ILNews

As money for justice declines, many don’t see potential cost

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Persistent warnings about funding shortages for state and federal courts don’t appear to be registering with the public, a new poll concludes.

Three-fifths of people either believe that courts are properly funded or aren’t sure, according to a poll released in December by DRI, the Voice of the Defense Bar.

“There truly is a problem locally and nationally with the fact that the public does not understand about the underfunding of the judiciary,” said John Trimble, a former member of the DRI board of directors and chairman of the Indiana State Bar Association’s Committee on Improvements in the Judicial System.
 

trimble-john Trimble

“The general tenor of reporting about the judicial system on a national basis is to report the odd things that occur and not report on the business of how the courts are operating,” he said.

“It’s amazing that with all the high-profile warnings, literally thousands of newspaper articles, and all the effects of the funding shortage being played out in the nation’s courts system, that 60 percent of respondents either think there’s no funding problem or aren’t

court-funding

 sure there’s a funding problem,” DRI president Mike Weston said. “Given all the attention, the unawareness seems almost willful.”

But that may have changed somewhat when Chief Justice John Roberts in his year-end report implored Congress to restore funding for federal courts that he said had fallen to 1997 levels. He said the lack of funding particularly was impacting criminal proceedings, to the point of becoming “a genuine threat to public safety.”

“The budget remains the single most important issue facing the courts,” Roberts said.

Sequestration early in 2013 slashed $350 million from the federal judiciary, according to the American Bar Association, on top of ongoing reductions in court budgets.

Chief Judge Richard Young of the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana believes a congressional budget deal reached late in 2013 could restore some of the cutbacks that had been mandated under sequestration. “It’s good news and not such good news,” Young said.

“The best projections are that appropriations will be probably close to 3 percent higher than we had … during sequestration,” he said. That would restore funding for federal courts roughly to the levels of 2010, but that’s still about 10 percent less than the federal judiciary’s budget should have been without sequestration, he said.

That mandated budget trimming “hit us pretty hard,” Young said. “The new budget that’s passed, assuming the increase that comes along with that, will give us some breathing room and eliminate a lot of the anxiety regarding furloughs.”

In the Southern District, Young said the court was able to avoid furloughs during sequestration because there were some retirements and positions were kept open. But the Bankruptcy Court was forced to make some layoffs and also leave vacant positions unfilled due to a drop in filings, Young said.


richard young Young

The federal court staff levels are currently such that Young believes further budget reductions would be difficult to withstand.

“We’re not like other government agencies,” he said, noting there are few court expenditures where significant cuts can be made besides salaries, rent and fees for public defenders and jurors. “There’s really nothing there that can take a significant cut or elimination.”

The District Court and Bankruptcy Court did become more efficient by consolidating their information technology departments, Young said.

The problem in Indiana courts isn’t as profound as in some states such as California, Trimble said. There, some courts are operating just three days a week, which has resulted in significant delays, and some of the state-owned courthouses are suffering severe neglect.

“Every state and every locality has its issues with judicial funding,” he said, while noting that judges and people in the courts often are reluctant to lobby for increases. “We have one branch of the government that is unprotected and underfinanced, and judges do the very best they can to make the most of what they have, and they’re not complainers as a group.”

For Indiana courts, a lack of judicial funding means a vast majority of judges have no legal clerks to perform research on cases that can require extensive and complex analysis, Trimble explained.

“The quality of our justice, the quality of decisions in civil cases, is certainly impacted by the ability of judges to do legal research,” he said.

Combined sources of funding to Indiana courts provided $386,772,020 to operate on in the calendar year 2012, according to the Judicial Services Report issued in November. That’s down from almost $400 million in 2009. At the same time, courts generated less revenue last year due in large part to a significant decline in the number of ordinance and infraction cases filed statewide.

A lack of funding also has slowed rollout of the Odyssey case management system around the state. Indiana Chief Justice Brent Dickson in 2013 persuaded the Legislature to increase case-filing fees earmarked for Odyssey, but many courts remain on the waiting list to join the system provided by the Division of State Court Administration.

Trimble said the needs can be even more basic. Many courtrooms around the state lack adequate security, for instance. “That’s one area we still have to pay some attention to,” he said.


Dickson Dickson

In his State of the Judiciary address Jan. 15, Dickson didn’t make a direct appeal for more funding before a non-budget session of the Legislature, but he stressed the courts are doing more with less.

“Indiana’s judges are very, very busy; we are extremely challenged but quite gratified every day; we could do even better with more resources,” he said.

Dickson noted the judiciary in Indiana spends only 9 cents for every $10 collected by local and state units of government. “The bottom line is that our judicial system provides enormous value to Hoosier citizens – and does so at a miniscule cost to taxpayers,” he said.

The DRI survey of 1,005 adults also found 75 percent of respondents said the option of suspending civil trials to ensure criminal defendants receive a speedy trial was unacceptable, even though several local, state and federal courts have warned of such a possibility without an easing of budgetary constraints.

“The message has to be that the courts can’t continue to operate efficiently without increases in appropriations,” Young said. “Case filings keep going up in District Court, criminal indictments keep going up. It all requires additional resources.”•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT