BRIGGS v. BROWNPetitioners, Ron Briggs and John Van de Kamp, Request for Judicial NoticeCal.March 21, 2017SUPREME SCURTCOPY Case No.: $238309 SUPREME COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT FILED OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA a MAR 2 1 2017 Ron Briggs and John Van de Kamp, Jorge Navarrete Clerk Petitioners, Deputy V. Jerry Brown,in his official capacity as the Governor of California; Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as the Attorney Generalof California; California’s Judicial Council; and Does I through XX Respondents. PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF FURTHER REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP Christina Von der Ahe Rayburn (No. 255467) Lillian Jennifer Mao (No. 267410) 2050 Main St., Suite 1100 1000 Marsh Rd. Irvine, CA 92614 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: (949) 567-6700 Telephone: (650) 614-7400 Fax: (949) 567-6710 Fax: (650) 614-7401 e-mail: cvonderahe@orrick.com e-mail: Imao@orrick.com Attorneysfor Petitioners Ron Briggs and John Van de Kamp MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Pursuant to California Rules of Court 8.54 and 8.252, and Evidence Codesection 451 and 452, Petitioners move the Court to take judicial notice of the following matters, submitted as Exhibits 1 through 8, respectively, to Petitioners’ concurrently filed Further Reply in Support of Petition for Extraordinary Relief. l. CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, FINAL REPORT(2008), available at http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/ncippubs/1. JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, FACT SHEET: NEW JUDGESHIPS, Nov. 2015, available at http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/fact-sheet-new- judgeships.pdf. JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, 2016 COURT STATISTICS REPORT,available at http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/2016-Court-Statistics- Report.pdf. JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, 2015 COURT STATISTICS REPORT,available at http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/201 5-Court-Statistics- Report.pdf. . Press Release, Supreme Court of California, Supreme Court Issues Annual Workload onStatistics for 2014-2015, available at http://www.courts.ca.gov/33297.htm. . Death Row Tracking System Condemned Inmate Summary List, CAL. DEP’T. OF CORR. & REHAB., Mar. 2, 2017, available at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Capital_Punishment/docs/Condemned InmateSummary.pdf. . Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) . Ballentine’s Law Dictionary (2010) . Official Voter Information Guide for General Election November8, 2016: Proposition 66 Arguments and Rebuttals, pp. 212-218 (available at http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/66/arguments- rebuttals.htm) MEMORANDUMOF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES This Court may take judicial notice of Exhibits 1 through 6 and 9 pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c), which provides that judicial notice may be taken of “[o]fficial acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States.” Courts of this state routinely take judicial notice of materials published by the California court system, state agencies, and bodies established by the state legislature (such as the California Commission on 2 the Fair Administration of Justice). E.g., People v. Seumanu, 355 P.3d 384, 440-41 (Cal. 2015); Vidrio v. Hernandez, 172 Cal. App. 4th 1443, 1457 n.8 (2009); Rodas v. Spiegel, 87 Cal. App. 4th 513, 518 (2001); see also Cal. Senate Resolution No. 44 (adopted Aug. 27, 2004), available at ftp:/Aeginfo.ca.zov/pub/03-04/bill/sen/sb 0001- 0050/sr_44 bill 20040827 enrolled.pdf (establishing the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice). Exhibits 1 through 6 and 9 mayalso be judicially noticed under Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (g) and (h), which providethat judicial notice maybe taken of matters that are not reasonably subject to dispute that are either of “common knowledge”or “are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” Exhibits 7 and 8 are appropriate for judicial notice under Evidence Codesection 451(e) (“the true signification of all English words and phrases of all legal expressions). Sierra Club v. Superior Court, 302 P.3d 1026, 1035 (Cal. 2013); Cal. Public Records Research, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus, 246 Cal. App. 4th 1432, 1445-46 (2016). The submitted exhibits are relevantto the instant dispute because theyrelate to the current judicial context in which Proposition 66 will operate. Asthis is an original jurisdiction proceedingfiled initially in this Court, and no proceedings have taken place in any superior court or Court of Appeal, there is no lower court record or other means by which these materials otherwise may be broughtto the Court’s attention. Dated: March 20, 2017 Respectfully submitted, SP OF ED gh 47Ve-bte Haha. Christina Von der Ahe Rayburn Lillian Mao ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP Attorneys for Petitioners Ron Briggs and John Van de Kamp Be California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice Final Report California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice Final Report Gerald Uelmen Editor Chris Boscia StaffEditor The contents of this report have not been copyrighted. They may be copied and distributed without restriction. In reproducing or quoting any portions of this report, the source should be acknowledged as “Final Report, California Com- mission on the Fair Administration of Justice.” Nothing contained in this volumeis to be considered as the rendering of legal advice for specific cases, and readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from their ownlegal counsel. This book and any forms and agreements herein are intended for educational and informational purposes only. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice 900 Lafayette Street, Suite 608 Santa Clara, CA 95050 www.ccfaj.org Printed in the USA. Book Design and Production: Threestory Studio Text of this book is composed in Scala with display typesetin Trade Gothic. For reprint inquiries: Threestory Studio, 123 Sherman Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-323-6800 www.threestory.com The criminaljustice system in California is a human institution, and therefore cannot be perfect. However, modest reforms can improve oursystem, to ensure that Californiansare truly safefrom real perpetrators and the innocent remainfree. Thecitizens of California deserve an honest assess- mentofour system. The debate over criminal justice has becomecaustic and polarized, masking substance with rhetoric. The Commission andits process stand in sharp contrastto the currentstate of policy discussion. Candid andforthright repre- sentatives with expertise in California’s criminal justice system gathered monthly “to examine ways of providing safeguards and making improvements in the waythe criminal justice system functions.” Through regular public hearings, we made an effort to hear the concerns and suggestions of many Californians. Whatfollows are the ten reportsthat, with rare exceptions, represent the unanimousviewsofthe Commissionersto ensure that the administration of justice in Californiais just, fair, and accurate. These recommendationsarethe result of hard- fought compromise anda delicate balancing of interests. Each recommendation will demand skillful implementation by the Governor, mem- bers ofthe Legislature, the Judiciary, the Attorney General, Public Defenders, District Attorneys, Law Enforcement, and other interested participants in the system. I want to thank the Commissioners, all ofwhom worked voluntarily and diligently, without compen- sation. Our task could not have been accomplished withouta fine Executive Director, Jerry Uelmen, and his top notch Executive Assistant, Chris Boscia. In closing, I dedicate this report to the men and women whoworktirelessly on behalf of justice in California. My hopeis that the reforms werec- ommendin our reports are made to honor their service. ooYVorb Vue, John K. Van de Kamp Chair, California Commission on the Fair Administration ofJustice as e) M y a a A Letier from the The Recommendations and Reports contained in this volume are the product ofa remarkable process ofcollaboration by a diverse group representing the full spectrum of tnvolvementinthe criminaljustice system in California. I will describe the deliberative process which led to these Recommendationsand Reports. From the outset, Commission Chair John Van de Kampresolved to issue interim reports as we addressedeach ofthe identifiable causes ofwrong- ful convictions and California’s administration of the death penalty. That way, the Commission could actively assist in the implementation of our recommendations, and exposeourdeliberations to greater public scrutiny. Oneofourfirst steps was to establish a website, www.ccfaj.org, making the testimony and written submissionsreceived by the Commission publicly available, and providing immediateaccessto all of our reports as they were issued. The website received more than one million visits during thelife of the Commission,andwill remain accessible to internet users until 2018. The excellent work done by academicresearchers, the Innocence Project in New York, and similar Commissionsin other States madethe task of identifying the causes ofwrongful conviction eas- ier. The Commission quickly established an agenda ofthe topics, which we addressed in roughly the order of the frequency with which they are associated with erroneous convictions: mistaken eyewitness identifications; false confessions; per- jurious informant testimony, inaccurate scientific evidence; prosecutorial and defense lawyer miscon- duct; and inadequate funding for defenseservices. Wealso addressed the problem of remedies for the wrongfully convicted. We saved the mostdifficult assignment, examining the administration of the death penalty, forlast. Ourapproachto each ofthese topics was essen- tially the same. First, the Commissioners were supplied with binders containing relevant back- ground reading, includingthe latest research andstudies. At one of our monthly meetings, the Commissioners identified the questionsthat called for more research, and agreed upona setof “focus questions” to guide the testimony of witnesses at a public hearing. Contracts were negotiated with Professors at California law schools to provide any necessary additional surveys and research. Public hearings were scheduled to address each topic. Invited witnesses included leading experts and representatives of prosecutorial agencies, public defenders and private defense lawyers, the judiciary, victims, and police and sheriff’s depart- ments. Time wasreservedat each hearing for public comment. The Commission then discussed tentative recom- mendations, anda tentative report was drafted. The deliberations were always vigorous, candid and insightful. The cumulative practical experi- ence of the Commissioners greatly enriched the process, ensuring many perspectives were considered. Numeroussuccessive drafts were prepared and examined,circulated by email. Most reports required several meetings to discuss and resolve our differences. What emerged, with rare exceptions, was unanimous agreementin our recommendations. Together, the reports and recommendationsin this volume present a hefty agenda of reform for the Legislature and the Governor,as well as many recommendationsof best practices for prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges and police agencies. We hope that the implementation of these recommen- dations will reduce therisk ofwrongful convictions in California. That risk will never be completely eliminated, as long as humanerroris possible. Because wrongful convictionsleave guilty perpe- trators free to victimize and deprive the innocent of their liberty, we should strive to do everything humanly possible to getit right. Gerald F. Uelmen Executive Director, California Commission on the Fair Administration ofJustice Table of Contents COMMISSIONERS....................... 1 RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY Eyewitness Identification.................... 10 False Confessions.......................0.. 12 Informant Testimony ....................... 13 Problems with Scientific Evidence............. 14 Professional Responsibility and Accountability of Prosecutors and Defense Lawyers ............. 16 Remedies ........... 0.0.0 0c ccc ce une e eens 18 Death Penalty ...................0....4... 19 REPORTS Eyewitness Identification * Data & HearingS .. 6...ee eee 24 © Report... cceee eee eee 24 * Recommendations .............0.. 0.0000. 2/ * Dissent. .... 0.2.0.0 oe ee eee eee 29 * Response to Dissent ...... 000... .. 000 ees 31 * ACTIONS 26...ccee ena 32 False Confessions ~* Data & HearingS 2.2.eeeee 34 Report 2.eee35 * Recommendations ............. e000. u eee 38 * ACTIONS 2.beceees 39 Informant Testimony » Data & HearingS 2... ec ce ee ed 44 e Report .... cle ee eee eee cna 45 * Recommendations:........0....0 0.8 .5.0.. 49 * Actions. ov... 0.65 Veeee eee e eed 50 Problems with Scientific Evidence » Data & Hearings ...eeeee, 52 *. Report: DNA Testing Backlogs. 22005 bie.e sews 54 > Recommendations: DNA Testing Backlogs. .. 2... 57 « Report: Forensic Science Evidence ». eel es 58 * Recommendations: Forensic Science Evidence. . ..65 S ACHIONS 2. ee coe eee bebe eee cee ees 66 Professional Responsibility and Accountability of + 8. Recommendations for Federal Habeas Prosecutors and Defense Lawyers Corpus Review of California Death + Data & Hearings ..........2...2000000005. 68 Judgments. ..........0.0 0. ee eee eee 136 * Report: Reporting Misconduct............... 70 * Part B: Available Alternatives * Recommendations: Reporting Misconduct...... 79 * 1. The Alternative of Narrowing the List of * Dissent: Reporting Misconduct .............. 81 Special Circumstances..............5, 138 * Report: Exculpatory Evidence ............... 85 + 2. The Alternative of Establishing the Maximum + Recommendations: Exculpatory Evidence ...... 90 Penalty at Lifetime Incarceration .......... 142 * Report: Funding Defense Services............ 91 + 3. Estimating the Annual Additional Costs + Recommendations: Funding Defense Services. . 100 of Four Alternatives ...............004 144 * ACTIONS ©...eeeee 100 + Part C: Administrative Reforms . * 1. Reducing the California Supreme Court Remedies . Backlog... 0.2.0... cece e ee eee 147 * Data & HearingS ...... 0... 0c ce eee 102 a ; / * 2. Explaining Racial and Geographic * Report... 0.0.0.0... cee eee 103 , . Disparities ... 2.0.0.0... 2 eee ees 149 * Recommendations ............000 0 eee aee 109 ; . © Actions ‘ 110 + 3. Comprehensive Data Collection and coe Monitoring ........................, 152 Death Penalty + 4, The Need for Greater Transparencyin the + Data & Hearings ...............2...0.0-. 112 Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion to Pursue + Introduction: Charge and Nature of Inquiry ....113 the Death Penalty.............0....., 155 * Summary of Recommendations............. 115 * 5, The Governor’s Clemency Powerin Death + Part A: Why the System Is Broken, and WhatIt Will Penalty Cases... 0.2.2.0... cece ees 156 Take to Fix It * Conclusion... 0.0... eee eee 157 + 1. California’s Death Penalty Law ........ 119» Appendix |: Focus Questions............... 158 * 2. Excessive Delay in California.......... 121 + Appendix Il: Federal Grants of Relief in + 3. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ...... 125 California Capital Cases... ...0.....0.0008. 159 * 4. The Risks of Wrongful Executions, Wrongful Convictions, and Wrongful Death Sentences ....... 2.0020 126 + 5. Recommendationsfor the Trial of Death Penalty CaseS.. 6... . ccc ee es 127 * 6. Recommendations for the Direct Appeal of Death Penalty Cases................ 131 - 7. Recommendations for State Habeas Corpus Review of Death Judgments ...... 133 * Separate Statement of Commissioner Brown ... 162 * Separate Statement of Commissioner Bratton. . . 163 « Separate Statement of Commissioners Totten, Boscovich, Cottingham, Dunbar, Hill... ...... 163 + Separate Statement of Commissioner Mayorkas. 168 - Separate Statement of Commissioners Bellas, Freehling, Hersek, Hing, Judge, Laurence, Moulds, Ring. ... 0.0... 0. cee eee eee 168 * Separate Statement of Commissioners Streeter, Ridolfi, Hersek, Laurence ................. 174 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..................... 184 John K. Van De Kamp Chair John K. Van de Kamphas a long career in public service. After graduatingfrom Stanford Law School in 1959, heworked in the L.A. U.S. Attorncy’s. Office from 1960 to 1967 and then served as the Director ofthe Executive Oflice of US Attorneys in Washington from 1968-69, In 1973 he became the Central District's first Federal Public Defender In. 1975, Vande Kannp was appointed Los Angeles County District Attomey, and was subsequently elected twice. Van de Kamp was elected California's Attomey Generalin r982 and served two terms, After an unsuccessful rin for the Governan's Office in 1990,he left office in 1991. Van de Kampis now Of Counsel at Dewey LeBoeufLLP in Los Angeles, Jon Streeter Vice Chair JonStrccteris a partner with Keker & Van Nest in San Francisco. He speciatizes in complex, commercial civil Ftiga- tion and has handled capitallitigation at all phases ofthe process. Jon is past-Presidentofthe Association ofBusiness ‘Trial Lawyers ofNorthem California and past. Presidentofthe Bar Association of San Francisco, Hehas been namedoneof 100 Super Lawyers in Northern California by San Francisco Magazine, and heis listed in Chambers USA's directory of America's Leading Lawyers for Business. In addi- tionto his commercial practice and varied bar leadership activities, Jon maintains an active pro bono practice, Gerald F. Uelmen Executive Director Gerald F. Uclmenis a Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law, where he served as Dean from1986-1994. He beganhis, careeras a federal prosecutor in Tos Angeles. He has appeared as defense counsel in numer ous high-profile cases, including the cases against Daniel Ellsberg, Christian Brando and OJ. Simpson. During, the pastsix years, he has defended therights ofCalifornians to use marijuana for medicinal purposesin five cases, including cases before the U.S. SupremeCourt and the Califomia Supreme Court. He is a past presidentofthe California AcademyofAppellate Lawyers and of California Attorneysfor Criminal Justice. DianeBellas Commrissioner Diane Bellas was appointed the Alameda County Public Defender in 2000, after per- forming a range of assignments over two decades in the depart- iment. Ms, Bellas is a past President of the California Public Defenders Association. She is a ‘member emeritus of the American Inn of Goust, Earl Warren Chapter, and was a Robert Wood. Johnson Foundation, Urban Health Initiative Fellow. She served, by appointmentof the Chief Justice, on the Judicial Council of California, Collaborative Justice Conrts Advisory Committee, Inaddition to her administrative duties, Ms. Bellas represents clients in the Alameda County Homeless Court. Harold “Bosco” Boscovich Commissioner Harold “Bosco” Boscovich retired fromthe Alameda County District Attorney's Office in March, 2004 after more than32 yearsofscrvice. Heretired as 2 Captain of Inspectors and the Direetot of the VictimWitness Assistance Division, the unit which he began in November, 1974. Prior to his employmentwith the District Attomey's Office he served as a policeofficer inthe City ofOakland for over 8 years. Heretumed to work with the District Attomey’s Office, as Site Manager, to begin the operation of the Alameda County Family Justice Center in Oakland, “a one-stop shop’ for victimsof domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, and elder abuse. Heis also the Training Coordinator for the Califonvia Victim Service Training Institute responsiblefor the training ofall victim advocates in California's 58 counties. William J. Bratton Commissioner William J. Bratton was appointed by Mayor James Hahn in October 200, The only person ever to serve as chief executive of the LAPD,the NYPD, and the Boston Police Department. Chief Bratton established aninternational reputation for reengineering police departments andfight ing crimeinthe 1990s. A Vietmam veteran, Chief Bratton began his policing career in 1970, as a police officer with the Boston Police Department, rising to SuperintendentofPolice, the depart- ment’s highest sworn rank, in fust ten years. In the 19808, Chief Bratton headed two ollser police agencies, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Police and the Massachusetts Metropolitan District Commission Police. Jerry Brown Commissioner Edmund G.Brown,Jr, known asJerry, was lected by Californians as their 31st Attorney General in November 2006, In 1970, he was elected California Secretary ofState. Brown was elected Governor in 1974 and reelected in 1978. Brownagain practiced lawin Los Angeles and in 1989 became chairman ofthe state Democratic Party. In 1998, Brown ran for mayor of Oakland, ‘won, and was re-elected in 2002. In thefield of crime fighting, Brown enacted hundredsoftough anti-crime measures,including the “Use A Gun Go ‘To Prison’ Law and mandatory sentences for rape, sale of heroin, violent crimes againstthe elderly, child molestation and selling PCP. Gerald Chaleff Representative of Chief Bratton Gerald Chaleff repre- sents Chief William Bratton on the Commission. Chaleff was appointed to the Los Angeles Police Department by Chief Bration on January 13, 2003, He serves as Bureau Chief and CommandingOfficer of the ConsentDecree Bureau (CB). As Bureau. Chief ofCDB, Mr. Chalelf oversees the opera- tions of the Audit Division and the Civil Rights, Integrity Division, which is responsible for the Department's implementationof the Consent Decree with the United States Departmentof Justice. In 1997, Mr. Chaleffwas appointed to the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners, and elected as Presidentofthe Board from 1999 to 2901, He also served as Presidentofthe Los Angeles County Bar Association. 5 e=EIé Ron Cottingham Commissioner Ron Cottinghamjoined the Commission repre. senting the Peace Officers Research Association ofCalifornia (PORAC). Ronwaselected presi- dent of PORAC in November 2003 and has been unanimously re-elected ta consecu- tive terms, Ron has been continually employed by Zn the San Diego Sheriffs Departmentsince 1973. In 1986 Renwas selected bythe Sheriff's Department to establish and super- vise the department's centralized investigative unit for child abuse/sexual assault. Then in 1997 Ron ‘was selected to establish and supervise the depart. ment’s centralizeddomestic violence investigative unit for the Sheriff's Department, Ron has gradu- ated from the POST Supervisory Schooland the POST ManagementSchool, Glen Craig Commissioner GlenCraigis a veteran of 44 years in Law Enforce- menthaving served with four different depart- ments at boththe state and local level. He began his career with the Visalia, CA, Police Department in 1955 upon his discharge from the United States Army. In 1956 hejoinedthe California Highway Patrol and becamethe Commissionerin 1975, serv- ing until 1983. In 1983 he was appointed Director ofthe Division ofLaw Enforcementat the State DepartmentofJustice. He was elected Sheriff of Sacramento County in 1986 where he verved three termsand retired in 1999. He is a past-President ofthe California Peace Officers’ Association and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. Chief Pete Dunbar Commissioner Chief Pete Dunbar, ofPleasantHill, joinedthe Commission representing the California Police Chiefs’ Association. ChiefDunbar started with, the OaklandPolice Departmentin 1982. In 1999, he was appointed as a Deputy Chief. In February of2006, he was appointed as Chief of Police of the Pleasant Hill Police Department. Chicf Dunbar is a graduate ofthe POST Master Instructor Development Program and a graduate of the POST Command College. He taught Criminal Lawand Search andSeizure in thePolice Academyand in-service training classes. He currentlyteaches Strategic Planning in the POST Management Coursefor the San Diego Regional Training Center, James P. Fox Commissioner James P. Fox was elected DistrictAttorneyof San Mateo County in June 1982 and has been re- elected every four years since without opposition. He joined the San Mateo County District Attorney's office in January 1970. In January, 1974, Mr. Fox tefl the District Atorney's office and served as a member of the Private Defender Panelof the San Mateo County Bar Association. Mr. Fox hasbeen active in boththe California District Attorneys’ Association and the National District Attomneys’ Association. He is a past President ofCDAA and chairmanofthe Legislative Committee since 1990. Heis also the currentPresidentof NDA. RabbiAllen f. Freehling Commissioner Rabbi Allen 1. Frechling has served as the Executive Director of the Human Relations Commission of the City of Los Angelessince 2002, Previously, he was the Senior Rabbi of University Synagogue for yo years, He is a highly respected communityactivist who has held a vast numberofleadership andboard positions including President of the Board of Rabbis of Los ‘Angeles, founding Chair of both the LA County Commission on AIDS and ihe international ‘Association of Physicians in AIDScare, and founding Facilitator ofthe Muslim-Jewish Dialogue. He holds an undergraduate degreefrom the Universily of Miami, a bachelor’s, master's and honorary degree from Hebrew UnionCollege, from which he was ordained in 1967, Janet Gaard Representative offerry Brown Janet Gaard representsCalifornia Auorney General Jerry Brown onthe Commission, replacing Scott Thorpe and Dane Gillette. Janet hasbeen a member of the AttorneyGeneral's Office since 1984. For 14 years, she was a Deputy Attorney General in the Criminal JawDivision. In 1999, she was appointed Director of Legislative Affairs for the DepartmentofJustice and a Special Assistant AttorneyGeneral, providinglegal and policy advice to the Attorney General andthe Chief Deputy AttomeyGeneral on criminal law and law enforcementissues. She was recentlyappointed by Governor Schwarzeneggerto the Yolo County Superior Court. Fy= a =| —&iS ra} Micheal Hersek Commissioner Michael Hersek, a San Francisco resident, worked as a staff attorney at the California Supreme Court from 1989-1991 and 1999-2004, advising the seven Justices on non-capital criminal mat- ters. From 1991-1999, he worked as a Deputy State Public Defender al the Office ofthe State Public Defenderin San Francisco. He served as an adjunet professor at GoldenGate Universily School of Law, from 2000 to 2004, In June 2004, Governor Schwarzenegace appointed Hersek to serve as State Public Defender. Sheriff Curtis Hill Consmissioner Sheriff Curtis Hill, of San Benito County,joined the ‘Commission represent- ing theCalifornia State Sheriffs’ Association. Sheriff Hill began his career with the San Benito County Sherif?s office in 1976. In 1988 hee was appointed Undersheriff, a position he held for ten years. Sheriff Hill waselected Sheriff in November of 1998.He was clected to his third termin 2006. Sheriff Hill is a 1989 graduate of the FBI National Academy. He is currently an offi- cer with the California Siate Sheriff's Association and past Presidentof the California State Coroner's Association, Heis a past member ofthe Corrections Standards Authority Bill Ong Hing Commissioner Rill Ong Hing is a Professorof Lawat the Universityof California, Davis, He teaches Judicial Process, Negotiations, Public Service Strategies, Asian American History, and directs the law school linical program.Ife is the author ofnumerous academic and practice-oriented books. His books include Deporting Our Souls—Values, Morality, and Immigration Policy (Cambridge Press 2006}, Defining America ThroughImmigration Policy (femple Univ. Press 2004), Making and Remaking AsianAmerica ThroughImmigration Policy (Stanford Press 1993), and Handling Immigration Cases (AspenPublishers 1995}. His book To Be An American, Cultural Pluralism and the Rheloric of Assimilation (NYUPress 1997} received the award for Outstanding Academic Book in 1997 by the librarians’ journal Choice. MichaelP. Judge Commissioner Michael P, Judgeis the Chief Public Defender for the County of Los Angeles, California, He ‘was appointed by the Chief Justice in 2000 to the Judicial Council of California: Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory ‘Commitlee. Hehas co- authored several articles ‘onindigent defense to bereleased shortly by the Kennedy SchoolofGovernmentand Harvard Law School. Mr. Judge scrved as the Chairperson of a ten person committeeofthe State Bar to estab- lish Guidelines for Indigent Criminal Defense Providers in California, which were promulgated in 2006. He continues ta serve as the Chairperson of the California Public Defenders Association Legislative Committee, George Kennedy Curnmrissioner George Kennedy was lected Santa Clara County District Attomey in 1999, and recleeted in 7994, 1998, and 2002. He attended the National College of District Attorneys and the F.B.L National Law Academy. Heis past president ofthe California District Attorneys Association, a former director of the National District Attorneys Association, and past chairpersonof the Santa Clara CountyDomestic Violence Council. He was a California Peace Officer Standards and Taining Commissioner from 1993 to 1996. Heis currently a gubernatorial appointee to the California Council onCriminal Justice, He oversaw the Senta Clara County Laboratory of Criminalistics while District Attorney. Michael Laurence Commissioner Michael Laurence is the Executive Director of the Habeas Corpus Resource Center, a California Judicial Branch agency created to provide rep- resentation to death-row inmates in state and federal habeas pro- ceedings.Since 1987, Mr. Laurence has represented death-row inmates in a dozen evidentiary heatings, argued mimerous cases before the California SupremeCourt and thefederal courts ofappeals, and in March 1998, argued before the United States SupremeCourt. Mr, Laurencewas a Criminal Justice Research Consultant with the Office ofthe California AttomeyGeneral. Fs2 2 r= =scz} Alejandro Mayorkas Commissioner Alejandro Mayorkas is the former U.S. Attorney for the Central District ofCalifornia andis currently a partnerin the Las Angelesoffice of O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Atthe age of39 Mr. Mayorkaswas the youngest U.S. Attomeyin the nation, He super- vised morethan 240 Assistant U.S. Attorneys and oversaw the investi- gation and prosecution of casesinvolving complex securities and financial institution fraud,intema- tional money laundering, (b] oN 5 5, Illinois Study at p. 38. 6. /d., at p. 7. citing , Memon, A.and Gabbart, F., (mproving the identification Accuracy of Senior Witnesses: Do Pre-lineup Questions and Sequential Testing Help? 88 J. of Anplied Psychol. 341-347 (2003); Memon, A. and Barlett,J., Effects of verbalization on face Recognition in Young and Older Adults, 16 Applied Cognitive Psychology, 635-650 (2002). 7. (bid. 8. linois Study at p. 8, citing Memon, A. and Gabbart, F., Unraveling the Effects of Sequential Presentation in Culprit-present Lineups, 17 Applied Cognitive Psychology 703-714 (2003). 9. Illinois Study at p. 17, 17, citing Klobuchar, A., Steblay, N. and Caligiuri, H, (2006), improving Eyewitness identifications: Herinepin County's Bind Sequential Lineup Pilot Project, Cardozo Law School Journal Public Law, Policy and Ethics (2006), manuscript p. 25; and at pp. 42-45, analyzing data from the QueensDistrict Attorney's Office in New York. 10.Illinois Study at p. 62... Second,we object to recommendation number eleven. Wedo notbelieve this Commission should be interjectingitself into the developmentof jury instructions. This task has been delegated to the Judicial Council of California by the ChiefJustice, and the criminal jury instructionsthat are in use now were promulgated over an eight-year period that included numerouslevels ofreview byall interested parties. Additionally, there is more than adequate authority fora trial judge to issue a special instruction in any case whenthefacts and evidence warranta deviation from the standard instruction.'! Moreover,instructions should be neutral, favor- ing neitherparty. Trial courts are advised to refuse an instruction that analyzes specific evidence on a disputed question of fact to the benefit of one party or anotheror one that informs jurors that particu- lar evidenceis in fact true — or untrue.!* Thus, we do notbelieve altering the standard instruction in orderto deal with a specialsituation represents sound publicpolicy. Wehaveraised these concerns with the Commis- sion, but recognize weare in the minority on these points. Thus, we request that our objections be noted in the Commission's report. Specifically we wouldlike the following footnote inserted: Werespectfully dissentfrom this Commission's rec- ommendations numbers two andeleven. The debate over the effectiveness ofsequential lineupsis not yet settled. Many experts agree that this method producesfewer accurate identifications. Even more disturbing is new research outofIllinois which suggests that the sequential lineup proce- dures mayresult in morefalse identifications. The sequential method appears to be particularly problematic in cases involving children and the elderly, cases involvingcross racial identifications, cases involving multiple perpetrators, and cases where a suspect has altered his or her appearance. Given the uncertainty involving the sequential lineup method, wefeel it is premature to recom- mend these procedures be adopted by California's law enforcementofficers. Wefurtherobject to this Commission’s recom- mendationcallingfor changes to the standardjury instructions. The drafting ofcriminaljury instruc- tions has been delegatedto the Judicial Council of California by the ChiefJustice which developed the current instructions with input andreview byall interested parties. Instructions should be neutral, favoring neither party, and the law requirestrial courts to refuse an instruction that analyzes specific evidence on a disputed question offact to the benefit ofone party or anotheror one that informsjurors that particular evidenceis infact true — or untrue. Thus, we do not believe altering the standard instruction in order to deal with a special situation represents sound public policy. We havelodgeda letter with this Commission which presents our objections in more detail. Finally, we encourage the Commissionto delay issuing any report on the subjectoflineup identifi- cation until it has had the opportunity to research and study otherareas ofour criminal justice sys- tem, and particularly to further research the issue of sequential lineups. 11. See California Rules of Court, Rule 855(e}; 12. See People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1067-1068; 938 P.2d 388; 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 594; People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1225, n. 22; 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 553; People v. Moore (1954) 43 Cal.2d 517, 527; 275 P.2d 485. Respectfully submitted: James P. Fox District Attorney, County ofSan Mateo Bill Lockyer Attorney General, State of California Gregory D. Totten District Attorney, County of Ventura RESPONSE TO LETTER OF DISSENT April 17, 2006 Commissioners California Commission on the Fair Administration ofJustice Dear Commissioners: The Report and Recommendationsof the Commission regarding eye witness identification procedures which wasreleased April 13, 2006 contains a dissent received shortly before its release, and the dissent refers to a more lengthy letter lodged with the Commission. Theletter of dissent will be posted on the Commission web- site, but I did not wantto do so without including this response. The Commission Report and Recommendationsdid notoffer a lengthy justifica- tion for each of our recommendations, and I am concernedthat thecriticism contained in the dissentletter might create the false impression that the recommendations werepresented in haste or withoutfull consideration of all of the research on both sides of all of the issues we considered. It is certainly true that the debate over simultane- ousvs. sequential identification proceduresis not over. The Commissionersall received theIllinois studyreferred to, and fully considered it. Our recommendation that sequential presentation is preferred when double-blind procedures are utilized was based upon the general agreement amongresearchstudies, the recommendations adopted by the North Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin Innocence Commissions,the favor- able experience with sequential procedures in Boston, in New Jersey, and in Santa Clara County in California, and the study conducted in Hennepin County, Minnesota which concluded that the sequential, double-blind method of lineups is superior to the simultaneous method.! The Commission wasreluctant to rely upon the single Illinois pilot program to reject the accumu- lated weightof prior research and experience in the absenceofpeer review, and the suggestion of potential flaws in the design ofthepilot study.” The Commission's recommendation does not foreclose more detailed guidelines to govern the appropriate choice between sequential and simul- taneous procedures, as research progresses and the debate continues. Our recommendationis simply that at the present time, based uponouranalysis of the available research, sequentialidentification proceduresare preferred. i 2 poe) Ss] o = pe) i am =] i“) “”n rob) c = = feb) = [oe 1. Klobuchar, A. and Caliguri, H., Protecting the Innocent / Convicting the Guilty: Hennepin County's Pilot Project in Blind Sequential Eyewitness Identification, 32 Wm.Mitchell L. Rev, 1 (2005). 2, Professor Gary Wells, whotestified before the Commission, advised the Commission that the Illinois Pilot Program compared double blind sequential identifications with simultaneousidentifications which were not double blind, thus confounding the variables. Professor Wells did not participate in the designoftheIllinois study. With respect to the argumentthat this Commission should not “interject” itself into the work of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Jury Instructions, it should be noted that the Advisory Committee invites suggestions, and the California Judicial Council regularly seeks comment from organiza- tions interested in improvementsto courts rules and forms. Our Commissionclosely scrutinized the standardjury instruction recommendedin California with respect to eyewitness identifica- tion? The instruction includesthe following two questionsto be considered in evaluating identifi- cation testimony. “How certain was the witness when heor she madeanidentification?” and “Are the witness and the defendantofdifferent races?” Theinstruction currently offers no guidanceas to the potential significance,if any, of either of these factors. The Supreme Courts offive other states have questioned the adequacy of jury instructions similar to this. The Commission has not endorsed or drafted any particular form of instruction, but simply recommendsthatthecurrentinstruction be evaluatedin light of current scientific research that may not have been previously considered. John Van de Kamp Chair, California Commission on the Fair Administration ofJustice: Actions The eyewitness identification report occasioned six articles from the press lauding the Commission's findings. Shortly afterwards, Sen. Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) amended SB 1544 to adopt someofthe Commission's recommendations. SB 1544 passed the Senate and the Assembly,only to be vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. In 2007, Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas (D-Los Angeles) sponsored SB 756 to require the appoint- mentof a task force to draft mandatory guidelines for the conductof police line-ups and photo arrays to increase the accuracy of eyewitness identifica- tions. The bill, based upon the Commission's report, directly addressed the concerns expressed by the Governorin his veto message with amend- ments recommended by the Commission. SB 756 passed the Senate and the Assembly,only to be vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. In 2008, Senator Ridley-Thomasre-introduced his eyewitnessidentification bill as SB 1591. Thebill passed the Senate Public Safety Committee but, due to the State Budgetshortfall, did not pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. 3. Judicial Council of California, Criminal Jury Instructions, 1-300 CALCRIM 315 (2005). 4, See, ¢.g., State v. Long, 721 P.2d 483 (Utah Supreme Court, 1986) (Approving instruction that “identification by a personof a different race may be less reliable thanidentification by a person of the same race.”); State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774 (Utah Supreme Court, 1991) (Rejecting level of certainty as an indicator of an identification’s reliability), Brodes v. State, 614 S.E.2d 766 (Georgia Supreme Court, 2005) (Reversible error to instruct jury to consider level of certainty as a factor in evaluating reliability of identification); State v. Ledbetter, 881 A.2d 290, 311 (Connecticut Supreme Court, 2005) “uncontradicted scientific literature... suggests the {certainty] factoris particularly flawed because of a weak correlation, at most, exists between the - level of certainty expressed by a witness... and the accuracyofthatidentifica- tion.”). Cf. Commonweaith v. Johnson, 650 N.E.2d 1257 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1995); State v Dubose, 699 N.W.2d 582 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2005). Data and Hearings In preparation for a public hearing on thetopic of False Confessions, the Commission considered the following documents: - Leo and Ofshe, The Consequences ofFalse Confessions: DeprivationsofLiberty and Miscarriages ofJustice in the Age ofPsychological Interrogation, 88 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 429 (1998). . Cassell, Paul G., The Guilty and The “Innocent” An ExaminationofAlleged Cases of Wrongful Convictionfrom False Confessions, 22 Harv. J. L.& Pub.Poly 523 (Spring 1999). . Leo and Ofshe, The Truth About False Confessions and Advocacy Scholarship, 37 Crim.L. Bull. 293, 330-70 (2001). . Drizin and Leo, The Problem ofFalse Confessions in the Post-DNA World, 82 N.C. L. Rev. 891, 923 (2004). . Sullivan, ThomasP. Police Experiences with Recording Custodial Interrogations, Special Report presented by Northwestern University School of Law, Center for Wrongful Convictions (Summer 2004). . Sanger, Robert M. Comparison ofthe Illinois Commission Report on Capital Punishmentwith the Capital Punishment System in California, 44 Santa Clara L. Rev. 126-130 (2003). . New York County Lawyers’ Association and American Bar Association Section of Criminal Justice, Report to the HouseofDelegates, Recommendation on Taping Custodial Interrogations (June 23, 2004). . Taslitz, Andrew E. Convicting the Guilty, Acquitting the Innocent: The ABA Takes a Stand. 19-WTR Crim.Just. 18, The American Bar Association, (Winter 2005). . Inthe Interest ofJerrell C.J., a person Underthe Age of 17: State of Wisconsin, Petitioner- Respondent,v. Jerrell C.J., Respondent- Appellant-Petitioner, 283 Wis.2d 145, (2005). - Report of the Supreme Court Special Committee on Recording of Custodial Interrogations, State of NewJersey, April 15, 2005. . A Vision for Justice: Report and Recommendation Regarding Wrongful Convictions in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Innocence Commission for Virginia, 42-58 (March 2005). . California Senate Bill 171, Introduced by Senator Alquist, February 9, 2005 (as amendedin the Senate April 4, 2005). IncludesBill Analysis on the Senate Floor (June 28, 2005). At the public hearing held at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, on June 21, 2006, the Commission heard from Professor Richard Leo of the University of San Francisco Law School, a renownedexpert in false confessions; Tom Sullivan, former co-chair of Gov. Ryan'sIllinois Capital Punishmentstudy group; Harold Hall, an exonoree from Los Angeles; Chris Ochoa, an exonoreefrom Madison, Wisconsin; and Jeaneaite Popp. mother of a victim. Over 75 membersofthe public and press attended the hearing. ‘TheReport and Recommendations Regarding False Confessions wereissued on July 25, 2006, as follows: Report This Report will address the extraction offalse con- fessions during police questioning ofsuspects False confessions were identified as the second most frequent cause of wrongful convictions in a national study previously reviewed bythis Commission The Commission studied the reports ofcommis- sions and task forces assembled in other states addressing his issue, as well as the researchdocu- menting 125 cases offalse confessions by suspects whowere indisputably proven to he innocent. (See Drivin & Leo, The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World, 82 No, Carolina |,, Rev. 891, 2004,) The Commission convened a public hear- ing in Los Angeles onfune 21, 2006to hearthe testimonyof acknowledged experts,the exoner- ated victimsoffalse confessions,’ the mother of the victim of a crimein which a false confession ‘was elicited,’ representatives ofpolice, prosecutor 2. Grass. -20%0y. Matheson, 9 anaeroinne tet 292, 9S Or, Law & 2 alan $23, 52-55 1 leans confessac by cars new "ad teem+ -ranerstS oeried, of 5% fe ats. ver, 55% 2 varresioss hayena were fomdeendarss ‘aha wer under 26° ety citeoed, cr bth 7 Puen Flere A, Lavo ay, wi curtbe Cnn & ac aie. aru “PeasSule Jerre& Blok, Chica, Hines. hnsee #8 Co-Chai Miie Govaror Gage H, Ryo's Cur Copal Phi and criminal defense agencies, and concerned citizens regardingfalse confessions. Althoughit may seem surprising that factually innocent persons would falsely confess to the com- mission ofseriouscrimes,the research provides ample evidence thatthis phenomenonoccurs with greater frequency than widely assumed. [ ef ia3 2 ig = ‘Theresearch ofProfessors Steven Drizin and Richard A. Leoidentifies 125 cases which occurred between 2972 and 2002,with37% of them occur ring in the five years previous to 2003. Bight of Pook! Pallaos Angles, act aaa confession, 53, ari it a Arges and Cis eros af Maaco, Wisconsin, 4. Joanie Pops, re noler 31 Nancy BuPres he chim che rapa-mne? fhChe Gonos was mea ul viele, serohercea ste ag htnare er tneyas wesup av accu hercase's ape fae “udu. 25 achaly Un these examples, or 6% ofthe sample, occurred in California cases. The overwhelming majority of thefalse confession cases identified by Drizin and Leo occurred in very serious cases: 81% were homi- cide cases, followed by 9% rapecases. Notall false confessionslead to conviction, Ofthe eight Califoria cases identified by Drizin and Leo, none ofthe defendants charged was convicted of ‘the crimes to which they falsely confessed, It should >be noied, ofcourse, that even where charges do not resultin conviction,the pendency of charges based ‘uponfalse confessionscan impose tremendous burdens uponthe accused and their families, as well as the victims and theie families. The accused is often in custody for months prior to being released. The research suggests that false confessions are often extracted from the vulnerable suspects. ‘One-third (33%) ofthe Drizin and Leo sample were juveniles; another 22% were mentallydisabled, and atleast 10% were mentallyi. But evenfully competent andrational persons may bevictimized by cocreive interrogation techniques. Excellent mos’ examples were presentedto the Commissionin the testimony of Harold Hall and Chris Ochoa. Harold Hall spentnineteenyears in prison for a rape and double murder he did not commitin Los Angeles, At the ageof eighteen, he was subjected to seventeenhours ofinterrogation, and confessed when he concluded a confession was the only way he could end theinterrogation. In 2004 he was exonerated by DNA testing that established his innocence. He earned his G.E.D.in prison and is now cmployed bylhe Los Angeles County Bar Association. Chris Ochoa was convicted of rape and murder in Texas, and served ra yearsin prison before a confessionby another person and DNAtests confirmed that he had not committed the crime. Ochoa confessed afier he wasthreatened with execution under the Texas death penalty law if he did not admit his participation in the crime and implicate aninnocent co-defendant. Alter bis exoneration, he entered law school and recently graduated fiom the University of Wisconsin School of Law. Both Mr, Hall and Mr, Ochoatold the Commission that they doubt they would ever have been con victed if their interrogation had beenelectronically recorded, and a judge o: jury was able to see the coerciveness ofthe interrogation techniques that were used. While itis unlikely that all false . Now oho Csria zee lee 2 Dn arid Le eslir wer oni. lll cas, be charges were misses ofeach val as heros a murder ints deo a 75383" bd pallont wlan. se was srg as careghrn 36. Darnga Reo irderogalic. 3 bd pao vestige ts Pol ho ad 309 persia ies, ane 39e3¢etr stocaled re pers hails eoke ih lupe he 21 acid“Fe vharges wontssc Wr aildpe ‘peau erenfin Lau. Marca warnings wee nt seminar unk arer se "ad boot oegae Yu Hie “eur, Dane Pieler Murder ChargeOssAad Cteger i kat of rer 75-YeOe PatonSau Deg UiTide, Moy 8, 159. a B23 When bal ing vas eve eu by "he Sul Apein 3337, no Sages ore iste. In presi rns. -wosligats buried oa Fue and ugcin iain oy lett ypeting a: 2 uiger occasa usarin sn euritane, ues aetian's babarespe the alle of thi eas ar uscene asp years, anges wae her agar: a so mute ute rsceulon. Meran. Murr args Aguist Maman in 3954 PaintSeat Groppes, Sav .eg0 Union-situn, ay 23,1at EB Vicomel rows. aason bose anosoda were hangs wh he sure of ents s ters SaDla Canty 1998, arse wafound ‘seonad = death in her bad-nne ine“y Pema, Crane was 14 Vand “eecaay (Ba tretine neywee “lomeysil The inteepeions of bine’ and “eats wore ven gnes hor 2 Wey.was rt fe "ogiof Genus. The c-ares wee does1952 aha INA rp exalc abed spater fem he wetm ae dulig of Rivard Te teeswho hed heenseen= ts neghaztond the gil teil, Te ss suteencer ly eonof lume manslaugle e. eca County of SanDiag903 FSunp.23 10(2006), Crue CountySa Dig, 553 FSucp 74 94 2205), wey CoundSn Dags 2008 2 Las 7385(20051) Fuge-e “his? on Spe lapaleree abatene runsofeee isk ite Nall ark1995. elie FEL a irae atesfleniencyler ae neshe st som. ear Cay Sayre. e ace perahe Yous eure, urs our ise Dyes, we Wa auatbe Islthe FE, was never charge rurdrs (Chlie are, Men Says He Mil FIic aseri Dest, Sok cinvacWeshinga confessions can ever be climinated,the risk of hharm caused by false confessions could be greatly reduced if police were required to electronically record the entirety of custodialinterrogations of, suspects in serious criminal cases. ches Gorca of Tes, votffase conan Sopyratt © hen Ge, Bee Gee "zy,Ie ‘There are a number ofreasons whythe taping of interrogationsactually benefits the police depart- ments that require it. First, taping creates an objective, comprehensive record ofthe interroga- tion, Second, taping leads to the improved quality ofinterrogation, with a higher level of scrutiny that will deter police misconductand irnprove the quality of interrogation practices. Thied. taping pro- vides the police protection against false claims of police misconduct, Finally, with taping, detectives, police managers, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges are able to moreeasily detectfalse con- fessions and moreeasily preventtheir admission, into evidence. 2 A 8 34aSs 2 iid Because ofthese benefits, over 500 police depart- ments throughoutthe country require the liping ofinterrogations. Thomas Sullivan describedfor the Commissionhis efforts to document the police experience with recording custodialinterrogations.” He informed the Commission that a substantial number of police deparLments in California already reportthat they currently record a majorityof cus- todial interrogations,’ Fxperienced detectives from these departments report great satisfaction with the results of recorded interrogations, including but notlimited to higher conviction rates, less time litigating unwarranted suppression motions, and fewer claimsof police misconduct. ‘The only objection to mandating the recording of police interrogation heard by the Commission was to the potential cost ofvideo recording, as com- pared to andio recording. ug 6,18 pa Hear wa Sse th the apa a ravedot sf ing.sh longs hiier ote wa 3°91 atten, Pk lt edbtan che rape ing pase “eg Fin. The cases exitspert a nelinia'y@xainaan akon DNA esr crac eat hic rm ante wi. (Sear Wey & Aetr etry, DMA Test Cla 8 one Rape sf QEYaae No, Sar Inss Mercy Tens, Aug. 2607 a: “As Sean Webby, Teen: Ass Rane, Ds He? Fae “Sanesson Dt Eneses, San lose Nery We, Ag 8 07 LR. hey Massingws carga vith he muroerco etswnsHES ‘ere slased in ther San igga hors: 1984, km natesin San ee rlenes he raveec 7p Sesuckfo irsemcgate hi. Hews ale "te rrovthe avain, Charges wee dsisea onthe eve nal en ss in pra snoremanaang hal or ilar marl. Sooka [Suse2 Slayings Lmaves Aimiys SyEvenPre Toward atin Seid 9 3 Ove ProsStats, esAngeles Times, Jc 5, “38D at 2.) ‘urtiey ears wan caged ah stm att confesretating a he ‘rat cesteyed$l in husinass prey in Sancmaic 22. Fi =omvinuer -esgrionatorugh rey ned a previouscorel aan st vns.stay, and coneudoa atthe 8 cues ets bavi whe ae no coanecten with exe, ne2"arges agains! cya were isisaor sys ame baer, Caracto AsoOran SinaFee. He evans Son toy tNgcroveo,Sen Frances Done, Fe. 8, PootiatA12) 5, Soe Suva, Pfc Expenseswoth Recuadg Cust! meron, SuviRuNe. 1, Rotel Sissy Sehw:3a Darara9 Wang Conoka"s Surin, 2004} Sulvan, EwanRecoting ot Custctaregains: Every Wins, 98 Jour 2 Criminal 34° ~inlugy 1127(2008); Sully, Exettanie Recuczgs ef Costs! rayon, ADC The Chat ul ul, Ne. IT AAoue, 208 0 departrerss incete County Satie of aris, Sul, Cer erat, Crange, ser, Sarramertc, Sentema, SaIu, SavfaClasie. cing al pis agesciesnpeoting Sania Cle \erture ana “Ske Genes, a7a:re municoal ace cegana Sscraments, 82-2gn, Sar Fancisco, ana Sen The tentative recommendation released by the Commission was to mandatethe video recording ofall custodial interrogations in homicide cases. While the Commission remains convincedthat video recording is the best meansofdetecting false confessions, we have been persuadedthat the cost of implementing this recommendationat this time would be prohibitive. Instead, we recommendthat a fund beavailable to support the implementa- tion of video recording by Police Departments that chooseto do so. We are optimistic that improved technology will reduce these costs in the future, andthat positive experience with a requirement that all custodial interrogationsin serious felony cases be audio recorded will convince all concerned that eventual conversion to video recording is well worth the cost. The cost ofrecording custodial interrogations must be measured againstthe cost offalse confessions, which takes a devastating humantoll upon those whoare wrongfully charged, their families, the victims of crime, and their families. Closing a case with conviction of the wrong person based upona false confessionalso leaves the real perpetratorat large, to victimize others. The costs oflitigating claims of police misconduct that might have been deterred by taping,’ and the savings in avoidingfalse claims of police misconduct should,in the long run, more than paythe costs of implementation of a mandatethatall custodial interrogation in serious criminalcases be electroni- cally recorded. Recommendations Gi The Commission recommendsthatthe state legislature enact the following statute to require the recording ofthe entirety of custodial interrogations of individuals suspectedofall seriousfelonies: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS Section 1: Definitions. (a) “Electronic Recording” or “Electronically Recorded” means an audio, videoordigital audio or video recording that is an authentic, accurate, complete, unaltered record ofa custodial interroga- tion, including a law enforcement officer’s advice of the person's constitutional rights and ending when the interview has completelyfinished. (b) “Serious Felony” means anyofthe offenseslisted in Section 1192.7(c) ofthe California Penal Code. (c) “Statement” means anoral, written, sign lan- guage or nonverbal communication. Section 2: Electronic Recording Required. All Statements made during custodial interrogation relating to a Serious Felony shall be Electronically Recorded. Section 3: Cautionary Instruction Required. Ifany Statementis admitted in evidence in any criminal proceeding which occurred during custodial interrogation which was notElectronically Recorded in its entirety in compliance with Section 2, the court shall, at the request ofthe defendant, provide thejury with an instruction in aform to be recommended by the California Judicial Council, which advises thejury to view such statements with caution. Section 4: Handling andPreservation ofElectronic Recordings ofCustodial Interrogations relating to a Serious Felony. (a) Every Electronic Recording ofa Custodial Interrogation shall be clearly identified and cata- logued by law enforcement personnel. (b) Ifajuvenile or criminal proceeding is brought against a person who wasthe subject ofan Electronically Recorded Custodial Interrogation, the Electronic Recording shall be preserved by law 8. Chris Ochea and his co-defendantsettled their claims ofcivil rights violations against the Austin, Texas Police Departmentfor more than $16 million dollars. enforcement personnel until all appeals, post-con- viction and habeas corpusproceedings arefinal and concluded,or the time within which they must be brought has expired, or the sentence has been completed. (c) Ifnojuvenile or criminal proceeding is brought against a person whohasbeen the subject ofan Electronically Recorded Custodial Interrogation, the related Electronic Recording shall be preserved by law enforcement personnel until all applicable state andfederal statutes oflimitations bar prosecution of the person. EA The Commissionurgesall California law enforcement agencies to videotape the entirety of all custodial interrogations of felony suspectsor, where videotaping is impractical, to audiotape the entirety of such custodial interrogations. El The Commission recommendsthattheState Legislature appropriate funds, to be administered by the Attorney General, to provide grants to California Police Agencies that wish to implement programsto videotapecustodial interrogations. E43 The Commission recommendsthattraining programs should be provided and required totrain police, prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges about the causes, indicia and consequencesof false confessions. Police interrogators should receive special training in how to identify and interrogate persons with developmentaldisabili- ties and juveniles. ABSTAINING FROM REPORT OF COMMISSION Sheriff Lee Baca Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (Sheriff Baca served as a Commissioner from 2004 —2006). Actions The Report occasionedsix articles from the press lauding the Commission's findings. 41 = 2 72 ” et round iy oO oe @o 2 ws a Senator Elaine Alquist’s bill, SB 171, requiring the electronic recording of interrogations, passed the Senate and the Assembly, only to be vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. In 2007, Senator Alquist (D-San Jose) introduced SB 511, amending the 2006bill based upon the Commission's recommendations. The new bill directly addressed the concerns expressed by the Governorin his veto message. SB 511 passed the Senate and Assembly, only to be vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. In 2008, Senator Alquist re-introduced SB 511 as SB 1590. Thebill passed the Senate Public Safety Committee, but dueto the State Budget shortfall, did not pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 511, Alquist. Interrogation: recording. Existing law provides that under specified condi- tions the statements ofwitnesses, victims, or perpetrators of specified crimes may be recorded and preserved by meansofvideotape. This bill would require theelectronic recordation of the entire proceedings of any custodialinter- rogation of an individual whoisin fixed place of detention and who,at the time of the interroga- tion, is suspected of committing or accused of a homicideor a violent felony, except as specified. The bill would also prohibit the interrogating entity from destroyingoraltering any electronic recording madeofthe interrogation until the final conclusion ofthe proceedings,as specified. The bill would becomeoperative on July 1, 2008. By imposing these new requirements onlocal law enforcement,this bill would impose a state-man- dated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburselocal agencies and schooldistricts for certain costs mandated by thestate. Statutory provisions éstablish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would providethat, if the Commission on State Mandates determinesthatthe bill contains costs mandated by thestate, reimbursementfor those costs shall be made pursuant to these statu- tory provisions. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS Section 1. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to require the creation of an elec- tronic record of an entire custodial interrogation in orderto eliminate disputes in court as to what actually occurred during the interrogation, thereby improving prosecution of the guilty while afford- ing protection to the innocent. Section 2. Section 859.5 is added to the Penal Code,to read: 859.5. Ef (a) Any custodial interrogation of an Individual whois in a fixed place of detention and who,at the timeofinterrogation,is sus- pected of committing or accused of a homicide, as defined in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 187) of Title 8 of Part 1, or a violent felony, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, shall be electronically recordedinits entirety. This provision applies to both adult and juvenile proceedings. (b) The requirementfor the electronic recorda- tion of a custodial interrogation pursuantto this section shall not apply if the person to be interrogated provides an electronically recorded statement expressing that he or she will speak to the law enforcementofficeror officers only if the interrogationis not electronically recorded. Whereelectronic recording of that statementis refused by the personto be interrogated, then that refusal may be documentedin writing. (c) The interrogating entity shall not destroy or alter any electronic recording madeofa custodial interrogation until the time that a conviction for any offense relating to the interrogationis final andall direct and habeas corpus appeals are exhausted or the prosecution for that offense is barred by law. The interrogating entity may make one or more true, accurate, and complete copies of the electronic recordingin a different format. Bf] Anylaw enforcementofficer who conducts a custodial interrogation of an individual described in subdivision (a) shall be required to make an electronic recording of the interrogation pursu- ant to subdivision (a), unless the law enforcement officer can demonstrate, by a preponderanceofthe evidence, that the electronic recording of the cus- todial interrogation wasnotfeasible for a specified reason,including,butnotlimitedto, the following: (a) Access to equipmentrequiredto elec- tronically record an interrogation could not be obtained during the period of timethat the defendantcould be lawfully detained. (b) The failure to create an electronic recording of the entire custodial interrogation was theresult of a malfunctionofthe recording device and obtain- ing a replacementdevice wasnotfeasible. (c) The questions put by law enforcementper- sonnel, and the person's responsive statements, werepart of a routine processing or booking of the person. , a (d) The law enforcementofficers in goodfaith camerato capture facial images of the suspect = failed to makeanelectronic recording ofthe and the interrogators. Law enforcementofficers A custodial interrogation because the officers are encouraged to videotapethe custodial inter- = inadvertently failed to operate the recording rogation of individuals suspected or accused of Pa) equipmentproperly, or withoutthe officer's committing a homicide. re knowledgethe recording equipment malfunc- rvs (c) “Law enforcementofficer” meansany officer of the police, sheriff, highwaypatrol, or dis- (e) The custodial interrogation took place in trict attorney, and any peaceofficer included in another jurisdiction and was conducted by the Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830). officers of that jurisdiction in compliance with the law ofthat jurisdiction. tioned or stopped operating. (d) “Fixed place of detention’ meansa jail, police, or sheriff’s station, holdingcell, or a cor- (f} The law enforcementofficers conducting or rectional or detention facility. contemporaneously observing the custodial inter- rogation reasonably believed that the crime of which the person was suspected was not among thoselisted in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a). (e) A person is “suspected of” committing a homicideor violent felony, for purposesofthis section, if law enforcementofficers have reason- able cause, at the timeofthe interrogation,to (g) Exigent circumstances existed which pre- believe that the person committed a homicide or vented the makingof, or renderedit notfeasible violentfelony. to make, an electronic recording of the custodial ; ; ; e (f) This section shall becomeoperative on July interrogation. 1, 2008. For the purposesofthis section, the following Section 3. If the Commission on State Mandates termshave the following meanings: determines that this act contains costs mandated (a) “Custodial interrogation’ means express by the state, reimbursementto local agencies and questioningorits functional equivalentthatis schooldistricts for those costs shall be made pursu- conducted by a law enforcementofficer from the ant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of time that the suspect is, or should be, informed Division 4 ofTitle 2 of the Government Code. of his or her rights to counsel and to remain silent, until the time that the questioning ends. (b) “Electronic recording” meansan analog or digital recording that includes the audio repre- sentations of any interrogator and individual involved in a custodial interrogation, provided however, that a motion picture, videotape, ana- log, or digital recording that includes both audio andvisual representations of any interrogator and individual involved in a custodial interroga- tion is also permitted. Law enforcementofficers are encouraged,ifvideotaping, to position the Data and Hearings In preparation for a public hearing on the topic ofthe Useof Jailhouse Informant Testimony, the Commission considered the following documents: . Report of the 1989-90 Los Angeles County GrandJury: Investigation ofthe Involvement of Jail House Informants in the CriminalJustice System in Los Angeles County. . Jailhouse Informants—Chapter5, AchievingJustice: Freeing the Innocent; Convicting the Guilty, Report of the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Sections Ad Hoc Innocence Committee to Ensure the Integrity of the Criminal Process, 2006. . Warden, Robert, “The Snitch System: How Incentivised Witnesses Put 38 Innocent Americans on Death Row,” presented April 25, 2002at Arizona State University College of Law. . The Snitch System: How Snitch Testimony Sent Randy Steidl and Other Innocent Americans to Death Row, Center for Wrongful Convictions, Northwestern University School of Law (Winter 2004-2005). - Trott, The Honorable Stephen S., Wordsof Warningfor Prosecutors Using Criminals as Witnesses, 47 Hastings LJ. 1381 (July/August 1996). . Yaroshefsky, Ellen. Introduction, Symposium The Cooperating Witness Conundrum:Is Justice Obtainable?, Jacob Burns Ethics Centerat Cardozo Law School, Yeshiva University, 23 Cardozo L. Rev 747, (February 2002). - Scheck, Barry. Closing Remarks, Symposium The Cooperating Witness Conundrum:Is Justice Obtainable?, Jacob Burns Ethics Center at Cardozo Law School, Yeshiva University, 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 899, (February 2002). » Uviller, H. Richard. No Saucefor the Gander: Valuable Consideration For Helpful Testimonyfrom Tainted Witnesses in Criminal Cases, 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 771 (2002). - Skurka, Steven. A Canadian Perspective on the Role of Cooperators and Informants, 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 759 (2002). - Cal Penal Code {11272 (a)—(d), {1191.25(a), §4000.1(a)-(c) . CALCRIMNo.336,including benchnotes and authority At the public hearing held at the Hall of Justice in the County Board Chambers of San Mateo County, on September 20, 2006, the Commission heard from Professor Ellen Yaroshefsky ofthe Cardozo School of Law in New York, an expert on informant testimony, John Spillane, Chief Deputy of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, respon- sible for their informant committee; Gigi Gordon, Director of the Post-Conviction Assistance Center; oneoftwooriginalpetitioners to the LA County Grand Jury in 1988 to investigate sweepingcor- ruption in the useofjailhouse informants in Los Angeles; and Dennis Fritz, wrongfully convicted in Oklahomafor murderin the 1st degree, chronicled in the recent John Grisham book, The Innocent Man. Over 70 membersofthe public and press attendedthe hearing. The Report and Recommendations Regarding InformantTestimony were issued November 20, 2006,as follows: Report This Report will address the use oftestimony from informants who are themselves in custodyor facing criminal prosecution. The motivation for suchtesti- monyis frequently the expectation of some reward in the form of reduction of charges,eligibility for bail, leniency in sentencing,or better conditions of confinement. In a report by the Northwestern University School of Law Center on Wrongful Convictions, the use of such informants was identi- fied amongthe three mostprevalent factors in the wrongful convictions of death row inmates. After a review ofthe cases of 111 persons released from the nation’s death rowsafter they were exonerated, from 1973 through 2004,the Center founduse offalse ' testimony from informantsin 45.9% ofthe cases. That madefalse informanttestimonythe leading cause ofwrongful convictions in U.S.capital cases — followed by erroneous eyewitness identifications (25.2% ofthe cases), andfalse confessions (14.4% of the cases). (Northwestern University School of Law Center on Wrongful Convictions, The Snitch System, p. 3, 2005.) While noneofthe 111 cases in the Center on Wrongful Convictions report took place in California, the frequent use of informanttesti- monyin capital cases appearsin California capital cases as well. Michael Laurence, the Director of the California Habeas Corpus Resource Center, explained to the Commission the reasons for the high prevalence of the use of arrested or charged informants in capital cases. In his opinion, while they are rarely needed to supply evidenceofthe defendant's guilt of the underlying crime, they often provide crucial testimonyto prove the alleged special circumstances which make the defendant eligible for the death penalty, or to provide evidence of aggravation to persuadethejury to select death as the appropriate penalty. State Public Defender Michael Hersek reported to the Commission that ofthe 117 death penalty appeals currently pend- ing in his office, seventeen featured testimony by in-custody informants, and anothersix included testimony by informants who werein constructive custody. Thus, confidencein thereliability of the testimonyofarrested or charged informantwit- nessesis a matter of continuing concern to ensure that the administration ofjustice in California is just, fair and accurate. The Commission conducted a public hearing in Redwood City, California on September20, 2006. Amongthe witnesses whotestified at the public hearing was Dennis Fritz, a former junior high school teacher from Ada, Oklahoma. Mr. Fritz told the Commission that he and a codefendant named Ron Williamson were convicted of the rape and murderof Debra Sue Cartersix years after the murdertook place. The principal testimony against them came from in-custodyjail informants. Based on this testimony, with little corroboration, ; Williamson was sentenced to death, and Fritz was given a life sentence. Five days before his scheduled execution, Willamson won a new trial. In preparationfortheretrial, DNA testing was finally done.It resulted in a match to one ofthe informants, and exonerated both Williamson and Fritz. They were released after twelve years in prison. The informant was subsequently convicted of the murder,and is now serving life sentence. Further information about this case can be found at Williamson v. State, 812 P.ad 384 (Okla.Ct. =~ | So = pre) ”" @ _ _—_ c bs] = — o pwn i=] Crim. App. 1991); Williamsonv. State, 852 P.2d 167 (Okla. Ct. Crim. App. 1993); Williamson v. Reynolds, 904 F.Supp. 1529 (E.D. Okla. 1995); Williamsonv. Ward, 110 F.3d 1508 (10" Cir. 1997); Fritz v. State, 811 P.2d 1353 (Okla. Ct. Crim. App. 1991); Gorev. State, 119 P.3d 1268 (Okla. Ct. Crim. App., 2005). (See Grisham, The Innocent Man, 2006. Compare Letter of District Attorney William N. Peterson to Commissioner Greg Totten. Available at www.ccfaj. org/tr-usefed.html.) THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY EXPERIENCE In 1989, the exploits of Leslie Vernon White,a Los Angeles jail inmate who demonstrated on national television how easyit was for prisoners to gather information about the pending cases of other prisoners and fabricate testimonythat might gain them greater lenience in their own cases, led the Los Angeles County GrandJury to convene a comprehensiveinvestigation of the use of in-custody informants. The grand jury heard the testimony of 120 witnesses, includingsix self- professedjail house informants. The report made recommendations for both the L.A. County District Attorney and the L.A. County Sheriff's Department with respect to the handling of informants in jail and their use as witnesses in criminal cases. (See Report ofthe 1989-90 Los Angeles County GrandJury. Investigation of the InvolvementofJail HouseInformants in the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County, 1990.) In responseto this report, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office adoptedpolicy guidelines to strictly control the useofjailhouse informants as witnesses. The policy requires “strong corroborative evidence,” consisting of morethanthefact that the informant appears to know details of the crime thoughtto be known only to law enforcement. A deputy wishing to use a jailhouse informantas a prosecution wit- ness mustobtain the prior approval of a Jailhouse Informant Committee headed by the Chief Assistant District Attorney. The office maintains a Central Indexofjailhouse informants who have offered to be, or who have been used as witnesses. All recordsofjailhouse informants are preserved, including notes, memoranda, computerprintouts, records of promises made, payments made,or rewards given, as well as records of the last known location of the informantandrecordsrelating to cell assignments. (See Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Legal Policies Manual, Chapter 19, Jailhouse Informants, pp. 187-190, April, 2005. Available at www.ccfaj.org/rr-use-expert.html].) John Spillane, who currently serves as Chief Assistant District Attorney in Los Angeles County, and headsthe Jailhouse Informant Committee, informed the Commission that the Committee rarely approvesthe use of in-custody informants as witnesses. None has been approved during the past twenty months,and only twelvein the past four years. Throughout the 1990’s, the annual number of approvals averagedless than six. Mr. Spillane informed the Commission that the office also requires that interviews of in-custody informants by attorneys or investigators from the District Attorney's office mustbe tape recorded. The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office also offers training sessionsto its deputies to acquaint them with therisks andperils of using infor- mants as witnesses. In recent years, the training has been conduced by Judge StephenS. Trott of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (See Trott, Words of Warningfor Prosecutors Using Criminals as Witnesses, 47 Hastings Law Journal 1381, 1996.) The Commission recommendsthat all prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges andpolice investigators in California receive training with respect to the perils of using arrested or charged informants as witnesses. The Commission undertook to ascertain whether the best practices exemplified by the Los Angeles County District Attorney were being imple- mented by other District Attorneys throughout the State of California. A letter was sent to each ofthe fifty-eight County District Attorneys in the State, inquiring whetherthey hadoffice policies governing the useofin-custody informants, and requesting a copyofthat policy if it was in writ- ing. The letter also inquired as to how manycases included testimonyofin-custody informants during the pastfive years. We received nine responses. Fourofthe five largest counties had written policies similar to the Los Angeles County policy, requiring supervisory approval before the testimony of an in-custody informant could be utilized.! None of the four smallest counties had written policies, but three indicated that supervi- sory approval is required.* The Santa Clara County and Orange County District Attorneys were the only offices whosepolicy requires the maintenance of a centralfile ofall informant information. The survey suggests that the use of the testimony of in-custody informants is rarely approved by any of the responding offices. The Commission recommendsthatthe following best practices be implemented wheneverfeasible. The Commission recommendsthat each District Attorney's office in the State of California adopt a written policy which requires: Gl Thedecision to usethe testimony ofan in- custody informantbe reviewed and approved by supervisory personnelother than the deputy assignedtothetrial of the case; HA The maintenanceofa centralfile preservingall records relating to contacts with in-custody infor- mants, whetherthey are used as witnessesor not; The recording ofall interviewsofin-custody informants conducted by District Attorney personnel; 4 The corroboration of any testimony of an in-cus- tody informant by evidence which independently tends to connect the defendantwith the crime, special circumstance or circumstance in aggrava- tion to which the informanttestifies. The 1989 Los Angeles grandjury inquiry also led the California State Legislature to enact Section 1127a of the California Penal Code, which currently requires that, upon the requestofa party, the judge instruct the jury in any case in which an in-custody informanttestifies that the testimony should be viewed with caution andclose scrutiny, and the jury should consider the extent to which it may have been influenced by the receipt of, or expectation of, any benefits from the party calling that witness. This instruction is now contained in CALCRIM No. 336, the recommendedjury instructions approved by the Judicial Council of California. Penal Code Section 1127a also requires the prosecutorto file a written statement with the court, contemporane- ous with the calling ofan in-custody informant as a witness in any criminaltrial, setting out any andall consideration promisedto, or received by the in-custody informant. Monetary payments to in-custody informants for testimonyby law enforce- mentor correctionalofficials are limited to $50 by California Penal Code Section 4001.1. ~_ — ° = a i] @ e i = SS = haw [=] [wil = 1, Orange, San Bernardino, Santa Clara and Ventura Counties have written policies; Sacramento does not.. 2. Monterey, Placer and Solanc Counties all require supervisory approval. The District Attorney for Yuba County declined to disclose his policy. CORROBORATION REQUIREMENTS At present, California law does notdirectly require the corroboration ofthe testimonyofan in-custody informant. The Commission was informed by Professor Ellen Yaroshefsky of the Benjamin N. Cardozo Schoolof Law that seventeen states now require the corroboration of accomplice testimony. The only corroboration requirement currently embodied in California law is the requirement of corroboration of the testimony of accomplices, contained in Penal CodeSection 1111: 1111. A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it be corroborated by such other evidence as shall tend to connect the defendant with the commissionofthe offense; and the corroborationis not sufficientifit merely shows the commission ofthe offense or the circumstancesthereof. An accomplice is hereby defined as one whoisliable to prosecutionfor the identical offense charged against the defendant on trial in the cause in which the testimonyofthe accom- plice is given. CALCRIM No.335is currently used to instruct juries of the accomplice corroboration require- ment. While the instruction requires supporting evidence independentofthe accomplice’stesti- monythat tends to connect the defendantto the commission ofthe crime,it adds: Supporting evidence, however, maybeslight. It does not need to be enough, byitself, to prove that the defendant is guilty ofthe charged crime, and it does not need to support everyfact... about which the accomplice testified. The instruction also informsthe jury that accom- plices may not corroborate eachother: The evidence needed to support the testimony ofone accomplice cannotbe provided by the testimony of another accomplice. The Commission considered whether California should have a statutory requirementofcorrobora- tion for the testimonyofin-custody informants, and whetherthat requirement should track the current requirements for accomplice testimony. The Commission concludedthat the testimony of in-custody informants potentially presents even greaterrisks than the testimony of accomplices, whoare incriminating themselvesas well as the defendant. Using the language of the accomplice corroboration requirement, however, would not address the frequent use of in-custody informants in death penalty cases to prove special circum- stances or provide evidence for aggravation of the penalty. In suchcases, there will invariably be some supporting evidence tending to connect the defendant to the commission ofthe crime. The jury shouldbe instructed that a finding of a special circumstance,or a finding ofa circum- stance of aggravation, maynot be based solely upon the uncorroborated testimonyofan arrested or charged informant, and the corroboration should independently tend to connectthe defen- dant with the special circumstance or circumstance of aggravation. And just as with accomplices, in-custody informants should not be permitted to corroborate each other. The jury should not be instructed that corroborating evidence “may be slight.” A statutory requirement embodying these suggestions is included among the Commission's recommendations. ARRESTED OR CHARGED INFORMANTS WHO ARE NOT IN CUSTODY The Commission considered whetherthe pros- ecutorial policies governing the use of in-custody informants andthe statutory requirementofcor- roboration should be extendedto all informants, whetherthey are in actual custody at the time they allegedly acquire information concerning the case of another accused,orare at liberty either because they have not yet been arrested on pending charges -or have been freed onbail or recognizance pending resolution of the charges against them. Here, grave concerns were expressedto insure that “informant testimony’is not defined so broadly that it encom- passescitizen informants, or those responding to offers of rewards. Nor shouldit reach the use of informants used to supply probable cause for arrests or searches, but who nevertestify attrial. Not every witness whotestifies to hearinga state- ment made by the defendant should be included, simply because they may have some expectation of benefit from their testimony. But the peculiar risks created by informants who may have someexpecta- tion of leniency or reward from their testimonyare similar, regardless of whether the accused and the informantare both in custodyat the timeofthe alleged statements. Therefore, the Commission recommendsthat, wheneverfeasible, an express agreementin writing should describe the range of recommendedrewardsor benefits that might be afforded in exchangefor truthful testimony by an arrested or charged informant, whether the informantis in custody or not. A minority of the Commissioners would also support an expansion of the definition ofthe informants included in Penal Code Sections 11274, 1191.25 and 4001.1, to includeall arrested or charged informants, and an extension of the requirementof corroborationto all arrested or charged informants.° Recommendations Ei The California Commission onthe Fair Administration of Justice recommendsthat, wheneverfeasible, an express agreement in writing should describe the range ofrecommended rewardsor benefits that might beafforded in exchangefortruthful testimonyby an arrested or charged informant. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice recommendsthat, wher- ever feasible, California District Attorney Offices adopt a written internal policy to govern the use of in-custody informants. The policy should provide: (a) The decision to use the testimony ofan in- custody informant be reviewed and approved by supervisory personnelother than the deputy assigned tothetrial of the case; (b) The maintenance ofa centralfile preserving all recordsrelating to contacts with in-custody informants, whetherthey are used as witnesses or not; (c) The recordingofall interviews of in-custody informants conducted by District Attorney personnel; (d) The corroboration of any testimony of an in-custody informant by evidence which inde- pendently tends to connect the defendant with the crime, special circumstance or circumstance in aggravation to which the informanttestifies. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice recommendsthe enact- mentof a statutory requirementofcorroboration of in-custody informants, similar to the current requirementofthe corroboration of accomplices contained in Penal Code Section 1111. The statute should provide: A conviction can not be had uponthe testimony of an in-custody informantunless it be corroborated by such other evidenceas shall independently tend to connect the defendant with the commission ofthe offense or the special circumstanceor the circumstanceofaggravation to which the in-custody _ i [=] = me] 4) fob) fam oJ = is] = ro oroel ij 3, Commissioners Bellas, Hersek, Hing, Judge, Laurence, Ridolfi and Streeter. informanttestifies. Corroborationis not sufficient if it merely shows the commission ofthe offense or the special circumstanceor the circumstance in aggravation. Corroborationofan in-custody informant cannot be provided by the testimony ofanother in-custody informant. An in-custody informant is hereby defined as a person, other than a codefendant, percipient witness, accomplice or coconspirator whosetestimony is based upon statements madeby the defendant while both the defendant and the informant are held within a cor- rectional institution. A jury should be instructed in accordance with the language ofthis statute. A jury should notbeinstructed that corroborating evidence maybeslight, as in CALCRIM No.335. £4 The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice recommendsthattrain- ing programsfor California prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges and police investigators include a componentaddressingthe useofarrested or charged informants as witnesses. Actions The Report occasionedsix articles from the press lauding the Commissior’sfindings. In 2007, Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) introduced SB 609,providing that a Court could not convict a defendant,find a special circum- stancetrue,or use a fact in aggravation based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an in-custody informant. Thebill passed the Senate and Assembly only to be vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. In 2008, Sen. Romerore-introduced SB 609 as SB 1589. Thebill passed the Senate and awaits review in the Assembly. Data and Hearings In preparation for a public hearing on the topic of Problems with Scientific Evidence, the Commission considered the following documents: - Mnookin,Jennifer. The Achilles Heel of Fingerprints, The Washington Post, May 29, 2004. . Stahl, Lesley. Fingerprints: Infallible Evidence?, CBS News, June 6, 2004. . Murphy, Shelley. City Pays Wrongfully Jailed Man $3.2 Million, appearing in the Los Angeles Daily Journal, August 14, 2006. . Cherry and Imwinkelried. A Cautionary Note About Fingerprint Analysis and Reliance on Digital Technology, 30-AUG Champion 27, 2006. . Profile of Josiah Sutton, retrieved from Innocence Project website on August 29, 2006. - Mabrey, Vicki. DNA Testing: Foolproof? CBS News, May 28, 2003. - Profile of Peter Rose, including: . Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Oct. 22, 2004 . Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Ordering Immediate Release of Petitioner from State Prison, Oct. 29, 2004. . Petition for Finding of Factual Innocence Pursuant to Penal Code §851.8, Feb. 10, 2005 . Order of Exoneration, Feb. 18, 2005. . Orders in Support of Finding of Factual Innocence, Mar. 3, 2005. . Barker, Jeffrey. Inmate Free After DNA Test, The Record, Oct. 30, 2004. . Barker,Jeffrey. Rape Victim Recants 10 Years Later, The Record, Nov. 6, 2004. - Bohm,Layla. Police Conclude Internal Review ofRose Case, Find No Wrongdoing, Lodi News Sentinel, Feb. 18, 2005. . Cooper, Claire. Ruling Goes Beyond ‘Not Guilty’, Sacramento Bee,Feb. 19, 2005. . Profile of Jimmy Ray Bromgard,retrieved from InnocenceProject website on August 29, 2006. - Tobin and Thompson.Evaluating and Challenging Forensic Identification Evidence, 30-JUL Champion 12, 2006. - Dolan, Maura. State Pays Wrongfully Convicted Man,Los Angeles Times, January 20, 2006. . Blumenthal, Ralph. Faulty Testimony Sent2 to Death Row, Panel Finds, The New York Times, May3, 2006. - Report on the Peer Review ofthe Expert Testimony in the Cases ofState of Texas v. Cameron Todd Willingham andState of Texas v. Ernest Ray Willis, Arson Review Committee, InnocenceProject. . Kelley, Darryl. Crime Lab Errs in DUITests, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 4, 2004. . Stannard, Matthew B. Board Finds Ex-Coroner’s Work Lacking; Husband Charged After 1996 Autopsy, San Francisco Chronicle, July 30, 2002. - Zamora, Jim Herron. Lab Scandal Jeopardizes Integrity ofSan Francisco Justice; Sting Uncovered Bogus Certification, San Francisco Examiner, Sept. 16, 1994. . Gorman, Anna. Murder Count Dismissed in Case Involving Chemist’s Errors, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 7, 2004. » Gorman, Anna. LAPD Narcotics Analyst Erred; Botched Evidence Raises Questions on Credibility; Public Defender’s Office Demands an Accounting, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 2, 2004. . Inthe Matter ofAn Investigation ofthe West Virginia State Police Crime Laboratory, Serology Division, in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, September 1993 Term. . Teichroeb, Ruth. Crime Labs Too Beholden to Prosecutors, Critics Say, Seattle Post Intelligencer Reporter, July 23, 2004. . Berry, Steve. Los Angeles Biological Crime Evidence May Be Missing Forensics: Police, Sheriffs’ Department Dispute Claim that Material Has Not Been Preserved, Los Angeles Times,April 3, 2002. - Daunt, Tina. LAPD Blames Faulty Training in DNASnafu Police, Los Angeles Times, July 31, 2002. . Police Accidentally Destroy DNA Samples, The San Diego Union-Tribune, July 31, 2002. - Daunt & Berry. LAPD Says Evidence Destroyed Crime: Authorities No Longer Have DNAin At Least 1,100 Sexual Assault Cases, Los Angeles Times,July 30, 2002. . Garza, Mariel. Lab Staffing Under the Microscope; Cooley Calls DNA-Specialist Plans Inadequate, Los Angeles Daily News, August 14, 2002. - Connelly, Michael. A Few Warm Bodies Can Solve A Lot ofCold Cases, Houston Chronicle, May 29, 2005. . National Forensic DNA Study Report, prepared in partnership between the Division of Governmental Studies and Services at Washington State University and Smith Alling Lane, P.S. December12, 2003. . Saks and Koehler, The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science, Science,Vol. 309, August5, 2005. . Forensic Evidence—Chapter 4, AchievingJustice: . Status and Needs ofForensic Science Service . Giannelli, Paul C. Ake v. Oklahoma: The Right to Freeing the Innocent; Convicting the Guilty, Report of the American Bar Association CriminalJustice Sectior’s Ad Hoc Innocence Committee to Ensure the Integrity of the Criminal Process, 2006. @ i] i @ = > ae oO 4 — i— nd o ie] Providers: A Report to Congress, NationalInstitute of Justice, May 2004. Expert Assistance in a Post-Daubert, Post DNA World, 89 Cornell L. Rev. 1305, September 2004. . Junk Science and Texas Forensic Science Commission, retrieved from Innocence Project website on August 25, 2006. - Neufeld, Peter J. The (Near) Irrelevance ofDaubert to Criminal Justice and Some Suggestionsfor Reform, American Journal of Public Health, Supplement1, 2.005, Vol. 95, No.St. . Dror, Charlton, and Peron. Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications, Forensic Science International, 156 (2006) 74-78. - Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grants, 42 U.S.C.A. 43797k . Commission on Forensic Science and Establishment of DNA Identification Index, J995 of Chapter 18 of the Consolidated Executive Law of New York. - Thompson, William C. Tarnish on the ‘Gold Standard’: Understanding Recent Problems in Forensic DNATesting, Jan/Feb Champion, 2006. . ABAStandards on Criminal Justice DNA Evidence, February 23, 2006. Atthe public hearing on January 10, 2007, in Hearing Room 4203 at the State Capitol in Sacramento, the Commission heard from Peter Neufeld, Co-Director of the Innocence Project at Cardozo Law School in New York, New York; Dr. William C. Thompson,Professor and Chair of the Departmentof Criminology, Law, & Society at the University of California, Irvine; Dr. Frederick A. Tulleners, Director of the Forensic Science Graduate Program at the University of California, Davis; Professor Susan Rutberg, Golden Gate University School of Law; Ms. Bicka Barlow, Office of the Public Defender, San Francisco; Ms.Gail Abarbanel, Director, the Rape Treatment Center at UCLA Medical Center, Mr. Michael Chamberlain, Deputy Attorney General, DNA Legal Unitfor the California Departmentof Justice; Mr. Rockne Harmon, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County; Mr. Herman Atkins, Exoneree and Chair of the California Council ofthe Wrongfully Convicted; Mr. ThomasJ. Nasser, President, the California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors; Mr. Lance Gima, Chief, Bureau of Forensic Services, at the California DepartmentofJustice; and Mr. Barry A.J. Fisher, Director of the Crime Laboratory for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. The hearing wasbroadcaston closed-circuit television — across Sacramento and over 250 membersofthe public and interested parties attended this hearing. The Commission issued an Emergency Report and Recommendations Regarding the DNA Testing Backlog in the State of California on February 20, 2007,as follows: Report: DNA Testing Backlogs This Report will address the current California backlogs in the processing of DNA samples taken from suspects arrested for violent felonies and the entering of the data into the databank,as well as the delays in testing of rape kits and other DNA samplescollected during criminalinvestigations. There are numerousotherissuesofjustice,fair- ness and accuracy with regard to theavailability anduseofforensic evidencein the California criminaljustice system, which will be addressed in future Commission reports. The problem of backlogs, however, is urgently in need ofimme- diate attention. Recognizing this urgency, the Commission decided to addressthis issuefirst, andto issue its emergency report and recommen- dations as quickly as possible. The use of DNAprofiles has rapidly become one of the mostuseful tools available to correctly identify criminal perpetrators. Recognizingits great poten- tial, California voters adopted the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act by popularinitiative at the November, 2004 generalelection, by a 62% margin. Also known as Proposition 69, the measure mandates a vast expansion ofthe statewide DNA Database and Data Bank program,recognizingit as the most reason- able and certain meanstosolve crimes,to aid in the identification of missing and unidentified per- sons, and to exonerate persons wrongly suspected or accused of crime. Proposition 69 requires the taking of buccal swab samples, along with thumb- prints and palmprints, from any person convicted of any felony offense, as well as any person arrested for or charged with a homicide or sexual offense. CommencingJanuary 1, 2009, Proposition 69 provides that coveragewill expandto require the submission of samples for any adult persons 1. CODIS [The Combined DNA Index System]is a national database used by qualified law enforcementofficials to link DNA evidence found at a crime scene with a suspect whose DNAis already on file. It was established by the Federal Bureau of Investigation pursuant to authority granted by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796 (Sept. 13, 1994). Subsequently,all fifty state legislatures enacted arrested or chargedwith any felony offense. The buceal swab samples are deposited with the DNA Laboratory ofthe California Departmentof Justice, ‘whichis required to perforin DNA analysis and enter the results ina DNA data bank anddatabase. DNA profiles are also uploaded into the national databank [CODIS] maintained by the FBI.! ‘The Commission was informed that as of January 31, 2007,the California Departmentof Justice had received 895,409 buccal swab samples pursue ant to Proposition 69, and had uploaded profiles for736,863, leaving a backloy of 158,546. tis anticipated thatthe backlog will be reduced below 60,000 by june 3, 2007. For each ofthe next thtee years, the Department anticipates receiving 249,000 samples per year. In 2009,when samples vill be taken from every adult felony arrestee, the Departmentestimates the number will jump another 160,000, to 400,000 per year. DNA SAMPLES RECENED s U*LOACED aK 20K 230K 2A0K Lok 75K saeiTak pals 7008 Ig SRQI2UDH & dosed BB oxsanples xecamed DNA SianUpheld ‘Curr backlog (as of May 30, 2008) 27,826 DOLVARIMILN: Gb JUSTICE LAB SALARIES LAG BEHINE CIES AND COUNTIES Previous Caltomi-00) | oe! a | conta es {a las Arges ea — | sen Remacine eas; en Diego an san Mase es Sante Cla =n) Vertue ary os Angles Ee ssVers Zn: Long, Beach Sa ooking ey Ser Diego Cry Sy Sar Francisca 2007 2008 Monty Satry ‘Thevast increase of samples in such a short period oftime has severely burdened the capac- ity of the Department's DNA Laboratory in Richmond, California,The reductionsin backlog achieved thus far have been accomplished by an expansion of the Richmond Laboratory facili- ties and staff, an increase in incentive pay for overtime, and some outsourcing of analysis to otherlaboratories. Opportunities for outsourcing arc limited, however, since only the DOJ lab is 35Es z=4 ey ss 2 a3Pa shoul, aging sowe.od uns te ace DNA Sanpes a erry |DIS spam, Seo KA. YeporNe, Es-BOE,(eps. 200) Pronrsiton62 expavaea heCalla salutes oral urcaed sectssnails conncres ofan, permittedto upload DNAprofilesinto the CODIS national databank. But the greatest challenge the laboratory faces is in recruiting and retain- ing criminalists tofill existing vacancies. There are currently twentyvacancies for criminalists in DepartmentofJusticelabs, includingsix vacant supervisor positions, The Departmentof Justice laboratoriesare ata seriousdisadvantage in recruiting criminalists because of the differential in starting payoffered by other public laboratories intheState of California. The Departmentreports that currently, rank andfile DOJ Criminalists and supervisors/managers are at least 30% behind city and county crime laboratory salaries. Despite recent slopgap measnres, the serious salary dif ferential betweenthestate laboratory and other public laboratories remains,and is not addressed in the currently pending state budget. Backlogs and delays in the entry ofoffender DNA profiles into the databank have a serious impact upon thework of all law enforcement agencies in California, lfan offender's profileis notyetin the databank, a forensic samplefrom a crime scene entered into the databank by any crimelaboratory in thestate will notproduce a match, leaving the offender fice to commit additional crimes. The potential exonerationofa suspect byfinding, a matchto someoneelse willalso be foreclosed. ‘The DNAdata bankis already producing “cold hits” at a remarkable rate, identifying perpetrators of crimes that had gone unsolved for many years in California, Delays in the processing ofoffender profiles can result in irretricvablelossofthe opportunity to resolve unsolved cases. Frequently, whenan innocent person is exonerated by means of DNAtesting, the testing also producesa “cold hit" of another suspect who remainedat large to victimize others.The production of“cald hits" also impacts the availability of investigative, prosecution. and defense resourcesat the local level, Proposition 69 provided some fimdingto local agenciesto col- lect buccal samples, but no resources forfollow-up investigations of “cold hits." In Los Angeles alone, forty “cold hits” wero produced in January, 2007. ‘The Commission was also informed that delays of six months or more have becomethe norm. atlocal crimelaboratoriesfor analysis of rape kits andother DNAsamples collected during criminal investigations. ‘The consequencesof suchdelays were describedfor the Commission by Gail Abarbanel, Director of the Rape Treatment Center at Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center. She described the case of a rape victim whose rape kit sat on a shelf, unopened, for severat months despite the investigating detective's extraordinary efforts to expedite the testing. When it wasfinally tested,it produced a “cold bit’ identifying a rapist whohad attacked at least twoother victims, one a child, during the period of delay. Such delays notonly endanger potential victims, they may also result in unnecessary incarceration of inno- cent suspects. In another case described byMs, Abarbanel, a Rancho Cucamonga man accnsed of raping a 4-yearold girl was held in jail for seven months before DNAtests werefinally conducted which exonerated him. Some rape kits are never tested. Oakland reports thatit processes fewer than Sine Aleghnk 12 days llcolgy: 10days omotat Substances: 14 cays lagestne Labs: 30 days URNAHOUND TIMES FOR LAB WRK IN DAYS halfof therapekits collected in thecity. One of the crimelabs in Los Angeles reportsa backlog of 5,000 unopened rape kits. DNAtestingis not the only laboratory forensic ser- vice thatis seriously backlogged in Califomia. The State Laboratory reports long tum-around timesfor other typesofforensic testing (see above char) Inorderto provide a 30 day tumaroundfor all cases which have been pendingfor over 30 days, the State Laboratory would haveto hire 92 new forensic scientists, At currentsalary levels, this is, virtually impossible. California Penal Code Section 680 already provides that law enforcement agencies have an obligation to victims to conduct timely testing ofrape kit and other crime sceneevidence. A state norm of a six month delayis not timely. Delays putpotential victims at risk by letting offenders go free, deprive innocentaccused ofprompt exoncealion, and inflict delays in the orderly processing of criminal cases in our courts, (I©2728-1251 22-16, siowyy 8 vi. 20 days Laten: Pert: 290 days 222 3 a 5 eted Recommendations: DNA Testing Backlogs ‘The Californie Commission on the Fair Administration ofJnstice recommendsimmedi- ate implementation ofthe following measures to address the problems of DNAtesting backlogs and other problems in California: ithe California Department of justice should immediately ascertainthestaffing levels required for theState Laboratory to reduce the backlogin theuploading of DNA profiles to thirty days or less, both now and when thefuture demands of Proposition 69 take effect. Thesalarylevel neces- sary tofill and maintain those stalfing levels should also be ascertained. Emergency budgetappropriations should be immediately introduced,to provide state funding to staff the State Laboratory atthe levels ascertained pursuantto the Commissions first recommendation. Eq TheCalifornia Attorney General should imme- diately commence consultation with state and Jocal public laboratories, criminalists,law enforcement, prosecutor's offices, public defenders and private defense lawyers, viclim representatives and judges to address the problems of DNAforensic technol- ogy resourcesin California. The following concems should be urgently addressed: {a} Identify the nature and scope of current capacity problems, backlogs ofunprocessed evidence and systems issues that impede the utilization of DNAforensic technology to its fullest potential. {b) Idemify best practices that enhance collec- tionandtimely processing of DNAevidence, including crimescene andrapekit evidence, 1o meet the needs ofthe criminaljustice system. (¢) Make recommendationsfor eliminating cur rent backlogs and preventing future backlogs of ‘unprocessed evidencein state and local public laboratories (dj Evaluate theefficiency andeffectiveness of the cuurtent organizationof resourcesin the State of California, to determnine what systems andstrategieswill mosteffectively serve the needs ofthe State of California. (¢) Recommendstrategies for training and edu- cational programs to address the shortages of trained personnel to meet the staffing needs of crime labs throughout the State of California, (i) Assess the impact of "cold hits’ upon local investigative, prosecution and defense resources, {g} Report to theLegislature and Governor regardingthe legislative or administrative steps that must betaken to insure timely processing of evidence in California's criminal justice system. FB The legislature and the Governorshould provide adequate support to quickly respondto the needs identified bythe Attorney General. Afier issuing the Emergency Report on the DNA testing backlog, the Commission issued its Report and Recommendations Regarding Forensic ScienceEvidence on May 8, 2007, as follows: Report: Forensic Science Evidence his Report will address issues surrounding the preparationand useofforensic science evidence in California criminal cases, and make recommenda- tionsto minimize the risk of wrongful conviction in such cases. The Commission previously addressed the California backlog in processing DNA samples takenfrom suspects arrested for violentfelonies, entering that data into the national databank, and the delays in testing of rape kits and other DNA samples collected during erimnirial investigations. ‘There are numerousotherissues of justice, faimess and accuracywith regard to the availability and useofforensie evidencein the California criminal justice system, some ofwhich will be addressed inthis Report. The presentationofforensic science evidence is often the turning point in a criminal trial. Today, the news carries reports of erroneous forensic iden- tifications of hair, bullets, handwriting, footprints, ite marks, and even venerated fingerprints: The ‘recearaeres 22 ropaces caeof Angatc at mal a.n Incabng the case aBrarcs" Mayle. 3» Oeegsnallorey 2-4 Msi mer eenSeco oacate.9Fe Midel= ng. and Sten Cans. conveced ct ster lice raseer, ‘ingetont Wecate” areyew ress sino, releasco alo servings angelf years afer ne wes exorerateg ce NA tesrg. the Boson koe Departer:sckoonlzea thet te gee: eitcationwas eercH Cake, te Than Accounoay Ear ater agenin gente, 9 oFGrim, ia& Grmrelogy 985 (26281, 2, Sure cuntnser ta2 egaetng earcha whi casesfr In-his Gowri’ ist esc, we oe Suces ral coc mitasen epoiness ident eal swtheing cause Ct ovenglcorecons. Sepaand Recorimendalus agate Mistaken sees Ikeeaion. Ap“! 7498, nouina ep, egoNe ‘fora lelinany, we aes astwohrps lesirwuy wes head 6 a8 ofarnal onelion aUS, eaptatcas Fear nd Recenneratcrs Sep cing formsfel, hone 2008, The le crcPeja: cate nce thcalle nner ul sunvetier ane nes pre Innocence Project at Cardozo Law Schoolidenti- fied forensic science testing errors in 63% of 86 DNA exoneration cases analyzed,the second most commonfactor contibuting to wrongful convic- tions? (Saks & Koehler, The Coming Paradign Shift in Forensic identification Science, 309 Science 892, Aug, 5, 2005.) As recently notedin the Reportofthe Ad Hoc Innocence Committee ofthe American Bar Association, three developments in the 1990°s dra- maticallyaltered the judicial approach to scientific evidence.(Achieving Justice: Freeing the Innocent, Convicting the Guilty, ABA 2006,} First, unlike anyother forensic discipline that preceded it, DNAprofiling entered the courts only after it had beenextensively validated through broad research and claborate quality assurance programas which included rigorous proficiencytesting, standardsfor declaring a match, and the appropriate content of a report, This set a “gold standard”against which other forensic sciences are now measured and often found wanting, Raising the standards ofthe other forensic disciplines is all the more critical sinceitis the non-DNA disciplines that comprise the bulk ofthe crime lab's output According to Barry Fisher, DNAtesting constitutes approximately five percent of the work of crimelabs. Second,the decision ofthe United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharm. Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), established a more rigorous standard of admissibility forexpert testimony, requiring il to be based upon sufficient facts or data, the product of reliable principles and meth- ‘ods, and reliably applied tothe facts ofthe case. ‘TheCalifornia SupremeCourt rejected the applica tion of the Daubert standard in California cases, People v. Lealty, 8 Cal.4” 587, 882 P.ad 321 (1994), retaining the moretraditional “general acceptance” standard of Frye v. United States, 293 Fed. 1013 (D.C, Cit. 1923}. Thereinvigorated Frye standard has led to rnuch closer scrutiny of scientific proof? The third developmentwas the exposure of seri- ous abuse in a mumber ofcrime labs throughout the United States. Serious misconduct of forensic expertsledto the reexamination ofmanycases in ‘West Virginia, Oklahoma and Montana. (See, ¢@., Inve Investigationofthe W. Va. State Polive Crime Lab, Serology Div., 438 S.B.2d sor, W. Va. 1993) The Houston Police Departmentshut downthe DNA and Serology section ofits crime Taboratory in early 2003 after a television exposé revealed seri- ous deficienciesin the lalis procedures. Two men who were falsely incriminatedby botched lab work were released after subsequent DNA testing proved their innocence, In Virginia, an independentlab confirmed that DNA tests conducted by the slate lab were botched and misinterpreted in the case ofa man who came within days of being executed, The governor ordered a broaderinvestigation of thestate lab to determine whether these problems were endemic. (Sec Thompson, Tarnish on the ‘Gold Standard’: Understanding Recent Problems in Forensic DNA Testing, The Champion, Jan.—eb, 2006, p. 10.) California has occasionally endured laboratory scandals, In 1994, more than 1,000 fel- ppscring.= 71% nti cases, whe fen esing errs ranks fd, appeting. oF hecages. Mare tran cre fat"gafunc. many bases Sa lpsicoancepmjesrserensie-Soknce Biscorcuct php he fersfest ig crs centchitals sagen sipretaen,sanpressinn fe akg evidence, WR antic, andeps testing resussyere never costae bo fale, aed resus, 3. ay oh res: panulve states N39 Cale feuverstontd, >in ands, New ety, NowYer 4: Perini, Sone of ese cous belles (np oF Flerasin Sr defenders tar BivoeN, See, ef. Ywmesey Soe, Bo S024 226, 848 ‘Fla. 2c0n), 82 c= 3ed ony convictions were jeopardized bythe revelation that a San Francisco potice lab technician had been certifying that samples containedillicit narcotics, without performing laboratory tests. (Zamora, Lab Scandal jeopardizes IntegrityofSan Francisco Justice; Sting Uncovered Bogus Certification, San Francisco Examiner, Sept. 16, 1994, p. A-7,) All three ofthese developments comeinto sharp focus particularly when DNA testing exonerates persons who had been convicted in reliance upon. other forensic sciences that were either negligently or intentionally misapplied, The Commission learned ofCalifornia cases in which wrongful convictions were at least partly attributable to erroneous non-PNAforensic evidence. Herman Atkins was convicted of rape in Riverside County in 1988, and sentenced to forty-five years in prison. After serving eleven years inprison fora crime he did not commit, he was exonerated by DNAtesting conducted in 1999, which showed he was not the source of semen found on the vietinis sweater. His, defense at trial was based on mistaken eyewitness identification, In testifying at his trial, a criminalist fromthe California State Laboratoryat Riverside ‘improperly testified that Atkins was included ina populationofonly 4.4% ofthe population that could havecontributed the semen. In truth, because nothing foreign to the victim was seen, no male in the world could ever be excluded as a potential semen donor. Hence, 100%of the male population could be contributors. The serology data,in fact, was not probative of guilt or inno- cence but the jury was nonetheless misied by the state's expert. (See Atkins v. County of Riverside, No. 0355844, 2005 U.S.App, LEXIS 19928, Feb. 49, 2005); Testimony of Peter Neufeld, California Commission onthe Fair Administration of Justice Sacramento Hearing, January 10, 2007. Jeffrey Rodriguez, 28, was freed in San Jose on Monday, February 5, 2007. He had served 5 years of a 25 years to life sentencefora robbery under California's “three sttikes” law. In his case, a shaky eyewitness identification was corroborated by the tcstimony of a criminalist who claimed his pants contained a stain with a combination ofmotor oil and cooking oil, Such a combination would have connected hisnto the crime scene. Subsequent tests by a state crimelab concluded thatthe stain was not as described. Although at his first ial, jurors voted 11-1 to acquit, by the time of his retrial his family ran out ofmoncy, and his lawyer failed even to call the defense witnesses who hadtestified at the first trial. After his conviction was set aside on appeal because of ineffective assistance ofcoun- sel, lhe prosecution elected to drop the charges. (See Tulsky, “DA’s Office Drops Charges Amid Signs of a Wrongful Conviction’, San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 6, 2007.) Hl Accreditationof Laboratories and Certification ofForensic Experts. In December, 1998, the California State Auditor reviewed nineteenlocal crime laboratories operated bypolice, sheriffs or district attorneys in California to assess their readiness to obtain accreditation underthe standards developed by the American Society of CrimeLab Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB}.‘ To obtain acercditation, 2 laboratory must demonstrate that Iheur noeste 1“teers ering serveappa FP ofthe Sats cop.tsion 0 12 aur is, "> Sal apart ot 008 9 ales al 17 ses opie to 2 ar“ couriles he Ste. The aut aly adeessethe ea 55 | 1s lvalabs. allySile Aso, FurLaboratories MyFace ‘allonges Bejona Accretionws te Mignet Guat Sanices, 01 (ec, S38 dey te Sats Copier he operates three Ieoc-atees, all” ation 2ily acre by ASC " its management, operations, personnel, proce- dures, equipment,facility, security, and health and safety procedures meet established standards. They are also required to implementproficiency testing, continuing education,and other programs that improvetheoverall skills and services oflaboratory personnel. The Auditor concludedthat 13 of the 19 laboratories had not developed or implemented one or more ofthe components of a quality control system, In addition, many ofthelaboratories did not have proficiency testing or court monitoring programs. Throughvoluntary efforts, most ofthese shortcomings have been corrected. Seventeen of the ninetcen laboratories audited in 1998 are now fully accredited by ASCLD/LAB. The Commission has concluded that further action to achieve accreditation of California publicly funded crime Jabsis not necessary. Private laboratoriesalso exist, two ofwhich are ASCLD/LABaccred- ited.® The accreditation ofprivate laboratories should also remain voluntary. California laboratories should be commended for their vigorous and sustained efforts to achieve accreditation volun- IN GALIFERMSA, 33 OLT OF33 tarily. The Commission 2h: 1¢ Aas ane agca=917e. does believe, however, ‘thatrigorous certification standards should be established and encouraged for individual forensic experts employed by the crimelabs. While each laboratory sets its own hiring and promotion standards, there are no generally recognized stan- dards to define whois qualified to perform analysis of evidencein any particular scientific discipline. ‘Webelieve such standards should be formulated and applicd ona statewide basis. Rigorous writ ten examinations, proficiencytesting, continuing education, recertification procedures, an ethical code, and effective disciplinary procedures should >be part of such a program. 8 5 z a a 2 BS a A programufor Certification of Criminalists is currently available through the American Board. of Criminalistics [ABC]. The ABCoffers a certifi- cate in criminalistics, as well asin the specialty disciplines of forensic biology, drug chemistry, fire debris analysis and trace evidence. Proficiency testing is an essential component ofthe ARC certification program. The Board has also adopted Rules of Ethics, and established a disciplinary pro- cedure to deal with ethical infractions. (See www. criminalistics.com.j Whetherthroughthe ABC pro- gram or some other equivalent, California Crime Lab Directors shouldtake the lead in encouraging certification by using it asa factor in promotion and salary decisions. Laboratories should provide the funds necessaryfor their criminalists and other forensic experts to achieve certification, ‘Where appropriate, both prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers can provide additional motivation by presenting certification in the qualification of expert witnesses in court, and cross examining uncertified experts as to whythey havenot pursued certification. Many lawyers are nol even aware of theexistence of certification standards, 6. trBerneTechies,Sionarase3 The Need for IndependentInvestigation of Laboratory Errors. While accreditation of laboratories assures com- pliance with accepted standards in procedures, managementand equipment, the occasional errors and even rarer instances of misconduct that occur needto be closely scrutinized to identify the cause so that corrective measures can be taken. That scrutiny should come from an independent source, not connected with the managementof the laboratory itself, which may be motivated to minimize or conceal an ongoing problem. For this very reason, the recipients of federal grants underthe federal Paul Coverdell Forensic Science ImprovementGrant Program are required to certify that: ...€@ government entity exists and an appropriate processis in place to conduct independent external investigations into allegationsofserious negligence or misconduct substantially affecting the integrity of forensic results committed by employeesor contrac- tors ofanyforensic laboratory system, medical examiner's office, coroner’s office, law enforcement storage facility, or medicalfacility in the State that will receive a portion ofthe grant amount. 42 U.S.C.A.§ 3797k(4) (2004). California receives Coverdell grant funds each year, whichare dis- bursed by the Governor's Office of Emergency Services, Law Enforcement and Victim Services Division (OES). In 2005, $1.1 million was received, and in 2006,$1.2 million was received. The OES requires each subgranteeto certify to the pres- ence of an oversight process and describe that process. The Commission examinedthe over- sight entity described by each of the California recipients, which included the State Departmentof. Justice Bureau of Forensic Services, the Sheriff’s Departments of eleven counties, and six municipal police departments andthree District Attorney's offices which operate their own laboratories. In nearly every instance, the independentaudit- ing entity described was the Internal Affairs Division of the County Sheriff’s Office or Police Departmentinvolved.’ The Commission believes that public confidence in the independenceofinvestigations of negligence or misconduct in the preparation or presentation of forensic evidencein criminal cases requires the involvement of a governmententity that is truly independentofthe police and sheriff agencies that operate the laboratories. Notall forensic laborato- ries, coroner's offices or medical examiner's offices in California are recipients of Coverdell grants, and maynot have any oversightentity in place. The application of uniform standards requires consistency in the operation of the investi- gative function. Moreover, someofthe forensic functions that prosecutors rely upon occuroutside of govern- mentlaboratories. Often there are small forensic operations embeddedin police departments, and sometimesthe expert is an independentcontrac- tor hired directly by the prosecutor(e.g., a forensic dentist opining on bite marks). The transparency of the investigative process will be hampered by a myriadofentities with varying regulations regard- ing disclosure of the results. The State of Texas recently respondedto a simi- lar need with the creation ofthe Texas Forensic Science Commission. The Commission was charged with developing and implementing a reporting system through whichaccredited labo- ratories, facilities, or entities report professional negligence or misconduct, and: ... Investigate, in a timely manner, any allegation of professional negligence or misconduct that would 7. The exception was the Santa Clara County Crirne Lab operated by the Sania Clara County District Attorney's Office, which designates the State Attorney Generalfor independent audits under its Coverdell Grants. 8. California Government Code Section 12550 provides: “The Attorney General has direct supervision over the district attorneys of the several counties of the State and may require of them written reports as to the condition of public business entrusted to their charge.” substantially affect the integrity ofthe results ofa forensic analysis conducted by an accredited labora- tory, facility or entity. Article 38.01, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, enacted in 2005. The Commission considered the creation of a Commission similar to the Texas model, but concluded a new level of bureaucracy is not necessary to achieve the stated goals in California. We believe the District Attorneys in each county can berelied uponto evaluate allega- tions of negligence or misconduct occurring in all laboratories within their county, and conduct an independentinvestigation where appropri- ate. District Attorneys can call upon the Attorney General for any additional investigative resources needed to carry outthis function. County District Attorneys would have the necessary authority and independenceto evaluateallegations of negligence or misconductin the thirteen laboratories oper- ated by the California DepartmentofJustice as well. The results ofall such independentinves- tigations should be reportedto the California Attorney General, whoalready has the requisite authority to maintain oversight over California District Attorneys.® Where a local laboratory is actually operated by the District Attorney himself or herself, as is currently the arrangement in Santa Clara, Sacramento and Kern Counties, indepen- dent examinationsofallegations of negligence or misconduct should be conducted by the California Attorney General. The Commission has not addressed the procedures and policies that should be implemented when an allegation of negligence or misconduct has been sustained. There is compelling authority, however, that such information would qualify as material evidence which should be disclosed to the defen- dant pursuant to the obligations imposed by Brady v. Maryland, even after conviction.? The Need for Forensic Science Standards in California. The Commissionbelieves that there is a need in California for the promulgation of standardsfor scientific testing, report writing, and the param- eters of appropriate expert testimony, as well as for greater circulation of information toall participants in the criminaljustice system, andbetter training for those whotestify as experts on any aspect of forensic science. @ o — @ J -> we) © = pat — 2 oO ” The Forensic Science Board created by the State of Virginia provides someofthese functions. The Boardis charged with the power and duty to ensure the developmentoflong-range programs and plansfor the incorporation of new technolo- gies as they becomeavailable. It reviews, amends and approves recommendationsofa Scientific Advisory Committee, which in turn is charged with the following responsibilities: (a) The Committee may review laboratory operations of the Department and makerec- ommendations concerningthe quality and timeliness of services furnished to user agencies. (b) The Committee shall review and make recommendationsas necessary to the Director of the Department and the Forensic Science Board concerning: 1. New scientific programs, protocols, and meth- odsoftesting; 2. Plans for the implementation of new pro- grams, sustaining existing programs and improving upon them wherepossible, and the elimination of programs no longer needed; 3. Protocols for testing and examination meth- ods, and guidelines for the presentation of results in court; and 9. The prosecution has an independent, self-executing duty underthe Constitution of the United States to disclose discovery material under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). See People v. Gonzales, 51 Cal. 3d 1179, 1260-61 (1990) (noting the State’s obligation to disclose Brady material continuesaftertrial); Thomas v. Goldsmith, 979 F.2d 746 (9th Cr. 1992) (recognizing the State's continuing post-judgmentobligation to disclose exculpatory information). 4. Qualification standards for the various scien- tists of the Department,including the Director. (c) Upon requestof the Directorof the Department, the Forensic Science Board,or the Governor, the Committee shall review analyti- cal work, reports and conclusionsof scientists employed by the Department. The Committee shall recommendto the Forensic Science Board a review process for the Departmentto use in instances where there has been anallegation of misidentification or other testing error made by the Departmentduringits examination of evidence. CodeofVirginia,{ 9.1-1113 (2005). Continuing education andtraining of forensic science experts is essential to maintain their competencyin scientific fields that are constantly changing and improving. A recurring problem of resourceallocation in laboratories arises when personnel must devote substantial time and effort to on-site training of individuals or small groups of employees. Thereis currently no State entity in California which addresses the needs for statewide training and continuing education programs which would consolidate and address the training needsoflaboratories and law enforce- ment agencies throughoutthestate. In addition to the promulgation of standards, such an entity could serve as a source for coordinated training and continuing education offorensic science experts. It would also provide a valuable service to the entire criminal justice system, by serving as a source of up-to-date information regarding new developments in the forensic sciences. Research needs and opportunities could be identified and funded,such as research utilizing the growing DNAdatabase. The Commissionbelieves the creation or desig- nation of an entity in California to assumethese responsibilities should be preceded by an oppor- tunity for the Forensic Science community and all affected criminal justice agencies to be heard from,to elicit a wide spectrum of viewsas to how these needscan best be met. Thelegislature should undertake an examination of the compara- tive merits of the alternatives that are available, including the assignmentofthis responsibility to the California Attorney General. Legislation has already been proposedfor the creation of a “Crime Laboratory Review Task Force” to address some, but notall of these concerns. (See A. B. No. 1079, Introduced by Assembly MemberRichardson on February 23, 2007.) This legislation, supported . by the Attorney General, could provide an excel- lent vehicle to elicit the input the Commissionis recommending. The Need for Forensic Science Training for Prosecutors, Defense Lawyers and Judges. Thediversity of disciplines which becomethe subject of expert scientific evidence and the rapid developments in new technology presentseri- ous challenges for the California judiciary. Judges need up-to-date trainingto assist them in their evaluation of scientific evidence and experttesti- mony. Recognizing this need, in February, 2005 ChiefJustice Ronald M. George ofthe California SupremeCourt established the Judicial Council Science and the Law Steering Committee,to evalu- ate the needsof the courts, including guidance in developing effective education strategies and pertinent educational content. The Committee, chaired by Associate Justice Ming Chin,issued its recommendations on January 10, 2007. The recommendationsinclude a comprehensive plan to establish a statewide judicial education plan on science and technology. On February 10, 2007, the Committee issued a second set of recommen- dations to improvethe judicial management of issues regarding science, technology andthelaw. These recommendations include a numberof projects and resources to facilitate the exchange of information between the courts andthe science and technology communities, to assess emerg- ing issues and potential partnershipsrelating to science, technology and the law. The Commission commends and encouragestheseefforts. The recurring need for prosecutors and defense lawyers to have up-to-date training in issues surrounding forensic science evidenceis obvi- ous. The challenge is to provide the resourcesto free overworked and heavily burdened deputies to participate in training programs. Specialized programs in DNAorothercategoriesofscientific - evidence will reach only a small proportion of the deputies who confront such issues on a day to day basis. The Commission recommendsgreater creativity in delivering neededtraining, including moreon-line resourcesfor in-office training, avail- able on a state-wide basis. Cooperative ventures should also be encouraged, to combinethetrain- ing of deputy district attorneys with thetraining of public defenders and defense attorneys. The essential understanding of the science involved transcendsthe issuesoftactics that may need to be addressed in a more exclusive setting. The traditional reliance upon the adversary system to expose errors may break down when it comes to forensic science evidence. Manyofthe examples ofwrongful convictions attributable to misconduct or negligence by foren- sic experts could have been avoidedifdefense lawyers were fully competent to challenge the evidence. But the shortcomings of defense rep- resentation go beyondthe problem ofeducation and training. There may beserious problems with regardto the availability of experts and resources for expert assistance for defense lawyers. The Commission intendsto explore such problems in addressing the issues surrounding incompetence of defense attorneys in a futurereport. Recommendations: Forensic Science Evidence Ed The California Commission on theFair Administration of Justice recommendsthat California Crime Lab Directors encouragethe cer- tification ofthe forensic experts they employ, and use certification wherever possible as a basis for promotion andsalary decisions. The California Commission onthe Fair Administration of Justice recommendsthat legisla- tion be enacted to require that any allegation of professional negligence or misconduct that would affect the integrity of the results of a forensic analysis conducted by a California laboratory, facil- ity or entity be reported in a timely mannerto the District Attorney or other appropriate prosecuto- rial agency, and to require the District Attorney or other prosecutorial agency to which suchallega- tions are reported to reporttheresults of any independent investigations of such allegations to the State Attorney General. @ Oo i— ih = > ee QO ba om c a o nm The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice recommendsthat the legislature consider the creation or designation of a governmental agency or commission (which could be the office of the California Attorney General) with the power and duty to formulate and apply standardsto define whois qualified to perform analysis of evidencein anyparticular scientific discipline on a statewidebasis. The creation or designation of such an entity should be preceded by an opportunity for the Forensic Science com- munity andall affected criminal justice agencies to be heard from,to elicit a wide spectrum of views as to how these needs can best be met. A.B. 1079, cur- rently pending beforethe legislature, could provide an excellent vehicle to elicit this input. Rigorous written examinations, proficiency testing, continu- ing education,recertification procedures, an ethical code, and effective disciplinary procedures could be part of such a program.Such an agencycould also promulgate standardsforscientific testing, report writing, and the parameters of appropriate expert testimony, provide informationto all participants in the criminal justice system regarding the evidentiary validity of forensic science evidence; identify and fund research needs and opportuni- ties; and provide state-wide training programsfor forensic experts. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice recommendsthattrain- ing programsfor California prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges andpolice investigators be expandedto includegreater attention to the appro- priate use andvalidity of forensic science evidence. Note: Commissoner Totten does not concur in Recommendation (3). While he supports the needfor additional training and the establishmentofaddi- tional professional standards, he does not support the creation ofa new state agency to oversee crime labsor the assignmentofthis responsibility to an existingstate agency. He believes that doing so will increase state bureaucracy without producing a measurable improve- mentinforensic services or accuracy. Actions The Reports and Recommendations on DNAtest- ing backlog and Problems with Forensic Science Evidence occasionedtwelve articles lauding the Commission for its work on thistopic. The Commission endorsed A.B.385, which was enacted bythelegislature in 2007to require a surveyofthe salaries of scientists employed by California public agencies. The measure was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. The Commission endorsed A.B.1079, which was enacted by thelegislature in 2007 to establish a task force to review California’s crimelaboratory system. The measure was signed by the Governor and chaptered as Section 11062 ofthe California Penal Code. Thetask force is required to reportits findingsto thelegislature by July 1, 2009. QOCSSUE] AYNOIRLTA corrective action should include a report to the State Bar, even if the misconduct ehnot cute Data and Hearings In preparation for a public hearing onthe topic of Professional Responsibility and Accountability of Prosecutors and Defense Lawyers, the Commission considered the following documents: - Defense Counsel Practices—Chapter6, Achieving Justice: Freeing the Innocent; Convicting the Guilty, Report ofthe American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section’s Ad Hoc Innocence Committee to Ensure the Integrity ofthe Criminal Process, 2006. . A Critical Analysis of Lessons Learned Recommend- ationsfor Improving the California CriminalJustice System in the Wake ofthe Rampart Scandal, Los Angeles County Bar Association Task Force on the State Criminal Justice System, April 2003. . Goldberg, Dick. A Twist ofFate, Los Angeles Daily Journal, October 13, 1995. - Carrizosa, Phillip. Justices to Hear Rights Claim by Ex-Defendants, Los Angeles Daily Journal, January 23, 1997. - Smith, SarahLavender. P.D. Finds Murder Case Full ofHoles, Los Angeles Daily Journal, January 23, 1996. - Koehler, Tamara. Kern County Judge Frees Father After 15 Years, Los Angeles Daily Journal, May 21,1999. - Koehler, Tamara. Man Freed After 15 Years Sues DA, Los Angeles Daily Journal, October 11, 1999. - Perry, Tony. Convictions Overturned in Policeman's Slaying, Los Angeles Times, July 21, 1999. . Weinberg, Steve. Changing an Office’s Culture, Centerfor Public Integrity, June 26, 2003. - Roemer, John. Free From Death Row, Man Sues City, Police, Los Angeles Daily Journal, October 29, 2002. - Seina, Robert. Mix ofPersistence, Luck Frees Prisoner, Los Angeles Daily Journal, September12, 2003. - Roemer, John. Panel Tosses Convictionfor Errors at Trial, Los Angeles Daily Journal, July 28, 2006. . Hansen, Amelia. 8-Year-Old’s Killer Is Let OffDeath Row, Los Angeles Daily Journal, Aug. 14, 2006. . Simmons,Leslie. Defender Loses Malpractice Case, San Francisco Daily Journal, May 27, 2005. . Abrams, Gary. Errors by Jones’ Trial Attorney Were Primary Case of Reversal, Los Angeles Daily Journal, April 11, 1997. . Armstrong, Jason. Counsel Ineffective at Trial, Justices Agree, Los Angeles Daily Journal, April 28, 1998. . Berg, Martin. After 17 Years, Man’s Plea of Injustice Yields Results, Los Angeles Daily Journal, SeptemberIo, 1999. . Weinstein, Henry. Man Ordered Freed or Retried After 10 Years, Los Angeles Times,July 23, 2002. - Weinstein, Henry. Man Ordered Freed or Retried After 10 Years, Los Angeles Times,July 23, 2002. . Love, Andrew. Progress in Death Penalty Challenges is Too Latefor Some, Los Angeles Daily Journal, March 14, 2005. . Zacharias, Fred C. The Professional Discipline of Prosecutors, Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper #10, University of San Diego School of Law. - Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities ofa Prosecutor, Model Rules ofProfessional Conduct, American Bar Association. - Green, Bruce A. Prosecutorial Ethics as Usual, 5 University of Illinois Law Review 1573, December2003. a g e s . Freedman, Monroe H.An Ethical Manifestofor Public Defenders, 39 Valparaiso Law Review 911, October 2005. . Weinberg, Steve. Shielding Misconduct: The Law Immunizes Prosecutorsfrom Civil Suits, Center for Public Integrity, June 26, 2003. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, March 1976. . O'Connell, J. Bradley. Professional Responsibility & Liability Standardsfor Criminal Appellate Practice, First District Appellate Project Training Seminar, January 21, 2006. . Zapler, Mike. State Bar Ignores Errant Lawyers, San Jose Mercury News, February 12, 2006. - Drexel, Scott J. Headlines Aside, State Bar Does Discipline Bad Lawyers, San Jose Mercury News. - Yaroshefsky, Ellen. Wrongful Convictions:It Is Time to Take Prosecution Discipline Seriously, 8 Dist. Colum. Law Rev.1, Fall 2004. Davis, Angela J. Prosecutors Who Intentionally Break the Law, 1 Crim.L. Brief 16 (2006). . Eliason, Randall D. The Prosecutor’s Role: A Response to Angela Davis, 2 Crim.L. Brief 15 (2006). Gideon's Broken Promise: America’s Continuing Questfor Equal Justice, A Report on the American Bar Association's Hearings on the Rightto Counsel in Criminal Proceedings, 2004. Guidelines on Indigent Defense Services Delivery Systems, State Bar of California, 2006. Contractingfor Indigent Defense Service: A Special Report, United States DepartmentofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureauof Justice Assistance, April 2000. . Clark and Stone. Bolder Managementfor Public Defense: Leadership in Three Dimensions, John F, Kennedy School of Governmentat Harvard University, Bulletin #1, November 2001. . Feinberg and Steige. Cultural Revolution: Transforming the Public Defender’s Office, John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Bulletin #3, August 2002. - Moore, Mark H. Alternative Strategiesfor Public Defenders and Assigned Counsel, John F. Kennedy School of Governmentat Harvard University, April 2001. At a public hearing on July 11, 2007 in Donovan Hall at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, the Commission heard from Prof. Cookie Ridolfi, Santa Clara University School of Law and Executive Director of the Northern California Innocence Project; Prof. Laurie Levenson, Loyola Law School; Kate Flaherty, Deputy District Attorney, San Diego County, Dolores Carr, District Attorney, Santa Clara County, Michael Schwartz, Special Assistant District Attorney, Ventura County; Lael Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles County, Juliana Humphrey, Deputy Public Defender, San Diego County; Charles Patterson, Attorney at Law, Morrison & Foerster, Prof. Larry Benner, Cal Western School of Law (& Lorenda Stern); Lon Sarnoff, former Assistant Public Defender, Los Angeles County; Len Tauman,Assistant Public Defender, Sacramento County; Former Public Defender, Placer County; John Wesley Hall, First Vice-President, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Judge Steven R. Van Sicklen, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Supervising Judge, Criminal Division; Harry Sondheim, Chair, Commission for the Revision of Rules of Professional Conduct, California State Bar; Scott Drexel, Chief Trial Counsel, California State Bar. The Commission issued three reports. Thefirst was a Report and Recommendations on Reporting Misconduct, issued on October 18, 2007, as follows: E i Pr of es si on al Re sp on si bi li ty Report: Reporting Misconduct Thereis every indication that, overall, District Attorneys andtheir staffs, Public Defenders andtheir staffs, and private criminal defense lawyers in California provide competent and highly professional service, meeting the highest ethical standards. Self congratulation should not blind us, however, to the problem of accountability where prosecu- tors and defense lawyers do occasionally goastray. While appellate courts frequently review crimi- nal convictions to assess claims of misconduct or incompetence onthe part of prosecutors or defense lawyers, their review of these claimsis often limited to determining whether the impact of misconduct or incompetence requires reversal of a judgmentof conviction. Whetherdiscipline of an attorney is warranted, and what thatdisci- pline should be,is ordinarily left to supervisory personnel in the District Attorney's or Public Defender’s Office, or to the State Bar. The Commission has concluded that there are impor- tant steps which can be taken to increase the effectiveness of this system. Internaldiscipline by prosecutors’ or public defenders’ offices necessarily lacks transparency, becauseoflegalrestrictions on disclosureto pro- tect the privacy of employees. But the lack ofpublic access often meansthat notrack recordis available to identify repeat offenders. The State Baris limited by its reliance upon the receipt of reports of misconduct or incompetence by judgesor self-reporting by the offendingattor- neys. The Commission has discovered that much is not reported which shouldbe, andclarification is needed ofwhat should be reported by whom. While not recommendinganystatutory changes, the Commission is recommending changes in Court Rules, the California Code of Judicial Ethics, and the reporting function of the State Bar to address these shortcomings andincrease the accountability and transparencyofthe process, without compromisingthe privacy of individual attorneys. While there is no public access to com- plaints or reports to the State Bar either, unless a disciplinary proceedingis initiated, at least the State Bar can serve as a collection and preservation point, to assure that a cumulative record is main- tained and preserved. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHO BEARS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPORTING MISCONDUCT, 1. Use of the terms “prosecutorial misconduct” and defense lawyer “incompetence” can be misleading. These terms are so frequently used in the written opinions of courts that they have becomea sort of shorthand that encompassesa wide variety of professional failings. Thus, “prosecutorial mis- conduct” includes conduct that may not be intentional, and defense lawyer “incompetence” includes deliberate misconduct. The use of these termsin this report does not imply ary judgment that oneis more or less culpable than: the other. Both have been identified among the leading causes of wrongful convictions. A studyof the first 74 DNA exonerations in the United States found that prosecutorial misconduct was a factor in 45% of the cases, and defense lawyer incompetencewasa factor in 32% of the cases. Frequently, both factors were found in the same case. Scheck, Neufeld & Dwyer, Actual Innocence, p. 365 (New American Library, 2003). 2.Professor Ridolfi also searched the State Court database for casesalleging that prosecutors had withheld exculpatory evidence. She used the search term “Brady” but excluded casesthat also contained the term “prosecutorial mis- conduct”. This search yielded 154 cases. In 129, discovery had been withheld butin only 16, did the court find Brady error. In the remaining 113, the courts concluded that the withheld evidence did not meet thetest for “materiality” under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) Using the same search terms, she searched the federal court databases and generated 188 cases. That research remains ongoing. There was also a search of both California State and federal databasesfor cases alleging discrimination in use of peremptory challenges (Batson/Wheeler violations). That search yielded 586 cases.In 20, the decision resulted in a remandor outright reversal. In 17 or 85% of the cases the discrimination involved African Americans. 3. California Business and Professions Code Section 6086.7(a){2)provides: “A court shail notify the State Bar of any of the following: ...(2) Whenever a The Commission asked its researchers to analyze every reported appellate decision in California, whether published or unpublished, where the Courts addresseda claim of prosecutorial miscon- duct or defense lawyer incompetencefor the ten year period ending in 2006.! The result ofthis research suggests that ourreli- ance upon theState Bar as the primary disciplinary authority is seriously hampered by underreporting. REPORTING OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT Professor Cookie Ridolfi of Santa Clara University School of Law located 2,131 California cases in which claims ofprosecutorial misconduct wereraised. Courts concluded that prosecu- torial misconduct did occur In 444 of these cases, or 21%. In 390 ofthese cases, however, the court concluded the misconduct was harmless error and affirmed the conviction. In 54 cases, the misconduct resulted in a reversal of the conviction. The most commonforms of misconduct found were use of false evidence, improper examination ofwitnesses and improper argument. (Ridolfi, Prosecutorial Misconduct: A Systemic Review, available on the Commission's website.)* , Pursuantto Section 6086.7(a)(2),? there should have been a report madeto the State Bar in each of the 54 cases in which prosecutorial misconduct resulted in a reversal in the past ten years. In a follow-up to Professor Ridolfi’s research, Chief Trial Counsel Scott Drexel ofthe State Bartesti- fied that, after checking half ofthese 54 casesto determine whether any ofthem resulted in a report to the State Bar, he hadyet to find a single example of a report by a court of misconductresulting in reversal of a conviction.* Mr. Drexel attributes this to lack of judicial familiarity with the requirements of Section 6086.7. However,he also informed the Commission that each year the State Bar sends out a letter reminding judges ofthe statutory require- ments. A spate of reporting follows,° but thenit drops off. Hesuggested a reminder from the ChiefJustice mightyield better results. It is also possible that the current lack of reportingis attributable to confusion as to who hastheactual duty to report whena judgmentis reversed: the trial judge who rendered the judgment? The judge who authored the reversing opinion? The Presiding Judge of the Court ofAppealthat rendered the reversing judgment?All of the judges who concurred in the reversing judgment? It may be that everyone’s business becomes nobody's business. Section 6086.7 should beclarified by a Court Rule clearly defining which judgeofthe court has the obliga- tion to report to the State Bar. Pm) = = wn jo i=] fom “4 fot) and | i a af, ” fob) — So pos a. i E l modification or reversal of a judgmentin a judicial proceeding is based in whole or in part on the miscancuct, incompetent representation, or willful misrepresentation of an attorney.” 4. This is not to Suggest that prosecutors are never disciplined for misconduct by the State Bar. In February, 2006, the San Jose Mercury Newsreported that after reviewing 1,464 lawyer discipline cases published in the California Bar Journal between 2001 and 2005,they found just one case in which disciplin- ary action was taken against a prosecutor for misconduct. apler, State Bar Ignores Errant Lawyers, San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 12, 2006. Scott Drexel, Chief Trial Counselfor the California State Bar, responded byciting three 2005 cases in which prosecutors were disciplined, and another in which discipline was pending. Three of the casesinvolved failure to disclose potentially exculpatory evidenceto the defense. Drexel, Headlines Aside, State Bar Does Discipline Bad Lawyers, San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 19, 2006.it is not known whether these disciplinary proceedings were initiated by judicial reports, attorney self-reporting, or complaints from other sources, 5. The 2006 Report on the State Bar of California Discipline System, p. 5, indicates that in 2006, the Bar recetved 134 reports from judges, and 83 self-reports by attorneys. These judicial reports, however, include all “report- able actions” under Calif. Bus.&Prof. Cade Sections 6086.7 and 6068(a). In addition to the reversal or modification of judgments due to misconduct of an attorney, judges are required to report all findings of contempt by lawyers,all judicial sanctions against lawyers, and all civil penalties and judgments against lawyers for fraud, breachof fiduciary duty, misrepresentation or gross negli- gence in a professional capacity. Self-reports by attorneys are also required in numerouscther categories besides reversal or modification of a judgment due to misconduct. They must report the filing of malpractice lawsuits, judgments in specified civil actions, indictments er corivictions, and the imposition of sanctionsordiscipline. Limiting the mandatory reporting requirementto cases that result in a modificationor reversal of a judgment appears to make litle sense. Whether 1 judgmentis reversed depends upon factors suchas the strength of other evidence which may have nothing to do withthe egregiousmess of the misconduct or peat incompetence. The \ research conducted for the Commission by Professor Ridolfi strongly confirms this. In 444 cases in which a claimofprosecutor rial misconduct was sustained, only 54 cases (12%) resulted ina reversal ofthe judgment. In 88% of the cases, the error was deemed harm- less. She identifies eight examples in which neatly identical conduct by a prosecutor led to reversalin one reported decision, while in a different reported decision the judgment was affirmed because the identical misconduct was deerned“harenless ertor.”* 444 peosscuisaiuL {CONDUIGI CASES UY 54 AES SLTED IN 2 DF EBEMENT REPORTING OF DEFENSE LAWYER INCOMPETENCE Professor Latry Benner of Cal Western Law School located approximately2500 California cases in. which claims of ineffective counsel were raised. Courts concluded that counsel's performance fell elowthe constitutionally required minimum in 121 ofthese cases, or 4%. In 17 ofthese cases, the doficientperformance was foundto be harmless: 104 of the cases resulted ina reversal of the judgment, The most commonforms ofineffective assistance were failure to investigate (44%) and lack of knowledge ofthe law (2%). ‘With respect to criminal defense lawyers, the problem is moze complex than with prosecutors. Defense representation maybe supplied by a public defender’s office, a contract lawyer who agrees tosupply public defender services, a private lawyer appointedbythe court,or a lawyerretained bythe defendant, There does not appear to be reliable data available to indicate what propor tion of criminal defendants are represented by eachof these alternative means, but the State Bar Guidelines on Indigent Defense Services Delivery Systems (2006) notes thevast preponderance of persons charged with criminal offenses in California are indigent. Nationally,it is estimated that 60 to 90%ofall criminal cases invalve indigent defendants, Based on his stirvey data, Professor Benneresli- ates that 85% of California criminaldefendants are indigent. While contractors, administra- tors of assigned counsel systems andpresiding judges may have varying practices or procedures to address complaints of misconductor incom petence.there is simply no mechanismin place for discipline ofprivately retained lawyers. In his research for the Commission, Professor Benner examined all 121 California cases in which claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were sustained during the tenyear period ending in 2006. In 20% of the cases,the identity ofthe lawyer could not be determined; 32% were privately retained, 333% were public defenders, and 13% wereassigned counsel, Thus,itis clear that privately retained lawyers are vastly overrepresented in sustained claims of 6, Sidi Patninary Repent Aopen. 7. Renne, Systemic Factors Abi hoa epeserstan, Primi erat for bi fommissor = wenste Ww 2 Cimiva forse Sablemental psy, bothmia % ineffective assistance of counsel. The only mecha- nism available to identify them, and discipline them whenappropriate, is the State Bar. JUDICIAL RELUCTANCE Part of the problem ofreliance on judgesto report lawyer misconductis a deep-seated reluctance on the part oftrial judges to “blow the whistle” on lawyers who appearbefore them. Judges appar- ently proceed on the assumption that Canon 3D(2)® ofthe California Codeof Judicial Ethics takes precedence over Business and Professions Code Section 6086.7. Canon 3D(2) provides that whenever a judge has personal knowledge that a lawyer has violated any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct,the judge shall take “appropriate action.” Even though Business and Professions Code Section 6086.7 imposes additional reporting requirements, California trial judges apparently construetheir obligation to report misconduct or incompetencetothe State Baras limited to cases in which they consider such reporting “appropriate.” Apparently, California trial judges rarely consider it appropriate to report misconductor incompetenceto the State Bar, and even where misconduct or incompetence does result in a reversal, appellate judges fail to report the attorneyto the State Bar. The Commission considered proposing an expan- sion of Business and Professions Code Section 6086.7 to require a judicial report of any finding of misconduct by a prosecutor or defense lawyer, whetherit resulted in modification or reversal of the judgmentor not. We were persuaded that a modification of the ethical canons in the Code of Judicial Responsibility, and a clarification by Rule of Court as to who has the duty to report under Business & Professions Code Section 6086.7, would be moreeffective. First, we were concerned that judges whoare nowreluctant to report could avoid the requirementbyfailing to make formal “findings” of misconduct. Second, there was no reason to expect that amendingthe statute would lead to increased reporting.If judges are not reporting now even whenthereis a modification or reversal of the judgment,it is not likely they would increase their reporting if the requirement of modification or reversalof the judgment were eliminated. Finally, if judges are more inclined to use Canon3Dastheir guide, the problem should be addressed directly in Canon 3D by defining the circumstances where a reportto the State Bar should be made. This change in the Canons of Judicial Ethics should be accompanied by increased training and education of judges with respectto their reporting obligations. To the extent their reluctance to report attorneys is based on a lack of confidence in the State Bar disciplinary processto sort out serious offenders from those who maybe guilty of a momentary lapse, judicial ethics training should include broad exposure to how the State Bar disciplinary process works. NOT every report will lead to an investigation, and NOT every investigation will lead to discipline, but the State Bar is the most appropriate forum to exercise discretion, and the exercise of that discretion must be informed by a cumulative track record. INTERNAL DISCIPLINE Some District Attorneys objected that discipline of prosecutors should beleft to the internal discipline mechanism in each individual District Attorney's office. While the vast majority of California District Attorneys closely supervise their deputies and impose appropriate discipline when misconductis called to their attention, one consequenceofthe independenceof each of California’s fifty-eightdistrict attorney offices, andthecivil service protection for manyoftheir employees, is a complete lack of transparency of Pt = = ” i— f=} a n @® co es ij a ie “o @ Lael [=] pene fo 73 8. Canon 3D(2) provides: “(2) Whenever a judge has personal knowledgethat a lawyerhasviolatec any provision of the Rulesof Professional Conduct, the judge shall take appropriate corrective action.” internal discipline procedures. The Commission's attempt, through Prof. Laurie Levenson,’ to survey prosecutor's offices to ascertain how complaints ofmisconduct are handled met with substantial resistanceatfirst. Her efforts are continuing, and there are hopeful signs the level of cooperation in the Commission's research will improve. The information collected suggests manyoffices lack formal procedures for tracking and investigating complaints, with no uniform policy. Professor Levenson concludes: One majorgap in the disciplinary system is the deci- sion by DA offices not to keep a record ofcomplaints of misconduct. Therefore, it is very difficult to track problem DA’s other than by reputation ofthat indi- vidual in a given office. Reliance upon informal internal procedures has three consequences.First, turnoverin supervi- sory personnelwill result in no continuing “track record” for subordinate employees even within the office. Second, deputies whoare fired or volun- tarily leave the office are free to engagein private practice while their record of prior misconduct remainsinvisible and inaccessible. Third, even where a report is madeto the State Bar because misconductresulted in a reversal of judgment, or discipline is contemplated for someother reason, the State Bar will have no access to any record of prior discipline to inform its exercise of discretion to undertake an investigation or initiate disciplin- ary proceedings. REPEAT OFFENDERS The lack of a report to the State Bar in these cases meansthere simply is no “track record” of an offending attorney's history anywhere. Analysis of California cases in which a court made a find- ing of prosecutorial misconduct suggests that the phenomenonofrepeat offendersis significant. The identity of the prosecutor was ascertainable in only 347 of 443 such cases in the ten year period from January I, 1997 to December31, 2006. Thirty repeat offenders wereidentified, including two who committed misconduct in three different cases. Two-thirds of the repeat offenders commit- ted the exact same conduct in multipletrials. Seven of the repeat offenders had been disciplined by the State Bar but not onefor misconduct in the prosecution of a criminal case. Six were subjected to State Bardiscipline for failure to pay Bar dues and one for noncompliance with MCLErequirements.!° Anotherdisturbing aspect ofthe “repeat offender” data is that several of the counties which appearto have a disproportionately highrate of cases in which claimsofprosecuto- rial misconduct were sustained, also had multiple cases of repeat offenders. The Commission was unable to procure comparable data on the preva- lence of repeat offenders among defense lawyers, but anecdotal evidence suggests repeated instances of incompetentrepresentation even in California death penalty cases.!? ENCOURAGING REPORTING BY JUDGES From a practical standpoint, the biggest obstacle to utilizing mandatory reporting to the State Bar to compile a “track record” for claims of miscon- duct or incompetenceis the prevailing attitude of judges. Expanding the mandatory reporting requirement, however, would present a particular problem for California trial judges. As described in the testimony of Judge Steven Van Sicklen, Supervising Judge of the Criminal Courts in Los Angeles County: 9, Levenson, Preliminary Report, Study of California District Attorney Offices, available on the Commission’s Website. : 10, Ridolfi, Prosecutorial Misconduct: A Systemic Review, available on the Commission's Website. 11. In the case of In Re Jones, 13 Cal.4" 552 (1996), the California Supreme Court reversed both the deatn sentence and conviction of Troy Lee Jones because he was incompetently represented byhistrial attorney. In the case of Stankewitz v. Woodford, 365 F.3d 706 (9Cir, 2003), the United States Court To require a Bench Officer to report anyfinding ofincompetence or misconductplaces a potential chilling effect on the Court, adds a potentialirrel- evant consequenceto thefactfinding process and leaves no discretion with regardto the degree ofthe finding. In other words does the misconduct have to be really serious or the incompetence something as innocuousasfailing to ask a question a Judge might have asked ifhe or she were trying the case? Would every Wheeler violation haveto be reported? Wouldthefailure to call every potential witness in a case amount to reportable misconduct? Would this change generate unnecessary motions, or witness|es] in cases because an attorney is worried about what the Judge might think? Rather than leavingit up to each individual judge to determine which forms ofmisconduct or incompetenceare serious enough to merit a report to the State Bar, the Commission concluded that Canon 3D shoulditself define what kinds of misconduct are so serious that a report to the State Bar and the attorney's supervisor would ordinar- ily be appropriate. While the Commission has limited its identification of examples of egregious conductto criminal cases, these examples might be equally egregious in civil cases, and there may be additional examples applicableto civil cases. The Judicial Council may wish to address that question, but the Commission felt it was beyondits purview. Every report of such misconductor incompetence maynotresult in discipline, or even in an inves- tigation, but the complaints would be available to identify repeat offenders. A “track record”ofall reports with respect to every offending attorney would be maintained. The Commission concludedit would also be useful to maintain a county-widetrack record, so particu- lar offices that may have a high rate of prosecutorial misconduct or defense lawyer incompetence can be identified. The need for additional train- ing, strongerinternal discipline mechanisms,or greater public accountability can thus be facili- tated. Commission research suggests that some California counties may have a disproportionately high numberofconvictions being reversed because of judicial findings of prosecutorial misconduct, and in somecases, they appear to be the same counties that have a “repeat offender’ problem of prosecutors responsible for multiple findings of misconduct. We believe that this objective can be achieved by simply reformulatingthedata collected by the State Bar Disciplinary System regarding reports of misconduct. IDENTIFYING EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT Thetask ofidentifying “egregious misconduct” that should be reported to the State Bar should not be difficult. There are certainly some forms ofmisconduct whichall reasonable lawyers and judges would agree are serious, and should give rise to heightened concern andscrutiny. This is not to suggestthat other forms ofmisconduct may not be equally serious, and that judges should only find a report to the State Bar appropriate in the defined circumstances. But the discretion of judges to determine what“corrective action’ is “appropri- ate” should be guided bya collective judgmentof the circumstances that would call for a report to the State Bar. The Commission agreed thatthefollow- ing forms ofmisconduct should be encompassed by such a recommendation: EM Lying to a Court. A deliberate misrepresentation oflaw orfact to a Court should be reported. Current Rule 5-200(B) provides that a member“shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by anartifice or false statementoflaw’ in presenting a matter to Pan + = 4] foont Oo 3 ”" feb) Cc so lj 2 ” wn [-e) [reals fon) poe a. 719 af Appeals reversed the denial of a writ of habeas corpus and remandedfor an evidentiary hearing on the claim of Douglas Stankewitz that he was incom- petently represented by the same attorney who represented Troy Lee Jonesin the penalty phase of his death penalty trial. Stankewitz is the longest tenant of California’s death row, where he has been since October of 1978. Wilbur Jennings, whe has been on death row for 19 years,is also asserting a claim of incompetent representation by the same attorney who represented Jones and Stankewitz in a pending habeas corpus proceeding. a tribunal. Recommendedreporting should be limitedto deliberate violations of Rule 5-200(B), but “artifice” should not be included. “Artifice” is an overly broad term that, according to the Merriam-Websterdictionary, includes“cleveror artful skill.” A specific requirementthat requires reporting of any willful misrepresentation oflaw or fact to a court is appropriate. The current report- ing requirementincludes not only misconduct and incompetence, but any willful misrepresentation whenit results in a modification or reversalof a judgment. This change would eliminate the neces- sity of a modification or reversal of a judgment based upon the willful misrepresentation before reporting to the State Bar. PA Appearingina judicial proceeding while under the influenceofillicit drugs or alcohol. Drugoralcoholintoxication wouldcertainly qualify as “failing to perform legal services with competence,” as prohibited by Rule 3-110, but we do not want to subject every claim ofincompe- tence to mandatory reporting. Reporting could be limited to incompetence caused by intoxication, but even a lawyer whose drunkenness causes a delay in a trial should be reported, whetherit pro- ducesa failure to perform with competence or not. A specific rule that requires reporting of a lawyer who appearsin court underthe influ- enceofillicit drugs or alcohol is appropriate. Interestingly, Judge Van Sicklen used the example of intoxication in suggesting that “appropriate action’ meanseither discussing the matter with the attorney or reporting the matterto the State Bar. If no report is made, the same attorney could be repeatedly showing up drunk before a number of judges, none ofwhom are even aware ofprior repeated transgressions. Reporting an intoxicated attorney to the State Bar will often lead to intervention, and referral to the State Bar’s Lawyer Assistance Program, preventing future damage to clients andfacilitating treatment of the offending attorney. If no report is made, however,no track record of the attorney's repeated lapses will be available. Engagingin willful unlawful discrimination in a judicial proceeding. Judge Van Sicklen asked whether every Wheeler! violation should be reported to the State Bar. We concludethat it should. A Wheeler violation occurs when a judge finds a pattern of discrimination requires an explanation, and the explanation does not dispel the appearanceofdeliberate racial dis- crimination. It ordinarily requires dismissing the jury panel andstarting over. The more appropri- ate question may be why shouldn't every Wheeler violation be reported to the State Bar, whether by the prosecutor or the defense lawyer? Thereis currently no specific Rule of Professional Conduct that addresses improper discrimination in court.® But Section 231 of the California CodeofCivil Procedure provides: 231.5. A party may not use a peremptory chal- lenge to remove a prospectivejuror on the basis of an assumption that the prospectivejuror is biased merely because ofhis or her race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexualorientation, or similar grounds. Commissioners Jim Fox and Greg Totten believe that not every Wheeler violation necessarily includes willful, unlawful discrimination. The Commission majority, however, concludesthat dismissal of the jury panel andthe resulting mistrial caused by the improper use of a peremp- tory challenge at least creates a presumption of unlawful discrimination that should becalled to the attention of the State Bar. 12. People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 (1978) requires a lawyer to provide an explanation when peremptory challenges demonstrate systematic exciusion of a cognizable group. Cognizable groups include race, religion, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. If the explanation is not satisfactory, the jury panel must be excused. A similar requirementis imposed by the U.S. Constitution. Batsonv. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). If improperdiscrimination is utilized £4 willful Bradyviolations. A “Brady violation’ occurs when a prosecutor withholds or suppresses exculpatory evidence that is material to issues of guilt or punishment.It is a violation of the defendant's constitutional right to due process of law. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Exculpatory evidence includes evidence to impeach the credibility of witnesses. Brady violations can occur even wherethe exculpatory evidence was never delivered to the prosecutor by the police, however. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Thus, requiring the report- ing of every Brady violation would be too broad. Reporting every violation of Rule 5-220 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct might also be too broad, since it simply provides, “A membershall not suppress any evidencethat the memberor the member'sclient has legal obliga- tion to reveal or produce.” We do not want to make every discovery violation subject to reporting, only deliberate, bad faith violations of a constitutional duty. By limiting the recommendedreporting requirementto bad faith violations thatare delib- erate, we address a narrow category of the most egregious Brady violations, where the prosecutor is aware of exculpatory evidence and deliberately suppressesit. FE Willful presentation of material perjured testimony. Thereare likely to be very few cases where a judge can concludethat a lawyer was awarethattesti- monyheor she presented wasperjurious. But such situations do occur, and reasonable lawyers and judges would agree this is among the most serious forms of misconduct imaginable, espe- cially in criminal cases. A defense lawyer who conformsto the ethical requirements regarding the presentation of the testimony of the accused would not be willfully presenting perjured testimony even if he knowshisclientis lying, because the accused hasa constitutionalright to testify over the objection ofhis attorney. fl Willful unlawful disclosureofvictim or witness information. The California Penal Code includesvery specific limitations on the disclosure of the name or addressofthe victim of a sex offense (California Penal Code Section 293) and the addressesortele- phone numbersofvictims and witnesses revealed in the courseofpre-trial discovery (California Penal CodeSection 1054.2). Willful violation of Section 1054.2 by an attorney is a misdemeanor. Whether an attorney is charged with a misdemeanorornot, a willful violation of these provisions should be reported to the State Bar. Failure to Properly Identify Oneself in Interviewing a Victim or Witness. The California Penal Code requires that prosecu- tors, defense lawyers andtheir investigators clearly identify themselves, identify the full name ofthe agency which employs them,and identify whether they represent the prosecution or defense before interviewing victims and witnesses.If the interview is in person a businesscard orofficial identifica- tion mustbe presented. California Penal Code, Section 1054.8. These provisions offer important protectionto victims and witnesses.A failure to comply with these requirements should be reported to the State Bar. REPORTING MISCONDUCT OR INCOMPETENCE TO SUPERVISORS The California Public Defenders Association suggeststhat if there is to be a duty to report misconduct, it should also be required that notice go to the head ofthe prosecutor or public defender office or the contractor of defender services or the Pn) 4 S 4] c Oo Qa. ed @ ce | — a 2 ” @ peal fon} pas Qa a in a deliberate effort to cause discharge of the jury panel, additional sanctions may be imposed. People v. Willis, 27 Cal.4th 811 (2002). 13, Rule 2-400 prohibits discriminatory conduct in the managementor opera- tion of a law practice, but applies only to employmentdecisions and accepting or terminating representation of a client. administrator of an assigned counsel program, or the presiding judge who controls appoint- mentof individual attorneys. That can beeasily accomplished by including such a requirement in the Rule of Court defining which judge has the mandatory duty to report. SELF REPORTING BY LAWYERS If the self reporting requirements of California Business and Professions Code Section 6068(0) were fully complied with, .a great deal more of the unreported misconduct and incompetence of lawyers would cometothe attention of the State Bar. Section 6068(o) provides that every California lawyer has a duty: (a) To report to the agency charged with attorney discipline, in writing, within 30 days ofthe time the attorney has knowledge ofanyofthefollowing: (b) Thefiling ofthree or more lawsuits in a 12- month period against the attorneyfor malpractice or other wrongful conduct committed in a profes- sional capacity. (c) The entry ofjudgment against the attorney in a civil actionforfraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, or gross negligence committed in a professional capacity. (d) The imposition ofjudicial sanctions against the attorney, exceptfor sanctionsforfailure to make discovery or monetary sanctionsofless than one thousand dollars ($1,000). (e) The bringing ofan indictmentor information charging afelony against the attorney. (f) The conviction ofthe attorney, including any verdictofguilty, or plea ofguilty or no contest, ofa felony, or a misdemeanor committed in the course ofthe practice oflaw, or in a mannerin which a client ofthe attorney wasthe victim, or a necessary elementofwhich, as determined by the statutory or common law definition ofthe misdemeanor, involves improper conduct ofan attorney, including dishonesty or other moralturpitude, or an attempt or a conspiracy orsolicitation ofanother to commit afelony or a misdemeanorofthattype. (g) The imposition ofdiscipline against the attor- ney by a professional or occupationaldisciplinary agency or licensing board, whether in California or elsewhere. (h) Reversal ofjudgment in a proceeding based in whole or in part upon misconduct, grossly incompe- tent representation,or willful misrepresentation by an attorney. (i) As used in this subdivision, “against the attor- ney” includes claims and proceedings against any firm ofattorneysfor the practice oflaw in which the attorney was a partnerat the timeofthe conduct complained ofand any law corporation in which the attorney was a shareholder at the time ofthe conduct complained ofunless the matter has to the attorney's knowledge already been reported by the lawfirm or corporation. (j) The State Bar may develop a prescribedformfor the makingofreports required bythis section, usage ofwhich it may require by rule or regulation. (k) This subdivision is only intendedto provide that thefailure to report as required herein mayserve as a basis ofdiscipline. Althoughit is limited to a reversal ofjudgment, as opposedto “a modification or reversal,” Section 6068(0)({7) is roughly comparable to the judicial reporting requirementin Section 6086.7(a)(2). Thus,evenif judges are underreporting, the attor- neys themselves should be reporting cases in which misconduct or incompetence has led to reversal of a judgment. Thelack ofselfreporting may be attributable to the lack of enforcement of the self-reporting requirement. Instead of operat- ing as a “fail-safe” mechanism to require reporting by two separate, independentsources, the self reporting requirementis widely ignored, assuring that even repeat offenders completely escape any scrutiny by the bar. While the Commission doesnotoffer any rec- ommendation to changetheself-reporting requirement,it believes that many California attorneys are simply unawarethatthis require- mentexists. Continuing legal education programs dealing with ethics, which are mandatory for California attorneys, should focusattention on this requirement. And the State Bar should examine compliancewith self-reporting requirements in exercising its discretion whetherdisciplineis appropriate for misconduct or incompetence, as well as basing discipline onthe failure to self- report itself when appropriate. Recommendations: Reporting Misconduct The Commission offers four recommendations addressedto the rule-making authority of the California Judicial Council and the State Bar of California. In addition, the Commission recom- mends enhancedtrainingin ethics for California prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges, to famil- iarize them with the requirementsfor reporting andself-reporting of misconduct and incompe- tence, and the consequencesof suchreports. El The Commission recommendsno changein the statutory language of Business & Professions Code Section 6086.7: 6086.7. (a) A court shall notify the State Bar of any of the following: (1) A final order of contempt imposed against an - attorney that may involve grounds warranting discipline under this chapter. The court entering the final order shall transmit to the State Bar a copy ofthe relevant minutes, final order, and transcript, if one exists. (2) Whenever a modification or reversal of a judgmentin a judicial proceedingis based in wholeor in part on the misconduct, incompe- tent representation,or willful misrepresentation of an attorney. (3) The imposition of any judicial sanctions against an attorney, except sanctionsfor failure to make discovery or monetary sanctionsofless than one thousanddollars ($1,000). (4) The imposition of any civil penalty upon an attorney pursuantto Section 8620ofthe Family Code. (b) In the eventof a notification made undersubdivision (a) the court shall also notify the attorney involved that the matter has been referred to the State Bar. (c) The State Bar shall investigate any matter reported under this section as to the appropriatenessofinitiating disciplinary action against the attorney. FA The Commission recommendsthe adoption of the following California Rule of Court: When notification ofthe State Bar is required ofa court pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 6086.7(a), ifthe order ofcontempt, modification or reversal ofjudgment, imposition ofjudicial sanctions or imposition ofa civil penalty is signed by a Superior Courtjudge or magistrate, thatjudge or magistrate shall notify the State Bar. Modificationofajudgmentincludes the vacation ofajudgment in granting = pt | i420 fo ° a. 4] @ af s ij 2 ” ” @— oS pa fa 79 an Extraordinary Writ. If the order ofcontempt, modification or reversal ofjudgment, imposition of judicial sanctions or imposition ofa civil penalty is by the Court ofAppeal or the Supreme Court, the author ofthe Court’s order or opinion shall notify the State Bar. The report to the State Bar shall include the State Bar member’sfull name, and State Bar number, ifknown. When notifying the attorney involved pursuantto California Business and Professions Code Section 6086.7(b), thejudge, magistrate or Justice identified in this Rule shall also notify the attorney's supervisor, ifknown. The Commission recommendsthe following changes in Canon 3D ofthe California Code of Judicial Ethics (Changes indicated in blue): D. Disciplinary Responsibilities (1) Whenevera judgehasreliable information that another judge has violated any provision of the CodeofJudicial Ethics, the judge shall take or initiate appropriate corrective action, which mayincludereporting theviolation to the appro- priate authority. (2) Whenevera judge has personal knowledge that a lawyer has violated any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct, or makesa find- ing that such violation has occurred, the judge shall take appropriate corrective action. Appropriate corrective action should include a promptreportto the State Bar andto theattor- ney’s supervisor, if known, where anattorney in a criminal proceeding has engaged in egregious misconduct, including but not limited to: (a) A willful misrepresentation oflawor fact to a Court; (b) Appearingin a judicial proceeding while intoxicated; (c) Engaging in willful unlawful discrimination in a judicial proceeding; (d) Willfully and in bad faith withholding or suppressing exculpatory evidence (including impeachment evidence) which he or she is con- stitutionally obligated to disclose. (e) Willful presentationofperjured testimony. (f) Willful unlawfuldisclosure ofvictimor wit- ness information. (g) Failure to properly identify oneself in inter- viewing victims or witnesses. Any doubt whether misconductis egregious should be resolved in favorofreporting the misconduct. (3) A judge whois charged by prosecutorial com- plaint, information, or indictment or convicted of a crime in the United States, other than one that would be considered a misdemeanor not involving moral turpitudeor an infraction under California law, but includingall misdemean- ors involving violence (including assaults), the use or possession ofcontrolled substances, the misuse of prescriptions, or the personal use or furnishing of alcohol, shall promptly and in writing report that fact to the Commission on Judicial Performance. (4) A prompt report meansas soonaspractica- ble, and in no event morethanthirty days after knowledge is acquired or a finding is made. £4 The Commission recommendsthattheState Barinclude, in its annual report on the State Bar of California Discipline System, the number of Reportable Actions received from Courts pursu- ant to each of the four categories in Business and Professions Code Section 6068.7(a), and each of the six categories in Canon 3D(2)ofthe California CodeofJudicial Ethics. In addition, the Report should indicate the number of Reportable Actions related to the conduct ofprosecutors and defense lawyers by County. Defense lawyer data should be reported to distinguish public defenders, contract defenders, appointed lawyers, and privately retained lawyers. Prosecutorial data should be reported to distinguish district attorneys andcity attorneys. Ea The Commission recommendsthat law school courses in legal ethics and continuing education programsin legal ethics for prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges include familiarity with the obligations to report misconduct and incompetent representation by lawyers, and the obligation of lawyersto self-report, to the California State Bar, as well as familiarity with the consequences of such reports with respect to the State Bar’s investigatory and disciplinary authority. LETTER OF DISSENT October 12, 2007 Commissioners California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice Dear Commissioners: I mustrespectfully dissent from the Commission's Final Report on Professional Responsibility. It is appropriate for the Commission to urge clarification of the judicial officer responsible for reporting misconduct to the State Bar and include the attorney's supervisoras a recipi- ent of such report. However,I strongly oppose the Commission's recommendationto create a separate rule of court that attemptsto identify categories of misconduct subjectto the report- ing requirement contained in Business and Professions Code section 6086.7. This proposed rule places an unreasonable burden on prosecu- tors and the courtsthat will significantly increase litigation ofcollateral issues and further erode civility while doing little to address the issue of professional responsibility. As discussed below, there are severalsignificant problems with the Commission's recommendationsfor change. First, the report is clearly premised upon an under- lying assumption that simply because courts are notfully complying with reporting requirements, attorney misconduct goes undetected and unad- dressed within the criminal justice system and in district attorney offices. Most prosecutors would find this assumption both erroneous andoffensive to our profession's duty of integrity and fairness. E j Pr of es si on al Re sp on si bi li ty The public rightfully expects prosecutorsto go into the competitive arena ofthe courtroom on a daily basis and make literally hundreds ofsplit second decisions on law, evidence, and argument. It is also a routine occurrence and accepted strategy for defense counsel to make claims ofmisconduct against prosecutors duringtheheat oftrial. As with any system administered by humanbeings,the court processis imperfect anderrorsare inevitable. Through comprehensive training, extensive scru- tiny of prosecutor applicants and promptdiscipline when warranted,district attorneys strive to mini- mize errors androot out individuals who do not meet the very high ethical standards of our noble profession. As a result, sustained claimsofpros- ecutor misconduct are exceedingly rare.' Yet the majority effectively encourages more second-guessing of prosecutors. Ifthe proposed rule were adopted in our highly adversarial sys- tem, demandsby counsel for judicial findings of misconduct would become commonplace and the courts wouldinevitably find themselves mired in ruling on disputes among lawyers rather than evidence and law affecting the underlying charges. The majority thus overlooks the inherent dangers of seeking perfect process withoutregardto its impact on the prompt andfair resolution ofcrimi- nal cases. More than three decadesago,Justice Macklin Fleming of the California Court ofAppeal warned aboutthe pursuit of perfect procedure: For when we aim atperfect procedure, we impair the capacity ofthe legal order to achieve the basic valuesfor which it was created, thatis, to settle disputes promptly and peacefully, to restrain the strong, to protect the weak, and to conform the conduct ofall to settled rules oflaw. Ifcriminal procedure is unable promptly to convict the guilty and promptly acquit the innocentofthe specific accusations against them, and to do it in a man- nerthat retains public confidence in the accuracy ofits results, the deterrent effect ofswift and certain punishmentis lost, the feeling ofjust retribution disappears, andbeliefin theefficacy ofthe system of justice declines.” The majority report also indirectly infers thatcivil service protection and the privacy of prosecutor personnel records somehowinsulate prosecu- tor misconduct. I have been a prosecutor for 25 years and that has not been my experience. Simply stated, the basic civil service and privacy protection afforded to prosecutors have never precluded man- agementin this office from dealing directly, swiftly and appropriately with prosecutor misconduct. Second, the Wheeler and Brady provisions con- tained in the proposedrule are fraught withperil. Brady is a dynamicarea of the law and no one can confidently predict howit will develop in the courts next year, let alone ten years from now when 1. Thestatistics upon which the Commissionrelies establish that incidents of prosecutor misconduct are rare in California. The Preliminary Report of Professor Laurie Levensonlists in Section IX.A (pp. 8-9) appellate decisionsciting prosecutorial misconduct and rankings of 10 California counties as a percentage of felonycasesfiled. She concludes, “Percentage-wise, the number of prosecutorial claims per felony casesis less than 1%, averaging from .028% to .008%.” (/d., fn. 7.) Converted to common fractions, this is equal to 1/3000 cases to 1/12,000 cases. And this is just the numberof claims; the numberof cases in which the court has found error is far smaller, and the number of cases in which error was reversible is smallerstill. Professor Levenson’s figures indicate.that of 199 cases between 2000-2005 in which prosecutorial misconduct was found, only 15 (7.5%) constituted reversible error. The Judicial Council of California reports 1,588,079felonyfilings in California in the 6-year period fram tne 2000-2001 fiscal year through the 2005-2006 fiscal year. Judicial Council of California, 2007 Court Statistics Report, Table 7, p. 51.) http:/Awww.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/csr2007.pdf). Applying the percentages from Professor Levensan’s report, this would mean that prosecutorial misconduct was claimed in only 127 to 445 of these 1.6 million cases. The Commission also considered the California Public Defenders Association Response to Focus Questions on Professional Responsibility Issues. This response states that prosecutorial misconductis “often” cited as a factor in appellate dismissal or reversal of cases or reduction of sentences. (CPDA Response,p. 2.) In support of this contention, the response cited “Harmful Error,” a Prosecutorial Misconduct Study Report written by the Center for Public Integrity. (CPDA Response, pp. 2—-3, fn. 1.) According to the response, the study “studied 590 California cases fram 1970to the present [actually, 2003] in which the defendantalleged prosecutorial misconduct... .Of all the defendants who alleged misconduct, onelater proved his innocence. [9] Of the cases in which judges ruled a presecutor’s conduct prejudiced the defendant, 48 involved impropertrial arguments or examination, 11 involved the Supreme Court is scrutinizing a prosecutor's decision in a capital case. Likewise, it makes no sense to require reporting any time a court con- cludes counsel violated Wheeler becauseit does not accept the prosecutor's reasonsfor excusing jurors. A court's decision on Wheeler is often subjec- tive and can be influenced by a myriad offactors including the court's own biasorfeelings about the underlying case. Wheeler and Bradyissues are the subject of intense scrutiny andlitigation in the criminal justice system. Underexisting law, the court already has the authority to report violations of Brady or Wheeler.? Creating a new court rule regarding misconductthat attempts to further define these two case doctrines will not increase the reporting of such violations. Instead, the rule would further complicate existing law, potentially narrow the cir- cumstances under which a court already disposed to report would in fact report, and once again encouragegreaterlitigation of collateral issues. Indeed, there is even somerisk that concern about the obligation to report could influencethe court's decisions on the merits of the underlying Wheeler or Brady issue. Third, at least some ofthe misconductcases cited in one of the Commission'sstudies appearto merit further scrutiny and review. For example, Professor Kathleen Ridolfi’s study erroneously lists two cases from Ventura County, wherethe court allegedly found prosecutor misconduct but concluded it was “harmless error.” Our review of both of these cases suggests they should not be included in the studyat all. In People v. Hosea (Feb. 3, 2004, B165929) 2004 WL198360, 2004 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS r109, there is no judicial finding of misconduct. In that case, the defense objected to a commentby the prosecutor during argumentthatto find the defen- dantnot guilty, the jurors would have to believe the defendant's story. The court held that there was “no prejudicial misconduct’butdid notstate whether there was misconductatall. The court stated in part: To prevail on a claim ofprosecutorial misconduct based on remarksto thejury, the defendant must show a reasonablelikelihood thejury understood or applied the complained-ofcomments in an improper or erroneous manner.... Prosecutorial misconduct involves use ofdeceptive or reprehensible methodsto persuadethejury, or acts so egregious as to create an unfair trial.... There was no such egregious conduct here. The prosecutor did not employ deceptive or reprehensible methods in his argumentto thejury. After the defense objection, the trial court reiter- ated that the prosecutor bore the burden to prove appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This waseffectively an admonition that cured anyerror... Appellant received afair trial. There was no prejudi- cial misconduct. (Emphasis added.) iS E I Pr of es si on al Re sp on si bi l withholding evidence from the defense, eight involved discrimination in jury selection, three involved improperpre-trial tactics, two involved threatening a witness and the three remaining cases involved destruction of evidence, breaching an agreement and eavesdropping.” (/bid.) These figures, which cover a period of 33 years, show that only in only 75 cases was prejudicial error found, including only 11 cases of withholding evidence. This is only one Brady violation every three years statewide, which cannot be considered a crisis under any cefinition. The low incidenceof pros- ecutorial misconductis also Supported bythe statistics provided in a repart prepared for the Commission’s July 11 hearing by Professor Kathleen Ridolft entitled “Prosecutorial Misconduct: A Systematic Review.” Shestates that she reviewed California state and federal appellate court cases decided between January 1, 1997 and December31, 2006. (Ridolfi report, Appx. A, p. 15.) Of these, 2,131 raised an issue of prosecutorial misconduct on appeal, and the court found misconductin 444 of these cases.(Ridolfi report, p. 4.) The court found theerror to be prejudicial in only 54 of these cases.{Ridolfi report, p. 5.) The Judicial Council reports that there were 2,585,018 felanyfilings from the 1996-97fiscal year through the 2005-06fiscal year. Using ProfessorRidolfi’s . figures, only .08% (8 in 10,000) of the casesraised an issue of prosecuto- rial misconduct, in only .02% (2 in 10,000} did the court find prosecutorial misconduct, and .0002% (2 in 100,000) involved prejudicial misconduct. These figures are a small percentage of the 2.6 million felonyfilings during that period. 2. Justice Macklin Fleming, The Price of Perfect Justice: The Adverse Consequences of Current Legal Doctrine on the American Courtroom, Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1974. 3. Rule of Professional Conduct 5-220, Business arid Professions Code §6086.7 and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 258, 282 fn. 29... In the second case, People v. Johnson (Mar. 19, 2003, B156543) 2003 WL 1309091, one mightinfer that the court found misconductbutthe court's opinionis not entirely clear on that issue. In that case, the prosecutor asked a deputy sheriff whether the defendant was oneofthe people depicted in a videotape. The defense objected that the testimony was improper. The reviewing court's analysis of the issue inconsistently referred to “the error” and the “alleged misconduct.” The court stated: Thetrial courtfound that the error could be easily cured by admonishing thejury [noting that the trial court struck the question and the answer}... [9] A trial court is vested with considerable discre- tion in ruling on a motionfor mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct... Hence, in the absence ofprejudice to thefairness ofa trial, prosecutor misconduct will not trigger reversal.... [J] Here there was noprejudice. The evidence was overwhelming... [G] The trial court wasin thebest position to gauge the misconduct andtheeffect on thejury. Itfound that an admonishment would cure theerror... [] Onthis record, we agree.... The alleged misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Citations omitted and emphasis added.) Finally, the suggestion that district attorneys do not keep records of prosecutor misconductis mis- leading and useofthe term “repeat offender” for attorneysis not appropriate within the professional responsibility subject matter of this report. District attorneys are required to maintain confidential personnel files on prosecutors andfindings of mis- conduct would ordinarily be documented in such files by way of performanceevaluation or disciplin- ary action. We do not keep separate public records listing such findings and identifying the attorneys because doing so wouldviolate the attorneys’ rights to privacy in their own personnel records. Use of the term “repeatoffender”is typically associated with individuals who commit multiple violations of criminal law andforthis reason it is inappro- priately inflammatory to use such a term when referring to either defense attorneys or prosecutors for committing errors in court. Insum,I respectfully dissent from the Commission's Final Report on Professional Responsibility for all of the reasons set forth above. I continueto believe the court's failure to report attorney misconductis mosteffectively addressed through additional training and education. The Commission's recommendationto create a new rule is neither necessary norwill it accomplishits intended purpose. Very truly yours, Gregory D. Totten, District Attorney The Commission's second report on Professional Responsibility and Accountability was a Report and Recommendations on Compliance with the Prosecutorial Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence, issued on March 6, 2008,as follows: Report: Exculpatory Evidence The Commissior’s Report and Recommendations on Professional Responsibility and Accountability of Prosecutors and Defense Lawyers, issued October 18, 2007, noted thatthe failure to disclose exculpatory evidence wasa leading ground for reversal of California criminal convictions based on claimsofprosecutorial misconduct during the ten year period ending December31, 2006. The duty to disclose exculpatory evidence has been recog- nized as a constitutional imperative since 1963, whenthe United States Supreme Court decided the case of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The obligation is commonly referred to as the “Brady” obligation or duty. Prosecutorial compliance with the Brady duty includesthe duty to disclose materials relevant to impeach prosecution witnesses, Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and to materials that are in the possession or control of investigat- ing law enforcementagencies, placing the onus upon prosecutors to insurethat police or other investigative agencies havefully reported on the existence of potentially exculpatory evidence. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). A potential source of non-complianceis that the Brady duty is limited to “material” exculpatory evidence. Prosecutors maynotfully realize the ways in which potentially exculpatory evidence can be put to material use by criminal defense lawyers. The prosecutor’s Brady duty to disclose exculpatory evidence under the due process clause of the United States constitu- tion is wholly independent of any statutory scheme. It is self-executing and needs nostatutory sup- port to be effective. Alford v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4" 1033, 1046 n.6 (2003). But the issue of access to records of misconduct complaints against police officers, which maybe relevantto challenge their credibility in a criminalcase,is closely related to and frequently overlaps with the Brady duty. UnderCalifornia law, upon a showing of good cause and materiality, a court will review an officer's personnelfile to determine whether it contains any information that should bedis- closed to the defendant. Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (1974); California Evidence Code §f 1043-45; California Penal Code §f 832.7-832.8. Such requests are commonly referred to as “Pitchess motions.” Pitchess requirements limit the access of both prosecutors and defense lawyers to police personnelrecords, andlimit the disclosure of such records. THE RAMPART TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS In 1999,the exposure ofa pattern offalse arrests, perjured testimony andthe planting of evidence by L.A.P.D. officers assigned to the Crash Unit of the Department's RampartDivision led the Los Angeles District Attorney [LADA]to dismiss nearly 100 cases in which felony convictions had been obtained, many of them onpleasofguilty. In 2001, the Los Angeles County Bar Association convened a special Rampart Task Force to make recommenda- 8 Pr of es si on al Re sp on si bi li ty tions relatingto all parts of the justice system that could preventthis type ofmisconductin the future.' Their Report, issued in April, 2003,’ included a numberofkey recommendations addressing Brady and Pitchess obligations and compliance. In anticipation of the public hearing convened by our Commission, we asked witnesses to address whetherexisting office policies and procedures implemented by District Attorney Offices and Public Defender Offices were adequate to ensure full complianceby all deputies with discovery obligations, and whetheranylegislative or admin- istrative changes were neededtoassurefull compliance with the requirements for disclosure of evidence. We also asked whetherfour specific rec- ommendations of the Rampart Task Force should be implemented on statewide basis: 2.1 To implementprosecutors’ responsibilityfor obtaining and producing Brady material, prosecut- ing agencies should establish procedures to gather Brady materialin a systematicfashionfrom all appropriate sources. To assist prosecutors in the fulfillmentoftheir obligations, governmental agen- cies should establish procedures to gather all Brady material and to provide that material to prosecut- ing agencies in a timely manner. Other optionsfor obtaining Brady material shouldbe utilized by pros- ecutors before resorting to Pitchess motions. 2.2 Brady... material should be collected in a central database underthe control ofthe prosecuting agency. 2.3 Production of Brady materialto the defense must be timely. In particular, Brady material tending to establish factual innocence or an affirmative defense should be revealed before a guilty plea is entered. 2.4 In felony cases, prosecutors should be required to execute a declaration affirming that inquiries have been madeofall appropriate sources and that all Brady material obtained has been reviewed and disclosed. We also invited written submissionsto address the question whether the RampartTask Force's detailed recommendationsonthecollection and dissemination of Pitchess material should be imple- mented on a statewide basis. The Commission received thoughtful responses to these questions, both in the form ofwritten submissions? andoraltestimony.* Based upon these submissions, the Commissionis in agree- mentthat statewide legislation is not the most appropriate vehicle to assure full compliance with Brady and Pitchess obligations. The size and organization of prosecutors’ offices throughoutthe State of California varies substantially, and assur- ing full compliance with these obligationsis best addressed by the adoption ofclear administrative policies within each office that are available for public scrutiny. Such policies should describe the standard to be used in determining whether infor- mation should be disclosed, and should require the maintenanceofa “BradyList,” identifying wit- nesses as to whom Brady material exists. 1. The Task Force, chaired by U.S.District Judge Audrey Collins, a former state prosecutor, included former prosecutors, public defencers, private practitioners, judges and academics. 2. Los Angeles County Bar Association Task Force on the State Criminal Justice System, A Critical Analysis of Lessons Learned: Recommendations for Improving the California Criminal Justice System in the Wake of the Rampart Scandal, April, 2003. 3. The responses of the California District Attcrneys Association, the Los Angeles County District Attorney, and the Ventura CountyDistrict Attorney are available on the Commission's website, www.ccfaj.org. 4. Santa Clara County District Attorney Dolores Carrtestified on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association; Deputy District Attorney Lael Rubin testified on behalf of the Los Angeles CountyDistrict Attorney's Office; and Special Assistant District Attorney Michael Schwartz testified on behalf of the Ventura County District Attorney's Office. , DISTRICT ATTORNEY BRADY POLICIES The Commission has examinedthe publicly available office policies of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, the Ventura County District Attorney's Office, and the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office. The response of the California District Attorneys Association [CDAA]notesthat “otheroffices... have opted not to have a specific policy, but to require their depu- ties to follow the statutory and case law on these subjects.”° The Commission believes that compli- ance with Brady obligations should notbeleft up to each individual deputy’s own interpretation of statutory and case law. A written Office Policy and training regarding this policy can help insure thatall prosecutorswill fully comply with their Bradyobligations. In accordance with the Rampart Task Force recom- mendations, procedures should be established to gather Brady material in a systematic fashion from all appropriate sources, consistent with the requirements of Pitchess. The material should be identified and a record should be kept of when and how it was delivered to the defense. Material determinedto berelevantto factual innocence or an affirmative defense should be disclosed as soon as that determination is made, and prior to entry of a guilty plea. . Whenthere is information about a witnessthat may be subject to disclosure requirements under Brady, the identity of that witness should be main- tained on a “Brady List’ for use in other cases. The Commission does notbelieve that a formal declara- tion offull Brady compliance needsto be signed by the prosecutor, but prosecutors should be ready to offer assurancesto both the defense and the court that inquiries have been madeofall appro- priate sources, andall Brady material received has been reviewed anddisclosed in accordancewith all legal obligations. The CDAA finds mostofthese recommendations appropriate. CDAA, however, suggests that existing policies and procedures are adequate to ensure full compliance, andthat “in establishing policies for Brady databases, onesize doesnotfit all. Each prosecutor's office should design and implement proceduresto deal with Brady evidence that works for that jurisdiction.” The Commission does not suggest a uniform policy and procedure for every District Attorney's Office in the State of California. We are in full agreementthat each prosecutor’s office should design and implementprocedures that work for that jurisdiction. But the Commission strongly believes that public accountability requires such policies and procedures be in written form and available for public scrutiny. Consultation with law enforcement agencies, peace officer associations representing law enforcementofficers, and Public Defender Officeswill be helpful in formulating effective policies that are widely accepted and understood. In many counties, such policies are already the product of such collaboration. The process of devising a written policy fre- quently exposesfriction points that can be directly addressed andeliminated. A written policy also = 4 ar “” fo Oo [i wn @® co rs] if a4 ww” nn Qose fo) a a 87 5, California District Attorneys Association, Position Statementof the California District Attorneys Association Regarding “Focus Questions for Hearing on Professional Responsibility Issues” of the California Commission on Fair Administration of Justice, July 11, 2007, at p. 13. provides a basis for consistenttraining of person- nel and evaluation oftheir compliance. Therefore, the Commission recommendsthatevery District Attorney's Office in California formulate anddis- seminate a written Office Policy to govern Brady compliance, and thatthis policy provide for gather- ing Brady material in a systematic fashion from all appropriate sources, tracking the delivery of the material, and disclosing material determined to be relevant in a mannerthat is consistent with Pitchess. The policy should require that material relevant to factual innocenceor anaffirmative defense be disclosed as soon as that determination is made, and prior to entry of a guilty plea. Policies should be regularly reviewed and updatedto reflect evolving changes in judicial interpretation of the Brady duty and Pitchess limitations. THE LIMITATIONS OF PITCHESS With respect to the Rampart recommendations regarding Pitchess material, both the CDAA and the LADApoint out that sore of these recom- mendationsare precluded by the subsequent ruling of the California Supreme Court in Alford v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4™ 1033 (2003). The Court held that protective orders issued in compliance with California Evidence Code Section 1045(e) mustrequire that material disclosed pursuantto a defense Pitchess motion mayonly be utilized for the case in which the motion was made, andthat the prosecution has no automatic right to police personnelrecordsthat are disclosed to the defense pursuantto a Pitchess motion. Theinclusion of Pitchess material in a database for future disclosure does not appearto be feasible underthe strictures of Alford. But the maintenanceofan office “Brady List,” identifying particular officers with credibility problems,is not precluded by Alford if information obtained from a Pitchess motionis not disclosed, and such list can provide a usefultool in alerting prosecutors to the needto further investigate the need for Brady disclosures, including a subsequent additional Pitchess motion. Therecent ruling of the California Supreme Court in Chambers v. Superior Court, 42. Cal.4™ 673 (2007) may permit defense counsel and defenderoffices to maintain list of the namesofofficers as to whom Pitchess motions have been granted, so that when another Pitchess motion in a different case is granted as to the same officer, counsel can access derivative information in the previouscase. The system utilized by Ventura County provides a useful model. Complaints regarding the cred- ibility of a police officer are evaluated as they are received, with an opportunity for the officer and the employing law enforcementagencyto pro- vide input. If the Office concludes that material evidence exists regarding an officer's credibility, the officer’s nameis placed on a “BradyList.” Past cases in whichtheofficer testified are researched and identified, to determineif the defense should be advised of the new information.In future cases in which the officer will be a prosecution witness,. the prosecutor is required to consult with a desig- nated supervisor as to how to proceed. Normally, the officer is not called as a witness, or the Brady information is disclosed. If there is doubt as to whether the information is material, an in camera evaluation for a judicial determination is sought. The Commissionis in agreement with Recommendation 6.2 of the Rampart Task Force, that a database organized and maintained by the prosecutor's office should be created pursuantto procedures and standardsestablished bythatoffice and containing the namesofpolice officers and other recurring witnesses for whom Brady material exists. Case-specific Pitchess motions can then be filed by either the prosecution or the defense, or both. Again, we are awarethat one size does not fit all. But we cannotaccept the suggestionthat such proceduresare notnecessarily appropriate for smaller jurisdictions whereofficers with credibility problemsare morereadily knownto thosein the legal community. Compliance with Brady require- ments is too important to rely upon courthouse gossip as a substitute for systematic procedures. STANDARDSFOR “BRADYLIST” DETERMINATIONS The Rampart Report recommendeda standard of reasonable suspicion for information questioning a witness’ credibility, before that witness is put ona “Brady List’ to alert prosecutors to potential Brady problems. This appears consistent with the “sub- stantial information” standard employed by the Ventura County and Santa Clara County District Attorneys’ policies: “Substantial informationisfacially credible infor- mation that might reasonably be deemed to have undermined confidencein a later conviction in which the law enforcement employee is a material witness, and is not based on mere rumor, unverifi- able hearsay, or a simple and irresolvable conflict in testimony about an event.” The standard adopted by the Los Angeles County District Attorney requires “clear and convincing evidence”: “The decision to include such material (concerning a peace officer or governmentally employed expert witness) will be made using a standardofclear and convincing evidence which is higher than a preponderanceofevidence but less than beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, without clear and convincing evidence that the potential impeach- ment evidenceis reliable and credible, it will not be includedin thealert system.” While a “Brady List” is not a public record,® pros- ecutors must be cognizantthat a decision to place an officer on the list due to a “credibility problem” can have a damaging impact upontheofficer’s career and reputation, and even result in termina- tion. While established instances of dishonesty or moral turpitude must bedisclosed, “prelimi- nary, challenged, or speculative information’ does not come within Brady, and should notresult in placing anofficer on a “Brady List’. (United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 109 n.16, 1976.) Where evidence challenging anofficer's credibility is disputed,the existence of a disputeitself should not exempt the material from the Brady require- mentof disclosure. The dispute, of course, must be resolved. Whetherthe resolution requires “facial credibility” or “clear and convincing evidence’is not for this Commissionto decide. The suggestion has been madethat in actual practice,thereislittle differ- ence betweenthe standardutilized in Los Angeles County and the standard applied in Ventura and Santa Clara Counties. Others disagree. The disagreementitself underscores the importance of defining the standard in writing and makingit publicly available. Brady policies should include an opportunity for the affected officer and the employing law enforcementagency to provide input before a determination is made to include an officer’s nameon a “Brady List’. The officer and.employing agency should also be given an opportunity to seek review of the determination by senior manage- mentofthe District Attorney's Office. The policies ofVentura and Santa Barbara Counties include such provisions. The dramaticeffect a Brady determination may have upon both theofficer and the employing departmentrequires fundamental fairness in making the determination. Receiving this inputwill also assist the District Attorney in E i L e e t 6. Coronado Police Officers Association v. Carroll, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1001 (2003). understanding and evaluating the evidence. The policies must provide for expedited procedurefor cases in which immediate disclosure is required, suchas the discovery of information duringtrial. The Commission believes all California District Attorneys should heed the warnings from the U.S. SupremeCourt that “the prudentprosecutorwill resolve doubtful questionsin favor of disclosure,” United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 108 (1976) andthat prosecutors should avoid “tacking too close to the wind.” (Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 439, 1995.) THE NEED FOR TRAINING Written policies and proceduresalone,of course, will not suffice if the policies and procedures are notpart ofthe training of the deputies who will be expected to follow them.Asthe policies and proceduresare interpreted and applied to spe- cific cases, examples will be available to further the understanding of deputies throughtraining programs. The Commissionlearned of an innova- tive approach to training regarding Brady issues recently undertaken in Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara County Bar Association sponsored a jointtraining, for both deputy public defenders and deputy district attorneys at the sametime. Suchjoint training programscan be usedto pro- mote a collaborative and cooperative approach to troublesomediscovery issues. Thereis no question butthat California prosecu- tors generally take their constitutionalobligations to disclose exculpatory evidence seriously, and manyDistrict Attorney Offices have devoted considerable time and resourcesto the drafting, promulgation and implementation of excellent written policies. In recommendingthatall California District Attorneys follow their example, the Commissionis hopeful that no legislative action will be necessary to assure full compliance with Brady/ Pitchess obligations. Recommendations: Exculpatory Evidence El The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice recommendsthatall District Attorney Offices in California formulate and disseminate a written Office Policy to govern Brady compliance, andthatthis policy provide for gathering Brady material in a systematic fashion from all appropriate sources in a mannerthatis consistent with Pitchess, tracking the delivery of the material, and disclosing material determined to be relevant. The policy should provide that mate- rial relevant to factual innocenceor an affirmative defense be disclosed as soon as that determination is made, andpriorto entry of a guilty plea. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice recommendsthat a list organized and maintained by each District Attorney's office should be created pursuant to procedures andstandardsestablished by that office, in consultation with law enforcement agen- cies, peace officer associations representing law enforcementofficers, and Public Defender Offices. Thelist should contain the namesofpolice officers and other recurring witnesses as to whom there is information that may be subject to disclosure requirements under Brady. This would includeall facially credible information that might reasonably be deemed to undermine confidencein a convic- tion in which the law enforcement employeeis a material witness, and is not based upon mere rumor, unverifiable hearsay, or an irresolvable conflict in testimony about an event. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice recommendsthat training programsbe conducted to assurethatall deputy district attorneys understand andapply office policies and procedures with regard to Brady disclosure and Pitchess motions.If feasible, joint training programsshould be organized to include prosecutors, public defenders and other criminal defense lawyers. £4 The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice recommendsthatall police and otherinvestigative agencies formulate policies and procedures to systematically collect any potential Brady material and, consistent with the statutory protections for personnel records, _ promptly deliver it to prosecutors. Ea The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice recommendsthat training programsfor peaceofficers include full treatmentof theobligation to disclose Brady mate- rial to the prosecutor. The Commission's third report on Professional Responsibility and Accountability was a Report and Recommendations on Funding of Defense Services in California, issued on April 14, 2008,as follows: Report: Funding Defense Services The constitutions ofthe United States and of California guarantee a right to counselforall accusedin criminal proceedings, and indigent accused are guaranteed competent counsel regard- less oftheir ability to pay. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). In 2003, after convening public hearings and hearingthe testimonyof32 expert witnesses, the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants concluded: Forty years after Gideon v. Wainwright, indigent defense remains in a state ofcrisis, resulting in a system that lacksfundamentalfairness and places poor persons at constantrisk ofwrongful conviction. A key recommendation of the Committee’s report wasthat State governments should establish oversight organizations that ensure the delivery of independent, uniform, quality indigent defense representation in all criminal and juvenile delin- quency proceedings. (ABA Standing Comm. on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants, Gideon’s Broken Promise: America’s Continuing Questfor Equal Justice, 2004.) Manyofthe causes ofwrongful convictions that the Commission has previously recognized (mis- taken eyewitness identifications,false confessions, perjured jail informant testimony,faulty forensic evidence) could have been exposed and addressed if the defendant had been represented by compe- tent zealous counsel who hadfully investigated E i Pr of es si on al Re sp on si bi li ty and preparedthecase. A studyofthefirst 74 DNAexonerations in the United States foundthat defense lawyer incompetence was a factor in 32% of the cases. (Scheck, Neufeld & Dwyer, Actual Innocence, p. 365, New American Library, 2003.) THE DEFENSEOF INDIGENT ACCUSED IN CALIFORNIA The Commission haslearned that the quality of representation afforded indigent accused is far from uniform in California, and sometimesfalls short of the constitutional minimum. In California, the primary responsibility for providing compe- tent counselto indigentaccused falls upon each individual county. California’s fifty-eight counties meet this obligation in a variety ofways. Thirty- three counties (57%) have created one or more institutional public defender offices as county departments to serve as the primary provider of criminal defense services to indigent accused. This includes every county in California with a popula- tion in excess of 500,000,with the exception of San Mateo County. Contract defenders are the primary provider of indigent felony and misdemeanorrepresenta- tion in 24 counties (41%). Eight counties have contracted with a single law firm, which provides various types of representation through branch offices. Some counties contract with solo practi- tioners. Several counties, for example, have four different solo contract defenders handling differ- ent portionsofthe caseload, and one county has seven separate contract defenders. The amountof compensation afforded by these contracts is often based upona fixed fee per case,ora flat fee for the expected annualcaseload. While this type of system is heavily concentrated in rural counties having populationsof less than 100,000,it also exists in some urban counties where public defend- ers are the primary providers. Many counties with a public defenderoffice, for example, use a contract defender to handle conflicts. In virtually every county, assigned counsel systems exist to handle multiple defendant cases where the primary provider would have a conflict of inter- est in representing more than one defendant. Assigned counselis ordinarily appointed by a court to handle a single case. Only one county, San Mateo,uses an assigned counsel system admin- istered by thelocal bar association as the primary provider of indigent defenseservices. The Commissionreceived evidenceat our July 11, 2007 public hearingrelated to inadequate funding of defense services in some California counties, especially for needed investigative and expert support. Competent investigation of one’s case, as well as the employmentofexpert witnesses who are “basic tools ofan adequate defense,” is just as fundamentalas the right to competent counsel. (Cf Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 69, 1985.)(Right to expert assistance in capital case raising a mental defense.) Professor Larry Bennerof California Western School of Law conducted a statewide survey of judges and lawyers for the Commission. Healso examined 2500 reported appellate decisions in which ineffective assistance of counsel claims were raised from 1997 through 2006. Courts sus- tained these claims,finding ineffective assistance of counselin 121 of these cases, and in 104 of them the judgmentof conviction was reversed and the case was remandedfor a newtrial. The most frequent performancedeficiency, reported in 44% ofthe 121 cases, was failure to investigate. Responsesto the surveys came from 85% of the state’s public defender offices, and 33% of the contract defenders. One hundred andninecetti- fied criminal specialists responded,as well as 38 1. An initiative measure, Proposition 115, adopted in 1991, provides that the finding of probable cause can be based in whole or in part upon hearsay gathered by police in the course of their investigation. See California Penal Code §872(b). Since then, preliminary hearings rarely involve the live testimony ofvictimsor witnesses; only the investigating officertestifies. Under current California law, the purpose of the preliminary hearing is not to facilitate judges. Nearly all survey respondents indicated that lack of resources for investigation wasa seri- ous problem whichthey face. Further, changes in the conductofpreliminary hearings has reduced in somecases the opportunity for defense attor- neys to assess the strength and weaknesses of the prosecution's case.! Every public defender respondingreported facing excessive investiga- tor caseloads. Over two-thirds of judges surveyed indicated that lack of investigative resources for the defense was a problem in their county. In six counties, defenders had no investigative staff. While some public defender offices have budgeted fundsto retain expert witnesses, others must obtain court approval for such assistance. More than one-quarterofthe offices (28%) report dif- ficulty in obtaining such approval. The BennerSurveyalso inquired into the problem of excessive attorney workloads. All public defender offices save one reported facing a problem with attorney workloads. Over 81% indicatedthat attor- ney workload wasa significant, very significant, or serious problem. (Lawrence A. Benner,Preliminary Report: Systemic Factors Affecting the Quality of Criminal Defense Representation, 2007, available on the Commission's website.) Despite heavy workloads, California’s institutional public defenders have generally provided compe- tent representation fortheir clients, and vigorous advocacy for adequate funding of defense services. The California Public Defenders Association recently surveyed public defenderoffices to determinethe level of compliance with theState Bar Guidelines for Indigent Defense Delivery Systems, and found a high degree of compliance. Institutional Public Defenders handle 80% of the State’s felony filings. We believe that California’s public defender offices, and certainly the largest ones, meet reasonable standards of acceptable workloads. That does not diminish the need, however, for California to assure that constitutional standards are being metin every case, regardless of the county in which it occurs. FLAT FEE CONTRACTING While there is nothing inherently wrong with competitive bidding for contracts to supply defense services, when such contracts are awarded on a flat fee basis it may, in somecases, create a conflict of interest for the contracting lawyer. Unlessit is separately reimbursed, the portion of the contract amount employedfor investiga- tive services or expert assistance comesoff the top, and reduces the compensation orprofit for the contracting attorney. Such contracts mayalso burden a defendant's rightto jury trial, since the contractor's compensation will not be enhanced by the additional expenseof preparinga case for trial. As described by Barry Melton, Yolo County's public defender and immediate past Presidentof the California Public Defenders Association, to the extenta flat fee contractor does not provideser- vices, he or she makesa profit. So if at all possible, the contractor may avoid goingtotrial because goingto trial is expensive. In People v. Barboza, 29 Cal.3d 375 (1981), the California Supreme Court foundthat the contract between the County of Madera andthe contract defender wasillegal becauseit created a disincen- tive to declare a conflict of interest. Under the contract, the Madera County public defender was paid $104,000 peryear, with $15,000 deducted and heldin reserve to be drawn against by conflict counsel. Any deficiency in the reserve account was to be deducted from monthly payments to the public defender. Any balanceleft in the account at the endofthe year wasto be paid to the public defender. The Court concludedthatthis arrange- mentcreated an “inherent andirreconcilable” E i Pr of es si on al Re sp on si bi li ty discovery, but to determine probable cause. Whitman v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d 1063 (1991). 2, Miller, California Defense Firm Borrows Wal-Mart Business Model, The Recorder, Dec. 26, 2007. S M E G RR A O R E S R g financial disincentive for the public defenderto declare a conflict. In declaring the contract unlaw- ful, the Court broadly condemned“contracts of this type” pursuantto “a judicially created rule of criminal procedure.” By analogy, an inherent and irreconcilable financial disincentive for a contract defendertoinvestigate the case or hire experts also creates an unacceptable conflict of interest. The Commission has concludedthatflat-fee contracts in California should separately reimburse the contracting attorneys for the expenses of adequate investigation and needed experts. In April, 2000, the U.S. DepartmentofJustice fundeda national study of Contracting for Indigent Defense Services. The Study Report began with an example of howcritics’ worst fears about indigent defense contract systems cametrue. The example came from an unidentified California county.It is a very sobering account: In 1997 and 1998,a rural county in California agreed to pay a low-bid contractorslightly more than $400,000a yearto represent halfofthe county’s indigent defendants. The contractor was a private practitioner who employed two associates andtwosecretaries, but no paralegalor inves- tigator. The contract required the contractorto handle more than 5,000 cases each year. All ofthe contractor’s expenses cameout ofthe contract. To makea profit, the contractor hadto spend aslittle time as possible on each case. In 1998,the contrac- tor took fewer than 20 cases — less than 0.5 percent ofthe combinedfelony and misdemeanorcaseload — to trial. Oneofthe contractor’s associates was assigned only cases involving misdemeanors. She carried a caseload ofbetween 250 and 300cases per month. Theassociate had nevertried a case before ajury. She was expected to plead cases at the defendant's first appearancein court so she could move on to the next case. One afternoon, however, the associ- ate was given a felony case scheduled fortrial the following week.. The case involved multiplefelony and misdemeanor charges. When she looked at the casefile, the associate discovered that nopretrial motions had beenfiled, no witness list had been compiled, no expert witnesses had been endorsed, and no one had been subpoenaed. In short, there had been no investigation ofany kindinto thecase, and she had nooneto help her with the basics of herfirstjury trial. The only materialin the casefile wasfive pages of police reports. In these reports, shefound evidence ofa warrantless search, which indicated strong groundsfor suppression. She told thejudge she was not ready to proceed and that a continuance was necessary to preserve the defendant’s sixth amend- mentright to counsel. The continuance wasdenied. The associate refused to moveforward with the case. The contractor’s other associate took over the case and pled the client guilty to all charges. The associ- ate who hadaskedfor a continuance wasfired. (The Spangenberg Group, Contractingfor Indigent Defense Service: A Special Report, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, April, 2000.) The Commission independently verified the facts reported in this account, and learned that the unidentified California County was, in fact, Shasta 3. The Commission has rejected a comparison of District Attorney and Public Defender budgets as a means of measuring the adequacyof defense funding, since District Attorneys are required to fund broad categories of activity that do not affect the work of public defenders, and the natureof these activities vary significantly from ane county to another. Comparisons acrosstime within the same county, however, may suggest changesthat signal growing inequity. 4. In addition to Placer County, Barker/Ciummo has been the primary public defender for Macera County since 1988 (Annual Caseload 8,000); for Amador County since 1994 (Annual caseload 2,000); for Modoc County since 1999 (Annual caseload not reported); and for Calaveras County since 2001 (Annual caseload 1,109). They also provide contract defense representation for Napa County in dependency matters, for Fresno Countyin conflict cases and juvenile dependency matters, and for Sonoma County in juvenile dependency matters. See website, www.ciummolaw.com. The Ciummo website, under County. The fired associate, Gabrielle Fitzmaurice- Kendrick, subsequently filed a federal lawsuit against the contractor who fired her, and received a substantial settlement. (Fitzmaurice-Kendrick v. Suter, U.S. District Court for E.D. Calif., 1999.) In a deposition for that lawsuit, the contractor boasted that he pled 70% ofhisclients guilty at the first court appearance,after spending 30 seconds explaining the prosecutor's “offer” to theclient. Deposition ofJack Suter. Shasta County subse- quently abandonedtheuseofflat-fee contracts, and established a public defender office which cur- rently enjoys an excellent reputation. As disturbing as the scenario recounted in the federal report may be,little has been done in California to prevent the recurrence of such scenarios. While the State Bar of California Guidelines on Indigent Defense Services Delivery Systems (2006) recommendthatthe cost of resources such as investigators, qualified experts, paralegals, laboratory fees and support technology “should not operate as a charge against the indigent defense provider to such an extent that the net personal compensation to the defenderis diminished,”(pp. 30-31), flat fee contracts arestill being negotiated for defense services with no separate fundingfor investigators and ancillary services. The Commission heard the testimony of Len Tauman, whodescribed the bidding process in Placer County. Tauman was awarded the contract to provide indigent defense services in Placer County in 1990,although he wasnotthe low- est bidder. He had eighteen years experience as a public defender, and managed a conflictsoffice for ten years. His contract was renewed in 1994 despite another lower bid, when a judge convinced the Board of Supervisors that the top quality representation was worth the $1 million differ- ence in the bids. The Board vote was 3-2. Tauman’s contract was renewed in 1998 and 2002. In 2000, the defender budget in Placer County was 41% of the District Attorney budget. By 2005, they were operating at 27% of the District Attorney bud- get. Tauman submitted a bid for $28 million,to increase funding up to 38% ofthe D.A. budget. He was undercutby a bid from John A. Barker & Associates, now operating as Richard A. Ciummo & Associates. Ciummo now contracts with eight California counties to provide defense services.’ The Barker-Ciummobid was $16.8 million. The County accepted the lower bid.° Ciummo’s opera- tion has been described as the “Wal-Mart Business Model’for providing defenseservices, “generating volumeand cutting costs in ways his government- based counterparts can't and manyprivate-sector competitors won't.” Mr. Ciummo respondsthat he operates on a single-digit profit margin, and substantial savings result from hiring attorneys on a contract basis that does not include expen- sive benefit and retirement packages.’ While his contracts with counties provide separate reim- bursementfor interpreters and expert witness fees, there is no separate reimbursementfor inves- tigative services.® There is no comparative data E J Pr of es si on al Re sp on si bi li ty the neadline, “What Would Your County Do With Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars?”, boasts that “Every county we have contracted with has saved substantial funds over their previous method of providing these services. Additionally, our firm has an excellent record of containing cost increases.” 5. Wiener, Placer Swaps Lega/ Teams, Sacramento Bee, June 28, 2006. 6. Miller, California Defense Firm Borrows Wal-Mart Business Model, The Recorder, Dec. 26, 2007. 7 Ad. 8. See, e.g., Agreement with Richard A. Ciummoand Associates for Alternate Indigenet Defense Services, June 6, 2007, available at www.co.fresno.ca.us/ portal/BBRs/Agreement% 20with%20Richard %20A.%20Ciummo%20and%20 Associates%20for%20Alter... available to track the impact uponperattorney caseloadsortrial rates in the counties that have entered into flat-fee contracts for indigent defense. Mr. Ciummodid not respondto Professor Benner’s survey for the Commission regarding any of the counties with which he contracts. In two recent unpublished rulingsofthe California Courts of Appeal, convictions have been reversed and/or remanded becauseof a conflict of interest created by Ciummo’srepresentation.° The most direct way to deal with the potential con- flicts that could be presented by flat fee contracts for indigent defense services wouldbe forthe leg- islature to mandate certain provisions be included in such contracts. Contracting standards are already imposedbythe state for county contracts for public works. See California Public Contracts Code, Sections 20120-20145. Minimal standards could be drawn from the Guidelines on Indigent Defense Services Delivery Systems approved by the State Bar of California in 2006. The State Bar Guidelinesprovide: Indigent defense providers should enjoy parity, to the extent permitted by law, ona relative scaled basis, with prosecutors in access to technology, criminal history information, other criminaljustice data- bases such as those housing DNA information, legal researchtools, investigators and investigative tools, including a travel budget, experts, paralegals, forensic labs, facilities, data processing and exhibit creation capability. The cost ofthese resources should not operate as a charge against the indigent defense provider to such an extent that the netper- sonal compensation to the defender is diminished. Id. at 30 (emphasis added). The Commission recommendsthatlegislation be enacted to provide that when Countiescontract for indigent defense services in criminalcases, the contract shall provide separate funding for accessing technology and criminal justice databasesto the extent those are provided by law,legal research tools, travel expenses, forensic laboratory fees and costs, data processing, modern exhibit capabilities, paralegals, investigators and expert witnesses. OVERSIGHT OF DEFENDER SERVICES Just regulatingflat fee contracts, however, will not address problems of underfunding andover- load that can affect all defender offices, whether contractual, assigned, or public defender types. Comparisons of defenderoffices to measure the availability of resources is currently impossible, because these offices are not required to collect data on the handlingofcasesor report it to any state agency. California lacks any statewide author- ity to monitor the adequacy of defenderservices, leaving it up to each county to determinethelevel offunding to be provided. That level may be deter- mined without appropriate deference to minimum standardsfor delivery of defenseservices. Minimum standardsfor indigent defense delivery systems have been drafted by a Commission ofthe State Bar of California. (Guidelines on Indigent 9, People v. Cousins, 2007 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2844 (3rd App.Dist. April 9, 2007); In Re Manuel L., 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8335 (Sth App.Dist. Sept. 13, 2004). Defense Services Delivery Systems, 2006.) The Guidelines provide clear standards with respect to standardsofrepresentation, qualificationsofindi- gent defense providers, quality control, training, juvenile practice, resources, compensation,ethics and management/leadership. The Guidelines were drafted by a group of lawyers broadly representa- tive of the defensebar, including public defenders, contract defenders, appointed lawyers andprivate practitioners. As previously noted, a survey by the California Public Defenders Association found a high level of compliance with the guidelines amonginstitutional public defender offices. The Guidelines themselveslack any direct enforce- ment mechanism.° As the State Bar Commission noted, workload stan- dardsvary significantly from state to state, and the 1973 national standards formulated by the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Standards and Goals"!are of limitedutility today. Because the orga- nization of the courts and assignmentofdeputies varies substantially from county to county,it is not possible to devise numerical workload standards on a statewide basis. There is not even agreement, either in California or on a national basis, ofhow to define a “case” for purposes of caseload standards. But it might be possibleto identify counties where the workloads are excessive, and broad numeri- cal standards could help to identify those counties where excessive workload may be a problem, and calls for further investigation. The Commission has pondered whetherthe functionsofestablishing statewide performance standards and monitoring the adequacy of defenderservices at the county level should be assignedto an agency with statewide jurisdic- tion. The composition and role of such an agency would have to becarefully defined after full input from theaffected defender service providers. The Commission reviewed three alternatives which might be employed to achievethis goal in California. Thealternatives are: Bl The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The AOCalready administers the court appointed counsel program for indigent appeals and fundsthe appellate projects which provide counsel, as well as the appointment, compensation and reimburse- mentfor attorneys handling death penalty appeals and habeasclaims. Minimum standardsto qualify for appointmentas counselfor indigent appeals and death penalty appeals and habeas claims have been established. In 2002, the California Judicial Council also set minimum standards for appointmentto represent defendantsattrial in death penalty cases. Individual defenderoffices and contractors could be required to report to the Administrative Office of the Courts, on an annualbasis, the data necessary to confirm their compliance with minimum standards for the hiring ofdeputies, whetherthe caseloads assigned to them maybe excessive, the adequacy of training, compliancewith ethical standards, inde- pendence,quality control, investigative resources and compensation. The AOC could thencertify that particular counties are meeting minimal standards. The AOC has accumulated broad experience in = = | 174 i= fo] Q. ” ih ce r] od 2 ie 4] wmPan fo] pa oa oy] 10. The California Rules of Professional Conduct require a lawyerto act competently, and this includes the duty to supervise the work of subordi- nate attorneys. Rule 3-110, California Rules of Professional Conduct, and Discussion to Rule 3-110. In addition, Rule i-120 provides “A membershail not knowingly assist in, solicit, or induce ary violation of these rules or the State Bar Act.” Thus, public defenders mayrisk State Bar discipline if exces- sive caseloads are not addressed. 11. Standard 13.12 of the NAC Standards were: no more than 400 misde- meanors perattorney per year; Or no more than 150 felonies per attorney per year; or no more than 200 juvenile cases per attorney per year. The associate attorney who wasdischarged in Shasta County was being assigned 3,600 misdemeanors per year. weighting caseloadsin order to assess court work- loads. They would be uniquely equipped to measure defense caseloads in California and identify counties that fall outside the normalrange. The disadvantage of using the Administrative Office of the Courts, however, is a potential conflict of interest and violation of the constitutional separation of powers. Theidentification of a county as falling outside the normal range could give rise to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that the courts would have to litigate. The intrusion of a judicial agency into the operation of defender offices could cross the line into executive andlegis- lative functions. PA TheCalifornia State Bar (CSB). The California State Bar Commission on the Delivery of Legal Services to the Indigent Accused promulgated voluntary guidelinesfor the delivery of indigent criminal defense services in 1990. In 2005, the Bar Board of Governors appointed a ten member working groupto collect information and public comment on the 1990 Guidelines and submit a revised set of guidelines by Decemberof 2005. The Guidelines on Indigent Defense Services Delivery Systems (2006) discuss standardsofrep- resentation and quality of services, with suggested adaptations for eachofthealternative delivery systems. While no effort was madeto establish numerical caseload standards, and no means of enforcement was suggested, these tasks could be delegated to the California State Barbythelegisla- ture. Through appropriate legislation, the State Bar could be designated as the repository of mandated reports from defender organizations and contract defenders throughoutthe state, empoweredto establish minimum standards, and authorized to conductinvestigations andcertify counties that are in compliance. Onedifficulty of utilizing the State Bar, of course, is that the State Bar is funded entirely by the dues paid by its memberlawyers. It would be unfairto tax the bar to fund a functionthat is the ultimate responsibility of the State as a whole. Thus, any delegation of this task to the State Bar should be accompanied bystate appropriation of funds to financethis activity. Ell Establishmentofa new Indigent Defense Commission (IDC). In recent years, a numberofstates have responded to the national crisis in underfundingofindigent defense services by the creation of agencies to - establish statewide standards andoversight of defense services. In 2001, Texas enacted landmark legislation, knownas the Texas Fair DefenseAct. It provides for statewide standards and oversight of defense services through a new Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense, and providespartial state funding of defenseservices for thefirst time ever. Just as in California, Texas counties have the primary responsibility for funding and organizing indigent defense services. Counties can opt to use a court-appointed counsel, public defenderor con- tract counsel system to provide indigent defense services, or they can use some combination of these models. Outofthe state’s 254 counties, however, only seven have a public defenderoffice. The Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense pro- vides state formula grants to counties, whosecosts increased from the reformsputin place by the Texas Fair Defense Act. In addition, the Task Force develops minimum standards of quality indigent defense services; monitors and assists counties in meeting those standards; and worksto bring consistency, quality control and accountability to indigent defense practices in Texas. (See www.courts.state.tx.us/tfid/.) In 2004, Virginia enactedlegislation creating the new Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, which began overseeing both assigned counsel and public defender programs throughoutthestatein July, 2005. Amongits other duties, the Virginia IDC is charged with setting caseload limits and establish- ing and enforcing qualification and performance standardsfor indigent defense representation. Statewide systems have also operated successfully for many years in Massachusetts andIndiana. In Massachusetts, a single, independentorga- nization, known as the Committee for Public Counsel Services, oversees both public defenders and 2,000private attorneys statewide, and has adopted training and performancestandards as well as caseload limits. Indiana has a state com- mission, knownas the Indiana Public Defender Commission, which is authorized by statute to reimburse counties 40% of their expenditures in felony and juvenile cases, provided the counties create an independent board to oversee defense services and comply with the commission's caseload, qualification, and other standards for representation. Currently, 53 of the state’s 92 counties have adopted the commission's standards and established independent boards. (See Gideon’s Broken Promise: America’s Continuing Questfor Equal Justice, American Bar Assoc. 2004.) Thedifficulty with assigning this task to a new independentagencyis the costs of the creation of a new bureaucracy, and its tendency to grow. The ideal system would assign both the function ofcol- lecting data (preferably thoughstatutorily mandated reporting from defense contractors and public defenders) to establish performance standards, and the function ofidentifying coun- ties which are in compliance,to the sameentity. Conceivably, however, those functions could be separated. The Administrative Office of the Courts or the State Bar, for example, could be charged with collecting the data needed to propound statewide caseload and performance standards, and formulat- ing those standards. The subsequentidentification ofnoncompliance with those standards could then be delegated to a newly created IDC. The Commission was unable to agree uponeither the need for oversight or the identification of the appropriate oversight entity. Strong opposition was registered by public defenders who are concerned that the designation of an oversight agency could be counterproductive. Some public defenders have expressed concernthat, rather than elevating the quality of indigent defense services in California, a processofidentifying providers whoare in compli- ance with minimum standardswill create a race for the bottom. Counties that currently provide adequate funding for defense services could seek to cut funding to the level that meets minimal stan- dards for compliance. In today’s budgetclimate, this is a realistic cause for concern. The Commission recommendsthat the California State Bar reconvene its Commission on the Delivery of Legal Services to the Indigent Accused to resolve the issues ofhow adequate funding of defense services in California can be achieved. E i Pr of es si on al Re sp on si bi li ty Recommendations: Funding Defense Services EB The Commission recommendsthatlegislation be enacted to provide that when Counties contract for indigent defense services in criminalcases, the ~ contract shall provide separate fundingfor access- ing technology andcriminaljustice databasesto the extent those are providedbylaw,legal research tools, travel expenses, forensic laboratory fees and costs, data processing, modern exhibit capabilities, paralegals, investigators and expert witnesses with appropriate qualifications and experience. Full time defense counsel should be compensatedat rates equivalent to comparable prosecutors. The Commission recommends that the California State Bar reconvene its Commission on the Delivery of Legal Servicesto the Indigent Accused to make recommendations regarding the adequacy of funding for defense services which meet acceptable standards of competent representation. Actions The hearing and reports occasionedsix articles from the press, lauding the Commission's findings. Data and Hearings In preparation for a public hearing onthe topic of Remedies for Wrongful Conviction, the Commission consideredthe following documents: . Systemic Remedies—Chapter1, Achieving Justice: Freeing the Innocent; Convicting the Guilty, Report of the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section’s Ad Hoc Innocence Committee to Ensure the Integrity of the Criminal Process, 2006. . An Act to Establish the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission, House Bill 1323, Session Law 2006-184, General Assembly of North Carolina, Session 2005. . Fact Sheet: Preservation ofEvidence, retrieved from Innocence Project website on July 25, 2007. - California Penal Code §1417-1417.9 . Fact Sheet: Access to Post-Conviction DNATesting, retrieved from Innocence Project website on July 25, 2007. . California Penal Code §1404-1405 . Chamberlain, Michael. Access to DOJ Labs and DNA Data Bank Program, Memorandum from DepartmentofJustice, State of California, March8, 2007. - Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted— Chapter 9, Achieving Justice: Freeing the Innocent; Convicting the Guilty, Report ofthe American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section’s Ad Hoc Innocence Committee to Ensure the Integrity of the Criminal Process, 2006. . Fact Sheet: Compensating the Wrongly Convicted, retrieved from Innocence Project website on July 25, 2007. - California Penal Code {4900-4906 . Pete Rose v. Harry Hudson, 3rd D.C.A. July 24, 2007 At a public hearing on October 17, 2007 in the Kennedy Commonsat Santa Clara University in Santa Clara, the Commission heard from Prof. Myrna Raeder, Southwestern University School of Law, Los Angeles, American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section Ad Hoc Innocence Committee; Prof. Justin Brooks, California Western School of Law, San Diego, Executive Director, California InnocenceProject; Linda C. Starr, Santa Clara University School of Law, Santa Clara, Legal Director, Northern California Innocence Project; Prof. Cookie Ridolfi, Santa Clara University School of Law, Executive Director, Northern California Innocence Project; Michael Chamberlain, Deputy Attorney General, DepartmentofJustice, California; Mark Windham, Head Deputy, Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office, Representative of California Public Defenders’ Association; Jon Eldan, Attorney at Law, Coblentz Hatch Duffy and Bass LLP; Richard Schoenberger, Attorney for Exoneree Rick Walker; Rick Walker, Exoneree; Mark Merin, Attorney for Exoneree Pete Rose; HermanAtkins, Exoneree; Jeff Rawitz, Partner at Jones Day and Attorney for Exoneree Dwayne McKinney. The Commissionalso received written submissions from Karen McGagin, Director, California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board; and Stephen Saloom, Policy Director, Innocence Project at Benjamin N. Cardozo Schoolof Law, Yeshiva University. The Report and Recommendations Regarding False Confessions were issued on February 22, 2008,as follows: Report This Report will address someofthe obstacles faced by persons who have established their innocence after conviction of a crime,in gaining access to post convictionrelief, achieving reintegra- tion into sociely, and gaining compensationfor their wrongfal incarceration, It will also address the access and reintegration problems encoun- tered by those released afier reversalor vacation of their convictions without a findingofinnocence, Accessto post conviction relief and reintegration into society should be a goal forall those whose convictions are subject to legal challenge. They often havedistinct problemsre-entering society, and have difficulty achieving legal redress due to a variety of substantive and technical obstacles in the law. Compensation, however, should belimited to those whohave been found innocentofthe crimeor crimes for which they were convicted and imprisoned, not becanse of procedural errors in their tials. They have been deprived oftheir liberty based upona failure in the criminaljustice system. It should be the policy ofthe State of California to redress the injuryinflicted uponthe iamocent as quicldy as possible,to restore them to full participation in thelife of the community, and to provide all ofthe services neededfor thedifficult transition from wrongful imprisonmentto restora- tion ofal therights and libertics to whichtheyare otherwise entitled. The Commissionconducted a public hearing addressing these issues at Santa Clara University ‘onOctober17, 2007. The Commission heardtesti- tony from innocentpersonswhowere erroneously convicted and the knwyers whohave represented ‘themthat was remmarkably consistent: theyface manydifficult obstacles to full restorationoftheir rights and liberties, and the compensation they receivefortheir lossesis frequently inadequate. While organizations such as Life AfterExoneration seek to assist, theyrely upon volunteers and chari- table contributions. Last year, Life After Exoneration altempled lo serve over 70 exonerees throughout the nation with a budget of $100,000 anda staff oftwo social workers. Manyoftheir needs are ‘unmet. (See www.exonerated.org.) Such assistance should not be dependent upon charitable contribu- tions. [tis an obligation of theState, which bears responsibility forthe wrongful deprivation ofan innocentpersotisliberty, to provide assistance in the adequate restoration ofthat inmocent life which was disrupted. R O U T Ty COMPENSATION FOR THE INNOCENT California has a slalutory scheme for compensal- ing claimants whocan establish that the crime ofwhichthey were convicted was not committed or was not comunitted by them,that they did not contribute to the bringing aboutoftheir arrest or conviction, and that they sustained pecuniary injury, Thestatute was first enacted in 1941, with a compensation limit of $5,000. In 1969,the maximum limit was raisedto $10,000.In 2000,the statute was amended to provide Q thatif compensationis awarded, itis limited to $100 per day of wrong- 2 80kful incarceration, or a pes year maximum of $36,500 «36 5K per year ofincarcera- aera tion, The award must be subsequently approved bythe legislature. The ‘sickse okcomparable federal a statutory provisions for Gey aes ny yarns cu CALIMTS US LIMITS compensating innocentpersons capped recov- ery at $5,000 until the 2003 enaclmentofthe TnnocenceProtection Act, which increased the limit to $50,000for each year ofprison confine- ment, and $100,000 for each year on death row. 28 USC.fags. Since 1984,the California Victim Compensation & Government Claims Board has approved 15 aims from personswhoestablished their inno- cenceofthe crimes ofwhichthey were convicted. During thesameperiod, the Board denied 25 aims, anddismissed another 19 because they were untimely, incomplete, or the claimant had nol been released from prison. California Penal Code Sections 4900-4906; Latter to Commission, from Karen McGagin, Executive Officer, California Victim Compensation& GovernmentClaims Board,(See www.vegcb.ca.gov.) California Penal Code §49o1 currently requires that a claimfor compensationfar wrongful imprisonment of aninnocent personmust be CALF Ra presented within a period ofsix monthsafter judgment ofacquittal or discharge given, orafter pardon granted, orafter release frorn prison. The Commission recommendsthat the time limit. for presentation ofsuch daims be extendedto two years, The difficult adjustment required after release from wrongful incarceration frequently renders the current deadline unreasonable, These claims should not be precluded by a delay of less than two years. ‘The Commission also recommends that a court granting judicialreliefupon a claim ofinnocence berequired to notify the petitionerof the availabil- ity ofcompensation pursuantto California Penal Code Section 4900, and the timelimits for the filing ofsuch claims. California Penal Code {49.04 requires a claimant for victim compensation to establish that the claimant did not, by any act or omission either intentionally or negligently, conbibuteto the bring- ing about of his or her anest or conviction. The Commission is concernedles!this requirement beutilized to exclude innocentpersons who were victimsoffalse confessions or improperly induced guilty pleas from compensationfortheir wrongful convictions. The exception should notinclude those who were victimsof false confessions or improperly induced guilty pleas. It should belimited to those who intentionally subverted the judicial process. David. och 18,2007 9 Jon Stl May 38, 2007 6 eneMars san, 19, 2008 al q Pete Rose ‘ct. 20,2005 2 mens eviBarunes sume 25, 2008 Ms Quedetis walker So. 19, 2003 1% DavQuinat Feo, 28. 2003 14 mens Leonard Meshes 18 Fresenck Daye $389.000 16 | | BPD EDA ‘ f b 1 Se cha. ll heecers suosequers aban 9 he kcle. 1 sean whineeteeran ofa Jores. Hs clsi-wes eludes eB 262 Ins second yea, ‘ne axson:200"1a5 an apoio messure, “he Sil faledcn he Senate The current limitation of compensation to inno- cent persons who were wrongfully convicted to one hundreddollars per day of incarceration, or a maxi- mum of $36,500 peryear, should be increased. The Commission recommendsthat thelevel of statutory compensation be increased,at least to the level of comparable federal compensation ($50,000 per year maximum). There should also be an adjustmentto increase the awardto reflect the annualrate of inflation subsequentto enact- mentofthis level of compensation. PROVIDING POST-RELEASE ASSISTANCE It is currently the declared policy of California to provide educational, vocational, family and per- sonal counseling necessary to assist parolees in the transition between imprisonmentanddischarge. California Penal Code §3074. SB 618, enacted in - 2005, added Section 1203.8 to the Penal Code, to authorize Counties to develop a multiagency plan to prepare and enhancenonviolent felony offenders’ successful reentry into the commu- nity. Ironically, even the limited resources made available to convicted felons who have served their sentences andare released from prison are not available to those whose convictions have been set aside. Parolees are released to the community in which they were arrested or convicted; services such as counseling andassistancein locating hous- ing or jobs are limited to those who remain under parole supervision. But those who are being released because their convic- tion is set aside, including those who have been found innocent, receive none of these services. Those whohave been released back into the community after successfully challenging their convictions, whether innocentor not, face the same obstacles encountered by parolees, and more. Many are afflicted with post-traumatic stress disorder, or other psychological damageresulting from their wrongful incarceration over a long periodoftime. Ofthe States with compensation laws, only three — Massachusetts, Louisiana and Vermont — provide for the costs of medical and psychologicalcare. 79 EXONEREES RECEIVED NO COMPENSATION More than 50% whodid receive compensation waited 2+ years for first payment. The New York Times recently gathered informa- tion on 137 of the 206 imprisoned individuals who have been found innocent by DNAtesting from 1989 through 2007. The reportersalso researched the compensation claimsofall 206. They foundthatat least 79 of these persons (40%) received no compensationat all. More than half of those who did receive compensation waited two years or longer after exoneration forthefirst payment. Few received any governmentservices after their release. They typically left prison with less help — prerelease counseling,job training, substance-abusetreatment, housing assistance and other services — than somestates offer to paroled prisoners. Most found that authorities were slow to wipe the convictions from their records,ifthey Re me di es did soat all. Eventhose who were well educated and fully employedat the time of their wrongful conviction had difficulty finding work after their release. (Roberts & Stanton, A Long Road Back After Exoneration, and Justice is Slow to Make Amends, New York Times, Nov. 25, 2007; Santos & Roberts, Putting a Price on a Wrongful Conviction, New York Times, Dec. 2, 2007.) The Commission recommendsthatservices to assist with reintegration into society be available to all those released from prison after their judgment of conviction has been reversed,vacated orset aside. This would includeassistancein locating housing, a cash allowance, clothing, and employmentcounseling. CLAIMS BARRED BY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Manyofthe exonerated have a valid cause of action for the wrongful acts or omissionsofthe lawyers whopreviously represented them which resulted in their erroneous conviction.Ifthey delay filing a cause of action until they achieve exoneration,their claim will in mostcases be barred by the Statute of Limitations. Yet proving their exoneration is an element they mustestablish to recover damages. It is a classic “Catch-22” created by California Civil Procedure Code §340.6(a), which provides: Anaction against an attorneyfor a wrongful act or omission, other thanfor actualfraud,arising in the performanceofprofessional services shall be com- menced within one year after the plaintiffdiscovers, or through the use ofreasonable diligence should have discovered, thefacts constituting the wrongful act or omission, orfour yearsfrom the dateofthe wrongful act or omission, whicheveroccursfirst. California Civil Procedure Code {352.1(a) provides: Ifa person entitled to bring an action... is, at the time the cause ofaction accrued, imprisoned on a criminal charge, or in execution under the sentence ofa criminal courtfor a term less thanforlife, the time ofthat disability is not a part ofthe time limitedfor the commencementofthe action, not to exceed twoyears. Normally, the facts constituting the wrongfulact or omission (suchas a failure to investigate orcall available witnesses) will be known to the defendant at the time of his conviction. Even with the two yeartolling, his cause of action would haveto be filed within three years. In Coscia v. McKenna & Cuneo, 25 Cal.4™ 1194 (2001), the California Supreme Courtheld that a person alleging he was convicted through the wrongful acts or omissionsofhis lawyer must obtain post convictionreliefin the form ofa final judicial disposition of the underlying case, such as acquittal after retrial, reversal on appeal with directions to dismiss the charges, reversal followed by the People’s refusal to continue the prosecution, or a grant ofhabeas corpusrelief, as a prerequisite to proving actual innocence in a malpractice action against his former criminal defense counsel. This requires an erroneously convicted innocent person to file a malpractice claim within the period of the statute of limitations, even though hewill not be able to pursue the claim until he achieves exon- eration, perhaps manyyearslater. It is unrealistic to expect a prisonerto file a lawsuit againsthis attorney before his efforts for post-conviction relief have succeeded. In manycases, post-conviction relief comes manyyears after conviction. If such a lawsuit werefiled, it would have to be held in abey- ance anyway, until post-conviction remedies have been exhausted. The recent case of Rose v. Hudson, 153 Cal.App.4" 641 (2007) provides a good example. Pete Rose was convicted of the kidnap and rape of a 13 year old girl in November, 1995. His conviction was vacated in October, 2004 uponhis exoneration.? Hefiled a complaint against his defense attorney, alleging that the attorney's negligence contributed to his wrongful conviction. His complaint wasdis- missed becauseit was notfiled within thestatute of limitations, even though the Court conceded that he could not have recovered onhis claim until his conviction had been vacated. Thus, the only way one who maintains his innocence can obtain relief on a claim of attorney malpracticeisto file the claim prior to achieving exoneration, and ask the court to stay the suit pending resolution ofhis post-conviction remedies. The Commission recommendsthat the California Code of Civil Procedure be amendedto provide that a two year Statueof Limitations for profes- sional malpractice claims shall commence upon the granting of post conviction relief in the form of a final judicial disposition of the underlyingcase. ACCESS TO POST-CONVICTION RELIEF The Commission also examined someofthe obstacles which innocent persons mayface in obtaining accessto testing and a judicial hearing that could lead to exoneration. California Penal Code Section 1405 permits a prisonerto petition for performance of DNAanalysis that might exon- erate him, and uponthefiling of a proper motion, an attorney will be appointed to assist him. Many prisoners seek the assistance of the Innocence Projects at Santa Clara University School of Law and California Western School of Law to evaluate their claims andfile the necessary petition to make an adequate showing. More than 173,000 inmates are incarcerated in California prisons. California Western Law School and Santa Clara University have been workingcollaboratively over the past seven yearsto assist indigent California inmates raising innocence claims. Santa Clara’s Northern California Innocence Project (NCIP) represents inmates convicted in Northern California courts and California Western's California Innocence Project (CIP) represents inmates convicted in Southern California courts. The Projects operate with significant assistance from law students and their sponsoring educationalinstitutions. ” A = a = © a Both projects are active founding membersofthe Innocence Network, an association of innocence projects working nationally to address problems of wrongful conviction. In 2001, California mandated thatall costs associ- ated with representing inmates pursuant to Penal Codesection 1405to investigate and, if appropriate, file motions for DNAtesting of biological evidence wheresuchtesting could prove innocence, be bornebythe State. In that sameyear, California allocated $1.6 million dollars over two years to provide counselto assist inmates with innocence claims. For 2002 and 2003, the NCIP and CIP received state funding. That funding was discontin- uedas a result of state budgetcuts in 2003. If the innocenceprojects are forced to shut down or seriously cut back the work they do, California will be faced with addingto the burdenofstate offices which would be left to handle these cases withoutthe particularized experience representing innocenceclaimspost-conviction, and the resource of volunteer law students. To date, the Innocence Projects have succeeded in helping to exonerate 11 people, two based on DNA evidence and nine on other grounds. Each exon- eration hassaved thestate the cost ofhousing an innocent person and has returned the exonerees to their families and communities. Moreover, as in the case of Kevin Green, whose exoneration in 2. As noted in fn. 1, supra, Rose established his innocence and was awarded compensation by the California Victim Compensation & Government Claims Board in 2005, Orange County led to the conviction of the real murderer andrapist, the work of innocence proj- ects also advancestheinterest of public safety. With hundredsoflaw students assisting, and the support of Santa Clara University and California Western Schoolof Law, the Projects are screening on average 3,200 claims each year. While most innocence claims come from guilty prisoners, every claim must be reviewed and evaluated in orderto identify those prisoners who do havelegiti- mate innocence claims. Overthe past seven years, the Projects have pro- cessed and reviewed 20,431 requests for assistance. Ofthose, 13,990 have been rejected and 288 are beingactively investigated. There is a current backlog of700 cases, which cannot be thoroughly reviewed because ofthe limited resources of the Projects. The remainingcases are in various stages of administrative review. It is remarkable —a testamentto the efficiency and effectiveness of the Projects — that the backlog is only 700 cases. However,that backlog is ever increasing and will only worsen at the currentlevel of Project funding. Otherstates provide state funding for the work of projects similar to the California Innocence Projects. The State of Connecticut, with a prison 13,990 288 20,431 REQUESTS INNOCENCE PROJECTS HAVE LIMITED RESOURCES FOR CURRENT VOLUME OF REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE, population thatis 8.5 times smaller than California’s, funds their Public Defender’s Office with more than $500,000peryearto pay for four full-time Innocence Project positions. The new positions have no termination date and are expected to continue. The Commission recom- mendsthat State funding for the Northern California Innocence Project and the California Innocence Project be restored. DISCOVERY OF INFORMATION AND ACCESS TO DNA DATABASESTO ESTABLISH INNOCENCE CLAIMS The Commissionis continuing its assessment and analysis of problems encountered by the Innocence Projects and defense counsel in gaining access to information and evidence from District Attorney's Offices regarding claims of innocence which they are investigating; gaining access to DNA databases to seek matches to DNA materialthat mayassist in establishing a claim of innocence; and gainingdis- covery to support pending habeas corpus claims on behalf of those seeking exoneration on a claim of innocence. The Commission did not have enough timeto fully considerthis issue. 5,000+ 700 Recommendations El The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice recommendsthat services to assist with reintegration into society beavail- able to all those released from custody. This would include assistance in locating housing, a cash allow- ance, clothing, and employmentcounseling. California Penal Code {4901 currently requires that a claim for compensation for wrongful imprisonmentof an innocent person must be presented within a period of six monthsafter judgmentof acquittal or discharge given, or after pardon granted,orafter release from prison. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice recommendsthat the timelimit for pre- sentation of such claims be extended to twoyears. While exonerees maywishtofile these claims as quickly as possible, their claims should notbe pre- cluded by a delay ofless than twoyears. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice recommendsthat a court grantingjudicial relief upon a claim of innocence be required to notify the petitioner of the availabil- ity of compensation pursuant to California Penal Code Section 4900,andthe timelimits for the filing of such claims. California Penal Code {4904 requires a claim- ant for victim compensationto establish that the claimantdid not, by any act or omission either intentionally or negligently, contribute to the bringing aboutofhis or her arrest or conviction. This requirement should notbe utilized to exclude innocent persons whowerevictimsoffalse confes- sions or improperly induced guilty pleas from compensation for their wrongful convictions. The Commission recommendsthat this requirement belimited to a showingthat the claimant did not intentionally subvert the judicial process. El California Penal Code §4904 currently lim- its compensation to innocent persons who were wrongfully convicted to one hundred dollars per day of incarceration, or a maximum of $36,500 per year. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice recommendsthat the level of statutory compensation be substantially increased, at least to the level available under the federal system ofcompensation. There should also be an adjustmentto increase the award to reflect the annual rate of inflation subsequentto enact- mentofthis level of compensation. 4 2 = o = CT) o fl Currently, innocent persons whoarereleased from prison are required to file a separate legal action for expungementoftheir conviction before they are fully restored to all the rights ofcitizen- ship andrelieved of the disabilities imposed by a prior conviction. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice recommendsthe enactmentoflegislation to provide for automatic expungementofthe record of conviction when- ever a final judgment ofconviction is set aside or vacated and the Court makesa finding ofthe actual innocence of the defendant. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice recommendsthat the California Code of Civil Procedure be amendedto provide that a two year Statue of Limitations for professional malpractice claims shall commence upon the granting of post convictionrelief in the form ofa final judicial disposition of the underly- ing case. El The California Commission on theFair Administration of Justice recommendsthat State funding for the Northern California Innocence Project and the California Innocence Project be restored. Actions The hearing and reports occasioned onearticle from thepress, lauding the Commissions findings. In 2008, Assemblyman Solorio (D-Anaheim) introduced AB2937,to provide post-release services for the wrongfully convicted and to extend the Statute of Limitations on bringing lawsuits against counsel. Thebill has passed the Assembly and will now be considered by the Senate. Data and Hearings In preparation for three public hearings on the topic of the Fair Administration of the Death Penalty in California, the Commission considered the following documents: . Supreme Court Proposes Amendments To Constitution in Death Penalty Appeals, News Release #76, Judicial Council of California, November 19, 2007. . Alarcon, Judge Arthur L. Remediesfor California’s Death Row Deadlock, 80 So. Cal. Law Rev 697 (2007). . Liebman and Marshall. Less is Better: Justice Stevens and the Narrowed Death Penalty, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 1607 (2005-2006). . Pierce and Radelet. The Impact ofLegally Inappropriate Factors on Death Sentencing For California Homicides, 1990-99, 46 Santa Clara L. Rev 2005. . Shatz, Steven F. The Eighth Amendment, The Death Penalty, and Ordinary Robbery-Burglary Murderers: A California Case Study, 59 Florida Law Rev. 4 (September 2007). . Kreitzberg, Ellen. The Death Penalty: A Review of Special Circumstancesin California Death Penalty Cases, Original Research for the Commission. . Caldwell, Chase, and Goodman. The Exercise of Discretion to Prosecute a Homicide Case as a Death Penalty Case, Original Researchfor th Commission. . Latzer and Cauthen.Justice Delayed? Time Consumption in Capital Appeals: a Multi-State Study, John Jay College ofCriminal Justice (2004). . Gross and O’Brien. Frequency and Predictors of False Conviction: Why We Know SoLittle, and New Data on Capital Cases, Working Paper #93, University of Michigan Law School (October 2007). . ABA Study: State Death Penalty Systems Deeply Flawed, News Release from the American Bar Association, October 29, 2007. . Guidelinesfor the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, American Bar Association, February 2003. . Dewan and Goodman. Capital Cases Stalling as Costs Grow Daunting, The New York Times, November4, 2007. - Freedman, The Revised ABA Guidelines and the Duties ofLawyers and Judges in Capital Post- Conviction Proceedings, The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process,Vol. 5, No. 2 (Fall 2003). . New Jersey Death Penalty Commission Report (January 2007). . Feasibility Study. Characterizing the Administration and Assessing the Administrative Costs ofthe Death Penalty in California (Rand Corp. August 2007). . California Rules of Court, Rule 4.117 AppointmentofTrial Counsel in Capital Cases. - Sullivan, Thomas. Efforts to Improve the Illinois Capital Punishment System: Worth the Cost?, 41 U. RichmondL. Rev. 935 (May 2007). . Letter to the Commission from R. Clayton Seaman,Jr., Chair, Capital Case Committee, California Appellate Defense Counsel, Nov. 30, 2007. . Letter to the Commission from Natasha Minsker, Death Penalty Policy Director, ACLU of Northern California, July 10, 2007. The Commission held three public hearings.Atits first hearing on January 10, 2008 in Room 4203 of the State Capitol Building in Sacramento,the Commission heard from Hon. Ronald George, Chief Justice of California; Hon. Arthur L. Alarcon, Senior Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Hon. Gerald Kogan, former Chief Justice, Supreme Courtofthe State ofFlorida; former Chief Prosecutor, Homicide and Capital Crimes Division, Dade County, Florida; Co- Chair, Death Penalty Initiative, The Constitution Project; Lawrence C. Marshall, Professor of Law, Stanford Law School; Co-Founder, Center for Wrongful Convictions, Northwestern University, Steven Shatz, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law; Michael Radelet, Professor and Chair, Dept. of Sociology, University of Colorado; Ellen Kreitzberg, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law, Director, Death Penalty College. At its second hearing on February 20, 2008 in the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Hearing Room 381-B in the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration in Los Angeles, the Commission heard from Professors Carol Chase and Chris Goodman,Pepperdine School of Law, Susan Everingham, Rand Corporation; John Phillipsborn, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and Mexican Capital Legal Assistance Program; John Poyner,District Attorney, Colusa County, President, California District Attorneys’ Association; Mike Ramos, District Attorney, San Bernardino County, Dane Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, California Attorney Generals Office; Greg Fisher, Deputy Public Defender, Special Circumstances Case Coordinator, Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office; Michael Laurence, Director, California Habeas Corpus Resource Center; Michael Hersek, California State Public Defender; Michael Millman, Director, California Appellate Project, San Francisco; Barry Melton, Public Defender, Yolo County, California Public Defenders Association; Prof. Elisabeth Semel, Director of Death Penalty Clinic, Boalt Hall School of Law; Clay Seaman, California Appellate Defense Counsel; Cliff Gardner, Attorney at Law. Atits third hearing on Friday, March 28, 2008 in the California Mission Room at Santa Clara University, the Commission heard from Professors Linda E. Carter and Mary Beth Moylan, McGeorge School of Law; Craig Haney and Lois Heaney, National Jury Project; Kent Scheidegger, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation; Natasha Minsker, ACLU of Northern California; Judy Kerr, California Crime Victims for Alternatives to the Death Penalty; James S. Thomson, Attorney at Law; Bill Babbitt, Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights; Darrel Myers, Murder Victim Families for Reconciliation. The Report and Recommendations on the Administration of the Death Penalty in California were issued on June 30, 2008,as follows: Introduction: Charge and Nature of Inquiry The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice was established in 2004 by California State Senate Resolution No. 44 to carry out the following charges: Ea To study and review the administration of crimi- nal justice in California to determinethe extentto which that process hasfailed in the past, resulting in wrongful executions or the wrongful conviction of innocent persons; = ant ye} c [<4 [om = — S (5) [om To examine waysofproviding safeguards and making improvements in the way the criminal justice system functions; To make any recommendations andproposals designed to further ensure that the application and administration of criminaljustice in Californiais just, fair, and accurate. In carrying out these charges, the Commission has undertaken a thorough review and analysis of the administration ofthe death penalty in California This is the first time since the California death penalty law waslegislatively enacted in 1977 that any official body has undertaken a comprehensive review ofits operation. The Commission funded a feasibility study by the Rand Corporation, and inde- pendentresearch by professors at California law schools, to examineparticular aspects of death pen- alty administration inCalifornia.! A recent analysis of California’s death row deadlock by Senior Judge Arthur Alarcon of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was especially help- ful to the Commission.* The Commissionersalso considered the research and recommendationsof numerousother academics and organizations who havestudied the operation of California’s death penalty law, as well as the laws ofotherstates. The Commission convenedthree public hearings, in Sacramento, Los Angeles and Santa Clara, and heard the views of72 witnesses. The witnesses described a system thatis close to collapse. The elapsed time between judgment and execution in California exceeds that of every other death penalty state.> California now hasthelargest death row in the nation, with 670 awaiting execution.* Theinitial witnesses before the Commission offered thoughtful proposals to addressthe problemsof justice, fairness and accuracy in the administration of California’s death penalty law. Based upontheir presentations, subsequentwit- nesses were asked to respondto eleven “focus questions” compiled by the Commission.° Commissioners heard the testimonyof judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers actively engaged in the administration and operation of California’s death penalty law, as well as academics,victims of crime, concernedcitizens and representatives of advocacy organizations. A total of G6 written sub- missions addressing these questions were also received. The Commission does not view Its charge in Senate Resolution No. 44 as calling for a judgment on the morality of the death penalty. The Commissioners hold a broad spectrum of divergent views on the death penalty, some of whicharereflected in individual statements attachedto this report. After careful study, the Commissionfindsitself in full agreement with California Chief Justice Ronald M.Georgein his conclusion that California’s death penalty system is dysfunctional.® The system is plagued with excessive delay in the appointments of counselfor direct appeals and habeascorpuspetitions, and a severe backlog in 1. Professors Harry Caldwell, Carol Chase and Chris Chambers of Pepperdine University School of Law conducted researchto identify the processes by which California District Attorneys decide to proceed with a homicice prosecution as a death penalty case; Professor Ellen Kreitzberg of Santa Clara University School of Law conducted researchto identify which special circum- stances wereutilized in all cases resulting in a death judgmentin California since 1977; and Professors Linda E. Carter and Mary Beth Moylanof the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law conducted research regard- ing the use of commutation in California death penalty cases. The results of this research are available on the Commission's website, www.ccfaj.org, and will be summarized in this Report. 2. Arthur L. Alarcon, Remedies for California’s Death Row Deadlock, 80 ee U.S.C.L. Rev. 697 (2007). : 3. Latzer & Cauthern, Justice Delayed? Time Consumption in Capital Appeals: A Multistate Study (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2006). Sea4, The Death Penalty Information Center tracks the population of each State’s death row based upon information from official prison sources. As of February, 2008, there were a total of 3,263 men and women on the nation’s death rows. ih 5. The “focus questions” are attached to this report as AppendixI. 6. Testimonyof California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, January 10, 2008. the review of appeals and habeas petitions before the California Supreme Court. Ineffective assis- tance of counsel and otherclaims of constitutional violations are succeedingin federal courts at a very high rate. Thusfar, federal courts have rendered final judgmentin 54 habeas corpuschallengesto California death penalty judgments. Relief in the form of a new guilt trial or a new penalty hearing wasgranted in 38 ofthecases, or 70%.’ The Chief Justice told the Commissionthat if nothingis done, the backlogs in post convic- tion proceedingswill continue to grow “until the system falls of its own weight.” While some opponents of the death penalty might welcome such a prospect, the members of this Commission believe that doing nothing would be the worst pos- sible course. Thefailures in the administration of California’s death penalty law create cynicism and disrespect for the rule oflaw, increase the duration andcosts of confining death row inmates, weaken any possible deterrent benefits of capital punish- ment,® increase the emotional trauma experienced by murdervictims’ families, and delay the resolu- tion of meritorious capital appeals. The Commission heard moving testimony from the parents and otherrelatives ofmurder victims whoawait the execution ofthe perpetrator. Some described the anger andfrustration they experience over continuing delays in the administration ofthe death penalty. Several have waited twenty-five or thirty years for the execution of the perpetrator of a vicious murderofa son or a daughter. Many others expressed opposition to the death penalty, arguing that theywill receive no consolation from the execution of someone who murdered a family member. Both viewsreceived the respectful consid- eration of the Commission. Summary of Recommendations This report is divided into three parts. In Part A, the Commissionidentifies flaws in California’s death penalty system that renderit dysfurtctional, and remedies we unanimously recommend to repairit. Repairing the system would enable California to achieve the national average of a twelve year delay between pronouncementof sentence and the completion ofall judicial review of the sentence. In Part B, the Commission offers the Legislature, the Governor, and the voters of California information regarding alternatives available to California’s present death penalty law. The Commission makes no recommenda- tion regarding these alternatives. In Part C, the Commission presents recommendationsrelating to miscellaneousaspects of the administration of California’s death penalty law. We were not able to reach unanimous agreement uponall ofthese recommendations, and dissents are noted where applicable. Commissioner Jerry Brown, Attorney General of California, agrees in principle with some of the Commission's recommendationsas set forth in his separate statement. Commissioner William Bratton, Chief of Police for the City of Los Angeles, abstains from the specific recommen- dations in this Report, and will issue a separate explanatory statement. W E P E L 7, See Appendix Il, infra. If a case is remanded for a new trial or a new penalty hearing, the defendantis removed from death row. The caseis returned to the State courts to start over. At that point, there may be a disposition by a plea admitting to lesser criminal culpability or accepting a sentence oflife without the possibility of parole (LAOP), a dismissal of charges or the death sentence, or a new guilt trial or penalty hearing before anotherjury. If it results in another death sentence, the process of direct appeal and habeas corpuspetitions begins anew, 8. Whether the death penalty has a deterrent effect is a hotly contested issue. Compare Dr. Paul Rubin, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Feb. 1, 2006, with Donohue & Wolfers, Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 791 (2005), and see Shepard, Murders of Passion, Execution Delays, and the Deterrence of Capital Punishment, 33 J. Legal Studies 283 (2004). If there is a deterrent value, however, it is certainly dissipated by long intervals between judgmentof death andits execution. PART A: WHY THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN, AND WHATIT WILL TAKE TO FIX IT In 1978,the people ofthe State of California expressed their support for the death penalty and, accordingly, the death penalty is the law ofthis State. However,it is the law in nameonly, and not in reality. Wecurrently have a dysfunctional system. The lapse of time from sentence of death to execution averages over two decadesin California. Just to keep cases movingatthis snail’s pace, we spend large amounts of taxpayers’ moneyeach year: by conservative estimates, well over one hundred mil- lion dollars annually. The families of murdervictims are cruelly deluded into believing that justice will be delivered with finality during their lifetimes. Those condemnedto death in violation of law mustwait years until the courts determine they are entitled to a newtrial or penalty hearing. The strain placed by these cases on ourjustice system, in termsofthe time andattention taken away from other business that the courts must conduct for ourcitizens, is heavy. To reduce the average lapse oftime from sentenceto execution byhalf, to the national average of 12 years, we will have to spend nearly twice what we are spending now. The time has cometo address death penalty reform in a frank and honest way. To functioneffectively, the death penalty mustbe carried out with reasonable dispatch, but at the same time in a mannerthat assures fairness, accuracy and non-discrimination. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice unanimously recom- mendsthe following steps to achieve the goals of California’s death penalty law. El The Commission recommendsthat the California Legislature immediately address the unavailability of qualified, competent attorneys to accept appointmentsto handle direct appeals and habeas corpus proceedings in California death penalty cases: (a) The Commission recommendsthat the backlog of cases awaiting appointmentof counsel to handle direct appeals in death penalty cases be eliminated by expanding the Office of the State Public Defender to an authorized _ strength of 78 lawyers. This will require a 33% increase in the OSPD Budget,to be phased in over a three year period.° (b) The Commission recommendsthat the back- log of cases awaiting appointmentof counsel to handle habeas corpus proceedings in death penalty cases be eliminated by expanding the California Habeas Corpus Resource Centerto an authorized strength of 150 lawyers. Thiswill require a 500% increase in the CHCRC Budget, to be phased in over a five year period.!° (c) The Commission recommendsthat thestaff- ing of the Offices of the Attorney General which handle death penalty appeals and habeas corpus proceedings be increased as needed to respond to the increasedstaff of the Office of the State Public Defenderand the California Habeas Corpus Resource Center. (d) The Commission recommendsthat funds be madeavailable to the California Supreme Court . to ensurethat all appointments of private coun- sel to represent death row inmates on direct appeals and habeas corpus proceedings comply with ABA Guidelines 4.1(A), and are fully com- 9. Commissioner Hersek abstains from this recornmendation. 10. Commissioner Laurence abstains from this recommendation. pensatedat rates that are commensurate with the provision of high quality legal representation andreflect the extraordinary responsibilities in death penalty representation. Flat fee contracts should notbe utilized unless an hourly alterna- tive is available, and any potential conflicts of interest between the lawyer maximizinghis or her return and spending for necessary investiga- tion, and expert assistance and other expenses are eliminated. EA The Commission recommendsthatfunds be appropriatedto fully reimburse counties for pay- ments for defense services pursuant to California Penal Code Section 987.9. The Commission recommendsthat the California Legislature reexamine the current limitations on reimbursementto counties for the expenses of homicidetrials contained in GovernmentCodeSections 15200-15204. E¥ The Commission recommendsthat California counties provide adequate funding for the appointment and performanceoftrial counsel in death penalty cases in full compliance with ABA Guidelines 9.1(B)(1), 3.1(B), and 4.1(A)(2). Flat fee contracts that do not separately reimburse investigative and litigation expenses should not be permitted. Such contracts should not be utilized unless an hourly alternative exists. In all cases, attorneys mustbe fully compensatedatrates that are commensurate with the provision of high qual- ity legal representation andreflect the extraordinary responsibilities in death penalty representation. PART B: AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES The remedies which the Commission haspro- posed in Part A will require the new investmentof at least $95 million dollars per year. We recognize that wecall for this investmentin the face of a budgetcrisis of great magnitudefor California. The Commission has examinedtwoalternatives available to California to reduce the costs imposed by California’s death penalty law.First, to reduce the numberofdeath penalty cases in the system by narrowingthe list of special circumstances that makeone eligible for the death penalty, and second,to replace the death penalty with a maxi- mum penalty oflifetime incarceration without the possibility of parole. Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annualcosts of the present system ($137 million per year), the pres- ent system after implementation ofthe reforms recommendedin Part A ($232.7 million per year), a system in which significant narrowing of special circumstances has been implemented ($130 million per year), and a system which imposes a maximum penalty oflifetime incarceration instead ofthe death penalty ($11.5 million). There may be additional alternatives or variations which the Commission has not considered. While the Commission makes no recommendations regardingthese alternatives, we believe they should be presented so the pub- lic debate over the future ofthe death penalty in California will be fully informed. Whetherto do nothing, to make the investments neededto fix the current system,to replace the current system with a narrowerdeath penalty law,or to replace capital punishmentwithlifetime incarceration are ultimately choices that must be madebythe California electorate, balancing the perceived advantages gained by each alterna- tive against the potential costs and foreseeable consequences. We hopethe balancing required can take place in a climate ofcivility and calm discourse. Public debate aboutthe death penalty arouses deeplyfelt passions on both sides. The time has comefor a rational considerationofall a) = nN = @ a. <= pa is] @® [ alternatives based upon objective information and realistic assessments. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens observed in his recent concurrence in the judgment upholding execution by lethal injection: The timefor a dispassionate, impartial comparison ofthe enormouscosts that death penaltylitigation imposeson society with the benefits that it produces has certainly arrived." . PART C: ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS In the courseofits work, the Commission examined manyaspects of the administration of California’s death penalty law, including the California Supreme Court backlog ofundecided cases, racial and geographic disparities in employ- mentofthe death penalty, the unavailability of accurate information regarding the administration of the death penalty, the transparency of prosecu- torial decision-making, and the implementation of the Governor's clemency power. We were not able to achieve unanimous agreement with respect to someofthese issues, but a majority of the Commission concursinall of the following recommendations: Ei The Commission recommendsthat upon the implementation of the Recommendations in Part A of this Report, serious consideration be given to a proposed constitutional amendmentto permit the California Supreme Court to transfer fully briefed pending death penalty appeals from the Supreme Courtto the Courts of Appeal. This amendment should not be adopted withoutthe provision of adequatestaff and resources for the Courts of Appeal, and provisions for ongoing monitoring by the Supreme Court.'¢ FA The Commission recommendsthat upon the implementation ofthe Recommendationsin Part A ofthis Report, changesto California statutes, rules andpolicies be seriously considered to encourage morefactual hearings and findings in state habeas proceedings in death penalty cases, including a proposalto requirepetitions be filed in the Superior Court, with right of appeal to the Courts ofAppeal anddiscretionary review by the California Supreme Court. The Commission recommendstheestablish- mentofa California Death Penalty Review Panel, to be composedofjudges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, law enforcement representatives and victim advocates appointed by the Governor and the Legislature. It should be the duty ofthis Panel to issue an annualreport to the Legislature, the Governorandthe courts, gauging the progress of the courts in reducing delays, analyzing the costs of and monitoring the implementation of the recommendationsofthis Commission, and examining ways of providing safeguards and mak- ing improvementsin the way the California death penalty law functions. The Commission recommendsthat reporting requirements be imposed to systematically collect and make public cumulative data regardingall decisions by prosecutors in murder cases whether or not to charge special circumstances and/or seek the death penalty, as well as the disposi- tion of such cases by dismissal, plea or verdict in 11. Baze v. Rees, No. 07-5439, U.S. Supreme Court (Stevens, J. concurring) (April 16, 2008). Justice Stevens took particular note of California’s death penalty stalemate: Some argue that these costs are the consequenceofjudicial insistence on unnecessarily elaborate and lengthy apoellate procedures. To the contrary, they result “in large part from the States’ failure to apply constitutionally sufficient procedures atthe time ofinitial [conviction or] sentencing.” Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990, 998 (1999) (Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of cer- tiorari). They may also result from a general reluctance by States to put large numbers of defendants to death, even after a sentence of death is imposed. Cf. Tempest, Death Row Often Means Long Life: California condemns many murderers, but few are ever executed, L.A. Times, Mar. 6, 2006, p. B1 (nat- ing that California death row inmates account for about 20% of the Nation’s death row population, but that the State accounts for only 1% of the Nation's executions). In any event, they most certainly are not the fault of judges who do nothing more than ensure compliance with ccnstitutional guarantees prior to imposing the irrevocable punishment of death. 12. Commissioners Bellas, Cottingham, Hill, Hing, Moulds, Ridolfi and Totten opposethis recommendation. 13. Commissioners Hill, Mayorkas and Totten oppose this recommendation. the trial courts. The Legislature should impose a requirement upon courts, prosecutors and defense counselto collect and report any data other than privileged material designated by the California Death Penalty Review Panel which maybe neces- sary. (1) to determine whether demographicsaffect decisions to implementthe death penalty, and if so, how, (2) to determine what impact decisions to seek the death penalty have uponthecosts oftrials and post-conviction review, and (3) to track the progress of potential and pending death penalty cases to predict the future impact upon the courts and correctional needs. The information should be reported to the California DepartmentofJustice and the California Death Penalty Review Panel. The information reported should be fully acces- sible to the public and to researchers. !4 ff The Commission recommendsthat each District Attorney Office in California formulate a written Office Policy describing when and how decisions to seek the death penalty are made, such as whoparticipates in the decisions, and whatcri- teria are applied. Such policies should also provide . for input from the defense before the decision to seek the death penalty is made. [4] The Commission recommendsthat Article V, Section 8(a) of the California constitution be amendedto readasfollows: Art. V, Section 8(a). Subject to application proceduresprovided by statute, the Governor, on conditions the Governor deemsproper, may grant a reprieve, pardon, and commutation, after sentence, except in case of impeachment. The Governorshall report to the Legislature each reprieve, pardon, and commutation granted or denied.-statingfacts-andthe-reasons 6 ine it-The G 5 ; seted- of afel Lat c bes Courts itd ae. The Commission recommendsthat Penal Code Section 4813 be amendedto makeit discretionary rather than mandatory that requests for clemency by a twice convicted felon be referred to the Board of Prison Termsfor a written recommendation. Part A: Why the System Is Broken, and WhatIt Will Take to FixIt 1. CALIFORNIA’S DEATH PENALTY LAW The current California death penalty law was adoptedby popularinitiative in 1978, after the United States Supreme Court declared that provid- ing guidanceto fact-finders to narrow the exercise of their sentencing discretion was required by the Eighth Amendmentprohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, incorporated by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendmentto the United States Constitution.© California law requires three separate findings before a sentence of death may be imposed.First, the fact-finder (normally a jury, unless the right to jury trial has been waived) must determinethat the defendantis guilty offirst-degree murder.1® Second,the fact-finder must determine that one or C P U E L 14, Commissioners Boscovich, Cottingham, Dunbar, Hill, Mayorkas, Fox and Totten oppose this recommendation. 15. Furman y. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976). 16, California Penal Code Section 189 definesfirst degree murder te include “all murder which is perpetrated by meansof a destructive device or explo- sive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison, lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditatedkilling,” murder commit- ted in the perpetration of any of thirteen enumerated felonies [arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, torture, sodomy, lewd acts against a child, unlawful oral copulation, and unlawful sexual penetration}, and murder perpetrated “by meansof discharginga fire- arm from a motorvehicle, intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the intentto inflict death.” more of twenty-one separately enumerated “special circumstances”is true.!’ Both of these findings require proofbeyond a reasonable doubt during the initial “guilt phase” ofthe trial. If the defendant is convicted offirst-degree murder anda special _circumstanceis found true,a “penalty phase”trial follows, at whichthefact-finder considers evidence of “any matter relevant to aggravation, mitigation, and sentence.”'® At the conclusion ofthe penalty phase, the jury is instructed as follows: Determine which penalty is appropriate andjusti- fied by consideringall the evidence andthetotality ofany aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Even without mitigating circumstances, you may decide that the aggravating circumstances, are not substantial enough to warrant death. To return a judgmentofdeath, each ofyou must be persuaded that the aggravatingcircumstances both outweigh the mitigating circumstances andare also so substantial in comparison to the mitigating cir- cumstances that a sentence ofdeath is appropriate andjustified.'9 California’s definition of special circumstances gives broad discretion to prosecutors to decide whether a homicide should be prosecuted as a death penalty case. A narrower death penalty law wasinitially enacted by the California Legislature in 1977; the enactmentofthe Briggs Initiative one year later more than doubled the numberofspecial circumstances itemized under Penal Code Section 190.2, by adding five more “victim” circumstances, four more “felony murder” circumstances, and two more “motive” circumstances. In addition, theini- tiative removed the requirements in the pre-Briggs statute that the state had to prove that a murderer possessedthe intentto kill before he or she could be eligible for the death penalty, and that an accom- plice was personally present and physically aided the death-causingacts before he could beeligible for the death penalty. Under the death penalty statute nowin effect, 87% of California’sfirst degree murders are “death eligible,” and could be prosecuted as death cases.” In 1978, underthe pre-Briggs statute enacted by the Legislature, only seven death sentences were handed down in California. The numbertripled to 20 in 1979, then climbedto an average of 32, new death judgmentsper year during the twenty-one year period from 1980 to 2000.Since 2000,the numberofnew death judgmentshasdeclined to an averageof20 peryear. Thechart to the right showsthe growth of California’s death row from 1978 through 2007. The death row population does not precisely cor- respond with the cumulative numberofnew death judgments rendered each year. This is because death sentences maybesetaside by the courts, persons maydie in prison withoutbeing executed, be re-sentenced to death, removed pendingretrial, re-sentenced to a penalty less than death, or freed. The Commission's researchersidentified 822 sentences of death imposed in California from 1977 through 2007, upon 813 different defen- dants. (Nine defendants had sentences of death in morethan one county). The difference between the 813 individuals sentenced to death and the 2007 population ofCalifornia’s death row (670) is attributable to deaths by natural causes (38), 17. California Penal Code Section 190.2 (a) defines twenty-two special circumstances. The special circumstance enumerated in Section 190.2(a)(14} (the murder was “especially heinous, atrocious or cruel”) was declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court in People v. Superior Court (Engert), 31 Cal.3d 797 (1982). 18. California Penal Code Section 190.3. 19. CAL. CRIM. Jury Instruction No. 766 (2008). 20. Steven F, Shatz and Nina Rivkind, The California Death Penalty Scheme: Requiem for Furman?, 72 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1283, 1331 (December, 1997). 21. Manyof the reversals occurred from 1979 through 1986, when the California Supreme Court reversed 59 of 64 judgments of death it reviewed. Since the removal of three Justices in tne election of 1986 and their subse- quent replacement, the affirmance rate of the California Supreme Court for death judgments has exceeded 90%. See Uelmen, Review of Death Penalty Judgments By the Supreme Courts of California: A Tale of Two Courts, 23 Loyola (L.A.) L. Rev. 237 (1989). In recent years, 32 California death :udg- ments have been set aside by federal courts in habeas corpus proceedings. Of suicides (14), executions (13), and death judgments which have been reversed by the courts and not reinslated on remand (98). ‘The numberofpersons on California's death row is currently driven byfactors over which we have no direct conteal. Ifthe current average of 20 new deathjudgments per year is maintained, full imple- mentation of the Commission's recommendations could begin to reduce the size. But the backlog is now so severe that California would have to execute five prisoners per month for the next twelve years just to carry out the sentencesofthose currently on deathrow, 2, EXCESSIVE DELAY IN CALIFORNIA A defendantsentenced to deathinCalifornia has rightto three stages ofreview ofthe conviction, and sentence: an automatic appeal directlyto the California SupremeCourt; a petition for 2 writ of habeas corpusfiled in the California Supreme Court; and a federal habeas corpus petition filed in the Federal District Court.2? Atcach ofthese three stages, the defendantis entitled to the appointmentof counselifhe or she is indigent. All of the 670 inmates on California’s death row qualifyas indigents, although counsel has been retainedin one case(Scott Peterson] Review oftheCalifornia Supreme Court's dec sion of the direct appeal and the state habeas corpus petition canbe soughtin the United States SupremeCourt bypetitionfor a wirit of certiorari CALIFORNIA DEATH JUCGMENTS AND DEATHROW POPULATION 1974 20977 us 279 26 35 345 ae ate a4 1 a 199 et 1936 40 bar 4 1998 2 518 1399 e 2h08 a 20801 8 D n a ofall ransas peti Galpin ath ow ~eatescietyerst cout snce 1978, sere olf has kee arama 70% ofthe ese 22, wats cores sestions procs wal meansafer ‘consulleans have Beta met ane @ ssssrev ul amrsolatI gut snd penal ion seated. 2° ofan une ios at“Fa escng round “reverse of corte eric Us wurstighuct agstanceof counsel 23, Caloria Dee. of luste, Cra useSteses Sema, omic in Gani, “able 38. 2006 ana 2007 sates murtany Salto 3 operate Prt A Federal District Court ruling on a federal habeas corpuspetition can be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit, and review ofthat Court's decision can be sought in the United States Supreme Court. A defendantcan also petition the Governorfor demency prior to his or herexecution. TheUnited States DepartmentofJustice has tracked the clapsed time from sentenceto execu tion forall defendants who have been cxccuted in the United States since 1978. The average tapse of time has grown steadily throughout the United States, from an average of 4.25 years during the period of1977 to 1983, to an averageof 12.25 years in 2005.” The average lapse of time between pro- nouncementofa judgmentofdeath and execution inCalifornia is 17.2. years, but using an “average” number may be misleading since only thirteen. have been exceuted.® Whileitis widely assumed that delays benefit those confined ondeath row by prolongingtheir lives, it should be noted that California inmates with meritorious claims are also denied promptdisposi- tion ofthose claims.In cases where the judgment of guilt and/or the sentence were vacated between 1987 and 2005, the average delay was 11 years California death row inmates whose convictions or sentences were vacated by a federal court waited an average of 16.75 years A recent study by Senior JudgeArthur Alarcon of the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit identified the eriticat periods of delaythat contrib- ute to California exceeding the national average.” First is the delay in appointing counselto handle the direct appeal. There are currently79 defen- dants ondeath row who have not yet had counsel appointed to handle their direct appeal to the California Supreme Court. Thereis now a wait of 3 to5 years before appellate counsel is appointed. Delay in appointing appellate counsel also delays certification of the accuracyofthe record, since the accuracyofthe record cannotbe certified until appellate counselis appointed.* Secondis the delay in scheduling the case for a hearing before the California Supreme Court after all of the briefs have been submitted. he California Supreme Court now has a backlog of 80 fully briefed automatic appeals in death cases awaiting argument. The Court ordinarily hears 20-25ofthese cases cach year, so the wait for an coral argument now averages 2.25 years ‘Third is the delay in appointing counsel forthe state habeas corpus petition, There are now 291 inmates on California's death rowwho do not have counsel appointed to handle their haheas corpus petitions. Delays of 8-10 years after sentence in appointing habcas counsel meanthatinvestiga- tion and preparation ofhabeas petitionsis usually delayed until after the direct appeal is decided. Prompt appointment ofhabeas counsel would permit the tabeas petitionto be prepared while the appellate briefingis being prepared, so itcan be promptly filed shortly after the dixect appealis decided, ifthe death sentenceis affirmed. Fourth is the delay in deciding state habeas corpus petitions, The California SupremeCourt currently has 100 fully briefed habeas corpus petitions 2A, oan of steels, te ane 25 Twat thi appease ein wrecutons nave beenof beat alder und rent exciton santer,” ate when 26, neon ReneefrCaloras's Dean Row De oF. as 2K, GaoPoral Code Secie~ 20.) cue re Piemun tery he record or accuracy na eter an 129 way rth ecard hashes dlr (abouton. uel Coreaal re rcalar earptneseoom¥ Inkes pace mtn days oenpn the deat seer, awaiting decision, While these cases are rarely decided by published opinions,there is now an averagedelay of22 months betweenthe filing of the petition and the decision ofthe California Supreme Court, Fifth is the delay in deciding federal habeas corpus petitions. The average delay from the filing of a habeaspetition to the grant or denial by a federal district court is 6.2 years in California cases. Another 2.2 years are consumed byappeals to the Ninth Cirenit, Much ofthis delayis attributable to the absence of a published opinion andor an evidentiary hearing in the state courts. Often,the federal courts cannot ascertain why state relief was denied, While the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act requires federal deference to state factual findings and legal conclusions, the typical denial of a habeas petition in a death case bythe California SupremeCourt contains neither. (AEDPA)” D C E Thefollowing chart summarizes the lapse oftime at each of the various stages as the system currently operatesin California, Thetotal lapsed timefrom judgmentofdeath to execution is 20~25 years. B Hearig of ree: ange by 085 becsiar of duntappeal by Sf Supeene Court Donal enahavoas Entyetlude- Angcistmertef Gamoleted rent cheat awedss cl eeart age ofbets aur; Sprsintmert of anes Fuego: ecetat abeaspation by us bln. Huang on saa 9 vey ah fout Cout af agit Rairg on cx bys agfaa habocs compuation JINDFR CURRENTCONDITIONS, [i)°4:. :APSED IML 20-25 YEARS: 22. Alrcon, supa 2a, 107-508 30. ln los we Tayi, $79 1.8. 262 (2025, i Spee out het ha the Aniteand Fete Beat Peie®{2=0PA)nrenes | ete-eta tanga of recew ht precludes a federal nesaas cour Fam sting rele! eased simply o° sires”assassin ofesl ‘Lider ALO, srl Pabsag wun sldoer ba tale emus ation Ste tetleno* coawional st-n wnikss este outs acon. ther erryber woke an raso-aste arp calun efeatsna: eeal ‘The Commission recommendsa series ofrelated reforms that have the potentialto reducethe ira sae Raby pin va Suporar Sour: Hears o* case byCA Sourt of Appeal Deckof avzct ance! by Court af Appeal try of fudemesr: of lata ty tral court Seve of eof Ap Apeaintvert uf senate avs fineane and "ances uingensate ames by Superor Deut Reviewa state habeas nett: os cu.OL Appeal malt tng a bis for ines ape Fir besa Haas corcas petibon ‘STH RECOMMENDED REFORMS 4 1 STAI LAPSE: TOM sp. California delay to the national average of 11-14 years. The following chart summarizes the poten- tial effects of these proposed reforms: byGA Suprene Cour Ral agian Fecal ats Petson by 1 Cowl ing o safest Dis, Soun bv 3th 31. ata, supe 7 a PAB. 1 Calforla 369 ecient asFlere Texas (v8 Fenestaresdeh ows arCal forms Bre Friw= 487 ana yeswe993,ede ras cae au6 executone 5 * Mostrecently, in In Re Lucas, 33 Cal. 4th 682 (2004), the California Supreme Court followed the Wiggins case in finding defense counsels representation at the penalty phase con- stitutionally defective, becausehis tactical decisions were not informed by an adequate investigation of available mitigating evidence. The Court concluded: Lead counsel's failure to investigate petitioner’s early social history was not consistent with established normsprevailing in California at the time oftrial, norms that directed counsel in death penalty cases to conduct a reasonably thorough independent investigation ofthe defendant’s social history — as agreed by respondent’s own expert and asreflected in the American BarAssociation standards relied upon by the court in the Wigginscase.° The Wiggins and Lucas rulingsclearly recognize the ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Casesas establishing norms for competentrepre- sentation in death penalty cases. The Commission has learned that in a numberofimportant instances, the provisions for appointmentoftrial counselin California death penalty cases do not meetthe standards of the ABA Guidelines: 1. The ABA Guidelines provide thatflatfees, caps on compensation, and lump-sum contracts are improper in death penalty cases. Guideline 9.1 (B)(1).°° Ina numberofCalifornia counties, flat fee contracts have becomethe prevailing method of appointmentofcounsel in death cases. 2. The ABA Guidelines recommendthatthe selec- tion oflawyersfor particular cases should be by a responsible agency that is “independentofthe judiciary.” Guideline 3.1 (B).°” In many California counties, appointments oftrial counsel in death penalty cases are made by the courts. 3. The ABA Guidelines recommendthatthe defense team consist of “nofewer than twoattorneys..., an investigator, and a mitigationspecialist.” Guideline 4.1 (A) (2). In some California cases, a single lawyer is appointed, or the appointment ofa second lawyeris delayed. 53. In the February, 2003 Revised Edition of the Guidelines, portions of Guideline 11.4.1(C) were moved to Guidelines 10.5 and 10,7. Guideline 10.7 (A) now provides: “Courisel at every stage have an obligation to conduct thorough and independentinvestigations relating to the issues of both guiit and penalty.” The comimentary to the Guidelinelists all of the elerents of an appropriate investigation. 54. in Re Marquez, 1 Cal. 4th 584 (1992), in Re Jackson, 3 Cal. 4tn 578 (1992). 55. 33 Cal. 4th at 725 (emphasis supplied). 56. ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, Guideline 9.1.B: Counsel in death penalty cases should be fully compensated at a rate that is commensurate with the provision of high quality legal representation and reflects the extraordinary responsibilities in death penalty representation. 1, Flat fees, caps on compensation, and lump-sum contracts are improper in death penalty cases. 2. Attorneys employed by defender organizations should be compensated accordingto a salary scale that is commensurate with the salary scale of the prosecutor's office in that jurisdiction. 3. Appointed counsel should be fully compensated for actual time and service performed at an hourly rate commensurate with the prevailing rates for similar services performed by retained counselin the jurisdiction, with no distinction The Commission recommendsthat California counties provide adequate fundingfor the appointmentand performanceoftrial counsel in death penalty cases in full compliance with ABA Guidelines 10.7 (A), 9.1(B)(1), 3-1(B), and 4.1(A)(2). Flat fee contracts that do not separately reimburse investigative andlitigation expenses should not be permitted. Such contracts should not beutilized unless an hourly alternative exists. In all cases, attorneys must be fully compensated atrates that are commensurate with the provision ofhigh qual- ity legal representation andreflect the extraordinary responsibilities in death penalty representation. The cost of meeting the standardsofthe Guidelines is very difficult to estimate, but it will be substantial. The Guidelines should be metin every potential capital case from the outset. Thus, two qualified counsel as well as an investigator and mitigation specialist should be appointed for as many as 200 cases each year, even though only 20 of them may end in a judgmentofdeath. The breadth of our death penalty law requires a much heavier investmentat thetrial level than for the appeals or habeas proceedings, since in nine outoften cases, a case in which the investment has been madewill notresult in a death judgment. Adequate repre- sentation by a full complementoftwoattorneys, an investigator and a mitigation specialist at the outset of the case may save moneyin the long run, however, if it results in a decision by the prosecutor not to seek the death penalty. 6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DIRECT APPEAL OF DEATH PENALTY CASES The California Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to consider appeals from a judg- mentof death in California. Since 1935, appeal has been automatic in all death cases.°° After the filing of the trial record in the California Supreme Court,indigent death row inmates must await the appointmentofcounsel to handle the appeal. Currently, a delay of threeto five years elapses before counselis appointed. Once counselis appointed, he or she must read the record which averages in excess of 9,000 pages of Reporter's and Clerk's transcripts, research the law, and then file an openingbriefwith the Court. The aver- age delay between appointmentofcounsel and the filing of the openingbrief is 2.74 years. The prosecution, represented by the California Attorney General, then files a responsivebrief, ordinarily within six months. The defendantis then permit- ted to file a reply brief, again ordinarily within six months. Thecase then awaits the scheduling of an oral argumentbefore the Supreme Court. Currently, the Court has 80 fully-briefed death appeals awaiting oral argument. Since the Court ordinarily hears only 20~25 of these cases per year, the wait for oral argumentwill be 2-3 years. A deci- sion is announced within go daysafter the case is argued and submitted. Thus, the average delay between judgmentofdeath andfinal disposition of the automatic appeal is currently between 11.7 and 13.7 years. The duration of this delay has steadily increased. For condemnedprisoners convicted W E I L ] between rates for services performed in orout of court. Periodic billing and payment should be available. 57. ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, Guideline 3.1 (B) provides: The responsible agency should be independentof the judiciary and ‘t, not the judiciary or elected officials, should select lawyers for specific cases. Under Guideline 3.1 (C), the Responsible Agency must be either a defender organization or an independentauthority run by defense attorneys with dem- onstrated knowledge and expertise in capital representation. 58. See fn. 36, supra. 59. California Penal Code Section 1239. Section 1239 was enacted when a defendant was executed while his appeal wasstill pending, due to confusion whether he had filed a notice of appeal. See Alarcon, Remedies for California's Death Row Deadiock, supran.2 at 714-15 . 60. Delays in the certification of the record bythetrial court have been substantially reduced by the 1996 enactmentof California Penal Code Section 190.8 (d), which requires the trial court to certify the record for completeness and for incorporation of all corrections nolater than 90 days after imposition of a death sentence, unless good causeis shown, Certification of the accuracy of the record, however, must await the appointmentof appellate counsel. between 1978 and 1989,the average delay was 6.6 years. For condemnedprisoners convicted between 1990 and 1996,the average delay was10.7 years. The Supreme Court has issued only one opinion disposing of an automatic appeal of a prisoner convicted after 1997.°! Delays in the appointmentofcounsel to handle direct appealsare attributable to the small pool of qualified California lawyerswilling to accept such assignments. Manyofthe experienced appellate lawyers who have handled California death cases are retiring or decline to take new casesthat will tie them up for ten or twelve years. The requisite qualifications for appointmentto handle death penalty appeals before the California SupremeCourt appear in Rule 8.605(d) of the California Rules of Court. A lawyer must have four years ofactive practice of law, including service as counsel of record in seven completed felony appeals, including at least one murdercase, or service as counsel ofrecord in five completed felony appeals and as supervised counsel in two death penalty appeals. Completion oftraining and demonstrated proficiency in appellate skills is also required. The State Public Defender can accept appointment, but must assign deputies who meet these minimum qualifications. The State Public Defender was created in 1976 to handle indigent appellantsin all criminal cases. In the early 1990’s, under a gubernatorial direc- tive, the office was asked to focus on capital cases only. In 1997, the office was expandedto 128 funded positions, which somewhatalleviated the backlog of 170 death row inmates then awaiting appointmentofcounsel to handle theirdirect appeal. That backlog has now been reduced to 79 inmates. But by 2003, budget cuts reduced the staff of the State Public Defender by 41 positions, morethan half of which were attorneys. With an annual budget of approximately $12 million, the office is currently handling 125 automatic appeals for death row inmates, and cannotaccept addi- tional appointments. Theoffice is facing another 10% cut in next year’s budget, which will result in the loss of additional attorney positions. There is no dearth of lawyers who want to make a career of death penalty defense within the security of an agencysetting. The Office of State Public Defender has a poolof 150 applicants for attorney positions. These positions provide excellenttrain- ing for those whowill fill the ranks of appointed lawyers in the future. The mostdirect and efficient way to reduce the backlog of death row inmates awaiting appointmentofappellate counsel would be to again expandthe Office of the State Public Defender. Instead, California is cutting its budget and reducingits staff. Currently, private lawyers who accept an appointmentto handle death row appeals are compensatedat a rate of $145 per allowable hour. In determining how many hoursare allowable for a given task, the Court sets benchmarks, which create presumptionsofwhatwill and whatwill not be paid. Lawyers handing death pen- alty appeals in California complain that the benchmarksare set too low,and the hassle of challenging them is demeaning and time- consuming. The Commission learned that at least twenty of the lawyers handling California death penalty appeals can no longeraffordto live in California, and are currently residing in other states. For the level of experience required and the rigorous demandof death appeals, the lowlevel of incomeiscertainly a significant factor in the decline of the pool ofattorneys available to handle death penalty appeals. 61. Alarcon, supra n. 2 at 722-23, 62. See http://www.courtinfo.ca.gow/courts/supreme/documents/ SupremeCourtBrochure2008. pdf. The paymentofappointed lawyers to handle death penalty appeals in California does not meet the standard established by the federal courts for lawyers appointed to handle federal habeas corpus proceedings in death cases. The Ninth Circuit rate varies from $135 to $170 per hour, depending upon the level of experience. Judge Alarcon concludes: The California legislature must provide sufficient funds to compensate qualified lawyers whoare will- ing to accept an appointment to represent death row inmates in their automatic appeals. There is nojus- tificationfor the Legislature’s failure to address the longstanding shortageofqualified counsel. Private practitioners who can bear thefinancial sacrifice of accepting court-appointmentat the present hourly rates are scarce. Chief Justice Ronald M. George expressedhis full agreement with Judge Alarcor's call for more funding for counsel.™ The California Supreme Court has an annualbudget of $15,406,000 to compensate and reimburse expensesfor appointed lawyers doing both direct appeals and habeas corpuscases for death row inmates. $5.585 million of that is allocated to the California Appellate Project (CAP), which maintainsa full time staff of 40 (18 attorneys) in San Francisco to supervise andassist private lawyers who accept appointments to handle death penalty appeals. Currently, 188 private lawyers have contracted with the Court to handle direct appeals, and 141 have accepted appointmentto provide representation in habeas corpus proceedings. The Commission recommendsthat the remaining backlog of cases awaiting appointmentof counselto handle direct appeals in death penalty cases be eliminated by expanding the Office of the State Public Defender. This will require increasing the OSPD budgetto $16 million per year, a one-third increase overits current budget. The increase could be phased in over a four year period. The existing appointments of private lawyers should,of course, be continued, and the budget of CAP should be maintained. With enhanced staffing, OSPD would be able to take on 18-20 new appointments per year to handle death penalty appeals. The current backlog of 79 unrepresented death row inmates could be reduced to a one year wait if the numberofnew death judgments does not begin to increase again. The Commission recommendsthat,to the extent appointments of private counselare utilized, such appointments should comply with ABA Guideline 4.1(A)(2),®° and should be fully compensatedat rates that are commensurate with the provision of high quality legal representation andreflect the extraordinary responsibilities in death penalty representation. Flat fee contracts should not be utilized unless an hourly alternative is available, and any potential conflicts of interest between the lawyer maximiz- ing his or her return and spendingfor necessary investigation, and expert assistance and other expensesare eliminated. 7. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATE HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW OF DEATH JUDGMENTS In addition to the direct appeal, a defendant sentencedto death is also permitted to file a peti- tion for a writ of habeas corpusin the California Supreme Court. A habeas corpuspetition chal- lenges thelegality of a prisoner’s confinement based uponfactual issues that normally cannot be determinedby the appellate record, such as whether the defendant received effective assistance . of counsel, or the availability of new evidence of innocencethat was notavailable attrial. Frequently, a claim ofineffective assistance of counsel requires a reinvestigation of the case, to demonstrate that additional evidence was available that could have been presented to mitigate the sentence, but was not due to the inadequacy of counsel's pretrial W Y L Y 63. Alarcon, supra n. 2 at 734. 64. Testimony of Chief Justice Ronald M. George, p. 7. 65. See fn. 36, supra. investigation. Representation of the prisoner in habeas corpus proceedingsincludes the duty to review thetrial records; conduct an investigation of potential constitutional and statutory defects in the judgmentofconviction or death sentence; prepare andfile a petition for a writ of habeas corpus; representthe prisonerat the hearingto set an execution date pursuantto Penal Codesection 1227; and prepare arequest for executive clemency from the Governorof California. Currently, 291 California death row inmates do not have habeas counsel. The average wait to have habeas counsel appointedis eight to ten years after the imposition of sentence. Attorneys represent- ing death row inmates in state habeas proceedings have three years from the date of their appoint- mentto file a state habeaspetition. If counsel is appointed while the direct appealis still pending, the investigation can be concluded andthepetition filed shortly after the appeal is decided,if the death sentenceis affirmed. The average delay between the filing of a state petition for a writ of habeas corpusandthe filing of the California Supreme Court's decision is 22 months. In the vast majority of cases, the California Supreme Court decides the case onthe basis of an informal response from the Attorney General. Out of 689 state habeas corpus ‘proceedingsfiled in the Supreme Court since 1978,the Court has issued orders to show cause, requiring the Attorney General to respondto the petition, in only 57 cases, and held evidentiary hearings only 31 times. Initially, the California Supreme Court attempted to consolidate its consideration of the direct appeal and the habeaspetition, appointing the same lawyer to handle both. That proved impractical for a variety of reasons.*” California Government Code Section 68663 now provides for separate counsel to be appointed unless the prisoner and counsel request representation by the sameattorney in both aspects of the capital case. While the Court now appoints separate lawyersto handle the direct appeal and the habeaspetition, the appointmentof the habeas lawyer lags far behind the appointmentof the appellate lawyer, creating a variety of problems.First, the factual investiga- tion of habeasclaimsis delayed for manyyears. Inevitably, recordsare lost, witnesses become unavailable, and memories fade. Second, the one-year statute of limitations upon federal habeas claims begins to run whentheState direct appeal proceedings haveconcluded. Ifa state habeas claim is not filed within that period, federal habeas review may be unavailable. Speeding up the disposition of death penalty appeals and addressing thedelays in appointment of habeas counsel go hand in hand, since inmates musthave habeas counsel while the clock is running on their federal habeasrights. Those that have lawyers for their habeas proceed- ings are represented by private attorneys who accept appointmentfrom the California Supreme Court, or lawyers employed by the California Habeas Corpus Resource Center [HCRC]. Established in 1998, HCRCis authorized to employ up to 34 attorneys to handle death penalty habeaspetitions in state and federal court. With an 66. Alarcon, supra n, 2, at p. 741. 67. Representing death row inmates on direct appeal and representing them on habeas corpuscall for different skill sets that are rarely found in the same lawyer. By experience, training and inclination, appellate lawyers are rarely interested in assuming responsibility for habeas representation, and vice versa. 68. The HCRC receives $13.9 million from the State’s General Fund, andis authorized to receive up to $1 million from the federal government in reim- bursements for work donein federal court. Given the backlog of death-row inmates needing appointmentof state habeas corpus counsel, the HCRC has focused its efforts on stale appointments, and accepted only nine federal appointments. 69. Rule 8.605 (e), California Rules of Court. 70. Rule 8.605 (g), California Rules of Cour. annual budgetof $14.9 million,® it has provided representation that meets the ABA Guidelines for 70 clients in state habeas corpus proceedings. A total of 141 habeas cases are now being handled by private court appointed counsel. Private lawyers appointed to handle habeas claims must meet qualifications similar to those required for appointmentto handle direct appeals.© In addi- tion,if an evidentiary hearing is ordered, the lawyer musthavetrial experience, or engage an attorney whohas such experience.’”° Like the attorneys han- dling appeals, appointed habeas counsel are paid $145 per hour. In addition, a recently increased maximum of $50,000is available to cover expenses. The expensesfor a habeas investigation andthe retaining of necessary experts can easily exceed this maximum. Frequently, volunteer coun- sel handling habeas proceedings pay out of pocket expenses far in excess of available reimbursement, on a pro bonobasis.’! Currently, the State Supreme Court allocates approximately half ofits $15.4 million annualcapital defense budget to habeas counsel. Atthis level of funding,thereislittle pros- pect that appointed private lawyers can ever meet the needs of the 284 unrepresented death row inmates for habeas counsel. California Appellate Defense Counsel, an organization of lawyers who accept appointmentsin capital cases, recently sur- veyed its membership to identify lawyers willing to accept habeascases if expense reimbursement were increased to the current $50,000level. They received one positive response.’¢ Representation by appointed private lawyers does not currently meet ABA Guidelines. Just as in the case oftrial counsel, lump sum contracts are some- times utilized, paymentis lower than federalrates, and two counsel are not always appointed. Private lawyersare reluctant to accept appointments, knowingthe client would receive better represen- tation from HCRC.Asonesuch lawyertold the Commission: Ifyou want private counsel to shoulder the bur- den, you have tofund them at the level you would fund a public agency so that we haveinvestigators, paralegals, etc. so that when wefile a petition, ifyou don't win in State Court, at least you don’t hurt the clients byfiling a petition that doesn't haveall the claims andfacts that need to be in that petition.” The Commission recommendsthat the need for additional habeas counsel be immediately met by expanding the California Habeas Corpus Resource Center to an authorized strength of 150 lawyers, phased in over a five year period. This will require a five-fold increase over the current $14.9 million annual budget of HCRC. The Commissionalso recommendsthat, to the extent theyare available for conflicts, such appointments include qualified lawyers employed by the State Public Defender as well as private lawyers. Such appointments should comply with ABA Guideline 4.1(A)(2),” and should be fully compensatedat rates that are commensurate with the provision ofhigh quality legal representation andreflect the extraordinary responsibilities in death penalty representation. Flat fee contracts should notbe utilized unless an hourly alternative is available, and any potential De at h Pe na lt y 71. For the successful habeaspetition in in Re Lucas, 33 Cal.4th 682 (2004), the law firm of Cooley Godward LLP provided 8,000 hours of pro bona attorney time, 7,000 hoursof paralegal time, and litigation expenses of $328,000. Testimony of Elisabeth Semel, February 28, 2008. 72. Testimony of Clay Seaman, February 28, 2008. 73. Testimony of Cliff Gardner, February 28, 2008, 74. See fn. 36, supra. conflicts of interest between the lawyer maximiz- ing his or her return and spendingfor necessary investigation, and expert assistance and other expenses are eliminated. 8. RECOMMENDATIONSFOR FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW OF CALIFORNIA DEATH JUDGMENTS A state prisoner, including one under sentence of death, mayfile an application for a writ of habeas corpusin federal court “on the groundthat heis in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties ofthe United States.”’° Federal courts can grant a request for the appointmentofcounsel, whocan be paid and reimbursed for expenses from federal funds.’6 A federal application for habeas corpus cannot be granted “unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remediesavailable in the courts of the State.”’’ Thus, a federal application would be filed after the direct appeal and habeaspetition in state court have been deniedorrejected. The federal petition mustbe filed within one year of the conclu- sion ofthe state direct appeal, but this periodis stayed while a state habeaspetition is pending. Access to federal habeasreview is a crucial step for death row inmates,especially in states with a high rate of death penalty affirmance. A national study conducted by Columbia University research- ers examined the review ofall death judgments from 1973-1995, and foundthat 59% were affirmed by state supreme courts.” A more recent study of fourteen death penalty states from 1992 through 2002 reported an affirmancerate of 73.7% in death appeals.’? The California Supreme Court has affirmed death judgmentsat a rate in excess of 90% since 1987, and denied state habeas relief at an even higherrate. The Liebman study found that 40% of death judgments reviewed on federal habeas corpus wereset aside, andthis: numberincreased wherethe state courts had a higher affirmancerate than the national average. In California, 70% ofhabeas petitioners in death cases have achieved relief in the federal courts, even thoughreliefwas denied when the same claims wereasserted in state courts. There may be a numberofexplanationsfor this, including the availability of sufficient funds for investiga- tion of the defendant's claims in federal court, the opportunity to develop a more comprehensive record at a federal evidentiary hearing, and the greater independenceoffederal judges with life- time appointments. The average delay from the filing of an applica- tion for federal habeasrelief in a California death case until the grantor denialofreliefby a federal district judgeis 6.2 years. If the federal petition includes claims that have not been exhausted in state court, the court can stay the proceed- ings while the defendant returnsto state court to exhaust the remedies availablein the state courts.®° This increases the delay in disposing of the federal habeas petition by two years. Because California does not provide adequate resources to lawyers handling state habeas claims, 74% of federal habeas applications filed by California 75, 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 (a), 76. 18 U.S.C. Section 3599 (a)(2). 77, 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 (b)(1)(A). 78. Liepman et al., A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995 (June, 2000). 79, Latzer & Cauthen, Justice Delayed? Time Consumption in Capital Appeals; A Multistate Study, p. 23 (2005). 80, Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). death row inmatesare stayed for the exhaustion of state remedies.®! Thus, the under-fundingofstate habeas proceedings in California increases the burden onfederal courts and delays the adminis- tration ofjustice: Thefailure ofthe California legislature to provide sufficientfunding to permit state habeas counsel to investigate each death row inmate'sfederal con- stitutional claims cannot be understated. It shifts to thefederal government the burden ofproviding sufficientfunds to permitfederal habeas counsel to discover evidence to demonstrate additionalfederal constitutional violations.°? Thegrant or denial of habeasrelief by the federal district court can then be appealed to the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit. The average delay for appellate review, includinga petition for en banc review and a petition for certiorari to the U.S. SupremeCourtis 4.2 years. Continuity of representation by the same lawyer in both state and federal habeas corpus proceed- ings helps to reduce manyofthe delays that now occur in state and federal habeas proceedings, especially where exhaustion of claims in state court is a problem. With private appointed law- yers, however, continuity cannot be assured. The appointmentauthority of the California Supreme Court only extendsto state habeas proceedings. Representation by HCRC,onthe other hand, assures continuity of representation, since the agencyis available to accept federal appointments after the state proceedings are concluded, and seeksto investigate and presentall federal constitu- tional claims in state court before a federal petition is filed. Thus, a return to state court for exhaus- tion of claims may be obviated. Currently, only 7.3% of the habeas appointments of HCRCare for purposesofexhaustion, while 23.7% of the habeas appointmentsofprivate attorneys are for exhaus- tion purposes. The Commission recommendsthat continuity of representation by the same attorney for state and federal habeas claims be encour- aged. The Commission’s recommendation that the unmetneed for habeas counsel be met by expand- ing HCRC,rather than expanding the numberof appointments of private counsel, would address the need for continuity of counsel between state and federal habeas proceedings. Part B: Available Alternatives In addition to the choices presented in Part A,to leave the present broken system in place, or to provide the recommendedresourcesto enable California to achieve the national average in death penalty delays, the Commission examined two otheravailable alternatives: a significant narrow- ing of special circumstances to reduce the number of death penalty cases cominginto the system,or replacing the death penalty with a maximum sen- tence oflifetime incarceration. The Commission makes no recommendation regarding thesealter- natives, but presents information regarding them to assure a fully informed debate. An effort is made to compare thecosts forall four ofthese alterna- tives, but the figures presented are only rough estimates, due to the unavailability of accurate data. =~ fan ij = (4) a. a) a] 5°] @ eo 81. Alarcon, supra n. 2, at p. 749. 82. Id. at p. 748. 83. fd. at p. 749. 1. THE ALTERNATIVE OF NARROWING THE LIST OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES Several of the witnesses whotestified before the Commission suggest the primary reason that the California Death Penalty Law is dysfunctionalis becauseit is too broad, and simply permits too many murdercasesto be prosecuted as death penalty cases. The expansionofthelist of special circumstancesin the Briggs Initiative and in sub- sequentlegislation, they suggest, has opened the floodgates beyondthe capacity of our judicial system to absorb. As former Florida Supreme Court ChiefJustice Gerald Kogan told the Commission, having 21 special circumstancesis “unfathomable. The problem is the front-end of the system. There are too many peopleeligible to receive the death penalty.”* A numberofresearch projects have concluded that the narrower the category of thoseeligible for the death penalty, the less the risk oferror, and the lowerthe rate ofracial or geographic variation.®° Aninitiative of the Constitution Project, based _ in Washington, D.C., established a blue-ribbon bipartisan commission of judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, electedofficials, FBI and police officials, professors and civic andreligious leaders to examine the administration ofthe death penalty throughoutthe United States. The Constitution Project achieved broad consensus on two key recommendationsto reserve capital punishment for the most aggravated offenses and most culpable offenders: 5. Death Penalty Eligibility Should Be Limited to Five Factors: The murder ofa peace officer killed in the perfor- mance ofhis or her official duties when done to preventorretaliatefor that performance; The murderofany person (including but not lim- ited to inmates, staff, and visitors) occurring at a correctionalfacility; The murderoftwo or morepersons regardless of whether the deaths occurred as the result ofthe same act or ofseveral related or unrelated acts, as long as either (a) the deaths were the result ofan intent to kill more than one person, or (b) the defendant knew the act or acts would cause death or create a strong probability ofdeath or great bodily harm to the murdered individuals or others; The intentional murder ofa person involving the infliction oftorture. In this context, torture means the intentional and depravedinfliction ofextreme physical painfor a prolonged periodoftime before the victim’s death; and depraved means that the defendantrelished the infliction ofextreme physical pain uponthe victim, evidencing debasementorper- version, or that the defendantevidenced a sense of pleasure in the infliction ofextreme physical pain; The murder by a person whois under investiga- tionfor, or who has been charged with or has been convicted of, a crime that would be afelony, or the murderofanyone involved in the investigation, prosecution, or defense ofthat crime, including, but notlimited to, witnesses, jurors, judges, prosecutors, and investigators. 6. Felony Murder Should Be Excluded as the Basis for Death Penalty Eligibility. Thefive eligibilityfactors in Recommendation 5, whichare intended to be an exhaustivelist ofthe onlyfactors that may render a murderereligiblefor capital punishment, do not includefelony murder as a basisfor imposing the death penalty. To ensure that the death penalty is reservedfor the most culpable offenders and to make the imposition ofthe death penalty more proportional, jurisdictions that nevertheless choose to go beyond thesefive eligibil- 84. Testimony of Gerald Kogan, at p. 30. 85. See Liebman & Marshall, Less /s Better: Justice Stevens and the Narrowed Death Penalty, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 1607 (2006). ityfactors should still excludefrom deatheligibility those cases in whicheligibility is based solely upon felony murder. Anyjurisdiction that chooses to retainfelony murder as a death penalty eligibility criterion should not permit usingfelony murder as an aggravating circumstance. (2005 Update).® Similarly, the Illinois Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment, a bipartisan group of seventeen current or former prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges andcivic leaders established to determine what reforms would ensure that the Illinois capital punishmentsystem isfair, just and accurate, unanirnously concludedthat the Illinois death penalty law be narrowedto the functional equivalent of the Constitution Project recommendation: The Commission unanimously concluded that the currentlist of20 factual circumstances under which a defendantis eligible for a death sentence should be eliminated in favorofa simpler and narrower group ofeligibility criteria. A majority ofthe Commission agreed that the death penalty should be applied only in cases where the defendant has murdered two or more persons, or where the victim was either a police officer or a firefighter; or an officer or inmate ofa correctional institution; or was murderedto obstruct thejustice system; or was tortured in the course of murder.®? Hon.Alex Kozinski, now presiding judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sug- gested thirteen years ago that narrowingofthe death penalty laws was the most appropriate way to addressthe “illusory” nature of the death penalty. Noting the growing gap between the numbers ofpeople sentenced to death and the numbers we wereactually willing to execute, he suggested decreasing the numberof crimes punishable by death and the circumstances under which death may be imposedsothat we only sentence to death “the numberofpeople wetruly have the means andthe will to execute.”®° The goal of narrowing, then,is to limit the numbers of death row inmates to those whomwetruly have the means and the will to execute. Our Commission undertook a comprehensive review to determine which special circumstances were foundinall cases in which the death penalty was imposedin California from 1978 through 2007. Despite the difficulties in gathering data because ofthe lack of a systematic data report- ing requirementin California, the researchers, led by Professor Ellen Kreitzberg of Santa Clara University Schoolof Law, wereable to locate 822 death penalty judgments,andidentify the special circumstances utilized in all but 26 of these cases. They concludedthat since 1978, oneofthefive special circumstancesidentified by the Constitution Project was found in 55% of California death cases, or a total of 451 of the cases examined. This meansthat if the California death penalty law hadlimiteditself to the “worst of the worst’as identified by the Constitution Project andthe Illinois Commission, we would have approximately 368 on death row,rather than 670. The researchersalso analyzed trendsin the use of California’s special circumstances over time. They foundthat there is a growing trend to narrow the use of special circumstances to the five which were identified in the Mandatory Justice report of the Constitution Project: Ouranalysis ofthe special circumstancesfound byjuries in California death penalty cases shows a growing trend in the percentage ofcases where at least one Mandatory Justice factorisfound. Compare 1980, where only 37% ofthe cases that year had at least one Mandatory Justicefactor, with 2007, where 79% ofthe cases had at least one factor. Since 1998, a Mandatory Justicefactor has W E E T A Y 86. The Constitution Project, Mandatory Justice: The Death Penalty Revisited, p. xxiv-xxv (2001; 2005 Update). &7. State of Illinois, Report of the Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment (April 2002). 88. Hon. Alex Kozinski & Sean Gallager: Death: The Ultimate Run-on Sentence, 46 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 1,3 (1995). beenfound in atleast 56% of the cases each year ~ most years over 65% ofthe total cases. However, there is significant disparityfrom county to county ‘with several countiesfallingfar below thestate aver: age. California necds to determine how to eliminate these geographic disparitiesin the insposition ofthe death penalty ® Thus,a narrowing ofthe California special c- cumstancesto the five factors recommended by Mandatory Justice andtheIllinois Commission could largelyeliminate the geographic variation in tuse ofthe death penally whichthe Commission notes below?The following chart illustrates the percentage ofdeath penalty cases which included at least one Mandatory Justice factor for 1978 through 2007 from eachofthe fourteencounties, which most frequently utilize the death penalty: PERSENAGE OF PORMIA OFA H CANES WWI"H AD TERS cunt} ORF MANDALORY JUStICE FACIOH HY area at r85r9 acm fete 20% 8Anges om ‘range ae sige #8 Ey saciamem 8 mm, Si Bemarcino 46 52% Son Diego 2 63% Sar Motes i rae Santa are 30 we Tulare Vv os verkara 1 an ‘The Kreitzberg study was also critical ofthe use of felony murder as a special circumstance: The use offlony murder as a special circumstance should be reviewed. Over the yearsfelony mur- der (robbery) was either thefirst or second most frequently used special circumstance. While many felony murders are among the most intentional and aguravated killings, thefelony murder circum- stancefails to differentiate between these aggravated urders and a minimally culpable defendantwho would still qualify under thisfactor’? Some ofthe gravest concerns about the fairness of the death penalty might be alleviated or eliminated if its use were limited to the most aggravated cases. ‘Thecurrentlist of21 factual circumstances under which a defendantis eligible for a death sentence could be eliminated in favor of a simpler and nar- rower group of eligibility criteria, ‘The use of the Mandatory Justice Eactors is not the only option available to narrow the use of California's death penalty, Other alternatives could. be considered as well. Commissioner Jon Streeter stiggests adding to the Mandatory Justice factors the furtherlimitation thatthe crime in question must be found to have “legally affected all citizens of the State of California.” According to this approach, anykilling ofa peace officer, a correctionalofficer, ora patticipantin the justice systen would be presumed to have the requisite “citizen impact,” since those crisesare,in effect,attacks on. the State itself and on the State’s abilityto mete out justice on behalf of all ofits citizens. For multiple rourder and murder involving torture, there would be no such presumption; it would lake more than a simpleallegation of “murder ofmoze than two persons” or “infliction oftorture”tojustify a capital charge. In those cases, “citizenimpact” would have to be proved by the prosecution.** Unquestionably, some case-by-case line-drawing would be required, 8, Kec eburg elal, A Roncw ef SoowialCreu Peraty ase 0.8 (2). 11 Cains Oe 90. See Sects2? af RepentApAA, tate 8. Byway of Iwao, ass munderrs a. We OMea fly mae, ‘he Sapiens" assassins and seal mu eras sie tn bul the courts alzeady do that kind of line- draw- ing in interpreting and applying our current death penalty special circumstances. As Commissioner Streeter putsit: The overall idea behind this approach would be 0 impose a himitation that distinguishes between purely local crimes (where the costs ofprosecution will be borne largely hy county taxpayers)from crimes ofstate-wide import (where the castsof ‘prosecution will be horne largely by all taxpayers ofthe state). Not ony does this approach directly address the issue ofgeographical disparity, but, by introducing the principle that no crime may qualify _forthe death penalty undess itis a mater ofsome state-wide consequence,if alsominimizes the need 410 draw potentiallyarbitrarydistinctions between different types of heinous crimes, Mostimportantly, because the number ofcopital-eligible crimes would slink dramatically — yet eave open the option of using capital punishmentin cases that are often sed as examples for why we should have the death penalty ~ sis approachaccomplishes a substantial narrowing ofdeath eligibility, yet does so in a way that acknowledges and respects the stronglyfelt views ofmanycitizens thatthe ultimate punish- ment is appropriatein some cases, In effect, we would propose fo ‘right size’ the death penalty in the Slate so shatthe citizens end up with a workable, yetfair, system that we can afford. The Commissionis uot suggesting any particular formula orlist to narrow California’s death penalty law. This judgmentis bestleft tothe legislative pro- cess, Other criteria, such as the murderof children, could be included on the list. But thelist must be carefully measured to actually achieve the benefits ofnarrowing that have been identified. However thelist of special circumstances is narrowed,this narrowed list would only be applied in death penalty cases. The currentlist of special circum stances could still be utilized to impose sentences oflife withoutpossibility of parole, If California's death penalty law were narrowed, it would be unwise to proceed with the execution of defendants whose death judgment was not based uponone oftheidentified special circum. stances, With respect to the thirteen executions conducted by California since 1978,ten ofthem. would have metthe recommended special circum- stance for multiple murders. Only the executions ofThomas M. Thompson, Manuel Babbitt and Stephen Wayne Anderson would not have resulted ina death sentence using the Mandatory Justice factors, ‘The death sentence of any death row inmate whose conviction did not include a find- ing of oneor more of the enumerated special circumstances could be commuted to a sentence oflife without possibilityofparole. Taking this step would actually have little impact for the death row inmates involved, Most ofthem will never be executed, but will die in prison. Changing their sentenceto one of lifetime incarceration would only change the location in which they will serve their sentence. Bul just that change could save the State of California $27 million dollars each year over the current cost of confining these prisoners on death row The additional cost of confining aninmate to death row, as compared to the maximumsecurity prisons wherethosesentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate With California's current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually. P u n e ideproly ard Irmidesoeadicatheyore i.28 Kling, Ine D, sniper il agae axzrles of cases hich » sce wie pact” sors aviapparent and reacly provable ‘4. Tepes, DeaRow Oiter sans 2 Long ie, Las Ages“Ie NG,quot omens Deparmant Sankesderan Meg le Reducing the death row population to those whose death judgmentis based upon one or more ofthe five special circumstances recommendedby the Constitution Project would immediately reduce thesize of California's death row to 368,who could >e confined on death row at an annual cost of $35 million, With respect to those no longer subject to the death penaity, millions morewould be saved by climinating the need tolitigate their appeals and habeaspetitions. In termsofthefuture growth ofCalifornia's death row,the Krcitzberg study suggests that for the past four years, 70% of the new death judgments in California have includedat feastoneofthe recome mended circumstances. Thus, an average of im or 12 new death judgments could be anticipated, if prosecutors seek the death penaltyat the same rate, The numbers, both in terms of backlog and new judgments, could be managed with substan- tially less resources than we currently devote to our death penaltysystem. The cost of implement- ing manyofthe reforms recommended by this Commission to fix the current system would be reduced by 30 to 40%. ‘A 43% reduction in thesize ofdeath row would. also reduce the otherwise necessary expansion ofthe State Public Defender, theHabeas Corpus Resource Center, and the Court staffing needed. 2. THE ALTERNATIVE OF ESTABLISHING THE MAXIMUM PENALTY AT LIFETIME INCARCERATION After a comprehensive review ofthe costs and benefits ofthe death penalty, the New Jersey Death Penalty Commission reachedthe following conclusions: There is no compelling evidence thatthe death ‘penalty rationallyserves a legitimate penological purpose: The costs of the death penalty are greater than the costs oflife in prison without parole; Thereis increasing evidence that the death penalty is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency: The penological interest in executing a smatt number ofpersons is not suficiently compelling to Justify the risk of making an irreversible mistake; EX The alternative oflife imprisonmentin a ‘maxinnun security institution withoutthe possibil ity of parole would sufficiently ensure public safety and address other legitimate social and penological interests, including the interests of the families of. murder victims; Abolition would make sufficientfunds available to ensure adequate services and advocacyfor the families ofmurder victims. ‘These considerationsled the State ofNewJersey toabolish the death penalty this year, in favor of the alternative oflife imprisonmentwithout parole. (WOP). We have the same alternative available in California, California has had a sentenceoflife imprison- ment without possibility ofparole available since 1978. According to the California Department of Conections, as ofJanuary 1, 2008, 3,622 defen- dants are serving LWOPsentences, including some ‘whowereinitially charged in death penalty cases. Thus, throughout the past thirtyyears, we have increased our LWOP population at anaverage rate of 120 defendants per year. Its appropriateto Label these as cases oflifetime incarceration. The term of imprisonmentis the defendant's hfe, He is being sentenced to die in prison,Not only are the casts of confinementsignificantly reduced, compared to the cost ofconfinementon death row, manyofthe costs oftrial and appetlate reviewfor death cases, are eliminated. 88, Final Report. ow Jersey Sea Penal Surly Commissan Rese, p swan 7007. £9. fm Coecl Prod, Seton12a. Icons Hew Yk sessucess, incuirg slate “come texrayer, se uremelaynn, and nella il. Tesi? nis ~eaney, March 26,208, At the trial level, substantial savings would result from theelimination ofthe necessity for death- qualified juries. Aniongtheincreased costs necessitated by death penalty triafs are the heavier burdens imposed upon potential jurors than non- death cases, In Los Angeles County, 860 potential, jurors may be summoned for a death penalty case. California jury commissioners rely solely upon voter registrationand DMV lists to swmmonjurors, although state law permits expansion of source lists: Seventy-five percent ofpotentialjurors will be excused for financial hardship because ofthe lengthofthetrial. California courts pay jurors at a rate of $15 per day.*’ Many employers do not payemployees for jury service, andthose who do frequently limit the paymentto no more than two weeks. The remaining jurors must undergo indi- vidual questioning to determine whether they have opinions about the death penalty that would pre- clude their serving in a death case. This process of “death qualification’ has resulted inlarger numbers ofpotential jurors being exctised as public opinion against the death penalty has grown While a jury is normally sclecied in oneor two days in most felony cases, the selectionofa death-quali- fied jury normally takes 8-10 days of courttime he use oflimited sourcelists, the exclusion ofa higher proportion ofpolentialjurors for economic hardship, together with the exchusion ofthose who disapprove ofthe death penalty, results in juries, that do not reflect a cross-section ofthe community to the extentthat non-death juries do. Uponconviction of firstdegree murder and a find= ingof atleast onespecial circumstance,the same juryis required to return for a secondtrial, the penalty phase in which the jury decides between. a sentenceof death or a sentenceoflife imprison- ment withoul possibility of parole. This is a full trial, with opening statements, presentation of evidence by bothsides, closing arguments andjury instructions. Thejury is asked to weigh aggravat- ing and mitigatingcircumstances, and inpose a sentence ofdeath if aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances, or a sentence oflife imprisonment without possibility ofparole if mitigating circumstances outweigh aggravating circumstances. The jury must unanimously agree as to the penalty, if they are unable to achieve una- nimity, another jury must be impaneled ta decide the penalty’? a S) ‘Theexpenses for trial and appellate counsel would also be substantially reduced if lifetimeincarcera- tion becamethe maximumpenalty in California, Only onedefense lawyer would have to be appointed for the tral. There would be ne auto- ‘matic appeal to the California Supreme Court, so appeals would be handled much more expeditiously >ythe Courts ofAppeal. Between June 2005 and June 2006the California Courts ofAppeal decided 100 LWOP appeals afier anaverage delay of 18.6 months. While habeas corpus petitions are avail- able, there is no right to appointed counsel,as there is for appeals and for habeas petitions in death cases. Andsince there is no discretioninthe exer cise ofthe sentencing fiunction, thereig no issue regarding the adequacy of investigationof mitigat- ing evidence or the effective assistance of counsel al asentencing trial. Finally, although the risks of ‘wrongful convictions remain,there would be no ‘wrongful executions. New trials could be ordered if necessary, and the exonerated would be released. if the New approach were used in California, the death penalty backlog would irnamediately disappear. ‘Theissues being litigated in direct appeals and habeaspetitions would nolonger have lo be decided by the California Supreme Court, Penalty 2rsey 2, Atleast 3° Gates ar heFederalCoatspsy tesrove ran ali In Fegerl Sout, per lay “estimonyof ais ean, Maron, 2008, 66 aon Pena aSain 150.4 2 2, nacon, coowen, 228, (21. issues would not haveto be decided at all. The forty death penalty trials each year would simply be added to the existing schedule of LWOP cases; instead of 120 LWOP cases per year, we would have 160. With a dysftanctional death penalty law, the reality is that most California death sentences are actually serttences oflifetime incarceration. The defendant will die in prison before he or she is ever executed, The sameresult can be achieved at a savings ofwell over one hundred million dollars by sentencing the defendant to lifetimeincarceration without possibilityofparole A significant one-timesavingsis also available to California under this option. According to the California State Auditor Report for 2006, the current condemned-inmate facilities at San Queritin do not meet many of the Department of Corrections standards for maximumsecurity facili ties. The Departmentreceived spending authorily of $220 millionto build a new condermed-inmate complex, butthe audit found the analysis of alternative locations andcosts was incomplete. Governor Schwarzenegger has set aside $136 million to proceedwith construction ofanew death row at San Quentin. The Department of Corrections estimate for completion ofthe proj- ectis $356 million, up $19 million from the year before.!°! The California State Auditor reported in June, 2008 that this estimate is too low: Analyses by our consultant suggestthatthe cost to construct the CIC will exceed Corrections’ recent estimate. Although Corrections reasonablyesti- mated conslruction costs,it was precludedfrom applying realistic escalation rates, and delaysfrom the anticipated staré date wil add to project costs Additionally, Corrections did not include the costs to activate and operate the CIC in itsestimated costs Our consultant estimates the cost 10 construct the CIC will exceed Corrections’ estimate of$356 mil- lion by $39.3 million and thatthe cost ia activate the new CIC wil reach $7.3 million. Furthermore, our consultant estimates that the average new staff ing costs to operate the new CIC will average $58.8 rillion per year, for a total of approximately $1.2 billion over the next 20 years. 3. ESTIMATING AND COMPARING THE ANNUALCOSTS OF AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES: s we have previously noted.itis impossible to certain the precise costs ofthe administration of Califomia’s death penalty law atthis time, But the choiccs that California faces require some com- parison ofprojected costs; for this purpose, rough estimates will have to do. In recent years, a numberofstaies have attempted to comparethe costs imposed by a death penalty trial to a murder trial where the death penalty is not sought, with quite consistent results. A performance audit reporl preparedfor the State of Kansas in2003 compared the average cost of cases in which a death sentence was imposed ($1.2 million) with the average cost of murder cases in which the death penalty was not sought($:7 mil- lion) and concluded that seeking the death penalty adds 70% to the cost ofa murder case." A report by the Comptroller ofthe Treasury for the State of Tennessee conchidedthat seeking the death pen- 160, falfoma Ste Auciter Repu2005-405, 3 28. 101, Haste, Yeain waens 36 Mion Requester New Bath Rw: San Suen, et inal, Api 36, 208 202, Calva Salo Avaliy, Cationl Oseonment 9 Conectons 350 Reneanaten, Gens@ Condemines inne Cre at$3 ionty Coat erThan Snoecte, 96 2¢08 Lets Mapa 200-120. 208, Pavvsance AUD HopeCrate eee Dnata Fone ase, ‘Sepa cheLogie Post AudCoit, Staten np, Dever2008, 4, Wika, Doss & Pips, Terressen's “oatenaCoss aed Layaane, arses, Sale 25, -sneusy, fhe A ttheraises cater oft's Cac 31sSul Carns alty in murder trials adds an average of48% lo the costofthetrial." A study of Indiana death penalty tials concluded that the cost of a death penalty trial and direct appealaloneis more thanfive times the costof life without parole trial and direct appeal. Inchiding the relative costs of incarceration,the study concluded that obtaining the death penalty increases the cost by 38%.i°Michael Ebertof the George Mason University School of Publie Policy evaluated these studies, and concluded that “the Indiana analysis may well be the new ‘gold standard” in this unique area ofcapital vs. non-capital cost assessments. The American Bar Association (ABA) examined the Indianastudy and has commented very favorably onits techniques." A recent reportfor the WashingtonState Bar Associationelicited estimatesfrom prosecutors and public defenders of the costs added to trials when ‘the death penalty was sought. Thereport concluded “that the prosecutor's average estimate of$217,000 andthepublic defenders average estimate of $246,000 were realistic estimates of the cost differ- ence for death penaltycases at thetrial level."!"” Not surprisingly, California estimates for trial costs have beensomewhat higher. A U.C. Berkeley Schoolof Public Policy researcher in 1993 reported that a capital murder trial cost $1.9 million, compared to $630,000 for a non-capital murder case, a difference of $1.27 million." The ACLU comparisonofdeath penalty cases and nordeath penally cases in which counties were reimbursed bythe state found the difference between the least expensive death penaltytrial with the most expen- sive non-dealhpenaltytrial was St.x million.) For comparative purposes, the Commission adopied a very conservative estimatethat seeking the death penalty adds $500,000to the cost of a murdertrial in California. ‘The cosis of a second defense lawyer, the background investigation for the penalty phase, andthe added duration and expenseofthetrial for jury selection and penalty trial alone would casily add up to $500,000in ‘most cases. The current rate of20 death sentences per year would require 40 death penalty trials per year, for a total added cost of $20 million, The Commission's recommendations for adequate fundingofdefense costsfor death penalty trials, especiallythe necessary investigation ofmitigation, will casily increasethis costdifferential by 50%. If the samepace of40 death penalty tials were main- tained, the needed reforms would then require an annual expenditure of$36 million, rather than $20 million. This expenditure would be at the county level, but $13.5 million ofit would be reimbursed bythe State pursuant to Penal Code Section 987.9, If California's death penalty law were narrowedto a more selective list of special circumstances,the number ofdeath penalty tials would be reduced to 24, requiring the expenditure of $18 million including the recommended reforms. If California opted in favor ofterminal confinement[LWOP] as the maximumpenalty, there would no longer be the enhancedcosts of deathpenalty trials, but the number of LWOPtrials would probably increase. In somecases, therisk of facing the death penalty provides an incentiveto plead guitty and accept = aa c= ses 108, Eta, Whig the Castof Capos enim w Lin ncn Pout Parole An Evauaionof Rc Stes tutone Meticoeges, Vole, einesPls ety Sera 2007 10/. Magner Sse Gar Aesizion, Fel Re Subeor miteoF the Perrem ar Pubke Delors, Dex 208, Temps, oa” How iter Means 2 Lari,m Angles Times, Ware 6, 2008 a a,b, Hasod on Lc, Cita Punheren:3t ‘et Price, arate at tstteath veer acesigrsorgiinarhad! rick1HSC0S1S1LDat 1 HactenDeath “a Te Secret se in alii, Maren 200%, tp 52 an LWOPsentonce. Ifthe incentive is removed, mote IWOP cases mayhaveto be tried.And if ore IWOP cases are tried, more will be appealed. California currently processes approximately 120 IWOPcases each year, but fewer than 5% of them. are disposed of bya plea ofguilty.” Even if all cases formerly charged as death cases became LWOPcases andall of those cases go to trial, that would add approximately $5 million to the cost of INVOP trials and $3 ruilliontothe cost of IWOP appeals. Both the trials and appeals would be con- siderably less expensive than death cases, because there would be nopenalty phase, and no right to counsel for a habeaspetition. ‘Thecosts of appellate andhabeas corpus review for death cases can be estimated with somewhat more precision, The current budgets ofthe California Supreme Court for the appointmentofprivate law- yers ($15.4 million), ofthe State Public Defender for death penalty appeals ($22.1 million) and the California Habeas Corpus Resource Centerfor habeas representation ($14.9 million) total $42.4 aiillion, Former Attorney General Rill Tockyer estimated that 15% of his criminal division budget is devoted tocapital cases. That curently amounts to $12 millionper year. Thus, at least $54.4 million is currentlydevoted to post-trial review of death cases in California, The recommended budget inceases proposed by the Commissionin Part A would increase this figure by $85 million. The added charges to the State general fund would include $6 million for the State Public Defender, $70 million for the California Habeas Corpus Resource Center, $6 million to the Attorney General, and$3 million to the State Supreme Court for appointed counsel. The reduction of the backlog by adopting the narrowing proposal would reducethese enhanced budgets by 45%, to a total of $68 million, Thecosts ofconfinementcan also be estimated with some precision, based upon the Department ofCorrections estimate that confinement on death, row adds $90,000 per year to the cost of confine- ment beyond the normal cost of $34,150. Thus, just the chhanced confinementcosts for the 670 currently on California's death row totals $63.3 raillion. This figure increases eachyear as the population of California's death row grows, The needed reforms recommended by the Commission would reduce the delays and eventu- ally lead to reductions in the death rowpopulation, The altemative of natrowing thedeath penalty law could result in a 45% reduction in the size of death row, and a corresponding 45% reduction in the costs of confinementto $35 million per year. This number would also decline as the backlog was reduced. Thealternative of terminal confine- mentwould not reduce confinementcosts to zero, since current death rowinmates who might have been execuled will be confined for their full tife expectancy, although at the lower confinementrate of $34,150 per year. Assuming x00inmates might otherwise have been executed,the cosl of their contimued confinement would amountto $3.5 mil- lion per year. Thus,using conservative, rough estimates, the total cost of the available alternatives would be (1) to continue spendingat least $137.7 million per year to maintain our dysfunctional system; (2} to spend $216.8 million to reducedelays in resolving cases from 20-25 years down to the national average of 33 years; (3) to spend $121 million per year for a narrowed death penally producing 10-12 new death sentences per year, (4) or to adopt a policy of termi- nal confinement al an annual cost of$11.5 million, These estimates make no effort to measure oppor. tunity costs or savings. For example, the California Supreme Court currently devotes 20-25% of its. 1G. Ue esl-nate s basee upon a ZOE suney 9 Fo Caltorsa Areal ry FSTIMATING THE ANNUAL COSTS OF POL Ai? FRNATIVES a $26 miion 330 HB nile festeeest $544 sion 31364 atin $7 mig : 63 ee sie 3mien Sab elon evesci nea! eck 81377 men time and resourcesto processing death penalty appeals and habeas petitions. If California's death penalty law weresignificantly narrowed, the Supreme Courtcaseload would be correspondingly lighter. The reduction would be even more dra- matic with the aliernative oflifetime incarceration as the maximumpenalty. “Thefollowing chart summarizes the additional annual charges to the California state budgetwhich, eachof four alternatives would impose: the present systent,the present systemwith the reforms rec- ommended inPart A ofthis Report, a significantly narrowed death penelty law, and a maximum punishmentoflifetimeincarceration without pos- sibility of parole. Part C: Administrative Reforms 1. REDUCING THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT BACKLOG Despite extraordinary efforts and the investment of substantial resources,the California Supreme Court has been unable to stayabreastof the rising tide of death cases arviving al its door. As alrcady noted, the delays in appointment of counsel for both direct appeals and state habeas proceedings areattributableto lack ofadequate funding rather than anyfailure on the part ofthe Court. The Court SLE vila has no control over the number ofdeath verdicts retumed each year, and the numbers have farstt= passed the capacity of the court to promptly process and decide the cases. The Court has added attor- neys to thestaff ofeach Justice's chambers, and created a central stalf of lenattorneys dedicated to death penaliy motions, appeals and habeas pro- ceedings, These cases arrive with lengthy records, and the opinionsissued by the Court address- ingtheissues raised on appeal are lengthy and complex. Ordinarily, the Countwill issue published opinions deciding 20 to 25 death appeals cach year, and anadditional 30 memorandum opinions deciding habeaspetitions, There is now a delay of as much as two orthree years from the time a death caseis fully briefed untilitis set for oral argument. The Court has 8o direct appeals fully briefed and awaiting oral argument. Another 100 fully briefed habeas petitions are before the Court. Accordingto ChiefJustice Ronald M. George, the Court now faces a crisis, in which the death penalty backtogis threatening the Court's ability to resolve otherstatewide issues of law andsettle conflicts at the appellate level, whichis its primary duty and responsibility. The California Supreme Court has formulated a proposal to address the delayin decidingfully briefed death penalty appeals by amendingthe California constitution to r e e d give the Supreme Court discretion to transfer fully briefed cases to the intermediate Courts ofAppeal for decision.!!! The Supreme Court would review the Court ofAppeals judgment and could sum- marily affirm it, or hold oral argument and issue its own decision with reasonsstated, addressing all or part of the Court of Appeal’s decision.'!* On March 25, 2008,the Chief Justice announcedthat in view of the budgetsituation, the Court is not asking that the proposal be advancedat this time. The Commission recommendsthat this proposal be advanced only in conjunction with implementa- tion of recommendationsit is presenting in this report to adequately fund the appointmentofboth appellate and habeas counsel in death cases, and the provision of adequate staffing for the Courts ofAppeal. Witnesses before the Commission have addressed a numberofother concerns regarding the imple- mentation of this proposal. Concern has been expressed that transferring as manyasthirty death appeals each yearto the nineteen different divi- sions anddistricts of the Court of Appealwill result in inconsistentrulings, especially in resolving issues such as harmlesserror. The lack of formal proportionality review in California, coupled with the patterns of geographic disparity, give added weight to concernsregarding the consistency of death penalty review. The assurance of the Supreme Court that Court ofAppeal rulings would becarefully scrutinized should be accepted. An annual evaluation ofthe effects of this proposal could be assured by the implementation ofthe Commission’s recom- mendationto establish a California Death Penalty Review Panel(infra, pp. 102-103). The Commission majority recommendsadoption ofthe proposed constitutional amendmentif the recommendations contained in Part A of this Report are implemented. While the California Supreme Courtis also con- sidering proposals to address the backlog ofstate habeascases, Senior Judge Arthur Alarcon ofthe U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit has suggestedthat California law be changedto permit original habeas petitions in death cases to befiled in the Superior Courts, with right of appeal to the Courts ofAppeal and discretionary review by the SupremeCourt.'? He suggests: The potentialfor reducing the delay of inally adjudicating a sentence ofdeath by having the original habeascorpuspetitionfiled in the superior court is tremendous. There are 1499 superior court judges in California. An averageofthirty-eight state habeas corpuspetitions in death penalty cases are filed each year in the California Supreme Court. Spreadingthese state habeascorpuspetitions among the trial courts would dramatically reduce the Supreme Court’s caseload while having a minimal impact on the superior courts. Trial courtjudges are uniquely qualified to hear original habeas corpus claims because they are alreadyfamiliar with the evidencepresented attrial. Andin ordertofacilitate appellate review, the superior courtjudge hearing the petition should be required to issue a written order explaining the reasonsfor granting or denying habeas corpusrelief.\'4 111. A constitutional amendment would be required because the California constitution gives the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over appeals involv- ing judgments of death. Cal. Const., art. VI, Section 12. 112. News Release, Supreme Court Proposes Amendmentsto Constitution in Death Penalty Appeals, Nov. 19, 2007. 113. Alarcon, supran. 2, at 743-49. eS 114, Id. at p. 743. The Alarcon proposal may not require amend- mentofthe California constitution. The Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal and Superior Courts shareoriginal jurisdiction over habeas corpus proceedings.!!> The reason habeascasesarefiled directly in the Supreme Court is because only the Supreme Court is authorized to pay counsel. The California Supreme Court has adopted a policy which declares: Absentprior authorization bythis court, this court will not compensate counselfor thefiling ofany other motion, petition or pleading in any other California orfederal court or court ofanotherstate. Counsel who seek compensationfor representation in another court should secure appointment by, and compensation from, that court.!!6 Adoption of the Alarcon proposal could also expedite the consideration of a subsequent habeascorpuspetition in federal court. Under the existing system, federal courts do not have the benefit, in most cases, of a prior evidentiary hear- ing or a written order from the Supreme Court explaining the reasonsforits decision. After the California Supreme Court rejected requests from the judges of the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals that the Court spell out its reasons for denying petitions for habeas corpus,dueto lack oftime and resources, Senator DianneFeinstein wrote to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger request- ing assistance in addressing this problem. She concludedthat “[t]he absence of a thorough expla- nation of the [California Supreme] Court’s reasons for its habeas corpus decisions often requires federal courts to essentially start each federal habeas death penalty appeal from scratch, wasting enormoustime and resources.”!!’ The Commission majority recommendsthat changesto California statutes, rules and policies be seriously considered to encourage morehear- ings and formalfindings in consideringstate habeas corpuspetitions in death penalty cases. The California Supreme Court’s summary denial of habeaspetitions without evidentiary hearings and without any explanation of the reasons'!* does not save time, sinceit addsto the delay in resolution of the inevitable subsequentfederal habeas corpus claim. Simply adopting the Alarcon proposalto shift the initial consideration of habeaspetitions to the Superior Courts, however, would only add to the delays if the Superior Courts summarily deny the petitions at the same rate, competency standards for the appointmentofcounselare not ensured, or additional resourcesare notpro- vided for full developmentof the facts necessary to resolve claims for relief. Amongthestatutory changesto be considered should be a reexamina- tion of the standards for requiring the Attorney Generalto file a return, and the standardsfor requiring an evidentiary hearing. Written findings should also be required. 2. EXPLAINING RACIAL AND GEOGRAPHIC DISPARITIES The decision to pursue the death penalty for a death eligible defendantis the responsibility of the elected District Attorney in each California county. Althoughthereis no current data to show De at h Pe na lt y 115. Cal. Const., art. VI, Section 10. 116. Supreme Court Policies Arising From Judgments of Death, at Policy 3, 2-1 (1989). 117, Alarcon, supra n. 2, at 742-43. 118. The California Supreme Court issues an order to show cause requiring the Attorney General to respond in only 8% of death penalty habeas corpus petitions, and orders an evidentiary hearing before a referee in only 4.5% of the cases. whatproportion of California homicides are chargedas first degree murder and/or death penalty cases, there has been research focused upon the cases that actually result in a sentence of death. Professors Glen Pierce and Michael Radelet exam- ined the racial, ethnic and geographicalvariation in the imposition of the death penalty based on an analysis ofhomicides that occurred in California between January 1, 1990 and December31, 1999.!!9 They foundthat for the 33,914 homicides occurring in California during this period, 302 defendants were sentenced to death. The statewide ratio for this ten-year period was .89 death sen- tences for every 100 homicide victims. The authors then examinedvariationsin this ratio based upon the race ofthe victim and the geographical loca- tion of the homicide. They foundtheratio varied substantially among California counties. Excluding counties in which fewer than five death sentences were imposed,'?° death sentencingratios varied from .58 for each 100 homicides to rates nearly ten times higher. Theseratios do not take into consideration varia- tions in arrest rates across counties. Larger urban counties may have higher proportionsofstranger- to-stranger homicides, which often remain unsolved and produce correspondingly lower arrest rates. Pierce and Radelet adjusted for variance in arrest rates by counting homicides in which an offender was identified (ordinarily by making an arrest), and then comparing the death sentencing rate to the urban character of the county as mea- sured by population density, and the proportion of the county's population that were non-Hispanic whites. This comparison strongly suggested that those counties with the highest death sentencing rates tend to have the highest proportion of non- Hispanic whites in their population, and the lowest population density. The more white and more sparsely populated the county, the higher the death sentencingrate. Pierce and Radeletalso subjected their data to logistic regression analysis to ascertain whether the race and ethnicity of homicidevictimsis associated with imposition of the death penalty in California. Overall, controlling for all other predictorvariables, they foundall those whokill African Americans, regardless of the ethnicity or race of the perpetrator, are 59.3% less likely to be sentenced to death than those whokill non-Hispanic whites. This disparity increases to 67% when comparing the death sentencing rates of those whokill whites with those whokill Hispanics, again without regard tothe ethnicity or race of the perpetrator. It should be clearly understood that this data does notestablish that prosecutorial discretion is affected by race andclass bias, unconsciousor otherwise. There are manyotherplausible explanations for the consistent patterns based on race of victim that appear in every death penalty state. Similar patterns have been foundin otherstates in recent stud- ies, including Florida,Illinois, Nebraska, Arizona, Maryland, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, as well as in studies of death sentencingin federal cases.12! Moredetailed analysis ofmore data is necessary to identify the reasons for patterns of disparity based upontherace ofthe victims.1?¢ 119. Pierce & Radelet, The Impact of Legally Inappropriate Factors on Death Sentencing for California Homicides, 1990-1999, 46 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1 (2005). 120. fn almost half the counties, 28 of the 58, no death sentences were imposed during the 1990's, although 1,160 homicides took place in these counties. The current District Attorney for San Francisco, Kamala Harris, and her predecessor, Terrence Hallinan, pledged never to seek the death penalty. Since 1979, only two defendants have been sentenced to death for murders in San Francisco. éd. at 26, 0.128. 121. Pierce and Radelet, supra n. 119, at 38-39. 122. Analysis of racial data should include all cases in which the death penalty was sought and those in which it was rejected as well as those in which it was imposed. Data from San Mated County illustrates the difficulty of drawing any conclusions from a simple comparison of the race of the defendant and the race of the victim in cases where the death penalty was imposed. Since 1983, 26 capital cases weretried to penalty phaseto a jury. 13 of the defendants were white, and 13 were personsofcolor. There werea total of 42 victims: 27 were white and 15 were personsof color. Death verdicts were returned in 14 of the cases, 8 against white defendants, and 6 against defendantsof color. Professors Pierce and Radelet noted broad concerns about data quality and availability in California: Suchissues raise crucial questions abouttheinterest, and, morefundamentally, the ability ofthe State to monitorits death sentencing process. A comprehen- sive andeffective monitoring program needs to track all homicide casesfrom arrest through appeal. To accurately assess thefull range offactors that may or may not affect criminaljustice decisions,all links and actors in the decision-making process mustbe monitored. This necessitates collecting information from the very start ofthe process, including informa- tion on the characterofpolice investigations and prosecutorial chargingdecisions.1*3 The systematic collection and monitoring of more comprehensive data about how homicide cases are selected for prosecution as death cases could yield valuable insights into the impact of the race of the victim. This data should be regularly collected and analyzed. Prosecutors suggest that geographical variation in utilizing the death penalty is not a problem, becauselocally elected District Attorneys are responding to the demandsofthe electorate which they represent. The California Supreme Court has consistently rejected claims that the discretion conferred on the district attorney of each county to seek the death penalty results in a county-by-county disparity in capital prosecutions, causing arbitrariness forbidden by the federal Constitution. !** Others suggest that since the death penalty is administered in the nameoftheState, there should be a uniform statewide standard applied to determineifthe death penalty should be employed.'*° A local decision to seek the death penalty may impose tremendouscosts thatwill be borne by the State as a whole, includingthe costs of subsequent appeal and habeas proceedings and the costs of confinement on death row. Many states address the prob- lem of geographical variation by imposing a requirement of comparative proportionality in death sentences. The United States Supreme Court hasruled that the Eighth Amendmentof the U.S. Constitution does not require comparative proportionality review in death penalty cases, concludingthat dispari- ties in death sentences cannotbelabeled as cruel and unusual punishment. The Court also held that death penalty statutes withoutproportionality review do notviolate the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. Indeed, these rul- ings cameina case challenging California’s death penalty statute for failing to provide proportionality review.'°° Nevertheless, the majority of states which provide for the death penalty do require compara- tive proportionality review to achieve a consistent statewide standard.!*’ Gerald Kogan, former Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court, told the Commission that Florida has oneofthe highest rates of state Supreme Court reversal of death penalties in the nation, becauseof its employment of proportionality review.!28 an) at wo & @ fo = a) io poh A tn those 14 cases, there were 27 victims, 16 white and 11 persons ofcolor. In the twelve cases where the jury rejected a death verdict, 5 defendants were white and 7 were persons of color. There were 15 victims in those 12 cases: 11 were white, and 4 were personsof color. 123. Supra, n. 119 at p. 37. 124. See, e.g., People v. Ayala, 23 Cal.4th 225 (2000); People v. Holt, 15 Cal.4th 629, 702 (1997); People v. Ochoa, 19 Cal.4th 353, 479 (1998). 125, See, e.g., the suggestion of Commissioner Jon Streeter, pp. 67-68 supra. 126, Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (1984). 127. Kaufman-Osborn, Capitai Punishment, Proportionality Review, and Claims of Fairness (With Lessons From Washington State), 79 Wash. L. Rev. 775, 790-92 (2004) (21 of the 39 states with death penalty laws impose a requirement of comparative proportionality review). 128. Testimony of Hon. Gerald Kogan, p. 34. The Commission majority has concluded that geographical andracialvariation should be sub- jected to further study and analysis in California. Evidenceofdisparities in the administration ofthe death penalty undermines public confidence in our criminaljustice system generally. California is the most diverse state in the country. It is our duty to ensure that every aspect ofthe criminaljustice sys- tem is administered fairly and evenly, and that all residents of the state are accorded equal treatment underthe law. This is especially true whenthe state choosesto take a life in the nameofthe people. The Commissioners are unwilling to recommend a requirement of comparative proportionality or approval oflocal death penalty decisions by a statewide body, however, without additional data and research. 3. COMPREHENSIVE DATA COLLECTION AND MONITORING The Commission madea concerted effort to identify the process by which decisions are made by California District Attorneys to proceed with a homicide prosecution as a death penalty case. After completing preliminary research, Professors Harry Caldwell, Carol Chase and Chris Chambers of Pepperdine University School of Law prepared a survey form which wassent to the District Attorneys in each of California’s 58 counties. The survey sought information concerning the process by which each office determines whetherto file a homicideas a capital case, as well as information designed to reveal whethercertain types of special circumstances are morelikely than othersto be filed as capital cases, and whethercertain char- acteristics of defendants, victims, or the crimes alleged were morelikely to result in a capital charge. Despite extensive follow-up contacts, twenty counties never respondedto the survey, and another fourteen responded by declining to partici- pate in the survey. The non-cooperating counties includedfive of the top ten death-sentencing coun- ties in California.!*° With respect to the counties that completed the survey, most indicated that a panel or committee of prosecutors wasutilized to make a recom- mendationto the District Attorney whether the death penalty should be sought. Very few counties indicated they had written policies or guidelines, and only one waswilling to provide a copyoftheir written policy. The respondingoffices differed as to their use of information from the defense in mak- ing their decisions. In most counties, the decision is not madeuntil the informationis filed, after the preliminary hearing. The survey did notyield enoughstatistical infor- mation to draw any conclusions with regardto the decision-making process. The Pepperdine researchers concluded: Ofall the decisions that a government can make, the decision to seek to end thelife ofanother human being must be the most important and sobering. These decisions should be madeonly after care- ful considerationofspecified factors after a clearly defined process designedto ensurefairness and to avoid arbitrary results. As the ultimate decisionfor each countyrests with an elected official, the District 129. The non-cocperating counties included Riverside, Orange, Alameda, San Diego and Kern. The top ten death-sentencing counties in California, measured by the number of inmates on death row in January, 2004, were: 1. Los Angeles (194), 2. Riverside (54), 3. Orange (49), 4. Alameda (43), 5. Sacramento (34); 6. San Bernardino (34); 7. San Diego (32), 8. Santa Clara (27), 9. Kern (23), 10. San Mateo (16). Attorney, one would hope that the District Attorney would value transparency in his/her decision-mak- ing process, both to insure that these important decisions are being made as evenhandedlyas possible and to give the electorate the opportunity to voice its approvalor disapprovalofthe process by which the District Attorney makes those deci- sions. Unfortunately, our experience has revealed a wariness about disclosing information about the death penalty decision-making process on the part ofmany district attorneys offices. While some offices — including the office ofthe most populous county (Los Angeles), have been veryforthcoming — a record of15 relatively complete responses out of58 counties!*° paints a distressing picture ofthe willingness ofthose who tinker with the machinery ofthe death penalty to expose their decision-making process to the electorate.!> Regrettably, a similar experience of wariness was reported by the Rand Corporation, which was retained by the Commission to determine the feasibility of a major study of the administration and the administrative costs of the death penalty in California: At the outset ofour conversations with representa- tives ofparticipating agencies, the relevance ofthe underlyingpolitical dynamic became undeniably apparent. Namely, that many(ifnot most) of the participants in the death penalty process have strongly held views about the death penalty, and that those views have implicationsfor ourability to gather the necessary datafor the proposed study. The representatives on the defense side with whom we spoke tended to see it as their responsibility to prevent or delay the application ofcapital punish- ment. Therefore, not surprisingly, they appear to fall largely within the group ofthose opposedto the use ofthe death penalty. And the representatives on the prosecutionside, especially at thelocallevel, showed an interest in maintainingall possible sen- tencing optionsfor any given crime, which allows for the widest discretion in determining how to handle their cases, as well as providing leveragefor plea-bargaining. Thus, the two groups ofkey stake- holders not only play adversarialroles in individual cases, but theyalso largely disagree when it comes to the death penalty. It is perhaps not surprising then, that many ofthe stakeholders in the current death penalty process are wary ofthe kind of independent study we have proposed,forfear that it could end up swaying opin- ion in a direction contrary to their own convictions. This wariness was expressed to us directly by some, as well as indirectly (e.g., difficulties we encountered getting connectedin a timelyfashion to the right people). In our experience, such ambivalence about a study can make data collection extremely difficult — ifnot effectively impossible.1?* Providing the public with reliable information about how the death penalty is being admin- istered in California should not depend upon the discretion of those whoare charged withits administration. The Commission majority recom- mendsthat reporting requirements be imposed to systematically collect and make public data regard- ing all decisions by prosecutors in murder cases whetheror not to charge special circumstances W E R L A 130, In addition to Los Angeles County, relatively complete responses were received from Butte, Calaveras, Imperial, Inyo, Kings, Lake, Mendocino, Nevada, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Shasta, Tehama and Tuolumne Counties. 131. Caldwell, Chase & Goodman, Death Penalty Survey Report, p. 7 (Nov. 7, 2007). 132. Everingham, Ridgley, Reardon & Anderson, Feasibility Study: Characterizing the Administration and Assessing the Administrative Costs of the Death Penaity in California, p. 11 (Rand Corp., August 2007). and/or seek the death penalty, as well as the dispo- sition of such cases by dismissal, plea or verdict in the trial courts. The Legislature should impose a requirement upon courts, prosecutors and defense counsel to collect and report all data neededto determinethe extent to which race ofthe defen- dant, the race ofthe victim, geographic location and otherfactors affect decisions to implementthe death penalty, to accurately determinethe costs, andto track the progress of potential death penalty cases. This recommendation was among the most vigorously debated by the Commission, with some Commissioners believing that data collectionis useless without a carefully defined purpose for the data. The Commission majority concludedthat a newly created Death Penalty Review Panel would playa vital role in defining what data is necessary to carry out its monitoring and advising functions. The Commission received a recommendation from Professors Ellen Kreitzberg, Michael Radelet and Steven Shatz describing a comprehensive system of data collection modeled on the system imple- mented by the Supreme Court of New York.'° Somecounties, such as Alameda County, already routinely collect muchofthe data that would be reported. The Commission recommendsthat reporting requirements be imposed to system- atically collect and make public cumulative data regardingall decisions by prosecutors in murder cases whetherornot to charge special circum- stances and/or seek the death penalty, as well as the disposition of such cases by dismissal, plea or verdict in thetrial courts. The Legislature should impose a requirement upon courts, prosecutors and defense counsel to collect and report any data other thanprivi- leged material designated by the California Death Penalty Review Panel which may be necessary: (1) to determine whether demographicsaffect deci- sions to implementthe death penalty, andif so, how, (2) to determine what impact decjsionsto seek the death penalty have uponthecostsoftri- als and postconviction review, and (3) to track the progress of potential and pending death penalty cases to predict the future impact uponthe courts and correctional needs. The information should be reported to the California Departmentof Justice and the California Death Penalty Review Panel. The information reported should befully acces- sible to the public and to researchers. The experience ofthis Commission in undertaking a comprehensive review of the administration of California’s death penalty law confirms the need for more comprehensive collection of data and the continual monitoring andanalysis ofthat data, to identify and address the problemsofdelay, chronic under-funding, and the potential risk ofwrongful convictions and executions, and to assure ourselves that racial and geographicvariations do notreflect the inappropriate exercise of discretion. The Commission majority recommendsthe establishmentof a California Death Penalty Review Panel, to be composed ofjudges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, law enforcementrepresentatives and victim advocates appointed by the Governor and the Legislature. It should be the duty ofthis Panel to issue an annualreport to the Legislature, 133. Kreitzberg, Radelet & Shatz, Response to Questions on Proportionality Review and Data Collection, March 12, 2008. (Available on Commission’s Website). the Governor andthe courts, gauging the progress of the courts in reducing delays in death penalty cases, analyzing the costs of and monitoring the implementation of the recommendationsof this Commission, and examining waysofproviding safeguards and making improvements in the way the California death penalty law functions. 4. THE NEED FOR GREATER TRANSPARENCY IN THE EXERCISE OF PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION TO PURSUE THE DEATH PENALTY Although the Commission's attempt to survey prosecutors waslargely unsuccessful, the ACLU of Northern California conducted a survey of defense attorneys to ascertain the death penalty charging proceduresin their counties.'%* They received information regardingthe practices in fifteen active death penalty counties,!*° in most cases from the Chief Public Defender or a deputy. The data obtained wasentirely consistent with that collected by the Pepperdine researchers. It demonstrated great variation in the practices for charging special circumstances, a lack ofracial diversity among the individuals who madethe decision,great variation in whenthe decision was made,andsignificant variation in the involvementofthe defense in the process. In all but three of the responding coun- ties (Kern, Sacramento and Solano) review panels or Committees of prosecutors wereutilized to make a recommendationto the District Attorney. Only two responsesindicated the review commit- tees wereracially diverse. In three of the counties, the defense is not regularly consulted before a decision is made.!*° Five of the counties permit written submissionsby the defense.!5” Seven of the counties permit the defense to actually meet with the committee.'3° There wasalso significant variation in when the decision to seek the death penalty was made. Most counties madethe decision after the preliminary hearing, but there wassignificant variation in how long after the preliminary hearing a decision was made.In onerecentcase, the prosecution declared for the first time that it was seeking a sentence of death on thefirst day oftrial.!°° The Commission recently recommendedthat all District Attorney Offices in California formu- late and disseminate a written Office Policy to govern compliance with the constitutional obli- gation to disclose exculpatory evidence. Report and Recommendations on Compliance With the Prosecutorial Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence (March 6, 2008). Webelieve it is equally important that the policy governingthe decision to seek the death penalty be in writing and publicly avail- able. The Commission therefore unanimously recommendsthat all District Attorney Offices in California formulate and disseminate a written Office Policy describing how decisions to seek the death penalty are made, whoparticipates in the decisions, and whatcriteria are applied. Such poli- cies should also provide for input from the defense before the decision is made. Pan] fam ise — @ Qa. = per) CS @ fo 134. Natasha L. Minsker, Charging Practices of CA DA's in Death Penalty Cases, Survey Responses, Letter to the Commission dated Feb. 15, 2008 (Available on Commission's Website). 135. Responses were obtained for Alameda, Contra Costa. Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Tulare and Ventura Counties. Thus, all of the top ten death-sentencing counties were included. See n. 96, supra. 136. Kern, Riverside and San Bernardino. 137. Alameda, Contra Casta, Fresno, Los Angeles and Solano. 138. Orange, San Diego, San Mateo, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Tulare and Ventura. 139. Dan Bernstein, A Late Penaity, Riverside Press-Enterprise, Oct. 9, 2007. 140, Carter and Moylan, Clemency in Capital Cases (2008) (Available on the Commission’s Website) 5. THE GOVERNOR’S CLEMENCY POWERIN DEATH PENALTY CASES The California constitution vests the power to com- mute or pardon a person condemnedto death in the Governor: Art. V, Section 8(a). Subject to application pro- cedures provided by statute, the Governor, on conditions the Governor deems proper, may grant a reprieve, pardon, and commutation,after sentence, except in case ofimpeachment. The Governorshall report to the legislature each reprieve, pardon, and commutation granted, stating the pertinentfacts and the reasonsfor granting it. The Governor may not grant a pardon or commutation to a person twice convicted ofafelony except on recommenda- tion ofthe Supreme Court, 4judges concurring. At the request ofthe Commission, Professors Linda E. Carter and Mary-Beth Moylan of the University ofthe Pacific, McGeorge School of Law undertook a comprehensive study of the use ofcommutation in California death penalty cases.4° Historically, they found substantial variation in the rates at which California Governors exercised clemency in death penalty cases. Governor Culbert Olson (1939-1942) commuted 16 death sentences while overseeing 29 executions.!*! Governor Earl Warren (1943-1953) commuted 7 death sentences while overseeing 80 executions.!** Governor Edmund G.“Pat” Brown commuted 20 death sentences while presiding over 20 executions.!° The last commutation of a death sentence in California was by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1967. Governor Reagan also presided over one execution. Since the enactmentofthe current California death penalty law in 1978, there have been 13 executions. Clemency was denied in all 13 cases: five by Governor Pete Wilson,five by Governor Gray Davis, and three by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Professors Carter and Moylan conclude that executive clemency cannot and should not func- tion as a device to review proceduralerrors orlegal challenges to execution. Its purposeis to provide a safety valve, and its unregulated nature furthers that purpose. They do make two recommendations to amendArticle V, Section 8(a) of the California constitution, however, and the Commission unani- mously supports these recommendations: Bl Decisions denying clemency in death cases should be preservedin the recordsofthe Legis- lature as well as decisions granting clemency. All of the last thirteen denials of clemency resulted in the issuance of written decisions, but Professors Carter and Moylan encountereddifficulty in locating all of those decisions. The second sentence of Section 8(a) should be amended to read: “The Governor shall report to the Legislature each reprieve, par- don, and commutation granted or denied.” BA The requirementof Supreme Courtconcur- rencein the grant of executive clemencyto a twice-convicted felon should be removed. Involving the Supreme Courtin the clemency process intertwines the judicial branch in a powerthat is exclusively vested in the executive branch by the California constitution. Nootherstate has a pro- cess that gives the judicial branchthis type ofveto powerover the executive’s decision. The concept of 140. Carter and Moylan, Clemency in Capital Cases (2008) (Available on the Commission's Website). : 141. Governor Olson's Clemency Secretary was Stanley Mosk, wholater served as California Attorney General and as a Justice of the California Supreme Court for 37 years. 142. Governor Warren later served as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court for 15 years. 143. One of Governor Brown's Clemency Secretaries was Arthur Alarcon, now a Senior Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Governor Brown authored a book describing his experiences in considering death penalty commutations. Edmund (Pat) Brown with Dick Adler, Public Justice, Private Mercy: A Governor's Education on Death Row (19839). granting mercy is an extra-judicial function thatis not within the purview or function of a court. The Commissionis also in agreementwith the suggestion of Professors Carter and Moylan that Penal Code Section 4813 be amended to makeit discretionary rather than mandatory that requests for clemencyby a twice convicted felon be referred to the Board of Prison Termsfor a written recom- mendation. This proposed amendmentwill bring the statute into conformity with the actual practice of recent Governorsandalleviate a possible conflict with the California constitution and its require- ment of the separation of powers. Finally, the Commission suggests that the Governor receive information from the attorneys for the accused, and should consider in each case meeting personally with the attorneys for each side before making a decision regarding commutation in a death penalty case. As the only decision maker, the Governor should hear evidence and arguments in person as muchaspossible. Conclusion Ifwe are to achieve the goals of justice, fairness and accuracy in the administration of the death penalty in California, and reduce delaysat least to the national average,there is urgent need to increase fundingat every level: trials, direct appeals and habeas corpusreview. Once increased funding has been achieved, serious consideration should be given to both a proposed constitutional amend- mentto permit the California Supreme Court to transfer fully briefed pending death penalty appeals from the Supreme Court to the Courts of Appeal, and changesto California statutes, rules and policies to encourage morefactual hearings and findingsin state habeas proceedings in death penalty cases. Reporting requirements should be imposedto sys- tematically collect and make public cumulative data regardingall decisions by prosecutors in murder cases whetherornot to charge special circum- stances and/or seek the death penalty, as well as the disposition of such cases by dismissal, plea or verdict in thetrial courts. A Death Penalty Review Panel should beestab- lished to issue an annualreport to the Legislature, the Governorandthe courts, gauging the progress of the courts in reducing delays, analyzing the costs of and monitoring the implementation of the recommendations of this Commission, and examining ways of providing safeguards and mak- ing improvementsin the waythe California death penalty law functions. Each District Attorney Office in California should formulate a written Office Policy describing when andhowdecisions to seek the death penalty are made. The constitutional and statutory provisions govern- ing Gubernatorial clemency should be modified to maintain consistent records and eliminate unnec- essary proceduralsteps. W E E N ] This report sets forth an ambitious and expen- sive agendaof reform. Thefailure to implement it, however will be even morecostly. The death penalty will remain a hollow promiseto the people of California. Appendix I: DEATH PENALTY FOCUS QUESTIONS El Should reporting requirements be imposed to systematically collect and make public data regard- ing all decisions by prosecutors in murder cases whetheror notto charge specialcircumstances and/or seek the death penalty, as well as the dispo- sition ofsuch cases by dismissal, plea or verdict in the trial courts? Should the California constitution be amended to permitthe transferof jurisdiction over pending death penalty appeals from the Supreme Court to the Courts ofAppeal? Should California law be changed to require state habeas corpuspetitions in death penalty cases be filed in the Superior Courts? Should California law be changed to narrow the special circumstances that would make a defendant eligible for the death penalty? (a) Should death penalty eligibility be limited to cases in which the defendant was the actual killer? (b) Should death penalty eligibility be limited to cases in which the defendant formed the intent to kill? (c) Should felony murderspecial circumstances be retained? (d) Should special circumstancesbe limited to the “worst of the worst’? If so, which special circumstancesdefine the “worst ofthe worst’? fa What measures should be taken to assure the prompt appointmentof qualified lawyers to pro- vide competent representation for the defendant in death penalty casesat the trial stage, on direct appeal, and for habeas corpus challenges? fl Shouldconsistency of representation be provided for state and federal habeas corpuspro- ceedings in death penalty cases? Are funding and supportservices for the defense of capital cases adequate to assure compe- tent representation by qualified lawyers? Ef Aretheresignificant racial disparities associ- ated with the raceofthe victim or the defendant in imposing the death penalty in California? If so, what remediesare available to minimizeorelimi- nate the problem? BE} Are there significant geographical dispari- ties from county to county in utilizing the death penalty in California? Is this a problem? If so, what remedies are available to minimize or eliminate the problem? fl Is there a need for proportionality review of death penalty sentences in California? If so, how should such a review process be incorporated into California’s death penalty law? Are clemencyprocedures used by California governors consistent from one administration to the next? Are they consistent with the procedures utilized by other states? Are they adequate to assure a fair opportunity to be heardbyall inter- ested parties, and to assure a principled decision on the merits? Appendix t Pa WS oF cal, Hora Avweth, Sewn Lean,any Bloom,Robert can,Fernando lak, Wika Coles, Russel Danis, sackson Degas. Fred Aled Freesan, Lave (Ghent, Davie Grant, Foenara ayes, Bluford Hndicks, blgar Hove, Rishars & Nawars, Gary sue es CRU OSRI GALITA Granted uit Granted Perelty rants cuit Grates ut Graned ty Granied Gu (Speed Ccrcumstance) Bravied Peneity Gra uit Granted Penetty cuit Seactea Penaty Beanies ‘Gull sSpecia Greumstaree} ranted in Gisiet Court Penatty (Pettioner Apaeeled dersof ela Nordendid nol pea rant of penay rl Grartea Penalty Grarten Sut oranied Penal Grened Penaty Gremed in Ditnet Court (Parties Pay Sipulaertncsissal of appa LJLG¥LR TS ARE FE oc) |=FIa sI Alcala Wooo, 334 F 3d 862 sth Cx. 2003) Amswortn. Woodtord, 268 F.3d 868 (3th Cx, 2003) Sean Calon, 163 F.3 1073 (9th Cx, 1998}, cert ring, £24 US. 922 71399) ‘Bloom: Caoeren, 132 F.34 1267 ohh Cx. 1897), ented, 923 U.S. 1145 (1998) Car v Woodie 280 F.3d 1247 tn Cu, vert. Seer 836 18, 951 (2002) ac Brown 4422 708 {th Ci), oe. deniec 127 8, Ct 956 (2008), Goleman v Gaoeron, 210 F.3d 1047 tt Ce 2600) Daniov Weadtor, 428 F.3d 1181 (2th Ck. 2008, cert. denial 1278. Ch. 2876 (2007) gis v; Woo: 326 1.24 107 (3th Cin, ser ved, S40 U.S. B10 (2003) Dyer w Calvern, 151 F 34976 (3th Cx}, cor. cae 5° US. 1934 7998) Fretsonw, Woodard 468 #40 982 (9th Ci tart. dered, 1278, ct. 2976 (2007) 9 « Meodtond, 279 F.3d 1122(th Ck: 2002) 7006, Brant». Brow, Order, Ce $2 32, 2008) 779 (ED, Cal. Ja. Hamntton w asquva. 17 3x 149 Ah Ch cert ened. 12 US. 1220 (2000), 19 £20 972 (9: Cie embane 2002) Hayes « Broa, Hench v Catseran, 70 F.3d 1032 (Cit 498), ree dened, 517 U.S, 1111 996) owey» Ager, 458 Fe B92 (9. 705 Howard v Calas, Oraes, C¥ 88-1200 (C.D, Ca pt 26, 1526) Hurts, ett Jackson, Cal Jackson, Mchaet Jenings, Mic aris, James Keenan, Mouice fase, Keli: Mayfield, Demetrie MeDunel, Chelea MeLaic, Roaert ‘Molton, Jams toms, Bruce Murtishaw, Davis ate, James Rasivez. Richard Sondval, area Ska, Benji Wee, Metin Wiliams, Michel ‘Santen Dstict Gout (Neither any appealed) Grantee Granea br Grated Granted in DistCourt (sttioner appealed Asie af aulmel Waren id eaa art of enaly ree Granted in Diss Court (spculed in Mssurt Sranteu ranted Sraried sn Dasiries Court ether srtsopealed) Searted Brae Grant rants carted Davrict Court iene spree Granted Granted Granites ‘Granted in Dishrel Gaur(Parties xusater to dlarssal of appeal) Penalty Penaity uit Paty Penty Penaity Peraty Poneity Penety cunt Penalty Penatty Penaly Penalty Pewly Hunter x vasquez Order, C 90-3075 (N9. Cal Doc 9, 1898) Jackson w Brow, 513 6 34 1057 (Sth Cir, 2008) laokson ¥ Caen, 211 £234 1148 (3th cen. denied, 531 US. 1272 (2003) 2000) dennings » Woodford, 290 F.3a 1006 (1 Cit, 2002), cert. lenieg 535 U.S, 998 (2003 Karis v Caloeron, 283 F.3d 1112 {9th Git 2002), cen ene, 839 U.S, 968 7003 Keenan v Woodte, 2001 Wi #35858 (Dec. 2 3999) Malone Vasquez, Orr, -4040-WAIR,{0, C2t Jan. 11, 1999) Mates Weaors, 270 F.34 915 (St Gr. 2001) MeDortv Castor, 130 F 30 833(tr Ch. en bane 1397), car. deed 23 US. 1203 0968) Metainv Cakeron, 124 F.3d 1343 (IN ie}, cert deriod 525..S, 942 1998 Moon Vasquez Oe, CW 89-8182 (C.D Cal Jon, 18,200”) Moore v ca c 3,108 34 2bk In 521 U.S. 2111 4997) 2, cert Maris Wodtond, 273 F.3d 826 fen Cid, oor. onan, 37 L$. 941 (20025 Mlostsnse Node, 25 F-34996 19 Ca, 2001, ait. die, 535 U:S. 936 (2002) Dale. Yours, 258 F.3d 1084 (3th Cn) cert eed, 234 U.S. 8H E2007) erirez v. Vasquez Orde 21 Feb. §,2008) Sandoval Catron, 243 F.3d 765 nC, cert dona, 8314S. 847 (2000) ia 863(8.9. ab for, 06 34 ORD 10th ie 2005) Waele v, Cater, 29 fia 1812 (90 Ci denied, 513 JS, 1120 (19353, 941, cer Wits w Vasgvee, Oe, 90-12128 (8.2. Cal Sep 9, 1993) Hunn aD PENIS SF BE Allen, Clarence Arsderson,Stepten Babbin, Maruet Seatdslee, Donati Bonin, Wane Davis, Lary Frets, Stevie Haris, Robert Morales, Michzel Paley, av eh, Darel ‘sims, Mitel sipongs, Jatorun Therpson, Howes Wiliams, Kesh tiiams, Stanley Brown, Albert Sooper. Keun Pannolster. Scott FFs EMIS OF RELIED IN CALIFORNIA Heat Dewed by 9th Cieout Denied by 9th Den sl by Sth Ceuit Denied by Sth circuit Denied by 9m Gieuit er by Sth Chou Denies by 9th Sicut Ceried by Creut Deried ty Sth Cicut Carved by SthCreu Canied by 3th Creut Doniod ey 9th Creut Denied by 919 Orcut Deed ay Stn Ceca Denied oy ata Cxcuit Denied by 19 Cxcalt Denied by Sth iret Denton by Sin iecue Dene by 9th Sircult GRRL CAP SF (LIES CeroraDenied Cordova Deried ‘Certoran Dena Cerierad Deried Cervorari Der CCorioraDeriec CeroneDeried Reversed CettoraDenied ertogad Dan ‘Sertoer O ester Danie Gertosari Denied eversad ‘certorarDenes eforenna Gerborar Pencire NALD 6s Allon ». Woodend, 396 F247 19 546 11S. (2008; Andeeson v Galuoron, 232 F.3d 1083 (in Cx 200403, att decied, £34 1.8, 1995 (2001) 1, cat denied, r T R e s o ppb« Catioran, 15) F.3d 1170 (8th Ci, 2998), cert denveg, 525 U1, 1289 (1990) Beatetee » Woaalord, 358 36 BAO3 On), cart denied, 543 US. 242 2008) {Borin v Calgeron, 59 F.34 15 (8th Di. 1995), cork S)6 WLS. 105% (1996) avis. Won, 384 24628 In Bx, 2004), cert iss00, 545 U.S. 1165 (2008) 1 v Woodee 503 F.3d 755 (9th Ck 2007, cor. 28 5.01. 3275 (2068) denies, Hans Pulley 892 % 24 1389, (Hh C4 1982}, rev, 465 US. 37 00884) Mevales v. Calderon, 388 F.3a 1199 (2mn Cx. 200, cut, denied, 526 U 8, 935 12005) anh ot ATE £30 792 ‘9th Cir 2008), cert nied, 128. Cl. 69 (2001) Aion v, Calderon, 187 734 1064 din ie. 19995, cor denied, 828 U.S. 1082(2000 Sims 2 Brows 433) F.3d 1220(GH % 2008), cet omad, 127$C 62 (038) 732m denied, 52 LS. 839 (19985 4), car Thempsor Calderon, 129 F 36 1045 (8th Gi. 1997), ev, 823 U.S, 638 (1998 Vitonv Caldseon, 83 F 30 281 {e Ci), cont denied 917 US. 1:83 £996) Wiles Wosofons 384 F.3 amt aonied 516 Ls 567 19ir. 2004), 934 (2005) Brown» Omiosit 503 F.34 1008 (i Cie 2004, cert pening tpettion fled May1, 2008) Comper Brn, 510Fe 870fees, 2007), pertion for onwenng pends Propotster Ayoes 625°. 90 242 (9thCk, 2008), 20 tiofor rearing tobetea es lube eles i ts WY Rey as We Salas he evel fARare Nekopol dur iste ctr fd Pus Ws case at “ei as ier the rae Neat Ms Cavs pera aba raging ng anete SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER BROWN June 30, 2008 John Van de Kamp, Chairman Commissioners California Commission on the Fair Administration ofJustice Dear Chairman Van de Kamp and Commission Members: I appreciate the hard work that wentinto this report. There are manyissues involvedin the appli- cation ofthe death penalty in California and J know commission membersstrove to achieve consensus on meaningful reforms. Regretfully, this goalstill eludesus. Capital litigation constitutes a substantial portion of myoffice’s workload. Our lawyers work every day to defend death penalty judgments consis- tent with fairness, due process and constitutional requirements. Currently, we are handling some343 capital cases at various stages of direct appeal to the California Supreme Court, 103 capital cases on habeas corpusin the state courts, 121 capital cases on habeascorpusin thefederaldistrict courts, and 16 capital cases in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Four condemned inmates have exhaustedall challengesto their judgments and await the setting of their execution dates oncethestatus of California’s lethal-injection protocolis resolved by the state and federal courts. I know ofno defendantfacing execution whois innocentofthe crime for which he was convicted and sentenced. I share the Commission's concerns about the high costs associated with capitallitigation and about the difficulty in finding and appointing qualified counselto represent defendants in these cases.I am also concerned about needless delay in review- ing capital judgments, which has a numberof causes. While death penalty proceedings warrant exceptionally careful review and cannot be rushed, multiple roundsofrepetitivelitigation can cause unnecessary delay, increase costs, and undermine respectfor the criminaljustice system. I agree with the Commissionthat consideration should be given to seeking a constitutional amend- mentto permit transferring some death-penalty appeals from the California Supreme Court to the courts of appeal. I also agree that consideration should be given to seeking authorization to allow initiating state capital habeas corpuscases in the trial court, with appellate review in the courts of ‘appeal. I believe that we should promptly begin to work on these proposals, even though their specific features need to be worked out. I ask that this letter be included with the Commission's report. Sincerely, EdmundG. Brown Jr. Attorney General SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER BRATTON June 30, 2008 Commissioners California Commission on the Fair Administration ofJustice I believe that the imposition of the Death Penalty is an appropriate remedy. I further believe that the imposition of the penalty should be imposed within a reasonable time and not unduly delayed. There must be an assurancethat those convicted of murder and sentenced to death have received adequate representation,a full review of the legal issues involved andthat they are in fact guilty of the crimes charged. The improvementsin technol- ogy and its increased use in the determination of these cases has given me confidencethat those whowill be convicted and sentencedto death will be guilty of the crimes charged. I have supported the previous recommendations of the Commission regarding eyewitness identification, use ofjail- house informants, confessions, scientific evidence, the professional responsibility and accountability of prosecutors and defense lawyers to further ensure that this occurs. I support the position that California has a dys- functional system. A lapse of time of over two decades between sentence and imposition of sentence is unacceptable. To require the family of the victims to have to wait over to 20 years to have the promised punishment imposed only addsto their pain and suffering and rendersit an illusory punishment. Thelegislature and the people of the State of California should undertake a meaningful debate to determine howto correct this problem.I realize correcting the problem will require a large expenditure of funds, at a time when weare facing a budgetcrisis, and mayonly result in the imposi- tion of the penalty within ten years rather than 20 years. However,ifwe are to imposethe penalty we should do it as expeditiously as possible, while ensuring that each defendanthasreceived a fair trial and full review ofall legal andfactual issues. I do not join in any proposalto limit the ultimate punishmentto life without the possibility of parole or in narrowing thelist of special circumstances. William J. Bratton ChiefofPolice, Los Angeles SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONERS TOTTEN, BOSCOVICH, COTTINGHAM, DUNBAR,HILL June 30, 2008 Commissioners California Commission on the Fair Administration ofJustice We respectfully dissent from the Report and Recommendations on the Administration of the Death Penalty in California, which was issued today by the California Commission on the Fair AdministrationofJustice. Regrettably, we believe the majority report indirectly assaults California’s death penalty by seeking to underminepublic confidencein our capital punishment law and procedure. While the majority refrains from mak- ing specific recommendations to weaken this voter W C E ac re LA approvedlaw, the tone and unbalanced discussion of potential reform is anything but neutral. By doing so, the majority exceeds the scopeofits origi- nal charge and unfortunately, diminishes the value of other worthwhile recommendations. The duties of the Commission were to make recommendationsasto the application and administration of the criminal justice system in California, not to advocate for or against the public policy issue of whether California should have a death penalty. Although the report purports to be neutralasto capital punishment,it unmistakably reveals a personal bias against the death penalty. The report does notreflect the viewsofthose Commissionersjoining this dissent, or those of the majority of Californians. Atthe outset, it is important to note two themes in the report with which we wholeheartedly agree. First, delay on appeal and in habeas corpus in state andfederal court is excessive andfrustrates the effective administration of the death penalty. Second,additional resources should be expended to address a major sourceofthat delay, the avail- ability of sufficient competent appellate counsel, coupled with an increase in the numberofattorney general deputies to respondto the appeals and writs. Additional funding for appellate counsel is a realistic measure that could significantly reduce the backlog and the delays that currently plague the administration of the death penalty in California. The Commission has performed an importantser- vice in quantifying how muchthese changes would cost, and the expected benefits from those expen- ditures. While thetotal figure of $95 million is a significant amountof money,it is a small propor- tion of our state’s $140 billion annual budget,or of ourstate judicial branch's $3.5 billion budget. Unfortunately, the Commission did notlimit itself to fact-based recommendations, but addeddiscus- sion motivated by the personal philosophies of the Commissioners. For example, the majority repeatedly uses the statementthat “California’s Death Penalty system is dysfunctional.”! This broad indictmentofa criminal sanction that was overwhelmingly approved by voters andstill enjoys the Californian’s support by a 2 to 1 marginis not simply improper — it is highly misleading.? The report quotes California Chief Justice Ronald M. George as stating that the death penalty system in California is “dysfunctional.” However, a careful reading of the Chief Justice’s comments and writ- ings makesclearthat heis referring only to the overburdenedcapital appellate process, and not to the entire death penalty system.? By completely disregarding this context, the majority effectively bootstraps this commentinto a broader indictment of entire death penalty system and law. The report discusses two “available alternatives” to increased funding: narrowingthelist of special circumstances that would make a murdercase eligible for the death penalty, and eliminating the death penalty altogether. The Commission purports to “make[] no recommendation regarding these alternatives” and claims that it merely “presents information regarding them to assure a fully informed debate.” But the lengthy discussion of these proposals consists entirely of arguments in 1. See majority report, pp. 3, 6 and 60. 2. The current death penalty law, Proposition 7, wasan initiative approved at the General Election of November 7, 1978, by 72 percentof the voters. (People v. Teron (1979) 23 Cal.3d 103, 124-125.) A recentpoll shows 63% of adults in favor of the death penalty, 32% opposed, and 5% with no opinion. (Field Poll, March 3, 2006.) For registered voters, the figures were 67% in favor, 29% opposed, and 4% no opinion. (/Bid.) 3. California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George used the term “dysfunctional” in the narrow context of death penalty appeal delays. In a January 7, 2008article he wrote: “The existing system for handling capital favorofthese alternatives and excludes any discus- sion against them.A “fully informed debate” should include both sides ofan issue, not just oneside. Reducing the numberofspecial circumstances would exclude someofCalifornia’s mostbrutal murderers from death row. The report goes so far as to suggest that these changesbe retroactive to killers already on death row, even thoughthe death penalty was lawfully imposedin thosecasesat the time. A few exampleswill illustrate how reduc- ing the numberofspecial circumstances would exclude from the death penalty someof California’s most heinous murders: Bl Gregory Scott Smith is on death row for the murder of an 8-year-old boy for whom he was a teacher's aide.* He had previously been mean to the victim, and on twooccasions had tied him up with jump ropes. Angry that the victim had asked that Smith be fired, Smith gagged the victim with a cloth gag and duct tape, forcibly sodomized him, and strangled him. He pouredfire acceler- ant on the body andset the body onfire, where it was discovered burningby firefighters. Smith was convicted of murder in the commissionofa kidnapping, a lewd act upon a child, and an act of sodomy. Noneofthese special circumstances would warrant the death penalty underthe Commission's proposal. The Commission's proposal would also exclude Mitchell Sims, known as the Domino’s Pizza Killer, who is on death row with all state and federal review completed.® After ordering pizza to be delivered to his motel room, Sims robbed the delivery driver, tied him up, strangled him with a rope, and fully submerged him in a bathtub with a gagtied into his mouth.After killing the driver, Sims went to Domino’s, robbed two other employ- ees at gunpoint, and forced them intothe cooler, suspended with nooses aroundtheir necks. When one employee warned thatthe delivery driver was dueback, Simstook off his sweater to reveal a Domino's shirt with the driver's name tag and chuckled, “No, I dort think so.” Sims was found guilty ofmurder with special circumstances of murderwhile lying in wait and during the com- mission of a robbery, as well as attempted murder and robbery of the other employees. These special circumstances would not warrantthe death penalty under the Commission's proposal. Stevie Lamar Fields is also on death row, with state and federal review completed.® Shortly after being released from prison for a previous . manslaughter, Fields became what the California Supreme Court described as “a one-man crime wave.” Sitting in a car with victim,he firedfive shots and told the driver to keep on driving. He said that the victim was not dead and he needed to be sure she was,so hehit her in the head with a blunt object and dumpedherbodyinto analley. He wasconvicted of robbery-murderwith the special circumstance of murder during the commission of a robbery, as well as kidnapping for robbery and forced oral copulation of several other women. Underthe Commission's proposalto limit special circumstances, Fields would escapethe death penalty. I E P A appeals in California is dysfunctional and needs reform. The state has more than 650 inmates on death row, ard the backlog is growing.” (Ronald M. George, Reform Death Penalty Appeals, Los Angeles Times, January 7, 2008.) 4. People v. Smith (2005) 35 Cal.4th 334. 5. People v. Sims (1993) 5 Cal.4th 405; Sims v. Brown (9th Cir. 2005) 425 F.3d 560. 6. People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329; Fields v. Brown (9th Cir. 2007) 503 F.3d 755. The Commission advocates eliminating the death penalty in felony-murder cases. One such case this proposal would exclude is Vicente Benavides, who was sentencedto death for the murderofa 21-month-oldgirl he was babysitting.’ Thevictim died of an acute blunt force penetrat- ing injury of the anus. The anus was expandedto seven or eight times its normal size, and multiple internal organs were injured. Thevictim's upper lip was torn, consistent with a hand being held over her mouth, and there wasevidenceofprevi- ousrib fractures. The special circumstances were felony-murderrape, felony-murder rape, and felony-murder sodomy,all ofwhich the proposal would eliminate as basesfor the death penalty. These are but a few examplesofspecial cir- cumstancesthatvoters, prosecutors, and juries have rightly determined to warrant death. The Commission's proposalto eliminate these and manyotherspecial circumstances is not a mere efficiency measure, but would seriously weaken California’s death penalty law. The credibility of the report is further damaged by giving serious consideration to a proposal that in order to obtain the death penalty, the prosecution be required to prove that the crime has“legally impacted all citizens ofthe State of California,” an artificial concept that has no precedentin the law andis totally unworkable. A significant portion of the report is devoted to promising various purported benefits of eliminat- ing the death penalty altogether, including cost savings, shorter periods ofjury service, and freeing the Supreme Court to hear morecases of other types. This section makes no attempt to even men- tion a single argumentin favorofthe death penalty such as deterrencethat will save lives, the commu- nity’s sense of justice, or upholdingthe will of the People who enacted the death penalty.’ One of the most important reasons for maintaining the death penalty, its deterrenteffect, is quickly dismissed in a footnote earlier in the report as a “contested issue.”? Someofthe commissioners cameto the project with the unfounded assumptionthat the death penalty is being administered in a discriminatory manneragainst minorities, and that prosecutors must be considering some undisclosed improper factors to make decisions. The report engages in a circular logic that bemoansthelack ofevidence to support these assumptions, and then proposes establishing.another commission, the California Death Penalty Review Panel, to study whether there is any evidence to support these suspicions. In fact, during the 30-year history of California’s death penalty law, there is never been even single finding of prosecutorial abusein this decision mak- ing process. We opposethe creation of a California Death Penalty Review Panel as an unnecessary creation of anotherlevel of bureaucracy. The report's apprehension regarding the process utilized by district attorneys to make death penalty decisions is similarly without factual basis. The report begins with the assumption that 87% offirst degree murdersareeligible for the death penalty, a figure that we cannot accept as accurate. For exam- ple, in Ventura County, the District Attorney has sought death in only 4% ofthe murdercasesfiled, reserving this decision for the worst ofthe worst. Statewide, only 2% of “cleared” murdercases have resulted in death verdicts. The formulation of formal written policies as to how prosecutorial discretion will be exercised is not required by law and would serve primarily to create new grounds for condemnedprisonersto challenge their 7. Peaple v. Benevides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69. 8. See Baze v. Rees (2008) 128 S.Ct. 1520, 1547, 170 L.Ed.2d 420, 450, fn. 13 (Stevens, J., conc.), and 128 S.Ct. at 1553, 170 L.Ed.2d at 456 (Scalia, J., conc.). 9. Majority report, p. 4, n. 8. convictions. The factors to be considered are already laid out in the statutory enumerationoffac- tors in aggravation andfactors in mitigation. Mostpuzzlingis the lengthy discussion and the call for further study on the issue of “geographic disparity’ between the counties, even though the law is clear that uniformity between different jurisdictions is not required. This entire discus- sion is inappropriate in light of the Commission's acknowledgementthat the “data doesnotestablish that prosecutorial discretion is affected by race and class bias, unconscious or otherwise.” The voters ofeach county select a District Attorney to enforce the law, including the death penalty, according to his or her exercise of discretion. Uniformity is not mandated and should not have been the subject of the Commission's agenda. The Commission discusses the proposal of Ninth Circuit Senior Judge Arthur Alarcon to encour- age hearing habeas corpuspetitions in Superior Court. The report also discusses the proposal of Chief Justice Ronald M. Georgeto transfercapital appeals from the California Supreme Court to the Courts of Appeal. These are thoughtful proposals from distinguished jurists that merited additional discussion and study before an endorsement by the Commission should have been made. Additionalideas, such as establishing a court of criminal appeals similar to that used in Texas, also warrant discussion, and should have been addressed by the Commission. The report's introduction correctly notes that the commissioners hold a diverse spectrum ofdiver- gent views on the death penalty. We respect the diversity of opinion on this issue in our demo- cratic society and have never doubtedthe sincerity of any of the commissioners in their views. The problem is that the final report is entirely unbal- anced.It gives weight only to those who seek to limit or eliminate the death penalty, and ignores views in favor. Wefear that the important accomplishments of the Commission addressing improvements in the administration in the death penalty will be overshadowedbythe report's obvious bias against capital punishment. The Commission's report will rightly expose the Commission to extensive criticism wherethe horrific facts ofhundreds of cases impacted by such policy will be cited in detail. Such recommendationscreate the likeli- hood that the Commissionwill be marginalized andidentified as an anti-death penalty body. Under no circumstances can wesupport or be a silent partner to such a fundamentally flawed effort to weaken ourexisting death penalty law. Respectfully submitted, Gregory D. Totten District Attorney, CountyofVentura I join in the dissent: Harold Boscovich Retired, Director Victim/Witness County ofAlameda Ron Cottingham President, Peace Officers Research AssociationofCalifornia Pete Dunbar ChiefofPolice, Pleasant Hill California Police Chiefs Association Representative Curtis Hill Sheriff, County ofSan Benito Pol = 3 c @® fo = ——_ o>] [ob] [om] SEPARATE. STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MAYORKAS June 30, 2008 Commissioners California Commission on the Fair Administration ofJustice The charge of our Commission has been to assess the administration of criminal justice in California and to recommend improvements. In the last phase of our work as a Commission, we have focused ourattention on the administration of the death penalty in particular. I appreciate the strong feelings the death penalty engenders, and understandthere are divergent views of the appro- priateness of the death penalty itself. However, I do notbelieve it has been our Commission's charge to opine on whetheror not the death penalty should be availableas the ultimate sentence, or whetherthe crimesthat qualify for its imposition should be limited in any fashion. To the extent our Commissions final report renders any such opin- ions,explicitly or implicitly, I respectfully dissent. The decision whetherto have a death penalty in California, and to what extent, is within the prov- ince of the Peopleofthis State, and our charge as a Commission has been to make recommendations webelievewill enhance the fair administration ofit. Respectfully submitted, Alejandro N. Mayorkas Retired, U.S. Attorney, Central District ofCalifornia SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONERS BELLAS, FREEHLING, HERSEK, HING, JUDGE, LAURENCE, MOULDS, RING June 30, 2008 Commissioners California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice INTRODUCTION Wesupport the recommendationsofthe Commissionif Californianselect to continue the death penalty. However, we write separately because,after carefully consideringall the infor- mation andevidence put before the Commission, webelieve that the death penalty should be repealed. The death penalty is too costly, the possibility is high that a person who has been wrongfully convicted will be put to death, capital punishmentinordinately affects communities of color, the imposition of the death penalty varies greatly from county to county, a low income defen- dant faces a troubling disadvantage when charged with a capital offense, the death penalty forecloses any possibility of healing and redemption,the death qualification juror requirementinher- ently and unjustly biases the process against the defendant, and California should follow the lead of othercivilized societies who have concluded that the death penalty be abolished. The Commissior‘s report is the product of serious deliberations overthe fairness of the death penalty in California. All memberstook their responsibili- ties seriously, with a deep commitmentto justice. We are convinced that when it comesto the death penalty (and indeed punishmentfor any crime) every memberofthe Commission wants to make sure that the convicted personis the actual perpe- trator, in other words, that no innocent personis convicted of a crime. We submit this separate statementwith the great- est respect for our cocommissioners who have chosen not to comment more broadly. However, we present these additional views out of a sense personal duty to the public for whom wepledged responsibility when we agreedto serve. The Commissionreport is the result of hard, collabora- tive work aimedat outlining how the death penalty can be administered in a fair and just manner, in short, the recommendations address how to make the system functional. However,as welistened to testimony, read written submissions and research, and participated in Commission discussions,it becameclear to us that the question of whether to continue the death penalty at all had to be consid- ered; we felt that the public should know that there are good reasonsto considerabolishing the death penalty beyondthe system's dysfunctionality. SUMMARY OF REASONS Hereis a brief summary ofthe reasons that have convinced us that the people of California ought to repeal the death penalty. Costs. The resources that go into a death penalty case are enormous.Thepursuit of execution adds millions at each phaseofthe process, from trial, to appeal, and habeas proceedings. For example, a death penalty trial costs counties at least $1.1 million more than a conventional murdertrial. The state spendsat least an additional $117 mil- lion a year on capital punishment,abouthalfofit on prison expenses that exceed the usual costs of housing inmates andtherest on arguing and judging death penalty appeals. The costs mount because death penalty trials and appeals take far longer than others, involve more lawyers, investiga- tors and expert witnesses, and displace other cases from courtrooms. In contrast, adopting a maxi- mum penalty oflife without possibility of parole (for which there is growing sentiment) would incur only a fraction of the death penalty costs, including prison expenses. Our personalview is that funds spent administering the death penalty would be better spent on other California priorities like health, education, and infrastructure,or for providing direct financial and social services to the relatives of crimevictims. Racial and geographic variation. The Commission considered research by Professors Glenn Pierce and Michael Radeleton variations in the death penalty related to race and geographicallocation. The counties with the highest death penalty sen- tencing rates tend to have the highest proportion of whites in their population and are morerural. Also, those who kill African Americans and Latinos are less likely to be sentenced to death than those whokill whites. The Commission wasnotwilling to recommend comparative proportionality review in death penalty cases, as required in somestates, and thoughtthat the racial data was insufficient on which to base recommendations.In other words, the goodfaith of local prosecutors should be given deference. In our view, the Pierce and Radelet data and similar research are good cause to recommend termination of the death penalty. The data are troubling, and leaving these important determina- tions to the good faith oflocal prosecutors, who are subject to political winds, is fraught with potential inconsistency and danger. The Commission came across no evidenceofintentional racial motiva- tion on the part of prosecutors who seek the death penalty. Yet, persons of color have been sentenced to death at rates far exceeding their numbersin the Pa) = 9] j= @ a. = pt Ss @ [om] population. Why? Oursociety has not reached the point where unconsciousracism andinstitutional bias based on past processes andbeliefs have been eliminated. We fool ourselves ifwe believe that we have evolved beyondinstitutional racism in ourstate and country. Considerthe fact that the homiciderate for black and Latinovictims is much higher than white victims. Violent crime in low- incomeSoutheast Asian communities is on the increase as well. Poverty and socioeconomicchal- lenges in those communities create racial impact whetherwelike it or not. The correlation between poor communities (that are comprised ofmany blacks, Latinos, and Southeast Asians) and crime and inadequate representationis just too high to accept capital punishmentasa potential penalty. Economic disadvantage. Anotherregrettable feature of the death penalty is that it dispropor- tionately punishes the poor. In Furmanv. Georgia, Supreme CourtJustice William Douglas noted, “One searches our chronicles in vain for the execu- tion of any memberofthe affluentstrata in this society.”? Economically deprived, marginalized Californiansare particularly vulnerable in society and within the judicial system. Over 90 percent of defendants charged with capital crimes are indigent, and as a result the vast majority of death row inmatesin California are poor. In our view and experience, a poor defendantinitially may be at a disadvantage primarily because poverty fractures his or her past. How can picture be painted of such an individual who rarely went to school or saw a doctor, whose ownparents might be unknown to him orher, whoseilliteracy compromisestheability to participate fully as a memberofthe defense team, whose “neighbors” were transient? A jury can be madeawareofthese things, but they do not “mitigate” in the common sense ofthat word. A person whocan finance a death penalty defense will have no trouble establishing history as a student, family member, patient, neighbor, employee or even employer. Thus, poverty creates serious disparities in the administration of justice as well. A person of meanscan afford to employ forensic experts with the most impressive resumes who may have access to nationally acclaimedlabs. In contrast, those of modest meansareoften limited to experts on a court-appointed list who have agreed to work at the lowest end of the compensation scale whoare likely to lose the battle of curricula vitae. Furthermore, the indigent accused maynot be fortunate enoughto be represented by aninstitu- tional Public Defender team with the experience, skills, and resources to provide high quality, zealous advocacy. Instead, such an indigent may be saddled with an appointed lawyer wholacks those essential qualities. Such a defendantlacks the sophistication to know whetherthe appointed lawyer is properly preparing the guilt and penalty defenses and no one is monitoring the prepa- ration. A person of meanscanafford to hire a team and, with moneyasleverage,is in a better position to insist that the entire team explainall the alternatives andstrategies that are available. The person who canhire a ten-person defense team is an aberration. The morelikely scenario involves the middle class defendant who pools all the family resources and puts up the houseto pay an attorney who,it turns out, has never tried a capital case. In thosecases, the client may have been better off in a California county with a Public Defenderoffice where death penalty cases gener- ally are well handled (with the defendant assigned two attorneys at the outset, unlike court appointed systems where secondchair is appointedafter the preliminary hearing andafter the district attorney has madethefinal decision regarding whetherto seek death). Most county Public Defenderoffices have defense investigators and in-house expertise 1. 408 U.S. 238 (1972). ona myriad of issues and topics. The problem is that depending on where the crime occurs in California, the defendant could have all of this or noneofit, and that is the travesty caused by pov- erty. In short, the death penalty has a troubling, disparate impact on the poor. Risk oferror. While the Commission found no conclusive evidence that any wrongfully convicted person hasever been executed in California since 1977, the risk is unmistakable. Manyjurists and researchers are convincedthatthelikelihood of wrongly convicted defendants having been exe- cuted in the United States is high. Unfortunately, in our criminal justice system, wrongful convic- tions arising from suchfactors as faulty eyewitness identification, false confessions, police mistake or misconduct, and prosecution mistake or miscon- duct occur with unacceptable frequency. Inept defense representation, lack of defense resources, and shoddy investigations also increase therisk of error. Many individuals on death row have been exonerated or otherwise have had their convictions set aside. That meansthat now orin the future, a person improperly sentenced to death will likely be sitting on California’s death row. We have experi- enced advances in DNAscience, but the problem is that in the vast majority of criminal cases, DNA evidenceis notavailable. This all raises the grim prospect that someday a mistake will be made(if one has not already been madeofwhich weare unaware), and an innocent person or one wrong- fully sentenced will be put to death in California. There is good reason why experienced Supreme Court justices from Douglas and Blackmunto O’Connerand Ginsburg,as well as other jurists across the country, have expressed great skepticism about the accuracy andfairness of the implementa- tion of the death penalty. Closing off other options. Another major concern that the death penalty raises for usis that it closes the door on any possibility ofredemption and heal- ing, something that we should all care about as a civil society. We heard testimonyfrom relatives of murdervictims whohadthe opportunity to meet with the murderersoftheir loved ones. Several were convinced of the sincerity of remorse that the perpetrators expressed andbelieved in their redemption. Those experiences have convinced manysuchrelatives that capital punishment must be abolished. Loved ones of murdered victims have shared with us their poignant experiencesoffind- ing a comforting balm, producedbyextolling life over deathbyvirtue oftheir advocacy of a sentence of imprisonmentuntil death without execution, for those convicted of such crimes. Moreover, some of those who havelost family members report they have benefited as a result of participating in what are essentially strength-based therapeutic sessions together with prisoners who demonstrated honest remorse. In addition, there are some loved ones whoreceive spiritual validation and fulfillment by assisting those convicted who genuinely pursue redemption in their own penitential journey toward the ultimate judgmentoftheir savior. Are someindividuals beyond redemption or rehabilita- tion? Probably. But being sentencedtolife without the possibility of parole addresses that problem. A civil and compassionate society should embrace the opportunity to develop the humanity in these individuals through our own humanity, but the death penalty forecloses that option. Death qualification. We are also deeply troubled by the death qualification requirementfor jurors. As the Commission report points out, during jury selection, potential jurors in capital cases are questioned abouttheir views regarding capital pun- ishmentin order to determine whetherthey will be able to follow the law in deciding what sentence to De at h Pe na lt y impose.In order to be “death-qualified” to serve on a capital jury, a person must bewilling to consider all of the sentencing options — usually death and life imprisonmentwithoutparole. If their opinions would prevent them from considering any of the sentencing options, then they are not “death-quali- fied” and are barred from serving onthejury. This culling of potential jurors based on their moral views may produce jury that looks quite different from the community at large and also, as some studies show, maybias the jury toward a verdict of guilt for the defendant. Capital juries tend to be less representative with respect to gender and race because women and African Americans are more opposedto the death penalty than white men. Researchers have foundthat the jury in capital trials is more biased toward the prosecution and a guilty verdict as compared tothe juries in robbery trials or non-capital murdertrials. There is evidence that death qualification biases the jury in two different ways. First, it tends to select jury members who are “conviction prone.” Second, the very process of death qualification may furtherbias the jurors. A credible argumentcan be madethat questioning the jurors intensively about punish- ment, beforethetrial even starts, suggests that there will be a sentencing phase ofthe capitaltrial ~ implying that the defendantis probably guilty. Death qualified juries deliberate less thoroughly and possibly less accurately than juries that better represent the whole population. This is born out by a study that reported that over 40 percentofjurors in capital cases surveyed admitted they had already decided on the penalty before the guilt phase had concluded. Thus, the requirementof a death quali- fied jury in itself causes unfairness. Evolving standards in other countries. Capital pun- ishment has been abandonedby a majority of the countries of the world. Thelist includesallies and many with whom weshare a commonheritage like the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain, Mexico,Ireland, the Philippines, and Canada. Even countries like Russia and Myanmarhavea de facto ban on the death penalty. In Israel, capital punish- mentis illegal in almostall circumstances; the death penalty was abolished there in 1954 with the exceptions of conviction for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against the Jewish people, and treason in wartime. As a death pen- alty jurisdiction,California is in the company of such countries as North Korea, China,Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Kuwait, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Cuba, and Egypt. The Commission report points out that New Jersey abolished the death penalty this past December. In doing so, New Jersey joined thirteen otherstates (Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin), plus the District of Columbia and PuertoRico, to ban capital punishment. Illinois has had a mora- torium on the death penalty for several years. New Jersey's ban cameonthe heels of a state Death Penalty Study Commission report that concluded that the death penalty did not fit with evolving stan- dards of decency, was morecostly to the state than life in prison,did noteffectively preventviolent crime, and could lead to innocent people being executed. The commission — comprised of prosecu- tors, law-enforcement, victims, religious groups, and individuals — also reported that the death penalty law had notresulted in an execution since 1963 and wasunfairfor victims’ families seeking swift justice. VOICES OF RELATIVES OF VICTIMS We can understandthe desire ofrelatives of murdervictims to see the murderers put to death by the state. Revenge, retaliation, andretribution are natural responses for many human beings. The Commission received sometestimony to this effect. But in the words of former Missouri Supreme Court Justice Charles B. Blackmar, “The relatives of the victim have the right to demand swift and sure punishment, but they do not have the right to demand death whentheprocessis so severely flawed.”* We sincerely wish that victims’ families who are looking for revenge or closure through the death penalty could find peacefor their pain and agony through someother means. In contrast, the Commission heard the words of otherrelatives of victims who are opposed to the death penalty. We admire all of the coura- geousrelatives of victims who camebefore the Commission (both for and against the death penalty) to testify. However, we were particularly moved by those who spokein opposition to the death penalty, we honestly do not know if we would havetheability to find forgiveness and compas- sion in our hearts under the same circumstances. It would be so mucheasier to hate and to lash out at the perpetrator. But knowing what we now know about the death penalty and why wethink it should be repealed, we pray that we wouldhavetheability and capacity to choose forgiveness over retribution if a loved one were murdered. Here are examples of thoserelatives of victims who demonstrated such remarkable capacity. Ell Aba Gayle spoke ofher twelveyears of anger and rage, until she wrote to the murderer of her daughter. She now hasvisited the man in San Quentin manytimes, and she has forgiven him. He has expressed deep remorse and has wept while he apologizes. The man who murdered Aba’s daughter no longer exists in her opinion. Shefeels that state-sanctioned capital punishment would tarnish the memory ofher daughter. FA DawnSpears’ daughter was murdered,leaving three children. Dawn does not wantthe children growing up with hate in their hearts. She feels that if she wanted death for the murderer, the message she would be conveyingto the childrenis thatit's okayto react violently. She cannotlive with that in her heart, and she does not wanther grandchildren to live with that in their hearts. Ed The murderers of Barbara Zerbe Macnab’s father were executed even though her mother pleaded with the court to spare their lives. Barbara testified that capital punishmentdoes not lessen the pain ofthe victim's family. Revenge is not ben- eficial to those who havelost a loved one. £4 The daughter of Amanda and Nick Wilcox was murdered by a deranged gunman whowentona rampage. Mr. and Mrs. Wilcox urged the prosecu- tor not to seek the death penalty. They knew that their daughter would not have wanted the broken, expensive, and violent practice of capital punish- ment administered in her name. Theybelieve that life without possibility of parole is appropriate for holding murderers accountable and keeping society safe. fF Aundre Herron’s brother was murdered, Herron first had a violent reaction to seek revenge. But she thenrealized that doing so would have forever tied the memory of her brotherto an act that was antithetical to whom she was. Herrontestified that if the state really cared aboutrelatives ofvictims, then moneyshould be spent on grief counsel- ing, funeral expenses,loss of income, and other resourcesthat will actually help them heal. = = 3] id @ a. = a) i} [ Notes: 1 2 4 4 sci PPeitins for reviaws froindecisionsin civil appeals Peitions for reviewarising ror cil original wns fadintha Courts af Appeal Patanforrevive fromdecisions in crminal apaests Petitions for review arisingfromm hate eurpus gitions Tod In tha Courts of Apia Pettions for review arising tram ariginal renal wits lad inthe ‘Courts af Apt utner than a potion for wrt ofhabeas corpus. cial Counel of Califrna SNe“ 2016 Court Statisies Report Filings andDisposition: Petitions for Review Fiscal Years 2008-06 through 2014-15 Supreme Court Data forFigures $10¢ 195 isi irinal Fiscal year Toial, Appeals Wits, Total’ Appeals) Habeas Corpus) Other Writs 3) ec) O) ©) oh is) 9) Ais 1158 8 2800 Bat 286 v7 Fy 112i 98 222 3013 2.568 258 187 ryt anit 90 Za 3.080 2.807 rye 3.208 318 285 3417 arte rn 1243, as 280 3.742 2,922 2s Fito 1.228 92 2a 3.031 200 Fy09 41,24 4,084 240 3.085 ve FY0a 285 4,125 370 3508 Ze Fray 4,393 1.087 308 2.885 175. Fras i,s2r ia 361 3.116 ‘et Dispositions Geena Chl Criminal - Figoal year ‘otal Total) Aspeals| Tosi! Appeals Habeas Gomus Other Wats cose eres entfh e © ee. # (8) 8. rvs 3.874 1,708 a4 2770 2387 258 155 Frye ‘4.031 1.068 ser 2.989 2533 243 187 evi 4,251 1.114 882 3.g7 2.670 ua 143 Fvi2 4549 3 504 5.381 278 397 206 evi 4934 1.233) 914 3.721 2.913 588 220 Fri) 5,096 123 983 38rd 8,025 886 188 FYO8 5.201 4351 4.091 3870 3,161 535 14 Fy08 5913 167 4ant 4446 3.460 758 28 Fyo7 4.823 1,389 1081 3a 2641 58 22 FOS 5522 1.524 4164 3,998 3.233 552 213, Column Koy: A B+E @) C+D. (0) Cases inwhicn te Court of Appeal case was a civil appeal (2) Casa m whler 192 Gourt of Appecl case was a chil ariginal proozecirg el F+G+H, 46) Cases inwhich the Court of Apes! case was a criminal apueal (G) Gases in whientha Court of Appesi case wa a petitionfor wrt of PaoeRs crmpus. 7H) Cases in which the Countof Appeal eage was 2 criminal caiginal preceecing otherthan @ petition for wrt of habeas carpus. Jicial Counel of Calfoxnia 2018 Court Statistics Repart Summary of Actions onPetitions for Review Supreme Court Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 1 Actions taken on pstilions forreview Granted Granted and Parewntage Disposed Tolnl Granted sndhe'd —sransfemed Denied’ granted al a (cr o) © © oe) Total 3874 3.868 a 4a 38 agit ae Totalcivil 4,104 4,093 30 ‘4 41045 3% Cl appoals Bes ar 28 4 3 a2 5 ults 220 216 2 a 1 218 1% Total criminal 2770 2.765 3 a 286 a% Criminal appeals usr 2aar 2 30 132277 3% Cronewrits (@xcluding habeas corpus) 185 448 2 i 6 480 13% Fabess Corpus 268 268 2 3 5 280 Column Key: (8) Sumaf C through F, (Administrative dispasitions are nut nel (0) (G+O+E)/B8 sithab.) Judicial Council ef California a 2016 Cour Stalisies Report Filings and Dispositions: Original Proceedings SupremeCourt FiscalYears 2005-06through 2014-15 Figures 11-13b Figure 11: Total Original Proceedings 5,000 a0 ti _3 = oS aa —" Se ee ———" Dispositions 2,000 1.000 ryos Fvoy FY Fvo9) FYI” FViDFYI2FVIa Evia YI Figure 12: Civil Total Figure 13: CriminalTotal 1 #3 ° = - I Fe Foe ree rae Fee Fro Fea Fes Notes: 11 Include orginal wit pations, questions of state awreferred by the federalcourts, accusations against atfomeys, and pettions pertain ‘ta Commission on Judicial Performarce proaredings, 2. Palilions fer rls of Fabeas corpus fll the Suprome Cours original jursdiction, not cluding flings vested te autorratic appcals, 3 Primarily petitions for wit af mandate andar yratialion, Judie I Council of California ° 2016 Cout Statsties Report, Filings and Dispositions: Original Proceedings Supreme Court Fiseal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15 Data for Figures 11-13b Filings anal Gol eiminat ical yoar tol Toil PUG” Oe iiaboss Comus! —Giher Wits (ai ® © @ o °) ris Dr 27 Q 7 in ‘a0 Fvid 2.158 232 z 230 2.326 201 FYE 3015 249 ° 249 71 rye 3505 708 ° 288 185 rn 3.850 225 z zy Fvid 3.639 2a 3 244 197 yea 3.546 251 ° on 189 yo 28 230 2 i768 vor 3204 262 6 288 68 y08 338 28 3 25 726 Dispositions cian Criminal sca year Toial Puc Hebeas Cops) Other Wats ae eh (c) Hs) Fie 296; 1 2.170 108 evs 4197 1 2.288 rr) FYI 248, ° 2,896 162 Fv 276 ° 3.758 187 Fv 248 3 ss 2a Fv zat 2 3.058 199 Fv zat 3 3.268 ee evo 234 2 3476 a Fv07 260 2 3.165 +63 Fvta 2a 3 3.065 2 Column Key: i B+, i c+0, {6} Petitions far raview ofPubl ¢ Utity Gornmission mattersoriginally fled inthe Cr o 28orignal tt petions, quusllans vfsate faw ofby t Commissionon Juticial Performance proceedings. Fes 14) Peiillons for writs ofhebeascorpus filed in the Supreme Gaunt arginal juiadict.on, rat includingflings related to automatic appacla, (G)__Primaniy pestions fer wet of mandate andor prehibition, urvef Appeal aru rallectadia Figuio 8b Jeral courts, accusetions against stianeys, ars petitions pertaining to Judleal Council of Gafornia 10 2016 Coun Statsties Report State Bar Matters Filed SupremeCourt Fiscal Years 2005-06 through2014-15, Figure 14 Table 2 Figure 44: Total State Bar Matters Filed 1.500 000 Fyoe EVO? FYB FYOS.FYIG. FY FYI br eva. Table 2: Types of Stale Bar Matters Filed Fiscal Year _Total__Aanision _Oisciptne_Other_Rlnstatomart_ Resignation Proposal pts 1027 2 sre ts 2 498 1 Fria eb s 456 4 5 a5 2 rts mm 4 ea 7 2 2 5 Fria om 6 oi 3 a as 3 en we °—_ 1003 a an Q rio 5 2 os 4 5 28 2 rv09 rea 8 se S 10 2 3 roa 7 a 401 ° ‘ a0 8 Bor ot 2 6 A 1 «3 2 Pre ose 4 xe 3 4 si 2 Nate: 1 Filings includ Stale Bar Court recammendat ansfor ciscipinary action, reporis of criminal canvitionsaf allomeys, mations forthe admiss-on sameys, roauos's forrule pragasals, and scher administrative mallors ralallng 0 the State Bar. tical Counet of Calforna 1 2016 Ceurt Statistios Report Business Transacted Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15 Figure 16: Written Opinions Figura 17: Petitions for Review * Granted Figure 20: Rehearings ~ Granted Notes: Supreme Gourt Figures 15-22 Figure 16: Original Proceedings Figure 18: Petitions for Re Denied Figure21; Rehearings — Denied Figure 19: Petitions for Review * Percent Granted Figure 22: Executive Clemency Applications ¢ 11 The Supreme Cour's exercise ofits discretion fa grant or deny petitions for revlow constitutes a sighficant part ofits werklose, 2 See Cal, Const, art. V. 68. iciCouncil of California 2016 Gow Stat'stics Report Business Transacted FiscalYears 2005-06 through 2014-15 veri) Fiscal year | opiniors) Granted a o rvs 16 et rig 5 59 FYI i) 8 AD Ea 63 ryt 98 a Frio 6 86 F¥09 16 39 x08 us 82 vor 13,82 Frys 128 a5 Column Key: ff) iB+C+D)/ (B16 -DFE} (i) Original proceedings disposed oF without sn ait ta the Cau afApu Note: Peitions for review" Granted ar Fd ('} The Sunreme Court's exercise ofis cleration to Rehearings frocal year Granted! Deried ABcli oe ne 22) Fvid a 2 via a v vie 0 20 rin o v Fv a 2 Yo ° 40 Fo ° 6 Fyo7 1 50 FY0S 1 a column Key. {C} See Cal, Const, art ¥,§8 hucitie! Council af California Executive clemency applications o. 0 1 i a 0 1zi a zi Grantest and ‘ransterrod wo 38 28 43) 4 36) 6 36 51 36 2 arg asi 4.886 5.405, 4,608 5.226 Pevwamtage! raated 7 2% Supreme Court Data for Figures 15-22 Or yinalpracoedings Aerie ais ar exdora Other Inshow cause) digpostions my @ 10 2,839) 1 ame 4 gan 12 4210 5 an 4 2.898 20 3.085 uW 5873, 3.600 " 3.598, 3.501 3 3.028 alive wel or cider Wo showcause, ©... denis and acimiistatvetransfers fart ot ceny petitions fnr reviewesnslitutes 2 significantpartefsunken 3 2018 CourStaietusReport Courtof AppealOpinions Ordered Depublished by the Supreme Court Supreme Gourt Fiscal Years 1996-97 through 2014-15 Figure 23, Figure 30: Depublished Opinions * Note: 80 40 yor Fvae FY? FMS. FYOS—FVOT Yu kya FYI Fiscal Year Depublished op nions ate Court of Appaal apinians thal the CaurLof Appeal has cerified ‘or publicstion butthat the Supreme Cour, acting underis consitinsal power avar op mien publication (Cal, Const, af VI, § 1), orders nol pulsed in ihe Official Repors, ard that may us citad or “lied upon only in lim ted circumstances (see Ca. Rulas of Court, ru8.11S{0}}. Far iformatononthe tatal rurberof published ané unpubisten opinions sued uy tha Courts of Appeal, zee Table 7 and Figures. 28-32in the Courts af Appealsection, Jucieial Council of California 14 2018 Court Stet stcs Report Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Depublished by the Supreme Court Supreme Court Fiscal Years 1996-97through 2014-15 Datafor Figure 23 Fiseal year Depubiisiad aoiniors ay a1 6 18 18 2 a W 4 19 16 “4 20, 15, at 31 3 5) 55 85 column Key: (A) Denuivished upinions ete Cour of Appeal oiniors thatthe Court of Apes!has verted far publicationbut trat the Suprome Cour, acting under is sonsltutonal power aver opinion pubivaisn (Cal. Const. srt VI, § 14}, orders nol pubisin he COffeial Reports. and thet may be eed at ‘olad upon only in liited circumstances (see Cal Rulesof Cour, rule 8 1115(b)) Forinfornalion the tetal ruber of publsned and unpubfished coiions iested by ths Courls of Appeal. seo Table 7 and Figures 28-32 in he Courts of Appealsection. Judicial Coune of Callornia 18 2018 Court Stalstics Report Capital Cases in Which the Record WasNotCertified for ‘SupremeCourt Completeness Within 90 Days, and for Accuracy Within 120 Days Tabte 3 Fiscal Year 2014-2015 In the following cases, the record was notcertified for completeness ‘within 90 days. (See Penal Code, § 190.8(d).) Supreme Court Superior court Sentence County casenumber Name case number date There are no casesto report. Inthe following cases, the record was notcertified for accuracy within 120 days. (See Penal Gade, § 190.8 (g).) Supreme Court Superior court Sentence County case number Name case number date There are no casesto report. Judicial Coune!| of Cal fornia 16 2018 Court Staisics Report Courts of Appeal < a PerformanceIndicator Data Fiscal Year 2014-15 Courts of Appeal Table 1 Numberof Fulltime Ponding Appests Appeals rity upinions, authorized udge fully briefed becoming disposed of by ——SSSS*«Cg District justices oqulvatente ‘appeals fully briefed written epinion Appeals proceedings, tay (6) (o (0) ©. 6 iS) Statewide 108 wo13 4108 3.673 9at7 9,188 395 First 20 193 oan 4,280 1.190 69 Second cA 2838 3116 3.086 3 Tard on soe 801 082 1,198 4,093 8B Forth 8 249) 888 279 2.520 te Fins 10 a7 538 axe 733 sixth 7 70 365 588 se? 18 Column Key: {A} Authorized justices as of June 30, 2018. Noss notincluda assistance éoceives through assignments, {8} *Ful-tne judge equivalents” includes @ court's regular number of judy, plus 60 peroentofthe time reported forjudges asclgned to the court (translated ino ful-sime postions), minus tha time reparted forthe assignments ofthe courts regular smambarsto another court and for unflled vacancies (Wanslatad ino fulime postions). (0) Appeals argued, cslendated,or ready as of June 30, 2018. (0) The taal number of appeals thal becare fly briefed during Necal year 2074-15. (©) Appeals dlsnosed of by opinion during fiscal year 201418, Includes appealsfledpriorto fiscalyear2014-15, (©) Tho number of written opinionsthat decider! appests, Ona opinion may have decided morethan one appeal (6) Thesnumbarof written opinionsthat decided orginal proceedings. One opinion may have decided more than one case. Judicial Counell of Calfornia 8 2016 Court Statistics Report PerformanceIndicator Data Fiscal Year 2014-15 Figure 1: Ratio of Pending Fully Brieted Appeals per 100 Appeals Disposod of by Written Opinion cetera) Sc RRL 9 a a 100 Figure 2: Pending Fully Briefed Appeals per Aulhorized Justiceas of June 30, 2015 1, ‘otee Sich a vo Fit FeSr 8 » 40 0 80 Figure 3: Majority Opinions por Judge Equivalent secon!EES ‘SS a So EES "iSSR 1s D 2m 4 6 89 10 10 Judicial Counel ofCalifornia 20 Courts of Appeal Figures 1-3 This rata is 3 measure of pending workload 35 well as isc productsty and isanestimateof the tinea caurt eds ta dispose of pending fully briefedappeals. ratio of TNs equivalent to ane year, SOs equivalent to six months, and soforth. The estimates based on the assumptionthatthe court will decide the same quiaberof appeals nthe mexefiscal year a in 2014-15, ‘The Sezond histict had 25 fully brleted appeals per 100 appeals spacer of byopinionIn 2014-15, the lowest ratio among the sk appeltate astiets, ‘The Fifth District hac 24 pendingfully bricfed appeals per 00 appeals disposed ofby opinion, Uichighest ratio amongthe sik appellate dts, Thestatewideaverage increased from 42in 2012-1410 44 inane. ‘The Fifth pstnct reported thehighest number of pending {ullybrsfed appeals per authoried justice, 64, ‘The Second Dbritrevorted the lowest number of pending fully briefed appeals per authorized hsbie, 24 Thestatowide average increased from 38in 2013-1410 38, in 2014s, “judge equivatent” vefers to the number of authorized justicesadjusted for judicial vacancies, assistancegiven 6a ther courts, ana judicial asislanee received. “The statewideaverage opinions perjudge equivalentwas 95 in 2014-15, compared to 9Gin 2013-14. ‘The Second District reported the highest rate,107 opinions per judge eauvalent—13 pereent higher than the statewide average ‘The First Dist reported the lowest open sate, 66 per dee equivalent. However, the First Dstthad a lower ‘than statewide average numberof pending Fully beled appeals per authorized Juste, Ihe lowesdisposition rate ray rect that fewer cases are ayalabe forthe justices. feyond an optimum numberofopinions not yet identified, high ratesofdispositioninate overload and 2 need for adltonaljustices 20°6 Court Ssatistics Report Caseload Comparisons Fiscal Year 2014-15 “Total appesis Courts of Appeal Table 2 = Numberof Pending appeals Aolicos Mlcdin disposed afin Penting appeals aulorized District asuf a/30rt4 Fy 2n12-15; FY 2018 as of B35 justices ea iy ay i} 2) é) Statewide 13,584 15,213 14.098 14688 105 First 20xe 2.077 1,906 2238 20 Second 4.007 4,800 4853 4325 2 Third 1921 4,800 1741 2.099 u Four 3275 4,238 4,998 3439 a5 ith 4303 1,287 1,205 4,801 10 Sixth 4038 991 800 1.089 7 Column Key: (A), {8} Inciudes agpeals for whish ne recordhes nat been fea (0) Inciudas aapoals for which 2e record hes net been ed fe) Authorized justces as of ture 39, 20°5. Judicial Goune!l of Calfomia 2016 Court Satstice Report Caseload Comparison per Authorized Justice Fiscal Year 2014-15, Figure 4: Pending Appwals: Casoload Comparisan per Authorizod Justice FirstTT Seon aFath e el6 ee a 50 100 180 pee mzotg 2014 Figure5: Filings and Dispositions: Casoload Comp: Authorized Justice per Seles ee (eeeft SecondT (ae TiteNe 2 et : = ‘oe 7 si Courts of Appeal Figures 4-5 Depts the change In courts? inventories of appeals perauthored justice by shwing pending cases asf lune 30,2024, and pending ‘agesas af une 20, 2015 ‘The Third Distt had the hignest levelof peading appeals per justice seof une 30,2015 36ppercent higher than thestatewide average. Ine statewideaverage ofpending opeats pes justice was 129 as of dune 30,2014, and 14035 of une 3, 2019—an increase of 9 percent. ‘The numberot flings and dispositions relates ta a cour’ pending caseload; Aeposingfewer caves than were fled in 2 time period would add ta the number bt pending cases and cour backlog, “TheFourth Dstct had thehighest levelofflingsand dispositions per justice in 2014-25, Flingspar justice inthe Fourth District were17 percenthigher than thestatewide average,and dspastians per Justice were 23percent higher than the statewide average. The Fest osvet had the lowest levek of filngs and dispastons per lustee, 2018 Court Statistics Report SummaryofFilings Courts of Appeal Fiscal Years 2005-06through 2014-15 Figures 6-7 Total Contested matters Recordsof appeal aa Figure Total Contested Matters. 7 ev Ball cemsen soo00 20000 SST en 18,000 Fyos FvOTFyog. Fvog FIO) FYI FYI2, PYISFYIGFYAS Figure 7: Tota! Contested Matters perAuthorized Justice 20 200 109 e roe FYOF Fm FYuS FYI. PY FYI2 FYI. FYI FYI Juda! Council of California a 2018 CourlStatistics Report Record of AppealFilings Courts of Appeal Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15 Figures 8-14 Figure 8 AlDistiets Aa cwrmnone Gininel| ——— SSS Sa = eee e ~ Ons “S00 Fea Fr Figure 11: Third istrict Figure 12: Fourth District 800 101 Figure 13: Fifth District 8 Pree Fea Jucicial Cauneil of California Figure 14: SixthDistrlet rvs Fro Fro eve rn 4 ‘Court Slatstics Report Original Proceedings Filings Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15 Figure 15: All Districts Courts of Appeal Figures 15-21 Get this data CCrinvinal vit eeeae eC Figure 16: First District Figure 17; Secand District Figure 19: Fourth District Figure 20; Fifth District Figure 21: Sixth District Judicial Counci of California 28 2016 Court Statistics Report Appeals Terminated by Written Opinion Fiscal Years 2012-13 through 2014-15 Affirmed reversed Mil Figure 22: Totalappeals FYis Fy Fvis a 2% o” Fvis Fvt4 Fvis |» Figure 26: Juvenile appeals (criminal violation) Frits ra Fria 0% Judicial Council af Gioia. ey Courts of Appeal Figures 22-27 Dismissed fi Figure 23: Criminal appeals bydefendants . Figure 25: Civil appeals Ee « a Te Te Te Figure 27: Otherjuvenile appeals 2018 CourtSatsice Rapa Percentage of Majority Opinions Published Fiscal Year 2014-15 Figure 28; Total Appeals Courts of Appeal Figures 28-32 ith x Sixt 2 v Figure 29: Criminal Appoals ctTT Seconé AR33. iI ohTD Kita 3 So ST 3 8 10% Figure 31: Juvenile Appeals, Shiite IT5s, ctES2: iA2 etET3% Fouth aN2% Fa I 25 Sh 7% o% 5 10% tucieal Council of Cetornin Fa 18% Figure 30: Civil Appeals Steviese ctTT25 Socond TT10% itTT25%, Court TS 15% +hTT2. sixth Figure 32: Original Proceedings . 0% rh 40% 60% 20168 Court Staisiew Reparl Civil Appeals: Time From Notice of Appealto Filing Opinion (90th Percentile and Median) Fiscal Year 2014-15 90% of Appeals Processed Within Courts of Appeal Figure 33 Court District __Division Location (days) Median Time in Days Second 6 Ventura 67 ES 425 Second 8 Los Angeles 671 ARNE 491 Second 8 Los Angeles 696 AREER 449 Second 4 Los Angeles 728 SSLORNERSSESRRUERNES 457 Socond 2 LosAngeles ear SCN 459 First 1 San Francisco nm 464 First 5 SanFrancisco 701 Ss479 Fourth 1 San Diego 832 EEE 457 First 3 San Francisco 934 Sa419 Fifth Fresno 713 NN507 Second 1 Las Angeles 780 510 Second 7 Los Angeles 805 Ee511 Statewide 846 51s Fourth 3 Santa Ana 244 =e518 First 2 San Francisco 762 SE$26 Second 3 Los Angsies 785 I548 First 4 San Francisco 945 EE639 Sixth San Jose 998 SS653 Fourlh a Riverside 982 a657 Third Sacramento 1.107 A603 Jial Counc ofCalifia a 2018 Coun StatistReport Criminal Appeals: Time From Notice of Appeal to Filing Opinion (90th Percentile and Median) Fiseal Year 2014-15 90% of Appeals ProcessedWithin Courts of Appeal Figure 34 ___Location (days)___- Median Time in Days Second 5 Los Angeles 519 MTS 35/ Second 6 Ventura eA4 NN 379 First 5 San Francisco 709 oT 10) Second 8 Los Angeles 850 326 First 3 San Francisca 860 SE412 Fourth 2 Riverside 666 114 Fourth 1 San Diego 660 ER419 Second 2 Los Angeles 593 427 Second 4 Los Angeles 634 —250 Second 1 Los Angeles 667 URE 44 Second 7 Los Angeles 863 440 First 1 San Francisco 797 SEE 451 Statewide 765 ee57 Second 3 Los Angeles, 734 472 Third Sacramento 975 OES 472 Fourth 3 Santa Ana 692 NY473 Sixth San Jose 843 SUUNNRUEEATE 465 First San Francisco a7 ART 516 First San Francisea a8 ED537 Fifth Fresno 835 SS614 Judicial Counel of Calforsia 2 2016 Gout Statistics Report Su mm ar y of Fi li ng s an d Di sp os it io ns Co ur ts of Ap pe al Fi sc al Ye ar s 20 13 -1 4a nd 20 14 -1 5 Ta bl e 3 Ori gin e Tot al Co ur t i s vi a Fy i4 St at ew id e 2 2 9 9 6 2 2 2 2 9 2 6 2 18. 213 , rv s e y ba s ay ia 22 ,0 88 22 ,1 72 Fir st Di Div isi on 4 Dis isi on 2 Div isi on 3 Dis isi on 4 Div isi on 5 3. 09 8 2a an or so t 1. 02 2 2a er 2. 99 3 - 52 6 56 55 2 55 5 5a 57 23 a8 \ EI EId ‘S ec on d Dis tri ct 76 st 7. 37 6 51 67 4, 88 0 2a m 25 8 T 4 7 0 7 , 3 biti 8ibitgt 20 4 60 8 58 2 zr 28 2 aa 79 0 at s 6S 72 45 99 ) 43 08 2zsr )||/ / 22 6 54 8 52 8 “Th iD is tt 2r s4 2.9 98) 11 30 0 vo r 19 8 25 83 e M Fou rth Dis tri ct su s 6. 20 9 Div isi on 1 ag ra 4, 90 8 Div isi on 2 zo n 22 36 Div isi on 3 17 38 4, 66 8 42 98 19 28 1.8 /1 5 9 2 3 6 4 8 14 17 ) 53 6 48 5 498 9/0 87 a 4, 56 0 72 0 61 6 42 61 36 8 40 7 1.8 53, 51 2 89 45 2 F n 42 47 69 78 9 re t 20 82 2. 01 8 bis t 4 9 2 1 1 3 9 6 97 6 ’ 34 5 34 5 us ie al Co un to f Cal e d s iSB09 9.02, euieye9yor2uNeD [BIN b o o 2 082) SOb eth ser s w e e t 1 oom gos ues u e aus s o He zo o T a a a rusia as ver z e k e ae 2 7 6, zh oc oo oe « e v e SS? S k e e o m y ze =z UaISING PL Sh Ore Bae BY Oey zez)) 062 S85) SS DUS BEE L U O ssp c p g ) S O R L BOT re ngLpaL'Y ZBL ORL RELL U o e S i8z BE SOD SOL sez ple EDL Z L egy LP PAN, 49 Zid S S B F PEL OGZFL OPP GOST POOL eae HEL SES oneL zune 1810 1 H 88 ae de aoe) Z08 aL s e m e Bez eee BE uF) SuoISG wea, 7k BBL b u n ; g6s'b eet 76 580. OPO'L BS) SIZ aPCe YUISIGPUEDES a ee nah es Md cece Ase char cue'y —sua's peal) szu'z sen'z ans teb'o Huth Suty use geo tue'o E L eBe'S 20'S epumareis. Tika SiAd OWAd GUAT PlAd SIA Wad “SiAd FIAT iad Via Tika Sika Sika S a d a “ c y reug wo n u n s r e g aquaane wo sSurpesooud ‘cuIBO) perdes jeaddy jo spines ay spi000 ‘wade joS2090N St-v10zPurepi-clozs1E4 rosia s6uljiy Jo Arewiuing day sous eg U20 907 ze uoyteo Jo youneg jeeIN 2 2 m o u ee E K w k wah r e a s spursig wong c o e n w e e a h S L sours n e y — S E A O L L S H e t LN G P S E O S I N euoisiag mz i ww se eb zr cb L e z O C C H S L Z uorsinig 6 s SNE Se NSE a LSS A T a S H V 1b voisiic se dt R E L h h , we bse US Ldh RP deer uz: 0 66e voirsig u n o ab gh s a B O L L a a a a rusia 2 e y a e e S L O N N E , o o o e i 5 os 8 ) ze 08 o h ® D e # S S S we 2 3 h 8h b = oF oe « i ie f f eo ay o r g g = 8 [ e e e e e e ee e e e L p o o Z oo 0 oz 8 ie u9 e w e Sh o a we S a y e S S e c T O U T at z eo oF i e 9 s e s a z% g o s t va rh z c a e Z oe k L e A ee a ( 9 8 eee 9h e e e G S D S S ETLeE'L e8L'L s i g pussas ' E s oe T S N S S MIST ev a suosHiG ‘ 8 ae a wz ow @ 6 Be er a Puassing z 6 @ S L a , is seb o o ) s i m m S S so se Zversing fi A E we E e SS a C S 09 ry)))/0ze buorsiig ° a zr S h a l e c m e S R L t e r e s youisig se 26 soz ze_—PEW'L ss’) ghar, Laz" peu’ Let") cab’ Pe") suo'L zest oel'y z h 01's epymees F t SID Ag STAG trad S A L A “GILG Wiad “iA Pad GUAT Wiad Sid Wad A d PAT “SUA ane oqveane me e u wa Parr RIOSET aN Daly RIGDEL WORDS OMAR einige a n a Ae serge. St-pL0z pue pL-eL0z SAea, [ROI leaddy jo suneg uontsodsiq Jo pomew—sjeeddy Di sp os it io ns of Or ig in al Pr oc ee di ng s Co ur ts of Ap pe al Fi sc al Ye ar s 20 13 -1 4 an d 20 14 -1 5 Ta bl e 6 By Wi tt en Op in io n wi th ou tO pi ni on Cri min al Gi Cri min al Co ur t ry is __ Fy ia F y ny t rv s ev a ra s ay ia zy ig _ vs ‘S ta te wi de at 14 1 12 4 18 1 ta r 19 9 1 0 3 8 7 5 1 4 8 5 4 4 0 9 6 13 7 13 0 Fir st Bis a 30 31 «a 5s a2 28 6 56 7 1 18 i 4 v 14 5a 6 12 8 320 ) 4 7 2 2 Ey 45 94 12 8 1 3 12 0 11 7 4 2 a 4 2 7 16 n 8 10 6 a1 53 59 119 ) 12 4 Se co nd Dis tne t 46 48 2 Di vi so n 1 44 Ds ts io n2 a Div isi on 3 1% 4 Div isi on 4 Div isi on 5 Div isi on 6 Div isi on 7 Division & No t a ss ig ne d 65 7 10 he rs 1. 88 80 a 70 sr 20 6 22 3 4 7 95 94 zi e 21 3 3 a 40 80) 10 5 16 9 8 5 80 4 20 2 22 % 8 “4 7 or 20 8 23 4 5 48 5a n 17 8 tr 4 1 o4 7 20 1 20 0 4 46 cf 93 17 4 18 1 13 6 rd Dis tri ct 8 10 5 8 1 3 12 s 12 4 ec t Fou rth Dis tie t a a 4a 6 19 18 @ 1" 3 13 6 13 5 16 15 2 3 uw 11 3 12 5 2 4 16 a i 18 15 8 10 5 43 40 7 49 6 i o 1 32 8 50 3 17 8 Fif th Di st a 6 e 12 a 38 a or 58 5 60 4 8 2 Sin thD is tr ic t lus ici al Co un el of Ca lf am ia 38 20 °6 Co ur Stati stics Re ps wocoy jauneeapar 4 L z 2 © q we eo we ee hh o s e sasig i s o o a 8 2 2 ZL ehh isp ast eet ce mee vevnsicl Mud — _ e e T a e e w e azo) pe) aze see asa vee al ez o m 9 . rer St 088 Sh bre iz 6s ae a s a s a i z e r 94° (DAL I ee ah Be) HS. 96” 28 a Be m e r ze Sk a a lez epoz e t 4 ’ a a i sil Sk R L S Bob ort e e b ‘ £ uz 8 Bot see 6p guotwa ¥ £ ¥ a s e T bt 09) 498 v o s , 5 i z 7 ° s w ove por itp 9 uaisina # z z 4 ® we 89 1h sly oer s u e s © z z 8 5 oe ag zal aor Se yuoisiva © z ¥ s e l 2 Be eh Eating © 2 z L ° w e tly ge Zuotswa e 0 6 8 +b S a or ae. u o f e w e e se OF woo e99 e e wZe G L tasig puoos ¥ é z z ¥ e C 2 oor 208 w e e s u o 5 4 0 ‘ z ‘ C n a siz ole 3 un z ¥ 3 z ei EES 6 zaz ee s l a 9 z z3 + b s t e e lez lz o w ¥ ° e © e R zo wit r d wm 08 no gE wz Sk we ez N S S eech Bet i ett m 6 w a t h aro rsh Ley aay oss eae’ epyesreis. vikd Slag Prag S V A J S I A d < S I A S “PLAS «SAL PVA SUAS Fiad Sad aRED piuoanr e w w No Faun e a u ip pao. ‘sBupesoaid UBUO) seach zaige. SI-Ph0z pue pL-e102S129, [ROs14 jeaddy so sunog uspLIM suoiuidg, Pe nd in g Ap pe al s— To ta l an dF ul ly Br ie fe d as of Ju ne 30 , 20 14 , an d Ju ne 30 , 20 15 Tot a. pan eli ng ap pe al s* ly br ef ed ap pe as Co ur ts of Ap pe al Ta bl e8 Co ur t Tot al an or ow l 05 3 te on 0" Cri min al du ve ni o sa or ta St at ew id e 1 Fir st Dis tic t Div isi on 4 Div isi on 2 Div isi on3 Div isi on 4 BWv isi onS Dis tne t Fo ur th Dis tic t Div isi on 4 Div i Div isi on 3 Fi th Di st r: Six th Di st t Nat e: “I nc lu de sa pp ea ls for whi cn th e rec oro ha sn olb e Jud ici al Cou nci lo fC al fo mi a4, 68 9 2. 23 6 39 0 47 6 48 2 53 6 40 2 43 25 495 , 44 9 5a 47 9 44 48 5 51 2 48 1 48 5 2. 09 8 3. 49 9 73 4. 20 8 3. 25 8 ta .5 84 20 38 38 3 40 9 422 , 44 9 37 6 4, 00 7 44 0 43 7 49 8 43 4 3a 49 6 4a 42 7 50 0 5, 05 9 1, 03 2 17 8 zr 19 5 25 8 4 19 16 20 7 16 5 20 7 17 8 46 5 13 0 206 : 181 45 6 20 14 13 44 8 34 8 61 8 24 a4 5. 62 5 so e 18 8 19 8 21 0 23 1 1a ea 10 4 16 8 26 v7 17 5 15 6 19 2 16 4 47 9 28 8 14 51 439 ) 49 3 51 9 22 8 48 2 7, 50 9 29 8 15 6 ia t 16 20 8 16 0 1. 32 8 21 6 21 4 za t 22 0 18 9 30 3 22 20 7 16 13 13 17 45 5, 1 8 73 4 14 7 16 5 16 6 13 7 51 8 17 4 18 5 17 5 44 0 26 2 18 9 18 2 2 21 8 22 46 . 65 0 42 5 90 6 45 21 30 5 6 5 53 70 cy 58 1 m2 70 86 a 60 a a3 3 8 19 8 28 1 98 12 8 56 Py m a 2 14 44 46 E 49 52 5 sa r 2 a4 at 82 6 ae 53 at 0 is o 30 2 1 12 9 2 10 8 oa 4, 10 8 77 5 11 2 15 8 sa a 25 2 40 5 43 1 16 8 81 69 14 2 0 69 1 88 8 22 0 05 36 3 63 8 35 3 x3 7 s0 4 a4 7 12 7 76 5 a 21 5 48 a0 ) 58 8 37 3 40 4 11 6 22 8 2. 49 0 10 2 4 28 2 28 2 46 42 18 38 45 2» 4 48 2 a4 15 9 ar a 54 9 Be a 20 2 an 8S . 22 2 a a2 41 3 8 3 2 3 31 2 4 5 Bs a 28 c t an 97 a 8 2 13 5 9 = 18 19 1" 33 a 5 20 30 8 o a 50 8 a 8 20 16 Cou rt St at si es Re po r Superior Courts Caseloads and Authorized Judicial Positions Superior Courts FiscalYears 2005-06 through 2014-15 Figures 1-2 Ha] comes ee Filings Figure 1: Total Fifings and Dispesitions omc Dispositions 9,000,000 — ee 6,009,000, 3,000,008 e Fyoe -FYOr FOB YG FYIO FYI FYt2 FYI FYI FYI Figure 2: Total Filings and Dispositions per Ju iat Position = Filings per Jusicial Position rcoowomomes Dispositions ner Judlefal Position 900) 4.300 3.000 1800 FyosFYOY FYOS. FYOa. VIG. FAT. FIZ FYI FYFE Judicial Coune'l of Calfomia 39 2018 Court Siatistes Report Civit Filings and Dispositions Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15 Figure 3: Total Civil Filings and Dispositions: Figure: Givl Unlimited Figure 8: Civil Limited Jiciet Council ef Cakforri Superior Courts Figuras 3-9 Ba ores dou Frings —— Bisposivons Pore: oor atiPuPOID Finn oar PHFOND Bie) ee vsina sna (gue: cia complains Figure 8: Small Claims 40 a CalCourTools: Caseload Clearance Rates Superior Courts Civil Unlimited,Civil Limited, Small Claims. Figures 10-16, Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15 Ha sec Figure 10: Total Civil saranca ale equals the nuinbar of ourgomg casos as a percentage ne | ofthe sumber of incoming cases!| clearance rat of 100% iets ‘hat tne numbor ofeasesdeposed fin any given year equalsthe ws umber ofcae fled Dispositions con Clearance Rate Frings. Figure 12: Motor Vehicle PHPDAWD Figute 13: Other PPOAWO Figure 11: Civil Unieited co ves am pagar14: Ch complaints Figure 18: Civil Limited Figura 16: Small Claims 1)Ne 8 Ltuticil CounetofCalfoma 4“ 2018 Court Statistics Report CalCourTools: Timeto Disposition Superior Courts Civil Untimited, Civil Limited, Small Claims Figures 17-20 Fiscal Yoars 2005-06 through 2014-15 Ha) cence Civil Case Processing Time (percentof cases disposedwithin specified periads) The Standards of Judicial Administration establishes case processing timeto disposition goals for different typesof civl cases, which are prosontadbelow with the specific time standards and target performance level andard | Ta stanctac Goat Figuro 17: €WvilUnlited Figure 18: Limited cull 08s 7 standard standard asa thin 2atne shin 18 ans oes Whin 2 mantns Within 2 months 20% 2 om o%rye ros pr Pas Ps Fre Pre Pe Figure 19: Uniawul Detainer Figure 20: Small Claims 100%. 190% TE . i ms Taye Standard ‘ona wich30 Eny8 sts wai 7Days soi 2% 25% om ‘ - % — - yo Fro ere ris Fe 6 me Judicial Council of Caltornia 2 2016 Court Statistis Report Caseflow ManagementData Stage of Case at Disposition — Civil Fiseal Year 2014-15 Figure 21: How and at what stageare civil casesresolved? Unlimited Civil Numer d soased before Baea(5%) Number disposed! stertial ee—(2%) Limited vil Number d.sposed beforetrial arT.T64 ey Numer dispased aftertial 32,180 (8%) Small Claims Number disposed before tral 67.327 (ase) Number disposed aftertial 90.873 lugicial Council of California a + Superior Courts Figure 21 rytay @ 3% vid tenia ty fom 2016 Court Statistes Report Criminal Filings and Dispositions Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15, Figure Felony Figure 28: Nontyatic Misdemeanor Figure 25: Nantraffic Infraction ludicial Counc! of California Superior Courts Figures 22-26 al corse Fitings —_——— ispasiticns —aauamnsaae Figure 28: Traffic Misdemeanor rice Fas mre Foe Figura 26: Traffic Infraction 4 2016 Court Statistics Ruport CalCourTools: Caseload Clearance Rates CriminalFelonies, Misdemeanors,Infractions Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15, Figure 27: Fetony Figure 28: Nontraffic Misdemeanor Superior Courts Figures 27-31 Clearares Rate ecqals the nurs: 3 caoing cases asa petcenlace tlle inter of crieas ‘A.cearance rate of190% ind.cales that Fe rmanaf cases spose fin any given year equ’ the furter ct eases tied Dispositons Garance Rate ~ Flings Figure 28: Trafic Misdemeanor Figure 30: Nontraffc Infraction tudcial Council of Cebfornia 45 re 34: Teaffic Infraction a1 Court Statsties Report CalCourTools: Timeto Disposition — Criminal Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15 Figure $2: Felonies dSsposedwithin 12 months 00% — 18% 0% 25% ~ is “eo ris Figure 23: Fatonies resulting in bindover o¢ coriied pleas Superior Courts Figures 32-34 all ose Criminal Gase Processing Time {percent of casas disposed vithin spectind peracs) ‘The Standards of Judicial Administration establishes case processing time to disposition goals for different types of criminal cases, which are presented below with the specific time standards and target performancelevel tn tans thon 89 dave Tame Infaca thar 45 dae Inesthan 88 aay 30%100% 100% = 120% 7% = 75%, - 19% 8Ne 0% 25% - 25% 28% : om . om 0% rvs Frag FIs Fras Fre Fro FreFYIS Figure 34: Misdemeanors disposed In tesstran 26 dors In toas than 99 days Tame fn testhas 520 days = 32% 2008 00% = 100% = 100% —~— Sl me 50% 50% = 50% 28% 255% a 25% ow om Fre Fy pig RY Fy PRE Foo FY rye tudicia! Council of Califor 48 2018 Court Statistics Report Caseflow ManagementData StageofCaseat Disposition — Felony Fiscal Year 2014-15 Figure 28: How and at what stage are felonycasesresolved? ‘Total felony digpositions (notincluding felony ps 221.0 Number disposed beforetial 218,808 oe, Court tists fe 1%) 1 Jury tals 4778 (%) Counc! al California ar Superior Courts Figure 35 al cenec vsIo, ‘vances Feions semen I 2 ‘anaare et Fetus Yiedenesner sequitas 206 Coun Statistics Report Casefiow ManagementData Superior Courts Stage of Caseat Disposition — Misdemeanors andInfractions Figure 36 Fiscal Year 2014-15, Hall corso igure 36: How and at what stage ara misdemeanorandinfraction cases resolved? Nontraffic Misdemeanors Nursber dpsed before ial ot Fina Seesaaa TEae) ote ET se Number disposed ator al | ozs Fase nyEAR os Traffic Misdemeanors Nurber a sposed befor ia ism) cnet ER 2 starbar spoatets 2TR | 4208 ——- rf Nontraffic Infractions, Number disposed tefore ial eaeea(or) umber disposed afer til Cour Tris ey Bw: oeA urnber aisposed urtal Cou Trals aly 3%) Judicial Counc of Galtornia B 2016 Court Statistics Report Family and Juvenile Filings and Dispositions Superior Courts Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15 Figures 37-40 — Flings —— Dispositions erwmeramemmen Figure 37: Family Law Marital Figure 38: Family Law Petitions ra.u00 200,008 Se Figure 29: Juvenile Delinquency Figure 40: Juvenile Depondoncy Judicial Council of California cy 2018 Court Statistics Reaort CalCourTools: Caseload Clearance Rates Superior Courts Family Law, Juvenile Delinquency, Juvenile Dependency Figures 41-44 Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15 uel this dats Cearanca Fala squats the numberof outgoing cases as a percentage of tho aumier of Inoming cases, A clearance rave of ‘o0MeIndeates thatthe umber of eases cisposad afinany given year equals the numberof eases ed. Dispositions Craarance Rat Fringe Figure 41: Family Law — Moritat Figure 42: Family Law Petitions Figure 44; Juvenile DependencyFigure 43: Juvenile Delinquency me s Judilal Counc of California 80 2918 Court Sllistics Raport Probate, Mental Health, Appeals, Habeas CorpusFilings and Dispositions Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15, Figure 45: Probate Figure 47: Appeals aa udicial Council of Cal fornia 51 Superior Courts Figures 45-48 ta Figure 46: Mental Health cas Figure 48: Criminal Habeas Corpus 2016 Court CalCourTools: Caseload Clearance Rates Probate, Mental Health, Appeals, Habeas Corpus Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15 Superior Courts igures 49-52 Ba corneas CCrnararce Rate seua's the number9 oulgoirg casas a5a percorlago of the number ofineom ng oases. A cluaranca ralof {UPnicalos that the aus bar af casas rspesed ol n any given yoar eq§ tne numberof vases ad Disnesiiens Clearance Rete = Frings Figure 49: Probate Figure 80: Mental Health Figure 81: Appaais, Figure52: Criminal Habeas Corpus Juticial Goune of Galtorma 2 2016 Court Staistes Report Caseflow ManagementData Trials By Type of Proceeding Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014~15 Superior Courts Figures 53-65 Ta] cess uyTis Figure 58: Trials ote — 0.08 18.000 s00 Aa 415,000 400.000)Ee 120000 ome 000 E & 220,000 6.000 3 300,000 3.000 ° ° Fv; RYO? FYOB FYOeFYIO. FYIT FYIZ, FYI. FYI FYIS Jury Trials oe 9: sory ows 3: Mndemsanor gue 3: APOCl Units Court Trials Four Fons sna nctore ae 2: UROFADine om 8Ne 200 TS Figure 02:Ctanes ao: cum Fiat 5 Probantl at vows —~ 020 YO 010) ES 15009 zoom 00a era a a aay tical Council of Cal arnia 53 2018 Court Statistics Resort Trial Court Workload and Resources Judicial Positions and Useof Judicial Assistance cal Years 2005-06 through2014-45 Definitionof Terms Assessed Judicial Need {Ak Roprosonts ne estimated aw'tor al jutof Superior Courts Figures 66-69 se to ale the orkid in tha ial urs based wr Ine Judicial Needs Assesererl Project, The Juccial Needs Assassrma'r Projoet was aapravad hy the Judie al Counts 2001as the methodology ot ‘evaluating judicial workloas ar! the need forrewucgestips. Ip 2004, tho Jusical Counel approved amia ch tn the assessment mele39.0qy hat uses 4 3-yearaverage “ings eat instead ofusing sila yoar The RIN numbars ara uodated cia 2 year cj!e n.exon numberae yesrs, and tho valu foPY 20a 18 represents the 2014 upsets Tat ws pres Judicial Position Equivalents (APE): Reflects auaizow xia posi'ans achsledfor vacancies, use stance densa ty th att, ant aes vento the Judicial Gouri al ho December 20:4 meeing ceived by the cata framassigned edges, zamporay jake, commissioners, and eerees. ‘AuthorizedJudlelal Positions (AJP): Nuirber of auhor2ed uidgeshins, comm ssicne's, ode010 fin statute, Authorized Judgeships: NurrUetof ulgeshios aunori Judiclat Assistance Received by Trial Courts: Inchites nly assistance erdored by judges thaugn assignments. Does notincuds assistance Fendoten hy corm ssioners, reer, and tonporay judges hese arinclJPE). F gure 68: Total JudicialPosition Equivalents (PED and Assessed Juiclal Need (AIN) Figure 67: TotalAuthorized JudicialPositions (AJP) fand Assessed Jucicial Wood (AIN} eaeee Figure 68: Authorized Judgeshlps Judicial Council af Calfomnia Figure 89: Judicial Assistance Received by Trial Courtsidao-oo) — 2018 Coun Statstles Report JBSIS Courts as of Fiscal Year 2014-15 The following tablo showsthe courts that are submitting data via JBSIS v2.3 (Judicial Branch Statistical Information System) as of the end offiscal year 2014-15. For updated information, court staff with sources Network website may log in direclly to JBSIS at fitfeyjbsis.courts.ca. gov.password-pratected Judicial Re lathe Judicial Council of Cailornia 55 ‘Superior Court 3 2 & a $) Alameda Lt x x x Apne x x x [xX Colusa x x x =| Centra Costa x x ox x ElDorado x x xX m x x xX. xX x % OKT e x =: [ x x x | x x x: : xt x xT x aei izl x | x:| K C 9 E E O K 2016 Court Statistics Report Appendixes “ o p Appendix A Courts With Missing or Incomplete Data BSIS report type 4b JBSIS report type 5a Limited Civil 2BSIS report type Sty Unlimited Givit JBSIS report type 6a Family Law JBSIS report type Fa/7bi7c Fetony UBSIS report lype Ba JBSIS report type Ga ABSIS report type 10a JBSIS report type 11a IBSIS reportype 12a UBSIS report type 138 Probate Small Claims Court Report Appellate Division Appeals Juvenile Delinquency Juvenile Dependency Mental Health Misdemeanors andInfractions Missing or incomplete Data, Fiscal Year 2014-2015, Alpine UBSIS report types 4b, 5a, 5b, 6a, 7c, 8a, 9a, 10a, 11a, 12a, 1 13a Contra Costa ——_JBSIS report types 6a, 8a, Sa JBSIS report typos 6a, 7a, 7b,Kings 8a Merced UBSIS repart types 4b, 5a, 5b, 68, 70, 8a, 9a, 10a, 11a, 12a, 18a Nevada JBSIS report types 11a JBSIS report types 6a, 19a, ‘Va, 12a, Placer | IBSIS report type 11a 5 Sierra UBSIS report types 4b, 5a, 5b, 6a, 7a, 7b, Ba, 9a, 10, 11a, 12a, 138 diclal Couns! of Calforsia 53 Alll reports missing for June 2015 with reports for other months submitted but incomplete orno disposition data reported, Reports submittedbut incomplete or no disposition data reported | Reports submitted but incomplete disposition data reported Reports submitled but incomplete disposition data reported. Reports submittedbut incomplete disposition data reported, Reports submitted but incomplete or no disposition data reported | Report submitted but incomplete disposition dala | reported, | Reports submitted but incomplete or no disposition data reported 2016 Court Statsties Report APPENDIX B SupremeCourt Glossary The definitionsin this glossary are intendedonly to provide context and a generalunderstanding ofthe information in this publication. They are not ta be relied onas legal authority or cited as authoritative. attorney disciplinary proceedings Proceed. ings concerning possible suspension, disbarment, and public or private repraval of attorneys for allagedviolations of law or rules of professional conduct. Other State Bar flings include requests for approval of rule proposals, motions for the admission of attomeys, reporls af criminal convictions andother administrative matters relating to tho admission and discipline of attorneys. Most matters are resolved by the entry of an orderin the Supreme Court adopting the recommendation of the State Bar Court. Requests for approval of a rule may be resolved by an order adopting or denying the request, or a relranster of the matterto the State Bar, all undertaken by the Court acting at its weekly conference. if the Suprome Court grants review of an atlorney disciplinary proceeding, the matter will be handling in the same manner as any case in which review has beengranted, The California Rules ofCourt govern petitionsfor review of disciplinary matters by the respondent attorney and the State Bar's Office of Chief Trial Counsel, In addition, the Supreme Court may. onits own motion, grant review or return a matterto the State Bar Court for reconsideration automatic appeal A criminal appeal by opera- tion of law, directly from a superior court to the SupremeCourt, upon imposition ofa judgment of death. civil Pertaining to an appeal oF original proceeding in a case thatis neither a criminal nor 2 juvenile delinquency case criminal Pertaining to an appeal or original proceeding in a case chargingthe violation of criminal law. Judie.Council af Cabforata oa depublished opinion A Court of Appeal opinion that the Court of Appeal hascertified for publication but that the Supreme Court, acting tunderits constitutfonal power over opinion publi- cation, dirocts the Reporter of Decisions nat to publish in the Official Reports, and that may be itod or relied upon only in limited circumstances (see Cal, Rules of Court, sule 8.1118(b)) original proceedings Potions for writs within the Supreme Court's originaljurisdiction. The most comman types are mandamus and prohi- bition, which may retate to either civil or criminal matters, and habeas corpus. potition for review A request for Supreme Court reviewof a Court of Appeal decision petition for review denied An order by the SupremeCourt declining review of a Court of Appeal decision, petition for review granted An order by the SupremeCourt granting review of a Court of Appeal decision. petition for review granted and hald An order bythe SupremeCourt granting review of a Court of Appealdecision thal will be held for final action until a lead case addressing a related issue has. been decided by the Supreme Court petition for review granted and transferred An orderby the SupremeCourt granting review of a Caurt of Appeal summary denial in an original proceeding andtransferring review of the case to a Court of Appeal forfurther proceedings. request for publication or depublication A casein whichthesole reliefrequestedis for the SupremeCourt to order that a Court of Appeal decision be either publishedor depublished. written opinion The written decision, with reasonsstated, that describes and explains the outcome of a Supreme Court case. 2016 Court StaLstcs Report APPENDIX C Courts of Appeal Glossary The definitionsin this glossary are intended only to provide context and a general understanding of the information in this publication. They are not to borelied on as legal authority orcited as authoritative, appeal A proceeding for direct review af a judgment of an appealable onder ofa trial court Excludes collateral review by means af an original proceeding. (See “civil appeal" and “criminal appeal”) civil appeal An appeal in a case thalis neither a criminal nor a juvenile delinquency case. original proceeding Any original pro- 2ading in which the underiying case is not related fo aviolation of criminal lav, Court of Appeal The California court that hears (1) appeals in all noncapital cases in which a superior court hasoriginal jurisdiction and {2} appeals underother special circumstances, as prescribed by law. criminal appeal An appeal trom the judgment or orderin a ease charging a violation of criminal law. criminal original proceeding Anyoriginal proceedingin which the underlying caseis related to a violation of criminallaw. disposition Termination of an appeal or arigi- nal proceeding, Court of Appeal dispositions are either by written opinian oF without opinion (with oor without a record filed). fully briefed appeal A pending appealin which all briefs have been filed. Juicie! Counel af California a median time In a listing where time values are placedin orderfram shortestto langest, the valuc with haif of the cascs aboveil and half belowit 90th percentile time Ina listing where time values are placed in order from shortest to longest, tha value with 10 percent ofthe cases aboveit and 90 percent below i notice fled The filing of a notice of appeatin the superior coun, initiating the appetiate process. original proceedings Cases begunin an appellate court, commonly called rit proceadings. The most common are writs of mandamus and prohibition, usually seeking an order addressed to a lower court, and writs of habeas corpus, usually addressedto a person halding another in official custody. {See “civil original proceeding" and “eriminal original proceeding.”) pending appeal An appeal awaiting decision record filed The fling ofthe tiat court clerk's transeript (copies of documents filed in the case) and the reporter's transcript (the typed version of oral proceedings). 2018 Coun StatisticsReport APPENDIX D Superior Courts Glossary The definitionsin this glossary are intendedonly to provide context and a general understanding of the information jn this publication. They are not fo be relied on as fogal authority or cited as authoritative. appeal A proceeding for direct reviow ofa civil ‘or criminal judgmentfrom a limited-jurisdiction case, including small claims matters. assessed judge need (AJN): Represents the estimated number of judicial officers needed to handle the workload in the lrial courts based on the Judicial Needs Assessment Project. caseload clearancerate Clearancerates show the number of outgoing cases as a percentage of the number af incoming cases. They measure whether the court is disposing af casesin a timely fashion or whether a backlog of casesis growing, commissioner A subordinate |udicial officer, employed bythe court, who performs judicial or quasi-judicial duties assigned to him or her. & commissianer may be authorizedto decide only mited pretrial issues offact and law or to con- duct complete triais. Commissioners frequently act as temporary judges. disposition Termination of a proceeding Civil dispositions before trial include transfers to another trial court, dismissals, summary judg ments, and otherjudgments, Criminal dispositions before trial include transfers to anothertrial court, sentences after pleasof guilty orno contest, and dismissals. Civil dispositions afer trial include entry of judgmentafterjury trial and court trial. Criminal dispositions after triaf include acquittals, grants of probation, and sentencesafter conviction Ludicial Couneil af Calforia 82 family law(marital) Proceedings in which a petition has been filed for dissolution or voiding of ‘a marriage or for legal separation. family lawpetitions amily law cases olher han marital cases, such as domestic violence petitions and petitions filed by the Department af Child Support Services {DCSS) for reimburse mentof child support. felony Acriminal case alleging an offense punishable by imprisonmentin a stale prison or by death, filings in civii matters Civil cases for which complaints or petilions have been filed. ings in criminal matters The numberof defendants against whom criminal charges have beanfiled. filings in juvenile matters The number of minors who are the subjects of petitions. judgeship A judicial position conferring power {o exercise the full legal aulhoriy of the court in which the judge sits(by selection or assignment) “The term “Judgeships.” as used in this report, represents the numberof pasitions authorized by law, whether filed or vacant judicial position equivalents An estimate of the number ofjudicial officers who wore present and available to conduct court business. ‘The number includes authorized judgeships (adjusted to reflect judicial vacancies and assis- ‘tance given to other courts} and assistance received from assigned judges, fulleime and part- time commissioners and referees, and temporary judges serving by stipulation of the parties. judicial positions The numberof judgeships ‘aulhorized by lav. plus positions of referees and commissioners, juvenile delinquency proceedings Petilions filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging violation of a criminal statute, and petitions filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 601, alleging that a minor is beyond the contro} of parents or guardiansbut has not 2018 Court Stat stcs Report violated any law. Anoriginal petition begins a delinquency proceeding. subsequent petition adds allegations against a minor child whois already subject to the court's jurisdiction juvenile dependencyproceedings Petitions tiled under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, seeking to make a minorchild a ward of the court becauseof abuse or neglect. An original petition begins a dependency proceeding. A subsequent petition adds altegations regarding a minor child whois already subject to the courts jurisdiction, limited elvil_ All civil matters with a value of $25,000 or less, except small claims matters. mental health proceedings Includes most typesof mental health cases, including bul not limited to posteertification treatment (Wl 5300}, LPS Conservatorship (Wé&l 5350), narcotics addict (W8l 3050/3051}, commitments (PC 2968), mental competency (PC 1368), sexually violent predator (W&l 6600}, juvenile (8 1800), mentally retarded and dangerous (Wal 6500), and Wi Code, § 4500 motorvehicle personalinjury, death, and property damage Actions for damages in excess of $25,000 for physicalinjury to persons andproperty andactions for wrongful death related to motor vehicle accidents nontraffic infractions Nontraffic violations of state statutes or local ordinances specified as infractions. nontraffic misdemeanors Misdemeanors including intoxication complaints and violations ofthe Penal Code, local city and county ordinances, and the Fish and Game Code, other civil complaints and petitions Cases not covered in any athercivil case category, including complaints for declaratary relief only, mechanics’ fiens, and petitions for partnership and corporate governance. If the requested relief is for money,it must be in excess of $25,000 to be filed as a general-jurisdiction case. Jusieal Council at California 6 ‘other mental health proceedings Includes othermental health cases notincluded in the mental health category as well as noncriminal habeas corpus. personal injury, death, andproperty damage All actions for damages in excess of $25,000 for physical injury to persons and property and all actions for wrongful death. probate and guardianship All probate proceedings, will contests, guardianship and conservatorship proceedings (including can servalorship proceedings under the Lanterman- Patris-Short Act), and petitions to compromise iiners’ claims (when not part of a pending action or proceeding), reduced to misdemeanor Cases in which a charge originallyfiled as a felonyis disposed of as a misdemeanor. referee A subordinate judicial officer employed by a county to handle matters assigned by the court, such as traffic law violations small claims All matters fiedin small claims court (value of $10,000orless). time to disposition The amountof time it takes a courtto dispose of cases within established time frames. traffic infractions Traffic-related violations ofstate statutes orcity or county ordinances specified as infractions, excluding parking violations, traffic misdemeanors Violationsof Vehicle Code § 20002 (hit and run, property damage). 23104 (reckless driving, causing injury), and 23152 (driving underthe influence of aleahol or drugs) andall other traffic misdemeanors. unlimited civil All civil matters with a value of more than §25,000. 2018 Court Stites Repart APPENDIX E — Courts of AppealData Tables Summary of Filings Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15 Contested mations Racordof apneal Courts of Appeal Data for ures 6-7 Ha) coms gone Griginal praccadings Ber Per Per Autuorlzed suthorzed autnerized authorized Fistal year ines, Total justice Tota justice Total justice ia) ®) G fa © a ©) Fvis 165 20.861 “or incor 138 7054 a7 yta 408 25.198 128 2018 a Fy 105 20,381 14 7371 n erie 105 21,694 129 596 80 FY 408 34021 133 sur 88 Fy) 105 22.515 431 m7 a Fyos 105 2.430 130 3413 80 Fyoa 105 2363 133 9.705, Fryar 105 22,532 125 9407 yaa 408 22,180 129 aan Columa Key: io D+F. “Tetal contosied mallers* mans all apnesis and orig ral proceedings; t excludes nolions ta diemiss on cleik’s vamfleate,rehwarings, armisorllanedus sicers, which da ret sigaicantly add to two saue's workload BIA iA FIA ludicial Council of California ee 2016 CounStatistics Repart Record of AppeaiFilings Courts of Appeal Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15, Data for Figures 8-14 All Districts Total Civil Criminal Juvenile FYIS 1360/4273 dos 2.869 Bah oxen FY14 13,182 4,374 6,082 2,726 FY13 13,020 4,609 5.775 2,636 Fy12 13,498 4,601 6,145, 2,752 FYi1 13950 4,747 «81522 2.681 FY10 13,738 4,539 6,549 2,850 FYOO 13,617 «4422S «BAR «737 FyO8 13,970 4,623 6,531 2.816 FYO7 13,125, 4,262 6,224 2.639 FYO6 13,539 4,501 6351 2.687 District 1 District 2 Total Civil Criminal Juvenile Total Civil Criminal Juvenile FY15: 1,930 800 6 414 FY15 4,380 1,649 1,730 1,001 FY14 1,876, 826 662 388 FY14 4,236 1,597 1,592 4,047 FYIa. 1823823 6537. detgn «7421570878 FY12 1,848 843 674 3a1 FYI2 4,399 1,700 1,704 995 FYI1 1971888 759325. =e? 18521913. FY10 1,943, 864 786 323 FY10 441s 1,723 1,808, 884 ryog 186112 Toa 345 FOO d.da2 167218818 FY08 2,010 820 851 339 FyYOa 4,761 1,931 1,884 946 FYO? 2,054 846 818 390 FYO7 3.906 1,513 1,732 661 FYO6 1,973 798 814 361 FYO6 4,275 1,692 1,826 757 District 3 District 4 Total Civil, Criminal Juvenile Total Civil Criminal Juvenile FIs 1680-283 1.081 BSCYASS3SMO. 143 685TH Fyi4 1,579 322 1,006 251 FyYi4 3,509 1,219 1,605, 685 FY13 1,566 308 992 266 FY13 3,439 1,274 1,437, 728 FY12 1,666 323 1,028 31S Fyi2 3,588, 4,282 1,551 755, FY11 1,709 324 1,019 366 FYi 3,675, 1,232 1,784 659 FY10 1,750 37 1,028 405. FY10 3,515 1,173 1,744 598 FYOS «1715305 957 453=«S FOS. =88BS211—1.701~—Ss«673 FY08 1,704 294 1,058 ‘352 FY08 3482 4,404 1,598 780 FYO7 1,629 290 985 354 FYO7 3,513, 1,157 1,541 B15 FY06 1,753 357 1,002 394 FYO6 3,472 1,206 4,571 695 District 5 District 6 Total Criminal Juvenile Total Civil Criminal Juvenile FvIS 1278 201 tr art YAS eoz 198 4e4 119 FY14 1,125, 174 719 232 FY14 857 236 498 123 FY13, 1,201 208 680 313 FY13 800 254 443 103 FY12 1,182, 208 693 281 FYI2 B15 245 49S 75 FYI 1,148 221 597 330 FY11 760 232 450 78 FY10 1,335 246 760 329 FY10 780 216 453 Wt FYO9 4,249 207 762 280 FYO9 765 215 453 97 Fy08 4,252 221 713 318 Fyo8 761 253 427 B81 FYO7 1,270 210 723 337 Fyo7 753 246 425 82 FYO06 4,256 214 671 371 FYO6 810 234 467 109 iuicial Council of California 68 2018 Court Stetistics Report Original Proceeding Filings Courtsof Appeal Fiscal Years 2008-06 through 2014-15 Data for Figures 15-24 All Districts Total Civil Criminal Juvenite FYIS 7,054 1,834 4,803 ay Bi cocricsranrie FYi4 7.016 tit 4.742 423 FYI3 7371 1,916 5,005 450 FYI2 839611982 5.945 469 FYit 9071 2.122 6.533 416 FY10 87772017 6,305 455 FYI9 8413. 2,138 8,788 488, FYOB 9,705 2.444 6,704 560 FYO? 9.407 2,488 8,195 724 FYE «BAIT. 2.633. 5.197 784 District 1 District 2 Total Civil Griminal_ Juvenile Total Civil Griminal__ Juvenile FYIS 1,005 285 623 97 FYE 2,551 768 4,628 155 FYI 1,022 303 628 a ORY 2516 74441624 148 FYI3.111t 330 704 7 FYB 2534 745 1,640 149 FYI 1.236 307 860 69 FYI 2813 795 1.863 195 FYI 4.298 320 904 7a FYI 3.174 896 2,140 138 FYI0 1313 320 93t 62 FY1O 3.101 816 2.100 185 FYO9 1,239 381 187 7 FYO9 2.948 842 1.988 148 FYOs8 11428 430 928 68X08 3.619 984) 12,426 208 FYO? 1.378 448 343 as FYOT 3.183 978 1.982 243, FYO6 43t4 456 75t 401 FY08 3087 1,181 4.731 205 District 3 District 4 Total Civil Criminal Juvenile Total Criminal Juvenile FYI 71 131 569 41 RVI 1.665 421,137 56 Fyt4 798 134 598 eo oRYA 4571 457 4,048 66 FY13 788 143 601 44 FYB 41,683 476 1,080 8 FYi2 896 182 691 a3 OFYI2 2012 S10 4,393 409 FYtt 1,087 177 823 61 YH 2.076 490 1.818 68 Fy10 979 160 756 6 FYtO 4,954 483 1,406 85 Fy09 394 160 660 74 FvOg 4,946 530 1,317 99 FYOB 1,056 192 792 m2 FYOB 2.403 577 4.408 8 FYO7 1,052 234 752 6 FO? 2.243 591,452 195 FY08 855 207 577 7m FYO6 41,990 5981144 251 District 5 District 6 Total Civil Criminal Juvenile Total Civil. Griminal Juvenile FAS 740 31 590 59 FS 352 ar 256 9 FyI4 769 402 614 53 OFYtA 345 408 29 ‘1 FYB 878 104 72 8 FYB 397 118 259 20 FyI2 4,022 116 824 82 FYI2 A? 2 a4 1 FYI 991 136 792 6 FYI 465 103 350 12 FY10 966 144 752 7 FYI0 464 4 260 10 FYO9 923 122 729 72 FYO8 463 104 337 2 FY08 985 139 772 74 -FYO8 516 422 375 19 FYO? 1,021 102 809 110 FYo7 529 130 377 22 FYO6 939 100 697 142 FYO6 426 124 294 11 Jadiiat Council of California 68 2016 Cour Statistics Report Appeals Terminated by Written Opinion Courts of Appeal Fiscal Years 2012-13 through 2014-15 Data for Figures 22-27 Hall = Atiumance Reversed Dismissed] Tota Ful wilh nortfieation : Fiscal year Number, Percent) Numer Porcont| Numibr) Percent! Numer) Percent) Number, Percent) Number) Pereant! center AcE AD AO AEB AD ABAD res Total ‘otal appeats evs 5.128 7.938 1) 034) 0) asa] a Fria 8203 3163 1.608 18% AYO5D Ga 9.155 4888 18% 870, 10% asa Criminal appeals by defendants faa 3424, 00a) dita) ail “080 “Bese 9 an an va 4g3 00% "4.201, 94% 3.002) som. 184k a FY13 4593 100% 4.357 94%) 3.165) Bote) 1371 181 4% 75 Criminal appeats byprosecution Fvis “eo! 100% aoa) @%] a] seul 51 as Fvia s00% 341 ae at 75% 40 31 a) 0% FYIS 100% OY 8B 22 1% ‘civil appeats Fvt6 io0%) 2.381) aGi| 2088) FoR, soa ag Yeu) FY 100% 2,381, go%. 2.068 6s 1 520. 47a aK Fyia 100% 2217 78% 1981 69%, 288. SO 18% 8am “Juvenile appeals (criminalviolation)” : i FYIS 404) 100%) 360] 0%] as 6imh| HB)Go| tow) St Fria 530° 100% 478 a0% sz BH Batter te FYI 57 100% 489) Ag%4) 320TH 100 68 aoc] 78%] 72) CZ se0% 962 801 nee om) 64 ow 100% 19 aaa a4 010m Cotuane Key: (A! C114 K Total docs rot matchthat a coluren E of Table 1 beuause of ming data Percenlages are calculated based on totais shownir clumn A (8) O+4~L, Components may nct add total because of oundirg Notes: * Juvenie apprals led under Watt, & I * Juvenin appeals led under Wel, & Inst, Code, § 300 oF § B01, These cases do nat no ve vilations of elmira! statutes Code, § 802, alleging vcatior cf a criminal statute Jusieis| Couneil of Calfonuia er 2016 Court Statistics Report Percentage of Majority Opinions Published Courtsof Appeal Fiseal Year 2014-15, Data for Figures 28-32 Grininal Juvenile District Total Civil Appeals Appeals Appeals Original Proceedings Statewide 17% % 3% First 10% 20% a a a% Second om 18% % 5% 27% ‘thet 8% 24% a st 51% Fours om 15% o% 2% 18% ini om 22 % 2% 3% inh 8% 18% % 4 22% uslelal Counel af California 68 2018 Cour Statistics Report APPENDIX F — Superior Court Statewide Data Tables Caseloads and Authorized Judicial Positions Fiscal Years 2005-06through 2014-15 Judea | sah year poston atl . a a re zor ease,r0 Fria zoe 7.460757 FvI3 Zoe 7.736074 Pra r evi | sate 46 Fy10 inore,n16 Fvos | 10257.641 Fy08 90,589 vor | 469,79 FYB I 9,142,346, Column Key “ Jers200,are chad in eokmn A i Bra ETA Noto: Flings Perjucicial postion (oy) ‘sa 3,702 3,822 4228 4,559 4,085 5,073 444 Dispositions Total 6 1.902, 8.740412 6,625,431 6,781 569,501 3.749.029, 8,788,510 89,158 7,891,932, 7.783,655 Superior Courts Data for Figures 1~2 Get bis grophie Per alc position; e Judi postions inclade authorized commissiomensad rele-ees in adttion fo the numer of judges ‘authorzod forthe cour. The 0 nowjudgeshipsauthorized but ot Liwed by Asseinly Bil 159, eiective DDispositons are underreported due to incamplete data fom some seus. See Appendix A for mare data Judicial Gounsit wfCalifor ua 2016 Cour Slaisies Report Civil Filings, Dispositions, and Caseload Clearance Rate Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15 Superior Courts Datafor Figures 2-16 tall © nis graphic Lintited Ge Total Motor Other Small Fiscal Total ——“Unlimited-—_—Vehislo Other Complaints Clans Lite Stra Year i Givi FEPOAYD —PEPDAND 4 Peitions ivi sins fay is (Dy fal (S) it Filings, FYIS 718,321 192,761 32e08 21,207 133.638 «508 «75.178 180,982 ryt 19.863 sted? 207718435. 8k HBRBAS 185.425, rvs 924,149 200118 30.159 atta 140.295 8551 555.967 188,083 Fiz 898,281 212,061 2o4se 22.845 183.0047, ujens 184.612 FYI 1,098,548, 28.902 2781221849 161.825) 7.6s8 88.000 93.616 Fvi0 4,189,026 27731 28.964 20.928 189.998 «B44 720.308 ator Fyo9 4,221,079 2855 B95 71,18? 182.282 9.206 783BAS IAAT Fy0s 1,036,968 102.815 BABI 288A 124696 8.004 «695.008 227.241 Fror 954,260 169,759 29,890 20875 110,871 BR SB0.102 224,309, Fv08 12.923 173079 «31.380 B1338 ikt.270 et 03828 286 S18 Dispositions Fis 17,383 vpsno 78.622 18,730 «128.588 5EB 49.944 187,900, Fyia 40,801 479,780 28,885 Ae 2BBIS «4.285 5O7L7SG 159.285 Fria 938,938 90600 7.384 19888 138,64 da Se.s68 178,970 Fyi2 41028,563 206257 88S N21G NSD? 5184 ORKGIT 183,715 Fit s171.737 216138 RON 1G.ABA 162,988 58753405 202,194 Fyi0 4112,498 193,985 27204 A824 140.983 88I7 703.350 214921 Froa 4,113,498 e219 28123 1888324894819 711,169 226.111 Fy0s 904,687 153209 28402-20572 10431 tae 883.108 210,282 Fvor a71az8 vaza7e 26,514 18,252 91.225 6485 S10.883 18,199 Fy0s 66,559 445.553 27,005 1,00 e257) 6980474203 248,713 Caseload Clearance Rate rvs 104% 9% are ere 90% 0% 188% 105% Fyid 101% 90% 80% 79% om 80% 104% N02 Fras 102% 95% 9% 85% 99% 75% 102% 108%, Fy12 108% 97% 98% 04% 99% 7% 108% 100% Fyts 107% 99% 101% 22% r00% 76% 110% 104% FY0 7% 20% 34% 0% 88% atm 98% 108% Fy0a 1% 33% 90% 88% 72% 31% Fy08 82% aa 93% ao 80% 6% 78% Fvor ont BAY 89% are 83% 15% 916 FY08 95% eam 89% 85% Bam 78% 34% Column Key: (4) Sum of ¢ through 4 (8) Sum of C through & (E} Call campaints and potions nat specifiedin columns C and ©. Prige ta the 2064 Court Statistics Repo, this case type inckidad miscellaneous familylaw petitions, aben ara naw reporied in the Farnly and Juvenile section, Juctcial Gounel of Cal fornia 70 2016 Cour Statistics Repor: Civil Case Processing Time Superior Courts Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15 Data for elaivea 17-20 Hal esos ee amen ia rc atcatin ‘amasitiaamain Ee ae mae yo a) ae Se i 2 6 » @ era oa ein ftn os IK en I eae SpS rE EST os eeehk ahaa ea Tk os SS SS Ne ait ee NE a OL Teh ae Tee Bi SSSSSeS Un ons N ae eo ee a SE neSSSUeg Fr oe eG aTete a sRSR aoaferal saanwithaaire sical Counel af Californian n 2016 Court Statistios Report Caseflow Management Data Stage of CaseatDisposition — Civil Fiscal Year 2014-15 Superior Courts Data for Unlimited Civil BeforeTin! sta i Dismissal for otal Tota Delay in Other Vial se Fiings Dispos tons Erosccullon _Bofove Tit BY ty GyComt Novo STATEWIDE 192.761 179,508 13.068 127,060 1295347523398 Dispositions Before Triat 140,124 Dispositions After Trial 39,385 th 88% 9% Limited Civil Betore Ti After Tia Dismissal for Total Total Doley in other Flings _Disnastors Prosecution Before Trsl___ By Jury__By Court STATEWIDE 37578 «409,844 10.082 367.682 a1 3t,689 Dispositions Before Trial 377,764 Dispositions AfterTrial 32,180 Mh 88% ‘Small Claims Before Trial Dismissal for Total Tol Delay in Other Flings Dispositions Prosecution Before Tril__ARerTrial STATEWIDE 150,382 487.900 15,588 S179 90,573 Dispositions Bofore THal e737 Dispositions AfterTrial 90.573 Hotes: Other Betore Thal includes other dismissals and transfers, summary udgrnenis and all oer judarnents bela tra Jiucical Court of California nm 2018 CourtStites Report Criminal Filings, Dispositions, and Caseload Clearance Rate Superior Courts FiscalYears 2005-06 through 201415 Data for Figures 22-34 Hal cess Nerve Tratfn Total Fiscal year ain Felories Misdemeanors Intartions —Wisdemeanors—_Infiactonw A i (cl 21 fis} fs 5.561.608, zacee 45,68 ara anare 4,150,889 6,097,660 272,548 402,188 288,141 Sigel 4.622.172 6,241,424 261,268 392,109 275,952 536,008 4,776,091 6,956,183 243,962 426,072 356,548 eaag73 5,279,680 7,717,628 241,222 506,649 341,550 753,182 5,665,086, 9272.098 26.488 401.00 asi yo 843,793 0,547,018 8,359,268 261,768 530,20 352,893 266.747 8.317.538 7.833,177 212 616,863 366.448 36521 8 TAO.aaa 7,827,288 289,283 640,119 348,237 11.568 5,738,120 7,581,616 280,885 629,508 314,194 7e0,138 5,987,648, Dispositions FY's savastt 223.098 386,045 2ou.uy aves 998,078 Fvis 5,408,279 254,291 336,781 196,310 aoast2 4.914.085 Fvi3 5,185,083 240,797 322,481 222,426 417297 3,982,192 Fvig 6,017,928 228,272 371,562 318,170 500,861 4,606,274 ryt 6g92.411 228,587 308,068 304,600 541,825 5,350,491 Fyto 7.116.283 238,781 apaTts 921,885 s91713 5.634210 Fv09 7,082.13) 235,399 424,480 291,589 612022 5499241 Fyb8 6,859,253 210,036 511,238 268,098 555829 4908,148 Fvor 6,452,279 286,701 531,267 243,268 585,060 4,806,083 Fy08 6,378,088 227,305 545,980 289,052 565830 4.749.821 Caseload Clearance Rate Fvis eon 108% 80% 73% ea% 28% Fvi4 80% 93% 2am 60% 7% 1% Fria aan 92% 82% ar% 78% 53% Fria ar 93% arK 88% 7% am ryt 80% 95% 79% 89% 1% 1% Fvt0 36% 96% 87% 92% 1% 87% Fos 85% 20% 24% 83% 11% ah FyoA et 11% 83% 400% 66% 86% Fvor am 7586 23% 2084 69% ay F068 ea 78% are 92% 3% 85% Column Key: (A) Sum of B through F. 8) Since 2001, a felony is counred ss ane fling and ane dspostion or each de‘endant throughour all stages of eiminal proceedings. This change eliminated the deuible counting ef coferdarts wha were held to answer. cotiad on, suit pleae. of waived preliminary hearings, and itreduced the numbers a” filegs and dispostians repre, ludcial Gounel of California 3 2056 Court Statistics Roport Criminal Case Processing Time Fiscal Years 2005-06through 2014-15 ions tisposed cf nies resulting in bindovers fies pleas ites tan ey Superior Courts Data for Figures 32-34 Misdemeanors d'sposed ef ness than _ days intessthan ition se da monthe: vu a8 oo 0 30 170 a __ (oi © fa @ is —_ 71% 51% 1% 83% Fyi4 88% 75% 51% 78% Bam Fvig 59% 75% 63% 18% 24% Fiz 83% 75% 68% 80% 2595 Fyit a7% 2% 58% 79% aa rye arm 73% 62% 78% ast F¥09 86% 72% Bam 20% as% Fs 9% 78% 70% 85% 88% Fvor 1% 40% m% 48% 0% FY06 91% 22% 72% 80% 20% Column Key: a This column consists only of cases where defendants held tg answer nr were caries on gully pleas, Procassing lime is basee ime from frst appearance i limited jurisdcton court to finaldisposition (8) (O} Based on thetime trom fing of26initial comelaint fo certified ples, bindover, or d'smissa’ stor nefore preliminary hearing Judicial Council of California 206 Cour Statistics Repon Superior CourtsCaseflow Management Data Data for Figure 25Stageof Case at Disposition — Felony Fiscal Year 2014-15 ‘Manner of Dispos! Acquitals Total Felony Msdomesnor dismissals. and Lispositors convictions ___earsietions transfers STATEWIDE 221,860 139,927 43.018 38,015 ‘Stage of Disposition afore Trial 216,808 6,007 a2.552 38.137 ‘After Court Teal 276 198 a 44 Alter Jury Ti 4q78 ariz 382 734 afore Teal 99% 03% 2% ‘Aller Court triat 7% 12% AorJury Teal 2% 78% w% 15% Note; Does notinslive dispesilon uf flony peor, which are reporled only by JBSIS cnurts andare only el Uispostion before rearng orafter nearing 75 2016 Covit Statistics ReportJd sal Gounel of California Caseflow Management Data Stage of Case at Disposition — MisdemeanorsandInfractions Fiscal Year 2014-15, Nontraffic Misdemeanors Superior Courts Datafor Figure 36 is raphicfal Be‘ors Lia AfterTrial tat lal Flings Dispositions Ball Forfetures Guill Pleas Other By Coun __By Jury STATEWIDE 445,654 356,943 4,91 221,660 127,661 soo 1778 Dispositions Before Trial 354,212 1% 63% 36% Dispositions Aftor Tal 2748 35% 65% Traffic Misdemeanors Dotare Tia er Tral Total Total Filngs _Pispostions Rail Forfeitires Gully Plans Other By Court__ByJuyy STATEWIDE ATLOT8 400,243 21635 296,152 78,265 3168 1,125 Dispositions Before Trial 296,052 5% 75% 20% Dispositions After Trial 4708 Wh 26% Nontraffic Infractions Before Trial Total Talal Flings _Dispositlo Balrorftures Gully Pleas Other By Court ‘STATEWIDE 273,881 200,807 75,182 52,506 S4M7T 18,673, Dispositions Before Tra 102,135 41% 20% 30% Dispositions AfterTrial 18673 Traffic Infractions Batora Tia iter Til Total Foal Flings Dispositions __BallForfetures Guilty Pe ther By Court ‘STATEWIDE, 4150989 3,936,078 1,619,205 642,608 1,917,068 359,203, Dispositions Bofore Trial 3,578,876 45% 18% 31% Dispositions After Trial 359,203 Notes: lucicial Counciof Calfornia thor Bofore Trial includestransfers, dismisssls and dismissal after diversion. 16 2016 Ceurt Statstcs Roport Family and Juvenile Filings, Dispositions, and Caseload Clearance Rate Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15 Superior Courts Data for Figures 37-44 Bg9 coms Family Ls Detinawerey Dependeriey Fiscal year Taal Wartal Patiuone Total Of ginal Subeequent Total Original Subsequert os (35 io mi © oo i) is wo Fitings ryt 440,160 van 40.726 2820 tans Anes 38,759 520 Pvt 304,088 138,988 245,128 4sano 99608 15,131 45492 39,101 31 rvs 392,709 140.248 252,553 52.732 34803 17,920 43.527 31.829 5698, riz 416.695 150,502 268,004 62957 41,590 21.407 40,562 34501 6,081 ryt 433,087 154\549 278,598 73249 47,982 25,207 41,309 35,677 5.032 Fvia 455,604 154,54 304,000 0.981 62@00 27,831 97,084 31,063, 6,021 Fvag 458,138 153,208 304,939 98568 67,921 30,847 39.598 33,170, 6,388 Fy0e 450420 151,508 287.918 108.114 73.972 92,142 M513 39,372 atai For 460497 154,649 905,728 103.723 71,123 _82,600 45.291 38,658 6,635 Frag 455,901 157,719 208,182 101,876 70,643 8.283 43248 37,384 5.08 Dispasitions ryt aDt1f 135,012 204,069 38/8 27.600 10.816 82,180 39,605 41,985 Pvt 944.900 137.891 207.200 41955 28,454 s3.801 30.491 28,824 1867 Fvi3 369507 139,934 219,633, 48,355 30,541 v7.85 30.021 28.609 112 Fvi2 S77728 138,739 288,987 s5a08 3 $9,748 ao714 28,892 4,822 ryt 387,004 10.932 236,072 3933 40.200 (23,604 33028 30,900 2128 Fvi0 3B4,548 444,628 240,200 0,155 S442 28014 zai 27.868 1.983 Fv09 389,785 161,29 228,056, 8845 80.079 (28818 32.655 30,318 2337 Fv08 g4o238 427,654 22.88 93.578 29,4285 aaeit 31,825 4,786 Fvur 876,279 730.°70 248.109 87.804 58.871 28,733 37.420 35,598 4821 Fy06 864880 124,288 240.441 79338 3.170 (26,168 34422 92,695 1787 Caseload clearance rate Fria 0% 98% SH 4% 97% 87% 72% 79% ars Fyis er 22% 92% ott er Tat 26% Fvia se 100% 8% sm 88% 9% 69% 76% 23% Fviz 90%aH 38% 80% 2% 78% BAH 80% Fyit a ee) 7% 8A% 38% 80% aM 88%, Fria ate OO 89% 88% 34% 80% 90% 33% Fy08 as% 105% «75%, 90% BBM 24% 83% 1% 37% ye 1% TH ae% BH 2255 81% 80% 20% Fyo7 82% 88% BO Be% 8% 88% 83% 92% om, FY06 a 78K aH 8% 18% ae am a 208 Column Key! {8} Includes dissolsion, legalseparator, ane rulty {Cl Includes Department of Chi¢é Support Services (OGSS!, domestic violence prevention. and other misvellancous family lawpettions tude al Count of California 7 2016 Court Scatisies Repor. Probate, MentalHealth, Appeals, Habeas Corpus Filings, Dispositions, and Caseload Clearance Rate Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15 Superior Courts Data for Figures 45-52 MertHeath Apo Haneas Corpus Fiseal your Proves ola) Maral tian OP Total Ghaiel——crsnal a my 6 eG ty Filings ris sass pare pase 1.130 soct 1.883.075, 7888 Fva i208 ana 2ise 6228 44001196 8.283 710 rns 41588 25.475, wai 5,63 5224 1856 3,568 ant Fein doar 2a.968 138 5,725 55891759 3.800 10.876 Fv 49,086 22.121 wart 44a 57m 1Mes 3.043 woes Frio 16.268 weed 50181286 3,717 ears Frag 18820 12859 3.761 58 1398 3.098, a5 Fvoa 17.230) 19.964 3.068 45001225 3.279, aara Hvar 1a tess 3.826 42451246 2,999 24 Fv08 4274 137632811 4052 1a) 2730 5.558 Dispositions ris 21701 af 18989 5.5R8 477135 3497 rae Fria 99,183 2ae8 tador 5,181 sant 1588 3,707 8.784 Fria vsr3 2150s e785 4.718, 5198 1,904 3.891 7898 Friz 30,389 20518 45708 4,730 sau 1,802 4.082 9700 Fit s2292 18530 14953 3.877 saa 1871 3.858 94a> Fvt0 3300 16405 atte 3.231 4649 1.206383 7.408 Fag 34.108 14957 173,110 4510 1499 aon rate Fras 35276 15205 1335 2,980 ams 1gua 3.14 7495 Fear savas ed 2,888 4g08 17M 2.798 6.953 Fr06 38,295) 18084 1500 407s 1398 682 535 Caseload clearance nets 4 ast Bate 78 4 oT 98% on Pvt 8555 35% S88 118% 12am 11% 31% Fvi3 59% 4% 85% 8% a1 115% 109% 1% Fvi2 746 at 85% 88% 105% 102% 108% 90% Fvit 79% BA ss aK 2% ask 93% Frio 73% ast 0% 76% ea% 01% ae =e 78% 30% 52% 8% 88% 107% 35% v8 77% 95% 77 105% 125% 0% rvor an 9% 9% 78% 106% 137% 8H 50% 08 7% 93% em 6% 101% 105% 98 are column Key: {C)— treluas most typesof ments: neal: cases inclcingbu no mitoto Pasteortiication Ireatment(Wl S3WU}, LPS fonservatoranip (Wl SSSC), Narcolis Audie (WAI SUSU:S0S), Comettrsents {PC 2986) Montal Gamipetoroy {PC 1368, saxo y ¥ alk Predator(WI 6501), Juverle ‘WI 1800} Mental Reta-ded aoa Dangerous {Wl 6509}, 18 Inst Code, § 4500, (9) tncludas ut-u etal neath cases nat included in (C} for JBSIS cour, and noncriminae naneas carpus repones ay non SIS court Jadicial Counel af Calitor 6 2018 Court Statistos Report Caseflow ManagementData Trials By Type of Proceeding Fiscal Years 2005-06through 2014-15 Superior Courts Data for Figures 53-65 dry Trials PupuAND Other nil Probate aad Total Felony Misdemeanors Chil Unlimited Civil Unlimited Limited Menta Hetty a) 8) Fa il ns) i Frits asl AFB 2.901 712 523 491 5 ryt 99s0 5.53 278 738 383, 22 486 Fvia sara 4.903, 2.883 od 533 333 Ey rye 10038 5,296 39001 730 473 510 26 nn 10.19 5.681 2.958 664 838 228 35 Fvt0 41.051 (6,022 3404 758 ez 490 7 eyo 12s 6,705 3.908 na 758 208 45 FY08 1138 6.882 3.563 608 568 486 31 Fvor 11520 5.908, 3.890 m2 557 357 28 F068 10528 5841 2.505: 881 633 838 8 Court Trlats Misdemeanar PHENO Oihner vi Provate ara Tul Felony —andinfaciens —CxilUninitee Civ Urinal Limited Mente! Heath i 8) S oy © fia e) FViS 479,718 278 387,618 763 33,888 31,689 30.988 Fria 474,719 606 ar7a0e 631 31,699 31,651 92628 rvs 472,038 800 362.435 938 33,245, 44491 30.326 Frig 595,288 er 421.903, 1.354 33,789 47340 30,228 evit 528,608 302 415,601 2.1885 34,870 45,089, aoeta Frio 479,329 75 376,168 1984 23488 47508 27.398 Fv08 443.442 m 343,731 1078 19,187 50,038 28.739 Fy08 520,79 1.988 404.77 a3 14.283, 44374 Peed Fro? £09,909 887 4n1.678 1.032 13.812 45,125, 31.435 FyD8 470,967 876 381,089 673 13,385 e040? 30.475 Lclisial Council at Cafori. a 2018 Cour Statstes Report Trial Court Workload and Resources Superior Courts Judicial Positions and Useof Judicial Assistance Data for Figures 6-68 Fiscal Years 2008-06 through 2014-15 fe oe ‘apis Judicialpostions Subord nate juicial o*core luli pascesndposition Judicial Need Fiscal yoar Tetal Tol Camrisslonors Rofoices equivalents (AN a. fo) fe (e fal 1G FYI 2018 298 788 10 2018 Zt Fv 2,024 318 291 a 2.002 2174 ryt 2,024 38 302 a 2.058 2.206 Pyi2 2,024 342 318 a 2.088 28 rit 2022 380 333 a 2aat 2.382 ryt 2022 876 4a a 2118 2.362 Fyas 2922 392 35 2 2.150 2,352 Fyaa 2022 408 aa a 2478 2848 Fyo7 1972 424 397 2 2.187 2332 Fras 1922 424 397 a 2:23 2308 Column Key: A Bc {8) The 50 rew judgoships authorzod but notfurded by Assembly Gil 158, cffecthe January 2008, ateinclude In column S {C) B+. Tola! may nol match exaclly due fo rounding caused by parttime corrimissiono* anc referoepositions fF) Reflects aulhoriznd deal pestians acusing (or vacancive, assistance rardorea by the court to other courts, a7g assisianea recuived by the cour ram assigned judges, temporary judges. comrrissioners, and reerees, With the 80 new ‘wagestipe aurhorized by Aszomtly Bill 159 pasitions unfilled, pening inning appealby the Legislature,they are ocnsicerad vacanl wid are excluded in onlame (F jin the seme seay 3 olherjuiclal vacancies. Represents the estimated numberofcilofficers needed to handle the workiaadinthetra cours based on the Judicial Needs Assessment Projec:, The Judicial News Assessment Projecl was approved by lng Judicial Council .n 2001 as tte mathodalngy for svaluaing jsccial workload and the necd ‘or new judeships. In 2004, che Jucic al Council app'be¢ 3 minor change in tha aesessrnant mmethodeingythat ses ® 3-year average Slingsdatainstead of using a single year. The AJN numbers ane undated on a 2-year cycle in even rumiberou years, and the vauss for FY 2014-18 represent the 2014 update that was presented tothe Judicial Council atthe Deremt:se 2014 meeting Judicial Counc: of Calfaria 0 2048 CowtStaisties Report Assistance Received and Rendered by Typeof Gourt Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15 Superior Courts Data for Figure 69 fall Gethis geantin Days rendeiea byjudge soure ieé ——Courlof Appel ial court Fiscal yoar Tora judges iste ides ia ) 2. 2 Days received byall courts Fr 3.262 ares 288 sez Fyta 33715 32,428 o 1.287 Fria 34,580 53,794 ° 788 Fria, aria 34,002 0 m2 Fyit 36.203 36,203 Q 680 Fvi0 4oo77 39,987 i 989 F093 41998 40,100 13 1,835 Fyo8 35.729 35,554 7 188 Fyo7 34.045, 33.691 ° 354 FY06 31,806 31,964 ° 522 Days received by Courts of Appeal F's 2.101 24 285 1192 FYid 1.428 142 a 11284 FY 673 186 o 507 evi2 07 78 0 82 FyIt 630 1 a 518 Fy 1.350 500 1 B49 Fv0a 4058 105 ° 953 Pros 545 528 w 0 Fvo7 413 8 a 240 Fy06 465 ° a 465, Days recelved bytrial courts Pris 31.461 31.161 0 ° FYid 32.289 32.286 0 3 ryt 34,907 33.828 0 219 FY2 aaa? 33.027 o 180 FYI 36,253 36,091 0 162 Fy10 39627 39.487 0 440 Fyoa 40,890 39.985 a a2 FYOa 35,184 35.026 0 186 Fyo7 33,632 33.518 ° 4 F085 31431 31,364 0 7 Column Kay: fA} Components may not acd tototal due to rounding. Includes ony assis‘ance rendered byj.dgesthrough assignments, Docs notinclud assistance rendeted by comm ssioners, referees,sn temporary judges. Jusic’sl Council of Caltfornia at 2014 Court Slatstios Report APPENDIX G — County Tables Caseloads and Judicial Positions, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Tablet Authorized Hinge sprstinas Judicial Juul pestiors —_gasition Pejuiial sof equivalents Per eictal asiton county owanrts 2bl415 Total postion Total equivaent Rank Ah (6) i 2) = 6) (oy ‘STATEWIDE ot 20138 5832,710 3.394 6,342,662, 3.150 Alsmeda B50 a9) zara aus Drea 4218 Alpina 28 23 isa (728 io 1.283 (wees Amador 23 28 8.248 358321 6.033 218842 Bute 130 140 3655! 235345 32,810 za? Calaveras 23 30 6,508 re 5.234 mea? Calusa 23 24 8.697 10 8779 2867 aT Conta Cova 460 483, 51,654 a Grr 2.870 Del Norte 2B. 3a 8:98 20 "ura S28 a El Danae a0 ta 22.483 8 Daag 2a 44 Frasno 490 50.4 451665 37 533,206 2645 32 Glena 23 24 “0113 8 10.227 420 5 Haro 80 ar 2187 25 25871 2942 2k Imperial 113 7 an 1 69.65% 5972 1 Inys 23 28 10211 ? sate see 13 Kem 430 a4 198,248 5 i742 3.960 r kings es fv 35.225 12 ciate? fyar2 Laka 4s 58 118 50 v.04 192548 Lassen 23 29 008 2 8.945 239238 Leos Angeles 5853 5728 38 21020 688 B27 12 Madera 23. as 6 24,860 261033 avin “27 118 28 4183 amg Marisa 23 2a 54 2,986 4221 4a Menwacine a a7 5 19.088 208 4d Hurcad a 28 1 wxz348 (92.528 Madoc 23 23 38 2.198 6 St Mone 23 25 8 7881 ame 7 Monterey 22 218 3 ear zast 22 Nan 80. as 44 22,882 aero Nevada 18 aA 36 1at88 2299 40 range 1440 1478 3a7 oF @s1689 ez Placar 145 163 312438 (18438 1,011 Plumas 23 24 158353 3,168 131648 Riverside 760 26.4 sm 2 06,190 4.702 3 Sacramento ns 7e7 277.888 3a 18 pea.rea ams 29 San Benito 2a 26 7.928 344728 7875 299228 ‘San Bernaecina 860 897 362,580 4218 3 974,389 ats 6 San Diego 140 1819 536,398 sama 23 598,297 3.926 a San Francisco se 59.0 225,638 403818 77.398 3008 21 ‘San Joaquin 335 358 114.588 342028 08,948 308318 ‘San Luis Obispo 150 159 51,932 342228 47,826 301849 San Mateo 380 83 154.739 3 “57,004 472 2 Santa Barbara 240 2 esau 4 87,975 338514 Santa Clara 390 820 218,380 aan 4g 208,304 2285 39 Sama Cruz 138 142 aaa ace 0 92,625 300920 Shasta 420 134 43,469 3622 19 38,200 208828 Judicial Council of Catforaia 82 2018 Court Statsiles Ropor: Caseloads and Judicial Positions, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014~15 Table 1 Authorized Flings Dispesiions Jadieisl ulead positions postion Perjusicial asof equivalents Per judicial position nny oosarts 2014-15 Total pasion Rank Total equivalent Rank a a) © 9) ) (i STATEWIDE 2013.1 2,013.8 6,832,710, 3,394 6,442,662 3,150 Siera 2a 2A 3s 388 108 28a Siskiyou 50 53 18.241 3288 0 18,575 2a 28 Solana 230 aa 59,808 2e00 a7 53,167 2185 4a Sonora 20 249 7a.003 3218 34 9.544 3598 10 Sianisiaus 240) 28 e832 278848 ag 716 2480 Suter 53 87 19,530 308518. 18,283, 3228 Teron a3 48 19,866 6 10,643 2.296 “Thy 28 25 zara 8 2007 1982 Ture 730 25.1 uss wv are 240 Testes 48 49 10,782 cA 10.45" 2074 Ventura 0 365 182.495 4 182.977 4582 Yolo 124 130 35.088 4 31,983 2464 Yuba 53 53 15512 a0 14781 273 ‘Column Key: “ “hidicalpositions Include caurt commissioners and referees in adtionto the numberofjudges authorized for tho court. Tha 60 new Judgeshipsauthorized by Assembly Bill 159,effective January 2008, are ill unfunded and aceincluded in the statewide ‘otal but notshownin incividuat courts Ika in pravious versions ofthe Court Stasis Roport. 8) Reflacts authorized judicial positions adjusted ‘or vacancies, assistance rendered by the courtto other courts, and assistance received by the court from assigned judges, temporary judges, commissioners, and referees. ‘O! cia i F/B Notes: a Incomplete data; reports were submitfor lusthan a fll year ‘ar— The court reportedthat no cases aacurred or the court did otsubmit a report in this category. Ranks not computed far courts with ‘missing or incomplete data, Judicial Council of California 83 2036 Coun Court Trials, by County and Typeof Proceeding Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 2 PuPORWD Ourer Probate Misdemeanor Uriivited ——Lirimiled Limited and county Tost Felony) andinfacions ciel cial Ciel MertHeath ‘a wy (e; ie) 0 () STATEWIDE arar9 276 aeaord 7 «53,989,609, 30.908 meds +408 3 7.866 ‘s 27m a8 637 Aina ins wi ‘80 0 ws in a ator 1018 7 997 > 16 28 Bate 4.820 5 94 4 139 ona Criaveras 897 a 3 Ey 2 Sousa 148 1 ° 2 7 Goma Cosia sige2 : 6 ans oe De: Nowe 2002 a 7 # ” 1 Donato 1209 3 ° e 1a fresno 3.392 10 zB 1244 1,047 Glenn 207 2 1 2 a 28 Hembos 1703 1 1 sr 184 97 Imperal ° 4 174 144 8 Ingo ° 1 4 - 3 Keen 7 1 9 700 13H Kings 0 mere ° 8 ° 2 Lake 2 2aai ° 118 ‘or 135 Lassen 0 ° 1 6 i LasAngeles onesa % a8 18s ra.re2 van Madera 2881 2 2234 1 162 49 108 Morn 2508 1 2.50 5 136, 24 192 Mor poxa 83 ° 153 2 2 5 1 entxino 1213 10 1.080 1 st 8 2 Meroos 528 (357 2 38 98 or Modes 233 ° 218 ° 5 4 1 ono sre 8 ° 7 1 1 venterey 2.482 " 7 340 ao Naps 2768 3 3 481 127 Nevada 700 2 1 192 16 Oran aie 6 a aate ° Procer sor 4 3 107 7 Plumas 160 a 1 2 8 Riverside 48.850 0 x 2.188 as Sacramento 12222 u 132 1761 70a Son Benito asi ° ° ar 4 San Bernardino 2.078 7 8 201 774 San Doge 87.630 28 8 ane 1722 San Francisco srt a 16 11 2997 San Joaquin 5,854 a 2 870 209 San Luis Obispo 4297 + 2 177 San Mateo 2748 7 5 2 Sania Barbera zane 5 4 96 ter Sania Clara 25.994 7 6 1.424 1.808 Sania Cruz 1885 2 2 234 53 Shasta 4.480 a 1 148 85 Juci'al Council of Caifomia Ba 2018 Courl Statistics Report CourtTrials, by County and Typeof Proceeding Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 2 PuPOAWD Other Probate Féigdernanor ——Unimited ——_Unimtee Lite and county Tetal Felony and infractions Cail Cv Givi Mental Hearth — ia fo fa 2 (Hh L ‘g ‘STATEWIDE, 479,719 28 382,014 785 33,969 34,689 30,988 Siena a9 u 49 0 a 0 ° iscivou 182 1 857 1 38 3 Seana 2443 3 ane 1 208 6s Senorna 11,368 8 16,340 5 448 455 Stanislaus 1775 4 1525 0 7 2 Sutter 1845 6 41.436 0 53 Tehama 508 6 482 a 5 Trinity 130 5 8 & 2 Ture saat 6 puss 16 197 JTuoumne 440i ° o 44 Ventura 1254 8 “08 876 Yolo 4.873, ° ° 39 Yuba 178 a ° 2 Colunnn Key. e Includes tia's for defereants whose felony charges were reduced to misdemeanors before the start oftial Notes: a Incomplete data: repore wore submitfo lees than @ full year Dor — Tho eaur roportadthat ro cases orculres or the cqurt dd not suR-it a reps inthis cstegary Jtizial Council of Calfornla 2016 Court Statistics Report JuryTrials, by County and Typeof Proceeding Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 3 puppave vtrer Fronae Uniimited ——Unkimited Uimied and county Folory M'someanor Civ! Mentat Health __ @ iG e) (S STATEWIDE 4778 2901 742 45 Alameda 36 eo 24 8 0 Alpine a a o w ti w Aador 3 ° 2 8 . 0 butte 48 2 5 1 ° a Calaveras 4 1 0 1 ° 0 Calusa a 3 o 1 o 0 Conta Costa 2 18 6 4 2 a Del None a 2 o 2 o a FI Dorado 55 28 ea 5 1 1 1 Fresna 128 57 48 12 7 4 a Glam 14 19 3 a > 1 a Humnbalat 43 33 2 1 a 1 Inport 35 15 18 5 2 a a Inyo 10 B 2 2 o q a Kem ata 202 79 1 1 5 a Kings ws ws ° ° 0 a Lake 20 ° i ° e Lassen 8 3 ° ° p e Los Angelos 3.081 1,563 85 261 148 325 6 Madera 38 10 f 0 o e Mein 59 at 8 16 3 5 Meriposa 8 1 ? 0 o o 5 Mentor ne 24 8 13 1 ° o Morued cae as oe w o o eZ Modoc a 4 3 0 0 6 0 Mana 4 2 ° o 2 ° antorey 78 0 10 4 2 . Napa 3 8 38 1 3 ° Nevada 8 a Z ° o ‘Orange w 7 5 4 0 Placer 8 3 14 o Phanas 3 a b o ° Reorside 128 22 1 a Sacrament 6 % u 4 ° San Benito 2 0 D a San Bernardino 22 at 18 10 a San Diego 339 57 B 36 0 San Francisca) 155 at a 38 0 ‘San Joaquin 37 7 3 4 2 San Luls Obispo 42 18 % 2 4 2 0 ‘San Mateo 88 8 28 1 2 3 6 Santa Barbara 55 2 18 8 3 2 6 Santa Clara zr 8 8 3 1 4 Santa Cniz sa 26 8 2 a 0 Shasta 408 29 2 6 ° 0 studcial Council of Galfer. a 2016 Court Statstes Report dury Trials, by County and Typeof Proceeding Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 3 pueunWL wrner Probate Unlimited Uririled Lite and county Total Focay Misdemeanor isi cl Civil Mental Heath _. a “) ic, 1 ie fal (a ‘STATEWIDE 9.450 a7 2.901 712 823 491 45 Siewra 1 a 1 6 o o ° iskiyen ” 19 4 2 1 o 2 Solano 135 fl 49 3 4 ° 1 Sonama 82 % 87 10 7 a a Sidnig aus age 68 5a e 3 4 o Sutter 23 w o ‘ 3 a o Teroma 7 & ° 1 0 9 ° Trey 2 2 ° 8 1 0 Tulare a 51 1 1 3 Tilo 31 28 3 o a 0 Ventura 108 wT 2 4 8 ° Yelo at ea 2 ° 2 o Yuba 12 1 2 ° ° o Column Key: e Includestals for defendants whose felsuy charges were reduced to misdemeanors before the stat oftial Notes: a Incomalete data; reports wore submitted forlessthan fll year, Gor - “The court repored that nc. cases orcurredora court did not submit a reportin this cavegory, Judicial Counc! af California ar 2016 Coun Stattice Report Total Civil Filings, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15, Table 4a UnterGivi Tol Motor Olkercht Stat Total Untmiter chor Comslaints —Clsims Limite Smab county oi Cuil PLPONVD &Peitions —Apprals cial Clams Ao) wy e (6 (Si ti ‘STATEWIDE Tre azt 192,781 207 133838 5,108 375,178 190,382 Alairoua 24,385 8721 He 8485 ts rosa. Alpine 153, me9 “is apes w 60 we Amador 58 181 18 185 4 240 9 Bute 353 sow at 770 16 1392 442 Calaveras 693 29 18 184 4 288 108 Coluss ve 3 a 3 1 109 2 Contra Cosa ioas3 4372 398 az tet gaan 2750 Del Norte 33 82 a 45 3 215 6 ELDorade 272 534 n 622 254.180 as Fresno te719 4210 410 2.808 a1 -9923 2.888 Glonn 371 35 4 24 a 28 42 Humaciet 2.123 138 32 664 8 3a7 Imperial 2.260 502 5B 446 1% 42ta 485 Inyo at 96 3 3 a 3 8 44 Kom 12.987 4,856 38 337 946 3 BeoR 2.807 Kings 41988 381 5 36 238 1 4487 200 Lake 1278 ane w a 380 3 683 et Laseen 420 10 1 a 101 208 102 Loe Angeles 2azera B42 12.308 8.074 43,055 3945 59.281 Madera 2288 538 oF a 373 1 1473 287 Macs a4at 1428 203 13a 1,083 so 1.248 220 Mariposa 185 2 6 8 7 o 132 4 ‘Mendocna 1490 870 a a 475 8 378 242 Metoed 3.31 826 109 82 598 7 2.088 747 Modoe 128 0 2 2 48 o a 34 Meno 173 at 3 ‘0 6 1 sa 42 Monterey e281 1425 192 155 1,088 we eae ars Napa 1.748, 340 78 20 486 6 707 an Nevada 1.209 an 2 43 312 4 502 289 ‘range 55.424 4e205 27e8 1.818 11.380 3e1 26.288 13.831 Placer 4.957 a0 335 701.288 5a 287 2 Plumas 232 7 4 7 52 6 nt 48 Riverside 42,738 ose 1403278 ze 30888, Sarramente ssa18 am? 4718 Boa 8,095, 3600443 a 88 San Banito 1,182 7 at 16 17 3 499 486 Son Bamnaruino 48.143, 93381456 esa 8879 26 SOF 13.277 San Diego 53422 170152827 1.788 12.088, i729 11.787 ‘San Francisco 18.577 sar 836 sea eas 163624582 San Joaquin 12.883 2ait 548 287 1.954 477366 2.388 San Luis Obispo 4182 978 168 110 568 354878 705 San Mateo 73a 4778 368 Wt 1,235 7 39831880, Santa Barbara saat 128 284 ts21ts 42 2g08 1399 Santa Clara 20.23 701.110 sm agt3 te? e281 Santa Cruz 3,258 4026 107 86 791 a 4478 785 ‘Shasta 2.923 843 107 89 623 1a 1.880 490 tudiciat Caunell of California 88 2016 Coun Stalsties Report Total Civil Filings, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 4a Ualiited Givi Total Morar Other Gil Smal Toll —Unitad Vahicia Other Complaints sims Limited Sra county Cuil Gil PEPDAVD PEPDAWD &Peliliats Appoals Gil Chis A it ich wi c) ow, ‘STATEWIDE 716,321 yozret 82,808 24207 193638 =—=«5108—« 75,178 150,982 Sierra 28 1 ° 28 ° u Sisk you wT 7 21 187 2 433 Solano 116 28r 174318 a 4,495 Sonoma 2424 308 28 1,535 5.088 ‘Stanislaus 1.579 29: tei 4,06 Bt 4.508 sitter 275 95 a Bat 7 vat Tahara 284 2 19 238 1 985 Pein 118 4 1 12 1 ar Tutare 1,388 263 148 951 2 4.598 Tucturnne 20 a 28 295 9 348 Ventura 3.386 669 458 2.178 e078 Yolo 638 119 51 486 14188 Yuba 303 48 a 240 1 m2 ‘Column Key: e ‘Chi! Untimited includes columns C}~(F & Prior to the 2004 Court Statstics Report, this case Iype included riscellancous fam law petitions tnat are nowropertad i Table 118. Notes: @ Inconiglata data: portswere eubmited for lessthanafl year ‘lor — Tha caurtroparted tat na cases corurted or the cour ig nolsubmit a roport in this category tucicil Council af Cal fornia aa 2016 Court Statstice Raper TotalCivil Dispositions, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 4b Unlimited Civil Total War Other Eval Total Unlimited Vehicle Other Complaints airs Limited county evi Cid PHPDIWD PLPDRYD. APetifens Appeals Ch Al i ) fa 1G) ‘STATEWIDE 747,383 179,509 78,622 18.730 ‘126.508 «3.569 408,044 157.900 Alameda 23,780 A263 1278 wg 627 18 19895 4a Alpine 89 fas a ws Te i ae 62 ‘Amador ae 14 2 18 103 1 146 84 ute Brn 998 183 98 735 " ant Gatoveras Ec 240 4 8 473 st Colusa “90 4a 8 2 30 v Contra Cosa 10822 4218 757 sae agar wt topes bel Neate 378 138 0 ’ 409 10 399 1% El Dorado 2.169 187 118 88 535 a ee asa Fresno 13,809 3.882 840 ar 2 51 74882558 ‘tern 38 "1 8 15 ° 32) 33 Humbe 2019 228 2 sta + 1.98% 400 Inmperi 2.834 sre 87 a8 4 Inyo 188 % 8 4 2 Kem 11.485; 1302 an 628 10 8058 Baar Kings 859 80 8 8 0 538 2m Lake 28 296 2 2ar 2 704 203 Lassen an 409 4 7 98 a 206 137 Los Angeles 245,738 e472 38608652 dB 7D at t78;895 7.331 Madera 2.926 493 B 39 380 4 2.180 253 Marin 3.788 1505 209 158 1.004 a 4440 ma Manposs 167 31 8 2 2 ° 4 2 Hondocino 129 570 58 st 461 3 ae 240 Meroed faz.a70 (sorte s3 th 38 $3 1g yeas Modo 1M “4 1 2 “ ° 28 Mone 181 a7 2 5 74 5 40 Monterey 5.208 saat 183 ta oa 2 S07 Napa 1821 2a 7 87 431 4 aad Novada 1.196 3 37 2 275 2 474 ‘range e763 joo 2876 gts 287 3a5 ai.tas Placer 4.803, 1.708 322 m2 1138 so 2.182 Plumas 213 88 4 7 a7 0 m Riverside 41303 9453 1.200 eer 7.204 a2 28298 Sacramento 52,206 6032 1535 se ara 127 s0.978 San Berto 1,448 iat a 14 101 1 503 San Bamardino 590,068, 78821368 oe 8081 232 28,180 Sar. Dlego 61.912 1437917721380 10.872 78 33,607 San Francisco 13,968 840 708-3767 4 aude San Joaauin 12.04 470 286 1775 258178 San Luis Obispo 2.958 408 94 559) er San Mateo 72 37 208 1.788 o ase Santa Barnarn 4.047 250 ‘68 906 samt Sante Clara 19.087 989 soo 402 87 82m Sama Cruz 34st 108 67 762 381.878 Shasta 3,005 1,385 100 591.219 44.720 Judicial Couneil of Califomia cy 2018 Court Statistics Repo Total Civil Dispositions, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 4b Unlivited Motor ihr Gia‘ Total Vehick Other Complolts Clans Lutled Sra couNTY q PUPDWD PEPONWD & Potions Aopea's iil Claes ay __ 9) 04 fb ia io fi ‘STATEWIDE TAT353 779,508 28,622 ~—«T,T730 «28588 «S69 —408,944 167,900 Siew a7 16 ° a 16 o 1% 3 Sisxyou 493 180 1" w an 1 260 nm Soleo 3583 4,335, 264 a 238 103 sar tT Sonoma 5,983 2.177 3 241.854 29358320 Stenislaus 324 att aay Bohs 4.068 23 8420 R00 Sutter 11581 55 110 4 373 a 329 ‘a7 Tehana 1,102 128 7 12 85 q 459 500 Trinny 208 97 5 2 ea a B 38 Tulare ar 910 208 120 582 © 462 3,100 fuolunese 838 261 oa 2 2a 4 e si Vertura "2,988 3.097 see soo 2038 a Bae 2.809 Yolo 2.465 168 eu a7 342 1 44a 49 Yuba 1,208 308 53 2 223 1 a 121 Column Key: @ CCl Untiites nchades columns (CJ 4.) © ror ta the 2004 Coot Statistics Ropu. this case type included miscel snecus family law nettions frat sre now reported in Table 118. Notes: a Incomnp ete ta; raps ware suited folessthan a full yer. Oe — Tre court reputed tnat no easesoccurtod or the cour: did not sum a repartin this natenory sical Counel of California a 2018 Court Statstics Report Total Civil—Method of Disposition, by County Superior Courts FiscalYear 2014-15 Table 5a Alor ia Dismissal ‘er Ietat Total Lack of other Tia! de county Filngs Dispositions Prosecalon Wefote Tilal By Jury By Cou Nav 7 a 1 fo. iO) al a iS) STATEWIDE 78,371 TAT ASS 373d 40,487 1725 187,014 4,398 tamed 24,386 2ar0a ° 17.948 4 9773 18 Abine iss si) 80 ° © 7 a ameter 220 are 3 6 135 1 Bute 3754 6 6 a "1 Calavaras 55 13 1 22 2 Cousa 160 o 1 8 8 Contra Costa W572 483 2 340 0 DelNowe an 6 2 243 10 ElDorade 2.168 25 7 538 19 Fresno 13,098 6 34a st lem 385 a 1 78 0 Hurt 2,048 roa a 370 1 leper 2834 5 5 ett 1 ley 189 a ° 129 o ken 41.495 7 4811 40 Kings . ® 165 a Laks 4.208, 2 317 a Lassen 452 a9 a Los Angeles 286,738 72 s4us3 1.440 Macora 2,028, 1 480 a Marin 3,788 B sa? a Mariposa sar ° 9 28 e Mendosina 1649 12 2 281 3 Merced ias76 90 o 565 a Modoc it 8 0 34 0 Mon 181 10 2 a4 5 Moncaroy 5202 an 8 BBL 16 Napa saat a 6 485 2 Novada 1.108 100 4 264 29 Orange e763 5.002 176 42,731 303 Plecer 4,803 58 Fa 793 50 Pham 1" ° 56 0 Riversive 420 4 13s28 a04 Sacramento 4.877 6138 ter San Benito 1 ° 210 1 San Bemartino 3,896 6 12.254 210 San Diego 3,782 a 2486 378 San Francisca 180 120 2.258, 43 San Joaquin 52 so aa79 a Sanus Obispo 108 a a 25 San Male o 6 1.015 a Santa Barbara 0 1 4,080 aa Santa Ciara 283 234300 sa Santa Cruz 98 8 90 at Shasta 2 7 654 7 cial Count of Calfarnla 52 2016 Court Statistics Report Total Civil—Method of Disposition, by County Superior Courts FiscalYear 2014-15 Table 5a Before Thal Alri Dismissatfor oral Total Lack ot Other Thal de county Frings Dispositions Prosacuton Gefee Tal By Jury By Court Nowa = ay “) (iat ’ aaron ‘STATEWIDE, 718,321 747358 38736 840,481 772 17018 3,398 Sera 38 a oo 2 ° ° a Siskiyou mm 493 1 354 3 135 a Solana rast 2.883 a 7204 1 47S a Senoma 5403 6.98 aa 931 waite 4 Sheridan 7761 8.231 Ba 8.135 12 4.207 2 Sutter 1449 1551 3 970 4 6 u Tehama, 327 102 s 787 1 ° Trt 244 205 8 101 1 o Tar 7.054 arr 176 7,324 5 1247 o Tuolumne o27 88 5 507 3 307 1 Ventura 11,9854 1.088 7 nase a4 7 Yolo 2.193 2.485 589 4833 4 o Yuba 1185 41.208 o Ba 2 1 column Key: (CMG) The totalofthe manner of disposi en catayorias may nat adup :0 ff} heceuse notall courts were ab € to submit com fata for 3 manna”of uispostion dats elements, im Inciudes transfers, disrssals, anjudgments (si Data apply ony o small claims appeals, Notes: @ Incomplete data: reparss ware submitfo less than a full year Bar — The court iopavted that no cases0 luccial Counc of Caltoria 53 red or the courtdit nol subinit2 report in this category 2014 Court Stalisics Report Unlimited Civil—Method of Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 56 Before Toa Alor iil Dismicsal for ota Total Lack of ote: Trial de county Fiirgs Gispostians Pioseoulkin Gofore Teal By tury By Court Now ia) Gi a fb 3 ey iH 6 ‘STATEWIDE, Te2761 779,509 13eea 127,060 7235 ga7s2 3,398 Alameda ara 8,283, ° 5403, aur 8 Aline fas nas 5 5 0 Amradar 184 144 3 oF 28 1 Pate 938 o Br 309 “ Calaveras 210 ° 5 12 2 causa 2 o 3 a a Contra Costa 421K 119 3.353 ser n ei Nene 138 5 87 52 te [i Dorade ra? 2 saa 6 174 19 Fresno 3.852 2 313 2 487 st Senn 3t 5 By 0 a o Homo tt 588 a8 283 3 28 4 Imperial ra 8 370 5 7 8 Ingo 78 ° 33 0 45 8 Keen 41302 8 1272 2 10 10 Kings 0 4 a 0 ° Lae 402 298 9 2 wa a Lassen 110 ica 0 198 ° 1 a Los Angeles es.4s2 eari2 1887 49,008 406 12.283 1440, Madera 538 493 ? 32 1 163 a ‘Mauir 1428 10s 4 1.238 25 1981 ar Mariposa 2 a a a7 0 4 0 Mandacine 570 570 38 at 2 5 3 Merced 428 sor Ea aac 0 au 3 Modo 50 8 ET 0 18 ° ona) Bt 2 1 2 ? 5 Nontery 1,425 wo 903 8 387 16 Napa 69 2 424 4 184 2 Novada an 32 214 4 103 2 Orange 16,295 650 13838 1622340 303 Placer 1.208 T 1,515 27 “i 50 Plumes a 8 7 a ey a Riversice 9.992 1,280 5.873 37 2189 104 Sacramento aa 155 3.892 25 1.898 127 San Benito wr ° 108 0 ar 1 San Bemardino 3,339 rat eai8 8 26 21a ‘San Diego 17.916 1077 asua 184198, are San Francisco 5497 % aan 82 we 48 ‘San Joaquin 2art 23 1388 2B B00 2s San Luis Ob1epo 978 49 sat 8 178 28 San Mates 4,775 o 1.954 3 ae 6 Santa Barbara 1.838 38 4,182, 8 102 30 Santa Clara 6.780 129 4,033 2 1430 50 Santa Cruz +028 4 053 8 296 3t Shasta 843 1 224 7 149 co ludicial Council of Califia a4 2018 Court StatistlesRopart Unlimited Givil—MethodofDisposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table Sb ___Before Tal Aller Tria Disirissal fr Tol Total Lack of Other Trial de couNTY Filings Dispostions Prosecution Salore Tal By dury By Court Nowa a of ol e Gl 8) ‘STATEWIDE 192,761 779,509 13.084 127,000 qns aa7sz 4,208 Sera 2a 16 7 ° ° a Sisklyou 197 180 1 3 a Solano tats sas ° 7 sr Sonoma 2aat 212 138 wv 1a Stanislaus 4ip70 en 02, 8 aM Sutter 415 525 7 4 u Tehama 284 124 o 1 ° Trinity 118 or 4 ° o Tulare 4388 st0 3 2 208 ° Tuli 290 261 0 a a 4 Ventura 3,385 sag0 st 8 an 7 Yolo 6 498 ° 2 5B o Yuba 303 308 p 2 89 1 Column Key: (CHG) The tota of he mannerof nispositon salagories may not add up to (B) because not all courts were able fo submit ‘complete data forall amet of clspositon data elements, ey Includes transfers, dism'ssals, andjacgirents (6 Data opp y ony tasmall slaims appeals Notes: a Incomplete dave: repors vere subinled forless than ful year. Ser “Tre emul repartad that no cases occurred or the court cid nal subril a report inthis category Jsicial Counel of Caliornis 2018 Court Stats cs Report Unlimited Civil: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury, Property Damage, Superior Courts and Wrongful Death—MethodofDisposition, by County Table Se Fiscal Year 2014-45 . Betore Tia Alter Tria Disiniseat for Total Tul Lack of other county Flings Dispesitions Prosecutor Before Tal Byluy By Gout —_ a @) i. 0) (6 : ‘STATEWIDE 32,808 28,622 648, 27.298 365 30 Alameda, 1203 6 1.28 “4 4 Alaine w ° ° ° Amador 25 ° 2 6 Butte 193 . 4 1 Calaveras 14 a 0 0 Cosa 8 o 8 a 0 Gora Crsts 751 ° 738 5 2 Dee Kevle 4 : o 4 a 4 E1Deade 108 o 110 4 a Fresno at 0 810 8 2 lear 7 a 8 b a Huo a 1 38 o a Immoral 6a 2 8 1 1 Inyo 3 2 7 ° 1 Kean 588 4 429 ° 4 kings 58 2 8 0 ° Lave 2 2 18 ° 6 Lassen 1 ° 4 a o Los Angeles: 12.96 416 9,262 11 4 Madera 7 o 73 0 0 Main 2083 0 201 6 2 Marieasa 6 8 a 7 a 1 Mendocino a 88 a 53 1 1 Morced ra tre a & 1 ‘Mecoo 2 5 a a a Mono 3 2 © ° q Monerey 182 188 & 1 a Napa we a ° ° a Nevada «7 57 1 0 1 range 2768 2516 19 46 9 Placar 322 ° a 1 Plumas 4 ° 0 1 Riverside 1.433, 4,220 23 " ® Sscramerto am 1,535 at 10 a0 San Bento a Ea 0 0 0 Sen Bernardin 1458 1,358 46 28 5 San Diego 2527 1.778 21 Fa 20 ‘Sar Francisco Ba 40 1" 1B 1 San Joaquin 470 5 ? n ‘San Luis Ohispo 108 0 0 o Sar Mateo 350 str ° ° 4 Santa Barbora 204 250 10 3 1 Santa Clava 4110 969 b 5 1 Santa Cruz co7 108 D 3 o Shasta 107 100 o 1 ° Judieal Coune! af Cal fornia 6 2018 Court Statistics Report Unlimited Civil: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury, Property Damage, Superior Courts and Wrongful Death—MethodofDisposition, by County Table 5c Fiscal Year 2014-15, etore Trial AerTia Dismissal for Total Total Lack ot ower ‘coUNTY Filings Dispositions Prosacullen Before Tral By Jury By Court a ‘ 1 o) él F) STATEWIDE: 32.808 25,623, a8 27.298 365 310 Sierra 1 ° a ° 5 ° Siskiyou , " a 10 5 1 287 264 0 264 0 308 335 8 220 5 Stanislaus at 327. 2B 287 2 Suter 36 110 2 103 ° Tehama 7% v7 ° 14 o Tinity 4 8 ° 5 5 Tule 28a ° 201 1 Tuolumne 26 ° Ey 2 Ventura 88 6 S03 io Yolo 19 o 88 2 a Yuta 8 ° sa 1 4 Column Key: [Gi (F) The total af hw mannof eigpositon categaries may not add upto (B} because nol all courts were abe to submit comple data foral mannerof disposition data elements. © Includes transfers, alsmissale, and judgments Notes: a Incomp etedata; repors were subi! fr lass thaa full year Gor ‘The court repored thal noeases aecurred ar tho cour. de nat submata report n fis category Judicial Ganeaf Cal fornia 7 Unlimited Civil: Other PersonalInjury, Property Damage, Superior Courts and Wrongful Death—MethodofDisposition, by County Tablo Sd Fiscal Year 2014-15 _ _Bevore Tiel AerTi Lisniseal or Total feta! Lack of thee county Flings Prose. Bofors Thal By Jury By Court A 4) i. iy ) Fi ‘STATEWIDE 21,207 1a.730 621 17,808 3ar 453 Alameda 351 B38 o ata 1a "1 lunes ws ms a 5 a ° Barauor 18 18 a a 2 Bute Br 9 a fl 3 Calaveras 18 8 a a 3 Calusa 4 2 & 2 ° a Contra Casta 358 388 5 373 1 4 Del Norte 4 7 ° 4 ° 3 Elvarada i en i 65 2 4 Fresno 410 “7 ° 402. 4 0 len 4 7 0 6 o 1 Humibo'et 2 38 1 22 2 1 Inperial ss 55 3 48 4 2 Ivo 3 4 9 4 a ° Kem 337 28 1 286 1 ° ings 26 8 6 33 a a Lake a a 1 25 1 a Lassen 8 i & ‘ e o Los Angeles aor4 5652 s 6.035 520 128 Madera Bt 33 ° aT 1 1 erin 138 155, ° 149 3 3 Mariposa 6 2 a 1 1 Manwoeine 40 SI o st 0 t Marco 2 (se ° e2 o 1 Modoc 2 2 0 2 0 ° Mono 10 5 a 6 a o Honierey 156 124 2 nt 2 8 Napa 60 57 6 53 1 3 Nevada 43 < 2 a 4 0 range 1818 4a16 1" 1,885 a“ rr Placer 1 202 ° 105 5 2 Plumas 1 i ° ’ ° a Riverside 10:2 eer a 828 "1 25 Sacraments 804 636 sat 4 52 San Benito 6 14 0 14 ° 0 San Bernarcina 958 Bai 50 863 8 19 San Diego 41,788 1380 20 a4" at 58 San Francisco 303 708 4 eas a 18 ‘san Joaquin 207 286 8 10 ° San Luis Obispo 110 3 5 2 2 ‘San Mateo To 208 a 205 1 2 Santa Barbara 103 188 a 154 3 4 Santa Clara 570 520 a st 4 5 Satta Cuz 86 or a 22 3 2 Shasta a9 69 o a 1 1 Juvviat Council of Califor. 98 2016 Court StatistRoport Unlimited Civil: Other PersonalInjury, Property Damage, Superior Courts and Wrongful Death—MethodofDisposition, by County Table 5d Fiscal Year 2014-15 Before Tia ior Tia Disiniveas for Total Total Lack of other COUNTY Flings Disposttions Prosecas eforTia By Jury By Court a a io oy ie) fa ‘STATEWIDE 21,207 78730 621 17,308 “7 485 0 0 0 a o o a ” a 15 2 a 187 132 a tau 5 1 238 258 a 2a 4 2 Staiisleus aT} 200 a8 60 zs a Sutter a 34 2 6 1 5 Tehama 8 12 ° 1 1 . Trinity 1 2 ° 2 6 6 Tulare 48 v0 ° 110 o 10 Tuotunine 2a 23 o 2B 4 o Ventura 458 398 4 su 4 48 ‘velo 5 7 a a 0 a Yuba a 2B a 2 1 a Column Key: iH ho total ofthe mennerofdspaition calagories may not add uo ia (BI hecayse notall sours were abla tosuberomplots data forall manner disposition daa elements eo Includes tansfers, dismissals, and Judgments Notes: a Incomplete cata; reports were submited forless than a ful year Dor — Ti court 1eporad that na cases onnurrad orthe cart dd not submis a report inthis catewory Caunel of Calforns a 2016 Court Statistics Repont Unlimited Civil: OtherCivil Complaints andPetitions— Superior Courts Method ofDisposition, by County Table 5 Fiscal Year 2014-15 a Taal Disticeal for otal Toc Tack ol other county Flirgo O'spastions —--Prostuution—“Betre Teal yy By Grunt ‘a fay By ee oy fe) iH STATEbe Tae 120.508 T7865 wet aa 3089 Alamosa 5.48 e427 ° aatd 1 ares Aine yea an7e ° a a 5 ‘Amador 185 103 3 1 8 Bute 77 736 6 420 1 ona ‘24 ‘70 ° 39 1 Cohsa 28 30 ° 29 1 Conta Costa 3240 2997 168 2938 a Dol Nene 45 109 5 sr 2 1 Dorado a2 585 1 a9 : Fresno 2:00 244 2 2403 7 Sern 2 16 > 8 ° Harbolit os 1 4" 85 1 287 Impera 46 238 4 260 0 174 Inyo vs ° 70 a 44 Kein 2a 8 ar 1 3 Kings 19 2 " a ° Lake ar 8 12 1 118 Lassen °8 0 7 ° 1 LosAngeles 25,760 re zz 708 Ms taza Madera 280 7 ait D a2 Maxin 4.084 4 25 6 186 War pasa : a 18 ° 2 Mendecino a5 9 370 1 st Merced ne ae 267 ° 28 odor 4 a 18 o 1s Mono 1” 2 3 2 7 Materay 1.065 Py 8 or ? 10 Napa 486 at 26 an 3 161 Nevada a2 275 23 “40 4 402 range 41.380 12.487 0 9.150 75) 2312 Placer 1245 4435 7 4.007 14 ‘07 Puna 82 8 17 a 22 Riverside 7.308 4.204 3,026 1s ase Sacral 5038 85 1877 461 San Bento 127 401 0 oa a ar san Bernaraine ars 50% as a7 8 281 an Diego 12086 osre 1.036 s.a0 me 4k San Francisco 4635 a asis " 161 San Joaquin 4.951 4776 26 880 9 670 San Luis Obip0 66 559 4 34 4 17 San Mateo 41.235 1283 ° 1232 2 23 Sarin Baar ane ‘109 "7 731 3 38 Sarin Cara aot3 4.402 12 2842 1424 Sania Crue 791 732 4 82 2 204 Shasta eae 4219 1 1008 6 148 Judie sl Council of Cal fornia 100 2016 Court Statistics Repon, Unlimited Civil OtherCivil Complaints and Petitions— Superior Courts MethodofDisposition, by County Table 5e Fiscal Year 2014-15 Bote attrTha Dismissfor Total tol Lack of ou county Hinge Dispasifons——Proseciton BeloIria by Cou A ‘6 oh Oh ial STATEWIDE 728638 138,588 795 32.281 32.089 siera 2 15 ‘ 9 a Sischeu 167 im 1 °1 8 Setano 1318 82 a o26 208 Sonama 11538 4.954 18 sat a Stanislaus “088 4.048 sat ait : Sutter at 373 3 va 229 Tehama 20 95 o 6 9 Tenty “12 % 4 26 a utara 9st sae 3 88 192 Tuolumne 235 201 ° 400 ° 1a Ventura 2478 26 4 115" 4 ean Yolo 48 242 a 2a a “a Yuba 2 229 a 40 a “8 Column Key: {CHIF) Thelolal of:ho mannir of dsoostion categories my notnd up lo fl) bexasa neta cours wowabio to submit compleze data fora manner feisposiioneala elements 2) Includes tansfts, cismiseas, and judgments Notes: 0 Incomplete data; rparis ware submited for less than afl year Bor “The court ped thal no aesoccured ofthe cour id ret submit report ins catagery. Jludeial Counc! of Caltforia 101 2018 CourStatistics Report Small Claims Appeals—Stageof Caseat Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-45 Table5f lage ct Casa al Disposition Tot lox county Flings Dispostions Pefore Hearing After Trial de Novo A ie) (0) my ‘STATEWIDE 5,108 3.569 174 3.398 Alameda 191 w a 18 Alpine 0 a a 5 Arnados 4 1 0 1 butte 16 " 1 ‘Calaveres 4 4 2 2 Colusa 1 ° ° 0 Gontra Costa 161 at 2 7 Dl Norte 8 10 o 10 FI Dorado 2 a 2 18 Fresno at st 0 a Glenn « 0 0 a Humborat 8 1 o 1 Imperial 1 14 1 1a Inyo 3 2 2 6 Kem 35 10 a 10 kings 1 e ° ° Lake 3 2 2 6 Lassen a o . o Los Angeles 1983 1.440 6 440 Madera 1 1 1 0 Warr. a7 ° 7 Marposa o 0 o Mendocine 3 a 3 Morved as o 3 Modoc 0 0 a ona 5 0 5 Monterey ma 4 18 Napa 14 2 2 Nevada 20 ° 29 range M5 2 303 Placer 0 6 50 Plumas ° ° 0 Riverside 142 38 04 Sacramento wr ° war San Benito t 1 San Bernardino 232 2 210 San Diews air 378 0 a8 San Francisco 163 43 ° cy ‘San Joagulr a 25 0 25 ‘San Lule Obispo 38 2 4 25 San Wateo 7 a ° a Santa Barbera 2 3 1 2 Santa Clara 167 a ” 50 Santa Cruz 42 35 4a 3 Shasta 18 ” o 7 Judicial Council of Calforia 02 2016 Courl Statistics Report Small Claims Appeals—Stageof Case at Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table Stage of Case at Disposition Total Toa! couNTY Filings Dispositions Before Heaving Alter rial du Novo Ay iB fey i) ‘STATEWIDE 5.108 3,568 174 3398 Siena D ° a 0 Siskiyou 2 1 1 0 Solana 54 103 8 a Sono 4 2 1B 16 Sianislaue 31 2s 1 28 Sullur T 8 6 u Tehama 1 a © ° Terity 1 8 Q ° Tulare 28 0 ° ° Tuolumne ° 1 a 1 Ventura 82 80) 3 7 “Yoke 1 1 1 o Yuba 1 1 Q 1 Cotumn Key: (C}iD} The tote of the manner a! dispostion categories may no:add Up to (B) beca.sse nol all courts were able to subir dita forall mannorof dispositon data elements, (0) Data are ava lable wily for courts reaoaing data via tne Judicial Branch SlatlstcalInformation System (1BS'S) Notes! o Incomplete data; reports were submitted forlessthan a full year Dor “The court repcriad that na cases occured orthe cour dd not subnil a reptIn this category JJusicial Counc ot California 103 2018 Cour Staisies Report Limited Civii—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table Sg ter Trial Dismisea! for Total tal ok ol une county Flirgs —ispasitens Prosuautten —Botoro Tris By Court ao si (fe 02 fh ‘STATEWIDE 375.178 409,008 “10,082 367.682 ‘or 189 Aameda 10,830 10.695 a 10,302 8 Ap ino fia a o Amador 240 146 2 0 ute 4.992 0 2.135 a 19 Calaveras 285 19 480 a 54 Colusa 109 ° 3 Q 2 Contia Costa aa 95 9,255 2 ats Dl Nonto 215 a 282 a m ElCorado 4,140 8 B56 1 fa Fresno 9,923 3 8297 4 1.246 Glenn 204 0 24 1 48 Humbriet 280 38 arg ° 184 pera 4.213 4 1445; ° 14a oy et 0 5 8 54 Kem 8.604 474 6577 5 700 Knge 1461 a 588 o a Lake 683 4 593 0 sar Lassen 208 a 200 a 6 Los Angetos 113.946 S473 107 515 326 10,782 Madera 1473 8 1.993 ° 19 Maria 1248, 6 1407 a 2 Mariposa 132 ° ay a 5 Mendocino era 29 a 18 a 49 Merced 2.058 taza 5 1.720 Q 88 Madoe a4 38 4 33 a 4 Hare 59 40 1 38 6 1 nartaroy Pat us? 1 24 1 163 Noga vr ea "1 aa 2 a7 ovaca S03 414 a aor 0 6 Orange 26,288 31,148 1478 27,889 4 2273 Pacer 2087 2192 1 2081 7 139 Pumas 111 1 1 7 ° 13 verse 23.098 04 23.198 a 2287 Sacer 41,143, 7 38.754 4 2210 San Benito 409, ° 487 8 36 San Bernardino 200 75,473 10 277 San Diego paste 238 92,088 26 1.24% San Francises 6.248 115 sat 38 as San Joaquin 7,386 278, 6827 4 272 San kuis Obispo 1478 53 1.278 2 13 San Matea 3.983 ° 4278 3 106 Sana Barbara 2808 35 2238 2 189 ‘Sana Clara 9.382 ° 8,838 1 786 Santa Ceuz 1478 8 1,549 a 120 Shasta 4.500 4 4,587 o 482 Lcicial Council of Calfomia 108 2016 CounStalletics Reyert Limited Civil—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table Sq Botore Tia AttorTral [Dsor Total Isa Lack of Omer ‘couNTY Flirgs sastions Prosecuion everThal Bysury By Coun (ah ol ic) (0) ie fal ‘STATEWIDE, 375178 409,366 70,082 167,682 a1 689 Sierra 1 2 1 o a Siskiyou 43: 289 ° 0 52 Solano 4475 8a73 ° o 482 Sonoma 3.988 4a a 106 Stanislaus Agaa oa 3 218 suter a a7 ° 7 Terama o 0 33 “Trinity o 1 16 Tulare 1 3 232 Twinn, 9 0 86 Veriuni 45 6 ee veo o 2 a3 Yuoa . o 128 Coun Key: 5) [inetotal of the manner efdisposition ralegoris may not add up to (8) because not al courtsware abe lo subi complete daia ‘or al manner of uispasiton eata elements, Includes before- al afler-hearing vsrlssals, transfers, and judgrnents. Notes: a ‘fata; reportswera submitted for less shor 6 fll yes. Sor — The cour repavtad tat no cases occurted or the courtvid notsuomia report inthis category JiriCouncil of Cakforvia 105 2918 Court Statistics Report Small Claims—-Methodof Disposition, by County Fiscal Year 2014-15 Superior Courts Table 5h = Dismissal Total Total Lack of Other county ulhys —Cispastions Prosecution Before fr ater Iria ay a) © o S STATEWIDE 750.382 187.300 15.588 51,739 90,873 Named aaa ase o 26m Aging aa 2 0 2 Amador 38 a4 ° ° 84 ume 231 ° 187 aa Cataveras 105 9 0 $8 76 Cokes 20 7 ° 10 7 Conta Gout 2.750 29 930 1.898 bel Norte 68 a3 1 7 C1Dorado 358 15 128 230 Fresne 2.580 1 62 2,038 Sern a2 ° 6 7 Aumboktt aor 400 3 9 ae Imperial 465 487 33 ot 323 try 44 31 o i 30 Kens 2507 aaa7 659 487 4.101 Kings 20 zt ° 48 165 Lake am 203 8 88 82 Lassen 102 137 ° 5 62 Los Angeles su241 97331 4.783 zara zeae Medere 257 253 a Cy 168 arin 220 aaa 3 358 432 Marioasa 74 2 0 5 7 Mendocino ma 240 28 au 180 Werced var ase6 81 5B sar Miodoe 4 ® 14 48 one ae 7 2 35 Monterey 875 142 22 460 Nop 401 1 133 214 Nevada 259 37 88 125 Orange wa8a atte 2309 8118 Placer 962 80 308 Baa Plumas 48 2 2 2 Reversige 9,708 7.106 607 3.82 Saoramenla 4.958, 148 1749 2.035, San Bonlio 435 t 364 437 SenBomardino 2,208 1.850 9.301 Sen Diego 11.787 2.486 3.538 7044 San Francisco 0 3a 1.384 San Joaquin 2.258 148 325 1217 Ban Luis Obispo 105 3 581 San Hateo 1.880 ° 908 Santa Barbara 1.388 7 739 Santa Clara 44st 18a 1.550 2.088 Sansa Cruz 755, 85 222 514 Shasta 490 ° 187 323 = 7 = = a Butte 55% 74th Bath 0% Pm Ba Boe 78% 60% 73% Calaveras TRHATH EH 30% 58% 50% 1% Golusa 18% eT We 80% SNH 58% 86% 72% 19% Contra Costa Bem at UTM 15% BBO ars 8% 48% OM Del Norte = = = - - = Fl Dorado Bem 2% Be TS 0% 95% 30% 48% 11% 188% Fresco ae = ot a = = = Glare 78% 8% 0% 9% BWA Humbo at 79% BR 88% HLH Imperial 60% rr a Iryo 79% 21% ame We Re Kem 76% ont === = Kings 22% 17% at Lake 78% 0% 84% ay Lesson are 9% BH BH Los Angeles 53% eee awe aT aT Madera 78% 90% 88% 93% 87% 40% Mein 89% RY BKM ar Meriposa 59% 65% TT Ce aa%, Mendocina = => = Merced ee 85% Bat odbc a 8TH 80% BAH 100% 100% Mana s BOK 8% BI% Gt 8M Monterey 0% 06% 80% 28m Naps 1% 885% 96% 3% 0h 8% Nevada eam 94% 87% 97h 58% range cae Bae 94% T% 8H 98% Placa = = = => = = = = — Plumas 91% 85% BA% BBO 30% 2% 0% Revorside Ary, ua% Bo% G88 55% 75% 12% Sacramento Bay 82% eam 98% OT 100% 100% 58% Ba San Benito 95% 6% 0% 84% : oT 7% Tre Bm San Bernartina 78% 88% 92% 98% 58h BO 6am 7% San Diego 80% 95% 5% BI Ah BUN 21% 26% San Francisco 78% aT 81% 82%, a 80% 67% 74% an Jeaquin 78% BB 7% ats 43% 83% 12% 18% San Luls Obispo 86% 91% 80% 9% BPH ak 1% 5% 744% ‘San Mateo 77% 87% 8% 90% 43% 8% 59% TP Santa Barbera Bom 9% 99% 96% 5a 72% 76% 88% Sania Clara atm aoe nS) B5% 78M 53% Ba Santa Cruz 80% gat pe 99% 48% 85% 59% 73% Shasta 37% 41% 98% 100% St THMH 6% 74% tudicial Council of Calfoenia 108 2016 CourtStat sles Report Civil Case Processing Time, by County Fiscal Year 2014-15 General Unlimited Cit Disposed of in Less Limited nl Disposed of in Less Unlawtul Dotainars Disposed of in Less Superior Courts Table 6a Disposed afin Less Than _onths “Than _ Months “Than Daye Than _Days counry 2 18m 2 30 6 70 20 AQ 1 ©) je) i ‘STATEWIDE Bam 78%~~«OISC«OHSSCTSCO CSIC TOMG 58% Siew & 7 = = = 50% Siskiyou BuHGH 8H 42% 83% 53% Solana 71% 85% BH 7OMG BK 1% BL 55% Sonoina 18% BB 92 eH 21% 84% Staiialauss Cr eers 3% 28% Suter 22% TH. 86% es) 79% Tohama 72% 8% GMB 8% 55% 69% 52% Taiity 84% 92% 8% OTH 4% 73% 60% Tulare 70 95% aH 9H 70% 88% 21% Tucks a% eeee su% 70% Sh Ventura 13% 4% BBN 58% 13h 70% Yoto 63% 88% BO 8% 55% 60% 17% Ya 74% we 88 t 5% 72% 81% 93% Column Key: (G)-1h} Includes livited unlswl detainers ony. Hote eS Tia vous ald ne: eubeit a report in this category Judicial Council of Catornia 109 2018 Coun Stal ties Report TotalCriminal Filings, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 7a Nontratic Irate Teal county Cweinal ——Felenies.—Misdemesnors.—Infrastians Misduueuniars ——Infractons i. fe (o ei cl ie ‘STATEWIDE 561688 214,085 455,654 —-278,881 477,078 4,180,989 Alamoua 240,885 5.900 13,093 agri aa74 208,307 Alpine watt an thas (at (65 4387 Arad" 7033 82 340 8 523 5.564 Butte 26,708 1835, 3070 2124 GCaleverss 5,090 216 agi 154 Gouna 2.198 283 3085 2 ira Costa 123. 4.982 5095 aur Da Norte 7404 310 410 103 1 Dorado 17.977 937 1198 627 Fresno 470.603 348 41,985 4.815 Gon 9.185 2386 163 170 Humbelat 21.954 1494 2516 2633 Impersl ez098 41,630 2mm 651 2208 51,807 Inyo 9,992 237 235 D 218 604 Kern 469.128 7748 20.848 4878 14.128 124,823 Kings 30.142 2.280 ares 137 41.981 22438 Laxe 8,07 us 4389 493 46 5218 Laxeon 5.845 ay 430 40 487 5.489 Los Angeles catgre 44273 ng87t 45827 ye0.962 1341006 Madera 16,538 1.512 1.583 212 4.335 10.856 Marin 38.464 535 178 4.982 * 587 30.387 Marposa 3728 14 oie “4 298 21% Mondoeno 16.035 1097 1863 2a 1,855 sw276 Motoed aan 2.008 2587 srt 3751 a3997 ‘Modoc 9.807 408 248 18 137 11304 Mona 8.067 79 781 425 Se za Monterey 57.219 2751 5 1304 7.388 aagrs Napa 17,898 4150 als sar 2073 sen Nowaua 21,861 529 1.244 992 1,595 17.404 Orange 393,875 49.284 34.409 10918 37,330 zersra Placor 35,236 2.019 2.083 475 2,702 21297 Plumas arr 128 323 138 2a 2.263 Riverside 18,280 13,543 aiaa7 5218 20.044 Sacramerta 188,907 9.ad0 asa 2.316 26.241 ‘San Benita 6133 428 673 28 853 4151 SanBerardi 274,758 15.956 28,283 3.627 35.749 area San Diego 443,218 13.604 27,603 39,725 19.224 342,972 San Franesco *98,408 3.628 2.286 84,702 1149 136,565, San Joaquin 80,13 5.138 8.828 3.595, 20.122 52,459 ‘San Luis Ob’spa 44.308 11390 4,142 1.908 4622 29836 San Mateo 138.644 2.581 3.4u2 5937 ava98 Santa Barbara 84,868 2am A163 10.088 4.028 5,84 Santa Clara 179,705 7,950 sAgad 8580 18.663 ro7.8a8 Sante Cruz 42,446 11926 3.428 982 2.528 2eatt ‘Shasta 36,198 2708 3543 3.728 1,828 24.582 Judicial Courcl of Cal fornia 110 2014 Court Statistics Report Total Criminal Filings, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 7a Nostatic Teale Total county Ciimnal Felonies Misdemearors —Infraclws—-Misdemeaners——Inftactors ta ii ©) o) fal ‘é ‘STATEWIDE 5.561.688 214,088 45,854 273,281 a7076 4,160,989 Siowa ar a 40 582 Sisciyou 468 2, 975 warm so'ano 2.888 1,459 2440 34588 Sonoma 2707 4.628 45,8 Stanislas 4738 na bia 33.70 Buller 1.032 rs 524 wan Taam 896 202 1957 10,748 Tiny 208 46 152 1104 Tutara 4,099 4.189 4,035 50,337 "Tuakurané a2 968 258 a 5,738 vortura att 0.137 25:0 08 198,737 Yolo 1.613 3.845 226 2a Yuba a4 a9 $32 S89 ‘Since 2001, a felonyis counted as one fl'g and ane disposition‘or each de‘ersiantUnoughoulal sages of criminal procoosings. This change e iminsted double-caunling of uefervants wo Waived oreiinaryhearings,and il reduced tne numbers of‘lings and dispositions rapcrted o “This column atso incudus niscolanoous felony oetitons reported only ay JBS'S cours Notes: a Incomplete data: repors we'e submited for lessthan ful year. er — The court reparied ‘hat ne cases accurrad orthe courl die rat subrnit a report in this category. tudivsal Gounel of Califorsia TT 116 held to answer, certited on gully eloas, or 2018 Cour Statistics Repor: Total CriminalDispositions, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15, Table 7b Nontrallic Tate Total county Criminal ——Felories Misdemeanors infiactous ‘Misdemeanors infractions (A) i o 0 fa i) ‘STATEWIDE 5119511 233,399 356,048 200,807 400,043 3,938,078 Alameda 798.892 Bast 12,038 5,258 719 203,301 Alsine e186 ie 20 wat 98 (1,303 Amador 2218 2 225 a 8s 470 Butte 25.898, 1.944 3.673 1.580 + 8u2 16,600 Calaveras 4,088 282 se a a4 3.085 ruse 4,397 160 ar 18 631 sai Cewra Costa 118,738 4.294 4.991 685 3.385 7.933 Del Nets 8,608 500 973 38 731 6.264 E1Dorado 19,784 1.068 199 1:73 1778 14.580 Fresno 102,598 40.500 40,007 415: 13,528 95,554 Glen 8.328 235 175 140 art sat Humble 21,008 1874 2781 x6 450 van Imperial 61.785 4,728 2.854 108 2178 ot.e24 nya 9.376 175 an a 243 8.586 Korn 149,221 ast 1416 1,196 11,782 i09.576 Kings 7.995 wan was 0 (nase (ye,ras Late 8,620 883 41,284 an ora 5.381 5745 389 38 “a an 4,564 1,995,510 46.724 ar.s18 sage yaso82 1arirar 18.340 47a 1.243 141 331 11,898 vain 35.416 a8 1.333, sata 4512 30.32" Marigosa 2am 108 445 19 208 1923 Mendocino vasaa 664 90 446 1.820 10.007 Merced a 2eaco 4.608 Ww tso7 jez ar gat Moda 1,834 108 a7 129 4,384 Mona 7.224 182 410 an 3 Monterey $4,233 2427 1.128 6.695 38,400 Napa 19,115 1,188) 298 1.36 14404 Nevada 16081 486 1,180 12,850 Orange 19,178 43,178 a Placer th7882 2.784 1813 a Plumas 261 17 zor 42 Rverside 322.623 15,168 ws? 2,775 Sacramer 148,336 10,590 473 120,828 San Bonito 5,652 480 704 4,002 San Bornartina 288,558 14.530 25.754 “91.847 Son Diego 503,118 1440 27,487 401,319 San Francisco 152,788 3.882 va 125.880 San Joaquin 46,240 5,422 12.az4 s7.018 San Luis Obispo 42,390 4.990 5.920 4,059 2o2r San Mateo 143,769 2.543 7.813 4420 11.848 Santa Barbara 73.149 23%5 7302 3553 56.287 Santa Clara 175,249 3,086 “S77 19,760 134.833 Sava Cruz 36,251 2032 3.658 2578 22573 Shasta 31,808 3525 3,980 4,297 z807 Jugilal Council of Calfomia “12 2016 Gout Stntisties Report Total CriminalDispositions, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15, Table 7b Nontralic Teale Total county crminal —Felories Misdemeanors Infractions sdumcarsis ——_Infiactions A 8) (o io i fal ‘STATEWIDE 5.119.511 223.800 356,943 200,807 00,383 9,998,079 Sia 518 a 8 493 Sickiyou 14.005 au 162 12.708 Solano an 2887 372 ana Sonoma 76,088 2997 sa,707 ‘Stanis'aus, 48,188 5258 de.v0d Sutter 14.725 41038, ‘1.a98 Tanama 8597 443 7.308 Tiity 2.188 306 1.98! wae 58.430 aae7 4,375 41,043 Twine 8.188 728 25 8.536 Ventura 139,508 3,880 "7.864 2.232 195,250 Yola 27.064 1.554 3.222 98 20,069) ‘Yuse 12,042 915 122 8 8634 Cotuntn Key: Since 2001 a felony is counted ae ons hry and ane dispostionfer each defendant -hrntghot all stages ofein proceedings. Ihis charge eliminated double-counting of defennants wna were nl ta anv. corlise on gully plaas. oF walvad proliminaryhearings, and i reduced the nuniuars of Thngs and dispositions report ® This column also inckides miszeltanaous felony petitions reported only by JBSIS ours Notes: @ Ieomplete dats; reports wera subinitodforloss than ful yeer. Lor — The court reported inal na cases eccurted ar the court dd rot submit a report in this aslegony. judicial Councll of Galforia. 2016 Court Statistics Report Felonies—Method ofDisposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 8a Before Tiel AerTria ‘ther — Butera other After Total Tost Pleasot Preliminary Prolrinary county Filings Dispositsns Gully Heating Heorra By Cou By Jury ay gi o) 2 1 iF (6) ‘STATEWIDE 216.088 223,339 178,669 25,806 13.812 78 4778 Rameda 8.900 824 4518 1,758 1,978 3 56 pine on aa 2 1 1 a 0 Amador 462 12 ar a2 " 7 5 Butte 41,835, 94a 1515 25 10 5 aa Calaveras 28 2 184 12 22 e 4 Colusa 283 14 PA a 4 1 u Coniva Costa 4982 424 45 263 208 5 24 Del None 310 200 368 48 7 ° 8 El Dorada usr 41065 237 59 40 3 2 Fresno as 40,500 ato 1378 280 10 57 Glenn 288 25 166 6 ae 2 10 Hurnaaial 94 ier 1,009 424 204 1 Irnperal +530 1 1,230 19° 222 o 6 Inyo ve oT 8 5 o 8 Kem asit 6583 968 on fz 282 Kings (2m 1) 138, 158 (wre o 2 Lake B88 551 138 3 2 0 Lassen 358 2 5 8s 1 4 Las An 45,758 4.434 41.584 a8 1,683 Madera 4147 330 118 2 a Maria 230 122 35 1 13 Mariposa 108 8 6 ° 1 Mendocino 8 125 96 10 8 Merced 1.698 Ba 331 D 9 ‘Modoc 198 a a 1 an 132 25 ® 2 artery 2.781 zee? 2200 487 4 50 Napa 1,058 488 eat ver 3 8 Nevada 329 486 386 2 2 1 Orange 19/284 49175 19.863 47a 6 38 Placer 2.019 2794 2,278 432 4 25 Plumas 123 var 119 2 0 2 Riverside 13,563 15,168, +3800 esr 10 928 ‘Sacramenta| 940 10.909 8.689 4.348 0 263 ‘San Benito 428 490 391 92 ° 4 ‘San Bernardina 15,288 14530 12340 4,387 233 San Diego 13,604 +4040 "2288 306 2 181 ‘San Francisco 3.625 3.862 2.988 219 a 95 San Jorguin 54136 3422 4,150 1024 a a San Luls Obispo 4,800 1990 4719 ot ? 19 San Mateo 2381 2848 1.865 sat 1“ 22 Sanla Barbara 2am 2, 1.698 497 5 26 Sania Ciara 7.950 9.86 7.823 +008 1a v 122 Senta Cuz 1926 use 4471 419 ree 2 16 Shasta 2,768 3.525, 2.480 6 939 a nm acicial Council of Calforia ona 2018 Court Statistics Repent Felonies—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 8a eforw Tall After 1a ‘Other —Setore Other — Ae Total Total Pleas of Preliminary Prelimirary coUNTY Tings Dispositions: Guilty Hearing Heanng By Jury tA) a ic) iD) (6) ‘STATEWIDE 214,088 223589 «178,669 25,604 4778 Siera x a 10 4 o Siskiyou 40 32a 53 al 10 Solano. usr 1,207 3 346, 78 Sonoma 2017 2.088 268 533, 2B Staristaus 5.288 3,288 1103 789 585 Suiter 1.035 821 108 a7 19 Tehama 43 a8 7 at 0 8 Terity 230 23 ea at 5 a Tulare 4.307 3,689 450 13 4 83 Tueluinne wi 569, i 45 a a Ventura 36uo 3.087 148, 333 4 108 Yolo 1.886 1.076 28T “a9 9 at Yuba ais 803 173 108 % 2 Column Key: @) Since 2001 @ felony is counladay onefilng and one dispositionfor each éefendat throughoutall stagesofcriminalproceeuings. This change chminated double-counting of deferants whewere held to answer, certcn guily pleas, oF waived preliminaryhearings, and it reducedthe numbers of “lings and cispositians reported. @) This column alsoincites miscrlanecus felony polltons ceported enly by JBSIS cours disposed beferetalin cofumns (2! and (E.) (CHG) ‘The total cf tha mannar of d'sposition saleqevies may not adup to because not alt courts were abic to submit compicte data tor al iranner cf dispositon data e'ements © Pleas af cully before sha start of vial. Includes felonies reduced to misciemeanors that subsequently wert to tia (je) Includes uiemiesa's anc transfers. re) Includes snals for defendants whose fslony charges wera reducedto miscemeanors before the star of trial. Notes: a Incomplete dala; rayorts wera subuilied forless than a full yee. dor ‘The court reporteathal nb cases occurredor the court did not submit a reporin this category odiciat Gounol of Galtoria 2018 Court Statics Report Felonies—Dispositions, by Outcome and County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 8b Total Tota Felory Misdemenror Acquillats and Folany ‘COUNTY Mlings Dispositions Craviclons —Convietos—Dismissals. Transfers Petitions, _ (a ws Go my e) (hh 1G) ‘STATEWIDE 218,088 223,339 139,927 3,018 S112 1,193 1473 tamed 5,900 waar 2934 1638 o = Albu an 4 z ’ o o ‘Amador a62 122 60 a 4 7 Bute 1,835 944 1,196 364 1 ~ Calaveras, 276 232 183 5 a 2 Cols 263 “34 a8 e Contra Crist 4.182 4294 2a ar Del Nore 310 00 255 4 E1Darado 937 1,065 ere 12 a Fresno 9.845 40,800 5278 Bz Slern 2A 235 “89 2 = umboldt 1671 519 o 38 Innperiat 1.728 a 82 Ingo 176 192 a o Kern aatt aan 7 Kings 2.230 (ware (386 w2 = Lake 883 432 1 4 Lassen 359 255 a i 16 Los Fong 4.213 46,734 34,805 5,804 8 es Madera Tat 143 580 32 Marin a9 ao 298 ° Mar pasa ws 89 " T 1 Yeruouna es 429 " vee 88 Norood a,c 1808 856 275 488 1 Modoc 103 108 2a 38 aT 1 Wano 7 142 6 52 a Monterey 2781 2.827 as S70 1 Napa 1.080 1,185 408 298 a Newacks 929 466 18 7 a = Orange 13,284 19.475 ga? 4,686 a7 256 Pacer 2.018 2/84 866 480 a = Pumas °20 “ar as 26 o a Riversioe 15,543 15.168 3.622 839 ur 104 Sacramento 3.840 10.590 1,629 1,753 o 0 San Berit 428 490 198. 83 o ze ‘San Bemardiio 15.956 14.530 0 1,948 ra 9 San Diego 13.884 a8 1992 1810 8 a ‘SanFrancisco A825 3,862 1708 ats 2 = San Joaquin 5.136 5422 8 1423 83 = ‘San Luis Obispo 1,890 1,990 596 233, 15 ° San Mateo abet 2.543 a B19 o o Santa Barbara 2774 2015 3 479 28 82 Santa Ciara 7.950 9,086 2.683 904 a m4 Santa Cruz 1,925 2,032 208 935 ” s Shasta 2.768 3,525 67 902 a 36 tical Counel of California 116 Felonies—Dispositions, by Outcome and County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 8b Tota Total Felony Mistemoanar Acqultals and Felony coUNTY Filings Dispositions Convetiors —Cerwictins —-Disrvssais Transfers. ~Pottions A eh fal o) e #4 G) ‘STATEWIDE 214,088 223,339 739.927 #018 37722 1185 7479 Siar or 2 6 s “ D = Siskiyou 468. 440 298 a0 66 3 a Solano 2,886 2.867 182 608 709 ee 7 Sonoma 707 27 1,828 464 290 21 402 Stanislaus ‘Rate 2816 728 1846 a ° Sutter 1,082 4.035 570 287 163 35 o Tehama 896 443 309 16 118 6 1 rnity 204 206 35 134 7 9 0 Tulare 4.090 4327 2.858 1,151 55 8 4 fustashne 728 28 att 182 122 a a veuia 3411 3,680 sr 1.80 402 60 29 Yoio 113 1,554 +088, 80 372 2 4 Yue 894 as 495 136 240 44 a (C) 1G) The pumposi of tus tabla is1 provide a general summary of broae aatagoresof dispositions in cximina| proceedings and 's not an oxnavstive list ofal passise dispositions in inavicual crimira cases. The table categorizes ulsmissals anu acquitals tngetter, The laste vous nal savetythe yes a” reasons for diamissal or sequtal. nordoes it inelede other fouleomas such as diversion programs, deferres entes of judgment, dismissals resulling tom pursuit af supervision revacatiansin leu of formal convictions “The total uf he manner of disposition catogorios may rot sdup to (6) hecause notall ourts were able to submit complete data fara mannerof dispositiondela elernants 0} Dofenclants canvicted sf ene nr mors misderneanors Lut not convictod of felony. (6) Liispositionof folany petitions are reported cn'y byJBS!S courts andare only classifies as a disposition hstore hearing or after hearing, Notes: Incomplete data; repors were submitted forless than a tal year ‘Tor — The court epored that re cases orcurre or he rour did nol submita report this category. Judicial Counc of California aT 2016 CourtSlatistes Report Nontraffic Misdemeanors—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 9a estore Ti tris Tosa Tots ail Guty county Flings Disposions Ferfoiures Pleas Other By Coun By Jury A, ce iC) 2 i) fa iS) ‘STATEWIDE, 445,554 355,943 45a1 221,660 127.681 6 ~~176 Alameda rags: 12,03 63 539 5.838 st Alpine (28 ze 8 ’ 5 a Aenador 340 245 0 188 4 a Bute 3.070 3a73 2 1.964 a u Calaveras 4st 36 ? 228 a 0 Colusa 303 wr 16 249 1 2 Contra Costa, 5,085 49° a 3736 % 125 Dol Norte any 873 a 753 4 2 ElDerada 1,565, 1190 4 313 a 6 Fresno 41.68: 10,008 a 3206 1 8 Glenn 183 175 a 144 Q 4 Humbota 256 2751 2 1.051 3 a iepuria 2am 2.884 18 41,332 5 10 eyo 435 ant 5 268 2 2 kem 20.848 48418 o 1t9 ° 4 ings. 4.185 age 0 man a at Lake 4183 1.264 a say 2 6 Lassen 430 364 5 208 a 2 Los Angeles aiaar o7.18 2080 98513 383 458 Madera 4,568 4,243 0 877 2 4 Marin 1723 1333 a 743 a 5 Mariposa ew 45 52 arr 6 5 Menéocino 1.889 S10 a 1432 4 8 erred 2587 Qosar 8 803 o 5 doc 28 226 a 110 o 2 Mare 781 su 2a 148 4 ° Manteroy 5.883 ° 3607 *0 8 Naga 1.405) ° 788 3 a Nevada 4341 2 58 6 a Orange 34,469 ® 0 w w Placer 2.883 o aatt j 21 Pumas 328 22 2 2 Riversiu 24,897 2% 10.094 8 55 Sacramenta 11,542 o 5,852 38 3 San Benito 673 a 375 1 1 San Bemardino 38,283 818650 32 1s San Diego 2,803 19s 7a 2s we San Francises 2.285 a eat 4G 0 Sen Jonquin 5,826 a9 5.433 55 3 San Luis Obispo 6142 @ 34a 6 San Mates 9.538 a 5,028 4 ‘Sena Barbara 8,153 1 4,098 5 Sania Clara 18.594 210,358 4 Santa Cruz 3,28 3.858 4 2s 15 Shasia 8543 3.060 ° aaa 3 Juccial Council of Gaitomia 118 2018 Court Statistics Repart Nontraffic Misdemeanors—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 9 Betore T Biter ri Total Tota Bal Guilty couNTY ings iepositirs —_Forteltures Pleas Other By Gout By Jury ia a oo fl a (s) ‘STATEWIDE “405,554 355,043 4891 221,660 «127,661 968 ~~«TTS Sierra 7 a5 2 30 2 b 1 Siskiyou 588 aa 1 282 188 e 2 Solana 3.898 3.484 a 1210 2202 10 3 Sonoma 6.028 6.350 3 4,168 2148 7 a Stanislaus 5.168 3.128 5 23110 26H ti 38 Suter 146? 4372 5 eas 510 " 9 Tehama 4,322 28 1» a7 172 3 a Teng 144 2 1 50 40 a 1 Tulare 9.018 rai ° 647 980 5 31 eoluenns 999 a 2 er 61 6 43) Ventura 1nag7 11884 or 7550 10,117 13 ar Yoo 35 3,222 38 1,853 7 58 Yuba 17 1522 2 962 a ‘ Column Key: [CHG) The total ofthe manner nf dl spasiian categories ray not adé up to (BY hecause nolall ceurIs were able te submit complete dala fatal’ manner of dispasiton data elemants © Other Before Trial includes lrarsfore, dismissal, and dismissais after d version, Notes: a incomplete ata; reports were submitedforless than # fll yer Bar - The court -mpartad Liat ne cases occurred or the cnurt ed nol subrila repartin this category Jaca! Council of California "19 2018 Court Statistics Report Nontraffic Infractions—Methodof Disposition, by County Fiscal Year 2014-15 Superior Courts =e afer Trial Fetal Total Bal couNTY Frings D'spostions —For‘eltures Peas thes by Court (ai (a ( O) E) 6 STATEWIDE 273,881 200,807 75,182 62,506 54407 78,073 Alameda aan 8.288 41,256 2216 4543 2a Alpine war wat 7 2 2 9 Amador 48 2 5 6 4 Bulle 2404 1.580 357 4aa 6a Calaveras 184 ot 49 24 18 Causa 2 8 1 16 2 0 Contra Costa, 4587 8.155 108 864 4.75 213 Dal Nene 103 136 8 28 3 EI Dorado 7 ais 1.040 ° Fresno 1818 1815) 48 1.068 Glen 1a 2 8 Humolt 2.633 394 127 pons 554 17 300 ino 9 o o 0 Kern 1978 1,436 222 487 st Kings 137 ayn w 139 20 Lake 414 238 126 34 Lassen a3 a 18 o Los Angetes 49.827 34.442, tno wars 875 Madera me ‘at % 28 4 Marin 41,982 1.410 Br 7 288 Mariposa 14 w v 6 2 Mencocino 2a 446 176 100 1“ Meroe ont (eas “4 418, 7 Modoc 18 a7 4 28 1 ano 425 410 313 16 x a Munteray 1.554 1.128 ai 225 oar 49 Naga 527 298 a2 a 7 25 Novada 992 540 308 89 15 22 Orange 40.918 @ 0 wo o o Plscer 425 319 6 191 cy 39 Plumas 138 Tr 5a 6 ar 15 Rivers 5.216 6.259 4028 0 4.518 123 Sueraiena 23316 3,553 zs +100 346 484 San Benito 28 45 0 37 a 4 San Bernardino 8827 2aew 1474 a 7.924 272 San Diego 39.725 saeas 16,087 9.106 553° 2.440 San Francisca 4,502 20.898 5137 2227 9710 San Jeaquin 3.598 3512 300 726 28: 305 San Luis Obispo 4.985 144 226 524 363 2 San Mateo 3482 18.085 aary 12038 4a 14 Santa Barbara rosea 9.882 1.083 24a 5299 3 Santa Clara 9,560 5,604 ze 1.188 1.405 168 Santa Gruz 9.152 sata a.a38 4,298 ea 132 ‘Shasta 1,786 262 478 982 84 shudiial Gauncl of Calforia 120 2018 Cour Statstics Report Table 9b Nontraffic Infractions—Methodof Disposition, by County Fiscal Year 2014-15 Superior Courts Table $b Before Tris Tia Tota Total Beil culty county Ftings Dispositions Fortetures Preas One By Court __. A ) Oh (03 Hy # ‘STATEWIDE 273,881 200,807 75,182 52,506, 54,447 18,673 Slava a te 7 4 t 4 Siskiyou 282 162 38 87 6 at Solana 1.488 372 0 176 188 2 Sonora 2.268 4732 361 ang 220 33 Starisious a3 528 62 a8 233 18 Sutter 758 360 108 162 28 62 Tena 202 m4 16 4 4 “0 Init 46 ap 2 1 8 1 Tularo 1.188 asrs 38 4.041 wr a9 Ruolumaa 258 287 40 ‘2A at 6g Vortura 2.540 2282 59 4.158 468 sg Yolo 228 98 5 er 2 6 Yuba 592 369 “a “83 108 a2 Column Key: (Ci) The total of he manner af sposiiancatagorios may not acd upto all cours were aie to submit complete ata fora: manner ofcisp0stion date elements © Othe” Before Trial includes lrans'rs, dismigeal. and dismissals aferd version. Notos: a Incomplete data; reparts were eubmitiedforlessthan fll year. Dor — The rourtreputed znat no cases occurred orthe court td nat submit a report intis category Judie'al Cauneil af Califomia a1 2016 Court Sal sties Report Traffic Misdemeanors—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 9c Belore tn Aor Total Total wie Guilty county Fiings Dispositions exfetures Ploas By Cont By Jury a 8 ich o a ‘s) ‘STATEWIDE arnars 400,343 2635 «296,152 —*78.265 3189 .125 Alameda 874 7s18 ey 5.908, 1.38 iN6 4 Alpina ‘66 38 ” 3 3 6 0 Amador 529 455 0 35 3 5 a 1620 1802 6 1348 aaa 6 1 aan ata 5 279 a 5 1 Gohisa 202 eat “6 330 29 1 1 Contra Costa a,a04 3.385 a 2ast 288 6 se Del Norte 276 731 a 32 a7 12 D El Morsiin 137% 1276 38 ey 2s 8 6 Feesna 24,308 13.926 anit 53903 4.861 8 30 enn 257 an u 282 18 2 2 Huirboldt 168 1.588 ° 4.070 510 3 5 Imperial 2.208 276 1 846 4518 a 5 toy 276 243 10 224 7 2 ° Kern 44.128 41.782 ° 2.600) 2.28 10 35 Kings 18 inaas 6 i396 37 @ 02 Lake 878 0 47 178 2 a Lassen ari wr 310 3 ° 1 Los Angeles 18,262 4g 150.581 a7.202 2.282 208 Madero 311 ° 2,780 550 8 Marin 4st2 a 24a 247 6 6 Maripase 206 a 154 20 1 2 Mendocina 11520 2 1.189) 419 6 4 Merced (2.07 8 373 ass 3 4 Modoc 129) 2 404 1 1 More ar 182 180 a 1 ° Monterey 8.895 48 s.74a ane es 0 Napa re ° 1.508 sre 8 te Nevada 4.180 aa 876 213 39 6 Orange 0 ® wo @ 0 0 Pincer 4813 0 1490 307 1 18 Pumas 27 8 180 ar 4 1 Riverside srawe 3 12218 4778 0 2 Sacramento 4s7e 0 3,794 naz 0 3 San Benito 78 1 n9 a 2 1 Sen Bernardino 38.148 28164 20 18.951 8.907 7 oe San Diego 19.224 27487 san ars 2.859 33 153 San Francisco 1.149 742 a #12 3 2 6 ‘San Joagun 20.122 tae 8.265, azn 300 8 ‘San Luis Obispo 4622 436 3251 354 14 7 San Mateo 5937 a 3.977 aa « 5 Santa Barbara a.n25 3.583, ° 375, 84 ‘ e Santa Cisa 15,683 410.760 1.098 8.279 a2 ® % Sania Cruz 2529 2578 1 2.058 493 18 ® Shasia 11628 1297 ° 4.480 438, ° " Jutie'l Council of Cal fora rz 2016 Cour StatisiesReport Traffic Misdemeanors—MethodofDisposition, by County Fiscal Year 2014-15 Superior Courts Table 9¢ Before Tist Alla iat Fetal Total Boil Gutty county Filings Cispositions Forfeiture Pleas Other By Coun By Jury - ‘ay Oy 1G) my ie (Hh (5) ‘STATEWIDE 47076 400,348 24635 —-296,182—*78,268 369425 Siena 0 2 ° 9 ‘a o f Siskiyou ana asi 1 an ar o Solano 2.440 1913 1 BB 408 5 Sonoma 4928 5,350 ° 820 3 Storis.eus 5844 3,01 146 4,198) oF Sutter 529 503 u 64 16 o Teva 1.057 36 0 80 8 ° Tey “aT a 6 1 Tulare ape 3 28 2 20 Tuolumne ane 1 82 88 46 Ventura 3.043 10478 1 watt 1" Fa Yolo 2819 2.121 5 895 8 a Yuba 589 a2 5 105 0 a Column Key: (re 2 total f he manner ofdisposition categares may nat add up to {8} because natall courts wore abi Le submit ceainp ete data forall manner of disposition ala siemens © ther Belars Trial inoudes transfers, dismissal, and cismissals aller diversion, Notes a Incornplete data: eons were submittes fortesthan a fll year Dar — ‘Th courroparted inatn0 cases oceurred or tha cour dd rol submil a report m this category Judiclal Counc of California 123 2018 Cour Statisies Repart Traffic Infractions—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15, Table 94 aelore Trl Aller Tots! lol Bal uty ‘coUNTY Hiings Gispoatians Forfeires Plasss tho By Coun (a a (ey iD eh ey ‘STATEWIDE 450,989 «3,998,078 7.619.205 42,608 1,317,063 359.203 Alameda 206,307 203,201 es.184 0.261 50,573 7058 Ripine (1387 (teas 4,200 14 6 a Amacor 5.554 asia 1,398 778 1476 ear tute 19,149 5873 950 8.302 485 Catavoras 3,704 B72 96 1.684 433 Colusa azo 3418 382 1311 38 Contra Costa 198,007 12876 13798 1375 2084! Del Neve 6.308 3,136 718 688 4723 Farad 13284 9.283 642 3748 78 Fraana ATS 30.842 7,305 2712 95 Glenn 8.788 3.865 11% 288 uot Hurbotdt 13.845 10,369 Bre 2.51 rat Irepore! 5107 37.401 1a6t 11,987 8,795 eye Be 7802 84 B 11a7 Kem 424,823 109,675 59,561 2773 18,806 4038 ngs 22.499 were (sare wars (wear ay1s2 Lake 9.218, 5.2381 2191 287 40 2.403 Lauer 5,488 4564 2946 9 149 Las Argoies naaees 4,274,747 398 964 286 281 538,349 Madera 10,856 11,698 7201 at 2810 Marin 30.337 30321 19,31" 516 8.123, Mariposa 2:90 41328 4,703 5a 2 Merdocino 10276 to,a02 8,320 833 1983 Marced B1997 21331 tagr2 5.501 4a Medoe 1304 4,334 988 8 ono A254 5.695 2,520 100 omtetey aur 38.400 pana 833 Nove 12.841 14.408 eau 166 evade 7.404 12.861 7734 “184 Orange 2or.ar4 @ o i Pacer 25297 o i @ Pumas 2.18 1.832 41368 %6 Riversige 258.68 268,775 192,587 490 Saciamento 128,088 120,828 gnats 230,554 San Benita 4151 4,002 2,327 379 San Bernarttna 178.141 191.847 bg 112 22.482 31.609 San Diego 342.972 401,313 472.287 51,348 129.403 San Francisco 136.885 125,893, 38,002 13,583 sazer San Jaagula 52.453 ar0t8 36,595 15,013 2467 San Luis Obiepo 29668 29.277 46.496 3.013 sar ‘Sar Mateo 117,108 ane arta Faia 53,388 Sarta Barbara ba,954 56,287 1sy77 6.908 28,345 Santa Clara wer sas 134.813 eso7y 9778 36,968 Santa Cruz 2satt 22573 8.805 2903 9.718 Shaste 24,592 2187 10.248 6.134 4.488 Judicial raneof Cal fornia 124 2918 Cour Statistics Repart Traffic Infractions—MethodofDisposition, by County Superior Courts FiscalYear 2014-15 Table 9d Betore Trial atter Trial Total Toral Boi Guilty ‘COUNTY Fhngs——Dispos'tions Forteitures Pieas other By Court (a fe) (5) = 153 Fh, “STATEWIDE 4,150,999 3,838,079 1,619,205 642,608 1,317,063 359,202 Sierra 69 376 4 40 28 Siskiyou 12,148 9.829 1.034 536 Solano 31,835 19,265 5.709 366 1.673 Sonoma 59.707 32,360 3.980 100 18.287 Stefisaus 3 24.003 8,580 a7a4 10,280 A858 Sutter ta2e 11.385 6119 2.201 1.832 4.368 Tehama 12,748 7308 4,496 3 2,388 421 Teity 1,804 1.581 1995 au 318 x Tolar 50,837 Aton 23.404 1,650 7,048 agit ‘Téakamne 5188 5.506 2318 365 1230 1.138: Ventura 198,747 105,250 62,989 482 26,068 arnt Yolo 22,363 20,083 5a75, 3.99% 9.810 1,398 Yuna 8,955 2,634 et? 2849 2.915 458 Column Key: (o- “The tote’ of she manneraf disposiion categories may not add to (8)harause nat ail courts wers able ta submit complete dala for al manner of cispasition data elements, fe Other BeforeTrial inc‘Luas transfers, cismssal, and dismissals atter diversion, Notes: ti Incomplele data: reports wore eubmitted ‘orless than a full year. Dor — ‘eyorted that no cases occurred or the cour dinot subLa reportinthis category. Jutiial Council ofCalfornia 125 2016 Cour Statistics Report Criminal Case Processing Time, by County FiscalYear 2014-15 Superior Courts Table 10a sone. eenapa hssannns oneaes = AL 8) fe) (0) & fF (Sp ae = aa er a fe = oe ue ~~ Ssnee =.= =, 2 eae “ a SS = am Be na z oe ee wt 2 ? 2 ne S = & cmp enfe a wit tnt iat cae S =a Somesori = — — a oe fini i Soh Criminal Case Processing Time, by County Superior Courts Fiseal Year 2014-15 Table 10a FevniesDispoved of in Felonies Disposed of Misdomeaners Disposed al Lass Than an _ Days in Laws than Days counTy 12 Mors 30 30 0 a0 “ay ___(©) fi) ) (6 ‘STATEWIDE 55% 71% ett 7 aa% Siorra — = a — _ Siskiyou 20% 3085 58% 16% 55% Solana . = = — 7 Sonoma 16% a 73% Stanislaus aim date 3% 58% 75% Sitter 22% 58% 18% 4% 72 Tenn 56% 70" Be 7% a rity 1% 20% 20% 2% 55% Tulare 20% 43% 6% 55% 85%, Tusa 8 54% 18% 37% 3% Yontua 26% 26% 5% é He Yoo 29% 40% 65% 31% 80s ‘Yuns 38% 45% 60% 22% 585 Column Key: ” ‘Tris colurrn consists only of cases in wnichdefendants wore hold to answer er were certified on guily pleas. Processing tina is basedontine from “est agacarancein limited-jrisiction spurtta‘nal disposition in unimlea-urisciction court plantlo verified plaa, bindover, ordismissal atorbefore preliminary = Ihe courad net submit a report inthis category Council of Calforaia 127 2018 Gouri Statistics Report Family and Juvenile Filings, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 114 Facil La Delinquency Degendaacy couNTY Tela MantalPesitons Total Orginal Subsequent Total Origiial Subsequent “ 2 fl (0) 2) # 1S) a wD ‘STATEWIDE 380,160 138,121 242039 «40,726 28279 2AOT «44,675 3875S 5820 Alaris 12773 aga: 7782 1985 aS 210 ms TR? i Alpe ae w a at wt a w iy o Auredor 39500 ZA at 20 7 75 6 a Butto 2903 992111 zz 135 335 awa a Calavera ee 45 3 @ 4 4 a Gousa 173 ate ia 20 9 23 22 1 Conta Gossa 9221 5587 93723 ain sat mm 20 Ral Note eu sat 108 35 6a a 8 6 FI Doras 1.980 1.483 295 120 15 2 ast 5 Fresno 12494 9.090) 4308 41.184 124 221 920 1 Gen 3r7 254 2 4 38 a 1 Humbalet 4.702 1238 wz 108 34 2542 w Imperial asia 205 201 189 12 285 254 5 Inyo 238 iat 45 3 8 13 18 o Kern 10.044 3.060 77784 sara 1,252 2s 860 Bas 15 Kings 1835 491.286 ws 11g 56 420 410 2 Lake 4073317788 85 8 3 7 a Lassen 495 20 ua 40 30 19 45 o Los Angeles 97.098 34,218 57.884 8905 4.788 3517 20294 16,118 4q78 Madera poo S27 875 265156, 164 24 199 5 Marin 1.782 808 2d 13 1st 2 31 1 Mariposa 192 128 10 0 8 3 3 9 Mendocina 428039882 253186 67 1a 5 Meroad 3719860825 sz 113 33 356 a Modoc 210 st 180 2B Tia 6 16 a Hono 7a a7 ut " 1" ° 1" 5 Monterey ase 146) 2,381 eo 482 408 185 0 Napa 12330 aT 708 22017 8 2 Neva art 367508 roa 104 0 8 Orange 25972 41,107 14.865 ae 1.975 a5 4 Pracor 3373 481.825 at 301 70 3 Pumas 255 INF ” 15 2 ° Riverside aT aaNet ua 29320 sate 1518 3 Sacramento 17768 5241 12.525 1327 896 asi 2 an Benito 45600142 5a 38 16 4 San Bamardina 2o24i 8042 21,198 2872 2.285 sr 12 San Diego zein1 14,926 15,066 Rest Zant ° + San Francisco 623902818 ara 465300 165 360 Sen Joaquin 82092419 THe reB I? au 68 ‘San Luis Obispo 2iea 1,002, 1,462 2s Bt 6a 7 San Matco 5030 Zten (Mt 1643734 905 422 Sarta Barbara 2 agai 1561 93730 223 238 1 Santa Clara anas2 8519 B77 032788 266 585 6 Santa Cnr es7 1,109 449366 8s a 33 Shasta os 1611 434 ari 2683 230 45 Judicial Council of California 128 2016 Court Statistics Report Family and Juvenile Filings, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 114 Family Law Delinquency Devendeney coUNTY Tolal Marital Pettions Total Grgral Suosequent Total Original Subsequen: (al &. i) 2) i) 4 (Si i) ow “STATEWIDE 360,160 1312" Za2030 —«40,726 28.229 ~—~«12.407 ~—«AA,GT90,750 5.920 Siew a 6 1 1 a 5 6 0 Siskiyou 44 508 87 6 1 R ° Salaro 5.80 347s 40623 83 ari 5 Sonoma 3716 188 sur 442 85 22 1 Stanisiaus 795.2 28a A86 ais. ia 39 335 8 Sutter 1498 4081 96 8 18 118 0 Tehama 1.125 798 a 6 3 a 4 Trity 2 208 20 6 5 “a a Ture 9303 3.491 sen 589 at eat 1s Tuoluinini ‘BOS at) aa «0 as 188 24 vertuta 1887 3°78 4,389 1ai2 1.568, sue 8, 5 Yolo 1923 8254. 