local levels and without effective policy guidance from the Congress. Third, LEAA's focus on criminal justice makes it difficult at best for courts to undertake the kinds of broadly based improvements that must be undertaken if the total Justice system, criminal as well as civil, is to function as it should. In most of our courts, including the Federal, the criminal and civil functions are inseparable. Improvements sought on the criminal side necessarily involve consideration of the civil side.

Present Federal policy, then, treats State courts as "components" of a "criminal justice system" conceived of primarily as an activity of the executive branch of Government. It does not treat the judiciary for what it is under the Federal and all State constitutions, an independent branch of government charged with the responsibility of adjudicating all types of disputes between individual citizens and between individuals and the State. Courts are not "components" of a criminal justice system but, in their criminal functions, stand as an independent third force between the police and prosecutor on one side and the accused on the other. This is not to say that the judiciary cannot or should not cooperate with the executive branch in seeking improvements in criminal justice, Judges obviously do and should. But they should do so under conditions respecting the separation of powers. It is our hope, Mr. Chairman, that this issue will be prominent among those discussed by the Congress in its consideration of this legislation and that we will have a firm declaration of Federal policy supporting the underlying constitutional principle.

Before introducing my colleagues for a more detailed discussion, I will note that the Conference of Chief Justices did not have cause to involve itself in Federal legislative and administrative matters until after creation of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration in 1968. We did not create a committee to consider such Federal issues until 1971 when our experience under the LEAA Act, which was drafted without input from the judiciary, gave cause for serious concerns. We did propose amendments, as you know, to the act in 1976 which, while not adopted as proposed, resulted in new provisions recognizing for the first time a judicial role in administration of LEAA's block grant funds at the State and local levels. However, there were no comparable provisions for judicial input into LEAA's national discretionary program and the separation of powers issues remained unresolved. We again attempted to deal with them in our recommendations to the President's Reorganization Project for Justice System Improvement and in our testimony on the LEAA reauthorization legislation now nearing final passage.

When it became apparent that the new legislation would not resolve our concerns we decided to create a task force to seek a new approach. The conference authorized this effort at its annual meeting in August 1978 and the incoming chairman, Chief Justice James Duke Cameron of Arizona, made it the priority effort of his administration. He immediately selected the task force members and placed them under the very able direction of Chief Justice Robert F. Utter of Washington. He also served as an active member of the task force, attending all meetings, and participating in the drafting of the report. He continues to be an effective member of our implementation program and we are greatly indebted to him for his support.

Our task force report, Mr. Chairman, reflects a series of policy positions developed by the conference since its initial resolution on the LEAA program in 1972. These were summarized in the two 1978 resolutions that set the stage for the task force effort and are enclosed along with other recent and related policy statements which we also would ask to be included in the record. They show the long road we have travelled to arrive here today.

We also would like the record to reflect recent statements endorsing the task force report which were adopted by the Appellate Judges Conference and the Council of the American Bar Association's Division of Judicial Administration. These groups are, of course, broadly representative of the trial and appellate bench.

I also should emphasize that the task force effort was not restricted to State court administrators and chief justices but involved members reflecting views of the broad spectrum of interests involved. They were Mr. C. A. Carson III of Phoenix, Ariz., who was chairman of the Judicial Administration Division of the American Bar Association, and Mr. John S. Clark of Petoskey, Mich., chairman of the Coordinating Council of National Court Organizations. Others taking part in our deliberations included John C. McNulty of Minneapolis, Minn.,

chairman of the board of the American Judicature Society who attended a task force meeting in Kansas City where drafts of the report and supporting legislation were considered.

I will close by noting that the State Justice Institute we have proposed would not, in fact, be a new Federal program necessarily involving new or additional funding. Rather, it would make more efficient and effective an existing Federal program. The institute would be a small agency with a modest budget. It would provide funds for research and development programs with national application or which would be beyond the resources of any given judicial system. It would not fund or subsidize ongoing State court operations. But it would spotlight problems and shortcomings of our State judiciaries, provide national resources to assist in correcting them, and make the appropriate State judicial officials responsible for their solution.

The first of my colleagues to develop these and other points will be Prof. Frank Remington of the University of Wisconsin Law School. Professor Remington, to name but a few of the roles that have earned him an enviable national reputation in the law, is a member of the Standing Committee on Criminal Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States and previously served as reporter for the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures. We were fortunate to enlist him as an advisor to our task force and owe him a great debt for the time and effort he graciously volunteered.

Following Professor Remington will be Mr. Ralph Kleps of San Francisco who was for many years State administrator for the California courts, one of the Nation's largest and finest judicial systems. In this capacity he was intimately familiar with the LEAA program as it involved courts. Last year, in his present capacity as a consultant on court administration, he conducted a study on "Federalism and Assistance to State Courts-1969-1978" for the Department of Justice's Office for Improvements in the Administration of Justice. Like Professor Remington, he insisted on serving the task force without compensation.

Mr. Kleps will be followed by the Honorable Robert J. Sheran, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Minnesota, chairman of our Committee on FederalState Relations who has been our very eloquent and effective voice in Washington for the past 3 years. I think it fair to say that it was his work which prepared the way for the task force effort and he, of course, contributed significantly to the effort itself. Chief Justice Sheran also has been directly involved in the LEAA program in Minnesota and has long been concerned with the issues involved in Federal programs affecting State courts.

The next speaker will be William H. Adkins, II, State court administrator of Maryland, who is chairman-elect of the Conference of State Court Administrators and chairman of their committee on Federal-State relations. He also served as a member of the task force and brought to it his broadly based knowledge of State court issues and their present relationship to existing Federal funding programs.

The last speaker will be the chairman of our task force, the Honorable Robert F. Utter, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Washington, who gave so freely of his time and many talents over the past year that we are in a position to appear here today. The work could not have been completed in so short a time without his firm and steady guidance and we are greatly indebted to him.

Mr. I'ANSON. It is now my pleasure to present Professor Remington. Professor REMINGTON. Thank you, Chief Justice I'Anson and Senator Heflin.

STATEMENT OF PROF. FRANK J. REMINGTON, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN LAW SCHOOL, TASK FORCE COMMITTEE CONSULTANT

Professor REMINGTON. When I was first contacted about 1 year ago and asked to assist in the preparation of a proposal for Federal financial assistance for State judicial systems, I was very hesitant to become involved for a couple of reasons. First, I felt not sufficiently well informed with respect to the merits of this question, and second, I was

skeptical whether a persuasive.case would ever be made in connection with Federal financial assistance for State judicial systems.

Over the course of the past year under the tutelage of others sitting at this table I have become better informed with respect to the merits and I have been completely persuaded that there is, in fact, a principle basis for Federal financial assistance for some aspects of State

courts.

I became convinced that to say that there is an important Federal interest in the quality of justice furnished by State courts is to assert the obvious. There is nothing more important to a democratic society than confidence by its citizens that they will receive a high quality of justice in State court as well as Federal. It is particularly true and particularly difficult to achieve in a highly diverse society such as ours with diverse ethnic and racial groups.

Important as our health, education, and good environment, all the recipients of Federal financial support, they are no more essential to a nation than to have all citizens confident that they can find fairness and justice and proper concern for constitutional principles in the State courts where 98 percent of the cases are handled. This reason alone would justify Federal financial assistance to State courts where such assistance can contribute significantly to the quality of justice. But there are other reasons also, some of which have been mentioned by Senator Heflin in his opening remarks.

Actions at the Federal level have, in recent times, significantly increased the burden of State courts and significantly increased the direct Federal interest in the effectiveness of State judicial systems. These actions have been of three general sorts: First, the Congress has increasingly relied on State courts to implement congressional legislation. A nationwide 55-mile-per-hour speed limit is illustrative of a large number of additional illustrations which could be cited, some of which were cited by Senator Heflin in his opening remarks. Second, Federal executive agencies, such as the Department of Justice, and Federal courts have diverted an increasing number of matters to State courts in order to maintain the small, high quality character of the Federal justice system.

The Federal Government used to prosecute interstate auto theft. It no longer does so; the trend is toward increased reliance on State contributions and is increasing in volume. Federal courts have decided not any longer to review State fourth amendment decisions where the State has given a full and fair hearing. A very recent count indicates that as many as 41 State courts have held that the State court has jurisdiction to hear cases brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Federal Civil Rights Act. I anticipate that there will be increased reliance on State courts in 1983 cases where the decision of the State courts will be res judicata and the question of the adherence to the Federal constitutional standards cannot be relitigated in Federal courts.

Third, Federal courts impose increasing procedural due process requirements on State courts in both criminal and civil cases. There was a time in my memory when States viewed this as unwarranted Federal interference in State judicial systems. It is my view today that there is a greater willingness on the part of State courts to accept these procedural due process requirements and it seems to me that there is an obvious Federal interest in assuring that the process and implementation at the State level is knowledgeable and is effective.

Senator HEFLIN. Professor Remington, let me dwell on that. I haven't seen any studies, but my knowledge having been on the judiciary and then returned to the practice of law and having become involved in the assigned counsel system of representing the poor, since the enlargement of due process procedures have taken place on the courts, pleas of guilty or anything else, I had one time an occasionsomeone estimated that that has probably increased judicial manpower requirements between 10 and 15 percent in the State courts. We are all certainly in agreement; I don't think anybody would want to change and do away with any of the procedural due process requirements that we now have. For example, to take a plea of guilty formerly lasted probably in the neighborhood of 3 to 4 minutes just in going through the procedure in the trial court. Now, with all of the various procedural due process requirements, a plea of guilty, if properly conducted as most State courts do, can take from 30 minutes to 1 hour. I think this has increased a substantial amount of judicial man-hours in regard to work. If you have 10 to 15 percent-if you have in the neighborhood of 100 trial judges in a State, it may well have brought about an increase of 10 to 15 judges. Looking at it in a more exaggerated state, the corresponding supportive personnel that goes alongcourt reporters, and some judges have secretarvs-would be a substantial increase on the financial burden of the State.

Do you have any comments in regard to this as to the increased requirement that are placed upon the State judicial systems as a result of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, due process procedures, which we need and want, but which also create an additional cost to the State?

Dr. REMINGTON. I agree with that, Senator. I don't think there is any question about it and I think the plea of guilty procedure is probably the best illustration. It not only requires extra time, and therefore, extra judicial resources, but it is more difficult to do and requires a great deal more in the way of judicial education to understand the very complex requirements of that kind of procedure. These increased requirements have been imposed, not only by courts, but during the last session the House Judiciary Committee added to the requirement of rule 11 by providing that the judge can put the person under oath in taking the plea and must warn the person of the fact that if a false statement is made under oath that that person can be proceeded against for perjury. That issue has complicated, as part of rule 11, the State court procedure and Federal court procedure, and the experience has been, under Boykin v. Alabama and the McCarthy case, that the increased requirement, both judicial and legislative, through rule 11 on the Federal courts, has been applied by the 14th amendment to State courts. I would anticipate that State courts will be required, if they are going to proceed against individuals who make false statements as part of the guilty plea process, to conform to the new and increased requirements of rule 11; all of which, as you indicate, may be for the good, but all of which take increased time, increased resources, and put increased burdens on State systems to insure that trial judges often in remote rural areas are kept informed of these developments so that they can apply them and not have to face post conviction attacks, and have to redo their cases after convictions have been set aside.

Senator, others will speak to whether Federal financial assistance

can be put to good use by State judicial systems and as to whether undesirable Federal control over State judiciaries can be protected against. Assuming that the funds will be used effectively, as I believe they will, and assuming that an undesirable degree of Federal control can be avoided, as I believe it can, I believe it is evident that a Federal financial commitment to the quality of justice in the State courts is in the Nation's interest and is an appropriate function of Federal Government.

Senator HEFLIN. Let me address for a moment the issue of taking an appeal in indigent cases. The requirement, for example, for an indigent to have a transcript and lawyers fees. Very recently in my State they had a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court didn't grant cert on but which raised the question that lawyers were enslaved in the representation of the indigent because the fees they were paid were so low, and really, they are very low. I think some of the examples that are on appeal in Alabama that the court reporter made somewhere in the neighborhood of seven or eight times in regard to what the lawyer did. You don't always think about the additional cost that is incurred because of this, but court reporters-just the transcripts alone-maybe Mr. Kleps and Mr. Adkins would have some idea of what the cost of this has been, as an additional cost on the States.

Professor REMINGTON. I think that work at the State judicial level can help reduce those costs if that work is made possible. At the latest convention of the Conference of Chief Justices, I noted that a resolution was passed urging the so-called unified postconviction motion so instead of having to do it twice, once on appeal and once on a postconviction habeas, the suggestion on the part of State courts is that all of that might have been done in a single hearing and the costs will not have to be doubled and it seems to me that this is an illustration of where constructive procedural changes can be made, given adequate resources to work those through, which will make it possible to achieve the new requirements and to do so more efficiently.

Senator HEFLIN. We also happen to have Professor Remington's son here who is a counsel for the House of Representatives, and we would like to welcome you. Do you have any questions? Would you like to ask "Teacher" something? [Laughter.]

MICHAEL REMINGTON. No, thank you.

Senator HEFLIN. Who is the next witness?
All right, Mr. Ralph Kleps?

STATEMENT OF RALPH N. KLEPS, STATE ADMINISTRATOR,

CALIFORNIA COURTS

Mr. KLEPS. Mr. Chairman, I have a long-standing interest in national efforts to improve State government. It goes back further, as a matter of fact, than I like to recall. In the 1950's I was legislative counsel in California and worked with the Council of State Governments and I soon learned that legislators, through the National Legislative Conference, and Governors, through the Governors Conference, had powerful instruments to assist in the continuing improvement of their operations.

When I was chairman of the National Legislative Conference, I got real insight into this but when I became administrative director of the