SJI Newsletter

March 2020 | Volume 30, No. 6

COVID-19 and SJI Operating Status

SJI staff located in the Reston, Virginia office are currently operating under maximum

telework flexibility for employees. During this period, SJI remains fully operational and

focused on fulfilling its mission to improve the administration of justice in state courts.

Current grantees should email their required quarterly reports, final reports, requests for

reimbursement, extension request letters, and any other documentation

to contact@sji.gov.

Given the impact of COVID-19 on state court operations, SJI will expedite consideration of

grant extension requests. 

SJI will continue to provide updated information, and thank you for your patience during

this time. We appreciate your commitment to providing access to justice during these

challenging times. More resources for state courts and COVID-19 are available on the 

National Center for State Courts (NCSC) pandemic website.

CONTACT SJI:

Email: contact@sji.gov

Tel: 571.313.8843
State Courts Take Steps to

Protect the Public from the Coronavirus

Our nation’s state courts are taking a host of extraordinary measures to protect their

employees and the public from the coronavirus while maintaining access to justice. Court

leaders are turning to their emergency preparedness plans and following directives from

their state supreme courts. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) also has several

resources to help courts through this public health emergency at www.ncsc.org/pandemic.

The NCSC has created a data visualization that provides an at-a-glance look at what state

courts are doing, and is monitoring how state courts are dealing with the pandemic. Here’s

an overview of how courts are responding:

Postponing jury trials and non-emergency hearings.

Using video conferencing in courts that regularly employ that technology.

Extending deadlines for litigants who owe fines and fees.

Encouraging lawyers to use e-filing to submit documents.

Cleaning courthouses more often and more thoroughly.
Many states have issued directives that allow local court officials to decide how to reduce

public traffic in courts. Various courts in those states have responded by postponing jury

trials and other proceedings, and barring access to those who show coronavirus

symptoms.

In many other states, supreme courts have ordered lower courts to take specific actions:

Connecticut will designate one building in each of its 13 judicial districts as "priority

1" courthouses, and the Hartford and Bridgeport courthouses will handle juvenile

matters. Other than those who will work in those courthouses, as many court

employees as possible will work from home.

Rhode Island has canceled court proceedings. Tennessee canceled in-person

hearings through the end of March, as did Arizona and Hawaii. Maine postponed inperson court events, with exceptions, through May 1, and vacated warrants for

unpaid fines and fees.

Virginia postponed “non-essential, non-emergency” proceedings in all circuit and

district courts until at least April 6. Arkansas issued a similar directive that also

included appellate courts.

Florida suspended criminal and civil jury trials until at least March 27, as well grand

jury proceedings and jury selection proceedings. Colorado postponed them through

April 3, and Idaho postponed them until at least April 10. North Dakota did so until

April 24.

Minnesota, New Mexico and several other states are only allowing current jury trials

to proceed during the next two or three weeks.

Texas ordered court restrictions until May 8 and urged court employees to use

teleconferencing and videoconferencing whenever possible.

In Puerto Rico, courts will handle “only urgent matters,” such as protection orders

and other efforts to protect individuals, until at least March 30.

Alaska has told the public to stay away from courts unless “absolutely necessary.”

Oklahoma judges have been advised to reschedule all non-jury trials and hearings.

NCSC will continue to monitor what courts are doing to curb the effects of this pandemic.

Check here for daily updates.
Most Judges Don’t Feel Prepared

to Deal With COVID-19

The National Judicial College (NJC) hosted a free webcast “The Judge’s Role in

Responding to a Pandemic,” on March 19th. The NJC’s will hold another pandemic

webcast on March 26th.

In light of the recent coronavirus outbreak, the NJC’s Question of the Month for March

asked NJC alumni: “Do you feel adequately prepared to make judicial decisions involving

the coronavirus or a similar public health emergency?” Of the 316 who responded, almost

6 in 10 said “no.” They said they do not feel adequately prepared to deal with the potential

effects of an outbreak and quarantine, such as how to weigh personal rights against public

safety, how to ensure continuity of court operations, and whether to relax evidentiary rules

and allow video testimony to avoid infection. Several judges cited the need for reliable

information on the virus to make informed decisions.

“Our court has not provided us any information regarding contingency plans for a public

health emergency, and there are confirmed cases in our state,” wrote one judge

(anonymously), as was most often the case. “I feel absolutely unprepared and uninformed

about what to expect and am concerned about the lack of forward-focused leadership in

our state and local courts.”

Another pointed out that the poll question presupposes that there will be a way to test

millions of people and have adequate resources to quarantine those who either test

positive, or have been in contact with someone who has tested positive.

Other concerns included:

How to manage time-sensitive hearings.

