Page images
PDF
EPUB

division. It will be noted, further, from table V that there were only 117 criminal jury cases pending at the end of the sixth fiscal year, of which 108 had been assigned for trial on specified dates, and nine cases were unassigned by reason of absence of witnesses, etc.

As indicated by table VIII, 1,287 jury demands were filed in civil cases during the sixth fiscal year as compared to 1,642 filed during the fifth fiscal year. This will be more fully hereinafter discussed in part II of this report.

There are transmitted herewith photostatic copies of the monthly reports of the judges to the chief judge for the third and fourth quarters of the sixth fiscal year, covering the period January 1 through June 30, 1948. Copies of the monthly reports of the judges for the first half of the fiscal year, July 1 through December 31, 1947, were transmitted to you with the semiannual report dated February 27, 1948. The originals of these reports are available for public inspection in the office of the clerk of the court.

PART II

A SURVEY OF CERTAIN PHASES OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT DURING THE PAST SIX FISCAL YEARS, JULY 1, 1942, TO JUNE 30, 1948

Table VI and the graphs immediately following indicate the flow and trend in volume of the business of the court for the past six fiscal years since the consolidated court began operation on July 1, 1942, and through June 30, 1948. During that 6-year period a total of 716,602 new criminal and civil cases were filed, 448,329 of which were new civil cases, and 268,273 new criminal cases. The number of new civil cases thus filed is slightly less than double the number of new criminal cases thus filed. Furthermore, the general trend in number of criminal cases filed was downward, whereas the general trend of civil cases filed was upward. (See graphs A, B and C.) As to the criminal cases filed, the trend in United States cases was definitely upward; the trend in District of Columbia cases was downward; and the trend in traffic cases was sharply downward. (See graphs D and E.)

A

Attention is particularly directed to the fact that table VI discloses that the general trend in volume of class A and class B cases was upward. (See graphs F and G.) In the first fiscal year the number of class A cases filed was 1,172 and in the sixth fiscal year 2,108 class A cases were filed. A total of 8,185 class A cases were filed during the six fiscal years. In the first fiscal year 9,372 class B cases were filed, and in the sixth fiscal year 19,081 class B cases were filed. total of 63,063 class B cases were filed during the 6-year period. As previously stated, the class A and class B cases normally require more time for disposition than do the other classes of cases. Consequently, the steady increase in volume of the class A and the class B cases progressively increased the time pressure upon the court necessary for the disposition of these classes of cases.

Graphs H and I, attached to table VI, show the sharp and definite upward trend in small claims and landlord and tenant cases.

It will be noted from table VI that during the first fiscal year 133,814 new civil and criminal cases were filed, which figure approaches the total of 139,313 cases filed in the sixth fiscal year. However, it should be borne in mind, as disclosed by table VI, that beginning with the second fiscal year a sharp downward trend in the volume of business occurred, the downward trend being completed in the middle of the third fiscal year. This factor, plus the added factor that during the first fiscal year only 488 jury demands in civil cases were filed, and during the second fiscal year only 483 jury demands in civil cases were filed, permitted major attention to be centered upon the civil nonjury cases.

The upward trend was then resumed, and as indicated by table VI and graph A. 99,142 new civil and criminal cases were filed in the third fiscal year; 108,071 were filed in the fourth fiscal year; 125,570 were filed in the fifth fiscal year; and 139,313 were filed in the sixth fiscal year.

Concurrently with this uptrend in volume of new cases filed, table VIII hereinafter more fully discussed, discloses that the demands for jury trials in civil cases consistently and substantially increased through the fifth fiscal year, there being a small decrease in the sixth fiscal year. Trial by jury requires substantially more time than trial by judge without a jury, and consequently the substantial increase in civil jury demands each year has been an added factor increasing the time-pressure upon the court in handling the business of the court.

The act of April 1, 1942, section 11-756, District of Columbia Code, 1940, as amended, generally spoken of as the "Consolidation Act," consolidated the former municipal court and the former police court into a new court entitled "The Municipal Court for the District of Columbia." The Consolidation Act raised the jurisdiction of the court from $1,000 to $3,000, and also provided for

certification of cases from the District Court to the municipal court when the pretrial judge in the District Court considered that the amount of recovery in such certified cases probably would not exceed $1,000, with the further proviso that the certified cases should be treated as though filed in the municipal court except that recovery in the municipal court would not be restricted to the municipal court's jurisdictional amount of $3,000.

Table VII and graph J, immediately following-comprising a break-down of class A cases and certified cases-shows that during the six fiscal years there have been filed a total of 4,616 class A cases and 108 certified cases, a total of 4,724 cases, wherein the amounts involved were over $1,000. Prior to the Consolidation Act these cases would have been filed in the District Court.

Special attention is directed to the data contained in section A of table VIII and the graphs immediately following, pertaining to jury demands in civil cases. It will be noted from paragraph E of section A that during the fifth fiscal year there were 1,642 demands for jury trials in civil cases as compared with 488 demands for jury trials in civil cases during the first fiscal year ending June 30, 1943, a percentage increase of jury demands in civil cases of 236.48 in the fifth fiscal year as compared with the first fiscal year. Said table indicates that the demands for jury trials in civil cases progressively increased during the first five fiscal years. During the sixth fiscal year the demands for jury trials in civil cases dropped to 1,287, as will be noted from paragraph F of section A, table VIII. However, even this reduced number of 1,287 civil jury demands in the sixth fiscal year is a percentage increase of 163.73 as compared with the 488 demands for civil jury trials in the first fiscal year. As hereinafter indicated this decrease in civil jury demands in the sixth fiscal year is due to the decrease in jury demands in landlord and tenant cases. It will be noted from paragraphs E and F, section A of table VIII, that the demands for jury trials in class A and class B cases continued to increase as compared with the number of demands made in the fifth fiscal year.

Paragraph (e), section B of table VIII herein and the graph immediately following, show that during the first fiscal year there were jury demands in 44 landlord and tenant cases as compared with 715 jury demands in landlord and tenant cases during the fifth fiscal year, an increase of 1,525 percent in jury demands in landlord and tenant cases in the fifth fiscal year as compared with the first fiscal year.

Subparagraph (1) of paragraph F, section A of table VIII, discloses that the demands for jury trials in landlord and tenant cases dropped to 323 during the sixth fiscal year as compared with 715 jury demands filed in landlord and tenant cases during the fifth fiscal year. By way of explanation, it may be stated that during the fifth fiscal year the judges of this court and the judges of the municipal court of appeals made a concentrated drive to reduce the outstanding backlog of jury demands in landlord and tenant cases, the effect of which was to completely dispose of that backlog and to render that calendar current.

Thereafter by giving landlord and tenant jury cases priority in trial, it has been possible for the judges of this court to keep that calendar current. It has been our observation that demands for jury trials in landlord and tenant cases were apparently for the most part made for the purpose of delay. By virtue of the fact that the landlord and tenant jury calendar was kept current the objective of delays was, for all practical purposes eliminated, and therefore nothing was to be gained so far as delays were concerned by demanding a jury trial. This, in our opinion, explains the reduction in number of jury demands filed in landlord and tenant cases during the sixth fiscal year. This reduction in jury demands in landlord and tenant cases also explains the reduction in jury demands in all cases, including landlord and tenant, from a total of 1,642 demands made in the fifth fiscal year as compared to 1,287 demands made in the sixth fiscal year. As pointed out above, the demands made in class A and class B cases increased during the sixth fiscal year over the number of demands made in the fifth fiscal year.

During the 6-year period, a total of 6,114 jury demands in civil cases were filed and 5,614 civil jury cases were disposed of, leaving 500 civil jury trials undisposed of as of June 30, 1948, the end of the sixth fiscal year. A break-down of these pending civil jury trials is shown in paragraph I of section A, table VIII.

The concentrated drive to reduce the backlog of landlord and tenant cases was necessarily at the expense of the jury calendar for class A and class B cases, and hence that calendar continued to increase. To meet that situation, a concentrated drive was made by the judges of the municipal court of appeals and the judges of this court during the sixth fiscal year to reduce the jury calendar of class A and class B cases, with the result that a very substantial reduction was made in that calendar. Obviously, these results could not have been accom

plished without the additional service rendered to our court by the judges of the municipal court of appeals.

The assistance rendered by the municipal court of appeals, judges on the two occasions above pointed out demonstrates what can be done toward bringing the work of the court to a current basis in all branches and in keeping it current if additional judges are provided.

Table IX and the graph immediately following indicate that the number of demands for jury trials in criminal cases, and also the disposition thereof have been approximately uniform in number throughout the six fiscal years, and the criminal jury calendar has been kept substantially current during all of the 6-year period. Table X and the graph immediately following indicate the cash income of the court during the six fiscal years, The total cash income from fees, fines, and forfeitures for the 6-year period amounted to $6,909,092.30; the total appropriations by Congress for the operation of the court during the 6-year period was $2,265,945, slightly less than one-third of the total amount of income of the court. It is important to note that while increases in the volume of business of the court, and also the tremendous increases in civil jury demands, particularly in class A and class B cases, have occurred, no increase has been made in the number of judges of the court. It is obvious that a limited number of judges, even by their best efforts, cannot continue to dispose of a progressively increasing amount of business, comprising not only increases in volume but also increases in the classes of cases requiring a greater length of time to dispose of as compared to the other classes of cases.

Accordingly, the requests made in previous reports are renewed, that appropriate steps be taken to obtain the appointment of at least three additional judges for this court. In addition to taking care of the business of the municipal court, the law requires that during the absence of the judge of the juvenile court the work of the juvenile court be carried on by one of the judges of the municipal court. This extra time thus required averages about a calendar month each year in addition to such time as the judge of the juvenile court may be absent on account of sickness or otherwise.

It is my considered opinion that the court cannot render to the public the service to which it is entitled unless additional judges are furnished.

A duplicate of this report is being submitted to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia.

Respectfully,

GEORGE P. BARSE.

STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF THE BUSINESS OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COVERING THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 1947, THROUGH JUNE 30, 1948, AND A COMPARISON WITH THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1947, AND A SURVEY OF CERTAIN PHASES OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT FOR THE PAST SIX FISCAL YEARS

TABLE I-Number of new cases filed during fiscal year July 1, 1947, to June 30, 1948, as compared with fiscal year ending June 30, 1947

[blocks in formation]

TABLE II.-Comparison of the number of new cases filed during the first 6 months with the last 6 months of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948

[blocks in formation]

TABLE III.-Cash income of court during fiscal year July 1, 1947, to June 30, 1948, as compared with fiscal year ending June 30, 1947

[blocks in formation]

TABLE IV.-Comparison of the cash income of the court for the first 6 months with the last 6 months of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948

[blocks in formation]

TABLE IV.-Comparison of the cash income of the court for the first 6 months with the last 6 months of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948-Continued

[blocks in formation]

TABLE V.-Jury trials in criminal cases during fiscal year July 1, 1947, to June 30, 1948, as compared with fiscal year ending June 30, 1947

[blocks in formation]

TABLE VI. Total number of new cases, criminal and civil, filed during each of the 6 fiscal years, July 1, 1942, to June 30, 1948

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »