this is an important job, because I, too, practiced law in a small State, but we had a great many important distinctions to clarify in the local court system. I understand the chairman spent a great deal of his time revising that system in his home State of Alabama and I think it's very important. Thank you.

Senator HEFLIN. Thank you, Senator Simpson. Mr. Levin, I believe we will go with you next.

STATEMENT OF A. LEO LEVIN, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL JUDICIAL

CENTER

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to be here. If I might open on a personal note, I count it a matter of great personal pleasure and privilege to appear for the first time before this new subcommittee so fittingly under the chairmanship of one who has already distinguished himself by many achievements in this area.

As I noted in my statement, because of the way the Federal Judicial Center operates, I speak only for myself, but speaking for myself and through my submitted statement, I am so pleased to come and testify wholeheartedly in favor of the basic proposal we have here in this

bill.

Let me say that I take it as axiomatic, certainly at this stage of the hearing, that the national interest in the administration of justice on the State level is clear. I think it may be useful if I were, briefly, to simply indicate the experience that I perceive the Federal Judicial Center has had as an enterprise devoted to similar interests, albeit on the Federal level. Utilizing that experience, I can sketch out some of the potential that I see inherent in the enactment of this bill for a State Justice Institute.

Briefly, I would mention just three areas; I won't try to cover the whole operation of the center. First, what we call our innovations and systems development is responsible for data processing innovations for the Federal courts, the use of computers and modern management techniques for the Federal judicial system. I know there has been some substantial State experience in the area. I would only say that our experience so far, at both the trial and appellate level is just beginning, and makes it perfectly clear that this is, I might stress in large volume courts, an indispensable tool, particularly as the courts have imposed on them, either by rule or by statutes in speedy trial acts, additional time constraints. In complicated appellate courts, the very notion of what motions have been entered, for one example of the status of things that can be better monitored, and we thus view it as exceedingly worthwhile. We are beginning now to achieve the level where and this has just been in the past month-it will no longer be necessary to maintain in the normal way a paper docket but rather take data off the electronic system, reproduce it by microfiche at regular intervals and on demand. We can thus begin to see a program operating effectively, efficiently, more accurate than paper. I consider this really worthwhile research.

The work of the National Center for State Courts is very well known, and we have been the beneficiaries of some of their efforts and we maintain some fairly close contacts, so we hope they perhaps have been in some ways the beneficiary of ours. I think automatic data

processing work has already demonstrated the importance of research for the continuing development of judicial administration.

What of research on court and case management procedures? If I were to go back to the first really classic experimental study it was by Professor Rosenberg, on compulsory pretrial in New Jersey. It revealed the importance of evaluating a new technique, and saying, "Does it really work," and if it does, "What does it accomplish? "What are the byproducts that we are concerned about?" This type of research, I think, is terribly important and we've demonstrated it on the Federal side, on the appellate level, in the second circuit, and we are now working in the seventh circuit, as well as in trial courts with respect to certain other new innovations. I think such research is an indispensable tool. I speak of the kind of work where you take 3,000 cases, 7,000 docketed entries, 6 different courts, and you begin to say, "What kinds of patterns are developed here and what can we learn so that an individual judge can adjust what he's doing to some new method which seems to be producing better pay dirt for the interests of the litigants?" Always, I stress, we focus on that. I think that's been demonstrated.

Finally, I shall say a word on educational programs. It seems totally clear to us, from the reports of the judges, for example, not only as they conclude a seminar program or orientation session for new judges, but as we talk to them 3 years thereafter, 5 years thereafter, they continue to endorse it as an indispensable, exceedingly valuable tool. And this goes as well for a lot of other personnel in the judicial system. I won't elaborate on similar reactions of the clerks, deputy clerks, circuit executives, but in our judgment, the programs are exceedingly valuable. They ought to be expanded. Many of the State systems have similar experiences. What we are talking about here is making programs available for everyone, and conceivably some interstate kind of experience as well.

Let me conclude briefly by suggesting two kinds of areas where we could hopefully have the Federal Judicial Center working together with the State justice institute. First, there are cooperative ventures in areas of State-Federal relationships. I can see areas, such as with prison petitions, for example, that involve our interest in working together because the problems are common and some of the litigation is in one system, some in another system. Beyond that, there is the business of sharing experiences on common problem. We've done that already, beneficially, but it has been a kind of informal allocation division of responsibility, and that had to do with computer-aided stenographic transcriptions. We've done it in some other research areas. But I see out of this bill the potential for a tremendously increased cooperative approach to the benefit of all.

Briefly, Mr. Chairman, these are what I see as some of the potential benefits. I have elaborated on a number of these things in my statement and it would be my pleasure to attempt to respond to any question which you may have.

Senator HEFLIN. One of the great nationwide needs in the State judicial system is orientation and educational programs to help new judges become acquainted with their new duties. Some States have developed such systems, basically modeled after the Federal Judicial

Center. Out of curiosity, let's take a new district judge following his confirmation-when do they come to the Federal Judicial Center for their orientation and educational program, and what does it entail from the viewpoint of number of days and basic approaches?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the answer to that would be dependent, in large measure, on the volume of new judges, and the incidence of the appointment dates and the confirmation dates. Prior to the omnibus bill, it was not unusual to have a new judges' orientation seminar only once a year. Obviously, the incidence of when the judge began on his new duties would be an important thing. Our preference is, and what we are trying to do now, although the volume has increased, is bring them to the center after they have been on the bench for 2 or 3 or 4 months so they have some real feel for the problems. However, because that's quite a bit of time, we have developed, just this past year, what we call an in-court orientation program, developed by a committee of judges from our board. It has a checklist, and suggestions to the chief judge of the court and to the individual judge who is just coming aboard saying, "These are the things you ought to check out, such as how to take a guilty plea," and suggest that they ought to sit on trials with other judges. Then they come to us when the next available program will be held. Our last one was just last week. The one before that was in June. Our next one we are hoping will be in January. So now with the volume we have it's really frequent.

They come in on a Sunday afternoon. They have an opportunity to get to know each other a little bit-so that they are comfortable in a give-and-take-on Sunday evening, and then they will have 6 days of work. There will be a full day of such subjects as evidence, there is an important half-day on sentencing-what the Parole Commission does, what it means when a judge enters a certain sentence, that the Parole Commission may do. There will be substantial attention devoted to case management, what the responsibility is of the judge in taking the initiative, what difference does it make. There will be sessions in addition on problems of civil trial or civil cases or criminal cases, use of the jury, things of this sort, an exchange of techniques. This is typically the gist of what we will do during these 512 very full days, really a 6-day program.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Levin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF A. LEO LEVIN

Mr. Chairman, my name is A. Leo Levin. I am the Director of the Federal Judicial Center, and I am pleased to accept your invitation to discuss with you the proposal for a State Justice Institute. On a personal level, these hearings afford me the genuine pleasure of appearing before a new subcommittee chaired by a recognized leader-first as a chief justice and now as a Senator-in the effort to improve our State courts' ability to adminster justice effectively and fairly. I am obligated to record at the outset that my comments today do not represent any official position of the Federal Judicial Center or of the Federal judicial system. The Center speaks on matters of policy only through its board, and, of course, as you are aware, the Judicial Conference of the United States is responsible for the legislative recommendations of the Federal judiciary.

I

I accept, virtually as an axiom, that there is a strong Federal interest in the quality of justice administered in the State courts. The quality of life in our

society is permeated at every turn by the quality of justice dispensed in our courts, which in terms of the frequency of direct contact is predominantly in State courts. This point bears emphasis: in terms of numbers alone, whether we speak of case loads, litigants, juuges or courts, the States dwarf the Federal judicial system. Moreover, this is as it should be, and, on the basis of every reliable predictor we have, this is the way it will continue to be. Thus, the national interest in assuring not only that justice is in fact done, but that it perceived as being done, in State as well as Federal tribunals, can hardly be less than the national interest in the quality of education or health care, and the Utter report is entirely persuasive on this point.

In addition, it is good to remind ourselves that it was not until 1875 that the Congress vested n Federal trial courts general jurisdiction over cases arising under Federal law; State courts were relied upon to provide the forum for the vindication of Federal rights. Our federalism, as we know it, rests in large measure on the judicial systems of the several States.

There may be, perhaps, in the minds of some, questions concerning the utility of continuing education programs for judges and for other supporting personnel, of the utility of automated data processing for courts, of the utility and cost effectiveness of research concerning courts and their procedures. On these questions, the experience of the Federal Judicial Center may be helpful and for that reason I thought to sketch that experience as it relates to the major functions of the proposed State Justice Institute.

п

I turn first to use of computers-more technically, the development of automatic data processing capabilities and systems innovations-to improve the functioning of the courts. When Congress created the Center, it was aware of the technological revolution that was, in 1967, only beginning to be seen in the State courts, and to a lesser degree in the Federal courts. Consequently, the Congress directed the Center to "study and determine ways in which automatic data processing and systems procedures may be applied to the administration of the courts of the United States," and, as prescribed by statute, each of the Center's annual reports includes detailed discussion of the results of this work. Pursuant to this mandate, the Center has developed a range of computer applications for court and case management, and they are in various stages of development.

The applications in the most advanced state of pilot operation are a criminal case management system, and an index system. The latter allows quick categorization of the docket of a court, or a judge, in terms of parties, data filed, and the like. It is a simple, but exceedingly useful application. The criminal case management system is far more complex, but it provides ready access to a great deal of information useful in implementing a Speedy Trial Act or rule. A case management system for appellate courts is being tested, preliminarily, in two courts, and a civil case management system is in an early development stage. On the other hand, an automated system for the Federal courts' Central Violations Bureaus, which handle the citations and fine payments for the halfmillion annual petty offenses in Federal courts, is in operation in four courts with a heavy Federal presence and can be expanded. We are only beginning the planning for a massive probation management information system.

The Center also responds to specific needs for automated support. For example, what we term CALEN-9 was developed by our research division to help the heavily burdened ninth circuit arrange cases for panels, implementing policies developed by the judges themselves.

These details on the Federal system are relevant to your interest in State court improvements because they suggest the benefit of sustained financial support over the long term in developing, testing, modifying, and refining the terribly complex automated procedures necessary to serve the courts. The results are seen, however, in the ability of the system to help the judges, not so much for their own sake, but to help them in serving the litigants. And the judges themselves have been generous in their assessment of the value of these applications.

I am aware, of course, of the work done by the National Center for State Courts in the field of automation, and that done by individual courts. However, to the degree the Federal Judicial Center's experience can be helpful and avoid

duplicative developmental work, we should be pleased to be of assistance to the State courts, subject of course to the provisions of whatever legislation is enacted and subject to the resources provided us by the Congress.

Implicit in the bill providing for the creation of a State Justice Institute is the recognition of the potential value of research for achieving more effective justice. There is ample support for this emphasis in the work of the National Center for State Courts and of other agencies devoted to judicial administration, such as the Institute of Judicial Administration and the American Judicature Society. That careful research has been beneficial to the courts is hardly surprising, for the high priority regularly accorded to research and development by industry shows how important, indeed how indispensable, it is for any organization constantly to study alternatives to present methods, to seek out more efficient use of resources, and, if we think of a mediated settlement as different in kind from a judgment following adjudication, to consider new end products. The experience of the Federal Judicial Center lends further support to the importance of continuing research. The Congress, in creating the Center, listed research first among our functions and it is our considered judgment that the emphasis was not misplaced. The Center's research has included rigorous empirical studies-such as our study of sentencing disparity at the request of the judges of the second circuit, and our more recent analysis of discovery practices in Federal courts. Other research has been less quantitative, and based instead on firsthand observation and assessment of the topic of study. A recently published analysis of the impact of the Circuit Executive Act provides an example. The important point to stress is that the ability of the Center's research to make a significant contribution has stemmed in large measure from the fact that it is sustained and continuing.

One hopes that the end product of a research effort will include suggestions for improvement. This bill, too, speaks of the search for innovations designed to achieve effective justice, more speedily and at less cost. Innovations do, in fact, sometimes result from such studies, but creativity is not a commodity readily available on requisition. If, however, as has been suggested, genius is 99 percent perspiration and only 1 percent inspiration, it is important to continue the effort to illumine the problems that the courts face and to probe constantly for changes that may prove effective, to innovate and, of central importance, to evaluate the results of each such effort.

Of all the changes in judicial administration in the recent decades, perhaps the most dramatic has been the programs of education for judges and for supporting personnel. The quantum of education available has increased dramatically, and, perhaps even more striking has been the increased receptivity of judges and others to these programs. Given the work of the National Judicial College and the Institute for Court Management, and the programs developed by numerous State court systems, it would be presumptuous to think that the Federal Judicial Center's programs should provide the model.

Again, however, the possibilities of cooperation and of sharing new experiences remains, all the more so because technological innovations, combined with the increased costs of transportation, give us compelling reason to look for innovative new techniques to complement the traditional onsite seminar. The Judicial Center is making increasing and substantial use of its media services library to provide audio and video tapes of seminar lectures, and of special presentations. We shall soon be testing what for us is a new type of national seminar, in which the participants remain in their home cities, but see and hear speakers at a distant location; there will be a built-in capability for questions and answers over transcontinental hook-ups, all as part of the same program. We are not alone in the endeavor to take advantage of these new technological developments and we would welcome the opportunity to explore how best to use them for our respective judicial systems.

III

A State Justice Institute holds promise for increased attention to problems that are not confined by the boundaries of the State or Federal judicial systems. Firm Federal financial assistance to allow sustained research and development by State courts and by national State court agencies is necessary for serious attention to problems of federalism, and problems shared by State and Federal courts.