, in reducing or even stemming the well of juvenile offenders".3 

With growing populations and current public concern regarding the incidence of juvenile crime, budget cutbacks and 

large caseloads, the structure, philosophy, and function of the 

Family Court is currently being re-evaluated. 

2 IBID p. 5. 

3 

Burkhardt, Cathryn W., The Child and the Law; Public Affairs 

Committee p. 16. 

124 

. 

II THE PROJECT 

The Fund for Modern Courts, Inc. is sponsoring the Family 

Cou~t Monitoring Project. Funded by the Division of Criminal 

Justice Services and the New York Community Trust, it is.designed 

as the second half of a three-year citizen effort to investigate 

the system of justice in New York S~ate. 

During the first 18 months of the study, over 300 trained 

citizen volunteers observed and assessed criminal court activity 

in selected courts in New York State (Poughkeepsie, Glens Falls, 

Rochester, New York City). The project focused on reasons for 

adjournment and delay, physical conditions in the court, citizen 

access to the courts, general court procedures and court utilization. 

The research design employed during the first 18 months 

will be used in the Family Court study with some modification to 

apply to the unique structure and procedure of this court. The 

research goals include but are not limited to: 

I-collecting and evaluating data affecting the quality 

of juvenile justice. 

2-providing specific recommendations for upgrading the 

current system. 

3-educating citizens about the Family Court in their 

local areas. 

Recommendations will be geared to suggest improvements 

in: 

I-physical conditions. 

2-the incidence of adjournment and delay. 

3-administrative procedures. 

4-treatrnent of persons in the court and other qualitative 

issues. 

During the course of the project we hope to initiate and 

maintain a constructive and continuing dialogue between the local 

judiciary and the citizen monitors. 

1. State Advisory Board 

The State Advisory Board is the policy-making body for 

the entire project. Composed of persons with knowledge and 

expertise in juvenile justice and other court matters, the Board 

meets regularly to assist in the preparation of training materials 

and report forms for monitors and to cooperate in the planning 

and carrying out of all phases of the monitoring project. 

125 
- ~-~~ ------------~----~-- ----,;-. -----~--..--------------

Family Court Monitoring State Advisory Board 

Nathaniel Cald\,lell - Program Specialist, National InstiRichard Coyne 

David Ellis 

Pauline Feingold 

Hon. Simeon Golar 

Donald Grajales 

Robert MacCrate 

Archibald R. Murray 

Flora Rothman 

tute of Corrections. 

- Vice President and Chairperson of 

Task Force on Courts, Economic 

Development Council of New York 

City, Inc. 

- Former Executive Director, Fund for 

Modern Courts, Inc. 

- Program Developer, Urban Coalition. - Former Family Court Judge, currently 

in private practice. 

- Director, Region II, Legal Services 

Corp. 

- Former President, New York State 

Bar Association, currently in private practice. 

- Executive Director, Attorney-inChief, Legal Aid Society. - Chairperson, Task Force on Juvenile 

Justice, National Council of Jewish 

Women. 

Hon. Caroline K. Simon - Former JUdge Court of Claims, currently in private practice. 

2. Local Advisory Committees 

Within guidelines set by the State Advisory Board, local 

advisory committees established in each project area will: 

I-recruit and arrange training for monitors. 

2-select the courts or parts to be watched. 

3-solicit the cooperation of local judiciary and court 

personnel. 

4-hold regular meetings to solve problems and evaluate 

progress. 

3. Project Staff 

The project is being directed on a Statewide level by Sondra Solomon. 

Project coordinators in 

Orange, Ulster, 

Westchester 

New York City 

Nassau 

Erie 

the local areas are: 

Sullivan - John Hicks 

Jean Fink 

- Diana Stewart - Joan Hollander 

Joan Bozer 

126 

Consultants 

- Charles Brock - Robert Johnson - Robert Kaplan 

Administrative Assistant 

- Bernice Stone 

127 

______________ ~ __ ~ ______________________ ~ _____________________ ~ _____ ~4~~ ____________ ~ ~_~_~ __ 
• 

III THE FUND FOR MODERN COURTS, INC. 

The Fund for Modern Courts, Inc. is a statewide, nonprofit, non-partisan, citizens organization concerned with the 

quality and administration of justice in New York State. Composed of lay people and lawyers, the Fund works with a 38-member 

Coalition of Organizations for Court Reform to educate the public 

about the need for improving the State's court system. 

Established in 1955, the Fund continually studies the 

problems facing the State's judicial system and initiates educational programs to teach citizens about how the courts operate. 

The Fund is concerned with the selection of judges, judicial conduct, and the structure, administration and financing of 

the court system. In addition, it is sponsoring a series of 

citizens conferences throughout the state which will focus on 

specific issues concerning the courts and court reform. 

Recognizing that broad public understanding is a prerequisite for improving the system, the Fund offers a variety of 

educational programs to inform citizens about their courts and 

how they operate. 

The Executive Director of the Fund is Fern Schair. 

128 

, 

IV FAMILY COURT 

The Family Court of New York State is a specialized court 

that has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving children and 

families, including: 

-adoption 

-abuse and neglect 

-support, including reciprocal petitions filed under the 

Federal Uniform Support of Dependents Law (USDL) 

-paternity and support of children born out of wedlock 

-termination of custody by reason of permanent neglect 

-juvenile delinquency 

-persons in need of supervision (PINS) 

-family offenses 

In addition, the court has jurisdiction over matters inVolving physically handicapped and mentally defective or retarded 

children, custody and visitation rights, consent to marriage of 

underage persons, cases involving children who are material witnesses in other courts and guardianship decrees. 

For this phase of the project, we will be involved in 

observing the processing of delinquency and PINS petitions. 

129 
• 

V PROCEDURES WITHIN THE FAMILY COURT 

I-Police Custody 

2-Family Court Referral 

a-Probation Intake 

b-Preliminary Hearing 

c-Fact Finding Hearing 

d-Dispositional Hearing 

I-Police Custody 

The Penal Code details what behavior constitutes a crime 

when committed by an adult. The Family Court Act covers beh~vior 

of those under 16 which would be crimes if engaged in by an adult. 

It authorizes the police to take juveniles into custody but never 

refers to the word arrest. A juvenile may be taken into custody 

and questioned when that child is suspected of being a runaway or 

of violating the penal code. The juvenile can be taken into 

custody with or without a warrant (on the basis of reasonable 

cause) . 

When a juvenile is taken into police custody and brought 

to the police station several things can happen. The juvenile 

can be: 

a-released with a reprimand. 

b-referred to a youth bureau within the police department 

or other police program. 

c-both a and b. 

*d-juvenile report issued. 

e-in New York City, in the case of serious offenses (felonies and some serious misdemeanors) the youth must either be 

released at the precinct or referred to the Family Court. 

The police may not attempt to resolve the matter themselves. In other counties the Police Juvenile Aid Bureau 

actively pursues a program to resolve the matter by 

working with parents and referral to agencies. 

*The juvenile report is the counterpart of an adult arrest record 

with one significant difference. The report contains a record of 

penal code violations but is never considered to be a public document or equivalent to an arrest record. 

2-Family Court Referral 

a-Probation Intake 

Prior to a Family Court Jfl.t.ake Hearing the petitioner, 

respondent, family members, and/or police officer meet with a probation officer to decide if Family Coprt action is absolutely 

130 

. 

nece~b~ry. This process is completely voluntary. If the petitione~ insists the matter must go to court or if the respondent 

refuses to go through Intake, a petition is drawn. If the probation officer decides this is the best course and if everyone 

agrees, the juvenile is diverted from the Family Court and is 

either sent home, supervised for a period up to 120 days by the 

probation department, or referred to a community agency. The 

case is then said to have been "adjusted." Under new Family Court 

rules specific criteria must be followed by the probation office 

in the adjustment process. The probation officer must state in 

writing, for court review, the reason why the case was adjusted. 

The probation officer cannot adjust a "designated felony case" 

(see petitions) without written court approval. 

b-Preliminary Hearing 

If the decision is made to refer the case to Family Court 

an Intake Hearing is usually scheduled. At the Intake Hearing 

the Assistant Corporation Counselor County Attorney files a 

petition alleging the juvenile is a PINS or Juvenile Delinquent. 

At this time the juvenile is advised of his/her rights. If there 

is an admission of guilt on the part of the juvenile, an order of 

adjudication is drawn and a referral to probation or other agency 

is made for an investigative report prior to disposition. A dispositional hearing date is set. 

If there is a denial of the allegations on the part of the 

juvenile, the judge must decide whether to dismiss the petition 

or to place the juvenile pending further court action. The judge 

may send the youth to a detention center (secure or non-secure), 

to a temporary care facility (public or private institution or 

private home), or release the juvenile in the custody of his/her 

parents. A fact-finding hearing is schE~duled and investigations 

if necessary are ordered. If there are motions by attorneys, 

hearings on those motions may also be scheduled at this time. 

c-Fact-Finding Hearing 

At the fact-finding hearing the judge listens to the 

evidence and decides whether or not the allegations have been 

proved. At that hearing the judge can either dismiss the petition, in which case the child is sent home, or adjudicate ~he 

child a PINS or Juvenile Delinquent. A dispositional hear~ng 

is set and the court can order reports from the Department of 

Probation and/or Mental Health. (Invest,igation and Report). 

d-Dispositional Hearing 

At this hearing the judge decidE!s i'what to do" with the 

juvenile. The juvenile can be: 

131 

_____________ ~~ _______________ ~___1 _______ ~ ________ ~ ________________ ~ -~---- --
.. 

I-released - petition dismissed 

2-released - judgment suspended 

3-placed in his/her own horne 

4-placed with 

-a suitable relative 

-the Commissioner of Social Services 

-the Division for Youth (DFY) 

-an authorized agency (including a Mental Health 

Facility) 

(N.B. coincident with any placement the juvenile may 

be required to participate in a drug or alcohol rehabilitation program or other similar rehabilitative 

program. ) 

5-placed on probation requiring that he/she attend certain 

programs or refrain from or practice certain behavior 

6-placed in a State Training School 

(N.B. State Training Schools are secure facilities, 

called DFY Title III facilities. Other DFY facilities 

which are non-secure ~ .. ~titutions are known as Title II 

facilities. ) 

7-committed to a State Correctional Facility (Elmira) for 

serious felonies, i.e., homicide 

132 

, ---~'~.--------------~----------------

VI CASE FLOW CHART (PINS and J.D. cases) 

Bypass of 

Probation 

Tntake 

admit alle c.tions 

Police Custody 

-released, sent home 

-referred to Youth Bureau 

within Police Department 

-juvenile report 

Family Court Referral 

File Petition 

~ 

adjustment - no court action 

-sent home 

-agency referral 

-probation supervision 

Preliminary or Intake Hearing -dismissed, 

insufficient 

evldence 

no jurisdiction 

or 

-placed 

detention 

(locked or nonFinding of Fact Order Fact Finding Hearing 

secure facility) 

temporary care 

or sent home 

pending hearing -referral to. probation 

pending investigative report 

-sent home pending Dispositional Hearing 

-temporary care 

-dete~tion 

-dismissed, sent 

d=~:~tion (locked 

or non-secure facility) 

-temporary care 

-sent home pending 

~ dispositional hearing 

-referral to probation 

pending investigative ,report 

=D=i=spo~s=~='t~~='o~n~a~l~H~e~a~r~i~n~g Dis ositional Hearing 

~ Dispositional Heari.n 

released 

-petition dismissed 

judgment suspended 

placed with 

-parent or suitable guardian 

-the Commissioner of Social Services 

-the Division for youth (Title II, III) 

-the Department of Probation 

-the Department of Hental Health 

-State Corr~ctional Facility (Elmira) 

133 
• 

VII RIGHTS OF JUVENILES 

As cited in the Introduction, the parens patriae theory 

assumed that a benevolent judge acting "in:'the best interests of 

the child was not depriving the child of any rights and required 

no ','due process". In framing the Family Court Act of 1962, the 

legislative committee reaffirmed the non-criminal nature of 

juvenile proceedings, but acted to provide "due process" for 

juveniles. 

Subsequent to the establishment of the Family Court Act, 

several appellate decisions reinforced the view of the New York 

legislators. In 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States 

held that an accused juvenile has at least four constitutional 

rights: 

I-the right to notice of the charges and time to prepare 

for trial. 

2-the right to counsel. 

3-the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. 

4-the right to remain silent. 

In 1970, the court ruled that the provision for the 

finding of fact based upon a "preponderance of the evidence" was 

unconstitutional and that charges against juveniles must be proved 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Every day that passes sees more of 

the norms and procedures of criminal practice being adopted in 

the Family Court. 

In keeping with the Legislature's desire to avoid placing 

the stigma of criminal labels on children, the re(:Qr.ds and proceedings of the Family Court are held confidential. Names of 

juveniles are not published and decisions are not, made part of 

a permanent record. 

To protect the confidentiality of the litigants all those 

individuals who observe Family Court activity are usually reminded 

that no details of the proceedings are to be discussed or any of 

the litigants' names divulged. 

The Family Court Act itself contains a separate paragraph 

concerning confidentiality for every petition type. Each of 

these sections is worded somewhat differently from the others. 

This has, in the past, caused much confusion over exactly what 

the law did or did not say. 

The Administrative Board for all the courts of the state 

has now adopted a rule which clarifies the question considerably. 

Briefly, the guidelines are these: 

a-Family Court records may not be seen except by persons 

with a legitimate purpose which has been verified. 

b-Citizens, including representatives of news media may 

be admitted to the proceedings, as space permits, for a legitimate 

134 

purpose. Observers may be excluded if there is a reason (e.g. 

very sensitive or embarrassing testimony). 

c-The names of the participants may not be published or 

divulged in any way. 

The value and effectiveness of a monitor and the success 

of the very concept of citizen monitoring depend on the acceptance of the citizen as an impartial, serious observer. In addition, one can be prosecuted for violation of the laws respecting confidentiality. 

135 
VIII LEGAL REPRESENTATION 

Section 249 of the Family Court Act directs that the court 

"shall appoint a law guardian to represent children 'if independent 

legal representation is not available to the child." This primarily covers children who are involved in juvenile delinquency, 

PINS or child protective (neglect or abuse) proceedings. The 

ability of the child to obtain counsel of his or her own choice 

mayor may not have anything to do with the ability of his/her 

parents to pay. The courts have found that the interests of 

parents and their children do not always coincide and, frequently, 

different attorneys must represent the parent and the child. In 

practice, therefore, the~court will normally appoint a law guardian, who is replaced when a private attorney appears. 

There are, generally speaking, two methods of obtaining 

attorneys for appointment as law guardians: 

a-A contract is signed with a corporation, usually the 

Legal Aid Society, to provide the service. The corporation employs attorneys who work fulltime in the Family Court and serve 

any children needing representation. 

b-The local Bar Association asks its members to serve as 

law guardians or panel attorneys on a by-request basis either as 

a public service or to gain courtroom experience. A list of names 

is submitted to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for 

approval. The approved list is given to the Family Court and 

appointments are made from it. Attorneys are compensated for 

their work by the State at the rate (presently) of $lO/hr. for 

work outside the courtroom and $15/hr. :for time spent in court. 

The average fee per case is around $65. 

In New York City almost all law guardians are provided 

by the Legal Aid Society by contract. In cases with multiple 

respondents where the interests of all are not identical, the 

same office cannot represent more than one. In that instance, the 

second method is used to appoint attorneys for the additional 

respondents. In the City these attorneys are called lS(b) attorneys (referring to section lS(b) of the County Law which provides 

authori ty for this.) . 

Outside New York City most law guardians are appointed 

from a list as described above. They are commonly referred to 

as "panel attorneys" or simply "law guardians". The term "lS-b 

attorney" is not in general use outside Ne'tl York City. 

There is extensive controversy concerning the role of the 

law guardian. Some people believe that law guardians must fight 

for a client as in a fully adversarial proceeding, i.e., to 

attempt to "get him off" regardless of whether or not they are 

136 

--~ --~ .... ----------------- -~'.~----------~---r-----------------

themselves convinced that may be precisely the worst thing for 

the child. 

Oth~r people believe that the law guardian should safeguard the r~ghts of the child while at the same time work for his 

or her "best interests" even if the transfer of care and custody 

to some sort of institution is involved. 

The New Yor~ Court of Appeals in 1969 said that attorneys 

should not be cast ~n the role of social advisors to the court 

but should pursue their role of adversary. The New York Legislature amended that Act in 1970 by saying that the law guardian 

w~~ to "p:-otect the child's :i,nterests and help him/her express 

,h~s/her w~shes to the court". The controversy remains. 

. VOlunt~ers obs~rving in the courts of New York City will 

f~nd law guard~ans act~ng almost exclusively in the adversarial 

role. Outside the City, observers find a great deal of variety 

ranging from purely adversarial to paternalistic. ' 

From ti~e to time, observers may also witness the appointment of a guard~~n ad litem. This is a person who is appointed 

to safegUardthe~nter~sts of the child other than with regard to 

the ~ondu~t ~f the tr~al. The most extensive use of the guardian 

ad l~tem ~s ~n other courts; e.g., in a lawsuit of some sort where 

t?e possessions of a child may be liable to be taken away without h~s/her full understanding. 

. . In Fam~ly Court, the parent or guardian of an accused 

Juven~le somet~mes fails to appear. In that case it may be 

~ecessary for the judge to appoint a guardian ad litem to stand ~n place of the parents. 

137 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ~ __ -L ________________ ~ ____________________ ~~ ________________________ ~~ ____ ~.~~~ ____________ ~.~~~.----~ --
IX PETITIONS 

Petitions are designated by number, year and type. Following are the letter prefixes used by the court to designate 

petitions. In some courts the name of the petition will not be 

announced; instead the letter associated with the petition will 

be read or will appear on the calendar. 

A-Adoptions 

B-Permanent Neglect 

D-Delinquency 

F-Support 

G-Guardianship 

H-Handicapped, (Education of) 

I-Informal 

J-Public Health 

K-Foster Care Review 

L-Voluntary Placement Approval 

M-Consent to Marry 

N-Neglect and Abuse (Child Protective) 

O-Family Offense 

P-Paternity 

Q-Mentally Defective 

R-Referred from Supreme Court 

S-Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS) 

U-Uniform Support of Dependents Law (USDL) 

v-Custody 

W-Material Witness 

A-Adoption - the legal proceeding that results in an adult taking 

another person into the family and acquiring the responsibilities 

of a parent. 

B-Permanent Neglect - to determine whether the interests of the 

child require that the parent's right to custody be terminated 

permanently. 

D-Juvenile Delinquency - proceedings against those alleged to be 

juvenile delinquents. A juvenile delinquent is a person under 

age 16 and over 7 who commits an act which if committed by an 

adult, would constitute a crime. 

F-Support - to compel a person legally charged with support of 

a wife, child or relative to do so. 

G-Guardianship - the proceeding to establish the legal guardianship of a minor. 

138 

-----,.~------~~ __ r_------------

f' 

I, 

I: 

i' H-Handicapped (Education of) - provid~s the physically handicapped 

child with funds for special education and training. 

K-Foster Care Review - to justify continuing a child in Foster 

Care showing that he/she can neither be freed for adoption nor 

returned to the parents. 

L-Voluntary Placement Approval - to secure Family Court approval 

of a voluntary placement in foster care by a child's parents. 

M-Marriage Application - considers and approves consent to marry 

where applicant for marriage is a female over the age of 14 and 

under the age of 16. 

N-Abuse and Neglect (Child Protective) - to help children who 

suffer from injury or mistreatment and safeguard their physical, 

mental and emotional well being. 

O-Family Offense - to give help to wives and husbands and other 

members of the family who suffer from assaults by members of the 

same family. 

P-Paternity (also called filiation) - procedure to establish 

paternity and once established to order support for wife and 

children. 

Q-Mentally Defective - a proceeding to compel the provision of 

training and care for a person under 21 years with defective 

mental development. 

R-Referral - proceeding resulting from divorce action in which 

Supreme Court grants a divorce but refers the issues of support, 

custody, and/or visitation to Family Court. 

S-Person in Need of Supervision (PINS) - proceeding against a 

child alleged to be consistently disobedient, out of control, incorrigible, etc. These acts if committed by an adult would not 

constitute crimes. (status offenses) 

U-USDL - a support proceeding to 

support of a dependent to do so. 

to spouses living out of state. 

compel a person charged with the 

The USDL proceeding applies only 

V-Custody and Visitation - to provide for preservation or enforcement of parent's right to have visitation and/or permanent parental responsibilities and privileges. 

139 

.~~~~_~~~~~~ _____ --"----__ ~ __ ~ ___ ~-~A.:t ____ _ 
• 

W-Material Witness - a procedure to place in custody a person 

under 16 who is a material witness in a case. 

Designated Felonies ~ The 1976 Legislative session produced the 

Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1976. There are many changes to 

the law contained in this package. 

All designated felonies are serious crimes. They have 

been divided into "Designated Class A Felonies" and "Designated 

Class B Felonies" according to the length of the placement which 

is associated with each category. 

Courts are directed by law to give priority to Designated 

Felony matters. In New York City this takes the form of a special 

Part for these matters. 

Class "A" Felony - Under the new statute, if a judge finds that 

an "A" Felony was committed and that restrictive placement is 

appropriate, then the placement must be with DFY for a period of 

5 years. Of this period, the first 12 months must be in a secure 

facility, the second 12 months in a non-secure facility, and the 

remainder may be at the parental home. DFY may not reduce these 

periods. 

Class "B" Felony - If the judge finds that a "B" Felony has been 

committed and restrictive placement is necessary, the placement" 

is for 3 years. The first 6 to 12 months must be in a secure 

facility, the second 6 to 12 months in a non-secure facility, 

and the remainder may be at the parental home. 

During periods of residence at the parental home, the 

child is supervised by DFY and can be returned by that agency to 

a secure or non-secure residence facility if circumstances warrant. 

Prior to this legislation, placements were for 18 months 

but could be extended for additonal periods on petition by the 

agency (3 years in certain instances), but DFY could decide that 

the entire period should be spent at home without consulting the 

court. The fact of a shortage of space led to DFY's sending 

juvenile offenders back to the parental home after spending only 

a few months in a facility. Public outcry against this action 

was a factor in the passage of the new legislation. 

140 

, ~------- ---~ ,,~" -----~--....---------

-- -- --- -- - ----~---~----

x POSITIQNS AND PERSONNEL IN THE FAMILY COURT IN 

NEW YORK CITY 

Administrative Judge - The Admipistrative Judge of the Family 

Court in New York City is Hon. Joseph B. Williams. 

Assistant Administrative Judge - There is an Assistant Administrative Judge for the Family Court in each county. That judge has 

overall responsibility for the operation of the Court in that 

county. 

Judge - The judge is in charge of the courtroom part. In addition to hearing cases, the judge must read whatever depositions, 

petitions, etc. are presented in connection with the case and 

make decisions on placements and "sentences". 

Clerk of the Court - The clerk of the court is responsible for 

all non-judicial functions in a particular county (personnel, 

reports, inter-agency contacts, public contacts). 

Clerk of the Part - The clerk of the Part "manages the Part" under 

the supervision of the judge. The clerk is responsible for the 

functioning and supervision of the non-judicial personnel. In 

addition, the clerk will confirm: 

I-presence of all parties. 

2-whether the case is ready to proceed to a fact !inding 

or dispositional hearing. 

3-a date for the next appearance if the case is to be 

adjourned. 

Law Guardian - A law guardian is assigned by the judge to represent a juvenile. If private counsel is retained, the court 

appointed attorney is replaced. 

Assistant Corporation Counsel - The Assistant Corporation Counsel 

works for the city and acts as a prosecutor in delinquency petitions. He/she represents the petitioner in USDL petitions, 

represents the petitioner in paternity and support matters, 

represents the city in handicap petitions and represents the 

petitioner in some PINS petitions. 

Court Liaison Officer - 'fhe Court Liaison Officer provides abstracts of hearings for the Probation Department records and 

forwards judges instructions to agencies. He/she is a Probation 

Officer. 

141 

------------~ --~-... - - --- - ............ ........... _..L....-t-..... ______ _ 
• 

uniformed Court Officer - If there is adequate personnel the 

functions are split; one court officer maintains decor~ an~ 

security, and the "bridgeman" calls the calendar and ma~nta~ns 

sequence and order of business. 

Court Reporter - The court reporter makes a stenotype r~c.~rd 

(official) of all proceedings, marks and stamps all ex~~b~ts 

and evidence offered to the court and prepares transcr~pts of 

proceedings. 

142 

-, 

XI PERSONNEL AND THEIR ROLES (OUTSIDE NEW YORK CITY) 

Administrative Judge - There is an Administrative Judge for the 

Family Court in each county. That judge has overall responsibility 

for the operation of the Court in the county. 

Judge - The judge is in charge of the court. In addition to 

hearing cases, the judge must read whatever depositions, petitions, etc. are presented in connection with the case. 

Law Guardian - A law guardian is assigned by the judge to represent the juvenile. If private counsel is retained, the courtappointed attorney is replaced. 

The Clerk - Verifies that case files and reports are placed before 

the judge, writes down for the record what the judge decides, 

sets new court dates, prepares referral forms for Probation and 

other agencies, and keeps track of open dates in case a date for 

another hearing is needed. The clerk may leave the courtroom to 

get additional files or perform other necessary errands. 

County Attorney - Family Court is technically a civil court. 

Therefore, the county's civil lawyer (the County Attorney) rather 

than its criminal lawyer (the District Attorney) presents the 

"people's case" in Family Court. The Juvenile Justice legislation 

of 1976, recognizing the "quasi-criminal" nature of delinquency 

proceedings, has authorized the District Attorney to "lend" one 

of his assistants to the County Attorney to help with delinquency 

cases. 

Clerical Staff - Counties with fulltime Family Courts £mploy 

several persons who function primarily outside the courtroom. 

They perform such tasks as: preparing petitions; setting up case 

files; sending out appearance notices; typing and mailing all of 

the various orders, warrants, and other papers which result from 

the judges' orders; and maintaining required statistical records. 

They may occasionally enter to confer with the judge or clerk 

during breaks in the proceedings. 

Court Reporter - Makes a verbatim record of everything that goes 

on in the courtroom. May use shorthand or a stenotype machine 

for this purpose. May sit anywhere, usually close to the judge. 

Court Attendant - Calls parties from the waiting area and escorts 

them into the courtroom; announces their names to the judge. 

May administer oaths when required. May wear a uniform. (Found only in larger courts.) 

143 
• 

XII GLOSSARY 

~journ - An order to postpone case activity to another day. 

Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) - A dismissal of 

the petition to take effect at some time in the future, usually 

6 months, if the same or other misbehavior does not occur in the 

interim. 

Adjudicate - To hear and determine the truth of the facts alleged 

in the petition. 

Admission, denial - At the fact-finding hearing the judge will 

ask if the respondent admits or denies. That refers to whether 

the individual admits or denies committing the allegations in 

the petition. 

Arrest - In some proceedings in the Family Court a juvenile may 

be taken into custody and detained in an appropriate facility 

when his or her parents are unknown or cannot be reached. The 

Family Court Act authorizes the taking of juveniles into custody 

but does not use the word arrest. The Fam.ily Court Act refers 

instead to "custody and detention." 

Crime - A crime is an offense punishable by more than 15 days 

in jail. (Criminal Court Term) 

Cr~~inal/Supreme Court - A Criminal/Supreme Court is one in which 

persons over 16 accused of violations, misdemeanors and felonies 

are informed of their rights, tried and sentenced. 

Delay - A postponement of case proceedings to a later part of the 

same session or day. 

Designated felony act - An act committed by a person fourteen or 

fifteen years of age which, if done by an adult, would be a Class 

A or Class B felony (a) defined in sections 125.27 (murder in the 

first degree); 125.25 (murder in the second degree); 135.25 

(kidnapping in the first degree); or 150.20 (arson in the first 

degree) of the penal law; (b) defined in sections 120.10 (assault 

in the first degree); 125.20 (manslaughter in the first degree); 

130.35 (rape in the first degree); 130.50 (sodomy in the first 

degree); 135.20 (kidnapping in the second degree), but only where 

the abduction involved the use or threat of use of deadly physical 

force; 150.15 (arson in the second degree); or 160.15 (robbery 

in the first degree) of the penal law; or (c) defined in the penal 

144 

, 

law as an attempt to commit murder in the first or second degree 

or kidnapping in the first degree. 

Detention - The temporary care and maintenance away from their 

own homes of children held for or at the direction of the Family 

Court pending adjudication of alleged juvenile delinquency or 

need for supervision. Juveniles may also be detained pending 

transfer to institutions or facilit:ies while awaiting dispos~tion 

after adjudication. 

Discharge with a warning - The release of the child by the judge 

with a warning against further misconduct. 

Dispositional hearing - In the case of a petition to determine 

delinquency, a hearing to determine whether the respondent requires supervision, treatment or co:nfinement. In the case of a 

petition to determine need for supervision, a hearing to determine whether the respondent requires supervision or treatment. 

Due Process - The protection a respondent has is derived from 

his/her constitutiona' rantees including: 

I-the right Jnsel. 

2-the right to remain silent. 

3-the right to a fair hearing. 

4-the right to cross-examine: witnesses. 

Fact-finding hearing - In the case Clf a petition to determine 

delinquency, a hearing to determine whether the respondent did 

the act alleged in the petition which, if done by an adult would 

constitute a crime. In the case of a petition to determine need 

for supervision, a hearing to determine whether the respondent 

did the act alleged to show that he violated a law or is incorrigible, ungovernable or habitually disobedient and beyond the 

control of his/her parents, guardian or legal custodian. 

Family Court Act - The state statute that describes the jurisdictions, powers, and actions of the Family Court. 

Juvenile Delinquent - A person at least 7 years of age and less 

than 16 years of age who commits an cLct that, if done by an adult, 

would constitute a crime. 

Misdemeanor - An offense that is punishable by not more tha~ 1 

year in jail. (Criminal Court Term) 

145 

---------------------------------'"'--- --
• 

Non-secure detention facility - A facility characterized by the 

absence of physically restricting construction, hardware and 

procedures. 

Order of Protection - A paper issued by a judge ordering that a 

parent, guardian, spouse, etc. provide proper care for, or refrain 

from abusing, the child, spouse, or other family member. 

Penal Law (Code) - (criminal law) The code that defines the behavior that, when committed by adults, is punishable by imprisonment, fine or probation. 

Permanently neglected child - A court adjudication terminating 

parental custody and rights on the grounds that the parent or 

guardian has failed for more than one year to maintain contact, 

plan or provide for the future of the child under the age of 

18 who was placed in the care of an authorized agency, institution 

or foster home. 

Person in Need of Supervision - (status offenders, PINS) A male 

or female less than 16 years of age who does n;',lt: attend school, 

is incorrigible, habitually disobedient and beyond lawful control 

of parent or guardian or other lawful authority. These acts if 

committed by an adult would not constitute a crime. (status 

offenses) 

Petition - In Family Court cases 

procedures of each case differ. 

category is initiated by filing 

Family Court hear that case. 

are referred to by type and the 

The processing for each major 

a petition requesting that t-he 

Petitioner, Complainant - The complainant or victim of the alleged 

offense or the policeman who brings that fact to the attention 

of the authorities and files the petition. 

Preliminary Hearing - The initial appearance(s) before a judge at 

which time the petition is read, rights explained, attorneys 

assigned, charges explained and future hearing dates set. 

Probation Intake - That branch of the Probation Service which is 

authorized to interview petitioners and respondents before any 

contact with the court to see if that matter can be resolved 

without referral to the court. This out-of-court resolution is 

called "adjustment". Probation cannot compel anyone to appear 

nor deny anyone access to court. 

146 

. 

Remand - An order by the J'udge that 

a child be kept at a detention facility while awaiting a hearing. 

Secure detention facility - A facility character;zed t' , ... by physically res r~ct~ng construction, hardware and procedures. 

Violation - An offense that is punishable by not more than 15 

days in jail. (Criminal Court Term) 

Warrant/summons - A court order requ;r;ng 'th ...... e~ er the arrest or the appearance in court of an individual. 

Yout~ful Offender (Y.O.) - A person between the ages of 16 and 19 

w~o ~s arrested for a criminal offense and will be tried in cri-

~~nal,cou:t. ,He/she can receive some of the benefits of the 

Juven~le Just~ce system at the discretion of the presiding judge 

If ~here has been no prior felony conviction, the judge may . 

dec~de to seal the records and make special sentencing arrange-

~ents: NO,Youthful Offenders are in the Family Court since 

Juven~les ~n the Family Court are between the ages of 7 and 16. 

147 

_______________________________ ~___'_ _____________ ~ __________ ----',I.IiL .... _______ ..-....d .... ·'-~--- --
• 

Court of 

Claims 

NYC 

Criminal 

Court 

APPENDIX A 

PRESENT NEW YORK STATE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 

Court on the 

Judiciary 

Surrogate's 

Court 

NYC 

Civil 

Court 

COURT OF 

APPEALS 

I APPELLATE 

DIVISION 

of Supreme Court 

11'" t 

SUPREME 

COURT 

Family 

Court 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Appellate 

Term 

t.,., 

J I J 

t I , 

I , I 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I 

County 

Court 

1.1 1 +tt 

IIJ •• 1 

III III 

.---- j.J .!.;.. ___ ..J i .J ___ ... __ .......... _...." 

District 

Court 

Town 

Courts 

City 

Courts 

Village 

Courts 

NEW YORK CITY OUTSIDE NEW YORK CITY 

148 

--------------" ......  ... _--'---

APPENDIX B 

PRESENT NEW YORK STATE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 

a-Court of Appeals - highest court of the state 

- reviews questions of law 

- reverses or amends decisions of lower 

court 

b-Court on the Judiciary - special court convened to hear cases 

that may result in the removal, suspension or retirement of a 

judge of the Superior Court 

c-Appellate Division of Supreme Court 

d-Supreme Court 

- established in each of the State's 4 Judicial 

Departments 

resolves appeals from civil and criminal 

cases 

- admits, suspends or disbars lawyers from 

lower courts 

hears cases involving felony prosecutions 

and indictable misdemeanors in N.Y.C. 

- hears some civil matters, divorce, separation 

and annulment proceedings 

e-Court of Claims - special trial court to determine claims 

against New York State 

f-Surrogates Court - established in each county, hears cases,involving probate of wills, adoption, and 

administration of estates. 

g-Family Court 

h-County Court 

- hears cases involving children and families - abuse and neglect 

- protection 

- support 

- delinquency and PINS 

established in each county outside N.Y.C. 

- handles prosecutions of crimes committed 

within the county and some civil matters 

- holds arraignments in all types of arrest 

cases and preliminary hearings in felony 

arrest cases 

149 
• 

~-. NYC Criminal Court misdemeanors and violations . • . _ conducts trials on 

]-. NYC ... civil Court involving amounts up to - tries civil cases 

k-District 

Town 

City 

Village 

Courts 

$10,000 

f inferior courts four categories 0 

- thes~ are Y C These courts handle minor outs~de N. '.' . inal matters. 

cases includ~ng cr~m 

150 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

A Caseworkers Guide to the New York State Juvenile Justice System; 

Marion C. Katzive; Vera Institute of Justice, 1975. 

Children Without Justice; Edward Wakin; National Council of Jewish Women, 1975. 

Corrections Hagazine; Juvenile Justice in New York City; Steve 

Gettinger: June 1976. 

Court Monitoring Handbook; Fern Schair; Fund for Modern Courts, Inc., October 1975. 

Family Court Act; Practice Commentary, Daniel Besharov; McKinney's, 1975. 

Family Court Law and Practice in New York; A. Aron; D. Samuels; 

M. Hutner; Acme Law Book Co., 1972. 

Justice for Children; Lois Whitman, Flora Rothman; National Council of Jewish Women, April 1972. 

