'. ~ \. 

DRAFT 

1993 ANNuAL REpORT OF THE 

ADVISORY GROUP 

OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE 

VIRGIN ISLANDS 

DECEMBER 31, 1993 
ADVISORY GROUP 

Jeffrey L. Resnick 

Magistrate Judge, Chairman 

Geoffrey W. Barnard 

Magistrate Judge, Vice-Chairman 

Bar Association Members 

John H. Benham, III, Esquire 

Julio A. Brady, Esquire 

Britain H. Bryant, Esquire 

James S. Carroll, III, Esquire 

Adriane J. Dudley, Esquire 

Terry M. Halpern, Esquire 

Maria T. Hodge, Esquire 

Joel H. Holt, Esquire 

James L. Hymes, III, Esquire 

Joel W. Marsh, Esquire 

Edgar D. Ross, Esquire 

Bernard VanSluytman, Esquire 

Lay Members 

Alicia uTorres-James Calvin H. Wheatley 

Virgin Islands Governmental Members 

Richard O. Baker, Deputy Attorney General 

Leon Kendall, General Counsel, Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands 

Ex-Officio Members 

Orinn Arnold, Clerk of Coun 

William K. Slate, II, Reponer 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Annual Assessment Required ............................. . 

Profile of the District Court of the Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

An Assessment of the Court's Criminal and Civil Dockets 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Overall Workload .................................... . 

Criminal Docket . . . . -. . . . . . . . II: • • • • • • • • .. • • • • • • .. • • • .. • .. • • • 

Civil Docket .......................................... II ......... . 

Appeals From, the Territorial Court ......................... . 

Magistrate Judges ..........•.......................... 

Findings and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Conclusions 

Biographical Sketches of the Advisory Group .. !' • • • • • • • .. .. • • .. .. .. .. .. ... ... 
Introduction 

The Civil Justice Reform Act of 19901 required the 94 federal districts in the nation to 

develop plans to reduce cost and delay in civil litigation by December 1, 1993.2 The District 

Court of the Virgin Islands elected to qualify as an Early Implementation District with the 

result that its report and plan was submitted before December 31, 1991. That report and 

plan was widely circulated to the public and the bar and was the subject of public hearings 

on both st. Thomas and St.Croix. 

In early- 1992, the report and plan were approved by the Third Circuit Judicial 

Council and by the Committee on Court Administration of the Judicial Conference of the 

United States. 

The Act required the Advisory Group to "identify the principal causes of cost and 

delay in civil litigation. ,,3 Thus, the Act presumed "that in every district there would, in fact, 

be identifiable cost and delay in civil litigation. In its report, the Advisory Group for the 

District Court of the Virgin Islands expressed its considered judgment that the principal cause 

of delay in the progress of cIvil cases in the District Court of the Virgin Islands was the lack 

of judicial resources.4 While noting that the district had been ably served by the presence of 

Acting Chief }udge Stanley S. Brotman, and a host of visiting judges from throughout the 

United States, the report noted that the principal harm done by the absence of regular on-site 

judges was to render trial dates less than firm and, consequently, less credible. The Act 

recognizes the importance of firm, credible trial dates in reducing both cost and delay. 

lThe Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 is the short title of Title I of the Judicial 

Improvements Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-650 (1990), codified at 28 U.S.C. §§471 - 482. 

In this report the statute will be referred to as the Act. 

228 U.S.C. §482(b)(1). 

328 U.S.C. §4i2(c)(I)(C). 

4Report of the Advisory Group of the District Court of the Virgin Islands, December 23, 

1991 (p.10). 

I 
Second only to vacant judgeships in impacting on the cost and delay in civil litigation, 

the Advisory Group found that the overwhelming and growing criminal caseload faced by the 

district was an equally contributing factor. 5 

The Advisory Group then turned to those areas where it believed that 

recommendations to address cost and delay could be made and after a thorough examination 

and analysis of the civil and criminal dockets and a survey of the members of the bar, five 

discrete aspects of civil litigation were addressed. They were: local rules for practice and 

procedure; alternative dispute resolution; discovery practices; expert witnesses; and the 

education of the bar. Later in this report those areas will be revisited with respect to their 

impact on cost and delay reductions in civil litigation. 

