UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MICHAEL E. KUNZ 

CLERK OF COURT 

Mr. Abel Mattos 

Administrative Office 

united states Courts 

Room 4-532 

One Columbus Circle, NE 

Washington~ DC 20544 

Dear Abel: 

U.S. COURTHOUSE 

INDEPENDENCE MALL WEST 

601 MARKET STREET 

PHILADELPHIA PA 19106·1797 

May 24, 1996 

CLERK'S OFFICE 

ROOM 2609 

TELEPHONE 

(215) 597 

Enclosed herewith is a copy of a draft 1995 Annual 

Report for the civil Justice Reform Act Advisory Group for the 

united states District Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania. Appendix A contains the report on Self-Executing 

Disclosure in this district. The Advisory Group is meeting on 

June 6th to finalize the Annual Report. I will, send you a copy 

of the final product. 

MEK/mcm 

Enclosure 

Sincerely, 

, 

.... f)'t' ./ -' i .. J ._' .... ( 

./,/ ''', If· ... 

Michael E. Kunz 

Clerk of Court 
CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM ACT ADVISORY GROUP r/ ~ 

FOR ~. rr 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVAN% .t ~II 

1~p 

Chairman 

Robert M. Landis 

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower 

1717 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

(215) 994-2765 

FAX 994-2222 

Members 

Alice W. Ballard 

Michael M. Baylson 

Michael Churchill 

James C. Corcoran 

Andre L. Dennis 

Eve B. Klothen 

Seymour Kurland 

S. Gerald Litvin 

Edward W. Mullinix 

Arthur G. Raynes 

Richard M . Rosenbleeth 

Daniel J. Ryan 

John 0. J. Shellenberger 

J. Clayton Undercoffler, III 

Ex-Ollicio Members 

Honorable Louis C. Bechtle 

Honorable Edward N. Cahn 

Honorable Robert F. Kelly 

Honorable James R. Melinson 

Michael E. Kunz, Clerk of Court 

Reporter 

--A. Leo Levin 

3400 Chestnut Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19104 

(215) 898-7496 

Assistant to Chairman 

Jennifer Clarke 

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower 

1717 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

(215) 994-2105 

TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJ: 

May 24, 1996 

civil Justice Reform Act 

Advisory Group Members 

Michael E. Kunz 

Meeting on June 6, 1996 

Enclosed herewith is the draft 1995 

Annual Report which includes as Appendix A the 

report on Self-Executing Disclosure. The report 

has undergone several revisions and all members of 

the Advisory Group are encouraged to submit any 

comments on the report in writing prior to the 

meeting for review and discussion at the June 6th 

meeting. All comments should be submitted 

directly to Professor Leo Levin with copies to 

Chairman Bob Landis and other members of the 

Advisory Group. 

There will be a preliminary discussion 

on Local Rule 26 Standing Order - Re: depositions 

and interrogatories, copies of which were 

forwarded to you with the April 26th memo. 

I look forward to seeing you at the 

meeting on June 6th at 9:30 a.m. in the Ceremonial 

Courtroom. If you are unable to attend please 

contact this office at 597-8454. 

MEK/mcm 

Enclosure 
DRAFf 

ANNUAL REPORT 

May, 1996 

INTRODUCTION 

The Civil Justice Refonn Act of 1990 requires each United States district court that has 

promulgated a civil justice delay and reduction plan to reassess the state of its docket at regular 

intervals for the purpose of determining whether further action is needed, all in the interest of 

reducing "cost and delay. ,,' This is the third report in that series. 

It is appropriate to take this occasion to report, in addition, on developments affecting the 

timetable imposed by the Congress on the courts, changes in the personnel of the Advisory 

Group, and a major study of the operation of a highly controversial provision in the Court's plan, 

that governing self-executing disclosure, conducted by the Advisory Group in the discharge of its 

statutory obligation. 

We begin with the state of the docket. 

L 

THE.STATE OF THE DOCKET 

From the perspective of the litigants and of the bar, two measures of the state of the docket 

are of paramount importan.ce. First, is the time it .ordinarily takes to dispose of-civil litigation, and 

second, because some cases await disposition for years rather than months, what percentage of 

the cases remain in court ~nresolved for more than three years. In more technical tenns, the first 

concern is reflected in the median time from filing to dispositi<;>n ~d, in addition, the median time 

from filing to trial. The second, is the number and percentage of civil cases over three years old. 

I 28 U.S.C. §475. 
For the year ended September 30, 1995, the median time from the filing of civil cases until 

disposition was six m~nths, speediest in the circuit and ranking number seven of the ninety-four 

United States district courts in the country.2 This figure includes, of course, cases disposed of on 

motion and by settlement. For those cases that are not so disposed of, the median time from filing 

until trial is of central importance. In the Eastern District this pgure is 12 months, the best in the 

circuit, fully one-third less than the national median (18 months), and ranking the court ninth in 

the country. 

The percentage of civil cases over three 'years old is a minuscule 1.1%, the best record in the 

circuit and the sixth best in the country. The national average is more than five times as large 

(5.6%). Bench trials awaiting decision longer than six months are not a problem. There was one 

such case noted in our last annual report~ currently there are none. The number of motions 

awaiting decision for more than 180 days did increase. There were 63 at the last reporting period. 

However, with the number hovering around the 300 mark in other metropolitan courts, this 

figure, while clearly a matter of concern, should be put in perspective. 

We do not detail the data with respect to the court's record in dealing simultaneously with a 

heavy criminal caseload.3 Nor does this record result from a wide discrepancy in available judicial 

resources. 4 On the contrary, a heavy volume of cases continue to be assigned to this district by the 

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,s and for, statistical purposes relevant to this analysis they are 

.2 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Federal Court Management Statistics' (1995). 

3 Median time from filing to disposition for criminal felony cases was 7.7 months, a little over one 

month longer than the national median. Id. 

4 Weighted caseload per judgeship for the same year, a measure reflecting the burdens to be 

anticipated in dealing with a multi-party anti-trust case compared to an action to recover on a 

defaulted government loan, was 405 for this district compared to 448 nationally. Thus, the former 

was slightly over 90% of the latter. 

s See 28 U.S.C. § 1407 which provides for such transfer where civil actions with common 

questions of fact are pending in different districts. Transfer is for purpose of consolidated pretrial 

proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. §1407(a). In practice, however, many of these are finally resolved in 

the assignee district. ' 

2 
The contribution of court-annexed arbitration, mandatory but non-binding, need not be 

rehearsed once more. Suffice it to note that the contribution remains significant. In calendar year 

1995 the court referred 16% of the total number of civil cases filed. 

Included in this report are graphs, prepared by the Administrative Office of the United States 

Courts, charting relevant data over a ten-year period and ' affording an easily understood visual 

representation of the position of the Eastern District among other courts in the Third Circuit and. 

in the country. 

n. 

THE NATIONAL TIMETABLE 

As originally conceived, the Civil Iustice Reform Act created a three-year experiment in 

which every district court was to participate, but in which demonstration districts and pilot courts 

had a special role. -The three-year experiment was to be followed by an appropriate period during 

which "an independent organization with expertise in the area of Federal court management"· 

would complete its evaluation of the experience of the pilot courts and submit a report to the 

Judicial Conference of the United States. That body was charged with submitting its report to the 

Congress "Not later than December 31, 1995."9 

The· schedule was unrealistic; among other things, many, if not most, of the cases most in 

need of study, those that tend to linger in court, would not have been terminated. The Rand Civil 

Justice Institute, the independent organization that was selected, asked for more time and the 

Congress extended the deadline by a year. 10 

8 P.L. 101-650 § 105 (c)(I). 

9Id. 

10 For discussion and citation of authorities, both for this amendment and one that followed a year 

later, see Margaret L. Sanner and Carl Tobias, The Civil Iustice Reform Act Amendment Act of 

1995, 164 F.R.D. 577 (1996). 

4 
A parallel study of demonstration districts was being conducted by the Federal Judicial 

Center, but through an oversight the legislation failed to extend this deadline as well. To J:;orrect 

the oversight, and to avoid a disparity in deadlines for complimentary studies, Congress enacted 

corrective legislation in the Civil Justice Reform Act Amendment of 1995. II 

Based on information currently available, Rand will complete its report during the current 

calendar year and submit it to the Judicial Conference before the end of December, 1996. 

Precisely how soon thereafter the Judicial Conference will be able to submit its report to the 

Congress remains problematic and a further legislative extension is under discussion. 

m. 

SELF-EXECUTING DISCLOSURE 

The most controversial provision of the Plan recommended by. the Advisory Group and 

adopted by the court was the requirement that litigants make disclosure of specified information 

without awaiting a discovery request by the opposing 'party.ll Those who supported such a 

provision envisioned increased efficiency, a reduction in the number of technical objections to 

discovery requests, and even the possibility of reducing acrimony and fostering a spirit of 

cooperation in civil litigation. Those opposed thought the rule caused additional delay and 

constituted a serious attack on the adversary system. 

To learn more about how self-executing disclosure was working in fact in this district,13 the 

Advisory Group, with the able assistance of Professor Abba Krieger, Professor of Statistics at the 

11 Id. 

12 See § 4.01 of the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan. The full text is set forth in 

Attachment 1 of the full report of the survey, which appears at Appendix A. That report contains 

a more elaborate statement, with citation of authorities, of the purpose behind self-executing 

disclosure and of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a). 

13 Varying standards defining precisely what has to be disclosed, make a significant difference in 

the implementation of the rule. The national rule, as finally promulgated, has been the object of 

. particular criticism. A knowledgeable observer of federal civil litigation put it this way in the 

course of an Advisory Group discussion: "I think certainly everyone I've talked to agrees that 

what they put in [F.R.C.P.] 26(a) is really an abomination. The criterion for what has to be 

5 
Wharton School 'of the University of Pennsylvania, surVeyed 4,000 attorneys of record in cases 

subject to the rule aJld received and analyzed over 1,000 usable responses. In addition, the 

Advisory Group sought the views of 34 judicial officers, virtually each one of whom - had 

substantial experience with cases to which the rule applied. 

The complete report of the findings of that survey, as well as supporting material concerning 

methodology, is to be found in Appendix A. Only a brief account of the data ' relevant to an 

understanding of the recommendation of the Advisory Group to the court and the action the court 

took thereafter, is included here. 

On the major premise question of whether some rule mandating self-executing disclosure 

should remain in effect, of the 1,000-plus attorneys expressing their views, over 60% responded in 

the affirmative. 14 Among the 34 judicial officers surveyed, 33 of whom had experience with more 

than 20 cas.es subject to the rule, an even greater proportion -- 85% -- .favored retention of some 

rule: 29 voted yes, as against four in the negative and one not voting. 

This does not reflect an uncritical vote in favor of maintaining the status quo. Fo~using on 

suggestions that had emerged from earlier examination of problems with the present rule, 

respondents were asked whether they would favor amending its provisions to provide that 

discovery could proceed as soon as the litigant herself had made disclosure. This would, of 

course, be a significant change from the present rule under which discovery typically awaits 

disclosed is just impossible, in my judgment, and completely inconsistent with the notice pleading 

philosophy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedur~.1t (tr. of meeting of Nov. 13, 1995, p. 10). 

Of course, the national rule, by its terms, really offered each district court an option, allowing 

it to accept, modify or reject its provisions. The rule in operation in this district sets forth a very 

different standard for disclosure and the success or lack of success of the one is not necessarily 

applicable to the other. . 

It should also be noted that a subcommittee charged with considering whether the requirement 

of disclosure should be continued by the court considered whether this district should adopt the 

national standard, i.e. the formulation ofF. R. C. P. 26(a). It recommended against that course 

and this recommendation was· accepted by the Advisory Group. 

14 On the question of whether some rule providing for self-executing disclosure should remain in 

effect, 667 respondents, or 61.2%, voted yes and 423,38.8%, voted no. . 

6 
completion of disclosure by both sides. IS Among the -lawyers such a change was favored by 

almost three-fourths <?fthe respondents with only 15% opposed and about 10% neutral. 16 _ . 

