1977, July, Pg. 1132. CBA Judiciary Section's Proposed Expedited Appeal Process.

6 Colo.Law. 1132

Colorado Lawyer

1977.

1977, July, Pg. 1132.

CBA Judiciary Section's Proposed Expedited Appeal Process

1132Vol. 6, No. 7, Pg. 1132CBA Judiciary Section's Proposed Expedited Appeal Process1133(One of the proposals which will be presented for the consideration of the board of governors at its August 26-27 meeting at Keystone will be the following report and recommendations of a committee of the judiciary section, approved by its council on April 21, 1977, and forwarded to the president by Judge Henry Santo, section chairman.)

INTRODUCTION

A committee of the judiciary section council was appointed to evaluate the Arizona Appellate Project in terms of its feasibility for use in the State of Colorado. The following committee members were selected from the judiciary section of the bar association: Justice Jim Carrigan (co-chairman); Judge Charles Pierce; Judge Edwin Ruland (cochairman); Mr. Paul Cooper; Mr. Hay Den Kane; Mr. Alex Keller; Mr. Stevens Kinney; and Mr. William Trine. Since an expedited appeals procedure might also be possible in criminal cases, the chairmen requested the assistance of Mr. Steve Phillips, chief of the criminal appeals unit of the Attorney General's office, and Mr. Lee Belstock, chief of the appeals division of the Public Defender's office, in evaluating the Arizona Project. At the outset, the chairmen wish to acknowledge, with deep gratitude, the great effort and expenditure of time by the committee members in completing this project.

The Arizona Project was funded by L.E.A.A. and suggested rules of appellate procedure were proposed for an expedited appeals process upon completion of the project. The project was conducted by selecting 75 civil cases from Maricopa County, Arizona, and using practicing attorneys as "appeals judges" to evaluate whether an expedited procedure was feasible. However, due to the length of this report, the analysis of the project by the Arizona Advisory Committee has not been included, but is available from the members of this committee. It should be emphasized that the report of this committee has not been considered or in any way approved by either the Colorado Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, and the recommendations contained herein represent the views of the committee members only.

The Arizona proposal is designed primarily for use by an intermediate court of appeals. Hence, the committee initiated its evaluation of the Arizona Project in the context of the appellate docket now confronted by the Colorado Court of

1134Appeals. For the calendar year 1976, the Court of Appeals disposed of 120 more cases than it had disposed of in 1975. Nevertheless, the filing rate exceeded the disposition rate by 80 cases, leaving a backlog for the past two years of 197 cases.The dramatic increase in appeals is continuing. Case number 352 was filed with the Court of Appeals for the calendar year 1976 on May 25. Case number 352 was filed with the Court of Appeals this year on April 12. It is thus evident that the rate of appeals continues to exceed the disposition rate, with the result that the backlog will continue to grow.

The Court of Appeals has previously taken steps to expedite the appeal process by adopting the use of memorandum opinions in those cases where such opinions are appropriate, as well as adopting the preargument conference procedure in civil cases, with the aim of assisting in settlement of those cases prior to full appeal where such resolution is possible. While these two procedures have assisted to a degree in expediting the appeal process, it is evident that additional solutions are required now.

Aside from the problem of delay in disposition, which necessarily results from an ever-increasing backlog, the committee is concerned about the delay which results from preparation of the transcript of evidence. At present, the average time span from notice of appeal to the date the answer brief is filed is six months, and much of this delay is caused by extensions granted for preparation of the transcript. The committee is also concerned about the dramatic increase in costs to the litigant which arise from: (1) The cost of preparation of the transcript (estimated now to run approximately $500 per day of trial); and (2) the additional cost to litigants for the attorneys' time and effort in preparing a brief for the appeal, after the transcript had been prepared, which results from the necessity of an attorney reacquainting himself with the case due to the prior delay.

The committee has briefly discussed solutions to the appeals backlog which are being considered in other jurisdictions such as New Jersey. Presently, there are seven 3-judge panels in that state. A great deal of inconsistency has developed in the written opinions of the various panels as well as patent conflicts in the rules of law adopted. The task of attempting to keep the division opinions in harmony is very difficult and the backlog continues to grow at an alarming rate. Hence, consideration is being given presently to reducing the panels in New Jersey to two judges in order to handle more appeals and apparently to rely almost entirely upon memorandum-type...