INCREASE NUMBER OF JUDGES ON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUVENILE COURT, INCREASE JUDICIAL SALARIES AND IMPROVE RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDGES WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 1968 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:10 p.m. in room 6226, New Senate Office Building, Senator Alan Bible (chairman) presiding. Present: Senator Bible. Also present: Roy M. Whitacre, Staff Director; Owen Malone, Associate Counsel; Howard A. Abrahams, Assistant Counsel; James S. Medill, Assistant Counsel, and Richard E. Judd, Professional Staff Member. The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. This is the time regularly set and noticed for hearings on S. 1731, S. 2439, and S. 2464, legislation to add 5 additional judges to the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions (raising the judicial strength of that court from 21 to 26 judges), 2 additional judges to the District of Columbia Juvenile Court (increasing the court from 3 to 5 judges), and to increase the compensation of judges on both these courts and on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The subcommittee also has before it for hearing S. 2465, legislation to increase retirement benefits of judges serving on all these District of Columbia courts. And, in addition to these bills affecting the local judiciary, we have for hearing S. 3456, a bill to provide that the prosecution of offenses of disorderly conduct and lewd, indecent, and obscene acts shall be conducted by the Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia. I understand that prior to March of this year, when the Court of Appeals rules that these offenses must be prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's office, they were handled by the Corporation Counsel for many years. The purpose of S. 3456 is to restore this function to the Corporation Counsel's office. Concerning the bills to provide additional judges, I want to note my full awareness of how critically important adequately staffed courts are to the problem of crime control. Swift, impartial judgment must be done if we are to make any inroad on the present disgraceful crime problem. The strong District of Columbia crime bill that became law last December will be futile unless the courts are properly manned to take prompt action. We will take up the judges' bills first, and we will make a part of the record copy of the bill, a copy of various statements and memorandum on S. 1731, S. 2439, S. 2464, and S. 2465, all of which, Mr. Reporter, will be made a part of the record together with the staff memoranda and various letters from interested individuals. (S. 1731, S. 2439, S. 2464, and S. 2465 together with the various attachments follow:) 90TH CONGRESS S. 1731 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES MAY 9, 1967 Mr. MORSE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 1 A BILL To amend title 11 of the District of Columbia Code to increase 6 SEC. 2. (a) Section 11-702 (a) of the District of 7 Columbia Code is amended by striking out "two" and insert8 ing in lieu thereof "five". 9 (b) Section 11-703 (c) of the District of Columbia 2 1 Code is amended by striking out "two" and inserting in lieu 2 thereof "four". 3 SEC. 3. Section 11-1502 (a) of the District of Columbia 4 Code is amended by striking out "two" and inserting in lieu 5 thereof "four". COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C. MEMORANDUM FOR MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE In re: S. 1731, to amend title 11 of the District of Columbia Code to increase the number of associate judges on the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia. Date of Hearing: Wednesday, May 29, 1968, 1:00 p.m. The purpose of S. 1731 is to increase the number of judges in the courts of the District of Columbia. The bill increases the number of judges of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions from twenty-one to twenty-six judges; increases the number of Juvenile Court judges from three to five; and increases the size of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals from three to six. The provisions in section 2 relating to the Court of Appeals were enacted into law during the first session of the 90th Congress as Public Law 90-178. HOWARD A. ABRAHAMS, DEAR SENATOR BIBLE: The Government of the District of Columbia has for report S. 1731, 90th Congress, a bill "To amend title 11 of the District of Columbia Code to increase the number of associate judges on the District of Columbia court of general sessions, the District of Columbia court of appeals, and the juvenile court of the District of Columbia." The bill amends title 11 of the District of Columbia Code, enacted into positive law by Public Law 88-241 (77 Stat. 478), approved December 23, 1963, to increase the number of associate judges on the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions from twenty to twenty-five, the number of associate judges on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals from two to five, and the number of associate judges on the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia from two to four. The bill also increases the number of judges required to constitute a quorum on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals from two to four. Initially, we note that subsequent to the introduction of S. 1731, the number of associate judges on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals was increased from two to five pursuant to section 1(1) of Public Law 90-178, approved December 8, 1967 (81 Stat. 544), and the number of judges of the court required to constitute a quorum was, by section 1(2) of that Act, increased to four. It therefore appears that section 2 of the bill is no longer necessary. With respect to the Court of General Sessions and Juvenile Court, the District Government strongly supports the increase in the number of judges in each. However, draft legislation proposing unification of the Juvenile Court and the Court of General Sessions has been prepared by the District of Columbia and may soon be submitted to the Congress. Although the District would prefer that the increased judge power be placed in the unified court, nevertheless it favors the enactment of S. 1731 in the event Congress is unable to act on the unified court bill in the relatively near future. The Government of the District of Columbia has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress. Sincerely yours, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REPORT OF THE LAW AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Subject: S. 1731. The business of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and the Juvenile Court have increased over the past few years to such an extent that it is a physical impossibility for the judges to keep their calendars anywhere near current. Civil jury trials in the Court of General Sessions are over two years behind; the D.C. Court of Appeals which was designed to render prompt decisions on appeals from the Court of General Sessions is far behind in its work. Its staff of judges has not been increased since its establishment in 1942, and while its decisions are highly respected by the legal fraternity, it cannot keep up its high standards of performance unless the judges are given more help and thus more time to deliberate upon the problems presented to them. The Juvenile Court is swamped with complaints against unruly and frequently criminally disposed children to such an extent that many months go by between the arrest and trial of a juvenile. If we are to rehabilitate such children and turn them away from a life of crime, they should be dealt with expeditiously before the cause of their arrest becomes dimmed in their minds by the passage of time. Therefore it is resolved by this Federation in meeting assembled on June 8, 1967, that it endorses and urges prompt Congressional approval of S. 1731, and that copies of this report be sent to the Senate and House Committees on the District of Columbia and to the D.C. Commissioners. JAMES A. WILLEY, Chairman, Law and Legislation Committee. JOHN R. IMMER, President. Presented to and approved by the Federation on June 8, 1967; the vote was unanimous. MRS. EDWARD B. MORRIS, [From the Congressional Record-Senate, May 9, 1967] Secretary. INCREASED NUMBER OF JUDGES IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill authorizing three additional judges for the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, five additional judges for the District of Columbia court of general sessions, and two additional judges for the District of Columbia juvenile court. As a member of the Senate District of Columbia Committee, I have made a very careful study of the judicial manpower requirements of these courts and have become convinced that the number of judges proposed in my bill is minimal. I am convinced that the 10 additional judges proposed for these three courts can be utilized very fully and efficiently in processing the business and improving the quality of justice in the Nation's Capital in this city's war against crime. As recently as yesterday, a panel of very distinguished District of Columbia lawyers, supported by the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals, released a study and recommendations concerning the courts. Among these recommendations of this distinguished group was the call for five additional judges for the court of general sessions and three additional judges for the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. I regret that this panel of distinguished District of Columbia lawyers and judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals did not recommend any additional judicial manpower for the District of Columbia juvenile court. The case backlog for the juvenile court is a very serious one and should be remedied as expeditiously as possible. The study which I just mentioned urges that every child brought before the juvenile court should have a lawyer and that any delinquent housed in the District of Columbia Receiving Home, awaiting a hearing, should be brought before the court sooner than under the present practice. I do not understand why in view of these recommendations, which I believe are very valid ones, the study group did not recommend additional judicial manpower for the juvenile court. In my judgment, additional judicial manpower for the juvenile court is imperative. Not only should two new judicial positions be authorized, but the White House should act without delay in filling the vacancy which occurred in that court in November of last year. A study undertaken by the Office of Criminal Justice of the U.S. Department of Justice, released in October 1966, entitled "Criminal Justice in a Metropolitan Court," states that "Of all the problems facing the court, the problem of an unmanageable volume of cases is the most immediate." As Senators will recall, Congress authorized five additional judges for the court of general sessions last year. The additional judicial manpower authorized last year for the court of general sessions has been helpful, though it does not meet the present or future requirements of that court. Again, I urge the President of the United States to nominate without any further delay two judges for the court of general sessions in order that existing vacancies in that court will be filled. My very wonderful friend, the chairman of the Senate District of Columbia Committee, Mr. Bible, introduced in the Senate on May 3, 1967, a bill to authorize three additional judges for the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Senator Bible has very effectively documented the case for these additional judges. I am in wholehearted support of the proposal made by the Senator from Nevada. The case backlog in the three courts which I have just mentioned continues to grow. One of the reasons for this backlog is that more and more defendants are requesting trials, and this is as it should be, but we must face up to the fact that this is the situation and provide the courts with the necessary number of judges to handle the workload. The litigants and the public are entitled to no less. As Senators know, judges cannot do all of the work on behalf of the court. There are many problems in the District of Columbia crying out for a solution. Among these problems are the types of programs established to treat and rehabilitate juvenile delinquents and adult criminals. Much more needs to be done in the juvenile field in order that, when the judges of that court in their wisdom impose sanctions against a juvenile, the necessary educational, social, and rehabilitative programs may be put to work so that the possibility of the juvenile returning to a life of crime or a social behavior may be sharply diminished. There simply must be additional money appropriated in order that the facilities and training programs may be greatly improved. The staffs of these three courts must also be greatly increased. More probation officers are urgently needed, and I shall do what I can to see that we at least recognize the problem and then begin to appropriate the amount of money which is necessary to achieve these requirements. We must seek to establish in the District of Columbia a first-class court system. The bill I introduce today will help achieve that objective. Mr. President, I send the bill to the desk for appropriate reference and ask that it be printed in the RECORD. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the bill will be printed in the RECORD as requested by the Senator from Oregon. The bill (S. 1731) to amend title 11 of the District of Columbia Code to increase the number of associate judges on the District of Columbia court of general sessions, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and the juvenile court of the District of Columbia introduced by Mr. MORSE, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: S. 1731 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 11-902(a) of the District of Columbia 95-242-68- -2 |