Among the judges, there was a similar response. Close to three-fourths of the judicial 

officers favored allowing discovery once the litigant had made its own disclosure with less than 

12% opposed.1 7 

There remained for consideration the question of whether formal discovery should be · 

allowed even before the party seeking discovery has made disclosure. The subcommittee did not 

favor such a change. In its view, this entailed the risk of scuttling the entire provision for 

disclosure for the need to complete ones own disclosure before seeking fonnal discovery is a 

simple, powerful incentive for compliance. And the subcommittee was mindful of the very heavy 

affirmation by the respondents of the desirability of retaining a requirement of disclosure. 

It is true that a majority of the respondents in our survey, both lawyers and judicial officers, 

favored allowing discovery even befor~ a litigant had made disclosure. The votes, however, were 

close. Among the judges a change of one vote would have effected the opposite result. II Among 

the lawyers, the results were similar.19 Accordingly, the subcommittee did not recommend 

amendment of the Plan to reflect this preference. 

15 Section 4.01(b) of the Plan provides: "Except by leave of court or upon agreement of the 

parties, a party may not seek discovery from any source before making the disclosures under 

subdivision (a)(I), and may not seek discovery from another party before the date such 

disclosures have been made by, or are due from, such other party." 

16 Respondents were asked to express their feelings about the following statement: "Assuming 

some kind of self-executing disclosure will remain, what are your feelings about the following: .... 

Permit a party to institute' discovery once the party has made its self-executing disclosures without 

necessarily waiting for the opposing party's self-executing disclosure." 

17 Specifically, 25 judicial officers favored a1lowi.lg such discovery, 4 were neutral, one did not 

answer, and 4 were opposed. 

18 Fourteen judicial officers favored such a change, 13 were opposed and 7 were neutral. 

19 The lawyers were asked to express their feelings, see note 4 supr~ with respect to the following 

statement: "Permit a party to institute discovery without awaiting any developments with respect 

to self-executing disclosure." The results: 382 (35.0.% said "strongly agree," 215 (19.7%) 

"mildly agree", 122 (11.2%) were neutral, 170 (15.6%) said "mildly disagree'" and 201 (18.4%) 

said "strongly disagree." 

7 
By November, 1995 the deadlines imposed by the-original statute had been extended for a 

year and the AdvisoI1': Group met to consider what it should recommend to the court with_respect 

to self-executing disclosure. It had the benefit of the results of the survey and of detailed 

consideration by a subcommittee. 

In the opinion of the subcommittee, the views expresse4 by the respondents.to the survey, 

reflecting substantial experience, were -entitled to far more weight than any theoretical counterarguments that might be offered.20 Accordingly, the subcommittee was of the view that the 

Advisory Group recommend to the court that the requirement of self-executing disclosure be 

continued but that amendment of the Plan permitting plaintiffs to initiate discovery once they had 

completed disclosure was desirable. 

The Advisory Group readily agreed that the basic requirement of disclosure should be 

continued for another year, but it recommended against any amendment of its provisions at that 

time. A number of factors entered into the decision. First, the issue was continuation one more 

year, at most two, and the primary reason for the extension was to facilitate study by the Rand 

Corporation of the operation of plans here and elsewhere. Changes in the middle of the study 

period could only hamper that effort. 

Then, too, the members of the Advisory Group were mindful of the expressed concern of 

members of the bar over the country that continual amendment and change imposed a heavy 

burden on litigators. Moreover, the members of the Advisory Group recognized that it takes some 

time for active litigators to adjust to new rules so that change would not yield new and useful data 

over the short range. 

After weighing all the factors, the Advisory Group recommenrled to the judges of the 

Eastern District that they continue the present requirements of Section 4.01 of the CiVil Expense 

20 The subcommittee gave no serious consideration to recommending that this district adopt the 

pattern set forth in the national rules, which ties the commencement of discovery to the discovery 

conference mandated by F.R.C.P. 26(f). This seems to invite even more delay and. in any event, 

this district has opted out of the requirement that a discovery conference be required in virtually 

every case. -

8 
and Delay Reduction Plan, without amendment, but with. renewed emphasis' on the desirability of 

making perfectly clear, particularly for the benefit of lawyers from outside the district,_that its 

provisions do not apply to cases on the Special Management Track. 

We are pleased to note that by Order of December 11, 1995, the court extended the Civil 

Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan until December 31, 1997, and did so without 

amendment. In the course of its order it took occasion to clarify that the provisions governing 

self-executing disclosure do not apply to cases on the Special Management Track. 

IV. 

CHANGES IN THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE ADVISORY GROUP 

The Civil Justice Reform Act envisioned a rotating membership for the Advisory GrOUpS.ll 

Some changes are automatic. For example, when Michael R. Stiles succeeded Michael M. 

Baylson as U. S. Attorney in the district, he became a member of the Advisory Group in 

accordance with the statute.n When Honorable Edward N. Cahn succeeded Honorable Louis C. 

Bechtle as Chief Judge of the Eastern District no change in the membership ' of the Advisory 

Group was necessary as both had been and both remained as ex-officio members. 

In June 1994 Robert Robinson replaced James C. Corcoran as a member of the Advisory 

Group. In February 1995 Lloyd R. Ziff replaced S. Gerald Litvin and in April 1996 Francis P. 

Newell and Jennifer R. Clarke were added to the Advisory Group. Each is an active litigator in 

the court and each has a background of interest in and concern with the smooth functioning of the 

court in the disposition of civil litigation. 

21 See 28 U.S.C. §478(d). 

n 28 U.S.C. §478(d). 

9 
· . 

V. 

CONCLUSION 

On the whole, the Civil Iustice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan is working well in this 

district. The Advisory Group recommend,s against amendment at this time. It is appropriate, 

however, to record once again the very high regard which the members of the Advisory Group 

and, more generally, the members of the bar, have for the judges of the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania and for the staff they have assembled, all of whom make this record possible. 

10 
CIVIL CASES PENDING 

OVER 3 YEARS 

30 _ '.Ql-lIIti~-----.. 

.."., \ 

25 , , / \ 

U) ~ . J / 1 tI) 

-< 20 " 

~ . "'" 1zI tii I 

o 15 I , 

~ ~a ,.-=X=llI.~ 0 i1 I 

.... 

~ U 

~ 10 

J 

I , , ::S'. ~.~ ~ 5 

o I I I I I I . I . T .1 

1986* 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30 

I ~ NATION --- PA-E I 

.' • YEAR ~NDED JUNE 30 
CIVIL CASES FILED 

12 ~----------------~--------------~------------------, 

10,972 

10 

00 

~ 

til 

. :'4 ~ .-... I 8,021 r.) ~ 8 ~= 

O~ 

~6 ~..d 6 

Ib 4 I 

... 

3,970 

,.0 3,360 3,444 3,548 . 3,6}9. 

• • • 

2,309 2,244 2,437 2,44.5 2,515 2,642 

2 ~ 

1986 1987 1988 1989 . 1990 1991 · 1992 1993 1994 1995 

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30 

r~-NATioNAL AVG --- 3rd CIRCUIT AVG --- PA-E I 
CIVIL CASES TERMINATED 

14,000 ~----------------------------------------------------------~ 

12 000 I ~ .L_, __ '" '0 

~ 

I \\ 7 

rn 

~ 10,000 L .~ 

f:) U 8,000 I • 7,960 _'7_7111 ~4 :z_.~ ~ 

~ 

~ 6,000 I 

~ 

4,000 I ~-3,655.::Q!Z 3 ~79--"-76. 3jS8()w=i;s40 ~~i 3, 28 .3.312- , 6 ., .-J,~ 

2000 I I I I "'T"-'-~-T r - I I ,. I I 

, 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30 

I ~ NATIONAL AVG --- 3rd CIRCUIT A VG --- PA-E I 
MEDIAN DISPOSITION TIME 

CIVIL CASES 

11 ~--------------~------------------~-------------

10 

9 

00 

== 

~ 8 

o . 