Manual of Procedures of the Family Court of the City of New York; 

Economic Development Council, Inc., 1975. 

The Child and the Law; Helping the Status Offender; Kathryn W. 

Bukhart; Public Affairs Committee; Pamphlet #530, December 1975. 

151 
• 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR MONITORS 

Specific instructions for filling out court watchers' report forms 

will be given by each local coordinator and are not included in 

this handbook. The following advice is of a more general nature. 

Do your homework! Read the handbook and attend the monthly training sessions. Ask questions about anything you do not understand. 

Once the daily monitoring starts, make every effort to attend 

court on the day you are scheduled. If it is impossible for you 

to go that day, let your local coordinator know as far ahead of 

time as possible (at least 24 hours) so an alternate can be placed. 

Get to court early - at least 15 minutes before it is scheduled 

to begin. 

If any effort should be made to bar your attendance, do not argue: 

merely note the fact on your report form. (The same is true if 

you are denied any reasonable information or the opportunity to 

take notes). Please inform the local coordinator of any problem. 

Introduce yourself to the Clerk of the Part, if possible, as an 

official observer from the Court Monitoring Project. 

Sit where your local coordinator has suggested. If the judge 

asks you to sit somewhere else, don't argue. 

Be as unobtrusive as possible in appearance and demeanor. NEVER 

INTERRUPT THE PROCEEDINGS. Always be courteous, no matter what 

the provocation. 

REMAIN NEUTRAL. Do not betray your personal feelings by any 

facial expression or remark. If a judge or anyone else asks your 

opinion about anything that you have observed, refrain from commenting. Emphasize that you are merely collecting data and cannot 

speak for the Project. Refer the person to the local coordinator. 

While you are observing, try to jot down all the data requested 

on the case observation forms. If you miss some of it, ask the 

clerk for the additional information during a recess or after 

adjournment. 

Make no movies, photographs or tape recordings in the courtroom. 

152 

. 

Note 

wish 

your 

suggestions you 

report them to 

Please be reminded that you 

Do not discuss the details are observing confidential 

of the proceedings you are proceedings. 

observing. 

" u, S, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977 260-992/4011 

153 

__________________________________________________________ ~ ______________________________ ~_L ________________________ ~ ______________ ~ ______________________ .--. _______ wW-_ 
• 

w' 

z 

:::i 

~ 

J: 

II.!l 

Z 

0 

...J 

<t 

I-

::> 

g: 

CITIZEN COURT WATCHING: 

The Consumers' Perspective 

To help LEAA better evaluate the usefulness of this document, the reader is requested 

to answer and return the following questions. 

1. What is your general reaction to this document? 

o Excellent 0 Average 0 Useless 

o Above Average 0 Poor 

2. To what extent do you see the document as being useful in terms of: (check one 

3. 

box on each line) 

Modifying existing projects 

Training personnel 

Administering ongoing projects 

Providing new or important information 

Developing or implementing new projects 

Highly 

Useful 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Of Some Not 

Use Useful 

o 0 

o 0 

o 0 

o 0 

o 0 

To what specific use, if any, have you put or do you plan to put this particular 

document? 

o Modifying existing projects 

o Training personnel 

o Administering ongoing projects 

o Developing or implementing new projects o Other: _______ . ___ _ 

4. Do you feel that further training or technical assistance is needed and desired on 

this topic? I f so, please specify needs. 

5. In what ways, if any, could the document be improved: (please specify, e.g. structure/ 

organization; content/coverage; objectivity; writing style; other) 

6. How did this document come to your attention? (check one or more) 

o LEAA mailing of package 0 LEAA Newsletter 

o Contact with LEAA staff 0 National Criminal Justice 

o Your organization's library Reference Service 

o Other (please specify) _____________ _ 

7. Have you contacted or do you plan to contact the project site for further 

information? 

---------,--.. 

--- .-. ---~-.--------

I 

II 

! 

\ 

I 

\ 

~ _ ---"it- __ ___ _ 
• 

8. Check ONE item below which best describes your affiliation with law enforce· 

ment or criminal justice. If the item checked has an asterisk (*), please also check 

the related level, i.e., 

o Federal 0 State 0 County 0 Local 

o Headquarters, LEAA 0 Police * 

o LEAA Regional Office 0 Court * 

o State Planning Agency 0 Correctional Agency * 

o Regional SPA Office 0 Legislative Agency * 

o College, University 0 Other Government Agency * 

o Commercial Industrial Firm 0 Professional Associations * 

o Citizen Group 0 Crime Prevention Group * 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCe ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20531 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

JUS-436 OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 

Director 

Office of Development, Testing, and 

Dissemination 

National Institute of Law Enforcement 

and Criminal Justice 

U.S. Depaltment of Justice 

Washington, D.C. 20531 

9. YourName ______________________________________________ _ 

Your Positi on ____________________________________________ ___ 

Organization or Agency __________________ _ 

Address 

Telephone Number Area Code:___ Number: _______ _ 

10. If you are not currently registered with NCJRS and would like to be placed on 

their mailing list, check here. 0 

--~----~.-----------------~----~~~--------------~-------------------------------------

FOLD 

FOLD 

:c=; 

·c 

:-1 

:~ .0 

·z :Cl 

'-1 :::t 

:Cii 

.r-

:z 

:!!! 

j I 

i 1 

'e!