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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT