Improving the Pace of Criminal Case Processing in State Trial Courts

• Published date: 01 July 2018
• Date: 01 July 2018
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403417748721
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417748721

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2018, Vol. 29(6-7) 736 –760

© The Author(s) 2018

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0887403417748721

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Improving the Pace of

Criminal Case Processing in

State Trial Courts

Brian J. Ostrom1, Roger A. Hanson1,

and Matthew Kleiman1

Abstract

Delay in the processing of criminal cases has long been viewed as a serious national

problem. Substantial differences exist among courts in the average time it takes to

resolve both felony and misdemeanor cases, with past research producing inconclusive

results on the causes of observed variation. In response, and with the support of the

Arnold Foundation, the objective of this article is to highlight predictable variation

in the timeliness of criminal case processing and how this knowledge supports

court efforts to become more expeditious. Drawing on an extensive set of felony

and misdemeanor cases resolved in seven Colorado courts, statistical analysis

uncovers important patterns in the composition of criminal caseloads and clarifies

how composition influences case duration. Moreover, similarities in the makeup of

criminal caseloads show the utility of fundamental principles of criminal caseflow

management and how courts benefit from being assessed comparatively against

established performance benchmarks.

Keywords

criminal case processing, court delay, caseflow management

Among the individual rights provided for in the U.S. Constitution, two provisions

applicable to criminal courts are sometimes seen as contending in practice if not in

theory. The Fifth Amendment states, “No person shall be . . . deprived . . . of life,

1National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Brian J. Ostrom, National Center for State Courts, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg,

VA 23185-4147, USA.

Email: bostrom@ncsc.org

748721CJPXXX10.1177/0887403417748721Criminal Justice Policy ReviewOstrom et al.

research-article2018

Ostrom et al. 737

liberty, or property . . . without due process of law.” And the Sixth Amendment asserts,

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public

trial.” As construed by the courts, due process means laws are applied equally to every

individual under established rules which do not violate elemental rights. This concept

is founded on the fundamental value of fairness; that every person has the right to his

or her day in court and to have his or her case heard, considered, and resolved by an

independent and impartial judge. In addition to the focus on the individual, criminal

court decisions in aggregate should also be timely, consistent, and in proper proportion

to the nature and magnitude of the case. All criminal cases should be resolved without

delay. What these dueling rights mean in practice is that a well-functioning court sys-

tem is expected to provide due process through decisions and actions based on indi-

vidual attention to each case using consistent courtwide practices operating within

predictable time frames.

Giving individual attention to cases has direct implications for court performance

because it underscores the tension between an individual case and the aggregate nature

of a judge’s caseload as a whole and in fact an entire court’s caseload. Judges know

they are responsible for their assigned cases and they know the manner in which they

resolve them contributes to the institution’s performance. Judges and court managers

do not want decisions in any case to be a foregone conclusion or the product of inat-

tention. No one wants to regret an outcome where additional time would have led to a

more correct legal decision. Stated more positively, judges know an appropriate

amount of time is necessary to allow them to gain requisite information to make the

most correct decisions possible. Effective procedures allow contending parties and

attorneys to provide all relevant information to the court, to present their respective

sides of the case, and to respond to any questioning by a judge. Moreover, the parties

and their attorneys should be able to question the opposing side’s arguments.

So while it is important to focus on each individual case, a judge must also look at

each case in relationship to all others. Judges and court managers must balance the

desire to give every case appropriate attention and the concurrent responsibility to

honor this desire in a world of substantial caseloads and finite time and resources. One

way to reconcile the conflict between “individualized” attention and caseload impera-

tives is to apply the proportionality proposition, which states that every case should

receive individual attention in direct proportion to what it warrants (Chapper &

Hanson, 1983, Ostrom & Hanson, 1999). More complicated, more difficult, and more

serious cases should receive more time than the less complex, less difficult, and less

serious cases. The idea of proportionality is intended to not only maintain equality and

due process in the treatment of cases but also acknowledge the reality that available

work time and resources are limited and must be managed.

Modern court management focuses on improving the way judges and staff mem-

bers handle key proceedings in accordance with the rights and interests of the partici-

pants in the legal process within existing resource constraints. Increasingly, court

leaders recognize the importance of incorporating explicit performance indicators into

their efforts to gauge the success of court practices and procedures. Assessing the

degree to which a court is performing well is a matter of results. A high performing