Annual Assessment Required 

Each United States district court is required by the Act to assess annually the 

condition of the court's civil and criminal dockets with a view to determining appropriate 

additional actions that may be taken by the court to reduce cost and delay in civil litigation 

and to improve the litigation· management practices of the court. 6 In performing the 

assessment, the Act directs the court to consult with its Advisory Group with respect to the 

analysis and recommendations. 

In fidelity to the above requirements, the Advisory Group for the District Court of the 

Virgin Islands convened on November 8, 1993 with its reporter and consultant, William K. 

Slate, II, to review the experience under the district report and plan and to conduct an 

analysis and assessment of the court's civil and criminal dockets. Ghief Judge Thomas K. 

Moore hosted the meeting at the St. Thomas Federal Courthouse and participated in the 

discussions. The report which follows reflects the findings of the Advisory Group. 

~8 U.S.C. §475. 

2 
It is noted with sincere gratitude that this report benefited immeasurably from the able 

and professional contributions of Orinn Arnold, the Clerk of the Court, and his very 

competent staff. Also, note is made of the statistical analysis contributions made by 

representatives of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the Federal 

Judicial Center, and especially the help and guidance of Beverly Pierce of the Justice 

Research Institute. 

Profile of the District Court of the Virgin Islands 

An Assessment of the Court's Criminal and Civil Dockets 

Introduction 

The workload of the District Court and its implications for cost and delay reductions 

are inextricably linked to continuing judgeship vacancies. For the statistical year ending June 

30, 1993, one of the two authorized judgeships for the District Court of the Virgin Islands 

remained unfilled. For the same period, the District Court had 13.4 vacant judgeship 

months. Again, only the industry and imagination of its chief judge, the commitment and 

constancy of its magistrate judges and the court's staff, along with the cooperation and 

flexibility of ~e Virgin Islands Bar and the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands, enabled 

the court to function effectively. Indeed, as will be articulated in this section, the District 

Court of the Virgin Islands led the Third Circuit and ranked highly in the nation in several 

indicia of court performance. 

Overall Workload 

The facts and the statistics for the year ending June 30 describe a court which is 

laboring assiduously to handle increasing criminal case workloads, resulting in lengthening 

disposition times for civil cases and a growth in pending matters. Based on the increase in 

the number of fede~al investigators resident in the Virgin Islands and the intentions of the 

Justice Department to accele~ate white collar crime and drug-related investigations, criminal 

case filings will escalate annually for the foreseeable future. 

3 
Total new case filings increased by 8.5% during the reporting period. Criminal felony 

filings increased by 66 %. New civil case filings decreased by 15 % as a result of a change in 

jurisdiction causing certain local civil matters to be filed with the Territorial Court. 

However, abundant evidence in other jurisdictions, as well as analogies to the periodic 

increases in diversity jurisdictional threshold dollar amounts in the federal courts indicate that 

a modest downturn initially in such situations will soon be reversed. 

At the same time, the atypical Appellate jUrisdicit).O f the District Court of the 

Virgin Islands has grown significantly and that growth i not I flected in the 8.5% increase 

in total new case filings referenced earlier. 

The daunting referenced workloads, and judgeship vacancies, have resulted in less 

judicial work time available for civil cases. Consequently, in the space of one year the 

median time from issue to trial in civil cases rose from 27 to 29 months, placing the Virgin 

Islands last in the Third Circuit and 87th among 94 federal districts. 

Notwithstanding the crush of work in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, the 

court has distinguished itself in a number of ways that should be noted. In terms of actions 

per judgeship, the court was . first in the Third Circuit and sixth in the Nation for the number 

of trials completed. Also, since this analysis is about costs, it is particularly noteworthy that 

the District Court of the Virgin Islands has distinguished itself in the management of juries 

and their attendant cost to the government. The court was sixth best in the Nation and 

ranked first in the Third Circuit in terms of the average number of jurors present for jury 

selection. This suggests superb management on the part of the court and the Clerk's Office. 

As to the number of jurors present on a given day which were not selected or challenged, 

the Court was15th best in the Nation and first in the Third Circuit. 

Finally, in concluding this examination of the overall workload of the District Court 

of the Virgin Islands, it should be remarked that the 8.5 % increase in total new filings during 

the current year represents the greatest increase of any District in the Third Judicial Circuit 

of the United States and thel8th highest out of 94 Districts among the Federal Courts in the 

entire Nation. 