Knowing when to issue orders to close a public event or quarantine.
What to do if jails become infected and how to proceed with convictions, bond

release, etc.

Vulnerable populations without access to health care who come before the court.

The virus spreading easily among juries and court personnel who come into close

contact with the public.

Staff training

Among the 41 percent of judges who said that they do feel adequately prepared, the

majority said video conferences and telecommunications could easily become the new

status quo. Some judges said that their states are providing education, and are examining

legal precedents with respect to quarantines and other related issues. Judges from

Pennsylvania recommended their state’s Public Health Law Bench Book—published

during the SARS outbreak—as a resource for judges.

One commenter who self-identified as a Washington state Board of Industrial Insurance

Appeals judge wrote, “As in other analogous circumstances (i.e., very severe weather,

earthquake, threats and the like), one of the largest challenges is preparing oneself

psychologically to get out of our business-as-usual entrenchment to make wise decisions

recognizing extraordinary circumstances. Denial can be as much a fault as panic or

overreaction.”

Another anonymous judge expressed the belief that the “proper path forward” should be

“discoverable” from “existing law and judicial principles,” given enough good information

about the nature and scope of the emergency.

For more information about COVID-19, pandemics generally, and continuity of operations,

please visit https://tinyurl.com/Pandemic-Benchbook and https://www.ncsc.org/pandemic.
In response to requests from state court policymakers for guidance, the National Center for State 

Courts (NCSC) and IAALS, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, 

published a briefing paper titled, Preventing Whack-a-Mole Management of Consumer Debt Cases. 

The paper describes problems associated with consumer debt collection cases and the impact of 

promising reforms implemented in New York State and elsewhere. It then proposes that such 

reforms be expanded to apply to all types of consumer debt collection cases and to prevent 

problems at each stage of litigation, including post-judgment proceedings. It is one of several 

briefing papers, self-assessment tools, and other resources developed under a grant from the State 

Justice Institute (SJI) (SJI-P-16-231) to implement civil justice reforms endorsed by the Conference 

of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators. 

Americans are drowning in debt – an estimated $4 trillion or roughly $13,000 for every man, 

woman, and child in the United States – large numbers of whom struggle to repay their debts, 

especially debts incurred to cover routine living expenses, emergency situations, and out-of-pocket 

medical costs. Many then find themselves as defendants in consumer debt collection cases filed in 

state courts. These cases pose tremendous challenges to state courts due not only to their high 

volume, but also the distinctive characteristics of defendants, who are overwhelmingly 

unrepresented, often intimidated by court procedures, and uninformed about their substantive rights 

or how to assert themselves court. State and local courts rarely have sufficient resources and 

expertise to carefully scrutinize claims, and identify and correct errors, before a judgment is entered 

or post-judgment enforcement proceedings begin.

Over the past decade, state courts have identified key points in the litigation process where

problems are likely to occur in consumer debt collection litigation and have begun to take steps to 

address those problems. But these solutions have been implemented on a piecemeal basis that 

focus on discrete types of consumer debt, the litigation posture of the case (contested or 

uncontested), the stage of litigation, or the court in which the case was filed. Although preliminary 

research on these solutions suggests that they can be highly effective, their impact has been 

limited due to the small number of courts that have implemented reforms, and the limits of the 

reforms themselves.

The briefing paper and other materials are available at www.ncsc.org/civil.

New White Paper Addresses Gap

on Consumer Debt and Court ProceedingS
New Funding Opportunity for State Courts:

BJA’s FY 2020 COSSAP Site-Based Solicitation and Webinar

The Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and Substance Abuse Program (COSSAP) was

developed as part of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) legislation.

COSSAP’s purpose is to provide financial and technical assistance to states, units of local

government, and Indian tribal governments to develop, implement, or expand

comprehensive efforts to identify, respond to, treat, and support those impacted by illicit

opioids, stimulants, and other drugs of abuse. With over $150 million in available grant

funding under this opportunity, local and state courts are encouraged to apply! 

Please see the detailed information below regarding the solicitation and plan to participate

in the informational webinar on March 31, 2020 at 2pm ET by registering via

the link below. You are also encouraged to visit www.grants.gov to research and apply for

additional opportunities.

About BJA's COSSAP

The Bureau of Justice Assistance’s (BJA) Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Program (COAP)

was developed as part of the 2016 Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA).

Since 2017, BJA has supported innovative work in more than 300 COAP sites and

demonstration projects.

In 2020, responding to upward trends in the abuse of other drugs in many

American communities, COAP was renamed the Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and

Substance Abuse Program (COSSAP) in order to support jurisdictions’ efforts to reduce

the impact of opioids, stimulants, and other substances on individuals and communities,

including reducing the number of overdose fatalities and mitigating the impacts on crime

victims by supporting comprehensive, collaborative initiatives.

New COSSAP Site-Based Funding Opportunity

BJA is seeking applications to develop, implement, or expand comprehensive programs in

response to illicit opioids, stimulants, or other substances of abuse through COSSAP.

Awards will be made in two categories for the following amounts:
Category 1: Local or Tribal Applications

Subcategory 1a – An urban area or large county with a population greater

than 500,000: up to $1,200,000

Subcategory 1b – A suburban area or medium-size county with a

population between 100,000 and 500,000: up to $900,000

Subcategory 1c – A rural area or small county (as defined in the eligibility

section) with a population of fewer than 100,000 or a federally recognized

Indian tribe: up to $600,000

Category 2: State Applications

Applications from states on behalf of county, local, municipal, or tribal

communities: up to $6,000,000

Period of performance start date: October 1, 2020

Period of performance duration: 36 months

All applications are due by 11:59 p.m., ET, on May 21, 2020.

Visit https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/opportunities/bja-2020-17023 for solicitation

information, eligibility details, and application guidelines.

COSSAP Site-Based Solicitation Webinar

Want to learn more? BJA will be hosting a COSSAP site-based solicitation webinar

on March 31, 2020, at 2:00 p.m., ET. Register at http://s.iir.com/COSSAP2020.
Unifying these proceedings, which often leads to better and faster outcomes for families, is

one of 36 recommendations NCSC consultants made in a report they recently presented to

Marion County (Indianapolis), Indiana circuit and superior court judges and administrators.

The report comes at a time as the NCSC continues its work on the Family Justice

Initiative (FJI) – a massive effort to examine ways to improve the administration of justice

in family and domestic relations courts nationwide.

The report, while written for Marion County, could serve as a template for courts

nationwide, said Alicia Davis, one of two NCSC consultants who presented the report in

Indianapolis.

“NCSC has provided a vision for this new model, complete with concrete recommendations

and research grounded in evidence-based practices from around the country,” according to

a statement from Marion County’s Executive Committee judges.

NCSC recommends the county:

Apply the “One-Family, One-Judge” concept in order to provide effective

coordination of all services;

Create “One-Family, One-Judge” case management teams, in which the same judge

hears all court cases involving a family every time the family comes to court;

Provide regular training for judges and other court employees; and

Offer options other than litigation to resolve cases. These options could include

mediation, arbitration, or other methods, such as online dispute resolution.

“NCSC's recommendations touch upon each necessary aspect of the Family Division,” the

judges said, “...with guiding principles that we can implement in light of our goal of

ultimately becoming an innovative leader in family justice.”

NCSC Recommends State-of-the-Art

Innovations for Family-Centered Disputes

With a new courthouse opening in Indianapolis in 2022, the National Center for State

Courts (NCSC) is helping court officials unify paternity, domestic relations, probate, and

juvenile court proceedings to create a more efficient and effective way to settle familycentered disputes.
SJI Board of Directors

Chair

John D. Minton, Jr.

Chief Justice

Supreme Court of Kentucky

Frankfort, KY

Vice Chair

Daniel J. Becker

State Court Administrator 

(ret.) Utah AOC

Salt Lake City, UT

Secretary

Gayle A. Nachtigal

Senior Circuit Court Judge

Washington County Circuit 

Court Hillsboro, OR

Treasurer

David V. Brewer

Justice

Oregon Supreme Court

Salem, OR

Jonathan Lippman

Chief Judge of New York (ret.)

of Counsel

Latham & Watkins, LLP

New York, NY

Chase T. Rogers

Chief Justice (ret.)

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Partner

Pitney Day, LLP

Hartford, CT

Wilfredo Martinez

Senior Judge

State of Florida

Orlando, FL

Marsha J. Rabiteau

Executive Director

Center for Human Trafficking Court 

Solutions Bloomfield, CT

Hernan D. Vera

Principal

Bird Marella P.C.

Los Angeles, CA

Isabel Framer

President

Language Access Consultants, LLC

Copley, OH

Jonathan D. Mattiello

Executive Director

The State Justice Institute is a federally-funded, non-profit corporation established by

federal law in 1984 to improve the quality of justice in the state courts.

Products and Resources

Since 2011, SJI has designated the library at the National Center for State Courts as

the official repository of published work related to SJI-supported grant projects. You

can search the ecollection online by using the term, State Justice Institute.

Share the News

SJI uses Facebook and Twitter to promote the work of its grantees and also shares

information of interest to the entire state court community.If your organization’s work

complements ours, let us know and we will share.