DOI: 10.3886/icpsr09965.v1
title: Alternative Procedures for Reducing Delays in Criminal Appeals: Sacramento, Springfield, and Rhode Island, 1983-1984
title: Version 1

description: This data collection investigates the effectiveness of
 alternative approaches to reducing delays in criminal
 appeals. Interviews were conducted with court representatives from
 districts employing differing alternatives. These districts and
 approaches are (1) case management in the Illinois Appellate Court,
 Fourth District, in Springfield, (2) staff screening for submission
 without oral argument in the California Court of Appeals, Third
 District, in Sacramento, and (3) fast-tracking procedures in the Rhode
 Island Supreme Court. Parallel interviews were conducted in public
 defenders' offices in three additional locations: Colorado, the
 District of Columbia, and Minnesota. Questions focused on the backlogs
 courts were facing, the reasons for the backlogs, and the
 consequences. Participants were asked about the fairness and possible
 consequences of procedures employed by their courts and other courts
 in this study. Case data were acquired from court records of the
Springfield, Sacramento, and Rhode Island courts.
description: Justice Resources conducted this study in
 response to the growing caseload backlog in state criminal appellate
 courts. The criminal appeals process is a vital feature of the legal
 system because it challenges lower court convictions, thereby further
 ensuring due process. Recently the volume of appeals has been
 increasing at a much higher rate than crime, arrests, and
 prosecutions. Criminal appellate courts have been forced to modify
 their procedures in response to increasing caseloads. Since very
 little was known about these modified procedures, this study was
 conducted to examine three alternatives that have become settled
 policy in the courts that employ them. The purpose of the study was to
 clarify problems with such procedures and to gauge the prospects for
 further successful appellate reform. A procedure called "case
 management," used in the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District,
 in Springfield was chosen as a subject for this study. With this
 process, every appeal was given an achievable time frame. Deadlines
 were made clear in a scheduling order which was strictly
 enforced. Also selected was the California Court of Appeals, Third
 District, in Sacramento for its procedure of "staff screening for
 submission without oral argument." This process was meant to reduce
 the amount of time spent on nonargued appeals. Time prior to briefing
 was not affected. Each case was reviewed by a three-judge panel which
 recommended a waiver of argument if it felt argument was not
 necessary. If argument was waived, the appeal was simply submitted to
 the same panel for decision. All other cases were tried on a regular
 argument calendar. The Rhode Island Supreme Court was selected because
 it employed "fast-tracking procedures," which focused on cases that
 did not require full briefing. Cases that did not require full
 briefing were identified by individual justices. After counsel was
 consulted, these cases were put on a "show-cause" calendar. These
 cases were submitted for decision with limited written statements and
 argument on a motions calendar. The other cases proceeded with
 briefing and argument in a normal fashion. Participants from each
 court were interviewed, and case data were collected from their court
records.
description: Interviews were conducted with judges, attorneys,
 court clerks, and other court staff from the California Court of
 Appeals, Third District, in Sacramento, the Illinois Appellate Court,
 Third District, in Springfield, and the Rhode Island Supreme
 Court. Letters were sent to each of these courts requesting
 interviews. Interviews were then conducted in person and lasted 45
 minutes to an hour. Twenty individuals were interviewed from the Rhode
 Island Supreme Court, 69 from the court in Sacramento, and 38 from the
 Springfield court, yielding a total of 127 individuals. Case data were
 collected from court records in each of these courts. A total of 1,059
 cases were chosen, 138 from Rhode Island, 587 from Sacramento, and 334
from Illinois.
description: Interviews covered opinions concerning the
 alternative procedures as they affected the quality of justice, the
 amount of time these procedures saved, and the possible benefits and
 deficiencies of modified appeals processes. Case data variables
 include the dates upon which various steps of the appeals process were
 completed, decisions and outcomes of cases, and length of briefs filed
for individual appeals.
description: Response Rates: Not applicable.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.
description: The three court districts in this study were chosen
 because they employed alternative procedures to reduce delays in
 criminal appeals, because the different approaches were succeeding,
 and because the approaches were representative of alternatives in
 dealing with criminal appeals. Attempts were made to interview
individuals in varying positions in the appeals courts.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Appellate Questionnaire Data
DS2: Case Data
DS3: User Guide
DS4: SAS Data Definition Statements for Appellate Questionnaire Data
DS5: SAS Data Definition Statements for Case Data
description: Judges, attorneys, staff, and criminal appeal cases in the
 California Court of Appeals, Third District, in Sacramento, the
 Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, in Springfield, and the
Rhode Island Supreme Court.