7 

6 

10 10 

5 I · 

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 199~ 1993 1994 1995 

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30 

[ ~NATION --- .3rd CIRCUIT --- PA-E I 

. EXCLUDES: LAND CONDEMNATION, PRISONER PETITIONS, AND DEPORTATION REVIEWS 
CIVIL RIGHTS CASES FILED 

1550 

1~50 7 \ ' , 

00 i----------------------------------~7~/~~~~.~1,l45 'u 

~ ~ 1150 950 i-~~--~---------~~;?t7~r~------~ I 

o 

~ 

~ 750 I ____ 685 

. i 550 I ==-~~~ 391 

~ol ~ 

150 

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30 

I ~ NATIONAL AVG --II- 3rd CIRCUIT A VG --- PA-E I 
MEDIAN DISPOSITION TIME 

CIVIL RIGHTS CASES 

12 ~------------------------------------------------------J 

11 

10 

til 9 

== 

~ 8 

o 

~ 7 

6 

5 

___ 11 ...... 1~ 

~ OLOL ~ :L ... 

4 _4 

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30 

[~ NATI()N -a- 3rd CIRCUIT ---=-PA.:E~ 

10 

8 

7 
6 

t : 4 + 

00 

== 3 0 

~ 2 

1 

' 0 

MEDIAN DISPOSITION TIME 

PRISONER PETITION CASES 

6 6 

~ / ~ 5 5 

X X X X • • • x: X 

4 4 4 

• •• • 

3 

2 2 2/ ""2 2 2 2 

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 .1992 1993 1994 1995 

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30 

I~ NATION · ---- 3rd CIRCUIT --- PA-E I 
CRIMINAL CASES CLOSED 

WITH MORE THAN 3 DEFENDANTS 

30~--------------------------------------------

r/) 25 I ------------------------------------------~~/~~~~~~ 7 . " 

~ . r/) 

< U 20 :7 ~ 

~ 

o 

~ 

5 ~--~----~------+-

22 

-yIJ ~9 

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30 

I-I- NATIONAL AVG --- 3rd CIRCUIT AVG ---- PA-E I 
MEDIAN DISPOSITION TIME OF CRIMINAL 

CASES WITH MORE THAN 3 DEFENDANTS 

10 ~------------------------------------~--~-----------------. 

9 I / =-

8 :> .c > < "" < r::;:> I c/""'" 7 ::c:::::: 

~ 

Z E-4 7 I I I "X --== I r J ---- :>= 

o 

~ 

,. 

6 " ( ......" ,,,.....- > J < » 

5 I { ...::a. J ::::> 

4 r 

1 

[~ NATION ___ 3rd CIRCUIT --- PA-E I 

MEDIAN TIME COMPUTED ONLY WHERE THERE ARE 10 OR MORE CASES 

4 1995 
CRIMINAL FELONY DEFENDANTS 

FILED PER JUDGESHIP 

60 ~------------------------------------~----------------------~ 

56 

~. + ~~" ~ 53 

~ ~O .~ :;;x=====""" . >-.f2.:=-~ . I 

~ ~ 

~ 40 . ---i 

~ 

o 

~ 

~ '! 30 26 

20 I I I I I I I I =>.-= . I 

1986* 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30 

I-I-- NATION ---- PA-E I 

• YEAR ENDED JUNE 30 
CI'.l 

== 

MEDIAN DISPOSITION TIME 

FELONY DEFENDANTS 

9 0.0 

/ '\. 8 I ,., Z 7 <1.7 

7 I / . -

~ 6 i ~ ~;f .... r~ . I ~ 5 I 7 ,c 7' ----= 

4 I 3.9 _____ F=-'~~-::.ilC..=----

3 ~~~--~----~----~----~----~----~----__ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~~ 

1986* 1987 1988 1989 . 1990 1991 ·1992 1993 1994 1995 

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30 

1-:lE- NATION ---- PA-E I 

• YEAR ENDED JUNE 30 
DEATH PENALTY CASES FILED 

200~--------------------------------~------1 

176 

~ 150 --~14~1~--------~~y~ - .. /~---

00 ___ ~~~~ __ 

< I 

' U LI __ 

' / ~ 100 I 79 ~ 

i 50 I / 

o 0 8 6 

o -+-1 -----4-

1 0 5 3 

14 9 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30 

~NATION 3rd CIRCUIT. PA-E