Georgia Courts in the 21st Century: the Report of the Supreme Court of Georgia Blue Ribbon Commission on the Judiciary - Richard W. Creswell

• Publication year: 2001

Georgia Courts in the 21st Century

The Report of the Supreme Court of Georgia Blue Ribbon Commissionon the Judiciary

Richard W. Creswell, Reporter'

Foreword

A very wise observation was made at the outset of the Commission's work. Reports of this kind don't usually cause immediate changes. However, they can lay the foundation for gradual change over time. We hope some of the ideas expressed here may have the strength to serve as such a foundation. Our review of the reports of our predecessors, mentioned in the body of our report, and subsequent resulting changes, gives us that hope.

We finished our work with less condemnation than praise for the present system of justice in Georgia. There is room for improvement, but there is much good work and progress going on through the efforts of all three branches of government and those who shoulder these responsibilities.

The rewards one receives for service on a commission like this one are twofold. The first is the chance to interact and explore ideas with very interesting people. So we thank all who served, all who appeared before the body, and all who contributed in many other ways. Special thanks go to the Georgia Supreme Court and Chief Justice Benham for bringing us into existence. The second reward is the chance to observe the judicial system over a broad range of its functions, beyond the usual view of any one of us, whether a lay person or a professional. Contemplating the impact of the judicial system on the lives of the people makes one grateful for the opportunity to help in any way to make the system even a little better.

Hardy Gregory, Jr. "

Blue Ribbon Commission Chair

I. Introduction

The Blue Ribbon Commission on the Judiciary was created by order of the supreme court on March 1, 1999 for the express purpose of considering the "structure and organization of the courts as they relate to efficiency and effectiveness in the dispensation of justice."¹ Consisting of twenty members including current and former judges and justices, practicing lawyers, and private citizens, the Commission is chaired by former supreme court Justice Hardy Gregory, Jr.

Members of the Blue Ribbon Commission are: the Honorable Gregory A. Adams; James H. Blanchard; Marva Jones Brooks; Otis A. Brumby, Jr.; Harold G. Clarke; the Honorable Ogden Doremus; Ronald H. Francis; the Honorable Richard S. Gault; Andrew J. Harris, Jr.; Phyllis J. Holmen; Linda A. Klein; George Lange, III;² Terri M. Lyndall; Charles A. Mathis, Jr.; Stephanie E. Parker; Juanita Powell-Baranco; Norman L. Underwood; and the Honorable Larry Walker. Mercer University School of Law Professor Richard W. Creswell serves as Reporter.

The Blue Ribbon Commission took a three fold approach in preparing to consider its work on the broad charge given it by the Chief Justice. First, the Commission sought to understand and build upon the work and reports of previous Georgia conferences and commissions that have undertaken similar studies and assessments of Georgia's courts in years past. Second, the Commission oriented itself to the experience of other states in structuring and organizing trial and appellate courts to most efficiently and effectively administer justice. Finally, the Commission determined to tap into the wealth of knowledge and experience of those Georgians most closely associated with the work of our courts—judges, court clerks, court administrators, district attorneys, solicitors, and public defenders—in assessing the condition of our judiciary, its strengths and weaknesses, and what problems the Georgia courts encounter in providing justice to the citizens of our state.

The Reporter prepared for the Commission summaries of the work and recommendations of five previous commissions over the past fifteen years. Those commissions were the Governor's Judicial Process Review Commission (1985); the Judicial System Task Force (1989); the Governor's Conference on Justice in Georgia (1990); the Commission on the Appellate Courts of Georgia (1996); and the Georgia Future Communities Commission (1997).

The Blue Ribbon Commission met on July 9,1999 with the University of Virginia's James Monroe Professor of Law, Daniel J. Meador. Meador is the author of numerous books on the appellate courts who served as the executive director of the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals. Professor Meador provided the Commission with an understanding of the history of appellate courts in the United States, both in the state and federal judicial systems, with particular attention to the history of the Georgia courts. Meador described numerous procedural and structural alternatives developed in other jurisdictions to respond to an ever increasing appellate caseload and explored with the members of the Commission the potential of these alternatives for the Georgia courts.

For the purpose of gathering the suggestions and insights of Georgia's sitting judges, Commission Chair Hardy Gregory wrote a personal letter to each member of the Georgia judiciary.³ The letters described the charge of the Blue Ribbon Commission and solicited each judge's suggestions for the Commission's consideration. Similar letters were written to each of the superior court clerks, state court clerks, juvenile court clerks, court administrators, district attorneys, solicitors-general, and public defenders. Specifically, the Chair sought responses to three questions:

1. How can the courts ensure ready access and quality treatment and service in all aspects of the judicial process?

2. How can the courts create an effective response to societal violence?

3. How can a coherent state-wide system be established to keep pace with technology's impact on society and the courts?

The Commission also found it helpful to invite a number of individuals'—judges, members of the bar, district attorneys, and clerks of court—to attend the Commission's meetings regularly and contribute to the Commission's deliberations.

Chairman Gregory received a large volume of thoughtful responses to his inquiry. While the responses varied widely in their particulars, there emerged from the letters eight central themes. As expressed in this correspondence, Georgia's judges, clerks, administrators, public defenders and prosecutors suggested that the Commission could most effectively advance the judiciary's ability to serve the public in the administration of justice by exploring:

• Trial court structures and processes to improve efficiency in the use of trial court resources;

• Appellate structures and processes to improve efficiency in the handling of appeals;

•The impact and potential of technology on and in the judiciary;

• Means of enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of juries;

• New tools for judges in the administration of justice;

• Ways to attract and retain excellent personnel in judicial service;

• Methods of making courts more user-friendly to litigants, witnesses, jurors, and the public; and

• The need for greater financial resources for the judicial branch.

Adopting these eight themes as particular goals within the broad charge given by the supreme court, the Commission divided itself into working groups to consider in greater detail the opportunities for enhancement of the judiciary that presented themselves in each of these themes. After each working group thoroughly considered the issues and topics within its assigned sphere of concern, the Commission reconvened to deliberate upon the recommendations of the working groups. The eight themes form the framework for this Report.

III. Trial Court Structures and Processes The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends:

• That the supreme court amend the Uniform Rules to encourage the creation of drug court calendars; and

• That the supreme court amend the Uniform Rules to encourage the creation of family courts.

While the Georgia Constitution prescribes that all courts of the state shall comprise a unified judicial system,⁵ the history of courts in Georgia is not a story of grand design and uniformity, but one of innovative and narrowly-tailored responses to immediate judicial needs. One of the benefits of this incremental evolutionary process of judicial growth is that it has allowed for creativity and experimentation without the risk of system failure. Two of the innovations developed within the court system represent, in the Commission's judgment, the most promising responses to cases arising from difficulties within the family and from the widespread use of illicit drugs in our society. The dramatic increase in the complexity and number of family law related cases, and the interplay between these kinds of adjudications and traditional criminal and civil proceedings, are exerting increasing pressure on individual judges and on our superior court system. On another front, the relentless pressure of illegal drugs in our society is producing a criminal caseload that is extracting a personal toll on our judges and our trial courts of general jurisdiction.

Innovative processes for the judicial handling of drug and domestic cases—pilot programs designated as "Drug Courts" and "Family Courts"—have been demonstrated within our existing court structures to be successful methods of relieving the pressures these cases create on our superior courts. Even more importantly, drug court and family court programs better enable our courts to respond to the needs of the individual people and to the interests of the public in these judicial matters.

The Macon and Brunswick Circuits⁶ took the lead in demonstrating the merits of a specialized "Drug Court" calendar in dealing with the realities of drug addiction and resulting prosecutions for what are primarily possession offenses. These creative and effective judicial programs offer one of the very few avenues by which persons addicted to illegal drugs might receive meaningful intervention as an alternative to a long prison sentence with its low likelihood of relieving the...