1. Federal justice personnel : *a. Perfect procedures and monitor performance of the new judicial nominating panels for the U.S. Courts of Appeals. b. Encourage and study the use of judicial nominating panels at the District Court level. c. Assist in developing proposals for disability and tenure commissions for Federal judges. d. Develop proposals for improving the selection and training of Federal magistrates. 2. Better designed court structures: *a. Increase jurisdiction and evaluate effectiveness of the Federal magistrate system. *b. Develop judicial impact assessment of new legislation, in conjunction with the Office of Legislative Affairs. c. Develop proposals for rationalizing and increasing the appellate capacity of the federal judiciary. 3. Federal government representation in court: a. Improve coordination and management of government litigation below the Supreme Court. *b. Structure prosecutorial discretion. c. Develop plans for case management and professionalization in U.S. Attorneys' Offices. 4. Citizen participation in the courts: *a. Improve compensation and treatment of jurors and witnesses. b. Assist in reassessing the role and composition of juries in civil cases. c. Assist in developing proposals to help participants with language problems. C. More Effective Procedures in Civil Litigation: 1. Trial procedures: *a. Improve class action procedures. *b. Develop proposals for more equitable allocation of attorneys' fees and court costs. *c. Revise pretrial procedures, especially discovery, to reduce expenses and delay and to increase fairness. d. Assist in developing legislation governing standing to sue in federal courts. e. Make voir dire jury selection procedures fairer and more effective. f. Revise procedures to deal with current trends toward strong court role in case management. 2. Appellate Procedures: *a. Devise and evaluate experiments in subject matter panel assignments. *b. Develop proposals to alter the economic incidents of civil appeals costs, interest rates, attorneys' fees-for more equitable allocation and to discourage groundless appeals. c. Devise and experiment with innovations in the presentation and decision of appeals. d. Revise procedures to deal with new judicial role in case management and the increased use of professional assistance. Goal II. Reduce the impact of crime on citizens and the courts A. Substantive reforms in federal law: *1. Assist in revising the Federal Criminal Code. *2. Assist in developing legislation on handgun control. 3. Simplify and consolidate criminal sanctions in regulatory laws. *4. Develop plans to improve prison conditions. 5. Propose federal and state programs for compensation for victims of crime. B. Procedural reforms in criminal cases: 1. Develop means other than the exclusionary rule for deterring illegal law enforcement activity and of providing redress for persons harmed by such activity. 2. Develop proposals for a fair and effective system of review in criminal cases. 3. Develop sentencing guidelines and procedures, including relation of parole to sentencing. 4. Improve procedures for detention and release before trial and pending appeal. 5. Develop proposals for ameliorating the adverse impact of the Speedy Trial Act. 6. Commence long-range, fundamental reexamination of American criminal procedure. C. Administrative coordination-develop policies to focus criminal law efforts within and without the Justice Department. Goal III. Reduce impediments to justice unnecessarily resulting from separation of powers and federalism: A. Coordination of the three branches of the federal government to plan for and improve the judicial system-devise plan for a Federal Justice Council to include representatives from all three branches. B. Exploration of means of coordinating federal, state, and local efforts to improve justice consider National Justice Council with mixed federal and state representation to develop and implement national policy on justice. C. Reallocation of federal and state authority: 1. Move portions of federal diversity jurisdiction to the state courts. 2. Develop policies for allocating primary responsibility for prosecuting conduct which is an offense under both state and federal laws. 3. Develop proposals for improved federal judicial review of state convictions. Goal IV. Increase and improve research in the administration of justice: *A. Direct the newly created Federal Justice Research Program. * B. Assist in devising final plans for a central, effective statistical agency for criminal and civil justice. * C. Assist in developing proposals for new means of organizing and funding nationwide justice research. (c) [From the Washington Post, Monday, June 13, 1977] U.S. TO FUND NEIGHBORHOOD JUSTICE CENTER TESTS IN THREE CITIES (By John M. Goshko) The Justice Department is launching an experimental program to give the public a speedy and inexpensive way to resolve minor disputes through neighborhood justice centers that would serve as alternatives to the courts. The centers would attempt, through mediation, to settle the sort of conflictsdomestic spats, claims by customers against merchants, arguments between landords and tenants-that clog the dockets of the lower courts in American cities. The centers and their services would be available to anyone willing to submit a dispute to mediation. But Justice Department officials believe they will be especially helpful to poor people who are denied access to justice because of the lack of money, education and time. "We're trying to devise new means to alleviate the difficulty of many Americans in finding answers to small grieviences," explains Deputy Assistant Attorney General Paul Nejelski. "For many, litigation in the courts just isn't a practical answer. It's too costly and too time-consuming for the man of limited means who feels he's paid $25 for a pair of boots that aren't any good. "At the same time," Nejelski adds, "many of the traditional institutions that used to provide a framework for settling such disputes, such as the family and church, are losing their efficacy. Others like the justice of the peace, the policeman on the beat and the precinct captain are fading from the American scene.” As part of its research for substitutes, the Justice Department hopes to have three neighborhood centers, funded with federal money but under local control, in operation by the fall. Although the plans are still tentative, department officials say it seems fairly that one will be in Los Angeles and one in Atlanta. The third is expected Midwest. roject already commenced or assigned priority. The experimental centers will be evaluated closely over a 15-to-18-month period, and department officials are hopeful that the experiment will spur cities all over the country to set up their own neighborhood centers. To assist such efforts, the department has plans for a "national resources center" that would serve as a clearinghouse for information and technical assistance for local governments wanting to try the idea. The impetus for this program comes from Attorney General Griffin B. Bell, who has established as one of his main priorities a drive to provide better access to justice without putting an unbearable strain on the resources of the federal, state and local courts. To direct this campaign, Bell has set up an Office for Improvements in the Administration of Justice under Assistant Attorney General Daniel J. Meador, a former law professor at the University of Virginia. Meador's office already is involved in several initiatives to speed the process of justice, including plans for arbitration of certain cases in the federal courts, and recently introduced legislation to broaden the jurisdiction of federal magistrates. Of all the plans, though, Bell is known to regard the neighborhood justice centers as potentially the most important. He has said that he wants the program to demonstrate how the federal government can play "a leadership role" in assisting the states and cities to improve the quality of justice. To this end, he directed that the experiment be financed by federal funds through the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. Department officials estimate the cost at $150,000 each for the three prototype centers and an additional $300,000 to $350,000 for evaluation of their operations. The planning has been done primarily by Nejelski, one of Meador's deputies, and by John Beal, a department attorney. Both say that a great deal of trial and error will be necessary to learn how the centers can operate most efficiently. Each center will have an administrator, who may or may not be a lawyer, some paralegal assistants and a cadre of mediators, recruited, if possible from the neighborhood served by the center and given special training. "We hope to recruit from retired persons, housewives and others who know the people of the neighborhood and their problems." Nejelski says. “If, for example, you have a dispute involving a family who are Black Muslims, it would be important to have a mediator who is also a Muslim or at least familiar with their traditions and sensibilities." Establishment and control over the centers will be accomplished in a variety of ways. In Los Angeles, the department is working through the local bar association, while the projected Atlanta center probably will be tied to the local courts. Each center also will have a citizen's advisory board representing the ethnic, economic and social composition of its neighborhood. They will be geared to handle cases referred by public and private agencies and what Nejelski calls "walk-ins form the street." A primary task of each administrator, he adds, will be to ensure that the people of the neighborhood are aware of the center's services and be encouraged to put their trust in it. Nejelski notes that the centers are certain to encounter some cases that they cannot handle, either because one of the disputants will not agree to mediation or because they involve issues that require the intervention of a lawyer. In such instances, he says, the centers will assist the parties to a dispute in going to court or seeking some other legal remedy. Both Nejelski and Beal point out that these general guidelines still leave a lot of unanswered questions. They range from whether chain stores and municipal agencies, which might be parties to a dispute, will cooperate in submitting to mediation to the type and premises and working hours that would be most appropriate for the centers. "That might sound trivial," Nejelski says, "but there are real problems in whether people might find a storefront location less intimidating than a public building. If you schedule mediation sessions at night when people aren't tied up at work, will they be afraid to come because of a high crime incidence in the streets? "These are all things where we're still groping for answers, and that's why we're starting in a small way with only three centers. We hope their experience will tell us what's good and what's bad and which way we should go in the future." Ninety-fifth Congress Bills To Amend 28 U.S.C. § 142 (S. 653, H.R. 2677, H.R. 2770, H.R. 3727) PURPOSE OF THE BILLS It is the purpose of the proposed bills to amend Title 28 of the United States Code to provide accommodations for judges of the United States courts of appeals at place other than those where regular terms of court are authorized by law to be held, if (1) such accommodations have been approved as necessary by the judicial council for the appropriate circuit, and (2) space is available without cost to the government. Such an amendment would deter the proliferation of additional statutorily designated places for holding district court, eliminate one factor now contributing to inefficient utilization of judicial resources, and alleviate an inconvenience for circuit court judges which the Congress never intended to impose upon them when it last amended section 142 of Title 28 in 1962.1 BACKGROUND At present all United States courts of appeals sit in "principle" locations, and several occassionally sit in one or more "additional" locations within their circuits, for the purpose of hearing oral arguments. In most instances, both the "principle" and “additional” locations have been statutorily designated by the Congress, in 28 U.S.C. § 48, as places at which "terms or sessions of courts of appeals shall be held annually." In certain instances, however, "terms or sessions" may be held, again in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 48, "at such other places within the respective circuits as may be designated by rule of the court." In very rare instances, under yet another provision of 28 U.S.C. § 48, which states that: "Each court of appeals may hold special terms at any place within its circuit," oral arguments may be heard at a location which is not designated by either statute or court rule. Such "special terms" are usually held as a courtesy or convenience for local or state governments. Today there are 97 "active" circuit judges and 43 “senior" circuit judges who comprise the "pool" from which panels of three judges are drawn to