Главная страница | Контакты | Случайная страница Автомобили Астрономия Биология География Дом и сад Другие языки Другое Информатика История Культура Литература Логика Математика Медицина Металлургия Механика Образование Охрана труда Педагогика Политика Право Психология Религия Риторика Социология Спорт Строительство Технология Туризм Физика Философия Финансы Химия Черчение Экология Экономика Электроника

Text 4 The Administrative Organization of Courts

Another peculiarity of the American judiciary is that within each state courts are almost completely independent of each other. Partly this is a consequence of the development of the judiciary as a separate branch of government, independent of the executive. In other nations, the judiciary is controlled by the ministry of justice or the ministry of interior. In the United States no executive department controls the courts either at the federal or at the state level.

Until recently each court in the nation governed itself. Each one formulated the rules under which cases would be heard; each hired its own auxiliary personnel; each judge determined independently the days and the hours to hold court. No one had responsibility for the operation of the court system as a whole. No one collected statistics to determine which courts were overburdened and which were left unused. No one had the authority to transfer a judge from one court to another to alleviate delay in hearing trials. No organization existed through which judges could compare their experiences, exchange ideas, or learn of new developments in the conducting of court. The problem was well described by an observer of the Minnesota court system:

It is important to know that constitutionally the legislature can do a great deal to reorganize the local courts, and that the state supreme court by overruling local court decisions can exercise pressure in the direction of statewide uniformity of decisions. It is also important to know, however, that neither the legislature by passing laws of statewide application, nor the supreme court through decisions in particular cases can actually bring about complete uniformity of court practices and decisions. Overruled in one decision a local judge may make just as unorthodox a decision in the next case. The higher courts can again overrule him and give him a verbal spanking, but they cannot otherwise discipline and they certainly cannot remove a lower judge just because his decisions are wrong. In this respect the state supreme court is in an even weaker position than, for example, the state tax commissioner in his efforts to bring about uniformity in the assessment of property for taxation.

The description is apt, not only for Minnesota but for most of the nation. The country possesses several groups of courts that remain administratively unrelated to each other.

Since 1922 the federal courts have operated under minimal administrative supervision. Although their authority comes from legislative enactments, judicial administrators work independently of the legislative or executive branches. In the federal court system an administrator of the courts operates under the supervision of the Chief Justice of the United States. He collects statistics and other information to guide the work of the courts. Most authority, however, rests with the Supreme Court (which may promulgate rules for the entire federal court system), with conferences of judges, who meet at various levels, and with the chief judge of the court of appeals in each circuit, who has some authority over the transfer of judges from one district (or circuit) to another. Compared to an administrative agency's budgetary, personnel, and policy controls, the supervision over federal courts is quite rudimentary.

Most of the states have adopted similar managerial controls; in 1976 all but two had court administrative offices. Most of these operated under the supervision of the state's supreme court or its chief justice. Many of these offices were quite small and possessed only a skeletal staff. However, in a few states, the administrative office has become, a sizeable agency: New York's office had a staff of 237 in 1976; its director was a well-paid official with an annual salary of $57,000. Yet despite the growth of these offices, only a handful of states compile statistical reports containing enough information to be useful in supervising court operations. In a few states effective administrative controls have been imposed over all the courts. In New Jersey, for instance, the chief justice is head of the judicial branch. Each judge is required to hold court during specified days and hours. He must submit weekly reports on the number of cases heard, the decisions rendered, and other pertinent matters. By rule of the supreme court, judges may not withhold a decision on a case for more than two weeks; if they do, they must justify their delay. When necessary, judges may be shifted from one court to another to help alleviate long delays or unusually burdened court dockets. In New York, Maryland, Missouri, California, Louisiana, and Wisconsin, courts operate under somewhat less stringent administrative controls, but some manner of control exists. In each a court administrator (the post has various titles) operates under the supervision of the supreme court to collect information and formulate administrative rules to govern the work of the courts. However, even vigorous chief judges and court administrators meet strong resistance from trial judges, who insist on their autonomy. In New York a trial judge had this to say of the chief administrative judge and his assistant:

Murtaugh and Vetrano are my colleagues, not my bosses. They have no right to question my findings on facts or why I impose what I think are fair fines and proper sentences.

If they don't like what we do, then let them be the only two judges in the court and let them sit on every case and make the decisions.

Several states also possess "judicial councils," which ordinarily consist of judges, lawyers, and laymen who meet to consider judicial reforms that require legislative action. Once a council determines a course of action, it proposes a bill and lobbies for it before the legislature. In Wisconsin the council was successful in convincing the legislature to restructure the entire court system so that most overlapping jurisdictions were eliminated. Quite typically, however, the Wisconsin council was not strong enough to counter the opposition of the justice of the peace lobby: its proposals to eliminate justices of the peace met defeat in the legislature.

Most states, however, do not impose effective administrative controls over their courts. In most, each judge remains sovereign over his own courtroom. He is free to adopt his own local rules of procedure to supplement the standard ones for the state. He may hold court during any hours he pleases. He appoints his own assistants, thereby preserving in many localities the greatest source of patronage remaining on the political scene. Moreover, each judge is responsible only for the cases arising in his jurisdiction. If a neighboring judge is overburdened, there is sometimes no way to temporarily transfer a judge from one area to another to assist him. In most states the judiciary represents an extreme case of the fragmentation and autonomy that in more moderate form is so characteristic of American government. Whereas cities, counties, and special districts must conform to administrative controls in many of their activities, courts are left more independent.

TASK I USEFUL VOCABULARY:

To alleviate delay – to cut /to reduce.

Assessment of property for taxation – the listing and valuation of property for the purpose of apportioning a tax upon it, either according to value alone or in proportion to benefit received.

Chief justice – the presiding, most senior, or principle judge of a court.

Promulgate – to publish; to announce officially; to make public as important as obligatory.

Circuit – judicial divisions of the United States (e.g. thirteen judicial circuits wherein U.S. Courts of Appeal sit).

Pertinent – applicable; relevant.

Withhold – to retain in one’s possession that which is sought by another. To omit to disclose upon request; as to withhold information, decision, etc.

Court administrator – generally a non-judicial officer whose responsibility is the administration of the courts as to budgets, juries, judicial assignments, calendars and non-judicial personnel.

TASK II Add nouns to the following adjectives:

1. Annual ____________

2. Apt _______________

3. Auxiliary ___________

4. Complete __________

5. Effective ___________

6. Executive __________

7. Fair _______________

8. Judicial ____________

9. Legislative ________________

10. Pertinent __________________

11. Rudimentary _______________

12. Skeletal ___________________

13. (Less) Stringent _____________

14. Unorthodox _________________

1. Vigorous ___________________

TASK III Add nouns to the following verbs:

1. To adopt _______

2. To alleviate _____

3. To arise ________

4. To collect ______

5. To eliminate ____

6. To hear ________

7. To hire _________

8. To hold _________

9. To impose _______

10. To lobby for _____

11. To pass _________

12. To promulgate ___

13. To remove _____

14. To render ______

15. To rest with_____

16. To transfer _____

17. To submit ______

18. To withhold _____

TASK IV Use the following opening phrases to describe the Minnesota court system :