A former chief judge at Orleans Parish criminal district court says the district attorney's demands that judges more than double the number of jury trials they conduct is unrealistic.

Details.

[Is a trial a week unrealistic? What major city doesn't have multiple trials in a single week? As an ADA in Houston, I can recall being told I would be having 3 trials in one week. Perhaps someone could speak up on the most trials they have held in a week? Now, if this were, say, California, having one trial a year seems to be pushing it.]

The most jury trials in one week in any court I was in was 3, but I think I recall a time that one judge had 3 jury trials, along with a protective order and pretrial hearing (or maybe it was a bench trial) in the same week. I don't remember how many different court appearances it added up to, but it felt like the other prosecutors and I were never going to leave. That was in addition to all the other usual dockets that judge had (pleas, juvenile, etc.). I swear, that judge never ate or peed. It is totally doable if you elect robojudges.

In my old large county, when I started some 15-16 years ago, it was not uncommon for felony courts to try a couple cases a week, especially impact type courts. Of course, we didn't have computers, powerpoint, DNA, or CSI. People just tried the case. Now that we are more "modern," people are slower, courts don't want to start on Monday, work before 9 or after 4, or work on Friday, etc.

Quiet Man has become cranky.

My record was three trials in three days. (Short week for a holiday, docket on Tuesday, trials Wednesday through Friday.) Those were misdemeanors, though, so they're easier to rock through!

BAck in the late 70s I had just moved to the great state of Texas from California, and got a jury summons. We reported on Tuesday morning. It was a second degree murder case. The judge, who had two counties in his jurisdiction, informed the venire panel that the trial would be completed no later than 5:00 p.m. Wednesday because he had court in Brownfield Thursday morning. I didn't make the jury (too far down the row on the panel), but by golly they picked a jury, proceeded with trial, deliberated, and returned a verdict before 5:00 p.m. Wednesday! Coming from California, I was amazed. It wasn't quite so bad in California back then in pre-OJ days, but no way did a murder case try in two days!

Janette A

Janette - Would that have been the Honorable Ray Anderson? I think he was the judge in Yoakum and Terry County back then. I got to practice in front of him for a couple of years. He was definitely efficient at keeping things moving.

I don't remember the Judge's name. He was older. In fact he died a few years later. It was somewhere around 78-79, and the county was Hockley County. I know that the other trial was in Terry County because he spoke about being in Brownfield.

Janette A

Cranky Man might be a better nom de guerre at this point.

But seriously, in talking to other cranky old lawyers: shorter hours + fewer days + longer trials = fewer trials. Add in: more hours spent filing notices and copying/scanning crap for discovery on cases everyone knows will plead.

judge morgan in the 220th district conducted 2 felony jury trials a week on a regular basis, although I have been told that before my time, it wasnt unusual for him to do 3 felonies per week

In the places I've worked, it takes almost all day to pick one jury, so it's not practical to have more than one trial a week. I do recall a judge who thought my voir dires were too long, chiding me because another assistant DA, a girl right out of law school, picked 3 juries in one day. Over the next 3 weeks they tried each case: one acquittal of an obviously guilty def. and two hung juries. Buzzing thru voir dire, especially in rural areas, does not lead to more justice or efficiency.

On the other hand, I routinely tried about 12 cases a week, when I was a public prosecutor in Zimbabwe. No juries there, just a professional magistrate's service which tended to take detailed notes during trial, and had to justify their decision, be it guilty or not guilty. I had no second chair, but I didn't have to have a case as well prepared as you do over here. If, after calling my last witness I decided the court needed to hear from another witness, I would reset it to the following Friday, which was designated a "part heard day." It was an extremely good system.