sit. Occasionally a district court judge, in either active or senior status, is invited to sit with two circuit judges on such a panel. When circuit judges are not sitting on such panels, or en banc, however, they work "in chambers" in quarters located in the communities in which they actually reside. In fact, although “non-resident offices” are available for circuit judges at the "principle" places where courts of appeals sit for purposes of oral argument, full facilities and accommodations for a circuit court judge and his staff have for years been provided only at the location where the judge normally perfoms his "in chambers" work. Because most circuit court judges normally perform their "in chambers" work in the communities in which they reside, their facilities and accommodations at such locations have been traditionally referred to as "resident chambers." When "the Judicial Code" was "recodified" in 1948, section 142 of Title 28, United States Code, was enacted as follows: § 142. Accommodations at places for holding court. Court shall be held only at places where Federal quarters and accommodations are furnished without cost to the United States.2 In 1962, however, that section was amended by adding to the language cited. supra, the following sentence: "The foregoing restrictions shall not, however, preclude the Administrator of General Services, at the request of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, from providing such court quarters and accommodations as the Administrator determines can appropriately 1 Act of Oct. 9, 1962. Pub. L. No. 87-764, 76 Stat. 762. Pub. L. No. 773, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., ch. 646 (June 25, 1948), 62 Stat. 808. be made available at places where regular terms of court are authorized by law to be held, but only if such court quarters and accommodations have been approved as necessary by the judicial council of the appropriate circuit.3 In explaining the purpose of that 1962 amendment the House Judiciary Committee noted that the 1948 language, standing alone: ... has the effect of precluding the use of Federal funds for the purpose of providing facilities for the U.S. district courts by new construction, remodeling of existing Federal buildings, or otherwise, at locations where court facilities have not previously been provided in Federal buildings. Consequently, it has been necessary to obtain a waiver of the provisions of section 142 by specific legislative action in each instance to permit the provision of court facilities at such locations.* Citing recent legislation creating additional federal judgeships and the resulting need for "improved and additional court space," the Committee noted that: Enactment of this legislation would eliminate the delays now caused by the necessity for obtaining special legislation with respect to those locations where section 142 applies, and permit discontinuance of the undesirable practice of securing such individual waivers, and would permit the provision and development of more satisfactory court facilities, with improved operation of the courts." In essence, the original 1948 legislation, designed to limit the number of places where district court “shall be held" to those locations where quarters and accommodations then existed, was amended to both (1) accommodate a growing court system and (2) eliminate the "undesirable practice" of the judiciary having to seek "specific legislative action in each instance" to overcome "the effect of precluding the use of Federal funds for the purpose of providing facilities for the U.S. district courts." That legislative history would appear to justify the conclusion that 28 U.S.C. § 142 is a provision applicable to district courts only. Given the section's placement in Chapter 5 of Title 28, that chapter which is clearly designed to statutorily govern organization of the district courts, and the legislative history discussed supra, a sound argument might be made that Congress at no time intended section 142 to be applied to circuit courts, which are organized under Chapter 3 of Title 28. 6 In 1948 and 1962, the practice which now is followed by providing circuit court judges with "resident chambers" in their home communities prevailed nationwide. Had that practice been a matter of concern to Congress, appropriate language could have been added to section 48 of chapter 3 of Title 28, that section which governs places where circuit court "shall be held." The absence of such language would seem to justify a finding that section 142 should not be deemed applicable to the establishment of "resident chambers" for courts of appeals judges. That finding is impeded, however, by a provision in the 1948 recodification legislation, which states that: No inference of a legislative construction is to be drawn by reason of the chapter in Title 28 . . . . in which any section is placed, nor by reason of the catchlines used in such title." Thus, today, if a community in which a circuit court judge resides is not a place "where regular terms of court are authorized by law to be held," either under chapter 3 or chapter 5 of Title 28, section 142 precludes the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts from providing that judge with "resident chambers" in his home community, even if federal facilities exist and are available at no additional cost to the government. This situation has been in existence since 1962, and not surprisingly, the solution has been very much like the "undesirable practice" the 1962 amendment was designed to eliminate. The solution has been "specific legislative action in each instance" to authorize the subject community as a place where district court "shall be held." Since 1962, sixteen different public laws have been enacted to "designate twenty-one additional communities as "places where court shall be held."" On March 13, 1973. Senator Marlow Cook of Kentucky introduced S. 1175, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., a bill "To amend section 142, United States Code, relating to the furnishing of accommodations to judges of the courts of appeals of the United States." As introduced, S. 1175 would have added the following sentence to section 142: Note 1. supra (emphasis added). H.R. Rep. No. 2340, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. 2 (1962) (emphasis added). & Id. See Pub. L. No. 773, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., § 33 (June 25, 1948), 62 Stat. 991. 8 See the "Legislative History" notes following section 142 in 28 U.S.C. (1970 ed.). 94-738 O-78-26 |