4 
Criminal Docket 

The District Court of the Virgin Islands is first in the Third Circuit and second in the 

entire United States in the number of criminal felony filings per judgeship for the last 

statistical year. Thus, it is particularly noteworthy that notwithstanding this heavy criminal 

caseload, the District Court of the Virgin Islands is first in the Third Circuit and fourth in 

the Nation in terms of the median time from filing to disposition of criminal felony cases. 

Indeed, it is a mark of significant accomplishment that the court lowered the median time 

during the current year from the previous years' 4.9 months down to 3.6 months. The 

national average for criminal felony dispositions is 5.9 months. Thus, while the Virgin 

Islands continues to be very efficient in processing criminal cases, it is invariably the case 

that the time available for the civil docket is adversely impacted by a court required to 

concentrate so heavily on a massive criminal docket. 

The 66 % increase in new criminal felony filings was also reflected in the number of 

criminal trials, and criminal trials as a percentage of total trials. Criminal trials represented 

approximately 70% of the trials in the court for the year. When one realizes that of the total 

cases filed for the year 371 were criminal, while 455 were civil, it becomes clear that the 

lesser number of criminal cases are consuming excessively more court time. 

Additional figures which graphically describe the depth of the criminal caseload ~ 

include increases in the number of all criminal defendants, drug defendants, and the 

percentage of drug defendants to the overall criminal caseload. Each of those categories 

accelerated during the past year, and particularly the number of "all criminal defendants" 

which rose from approximately 300 to 540-a mecurial increase of 180%. 

As indicated in the overall workload section of this report, the addition of more 

federal ag.ents will have a long term net effect on increased criminal case filings. Thus, 

although the transfer of some local criminal cases to the Territorial Court is contemplated, 

we believe that both the number and the complex nature of criminal cases filed in the District 

Court of the Virgin Islands will continue to increase. 

5 
Civil Docket 

The consequences of the criminal caseload on the age and progress of the civil docket 

are represented in a number of key statistics. The median time from issue to trial in civil 

cases in the District Court of the Virgin Islands is 29 months. This places the court last in 

the Third Circuit and 87th in the entire United States. Similarly, the number and percentage 

of civil cases over three years old have grown significantly. Two Hundred forty two (242) 

civil cases, representing 20.4% of the docket are over three years old. This places the 

Virgin Islands fifth out of six courts in the Circuit and 91st out of 94 districts in the Nation. 

Just three years ago the number and percentage of civil cases over three years old totaled 154 

cases, representing 11.2 % of the civil docket. Again, this troubling trend underscores the 

need for additional judicial resources in the District Court of the Virgin Islands. 

In examining the civil case filings for the statistical year, by case types, one finds that 

the percentage distribution is heavily weighted by personal injury and contract cases. Earlier 

detailed examination and analysis of civil case docket sheets in these two categories revealed 

that the majority of the personal injury and contract cases were complex in nature, with 

extensive discovery and frequent involvement of expert witnesses. 

The growth during the past year in the number of pending cases for the overall 

workload of the court (an addition of 44 cases to the pending caseload) virtually all consist 

entirely of civil cases. 

Finally, as discussed earlier, the modest decrease in new civil case filings as a result 

of changes in jurisdiction in the Virgin Islands is not expected to be a long-term trend. The 

clear expectation at the bar is that traditional diversity jurisdiction cases will increase in the 

District Court over the next one to two years. 

Appeals From the Territorial Court 

Among the distinguishing features of the District Court of the Virgin Islands is the 

jurisdictional responsibility to hear certain appeals from the Territorial Court. The appellate 

caseload is.a steady and rising factor contributing to the caseload demands placed upon the 

court. The complexity of appellate jurisdiction and the movement of cases between two 

6 
different court systems consumes a significant amount of judge, attorney, and support staff 

time. 

The perceived need to improve practice and procedure in the appellate division has 

resulted in the development of an entire new set of local rules of appellate procedure for the 

District Court of the Virgin Islands. It is expected that these rules will clarify many issues 

for the bar and reduce cost and delay in appellate practice. For the statistical year ending 

June 30, 1993, there were appeals filed in the appellate division. 

Magistrate Judges 

The District Court of the Virgin Islands has two authorized full-time magistrate 

judges. They continue ;...~ fully utilized and substantially involved in both criminal and 

civil cases. Recall tha~irgin Islands is first in the Third Circuit and second in the 

United States in terms of the number of criminal felony filings per judgeship. These 

numbers would seem to dictate the degree to which magistrate judges' time is available for 

civil cases. Nonetheless, the magistrate judges of the Virgin Islands are heavily involved in 

uncontested non-dispositive civil action dispositions. They are also substantially involved in 

civil pre-trial conferences, discovery conferences and settlement conferences. 

Magistrate judge utilization at this juncture is fully maximized, and magistrate judges d 

Barnard and Resnick are clearly linchpins to the effectiveness of the District Court 

operations. 

Findings and Recommendations 

Introduction 

After concluding an examination of the criminal and civil dockets, the Lawyer's -

Advisory Group turned its attention to an analysis of previous measures enacted in the 

January 1, 1992 plan to reduce cost and delay in civil litigation. 

1. Finding - During the period in which the action plan has been in effect, the District 

7 
Court of the Virgin Islands has enacted a new set of Civil Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, a set of Bankruptcy Rules of Practice and Procedure, a set of Admiralty 

Rules of Practice and Procedure and Criminal Rules of Practice and Procedure. It is 

the considered judgment of the Advisory Group that the availability of clearly codified 

and understood rules of practice and procedure has contributed and will contribute to 

a reduction of both cost and delay in practice before the court. 

Recommendation - None. 

2. Finding - A new civil rule requiring a response to a motion for summary judgment 

was enacted as a part of a new set Civil Rules of Practice and Procedure. This rule 

was designed to expedite the disposition of summary judgment motions in that the 

parties would be on notice as to when and how a motion would be disposed of in the 

absence of a response. It is the considered judgment of the Advisory Group that the 

new rule has been effective in its implementation. 

Recommendation - The Advisory Group believes that the party moving for a motion 

for summary judgement should have five days to reply to any response to a motion v / 

for summary judgement. It is therefore recommended that Rule 56.2 of the local 

rules of civil procedure be amended to provide for a reply. 

3. Finding - A major recommendation in the action plan was the adoption of a new local 

rule governing discovery in civil cases (Rule 26.2). 

The effectiveness in reducing cost and delay in terms of the execution of this rule was 

the subject of some discussion and debate. There was a general consensus that the 

limiting of the time and participation limits on the taking of depositions was on the\""" 

whole effective in reducing cost and delay. It was less clear with respect to the rules' 

enumerated cooperative discovery devices as to whether the rule was successful. 

Recommendation - It is recommended that a subcommittee of the Lawyer's Advisory 

- Group, consisting of Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Resnick, and attorneys Britian Bryant, \ 

\...- . 

Adriane Dudley, and Joel Holt review the voluntary discovery aspects of Rule 26.2 

and report to the court. 

4. Finding - Among the new civil rules enacted in the District Court's action plan was 

one governing the use of expert witnesses. Although the Advisory Group found that 

8 
the rule has, in the main, served this area of civil practice well and contributed to 

civil case delay and costs reductions, there is still room for improvement in two 

respects. 

Recommendation - It is recommended that Rule 26.3 (a) be amended to reflect that 

the written report of the expert should in fact be from the expert and written on V 

his/her letterhead. 

It was also suggested that Rule 26.3 (c)(2) should be amended to advise that if a video 

tape of an expert is to be used at trial that the video should be indexed and ~ / ' 

V 

objections thereto submitted in writing. 

5. Finding - A significant component of the District Court's action plan was the 

development of a local rule providing for voluntary court-annexed mediation in a 

broad range of civil cases. To date, the rule has been utilized sparingly for a number 

of reasons including the time required to acquaint the bar and train mediators. 

It was the considered judgement of the Lawyer's Advisory Group that the mediation 

rule should be amended to authorize the magistrate judge or presiding judge broad 

lattitude in ordering any contested civil matter or selected issues to be referred to 

mediation. 

Recommendation - It is recommended that Rule 3.2 of the local rules of civil f\ ~ 

procedure be amended and permit judges to encourage the use of mediation and nor-' 

being bound by the necessity of an agreement of the parties to undertake mediation. 

After examining and analyzing measures previously undertaken to reduce cost and 

delay in civil litigation in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, the Lawyer's Advisory 

Group considered whether additional measures should be recommended in furtherence of 

their statutory charge. Three additional areas were discussed and resulted in the findings and 

recommendations which follow. 

