benefits, whether compartmentalized between the criminal and civil side. Mr. ADKINS. Mr. Velde is quite right, Mr. Chairman. In that particular instance, LEAA did take a rather liberal view of the fact that, despite the fact that there was a civil component, there was a criminal one as well and the project was funded. This is illustrative, I think, of the evolution and learning process that has occurred at LEAA. As time went on, LEAA has realized more and more about the indivisible nature of the State court system. You still hear, once in a while, the cry that this is purely civil, or largely civil, and can we fund it and sometimes you have to get opinions of counsel and go to Washington to get that resolved. But what I think this illustrates, Mr. Chairman, again is my concern about H.R. 261. It seems to me that if that bill passes with the language that is now in it, it is going to make it, perhaps, impossible for LEAA to continue its efforts to look with some liberality and some broad construction on the present funding situation. It seems to me that it is a highly serious matter and might stop the process of evolution that has occurred so far and, again, make impossible the funding of many State court projects because they would have a substantial civil component. Mr. VELDE. Well, as far as the real life administration of the State and local courts in many instances, and probably in most, it is really impossible to make a meaningful distinction. Mr. ADKINS. I couldn't agree with you more. Mr. VELDE. If you are going to have a jury reform project, that certainly applies civilly, as well as criminally, try to improve court reporting, try to modernize information systems and to introduce automation, all those apply equally on both sides. Mr. ADKINS. Absolutely. Senator HEFLIN. Mr. Remington, do you have a question? Mr. MICHAEL REMINGTON. I have a brief question, which in no way represents the views of the House of Representatives. If civil justice is put back in LEAA, doesn't it strike you as reducing the chances of likelihood of passage of the legislation we are speaking of this morning? In other words, is there an overlap or contradiction between the two pieces of legislation? Mr. ADKINS. I don't think so because it seems to me that even though you retain the civil aspects, the limited civil funding that is available under LEAA, especially under S. 241, there is room for operation, both of the State Justice Institute, and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. As has been expressed by others here this morning, it seems to me that the State Justice Institute would operate mainly in the area now that is the discretionary grant area whereas LEAA might well continue to operate in the block grant area. I would hope that there would still be some mechanism whereby courts do participate with other elements of the criminal justice system, but that is not all; you have to have another, broader approach to the overall problems of the courts. Senator HEFLIN. Thank you. I know that during Mr. Velde's time as Administrator of LEAA, there was very much of an understanding between the interrelationship of the civil and criminal courts and that it is almost an impossibility to divorce them. Mr. Remington, we hope that you will carry that missionary message back to the House. [Laughter.] Senator HEFLIN. If there are no other remarks, we can adjourn this meeting. Thank you. We appreciate such distinguished people coming. Mr. I'ANSON. Mr. Chairman, before we adjourn, may I express my appreciation to you for granting us this hearing here today and also Mr. Velde, Mr. Feinberg and my friend, who represents Representative Kastenmeier of the House side. Thank you all so much. [Whereupon at 12:08 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE ACT OF 1979 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1979 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON JURISPRUDENCE AND GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., November OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEFLIN Senator HEFLIN. This hearing will come to order. Today this subcommittee resumes hearings on a proposesd State Justice Institute Act. As I indicated on the opening day of testimony on this proposal, the quality of justice in the United States is largely determined by the quality of justice in our State courts. In fact, we heard testimony that it is in the State courts that 98 percent of all cases are tried. If, then, the overwhelming majority of our citizens turn to the State courts for the protection of their constitutional rights and the redress of their grievances, then our consideration of legislation to assist State courts, is one of the most important undertakings of the Judiciary Committee in recent years. The burden placed on our State courts has increased significantly in recent years. Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the enactment of wide-reaching social legislation by the Congress, and the diversion of cases from the Federal courts, for example, have taken their toll on State court dockets and the workload of State judges and court personnel. As a result, we are investigating whether it is appropriate, and, if so, by what means, for the Federal Government to provide financial and technical assistance to State courts to help alleviate some of the problems which these actions at the Federal level have caused. The committee has already heard compelling testimony on the need for a State Justice Institute from a panel of distinguished members of the bench and bar representing, among other groups, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Conference of Chief Justices, and the Conference of State Court Administrators. We are fortunate to hear today from the Honorable Maurice Rosenberg, Assistant Attorney General, Office for Improvements in the Administration of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice; Mr. Edward B. (45) 60-753 0 - 80 - 4 McConnell, executive director of the National Center for State Courts; Mr. Leo Levin, director of the Federal Judicial Center; and the Honorable Janie Shores, associate justice, Supreme Court of Alabama. All of our panelists have distinguished themselves in their respective fields of law and the administration of justice. We welcome each of you, and look forward to hearing your valuable comments. Professor Rosenberg, if you would, we'd appreciate it if you would begin. STATEMENT OF PROF. MAURICE ROSENBERG, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE FOR IMPROVEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Professor ROSENBERG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here and to discuss with you this very important proposal for a State Justice Institute. I'm going to be speaking here on my own behalf only, and not as a representative of the Department of Justice or the Office for Improvements in the Administration of Justice. I should say that the proposal has not had time to have a sufficient airing in the Department because it's moving along, as you know, at the same time that many other proposals and items of legislation are moving along that affect matters that are interwoven with the proposal for a State Justice Institute. As a result, I'm going to express only my own views. I have a background in connection with this matter that emboldens me to offer these thoughts. The background goes back more years than I care to recall. I believe that I came into the field of judicial administration about 1955. Since then, I have seen the field of judicial administration move from a sort of backroom subject of discussion among eggheads and very few eggheads at that-and a few judges who were out in front of the rest, to a first-line subject of importance in the delivery of justice to the people of this country. The rise of judicial administration as a legitimate respectable, and necessary aspect of the work of judges is one of the phenomenons of the last generation. It has placed judicial administration alongside adjudication as a respectable first-line activity of judges. Another tendency has developed at the same time that is important for the discussion that we're having this morning, that it is that judicial education has come of age. We have come to recognize the importance of education of judges, that is, if orienting them to their work soon after they come to the bench, and of informing them later of what they ought to know concerning new developments in the law, better techniques for carrying out their responsibilities, and a better appreciation for some of the broader streams that are flowing in the fields of law and judicial administration. All these matters have come to the fore also in the last generation. The States have moved unevenly in entering the field of judicial administration and in their interest in education for judges. Some States are well-financed, well-supported and have high morale in these respects, and they have moved forward very rapidly. Other States lag. They lag in respect to their interest in judicial administration, the resources that they have to devote to research and development in the field, and also in what they are able to do about providing their new |