If less trial time is reserved unnecessarily, backlogs decline and trial dates gain certainty. That theory is quite different from suggesting that criminal matters should be settled, or guilty pleas coerced. The aim is only to encourage earlier resolution of matters that would have resolved in any event. Experience shows that this encouragement is more effective if driven by Court involvement, and law dictates that the Court has a duty to effectively administer its process. Backlogs in some regions have declined.
Many judges report more orderly trial dates, with fewer matters collapsing unexpectedly.
At the same time, the overall numbers for guilty pleas and trials proceeding have remained relatively constant. These gains cannot be expected to happen in the absence of some upheaval. It is important to the Court that they not occur at the expense of fairness to defendants, or to their counsel. The Court recognizes the need to assess these apparent gains to the system and measure them against losses, if any. The review process is intended to identify, firstly, adjustments or scheduling changes that need to be made, and then, ways in which the Rules or process can be substantively improved upon.