Comments on: A sweeping blueprint for change http://apublicdefender.com/2008/07/10/a-sweeping-blueprint-for-change/ Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:10:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Anton http://apublicdefender.com/2008/07/10/a-sweeping-blueprint-for-change/comment-page-1/#comment-34819 Anton Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:56:30 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1299#comment-34819 "<i>The bottom line is that the Court system represents how we as a State treat our citizens.</i>" A wee bit of an overstatement, no? I'd say "...<i>a certain, small segment of our citizens.</i>" Most people never encounter our civil or criminal courts. And that's a good thing, for reasons other than any failings of the judicial system. “The bottom line is that the Court system represents how we as a State treat our citizens.”

A wee bit of an overstatement, no? I’d say “…a certain, small segment of our citizens.” Most people never encounter our civil or criminal courts. And that’s a good thing, for reasons other than any failings of the judicial system.

]]> By: Greg Jones http://apublicdefender.com/2008/07/10/a-sweeping-blueprint-for-change/comment-page-1/#comment-34817 Greg Jones Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:52:53 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1299#comment-34817 A few years ago, I represented three men in Detroit on littering charges. The case was heard in the District Court for Detroit, which is the trial court of inferior jurisdiction--misdemeanors, traffic, landlord-tenant, small-claims, general civil cases under $25,000, and preliminary exams in felony cases. The judge to whom we were assigned heard only cases involving littering, blight ordinance matters, and commercial auto lot ordinance violations, usually a charge of parking the inventory on the street, instead of on the dealer's lot. Our case was always heard on a Wednesday, because that's the day of the week when she heard cases from the Fourth and Ninth Detroit Police precincts. That helped the police schedule their officers. This must have been boring work for the judge, though a pretty good job at $100,000+ per year, but it was at least a predictable schedule for me. In my jurisdiction today, one judge does about 95% of the divorce cases and related issues, while the other two do all the criminal work. The problem with such practices is that divorce, or criminal work, can get boring quickly, and there has to be some way, in the larger jurisdictions, for judges to transfer periodically between one kind of docket and another, to avoid burnout. A few years ago, I represented three men in Detroit on littering charges. The case was heard in the District Court for Detroit, which is the trial court of inferior jurisdiction–misdemeanors, traffic, landlord-tenant, small-claims, general civil cases under $25,000, and preliminary exams in felony cases. The judge to whom we were assigned heard only cases involving littering, blight ordinance matters, and commercial auto lot ordinance violations, usually a charge of parking the inventory on the street, instead of on the dealer’s lot. Our case was always heard on a Wednesday, because that’s the day of the week when she heard cases from the Fourth and Ninth Detroit Police precincts. That helped the police schedule their officers. This must have been boring work for the judge, though a pretty good job at $100,000+ per year, but it was at least a predictable schedule for me.
In my jurisdiction today, one judge does about 95% of the divorce cases and related issues, while the other two do all the criminal work. The problem with such practices is that divorce, or criminal work, can get boring quickly, and there has to be some way, in the larger jurisdictions, for judges to transfer periodically between one kind of docket and another, to avoid burnout.

]]> By: Peter G http://apublicdefender.com/2008/07/10/a-sweeping-blueprint-for-change/comment-page-1/#comment-34816 Peter G Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:34:20 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1299#comment-34816 As an attorney with a civil practice (labor and employment law) that is primarily federal, the two aspects of the state judicial system that I find most appalling are precisely the points that the report indicates it will "consider." Having cases shuffled from judge to judge with no continuity, rhyme or reason all but openly encourages counsel to file meritless motions to create delay. And, yes, it is terribly disheartening to tell your client that issue x is a settled matter of law that is beyond any reasonable dispute only to have a judge look at you as if you had just grown a second head because he or she is utterly unfamiliar with the substantive law in that area. As an attorney with a civil practice (labor and employment law) that is primarily federal, the two aspects of the state judicial system that I find most appalling are precisely the points that the report indicates it will “consider.”

Having cases shuffled from judge to judge with no continuity, rhyme or reason all but openly encourages counsel to file meritless motions to create delay. And, yes, it is terribly disheartening to tell your client that issue x is a settled matter of law that is beyond any reasonable dispute only to have a judge look at you as if you had just grown a second head because he or she is utterly unfamiliar with the substantive law in that area.

]]>