6. Finding - Chief Judge Moore advised the Lawyer's Advisory Group of the need for a 

new and clear set of local rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellate cases coming 

from the Territorial Court frequently entail questions about which courts' rules 

9 
prevail, along with additional elements of both the Third Circuit's local rules and the 

Federal rules of Appellate Procedure come into consideration. Thus, the efficiency of 

appellate practice and concommitant reductions in cost and delay will be well served 

by a clear set of appellate rules. Additionally, Judge Moore indicated the perceived 

value of including in the appellate rules the opportunity for mediation of cases on 

appeal. 

Recommendation - The Lawyer's Advisory Group encouraged and supported the 

completion and enactment of a new set of Local Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

7. Finding - The Lawyer's Advisory Group expressed the perceived need to continue 

support for educational programs for members of the Virgin Islands bar. Recent and 

eminent changes in the jurisdiction of the District Court of the Virgin Islands as well 

as new sets of local rules of Practice and Procedure highlight the need for members 

of the bar to convene and discuss the many changes in progress. It was noted that an 

ALI-ABA Program is planned for early 1994 on st. Thomas, and that to the degree 

possible the day set aside for lawyer education on local matters should be expanded. 

Recommendation - It is recommended that lawyer education be encouraged and 

supported and that the 1994 ALA-ABA Program be expanded to include 

additional time for a discussion of issues related to the District Court of the Virgin 

Islands and the Territorial Court. (It should be noted that this recommendation was in 

fact pursued by Chief Judge Moore and by attorneys Adriane Dudley and Maria 

Hodge and that the referenced ALI-ABA Program has now been expanded to 

accomodate the substance of the referenced recommendation). 

8. Finding - It was the sense of the Lawyer's Advisory Group that the involvement of 

attorneys admitted pro hac vice results in a number of inefficiencies and delays in 

terms of the progress of cases and. the sharing of court appointed pro bono work in 

the Virgin Islands. 

Recommendation - It is recommended that Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.1(3) 

be amended "to make clear that an attorney admitted pro hac vice may participate in 

no more than a total of three (3) cases (including both civil and criminal cases) in a 

10 
given calendar year. It was also suggested that Local Rule of Criminal Procedure 

44.1 also be amended to reference the pro hac vice rule in the Local Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

Conclusions 

It is the considered judgement of the Advisory Group that the workload of the District 

Court of the Virgin Islands is progressing in a business-like and expeditious manner. The 

overall work of the court is impacted negatively by the continuing failure of the Executive 

and Legislative Branches to fill the second authorized judgeship. Indeed, it is the sense of 

the Lawyer's Advisory Group that very serious consideration be given to the authorization to 

a third judgeship for the District Court of the Virgin Islands to accomodate expected growth 

in the years ahead. 

The growth and demands of the rapidly increasing criminal caseload and the 

concommitant growth in the number of criminal defendants is increasingly placing the civil 

docket in a state of jeopardy. The work of the judicial officers and the support staff is 

exemplary, however there are finite limits to even herculean efforts when additional 

resources are.needed today and will be required in the future to enable the court to maintain 

even a semblance of currency. 

Finally, the Advisory Group notes its continuing debt of gratitude to the many 

contributions of Chief Judge Moore, the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands, numerous 

visiting judges authorized by Chief Judge Sloviter of the Third Circuit, the bench, the bar 

and the court's support staff reflecting a concerted dedication to justice, all of which make 

the District Court of the Virgin Islands an institution which works. 

11 
BIOGRAPIDCAL SKETCHES OF THE ADVISORY GROUP 

Honorable Jeffrey L. Resnick, Chair 

B.A. University of Connecticut, 1964; L.L.B. University of Connecticut School of Law, 

1967; Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Virgin Islands, 1969 - 1973; U.S. Magistrate 

Judge, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Honorable Geoffrey W. Barnard, Vice-Chair 

B.A. Allegheny College, J.D. Cornell University, U.S. Magistrate Judge, St. Thomas, 

U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Richard O. Baker 

B.A. New York University, 1972; J.D. Rutgers University School of Law, 1975; 

Assistant Attorney General U.S. Virgin Islands, 1986; Deputy Attorney General Virgin 

Islands Department of Justice, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 

John H. Benham, III 

B.A. Virginia Polytechnic Institut~ and State University, 1980; J.D., cum laude, Southern 

lllinois University, 1984; private practitioner St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Julio A. Brady 

B.A. Catholic University· of Puerto Rico, 1964; J.D. New York Law School, 1969; 

Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Virgin Islands, 1971 - 73; U.S. Attorney for District of 

Virgin Islands, 1973 - 78, Lieutenant Governor, U.S. Virgin Islands, 1983 - 87; private 

practitioner St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Britain H. Bryant 

B.S.L. University of Louisville, 1962; J.D. University of Louisville School of Law, 

1964; Senator, 10th, 11th and 12th Legislatures of the Virgin Islands, 1973 - 1979; 

private practitioner St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. 

James S. Carroll, TIl 

B.A. cum laude New York University, 1966; J.D. Howard University School of Law, 

1970; Director of Community Development, Harlem Legal Services, New York, 1972 -

73; Assistant U.S. Attorriey, U.S. Virgin Islands. . 

Adriane J. Dudley 

B.S. Simmons College, 1969; J.D. Northeastern University School of Law, 1972; 

Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Virgin Islands, 1976 - 78; Assistant Attorney General, 

U.S. Virgin Islands, 1975 - 76; President, Virgin Islands Bar Association, 1980; 

President, Board of Directors, St. Thomas/St. John Chamber of Commerce, 1989; 

private practitioner S1. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 

12 
Terry M. Halpern 

B.A. New York University," 1968; J.D. Brooklyn Law School, 1971; First Assistant 

United States Attorney, District of the Virgin Islands, 1983 - 87; Assistant United States 

Attorney, District of the Virgin Islands, 1979 - 83; Assistant Attorney General, District 

of the Virgin Islands, 1978; Assistant District Attorney, Westchester County, White 

Plains, New York, 1972 - 77; United States Attorney, District of the Virgin Islands. 

Maria T. Hodge 

A.B. University of California at Santa Cruz, 1968; J.D. University of California, 

Berkeley, 1971; Assistant Attorney General, District of the Virgin Islands, 1974; private 

practitioner, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Joel H. Holt 

B.A. Washington and Lee University, 1973; J.D. University of Richmond, T.C. 

Williams School of Law, 1977; Chairman Virgin Islands Law Revision Commission, 

1989; private practitioner St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands; 

James L. Hymes, III 

B.A. Pomona College, 1965; J.D. University of Maryland, 1968; 

President, Virgin Islands Bar Association, 1987; private practitioner St. Thomas, U.S. 

Virgin ~slands. 

Leon Kendall 

B.A. Howard University; 1969; J.D. Howard University School of Law, 1973; 

Chairman of the U.S. Virgin Islands Law Revision Commission; 

General Counsel, Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands. 

Joel W. Marso 

B.A. George Washington University; J.D. Law School, University of Denver; private 

practitioner St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Edgar D. Ross 

B.A. Lincoln University, 1965; J.D. Howard University School of Law, 1970; Senior 

Sitting Judge, Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands, January 1983 - August 1984; 

Judge, Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands, December 1980 - June 1982; Judge, sitting 

by designation, District Court of the Virgin Islands, 1981 - 1982; Attorney General, 

Government of the Virgin Islands, 1977 - 1978; private practitioner st. Croix, U.S. 

Virgin Islands. 

Alicia Torres-James 

University of the Virgin Islands Business Administration; Prime Sponsor - To create the 

Law Reform Commission 17th Legislature of the Virgin Islands; President/General 

Manager Crawford's Travel, Inc. St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. 

13 
Bernard M. VanSluytman 

B.A. Howard University, 1968; J.D. Howard University School of Law, 1973; private 

practitioner St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Calvin H. Wheatley 

Graduate Charlotte Amalie High School, 1944 and selected courses Citibank and Wharton 

College; Executive Assistant to the Governor, 1979 - 1984; business consultant and real 

estate agent, The West Indian Company Ltd. 

EX-OFFICIO' MEMBERS 

Orinn Arnold, Clerk of Court 

B.S. University of the Virgin Islands; Clerk District Court of the Virgin Islands, 1986 -

present. 

William K. Slate, II 

B.A. Wake Forest University, 1965; J.D. University of Richmond T.C. Williams School 

of Law, 1968; Graduate Fellow Institute for Court Management, 1976; S.M.G. Harvard 

University, 1984; M.B.A. Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, 1990. 

President, Justice Research Institute Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

14