333 333 a 209209 6 ‘Yuba 41m. aaa 8 88 88 0 al 28 6 Column Key: 8) Includes clesoluion, lepal senarstion, andnull CG inekudes Canarlmentof Child SJpport Serv cos(CGS), domestic vioienr prevention, ard alher miscallanecs family ew petitions, Notes: G Incomplete data; reports ware subrnited fo" less thana ful year. Dor — The caurt "eperted that no cases occurred orthe court dit notsurat rayonIhthi Jocicial Counel of Calforala 128 2016 Court Slatstics Report Family and Juvenile Dispositions, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15, Table 11b Family Law Datinouency Depen couNTY Total Marital Potions Total Orginal Subsequent Total Original Subsequent fal o & oy i) 6 (9) i) in ‘STATEWIDE ‘MOTTT 135812 204965 8,575 27,500 «10,078 32,190 30,605 1.585 Alameda vans 4.457 6946 17750 ae res 0 3 Aring use He wy “i o a “ a Amador 272 48 2B 18 4 32 32 a Bute 2428 56 zu 126 10 29528 4 Calaveras 363 ‘aT “4 a 7 95 95 a Colusa 138 9 57 2 aA 4 4 a Contra Costa 8198 (266 2.929 0 “a o “ ® i Del Nerte 938 163 1.870 210 86 va 7 ™ v El Dorado 1.0 851 1.050 213 sz 121 133 148 as Fresco ines 5018 8.892 4203 1,202 w 144s 1,445 1 Glenn 50012223 78 24 4 32 2 3 Humboldt re 8801084 an 98 33 Zed 0 Imperial 4580773 agi 1838185 1 703205 4 yo 202 BKB 4 4 o 7 7 ° Kern a2 2503 S818 287 4,763 a, a0 aS 5 Kngs mo 36 108 7 48 30 os ms a Lake aes aed TH 85, st 34 30 2a 1 lassen 485 14 325 36 2s rn 58 58 e Los Angeles 105,727 44201 61,528 S878 3293 2.788 8475 8,745 730 Madera 2675 5682.09 208172 128 236230 e Marin 1401 aga $02 260 2 188 7 7 8 Mariposa 9% 59 a 8 5 1 8 8 o Mendocino 1,430 M7 788 aa a3 stat 4 Merced tires etoTB met ost Wr9s 198 m2 Madox 108 48 5 25 2 5 20 20 ° Mans 88 a 38 28 % D 3 13 ° Heontorey 3797 as 1880 1012586 a8, to ast 0 Napa 207 so BIS 25001 88 68 68 o Nevada m0 3a aT 64 83 1 aT 87 0 range woes (7.759 2084 443i 3at7 ata 1.508 4.493 13 Parner 22968 1982 1,584 ast 287 68 535492 43 Phas 248 a 180 8 2 a 2 a Rivera 27381 8686 1H.698, 1.568 798 29202900 2 Sacrameno 13978 4.998 11,328 955 498 14st 1.301 va ‘San Benito 388 “2 46 43 18 a a 1 San Bemnardina 2697 7483 20,214 543 oor 2ana 6 Sar Diego eta 12,928 71,822 ° ami? 4718 2 San Francison S687 2.833 3,058 198 286 622 a2 ° San Joaquin Teed 4,782 5,688 492 258 624 sea 38 San Luis Obispo rt 158 0 151 14s 7 San Matec 3315 1,9R1 1.84 87 488, Bey 282 6 Sarva Barbara zips 088.020 «20 201 mz at 1 Sama Clara aso 4.803 4.825 B19 275 TA 17a 6 Santa Criz ass 805d Pa 233 +60 20 0 Shasta 3908 7a rr e 239, 159480 ° Jusiciat Council of Caiarsia 130 2016 Court Statistics Ropont Family and Juvenile Dispositions, by County and Gase Type Fiscal Year 2014-15, Superior Courts Table 11b Famiiy Law Delinquency Depererty couNTY Total Marts! Peiltions Total Origical Subsequent Total Origival Subsoauent (A 2 ( 2 © ES) fa iG ‘STATEWIDE MorTT 135812 204908 88.376 27,900 ‘10.876 32,190 30,605, 7.586 Sera a 8 1” 2 2 . 5 5 ° Siskiyou 46 5 i 55 55 Solana 2.928 1773 se2 (280 322 Ba Soroma 4.161 1,900, sya? 30 aan Sitiisiaus 5250 3,320. Der ee a is Sutter 1,508 1.020 e102 16 tor Tehama 705 388 2 at a v8 Trinity 281 205 1 t 35 Talore 4.397 2.851 asa 9 306 694 Sraplufina 65) 6 & 4a 7 6 Ventura 6,936 498 1.944.624 220 $0 Yao 4,591 1125 at er 6 200 Yuba 1.167 194 84 53 1 an o Column Key: 3) Includes dissolution, lenal separaoarrly. fe Inckites Departmen of Child SJpport Services [DCSS;, domasts violence proveen, ard other misecLancous fay ‘aw pettions. Notes: a Incomplete date; reportwore submitted for less than a fll year Dor — The court weportad that ra cases Securred oFthe Court vid olsub t a report inthis category. Judicial Counc! af California 13t 2016 Court Sissies Repart Family Law (Marital)—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 11¢ elare (ial Dismissal for Total Total Delay Other coUNTY Filings Digestion Prosecution ——_Befove Trial tee Tia iy ) 2 ey ‘STATEWIDE 138.127 135,212 11.138 1419 Alameda 4981 4457 aes a Aipine B 2 a 2 0 Amador 144 148 2 18 a Bulle 992 256 © 886 a Calaveras 198 137 2 13 2 Colusa fa ° 8 5) entra Costa (nae as ize o Dal Nene 188 3 “65 8 EI Dorada ast 3 Bea 4 Fresno S018 ° S018 0 Glenn 12 o a 6 Humble 850 2 643 5 Imperial 723 sa 588 82 Inyo 64 0 8 Kern 3.80 2593 10 2583 o Kings 519 3 a 03 “ Lake ur 204 37 218 9 Lassen 182 141 a 14t o Los Angeies 34.218 44,201 1.238 o Madera ow 5688 2 5 Marin 8 99 4 a Meriposa 68 59 . 3 Merdocinn 308 ur 2 a erred 890 wero e a Modoc st 43 ° a Mana 4a 5 5 ° Monterey 1487 1,426 388 ot Napa 527 598 6 ° Nevada sr 313 2 . range 1,107 o7759 w @ Placer 1548 41,332 3 0 Plumas 9 88 6 2 Riverside aes 3.686 au 8 Sacramanto| 524° 4.999 0 0 ‘San Benita 142 12 3 1 san Bemardino 012 7.483 194 8 san Diego 1.06 12.328 198 ° San Francisca 2518 2.833 a a San Joann 2410 1752 a 166 San Luis Obispo 002 804 ii a ‘San Malaa 2088 1981 u o Santa Barbara 41.381 1.084 2 25 Santa Clara 5515 4,505 T 31 Santa Cruz ost 95 st 43 Shasta 304 738 0 35 Joricial Council af Cal fora 12 2016 Court Stalicies Report Family Law (Marital)MethodofDisposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 11¢ etore Thal Dismissal Tote! Toial Delay in Other counry Hiings Dispasilione Prosecution Before Ivial a ‘Bl ic) oy ‘STATEWIDE 198,121 135.812 3.255 131138 Sierra , 8 B a a Siskiyou 178 100 ® 18 23 Solan 1.385 1,158 e 1.021 132 Sonoma 1828 2.261 487 sqT4 ° Stibisiaus 2509 1.860 18 void irs Suter 488 483 % 34 ot Tehams a7 a7 a 7 10 Trey 8 8 1 64 1 Tulare st2 1.708 a 4,702 4 Tusianine 281 209, o iso i Venura 3.178 3adz a 3.192 250 Yolo 625 56 4 541 24 Yuba 37a 303 ° 373 a Column Key: (OHE} The fola of the mannerof cispasiton ralugoriesmay not add ua va (B) bozause natall cours were able to soit romp ete cala ‘oral maniar of clsposition data elements o Includes before and afler-hearing dismissa's, ransfers and judgments Notes: G Incomplete data; reports ware submitted for lesschan a ful yea or — The court repre thal io eases ovcurred or the court ret submit a repurlin this valeyory. Juciciat Counal of California 2076 Gour Statistics Report Family Law Petitions—Method ofDisposition, by County Superior Courts Fiseal Year 2014-45 Table 11d Before Trial (Din for Tova Tora Dalayin Other Before Aor county Filings 'spoeitions Prosecution Hear Heating AorTit 7 A #) ic __ 10). el ia ‘STATEWIDE 282,089 7204965 16.483 112,200, Tat 09 tamed 1782 Bae 628 2.298 tae 388 Apna we “2 a 4 ° 6 Amada 21 18 a 105 6 ® Bute 1git 1.272 4 sta 8 6 Calaveras 351 225 1 182 Ey a Gols 104 67 6 ae 20 o Gontra Casta S587 fi2ge8 Guage mas 2.092 mt DalNata s2i 1 8r0 100 1588 24 a H orate 1.153 4050 2 385 626 a7 Fresno 8,090 6.622 ° 3.845 3.787 0 Gorn 264 228 5 166 5 a Pusbotdt 1.239 41084 58 632 an a Imperial 275 3.83 as 4879 20s awe Inyo. 141 138 ° 38 2 o Kom 7.784 sre 4447 2657 515 a kings 41,288 «198 oh 4101 is 0 Lake 5 Br 83 408 58 7 Lassen m3 325 a 313 2 6 Les Angeles 67,280 61,528 e767 zeees 2938 o Maier 2378 2.008 228 808 946 wu Morin 828 582 7 420 165 0 Maras 126 a ° 25 12 0 Munidaciao 867 res at 801 a e Marcod 2828 476 ° 190°2 192 2 ‘Medoo 168 58 8 a Mono a 35 1 4 Monterey 235° 1.868 1 Napa 708 ans m4 215 8 Neva 504 ar 62 28 a Orange 14,888 (2084 0 {2019 o Placer 1825 41864 18 70 2 Plumas 1s 160 8 1 Reverse 19.048 18,695 7,328 s.682 5 Sacramento 12,525 11,328 a 9,268 ° San Benito a4 28 7 30 2 San Bernardin 24.498 Poa pera 4478 rm Sen Diegs 15,085 11,ez 587 6 ° San Francisco Bret 3.054 0 105 6 ‘San Jaaquin Bray 5,608 ° 1499 6 San Luis Obispo 4,162 683 an 280 0 SanMateo 2ea1 1.334 ° 6s o Santa Barbara 1.951 1.020 1 248 4 Santa Clava ear 4,925 o 28 4 Santa Cruz 1.103 sas 68 435 o Shasta 16H att D ag 0 husie al Caunel of Calorie 134 2018 Court Satistos Report Family Law Petitions—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 11d Before Te ‘bamisgal er Toial Vota Delayin Otter Before Aster county Hinge Dispositors Prosecution Henig Visaig ARO Tia A) 1 ©) ©, ie) fe STATEWIDE Banas 108,968 Teas Tya.200 Tas 800 Sura 2 19 3 6 ¢ 0 Sihyyou 568 sat ° 469 4 " Solano 375 0 1.360 387 “4 Senema +988 250 1181 69 ’ Staisious 416585 28 2288 ne 145 Suter 4.081 20 587 8 aus Torama 198 ° 28 mn 1 ety 228 a 108 5 1 Tatars 3691 b 4.708 825 1 turn 524 1 28 sa 28 ventura 4369 ° 2388 em 432 Yelo 20 6 715 aaa a Yura 71a ° 20 an a Column key: {ajand (0) Includes jvenie denenterey adoption cases reported an JBSIS. {GH1F) ‘The tool of he mannerof eispoaton ualujores ray not add 0B) because natal courts were able te submit complete data fora manna ofdbpostoncata clerions oO Includestrans‘ers, mises, and juuyinants Notes: Family law petit ons include Dauartmentof Child Supper Servi amily law cases. o Incompla Hata: reports ware submitted for less then full year wess Dor — The ciel epurted that no cases accurted or the courte not subral a repertn tus category Judicial Council af Califia 1 domestic violence prevention, aother 2018 Court Statistics Report Juvenile Delinquency—Stageof Caseat Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiseal Year 2014-15 Table 11e 0 of Cave atDisposition Total Tors Belora Biter county Flings Disposiions Heating Fearing iay fe STATEWIDE 40,728 26,276 31490 Alemeda 4,225 381 84 Aiea it w 0 ° Amador a 22 " " Bulla 242 234 0 24 Calaveras 44 3 4 Colusa Be 7 40 Contra Costa i o 0 Dal Norte ate ° 210 El Dorado 213 D 213 Fresno 41.298 795 504 lene, 8 3 75 Hurnbcldt 131 1 120 Innpetial 166 9 mn Ingo 4 3 1 Kem 2487 4a 1.708 Kings 78 7 w Lake 85 7 Be Lassen 38 5 at Los Arwates 8.305 5,978 17 5.241 Madera 285 298 a 2096 Mara 2 280 a 760 Marposa 1b 8 1 5 Mendacina 2 2st zai a Meroed 182 wre 5 108 Mado 2 25 8 18 Hone " ey 1 25 Monterey 30 aa a 881 Nasa ai 225 8 216 Novads tua 64 18 45 ‘Orenge 2.806 44a 6 4386 Placer amt 353 a 332 Plumas 7 u 1 10 Fivarsidw 2.982 2361 285 1,696 ‘Suefamento 138: Ea 1,393 ‘San Benito at 7 54 San Borrardino 2a72 3.006 889 2.176 San Diego Baat 2.238 609 1838 San Frencisra 465 473 20 480 ‘San Josquin 758 150 828 424 ‘Son Luis Obispo 245 ata 4 saa ‘San Kalea 1.843 1975 at 148 Sanla Barbara 353 ax 19 02 Sanla Clara 1.982 1.094 288 828 Santa Cruz 449 501 203 308 Shasta 434 302 a2 260 Judie'al Council of Caltaria 134 2018 Coun Statlaties Report Juvenile Delinquency—Stageof Caseat Disposi Fiscal Year 2014-15 jon, by County Stage of Case at Disposition Total Total Batore Aller counry Hilnys ——Dispusiti Hearing Hearing “STATEWIDE 40,726 38,376 6,086 ier 1 2 6 2 Siskiyou 57 48 3 3 Solana Bae 112 470 Sonoma 587 18: 46 Savile our 12 286 sumer 118 a a Tenama 2 10 Trinity "1 1 Tulare 880 898 6 ini’ oe 1 ventura 1am 381 Yaa sar 0 Yura ee 84 ar Column Key: {C1} The to! ofthe manner of dspassin categorise may-no: add oto (8) beca.t complete dala fr all manner of dispasiton cata elements. Notes: 9 Incomplete data; reports were submiced for less than full year. Gor “The court reporiadthal sa cases occurred orthe court cid not submit a rept inthis salegory Judicial Couneil ufCal fornia ar Superior Courts Table 110 natall courts were able to submit 2018 Gour Statistics Report Juvenile Dependency—Stage of Case at Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 11f Stage of Case at Disposition Fatal Total Betere Atier county Frings Dispesitians Hearira stearng “ i C) 0) ‘STATEWIDE 44073 32.100 7.403 20,697 Alameda 733 ws 160 813 Aloine a 0 . ‘Amador 22 6 82 ute 336 235 6 295 ealaveras 56 5 80 Coss 4 4 o Centra Casta uy w a Det Nene 8 ° 78 El Derada 183 6 77 Fresno 2 4384 Glen 3 29 Humoctat 8 8 Imoeriat 13 498 Inyo 8 4 ? korn 1360 36 ata Kings an (3 wo Late 75 1 29 Lassen 45 ° 58 03 Angeles 20.204 55 8,980 madera 204 8 231 arin 82 ° 7 Mariposa 3 1 7 Menosine 137 94 51 Merced 356 8 147 Modoc 16 ° 1" Hera 1 2 n enlerey 185 191 0 191 Napa 2 6 1 87 Nevada a a7 1 58 Grange 4331 41.506 58 ase Placer as 535 78 407 Plumas, 82 28 18 16 Ryersiae 3.442 2,920 6 2860 Sacrament 41,285 1484 ? 1477 San Barito a1 28 2 28 San Bainard ro 3.277 2ga7 8 zara San Diego 1,394 ant 6 1854 San Francisca 505 820 8 591 San Joaquin 697 624 2 2a ‘San Luis Obispo 188 151 4 147 SanMateo 640 387 0 aur Santa Bechara 238 222 7 218 Santa Clara 555 174 3 739 Santa Cruz 174 160 14 148 Shasta 220 188 0 189 Judicit Council of California 138 2016 Court Stalistes Report Juvenile Dependency—Stageof Caseat Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 11f Stage of ase atDisposition Total Total Botare| ‘tier couNTY Flings Dispasitions ring Hearing “STATEWIDI 44,679 Sera 5 5 1 4 Sisciyou n 6 ' 48 Sueno an 6 4 82 nena 221 B24 1 210 Stanislaus 335 108 6 188 Sutter 14 08 ° 108 Tehers vd ar 2 116 Trinity 40 35 © 38 Taare et ror 2 895 ‘Tuolunnid 188 180 i 185 ventura 539 3 o 1,033, Yolo 208 200 8 192 Yuba pan am 22 149 Gotumn Key: {C}-{D) The tolal a ha mannaof cspostion categories may no: add up te(8) because notall eours wera able lo subveit ccomaicledata foall manner of dispasiton data elarnents. Notes: @ Incompta data, reports were submited‘orless than & full year Dar — The cour reported that no cases occurred a” the courtdid nox subril a reportir this category lucia! Counel of Calfornia 139 2018 Coun Statistics Report Probate, Mental Health, Appeals, Habeas CorpusFilings, Superior Courts by County and Gase Type Table 12a Fiscal Year 2014-15 ental Heath = open = county Prot Fatal Monta Heath Ofer a Gis Comin A). (6 ic) {oy i ie iu STATEWIDE wasp doris aoe 7.150 ee aBs 67S Aamesa ets 8 wu ° ee ee 210 Ape wt o e 8 % ow smador 7a a m8 3 ° a ns Bua 18 154 ‘0 4 2 cn) 128 Calaveras v8 3 4 3 1 2 0 Colusa 2 “ 4 8 3 3 2 Contra Casts a7 a 14 an) 10 Del torte & 12 1% 3 4 i Ei ode 2 2 9 no ms Fresno ata es ot STUER as Sten 8 “1 om 0 a 0 3 nto 2s as ts 8 2 6 6 inpaia zat ot we 28 ne) 105 iyo ‘8 1 1 ° 7 a 2 1 Ken oes os e530 n Saw es Kings 154 sto mo 0 Lake 16 0 4 7 3 4 3s Lassen 4 1% 4 : 8 9 5 & Les angles wa aasa eres 1431 st sae gar 1.058 Nod ‘26 46 ao 7 aay &s era 233 135 1 a sot w Narposs 3 1 i 0 ? 2 0 1 Mentoring oe 2 8 1 0 ar Mere v4 8 8 soon 2 edo 7 a 0 a 0 2 More 7 2 1 1 1 a 1 2 Morir a we a 2 3 5 ow 2 Nava 208 1 8 34 aw = Nevada a 2 7 on 8 2 on 2 rong 2ast Bae 10886 se st 2a os Pacer 218 ho 2 eB 103 Pumas 2 2 0 1 0 1 4 Riverside esa sa wi mat on Sacramento 2088 we 17% 2st ee San Benito 2 21 0 1 ° 1 ° Sen Berertino 2ar ss so aos 38 ia Sandiegs zor 1407 nist 246 m5ar st Sen Frnveisea 1966 267228 ee) 121 San Joasin 8 1097 ‘or 0 % 2 Sen ls Obispo 2 78 mo 58 3 1 3 102 San Meo 1941 1 mR 2 Santa Barbora 90 ox wr 5 an) 101 Santa Cara zara re a et 3 Santa Cuz a 6 7 mm 4 ” Shosta a5 a eal ory aaa & luccial Council of Calforia 140 2016 Coun Statistics Repart Probate, MentalHealth, Appeals, Habeas Corpus Filings, Superior Courts by County and Case Type Table 12a Fiscal Year 2014-15 setsHeat poen—nes county Pecbate Total WerinlHuti Otter —~—CTotal=—= Gl China! Chm Ab (8) (op iD) i) fiz (3) STATEWIDE waass varie” ase Tn —— ° a Hurbolat ase nT si 18 1 impor 00 " "1 20 a inyo 26 2 2 a 1 & Kem an ast ea 80 4 3 ae kings 26 24 nr) 18 ° sr Late +63 a 6 1 6 2 2 Lassen 48 ” 7 a 4 7 Loe Angelos 1607 a8? ris 483 992 1.058 Madera 188 at 31 a 18 : 74 Win 37 189 1500 8 2 59 Maipona 2 ‘ 1 ° ° ° ° a endo re 207 4 24 o 7 1 a n ores (126 as ne a1 ma a Mode a ° ° ° a ° ‘0 Noro a 1 1 ° 1 a 1 orterey 306 110 “uo 0 ‘a ost Napa 188 152 68 4 w 38 Nevada 10, 5 4 1 2 8 2 orange o @ i 309 0 20 a2 Placer 156 7 ° 38 2 72 82 Plumas a 3 ° 4 ° a Riverside 2083 612 140 aa ne) 64 Sacramento 713 2289 1732 2a 165 San Benita 85 ° @ 5 ° 6 San Rerardine 673 aes a7 He 6 43 San Diag +088 1.798 8 988 454 San Francisen 556 2708 8 257 166 7 San,oaavin 651 388 6 6 «2 187 San Luis Obispo zm 0 a 7 7 104 San Matco 498 16 1 42 25 7 Santa Barbara 399 7 3 63 4 9° Santa Clara 1487 536 a1 168 via 208 Sania Cruz, 258 55 4 35 6 7 Shasta 533 20 ° 488 12 4 ludicial Council of Gal fori. 12 2018 Covi Statistics Report Probate, MentalHealth, Appeals, Habeas CorpusDispositions, Superior Courts by County and Case Type Table 12 Fiscal Year 2014-15 Mental Heath Appeals Habeas county Probate Total Mental Heals Other Total Ci Criminal Crininat _ i (33 (Qi 6 ia a) it) ‘STATEWIDE, A704 24.557 76,989 ——6,668 arr 1345 SASZ 7.420 Sierra 8 v 0 6 7 3 4 6 Siokiyou ner 3 3 ° 7 1 4 19 Solana a5 83 2 182 a 124 169 Sonoma 608 4153 9 we 6a Sianisiaus 1 a 1 34 16 23. 0 Wer 9 7 33 6 2 4 oF Tehama a 3 © 1 6 1 " Teluty 0 a 1 1 6 1 o Tutara 26 a9 a0 mn 4g 2 av Tisluning 108 41 28 5 2 i 2 Ventura re 7a we 433 16r ° 162 0 Yole 113 8 5 2 2 ° Pa 3 Yuba 104 3 ' 2 D o a 2 Column Key: re Includes most Iynes wlruta wah cases, neluding but naited to pestoerifiaton treatmant (Wl 5300}, LES: Conservatorship (Wal 5350), narcotics addictKi 20505051), caendments (PC 2966), mental carrpotency {PC 1368), -Sestally violent predator(#81 BSUE}, juvamla (W8I 1800), mertaly reladed and cangeres (WA 6E00), and WI Gade, § 4506. @) Includes other mental hualln casos net eluded in (C} for JBSIS courts, ane roneriminal habias carpus reported by ron ABSIS cours Notes: a Incompiele dala: reporls wore submited for lessthar a fll year. Dor — Tne sour porta that na cases occurred or the caudd not sum reperin i's catagory Jucicial Counc of California va 2016 CourtStatistics Report Probate (Estates, Guardianships, and Conservatorships)— Superior Courts Method ofDisposition, by County Table 12¢ Fiscal Year 2014-15 __Beiere Tia Alter Tia Tote ‘tal —_Dismigeals ang Other county Fring Dispositons Transiers Before Ira Uy dury By Court ‘Al ey fo) (Oy ( ff) STATEWIDE 48,450 2701 2261 13,310 5 ZAZ6 Alameda 1873 1.264 151 4,095 o 6 Alpine mr ws 1 3 ° a ‘Amader me a é 18 ° a Butt oe 405 3 43 ® 323 Celaveras a8 83 ti ea 0 2 Soha 2 27 3 2 o 2 Contra Costa 1287 RA 189 825 0 o Dal Nowte ar 1 23 a sr EL Dorada 1 86 a 1 Fresno ars. 8s 758 a 2 an 38 5 0 a at Humaolot 244 a a 1 201 Imperial 18 ver 2 4 Inyo 2 23 Q 1 Kern 8 338 0 524 Kings a Fa ° a Lake ° 54 6 100 Lassen 5 a ° a Lo Angeles wa73 7.622 8 251 o 7.296 Madara 186 154 a a ° %8 Mac 48 387 a 283 0 at Mariposa 38 7 1 28 0 a Monsecno or 207 29 182 0 16 Merced ae 1128 ° 125 a 4 Modor 6 a 7 19 0 1 Mono 7 ° 0 ° 4 ° Masterey aa 385 26 145 0 25 Napa 798 186 18 187 a 4 Novada i 108 18 B 2 14 range 2057 @ w wo o o Placer ans 158 32 19 2 5 Plumas st a7 2 30 2 6 Riverside 249 2.083 aa 1.867 o cy Sacramento 4.738 713 o 718 D 0 ‘San Banllo 0 1a . “4 San Bemardino 2312 45 2 1 San Diego 2618 131 ° o San Francisco 1088 556 13 9 543 San Josquin 838 651 100 510 2 4“ San Luis Obispo 352 am 14 258 o 2 San Mision 1041 496 4 au ° ° Santa Barbara 530 398 56 M5 0 8 Santa Clara 2078 1887 4 3 o 47a Sarta Cuz 31 258 8 254 o 4 Shasta 378 533 a 452 ° 8 Judicial Caune of California 2018 CourSialisties Rept Probate(Estates, Guardianships, and Conservatorships)— Superior Courts Methodof Disposition, by County Table 12¢ Fiscal Year 2014-15 storetat AlTat otal Total Dismssats anc ther county Flings Dsposiions Trarsrs——Wefore Tea By Jury By Court _ (ai a (Gh iD 6 att STATEWIDE 498 B01 2261 Ta10 e326 siera 7 ° 1 a a a Siskiyou m 102 8 % a 0 Soleno sev n na 1 4 Sonorna 50 5 ra e ‘ Tat u as o a 100 137 ° 2 132 ‘ 5 ° 2 Tiiy 22 28 2 24 ° 2 Tore 429 296 7 a1 ° 248 “Tuolurn 408 40a 3 of ° 3 Vvertira na a 155 ° sor Yate 235 173, 22 180 ° + ati 0 08 1 o ° Cotumn Key: (6) 18) The tots ol the manner afd spoon categories may not dé Up to (8) beraune nol al courts were able lo submit compete daia fora maaner of sposton data elements. rt Includes thar uismissals and ans‘ers end cates dismissed for sok of aosecution. ‘o Inches summary ladgrents and al tnejudgments before tl Notes: o Incamplete daa: repos were submited cess than ul yor. Ser — Tre court roporteathet no cases ccnurred arth cour ds nl Submit a apart in ns category. Ludiial Councl of Calforaa 148 2014 Cour States Ropart Mental Health—Stageof CaseatDisposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 12d tage of Case al Uispesition Total Total Retore iter county Frings Dispostions Hoariry Hearing - ai a) ich io) ‘STATEWIDE, zane A557 5.058 78007 Aarnedia 876 895 28 619 Spine a “a 6 8 Amador a4 28 6 a Bute ts4 161 1 160 calaveias 4 a 2 2 Colusa 14 7 6 7 Contre Costa 234 199 2 ca Del Neste 162 81 141 20 Eberle 2a 6 4 4 Fresna 985 41053) 28 4026 Glenna a 28 2B 5 Humbolat aa 27 m1 196 Imperial 24 " 6 Irya 1 2 u 2 Kem 595 ast a at? Kies 310 24 22 2 Laka 50 a 2 85 Lassen 8 7 7 16 Los Angeles 8194 8.587 1261 1.825 Madera 48 a a 8 rin 185 189 18 n rina 1 1 ° 1 endocina ca 2 18 6 reed ea wes 2 48 Modoc it 0 6 ° Hore 2 1 ° 1 Monterey 108 a 86 Napa 172 23 123 Nevada 30 5 o Orange 224 o @ Placor 218 5 2 Plumas 2 3 a 3 Riverside 880 612 28 ss Sacramento 2.058 2.283 +580 ro San Benito at 0 0 a Sar Bemandino 991 86 116 770 San Dege 1407 1798 7 1722 San Francisca 2872 2,709 258 2.454 San Joaquin 4097 54 416 168 San Lule Obf3p0) 798 0 28 32 San Mateo 173 76 2 4 Santa Barbara 368 1m 6 09 Santa Clara 718 585 300 28 Sania Cruz 63 55 6 49 Shasta a 30 3 or Judicial Counel of California 146 2016 Court Statistics Report Mental Health—Stageof Caseat Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 12d Staga of Case at Dispestion Total Total Beloro ‘Aller ‘COUNTY Filings Lispositons, Hearing Hearing a ol i (oy STATEWIDE 29718 24,557 5.656 e201 Sera 1 ° ° 0 Siskyou 1 3 6 3 Slane. 65 3 48 Sonora 608 sz 454 Stanislaus t a i Suter so 6 st Yohama 3 o 4 Tenity 10 o 10 Tulare 286 375 25 350 Teolrie 38 “1 2 39, 807 709 30 379 a0 38 a 28 a a 1 2 Column Key: 3} (2) Tre totsl othe manner af d syasiiancategorivs may notadd upto {B} because not ai courts were able to submit complete ‘ala fer al manna: of clepesition cata elements, o Ate Hearing inciudes jury tials Notes: i Incomplete Uata, reports were submitedforless than a full yes. Jor — Tihs court veportea that no cages securred oF the court cid not sunt a repor: in this catagory Jia: Council of California war 2016 Coun Statistics Rapart Civil and Criminal Appeals—Stage of Caseat Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table12e Stage of Case at Disnosiion Total Totat Before At COUNTY Filings Dispositions. Hearing Fearing a (8) co (0) STATEWIDE 5,064 agrr 2192 2,582 Alanna 64 151 7 re Alpine w Oy a v Amader a 3 a 3 Buta 2 20 a " Calaveras a 8 1 a Colusa, 4 o a ° Contra Casts 200, 103 a 85 Del Norte 10 6 3 13 FiNorada a 18 18 3 Fresno 48 60 3 ar Glan ° a o 0 Hambaiet 8 18 5 18 Imperial 8 30 28 2 Inyo 7 1 1 a Kern an 14 oO 4 Kings v4 1B 6 2 Like 7 6 4 2 Lasson 6 4 2 2 Los Angolos an 892 504 488 Madera 7 18 14 4 Marin 64 96 2 Be Mariposa 2 0 a a Mendocino 1B 7 1 8 Merced 15 8 3 2 Modloe 0 a o 0 Mone 1 0 0 10 Monterey 39 53 a at Napa 36 2 8 12 Neva 13 0 3 7 Orange 379 309) 187 442 Placer 29 a6 a M4 Plumas 1 4 1 3 Riverside 291 273 182 " Sacramento 218 255 a9 168 San Benito 1 8 a 5 San Bemartina 485 110. 83 87 SanDie 308 668 482 204 San Francisco 187 esr at 196 SanJoaquin of 66 23 48 San Luis Obispo ® 7 4 10 San Nato 8 42 10 2 Santa Barbara 18 63 53 a Santa Cara 173 168 75 3 Santa Craz, 56 35 7 28 Shasta ert 168 92 78 gical Coune! of California 148 2016 Court Staisties Report Civil and Criminal Appeals—Stage of Caseat Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 12e Stage of Case al Dispostn Teal Total etore ‘ater county Flings Dispesitions Heating Hear ai ey io 1 ‘STATEWIDE, 3,064 4077 2,192 2592 Siena 3 7 3 4 Siskiyou 8 7 4 3 Solano % 182 a 131 Sonora 34 4a 15 6 Stas ews 5 38 2 18 iter 8 6 6 0 Tehama 2 1 1 0 Tey 2 1 1 Q Tuae a2 49 4 45 Teotunine 19 28 6 30, Venturs 187 68 9a YYola 19 2 8 1% ibs 0 ° ° a Cotumna Key: {CHi0) The ola ofthe manner of alspositon categories may rot add upto (8) because not al cours ware ato suit ‘complete data for all manner of cispositionvata elements Notes: 8 Incomplete data: pons were submitted forless han a ull year. Gor — The court woportad that ra cases oocured or the courl dd nol submit a report in Jie! Counc af California “49 2618 CourSlates Repent HabeasCorpus Criminal —Stage of Caseat Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 42 Stage of Cane al Digg ion Teal Total Botore “Aller county Filings Dispositicns Heating Heating a) o i) io ‘STATEWIDE 7098 7.420 6.431 989 Alameda wo 125 125 ° Alpine w a a 9 ‘Amador 3 6 si 7 Butte 228 16 an 6 0 0 0 a Cousa 2 a 1 a Cantra Costa 160 100 3 1 DetNota 1 ° ° a Dorada 28 4 a7 4 Fresno 473 338 ar 1 Glenn 3 5 5 n Humbotat 45 55 50 5 Imperia 105 3 4 us Inve. 4 1 4 ° Kern 28 581 580 1 ns 6 57 8 ° 6 2 3 5 8a 7 " 0 Los Angeles 1,058 1,058 mr 12 Madera 85 % ™ o Marin 83 80 ae 0 Maripasa 1 ° ° a aw 3 3t a 2 o o a i2 10 10 0 Mono 2 1 1 a tontarey maa aor 27 a Napa 35 38 38 ° Nevada 2 20 19 1 orange 353 662 0 ea Placer 198 @ 2 Plumas 4 3 3 o Riversia ere BBA 523 a Sacramento 586 sur 670 7 ‘San Benito 0 o 0 a San Bernardina 513 433 433 ° San Diogo ast 498 485 3 San Fravcisco 124 1 1 ° San Joacuin 201 ‘87 sas 2 ‘San tuis Obeps 102 08 ‘0a 1 San Maieo 2 7 wv 0 Sania Barbara 01 ey «9 Santa Clara 13 208 138 70 Santa Crue 7 2 a 0 Shasia 86 a4 st a Jadicial Counell of Catoria 160 £2016 Court Slalistics Report Habeas Corpus Criminal —Stageof Caseat Disposition, by County Fiscal Year 2014-15 Superior Courts Table 126 Total Tatal ler COUNTY Flings Dispositions Hearing Heating a 2) 2 2) “STATEWIDE 7.898 7420 6431 380 Siena 0 u a 6 iskiyos "1 1 19 6 Solano 192 ee 147 2 Sonoma 7 64 5 10 Stanidlaus 184 ° a a Susor Bs 57 oF 0 Tahara 20 iT u a Treniy ° o 6 a Tulare 80 a7 8 1 Tuoturne 46 33 33 0 Ventana ° a ° 4 Yolo 2 3 3 2 Yuba 28 22 2 ° Column Key: iCHiB} “The telal ofthe manna’ af olepostion catepories maynot add Up ta (B} because noall courts were ableto submit camp ete data ‘orall manner of disposition data oloments. Notes: a Incomplete data; repariswere submitted lar lessthan afl oar Gor — The court reported that no cases occuried uttha court cd notsubmits separ in ths mateo. Judicial Couneil of Calforia 151 CourtSlat sties Revar Authorized Judicial Positions and Judicial Position Superior Courts Equivalents, by County Table 13a Fiscal Year 2014-15 sti sun90 SisusermaeOrs see county Total sudges Total Commasionors —Re‘orece Equivalents ws is fal © *) STATEWIDE 20184 re 78.1 720.2 38 Unhuidedjudgeships 0 Nines #69 75 saa 100 839 Ag 2a 2 us 03 23 Amado 23 > va 03 28 fa ‘30 1" ae 20 140 calaveias 23 2 03 a3 a0 Coke 23 2 03 93 2 Conta Costa ano 28 80 an a3 Del Nowe 28 2 05 va 32 E1D0'a¢0 40 8 10 1 08 Fresno 490 2 60 6a 504 Glen 23 2 03 03 24 urn 80 7 10 a7 trip 113 10 13 10 uz iyo 23 2 a3 28 Kem 40 36 70 aaa ang a8 7 1a 94 Lake ar 4 vr 38 Lassen 23 2 02 23 Los Angelos 5653 awa 1003 3a sr2a Badera 83 3 03 03 o4 erin war 12 a7 03 o4 148 Nariposs 23 2 03 03 24 Menocine 84 8 of os a7 ered 120 0 20 2e ve odeo 23 2 03 oa 23 Mano 2a 2 03 on 25 Moore a2 18 22 22 na Napa 80 8 2a 20 a5 ovata 78 8 1 16 84 Orange 4460 a4 200 200 ara Pose 145 10 40 05 183 Phumas 23 2 93 2a Riverside re we 40 ia Sacramento rs w 40 6s Tur San Benito 23 2 a3 26 San Bora-cino a6 n 160 ee? San Dieoo t540 132 220 ste San Francisco 568 62 39 530 en Joaquin x5 29 20 as 258 San ius Obispo 160 2 30 169 Sar Meteo x0 2 73 233 Sarin Barbara 240 21 a8 26.4 Sanka Cara sa 79 100 ton 920 Sanka Cruz a5 it 25 25 142 Shasta 120 0 20 20 m4 Jusicial Councof Caton 482 2016 Court Satstios Report Authorized Judicial Positions and Judicial Position Superior Courts Equivalents, by County Table 13a Fiscat Year 2014-15 suis Posi counry Tots Judges Talal Comissioners Cauivalents ty 6) 2 o STATEWIDE 2013.4 ans 298.1 7382 38 20188 Unfunded judgeship a Siena 23 2 oa 03 24 Siskiyou 50 4 10 14 53 Solana man 20 30 se zr Senama ze 20 ua 30 245 Statislous 240 2 “ 30 248 Siler 23 5 03 93 Tenama 43 4 v3 9a Tenity 23 2 03 33 tare za 2» 30 30 Tultnne 48 4 03 08 Venira aaa 23 40 4a yea v4 a 14 oa 10 Yul 53 5 as 03 Column Key: ® “Tne 50 new jucgesh ps auhrized oy AssemblyPl 759, lative Janua'y2098, ae inched in theslave total in (8 ) these judgeshiparo stl unfunded and are nut sown in aivual courts kein previous versions al che Ceurl Slalistes Repor. ici Sum of(2) + (3 Falal may net matchexactly because of roundcauscs by factional commissionerand re‘eree postions FRellaels authorized lucicial positions adjusteu for vacancies, assistance vendered nythe court, ard assistance racewed by the court fram ass qned jutges. temporary judges, commissioners, and referees, Audie’ Councof California 163 2016 Court Statistics Report Judicial Position Equivalents, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 13b Permanent Rasoureesas of Jur Daye in Fiscal Yeer 2014-15 sila Assistance Agsstance Position county Judges Commissioners Relerees Vacancies Reoriven Rendered Ssuhualants “ ‘sh 2 (a! a iH (ei STATEWIDE 4715 288.2 99 sire 32,810 1492 2,013.8 Unfunded judgeships 50 Plameda % toc 738 9) Alpine 2 93 2 2 Amat 2 a3 nz 28 2a Butte ” Po 130 382 ua Calaveras 2 as 379 a0 cats 2 03 16 24 Contra Casta 38 aa 204 ust 5 483 bul Note 2 os 192 33 Dorada 5 ‘0 100 Bp 108 Fresno 43 60. 194 569 38 504 Glen 2 08 32 24 Humbolet 7 10 +80 ar Imperial io 03 Lo wa ya 2 os 28 ern 38 70 0.0 322 a4 Kings 7 18 9 Loke 4 or 5 Lassen 2 pa 28 Los Angeles: 482 103.3 aa 6713 sor 928 Madera 9 03 a4 arin n 98 a8 408 8 Hajgosa 2 03 40 24 Mendocina 8 oa ar Merced 10 20 278 sau Madoc 2 os a 23 Mone 2 a3 3a 28 Morterey 19 22 188 351 219 Napa 6 20 131 85 Nevada é 18 130 81 Orange 108 200 2008 2,864 447A Placer 10 40. 08 435, 163 Plumas, 2 os oF 24 Riverside 62 14a a5 8k 36.4 Sarzainenlo 52 65 285 1812 787 San Benito 2 68 26 San Barnaino 982 “873 807 San Diego 4,283, 775 3 1518 Sea Francisco 42 1.504 BA 59,0 ‘San Joaquin 08 148 25.5 San Luis Obispo 123 aa 189 Sen Mateo 239 5 ang Santa Barhars 170 608 26.1 Santa Clara 11B3 1,836 13 e20 Santa Cruz 00 165 142 Shasta 348 134 Judicial Council of California 154 2018 Court Statistics Report Judicial Position Equivalents, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2014-15 Table 13b sent Resuureeg.as g* June 30, 20°5 Days in Fiscal Year 2014-15. Juclcia Assisiance Asssianne Position couNTY Judges Commissioners Vorancies Received Rendoiog Eduwalents A i i el e ‘STATEWIDE 4715 288.2 39) his 32,510 1,192 20138 Unfurided judioships 50 50 Slorra 2 03 22 24 Siskiyou 4 10 53 Bolana 2 30 a ae Sonoma 20 30 249 Sisnisiaus 2 3a ate 286 Suter 5 Ba 57 Telia 4 ce 48 Teity 2 ea 28 Tule 20 20 oo 48 25.1 Tusa 4 oe 17 49 Ventura 2 40 128 74d 355 Yolo m7 oa 10 wat 265 #30 Yuba 5 os 53 “The 54 rw judgeships aulhorized by Assembly Bill 159, elfective January 2008, are stl unfunded and are includedinthe statewidetial but not shonin idividusl cours [koin grevious versions ofthe Court Stt tics Report ©) Number of working days duringthe fsesl year that wure rot utilized because of an unljudge postion. « ‘Asictarce recelved ‘rom assigned judges, lemparary commissioners and referees, ard altomys actirg as temporary judges e Assislarue rendered to othertial cours or appellate courts is) (A) +18} + (6) (D+ E- Fy 248], There were 248 availabe working days in Fisual Year 2014-15. The 50new judgestips authorized ty Assembly Bill 159, effect ve January 2008, are incluled in (A.) With the postions unflled gencing funding ‘aporavel bythe Lepisisture, they ara considered vacart and counted in column {2 } Jacicial Council of California 185 2016 Court Stalities Report 2015 COURTSTATISTICS REPORT Statewide Caseload Trends 2004-2005 Through 2013-2014 JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA 2015 COURT STATISTICS REPORT Statewide Caseload Trends 2004-2005 Through 2013-2014 (282) JUDICIAL COUNCIL Ses) OF CALIFORNIA Judicial Council of California 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, California 94102-3688 415-865-7740 California Courts Infoline: 800-900-5980 pubinfo@jud.ca.gov © 2015 by Judicial Council of California. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and as otherwise expressly provided herein, no part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means,electronic, online, or mechanical, including the use of information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the copyright holder. Permission is hereby granted to nonprofit institutions to reproduce anddistribute this publication for educational purposesif the copies credit the copyright holder. This report is available on the California Courts website: www.courts.ca.gov/12941 htm#id7495 JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA MartTIN HosHINO Administrative Director Jopy PaTEL Chief of Staff Court Operations Services Donna S. HERSHKOWITZ Director Office of Court Research LEAH ROosE-GOODWIN Manager Curis BELLOLI Supervising Research Analyst CHERYL KING Research Analyst Judicial Council Support CHRISTINE MIKLAS Senior Editor PREFACE Court Statistics Report The Court Statistics Report (CSR) is published annually by the Judicial Council of California and is designed to fulfill the provisions of article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution, which requires the Judicial Council to survey the condition and businessof the California courts. The CSR combines 10-year statewide summariesof superior court filings and dispositions with similar workload indicators for the California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal. The 2015 CSRalso provides more detailed information onfilings and dispositions in the individual superior courts for the most recentfiscal year for which data are available, 2013-2014. Caseload Data and Court Workload California’s court system is oneof the largest in the world and serves a population of more than 38 million peopie—about 12 percentof the total U.S. population—and morethan 2,000judicial officers and approximately 19,000 judicial branch employees statewide addressthe full range of cases heard each year. The vast majority of casesin the California courts begin in one of the 58 superior, or trial, courts, which reside in each of the state’s 58 counties. With more than 500 court buildings throughout the state, these courts hear bothcivil and criminal cases as well as family, probate, mental health, juvenile, and traffic cases. The data published in the Court Statistics Report is used by the judicial branch in policy development, program evaluation, performance management, and in workload analysis to measure judicial and court staff resource needsin California. Because different types of cases require different amounts of judicial and staff resources, a weighted caseload approachis the standard method, nationwide, to estimate the workload and resource needsof the courts. Weighted caseload distinguishes between different categoriesoffilings so that the resources required to process a felony case, for example, are recognized as being much greater than the resources required to processa traffic infraction. As the mix or composition of cases change overtime, a weighted caseload approach is neededto assess the impact of caseload trends on court workload. The Judicial Council has adopted caseweights for two workload models usedbythe judicial! branch—the Judicial Workload Assessment and the Resource AssessmentStudy (RAS) model. With the introduction of a new budget development and allocation processforthe trial courts in 2013, the data . published in the Court Statistics Report is being used by the judicial branchfora critically important new purpose.The Judicial Council adopted the Workioad-basedAllocation and Funding Methodology, or WAFM, which uses the Resource Assessment Model (RAS) and other workload factors in a new budget development processthat alters baseline funding for most trial courts based on court workload. Summary of 2015 Court Statistics Report Asummary of the caseload data in the 2015 CSR for the California Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, and Superior Courts for fiscal year 2013-2014 are asfollows: Supreme Court e The Supreme Court issued 85 written opinions during the year. e Filings totaled 7,907, and dispositions totaled 7,745. e Automatic appeals arising out of judgments of death totaled 19 cases, and the court disposed of 26 such appeals by written opinion. e The Supreme Court ordered 6 Court of Appeal opinions depublishedin this fiscal year. Courts of Appeal e Total contested matters for the Courts of Appeal totaled 20,198 made up of 13,182 records of appeal and 7,016 original proceedings. e Dispositions in the Courts of Appeal totaled 22,172. Of these dispositions, 14,998 were appeals, and 7,171 wereoriginal proceedings. e Dispositions of appeals by written opinion totaled 9,592, appeals disposed of without written opinion totaled 3,642, and appeals disposed of without a record filed totaled 1,764. Dispositions of original proceedings by written opinion totaled 501, and original proceedings disposedof without written opinion totaled 6,577. e Statewide, 8 percent of Court of Appeal majority opinions were published. Superior Courts In FY 2013-14, over 7.5 million cases werefiled statewide in the Superior Courts. The CSR organizesall the casesfiled in the courts in four main case categories—Civil; Criminal; Family and Juvenile; Probate, Mental Health, Appeals, Habeas. The casefiling totals for the individual case types reported by the courts for FY 2013-14 are asfollows: Civil: The civil case category is madeup of unlimitedcivil, limited civil, and small claims matters. Civil unlimited cases are matters wherethe petitioner is seeking more than $25,000. There were 193,190 unlimited civil cases filed in the courts. Limitedcivil filings are cases where the petitioner is seeking $25,000orless. Limited civil cases totaled 486,597 statewide. Small claims filings are cases where the petitioner is seeking $10,000 orless andis not represented by counsel. A total of 155,428 small claims caseswerefiled statewide. Criminal: The criminal case category is made upof felonies, misdemeanors,andinfractions. The filing totals for the individual case typesare asfollows: felonyfilings represented 272,610 cases, misdemeanor filings totaled 915,568 cases,andinfractionfilings accounted for 4,907,906 cases. Family and Juvenile: Marital filings (dissolutions, legal separations and nullities) accounted for 138,968 cases andotherfamily law filings (e.g. paternity, child support) totaled 242,518 cases. Juvenile delinquencyfilings totaled 45,824 cases and juvenile dependencyfilings totaled 46,889 cases. Probate, Mental Health, Appeals, and Habeas:Thefiling totals for the individual case types are as follows: probatefilings totaled 44,298 cases; mental health filings totaled 27,377 cases;civil and criminal appeal filings totaled 4,317 cases; and criminal habeas corpusfilings totaled 7,410 cases. The largest changesin statewidefilings for Superior Courts from the previous year arein limited jurisdiction case types—misdemeanors and infractions in the criminal case category and small claims and limited civil in the civil case category. Limited jurisdiction cases tend to be, on average, much less complex and resource- intensive for courts than unlimited jurisdiction case types such asfelonies,civil torts, juvenile, probate, and mental health. Several of the most complex types of casesfiled in the courts had an increasein filings from the previous year, which include the following case types: Felony, Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (PI/PD/WD), Juvenile Dependency, Probate, and Mental Health. CONTENTS Introduction 2...eeeee xi The California Court System. . 2...eeee ee ee es xvii SUPREME COURT .......... 2.0... 0.ee 1 Total FilingS and DiSPOSItIONS........ee ce eeseececesseceetscesenenececenscnenseessacensesaesassasencasssceesarsentessuesssesseseneseseaes 3 Figure 1 Total Filing...eeeee cceesseesceeseeeeeseeeeeeceeaeeeseaeessennesseneaeaesseseessusstsseesoevseensressesans 3 Figure 2 Total DiSPOSitiONS «0...eeeeeeeesseeeseseeseseeerseesensaeeseneeseeraesseessnesnsseesseessseseeusennnaass 3 FilingS ANd DispOSitioNS: SUMIMALY.........2:..ccesscssseecesssscenesneasesssscessasssoeeeseceeeeecasceessesansaseesusenessnenensaas 4 Figure 3 Petitions for ROVIOW.............:sccssseessecsscssessesenesesseneseeessnesaesseeeseeseesteeseeuresseeeeneneaans 4 Figure 4 Original Proceedings «0.0.0.0... cccsssesesenesceeesssenssssseeeusenssesesaassseseceateraaensansersessaeeseess 4 Figure 5 Automatic Appealls.............eccessesscsesseessesensseseessensensseessseeeassaeesenssnsstesseeseesessseensants 4 Figure 6 Habeas Corpus Related To Automatic Appeals..........::s:cssssssssssscssssesssersseeeseees 4 Figure 7 State Bar Matters ........ccssessscescecseeeeseeceesaesecsesaeseesaessnsssaasenatesssensesessseeaeseesseenaness 4 Data for Figures 3-7: Filings and Dispositions: SUMMAP)..........:ccceccssrccssseessenssssnsssseesessecesneesenenesees 5 Filings and Dispositions: Petitions for REViOW.........::c::cesscccssscsesseeneseseatsseeserecsseecsesssassaeseceaesoeeseensesses 6 Figure 8 Total Petitions for REVIOW ......cccscccsssssceseessesseseessneseeeseneeeesseeesenseuseusseessnsesnsaupansess 6 Figure 9 Civil Total...cccceesensssenseesnsenssssenanssenesscseeeessaseenesseassaeenensteensesseesssseenaneneens 6 Figure 9@ Civil ADPO@alS.............ccscccescsceseeeesessceenceesseesseesenessseaueeesssceeeeceaseceaseseusasseeuvereesnenseeees 6 Figure 9b CiViD WITS o.oo.caeesssenssnsennsseseneseseesesscsessesseeonsenstonesaseaseeseeeessenanssatsanscessesseess 6 Figure 10 Criminal Totals...eeecceeeeeeeeseesesseeesseesenesseeanseesassoeesseeessessestssesseseensesessesaees 6 Figure 10a Criminal Appeals...ec ceseessceessscesseessesenseeseessessensseesssenessseseesesesesseseeecceeseesseeasoees 6 Figure 1Ob Criminal Habeas Corpus.0.....cceccsscessesseeescseeeeseetsensesesenenseenaesaeneseeseesaessesseaseeasess 6 Figure 10c Criminal Other Writs .......... eeccscsseeesssesereseessesseessnseseeseesseesssnseeseesseeesstenensunessers 6 Data for Figures 8-10c:Filings and Dispositions: Petitions for REViIOW.....c:...:cessssessesecessessersees 7 Summary of Actions on Petitions for ReViOW............::ccsscsseseesscessrsscesseessseeseessnesseesesseessesssesnnnsenereaess 8 Table 1 Summary of Actions on Petitions for REViCW...........::csssccssscsssssesesessessressensenees 8 Filings and Dispositions: Original Proceedings............s:ccssssssssssssessesssessessseesseeseeesseesunseeuacnseuseeneenes 9 Figure 11 Total Original Proceedings............c:ccsessessesscesssessesesseeesssetessessescescnsennueneeesneneess 9 Figure 12 Civil Total...eeeeeeeeesecensenseeesnnseeesensnenananeessseeesasseessaeesassasesasossassasaeseeseaseesees 9 Figure 13 Criminal Total...esssessscesseessseeesesessesenseesenseessenseeesseenaasseeescesetsnesseesseeseussensueaas 9 Figure 13a Criminal Habeas Corpus..........ssccsssscssesssssssssecsseseessssssessseseaaessssestsssesaeserseseoessnass 9 Figure 13b Criminal Other Writs 2.0...ccccsssssseenssasssesssseseeserssseesseeeseessesetsssenseenseseessneesnes 9 Data for Figures 11-13b: Filings and Dispositions: Original Proceedings.........scssecsscsssesesereeees 10 State Bar Matters Filed... eesessessecesecseecenseesrenseeceeseeeecnecseseeseesoesaasoeseauaeseneeeesanssesanaseasseesaucseeusaees 11 Figure 14 Total State Bar Matters Filed...csessesssscseecsessecssaeecesseeessessstsesaeesssessenepertans 11 Table2 Types of State Bar Matters Filed 00.0.0... ccccsscesscesseesensesecesessessnecseeesensseeeessss 11 BUSINESS TLANSACTE.......eeeeeeesseesseeseeesneneeseeseseeeeeeeeeseneesanesaceseesaeceeaasesnaaeeeeseeeeeesnaeesseneeetsnesesaneesssanenses 12 Figure 15 Written Opinions...eeesceeceeeeseeeeeceeneeeeeesenseeeaeseaesaeessaseaeeaseneaeeseesseesenseeesesees 12 Figure 16 Original Proceedings ..........cssssccssseseessecseccsseessseseesssaecaseeeessaecsessoesssenesssenscauantes 12 Figure 17 Petitions for Review — Granted........sssesccssssesensssessersssssssesssscsesseesssesreseenseeees 12 Figure 18 Petitions for Review - Denied ......... ce eesescssrescersneeseeeeessseeeteesoeerenessaetsnesesaneses 12 Figure 19 Petitions for Review -— Percent Granted .............cssessecsssersseseesseensassseesseseeeseeens 12 Figure 20 Rehearings - Granted...sessseccseseceeeeeenscseeesenecseesensneneeseeseansatessnessnesenuasens 12 Figure 21 Rehearings - Denied ..........eesscssesscessesseeescetsseceessseecssaeeeessseesaesoesesseeesesnareenneenas 12 Figure 22 Executive Clemency Applications...........:ccccescsssscesscssteeessessessssssesesseseesnsessaneees 12 Data for Figures 15-22: BUSINESS TrANSACHE............ecsscscssecessecesstceecssseeassseeesssensnenaeenssscensnsessaeeses 13 Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Depublished by the Supreme Court, Fiscal Years 1995-96 through 2013-14...cesccssseeseseeseesseessesssseesereessnesssessnsseessnesseeessasseeenseas 14 Figure 23 Depublished Opinions«0.2... eceeseeccseeecceseceseeeseeeeeeeeaeeensaeenensesseessuessaetsneseseeseas 14 Data for Figure 23: Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Depublished by the Supreme Court......... 15 Capital Cases in Which the Record Was Not Certified for Completeness Within 90 Days, and for Accuracy Within 120 DayS..........ccccccscesecsseeseessseesenseseeesesesecseeeseeeseseeseeeees 16 Table 3 ......ccccsccsscsseccsecesessessesssaerenesseeseessssaeeanseaesenseseeseesesseesesseessaesaeesaeesseaeesesseesuesanssensesesaseees 16 COURTS OF APPEAL ............... 0.00.0 cc eee 17 Performance Indicator Data ........eceeeescseceseeeesseeseseneeeeceeeceeeseeeeaaeeseaeaensseeeanaaeaceseeneeseeasannaeessseeesseess 19 Table 1 PerformanceIndicator Data ..........tssesesecsseessensesensssensseessaeenersessneessnsssntsseessaes 19 Figure 1 Ratio of Pending Fully Briefed Appeals per 100 Appeals Disposed of by Written Opinion «0.0... cessesseesscessseesceceseessecesseeesenssenesseetsnes 20 Figure 2 Pending Fully Briefed Appeals per Authorized JUStICE .............c:cssessesseeseees 20 Figure 3 Majority Opinions per Judge Equivalent... .eseisssccesseerserenessseteaeeensereneees 20 CaSeElOAd COMPALISONG.........:ssscccssscecsssccensssensccesscncessessrersusssenssessusensssneeeersensuceeeecnseetsansesesseneuravesseenas 21 Table 2 Caseload COMPAriSONS..........:cscccsscesseesstessesseesesenscceesesssessncesentecaenessecesaueeseneenen 21 Figure 4 Pending Appeals: Caseload Comparison per Authorized Justice ...............006 22 Figure 5 Filings and Dispositions: Caseload Comparison per Authorized Justice........ 22 SUMMAry Of FilINGS 2...eee eeeeeeeeeeeee cece eeseeneeeeseeesenensaesensenseneascasesseessseesaceneaseesaeteeneesaesenseesaetageeseeees 23 Figure 6 Total Contested Matters ..0..... cc cesssssssssecsssccsseccesssescssenseessseepssessensossessaeersesnenses 23 Figure 7 Total Contested Matters per Authorized JUSTICE ........ ce eteececseeessestseseeesneeees 23 Record of Appeal Filings ...........ccccccceeeseesceceessceeesseceesseeenseeaeesoeeseeeseneeseanesessasnesseesesceeseegeaeesssseasnansensanes 24 Figure 8 All DiStriCtS oo...cesecesssesssecsseesecessansenseneesseacseansaaseseecseesnedasanecaeceseneeenacenaeesensensas 24 Figure 9 FirSt DiStrict....... te eessscessesserscereeecsesesssseeeesaeeseecessaeneeseneceeeensasensstaeceaeecseseeeseeees 24 Figure 10 Second DIStrict ..0..... ee ceseeeceeeneceeeeosnsseneeneceaseaeeeeneenansesseeeseeensennensesesessansnssetensese 24 Figure 11 Third DiStrict ...ccceee cesceseeseeeceeceneneceseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseneesesseseeneenaeneeastaaesseesneseseneeeas 24 Figure 12 Fourth DiStrict 2.0...ceceseeseeecenceneenenseseeeeeneeeeeeenneseceeneeaeeeaenseeesanesseessesenseneaes 24 Figure 13 Fifth District .......oeecescseeseeseeseeeesseeeneesseeseressaeeennaeeeseeevesseeseeseaesssnseseesssnessenes 24 Figure 14 Sixth DIStrict.....eee sesssssecscesseenseesseessccesseesasaeeseeaessoeeesseensaesesssersoseessesneesesses 24 Original Proceedings Filings ............cccecceccsserscsesesseseecoesseccecsnesaeeaeeceeesceueeeesanesseeseseeesusesaesansssaueseneeeeses 25 Figure 15 All Districts...eesssesssseeeseessensecesseeesscesssesessenseesessoeeesssesensastseaeesesaeenssceeesaes 25 Figure 16 FirSt DiStrict.............ccsssesssessssssscssccssssssnesscssseesensessnesesseessatseesnessnsessesseeesseessaeeseees 25 Figure 17 SeCond District 0.0...eeeee seeeeeesseseneceeeeeesseeeneeenseneensseneseeseneenessesseesseenssentsaeensees 25 Figure 18 Third District ........eeeseeesseessessceeseseesaeseesseeeseeesseesasseessaeessseessesassescaeessnssseesesees 25 Figure 19 Fourth District 0...eeecesceseeseeeneeeececeensenseeseeesseeeessceseeessaneersaeessesceessanesseeaeeats 25 Figure 20 Fifth DiStrict ..0.0..... ee sesseessseesecesserseeessenessesseesnersssnsescessasesssseneeseasusaeensnasenesseneess 25 Figure 21 Sixth DiStrict....... occ cccesceecsceeeecseseeeseeceeeeeeceaeeaceeceueeeceseesseeaeeaeeeoeecuaseuseensessnsesaes 25 Appeals Disposed of by Written Opinion ...............ccesssseconcesesseecssceeseeccnseessnsensesssecsneeeesensersusasscenerenaes 26 Figure 22 Total APPeallS ...........cccsssecscsseessecsensnscsseessesecensesssenseseeescsssecenseesseusesnaseseneseeseaeeess 26 Figure 23 Criminal Appeals by Defendants............eeeeseeseeseceeeeeeneeeeetseeeseeeetenseensenensneeness 26 Figure 24 Criminal Appeals by ProS@Cution ...........ce:ccessscceeesseceeeeseeeeseeseetseceeensneseseeensesenens 26 Figure 25 Civil APP@alS......... eee sccesesceersecessecssnencecsscenscecssnecepessanaeeesseeeseesaeessaeensaasessaeseseaaeens 26 Figure 26 Juvenile Appeals (Criminal Violation)...........:ccccccssscsseessecsssssecseesseessserseessseesanen 26 Figure 27 Other Juvenile AppeallS..........cccsessecsssnseeceeseneeesaseceeeeneneeseseeeseseeeeseneenseeseenenanss 26 Percentage of Majority Opinions PUDIISNE........cesses cnsesssenecssseeseesenseansansnseseasnenesonsensensessaeesees 27 Figure 28 Total Appeals ..0.........ecccceecceecsseeseceeseseeeeeneeeneesnacecte seaeeecesenseeaeeaeesnacetseeeeseuseseuanens 27 Figure 29 Criminal APpe@als...........cccsscesssccsscssessecesseeensessseesesensenecesesaseaeesseesnaeesuaesensoeensasaeens 27 Figure 30 Civil ADP@als.........ccssecccsssccesssensssessenseecssstensesnseeseeseaeaseepsessasesaeesnaaeansesensoesneasasess 27 Figure 31 Juvenile APPe@als..............:ccccssssssssssecesecessesseecencesesesseessessseesssesssussneesesensanensasnses 27 Figure 32 Original Proceedings ............eeccsscesseseceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeneeeseseeseaseensensnenanaass 27 Civil Appeals: Time From Notice of Appeal to Filing Opinion ...............:ccccccssssesseeecssseceessssceeeessssenees 28 Figure 33 90th Percentile ANd MediAaN............cccesesssessencteeeseneceeesetessenseesnecesseesensseseessarens 28 Criminal Appeals: Time From Notice of Appeal to Filing Opinion ...........essscscscerseeesetsseeenseeesseees 29 Figure 34 90th Percentile ANd Median Qu... ctssecssscescesescesseesseeeseaeeeesetseeeeeseeeeeesaeesateas 29 Summary OfFilings ANd DiSPOSItiONS............ esse cssesceessneenceesseesaeesesseeeesesesseesseeseeteeeeesensessscesesenseneees 30 TADIe 3 leeeececseecsseeseeeeneeeeneeeseneeecenen sa sesaeeseseceaeeasaseeesaeaenesaeeaeasesaeaseeseatseneeeeneessseneessneneges 30 SUMMALY Of FiliNGS 22.0... ceeeeceeeeeecceeeeceeeeeeeeeeeenseeceenaeecaceeneeaeeesenseaaeeeaaaeaeeaaaeusseceseaesaeesesnasesasenpsansnesaaen 31 Table 4 ice ceseesssescenscesscesecessenesceeaceceeeesnseessnessecseesaessaeenseeasacesesaeteaeeseeseeneessanessnsesnsesseenats 31 Appeats—Method of DiSpOSition...........eeesecesseeessceseeceeesneseessensenseeseeenseenseseeeeseeseesensenensenseesesatesseaesans 32 TADIS 5S eecsesssnssssscecvsnsssersneanoncesneeseesnensenenecnesenensaesaesaesensusesusesnsesaceseecnsosseneadanatseeseesseeesnsnaess 32 Dispositions of Original Proce@dings..............cs:sccsscsscssecsssesssesscescssceenecssseceessseseessseeatsnecesstesssenescones 33 TADS Gcaeeescessscencenseeseeencenseenseensaeenneeesasessncaseacsnsnsaensenseeeaueeesaeenesseeeseenenseesaseaaeesenessseeseneensnes 33 OPINIONS WITTEN eee ee eceeececeseeseeeenseeseeeeceteneeeeesneaseesscesseeseaesesesaaesesessaaeaesenaeessecceesaeeeateesesnecesesanenees 34 TADIC 7 iecesecceesteessencuuseeenenneseeuseucoesenesseusessesouseesesauseeseamaascesgsaudscnassesatsegnesaeeseesseteseeeeneeenentas 34 Pending Appeals—Total and Fully Briefed ..........ccssssscsssessssssscscessseeseseesesontsseeessssesnseessasensaeasesesenaees 35 TADS Beececescessenereneceseenneeneeeesacnaeeeseeenenseennesneceneaeenansesenssaeenacersseneseaeesnsseaesensenaeesnesensan 35 SUPERIOR COURTS......... 0.0... 00.eee 37 Caseloads and Authorized Judicial POSITIONS ............eessssececcenceeseeeeeecenesersseseeneeseaeeseeeeaeesoeenaeennastaneas 39 Figure 1 Total FilingS and DiSpOSitiONS «00.0...eeecseseeeeseeeeeeesenseceseenseseseeteaseseeesseeesaeeass 39 Figure 2 Total Filings and Dispositions per Judicial Position ..............:..eeseeeceeeeeereee 39 Civil Filings and DiSPOSItIONS ........ccccscs ceeecessensecessnosensenseeseualenseesogeesssateesesasaussssesaeesseseneeseneateees 40 Figure 3 TOtal CiVil.eeeecsscecssrecssssesecsssseessseseeessceessseeeassaeseseeesaeseseesesnssaensesesseaseneanses 40 Figure 4 Civil UNIIMItE” 00...eeeccesseeeeseeeseeesseeeeeseeeecceesseesseeseesseesenessesseeessnsssesssaessnesees 40 Figure 5 Motor Vehicle PI/PD/WD..........scssscesssrscecescensecsseeeessetsenenseasecaeesnnseesesenssstessseess 40 Figure 6 Other’ PI/PD/WD........-..ssssssscessesssserscesnessescessesnseseceeceaceascanenseneesaessensnesansatsaseanaess 40 Figure 7 Civil COMPLAINS «0...eecece eseececeeenee neces neneaneneaceseceesseceaseceaesaeeeseeetesesesesanennenes 40 Figure 8 Civil LIMitedn...eeeeeceeeeeeenneeeeeeeeenerennerscenscaneneeneeseneceaeeensenaeseesneseeaeseseaes 40 Figure 9 SimaClaiMS ooo.eeecence ceccesneeeeneeeeseeseeeeeneaceseneacenseceenesseaeessaseceneeseastnessesenanes 40 CalCourTools: Caseload Clearance RateS—Civil...........ccsssessesscssseesseeseesseesseesseeteesseessetsetesnseseesanes 41 Figure 10 Total Civil............ccescsscscessecsssssesecsesseeseesesaesseeescesseeseeseeesscaeseusenssaeseeseeseeesnssaeaneass 41 Figure 21 Civil UNNIMIted oo...csscseessesseseneessssseseecssaessseseeseensessasassoenanssaesoessesseesaeesensetaes 41 Figure 12 Motor Vehicle PI/PD/WD........eeccecceceseeeeeeeeneeceeeseeeesensceneeceseaeeseseeneneeeanneeeesens 41 Figure 13 Other PI/PD/WD........-.esecsssecsseessesssnecssesseeeeesensecssenensseeseneessaeeceenstssssnsesuepeeeaseees 41 Figure 14 Civil COMPLAINS...essecsseesseecsecesssesseesessenseesseceescessaseeseceesnesesansetsnsstenneesansess 41 Figure 15 Civil LIMMted.............ceessesssecsseesseecseeecsecsaeseseeaceceseesassseesscevsceecessessessnsessnessaeenseess 41 Figure 16 SimaClaimoo...eeecece ceceteeeeeseeseceeteanenectanecessceneeeseneseesseaeseeseeeeseneseneseesseneaas 41 CalCourTools: Time to DiSpOSitiON—Civil ..............ccccccscssceeesessensessceeeeeensneesessecenecsceecessssscesesssensenseeenens 42 Figure 17 Civil UNIMItedoceet essesseceeceensessecensnseseneseeeceneenaneaeeesesetssesasesessassaeesesensees 42 Figure 18 Civil LIMITE...eeeessecsseeseecneeessseesceeessneeecosaeenseessaeeeseaeesaeespaesessensseeeasenes 42 Figure 19 Unlawful Detainer.......cc eccssscsssceecnecceceeseesneecseeensesaeesnesseeeseaecneesanesensesseeenecaes 42 Figure 20 SimaClaim«00.0... ceeeecceeececnsecseneeeeneeesenecanensenecsnanseessanseasseansenseneesnessaneneessaseaes 42 Caseflow ManagementData: Stage of Case at DiSpOSitiON—CIVII .......eescssecetsseeseteecseesaeesetseeeetaee 43 Figure 21 Civil Unlimited, Civil Limited, Small ClaimS........eeeeeeeeeteeeeeeeeeeseeeeeneeeneans 43 Criminal FilingS ANd DiSPOSItiONS ......... eee eeeeeeeeeteeneeeeenecenenneceseneeeeseeeseeseeeeesenneenesanseeseseeerenesnneeats 44 FIGUPE 22 FELONY ....cececececeesersecsessenseensensseasenseceeseaseaeeesecenacensaesesesecesaseseeaseeeseenserseeneeenesenesas 44 Figure 23 Nontraffic MISCHEMEANOTS............cccsesessceseeeeeesseeseeeseesseessnesseseseesseesseeseaeesneessesaes 44 Figure 24 Traffic MiSCEMEANOTL .............ccccccesecessseessecssceseessseessseseneesuessssecesesueessseeesseesnssetess 44 Figure 25 Nontraffic Infraction .0......ceesecssesssesscesnsessseeeeeeseasesssesseeeseessseesseeeessaseensaesesaatans 44 Figure 26 Traffic Infraction ..........eeeeceeeeeseeseeeseeeseeeseeseeesneensceesenesenseeneseeesanesesesaeseeeeeeesensers 44 CalCourTools: Caseload Clearance RateS—Crimimal.......sseccccsssssssececcceceesscessseneasecseeseneersaeeeseneenaes 45 FiSUre 27 FELONY... .ceecseeccesssceeesceesseeeseeseseseensensnseeseeeseeeaeneceeeeseaeesseneaesasaeeseseeeesaeeseeeeeteeenens 45 Figure 28 Nontraffic MISCEMEANOL............ ce secesecsseesseeesseesseeessessneseesneeeseeesseessnesanteseneseesees 45 Figure 29 Traffic MiSGEMEANOF.............:..cecceeceeeceeeeeseeteeseneaseencecassseeeseasonessceneoessensatenenaenaas 45 Figure 30 Nontraffic Infraction ......eecsseessseecsseeseseeseneneeseneesseeseesseensnesensanssaansneseneesess 45 Figure 31 Traffic Infraction «oo... esceccscesseeecsneeceseeeceeecoeeneeeesneesceeneceeessesanseceessesenessaeseass 45 CalCourTools: Time to DiSpOSItiION—CTriMinal..........::cccccsssssccesessesscecssersessesecesseeessesceeessecerssasacensenneaes 46 Figure 32 Felonies Disposed Within 12 MONS.............ccssseseceeestecsneessecensesusssnssenseceesees 46 Figure 33 Felonies Resulting in Bindoveror Certified Plas «2.0... ee eeseerseeeeeeesetteeenans 46 Figure 34 MiSACEMEAMOTS.......essccsssecesecesesesesecscesseessessennenssseeasensessesneeaeasosseeseensetsereneeensas 46 Casefiow ManagementData: Stage of Case at Disposition—Criminal ..............eceeeececeececeeteeeeseneeens 47 FiSure 35 FelOny........escsssscessssesscessessnessssescnsesnseeseesseesteeeeeensenseusesesensessaneetenesssasessasesnsaesaeeess 47 Figure 36 Misdemeanors and Infractions............ccccsscscscereesecseseeeesneeeseeneesseeeenessnseseesees 48 Family and Juvenile FilingS ANd DiSPOSItIONS v.00.ec cesccesteenstesstecenesnestenssenseessoenseneseesseaeeeteseteeneees 49 Figure 37 Family LAW—Marital .........cssssssesceseeecsseeesessessetessessesenesesseaetseeceseeeessstssssassaeess 49 Figure 38 Family Law Petitions...eceeeeeeeteeseeeeeeeneenseneeessesneeseseenenesoeceneseeeeenetenenaeeen 49 Figure 39 Juvenile DelinQUency.............:ccescceeesceeeeeeeeeceeeeaeenseesesetenseesaneeteaeseseeessneteeanessneess 49 Figure 40 Juvenile Dependency... ceseessecescceseeceeeeceeeeeteeneeneeeesenseneneteeeneereaseererenenneneas 49 CalCourTools: Caseload Clearance Rates—Family And JUVENIEC.........ccssessessscersssreessestssessseeeseeee 50 Figure 41 Family LAW—Maital...ccccee sceeeseesesesseasseeeseseeseessnesessauseseseaeeeteaeseeees 50 Figure 42 Family Law Petitions...cccccscseesceecenscesessnessseesseseescessnessensassenseseoesoneaeseesss 50 Figure 43 Juvenile DelinQUency..........eeeces esee see eeseesenesseeesneeseseessessnesseusassenseusneseessenseeed 50 Figure 44 Juvenile DEPENdeNCy.........cccssseeseseressseececenceescesseessscesseeseseesteseteseeesenensnsananeeess 50 Probate, Mental Health, Appeals, Habeas CorpusFilings and DiSpoSitions.............ccsseccssstssseeseees 51 Figure 45 Probate... cccssseeesssesecceceeseeneeceeeseeeeeeseeeeeassasnesenseaseesseenssseseaesneasereeeeessaerseeneanens 51 Figure 46 Mental Healt)...cccesesesseeeeeeeeereenerseeereeseessesenenseeneeteneeneasseeeneeseaerenereaseaesee 51 Figure 47 Appeals ...........eeceeccsceeseeseeeeceeseeeeneceeneaeeeeeseeeesaneesaenseeeeseeesaeasaeeeseenesceessaenenaateageaes 51 Figure 48 Criminal Habeas Corpusuu...cece sceeeenseeeesnesessesessneaseessneacessassensenaeasoereeneetes 51 CaiCourTools: Caseload Clearance Rates—Probate, Mental Health, Appeals, Habeas.............0.. 52 Figure 49 Probate... ccssesssscessenscsesesseneceeassseeseesecesseevseteneseensesecnseacassseseeessseseseeneeteeseeeeanaas 52 Figure 50 Mental Healt 000... ecceceesecscceenetseneeenceeneeeesaseneeeseaesaeeeneeeaeeeneeeaeeeeeneeetenteneesnensas 52 Figure 51 AppeallS ......c.csssccssscsssessssseetseceesneeeseneescesseeeessseneneseaesseceeseessaeecespesesasessntasssenensecas 52 Figure 52 Crimimal Habeas Corpus............cccccessececeesseneeneeeseeceeeeceeeeeeesseeesnesenesenssaeesensneeaes 52 Caseflow ManagementData:Trials By Type of Proceeding...............::esceeeseecseceeeeneeeeseeteseesneeessnenes 53 Figure 53 Total JUry And Court TriallS o.oo... eee cece ceeeesesecseeesseaceeneseseceanseaseeseseesenteneeeasees 53 Figure 54 Felony Jury Trials ..0.......cccsssssesecseesseseececeeceneeseesueseeseeeceeeeneceaneenesseeeenuseeeseansaenees 53 Figure 55 MisdemeanorJury TrialS ...........ccccccessececeeceeeseeeeessessaeceessceseanerseesseseensseeennessetenee 53 Figure 56 PI/PD/WD Civil Unlimited JUry Trials... ceecseeesseeeeseeseeesceeeseneetseaeenstasaaeeees 53 Figure 57 OtherCivil Unlimited Jury Trials «0.00.0... ce ceeeeeeeesesececeeseeeeeeeeseneseneeneeseeseaesensanes 53 Figure 58 Civil Limited Jury Trials...ee eeeeeseeceeeesnenseeseeaneessesaeesensaeseaneaneaessseseeseetsenennnes 53 Figure 59 Probate and Mental Health JUry Trials .......ccsssscscssonseessesecessensessecsetesreeeeees 53 Figure 60 Felony Court Trials 0.0... ceccsscesseeesseecsnessenseeeesseessaeesseseeesseetsneseesendsnanenneneeaes 53 Misdemeanorand Infraction Court Trials .........cccccccsscsssesssecsecrssssesnncsennvesscesses 53Figure 61 Figure 62 PI/PD/WDCivil Unlimited Court Trials «00.0... eesecsessseesereseeesteetseertetensteensseaees 53 Figure 63 OtherCivil Unlimited Court Trials...ceeeccseeeeeecesesececeeeeeetsseesenenesetsreseesees 53 Figure 64 Civil Limited Court Trials .00........eeeeecessesecesenesseceseeeeseeenconeeeseesseeneeteecseesaeueeaes 53 Figure 65 Probate and Mental Health Court Trials «00.0...ee cesesecesecesseseseeseseesenenesseeeeaees 53 Trial Court Workload and Resources: Judicial Positions and Use of Judicial Assistance............... 54 Figure 66 Total Judicial Position Equivalents (JPE) and Assessed Judge Need (AIN).......:.ccccsssssesssssssesessssecesensessssesrssereceessansecsseessteseoeses 54 Figure 67 Total Authorized Judicial Positions (AJP) And AIN .......csesessesesesesteeeseecesenseeeses 54 Figure 68 Authorized JUZeSNIPS...........cessccessecesssesssesereesseneneecsensacenseseeeseaesnasecaeenensseneeaees 54 Figure 69 Judicial Assistance Received by Trial COurts .....sessussesessesssennseenssssinsesserseees 54 Trial Court Workload and Resources: Subordinate Judicial Officer CONnVerSiONS ..........sess 55 Table 1 Subordinate Judicial Officer CONVErSIONS .........eesesseescetensseeseetecntseeteserenete 55 JBSIS Courts as of Fiscal Year 2013-14oeeeseseeesesseseeeesessseeseeeeenssensasseaeveeeeneaesseteansasneteaseneess 56 APPENDIXES .......... 00... ccceee ees 57 Appendix A Courts With Incomplete Data..w....eeeeeeeseeseeeece ee teeeteseeeeseeeeneeeteaeeteaetennsenes 59 Appendix B SUPFeEME COUrt GIOSSALY .0....ccesccsseecesaeesncenseeenecensnenaeeseetsaeenaeesaseneseanesaneaneensnsass 60 Appendix C Courts of Appeal GIOSSANY......scscccssenssesssrecsssseesneessceeessseecseseenscaessnsersensvantsasenseens 61 Appendix D Superior CourtS GlOSSANY ..........0ccccsssseccessssesecsecssatsesseceeeneeseseeseseesnensnssnesssensessners 62 Appendix E Courts of Appeal Data Tables for Figures ...........eecsecsseeseeereeeeeeeeteeeneeneessanesens 64 Data for Figures 6-7: Summaty Of Filings «0.0...eeeeee ece eee eeeeeeeeeanee see eeeeeeeesaeeseaeensseeteetessaaeneces 64 Data for Figures 8-14: Record of Appeal Filings...........:.escseseseeseeeetseeesecesenereeeesersaneanesnenenessaeesees 65 Data for Figures 15-21: Original Proceeding Filings ........-.. es eeeeceseeseeceeeeseeeeeneeeneseneeceteaeteersnaaeenss 66 Data for Figures 22-27: Appeals Disposed of by Written ODpiniOn...........c.:cssssccsseeesssesseessrsesrens 67 Data for Figures 28-32: Percentage of Majority Opinions Published................ceeeessereeressereens 68 Appendix F Superior Court Statewide Data Tables for FigureS 0.0.00... cccssssssesnseeseseenneetes 69 Data for Figures 1-2: Caseloads and Judicial POSITIONS........eccsscessecssssseeseceneeretseesenseteettentanans 69 Data for Figures 3-16:Civil Filings, Dispositions, and Caseload Clearance Rate .........ses 70 Data for Figures 17-20: Civil Case Processing TiIMe ...........ssseccsesseesessessssseccesenestseteetseesetseeaeaes 71 Data for Figure 21: Stage of Case at DispositioN—Civil....... ccssssssscseeessssesssessescseseeseesseseeeeensns 72 Data for Figures 22-31: Criminal Filings, Dispositions, and Caseload Clearance Rate............. 73 Data for Figures 32-34: Criminal Case ProceSsing TiMe.............ccessecsseeneeeeeeeeeenseeeeensenteneseensees 74 Data for Figure 35: Stage of Case at Disposition—Felony...........csescssscsssssssssseeseeseessrconteceeeaenes 75 Data for Figure 36: Stage of Case at Disposition—Misdemeanors andInfractions.............00 76 Data for Figures 37-44: Family and Juvenile Filings, Dispositions, and Caseload Clearance Rate .....cccccccccccccsssssessssseceesescsccenpecseccuensecaeauseesnususnscenaceneasaeususseaneseseeessssseeeransrs 77 Data for Figures 45-52: Probate, Mental Health, Appeals, Habeas Corpus Filings, Dispositions, and Caseload Clearance Rate ...........:cscceescesteeneecseseeeseeseesessessseeatecsseeeeses 78 Data for Figures 53-65:Trials By Type of ProCe@ding...............eessseeseresesseeseseeessssseansacseesssceevseaaees 79 Data for Figures 66-68:Judicial Positions and Use of Judicial ASSISTANCE............:ccsccorrneeee 80 Data for Figure 69: Assistance Received and Rendered by Type of Court ...........cccsccescesseessseneees 81 Appendix G COUNTY Tables ........ccccscssssseesenessssscenecsuseersesseceseusassressusessoeseesssetenssennsuceneusauessuss 82 Table 1 Caseload and Authorized Judicial POSITIONS ........ce cecsesceeseeeseessresceeseeesseeeesens 82 Table 2 Court TridlS......es eeseecsecsseeeeneceeeeeseaeesseveceececerscessseeeeseceanesenesenesenessssentesaeesteaesnaess 84 Table 3 JULY THiAlS ooo. eee ee ceeeeeeece cee ceeeeeceeeeescenenecesetecetaaeesesaeeeseacesessesaneneacsaeatanecenesensanseenna 86 Table 4a Total Civil Filings ...... cc sesesssssecessssseesseesseensesssseessssessseseeeauseseneetessenssssesseesarenneasegs 88 Table 4b Total Civil DISPOSITIONS................:cessceessesesseessescessceessscecenssesseeesecteeutercesessearsaeusess 90 Table 5a Total Civil—Method of DiSpoSition ...........cccsccecsseecsseseeseseecaseessessesensesennsseeuesasess 92 Table 5b Unlimited Civil—Method of DiSpoSition ...........cc:ccssscesesssscccessssseessseenensenseseanaeees 94 Table 5c Unlimited Civil: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury, Property Damage, and Wrongful Death—Methodof DiSpoSition............:cessecesesreeeseseeeretsnsesseesssees 96 Table 5d Unlimited Civil: Other Personal Injury, Property Damage, and Wrongful Death—Method of DiSpoSition............ceeccssssssseesseeeseessseesatesscess 98 Table 5e Unlimited Civil: Other Civil Complaints and Petitions— Method of DiSpOSition .............:c::ccccecsssesssessceeeessessscecesensecescecssesesesseesnssseneesensane 100 Table 5f Small Claims Appeals— Stage of Case at DISPOSITION...eceessssseeserenees 102 Table 5g Limited Civil—Method of DiSPOSItION ........ eeee eceeeceseceesecertenesecseeennessensanesseees 104 Table 5h Small Claims—Methodof DiSpoSition.............cccscccssececsscesesscensscesssserseeeensnensens 106 Tabie 6a Civil Case ProceSSiNg TiMe .........cccesccsccssescsseeeneecsneeeeeesseeeseeeseseeesenessuseaeesseeesoen 108 Table 7a Total Criminal Filings «0.0... eeccescceceeceeeeeeeesneeseeeeeeeseaeeesnesneceneesnneteaesersnneteetensas 110 Table 7b Total Criminal DiSpOSitiOnS ...........ccccsssesessessseessseeesceeesnenseeseeessasenerssseessserennes 112 Table 8a Felonies—Method of DiSposition ...........ccececeeceeeeeceeeseeeteseceeseceenaaeesenessensssaenes 114 Table 8b Felonies—Dispositions Dy OUTCOME........ccccsccccsssssseceeesssseeessscesssscersssreentesenes 116 Table 9a Nontraffic Misdemeanors—Method of DISPOSItION...........cccsscteessseetesseeeerensees 118 Table 9b Nontraffic Infractions—Method of DiSposition..............cc:ccesscsecsecsceseseesseesens 120 Table 9c Traffic Misdemeanors—Method of DiSpPoOSitiOn............eccescssesseeseeseseeesseeeees 122 Table 9d Traffic Infractions—Method of DiSpPOSitiON ............ccssceessesssessseeenseessesesserenees 124 Table 10a Criminal Case ProceSsing TiMe ..........:ccessccsecesseeteeeseneeeseneceneneeseeesseesnessesesnecs 126 Table 11a Family and Juvenile Filings «20.00... ccscsescseecececssceetesecoeseeeeeessensceesneaesecesseasssceans 128 Table 11b Family and Juvenile DISPOSITIONS............::c:ccccceecsssscesensssceeeensesseeesseeeessneeneesenes 130 Table 11c Family Law (Marital)—Method of DiSpoSition...............ceeseeeeceeeetetetsneessaeeees 132 Table 11d Family Law Petitions—Method of DISPOSITION ............:scccccessssesassseeseseetevsecneas 134 Table 11e Juvenile Delinquency—Stage of Case at Disposition... ceeeteeseeeeseeees 136 Table 11f Juvenile Dependency—Stage of Case at DiSpoOSition ......... icc essssseresereeeees 138 Table 12a Table 12b Table 12c Table 12d Table 12e Table 12f Table 13a Table 13b Probate, Mental Health, Appeals, Habeas Corpus Filings..........cccssscccssesees 140 Probate, Mental Health, Appeals, Habeas Corpus Dispositions............00008 142 Probate—Methodof DiSpOSition ...........:::cceeeeeseeseeeseeeeeseeessessseseeesnecseeesaneeesees 144 Mental Health—Stage of Case at DiSpoSition «0.0.0... eesseessesseseeeseesseesenseesees 146 Civil and Criminal Appeals—Stage of Case at Disposition .............eeseeeees 148 Habeas Corpus Criminal—Stage of Case at DiSpoSitiOn ..........eeesssseesesceees 150 Authorized Judicial Positions and Judicial Position Equivalents...............06 152 Judicial Position Equivalent..............::ccsssssceesssssceessssscseeeeessnsvssceeresseneeeesasenss 154 INTRODUCTION The Court Statistics Report (CSR) is published annually by the Judicial Council of California. The CSR combines 10-year statewide summaries of superior court filings and dispositions with similar workload indicators for the California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal. The appendixesto this report provide detailed information on filings and dispositions in the superior courts for the most recent fiscal year, 2013-2014, The CSRis designedtofulfill the provisions of article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution, which requires the Judicial Council to survey the condition and business of the California courts. The CSRis published on the California Courts website at http://www.courts.ca.gov/12941.htm. Snapshotof Court Caseload The Court Statistics Report contains essential information about the annual caseload of the California judicial branch, with a particular emphasis on the numberandtypesof casesthatare filed and disposed of in the courts. This information is submitted to the California Legislature and used in numerousjudicial branch reports. As with any published data, the numbersin this report represent a snapshot of the most complete and reliable information available at the time of compilation. To ensure thatthe statistics used for making policy decisions are as accurate as possible, courts may amend the data they submit to the Judicial Council should new, more detailed or more complete information become available. For this reason, the data in this report may changeslightly over time as courts revise their calculations and submit new caseload estimates. Weighted Caseload and Court Workload In the judicial branch the mostreliable and consistent measure of workload is the numberofcasefilings. Becausedifferent types of cases require different amountsof judicial and staff resources, a weighted caseload approachis the standard method, nationwide, to estimate the workload and resource needs of the courts. Accordingly, the Judicial Council has adopted a weighted caseload methodology to measurejudicial and court staff resource needsin California. Weighted caseload distinguishes between different categoriesoffilings so that the resources required to processa felony case, for example, are recognized as being much greater than the resources required to processa traffic infraction. Individual caseweights have been assigned to the many different types of casesfiled in the courts. Caseweights are used along with the data published in the Court Statistics Report to estimate the numberofjudicial officers and court staff neededto fully adjudicate each casefiled in the 58 superior courts. The Judicial Council has adopted caseweights for two workload models used by thejudicial branch—the Judicial Workload Assessment and the Resource Assessment Study (RAS) model. The Judicial Workload Assessment modelwasoriginally developed and adoptedby the Judicial Council in 2001, and the Judicial Council adopted updated caseweights or judicial workload standards in 2012. The Resource Assessment Study (RAS) model wasoriginally developed and adopted by the Judicial Council in 2005, and the RAS model was updated and adoptedby the Judicial Council in 2013. Judicial Council of California xi 2015 Court Statistics Report With the introduction of a new budget development and allocation processforthe trial courts in 2013, the data published in the Court Statistics Report is being used by the judicial branchfora critically important new purpose. The Judicial Council adopted the Workload-basedAllocation and Funding Methodology, or WAFM, which uses the Resource Assessment Model(RAS) and other workload factors in a new budget development processthat alters baseline funding for most trial courts based on court workload. WAFMis consistent with Goal Il, Independence and Accountability, of Justice in Focus: The Strategic Plan for California Judicial Branch 2006-2012,in that the methodology strives to “allocate resources in a transparent and fair mannerthat promotesefficiency and effectiveness in the administration of justice, supports the strategic goals of the judicial branch, promotesinnovation, and providesfor effective and consistent court operations” (Goal II.B.3). Variations in Data Totals Statewide trendsin filings and dispositions may be influenced by a numberof factors. For example, changesin the numberoffilings and dispositions may reflect shifting needs or behavior of residents of a court’s service area as well as new policy emphasesin the work of justice system partners. The following are someof the more commoncausesofstatistical variations. Missing Data Statewide totals in the CSR maybeinfluenced by missing data for certain courts. Typically, when courts do not report data to the Judicial Council, it is because they have encountereddifficulties generating automated reports from their case managementsystems.Filings data submitted by the courts tend to be more complete than disposition data. Incomplete Data The reporting of incomplete data typically occurs whencourts transmit partial data totals for a particular case type becauseofthe limits of their case management systems.It should be noted that incomplete data are more difficult to spot in the tables that follow, but in general they will cause downward shifts in the numberof filings and dispositions. (Incomplete data for FY 2013-2014 are also detailed in Appendix A.) Variation in Local Business Practices Data reported in the CSR are compiled in a data warehouse,the Judicial Branch Statistical Information System (JBSIS). Because manydifferent case management systems are usedin the courts, data must be “mapped” from local systems into the standard categories used for reporting purposes. One essential function of-JBSIS is to standardize the basic definitions of case types and case events acrossall courts in California. Another important aspect of JBSISis its role in the extraction of court data through different transmission methodsthat include manual reports, web-based reports through the JBSIS Portal, and automated JBSIS reports. Through this process JBSIS contributes to the warehousing of this data in a structure that is comparable from one court to another. Maintaining quality control over the data contained in the JBSIS data warehouseinvolves: e Training court staff on the standardsforthe classification, entry, and reporting of data; e Providing information to the courts for resolving technical questions associated with data definitions, processing, and aggregation; e Developing and adopting a new case managementsystem infrastructure in the courts; and e Documenting and disseminating information related to changesin the ways that courts define or report data. Judicial Council of California xii 2015 Court Statistics Report Although a growing numberof courts now transmit their data electronically from their case management system to the Judicial Council, there continue to be differences among superior courts’ case processing and other business practices that reflect the histories of individual courts and the unique needs of the communities they serve. These differences may influence the ways in which superior courts report data to the Judicial Council. On that basis, while thefilings and disposition data reported by any one court are largely comparable to data from other courts, somelocalvariations in the classification and reporting of casesstill occur. Changes to 2015 Court Statistics Report The 2015 Court Statistics Report reflects several design improvements and organizational changes to make the document more user-friendly—primarily a more graphical presentation of the material and more accurate organization of the work of the branch by case type and subject matter. The electronic PDF version of the 2015 CSRalso offers access to the raw data underlying many of the graphical charts by clicking the data icon: i i i Get this data The major organizational change in the 2015 CSRis to distinguish descriptive caseload indicators such as filings and dispositions, and basic standards and measuresofjudicial administration. These measures, such as time to disposition and caseload clearancerate, allow the courts to assess case-processing practices and ensureefficient allocation of resources. Engaging in an ongoing assessmentof performance measurement furthers many of the branchwide strategic goals—such as accessto justice, accountability, and quality of justice and service to the public—thatare vital to the effective administration of justice in California. Judicial Administration Standards and Measures Government Code section 77001.5 (Sen. Bill 56 [Dunn]; Stats. 2006, ch. 390) requires the Judicial Council to adopt and annually report on “judicial administration standards and measures that promotethefair and efficient administration of justice, including, but not limited to, the following subjects: (1) providing equal access to courts and respectful treatmentforall court participants; (2) case processing, including the efficient use of judicial resources; and (3) general court administration.” The judicial administration standards and measuresincluded in the 2015 CSR further the branch’s commitment to the goals and measuresoutlined in Government Code section 77001.5. CalCourTools CalCourTools is a set of judicial administration standards and measureslinked to technical assistance available from the Judicial Council. The CalCourTools program builds on the CourTools measures developed by the National Center for State Courts and endorsed by the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators Statistical Overview This section contains summariesoffilings and dispositions for the California Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, and superior courts for fiscal year 2013-2014. SupremeCourt e The Supreme Court issued 85 written opinions during the year. Judicial Council of California xiii 2015 Court Statistics Report 7,907 matters werefiled with the court, with 7,745 matters disposed of during the sameperiod. The court received 4,134 petitions seeking review from a Court of Appeal decision in an appeal or an original writ proceeding and disposed of 4,031 such petitions. * 1,121 of these petitions for review arose from civil matters, and 3,013 from criminal matters. * The court disposed of 1,068 civil petitions and 2,963 criminal petitions. The court received 2,758 petitions seeking original writ relief and disposed of 2,681 of such petitions. * Of the petitions seeking original writ relief, 232 arose out of civil matters and 2,526 arose out of criminal matters. * The court disposed of 197 civil and 2,484 criminal petitions. A total of 19 automatic appeals werefiled with the court following a judgment of death, and the court disposed of 26 automatic appeals by written opinion. The court received 41 habeas corpuspetitions related to automatic appeals and disposed of 28 such petitions. A total of 955 State Bar matters werefiled with the court, and 979 such matters were disposed of during the year. The Supreme Court ordered 6 Court of Appeal opinions depublishedin this fiscal year. Courts of Appeal Contested matters for the Courts of Appeal totaled 20,198, and dispositions totaled 22,172. Contested matters included 13,182 records of appeal and 7,016 original proceedings. The 13,182filings of records of appeal comprised 4,374 civil cases, 6,082 criminal cases, and 2,726 juvenile cases. The 7,016filings of original proceedings included 1,851 civil, 4,742 criminal, and 423 juvenile cases. Filings of notices of appeal in the superior court totaled 15,213: 5,983 civil cases, 6,373 criminal cases, and 2,857 juvenile cases. Disposition of notices of appeal totaled 14,998 and included 6,059civil, 6,120 criminal, and 2,819 juvenile cases. ¢ Dispositions of notices of appeal by written opinion totaled 9,592: 3,118 civil cases, 4,789 criminal cases, and 1,685 juvenile cases. * Dispositions without written opinion totaled 3,642 cases: 1,467civil, 1,126 criminal, and 1,049 juvenile. Dispositions of notices of appeal with no recordfiled totaled 1,764 cases: 1,474 civil, 205 criminal, and 85 juvenile. Disposition offilings of original proceedings is composed of 1,892 civil, 4,857 criminal, and 329 juvenile cases. ¢ Disposition of original proceedings decided with written opinion totaled 501 cases: 141civil cases, 161 criminal cases, and 199 juvenile cases. Disposition of original proceedings without written opinion totaled 6,577 cases: 1,751 civil, 4,696 criminal, and 130 juvenile. Of the cases disposed of by written opinion, 8,163 were affirmed, 880 were reversed, and 250 were dismissed. Judicial Council of California xiv 2015 Court Statistics Report e Of those casesaffirmed by the Courts of Appeal, 6,534 received full affirmance, while 1,629 received affirmance with modification. e Statewide, 8 percent of Court of Appeal majority opinions were publishedin this fiscal year. Superior Court Superior court casefilings across all case categories totaled 7,488,900 cases, while dispositions numbered 6,722,593. Within these aggregate numbers,the following totals by major case category and case type were recorded: Civil Cases.Civil filings totaled 835,215 andcivil dispositions totaled 840,433, with a caseload clearancerate of 101% attained overail civil case typesin this fiscal year. e UNLIMITED:Civil unlimited filings totaled 193,190 cases, while civil unlimited dispositions numbered 173,420. * Method ofdisposition for civil unlimited cases: 135,918 cases disposed of before trial and 37,502 aftertrial. * Caseload clearancerateforcivil unlimited cases: 90%. * Case processing timeforcivil unlimited cases was 66% within 12 months, 77% in 18 months, and 84% in 24 months. e LIMITED:Civil limited filings totaled 486,597 cases, whilecivil limited dispositions numbered 507,728. ¢ Method of disposition forcivil limited trials: 475,916 cases were disposed of beforetrial and 31,812 aftertrial. ¢« The caseload clearancerateforcivil limited cases was 104%. ¢ Case processingtimeforcivil limited was as follows: 86% in 12 months, 93% in 18 months, and 95% in 24 months. e SMALLCLAIMS: Small claimsfilings reached a total of 155,428 cases, while smal! claims dispositions numbered 159,285. * Method of disposition for small claims cases: 67,190 cases were disposed of beforetrial and 92,125aftertrial. ¢« The caseload clearance rate for small claims cases was 102%. * Caseprocessing time in small claims cases was as follows: 60% in 70 days, 71% in 90 days. Criminal Cases. Criminal filings totaled 6,096,084 and criminal dispositions numbered 5,400,132,with a caseload clearancerate of 89% attained overall criminal case typesin this fiscal year. e FELONIES:Felonyfilings reached a total of 272,610 cases, while felony dispositions numbered 254,410. * Method of disposition: 246,734 felony cases were disposed of before trial and 6,328 after trial. ¢ Caseload clearancerate for felony cases was 93%. * Case processing timein felony cases resulting in bindovers or certified pleas: 50% in 30 days, 60% in 45 days, 76% in 90 days—with 88% of all felonies disposed of in less than 12 months. Judicial Council of California XV 2015 Court Statistics Report e MISDEMEANORS: Misdemeanorfilings reached a total of 915,568 cases, while misdemeanor dispositions numbered 740,790. * Methodof disposition: 733,443 misdemeanorcases were disposed of before trial and 7,355 aftertrial. * Caseload clearance rate for misdemeanor cases ranged from 78% fortraffic misdemeanors to 84% for nontraffic misdemeanors. *« Case processing time for misdemeanors: 61% in 30 days, 78% in 90 days, and 83% in 120 days. e INFRACTIONS:Infraction filings reached a total of 4,907,906 cases, while infraction dispositions numbered 4,404,932. * Method of disposition: 4,032,657 infraction cases were disposedof beforetrial and 372,275 aftertrial. « The caseload clearancerate for infraction cases ranged from 69% for nontraffic infractions to 91% fortraffic infractions. Family Law. Family law filings totaled 381,486, and family law dispositions numbered 344,042, witha caseload clearancerate of 90% attained overall family law case typesin this fiscal year. e FAMILY LAW (MARITAL): Family law (marital) filings reached a total of 138,968 cases,while this type of family law dispositions numbered 137,693. ¢ Methodof disposition: 136,376 family law (marital) cases were disposedof before trial and 1,317 aftertrial. * The caseload clearance rate for family law (marital) cases was 99%. e FAMILY LAW PETITIONS: Family law petitionfilings reached a total of 242,518 cases, while this type of family law dispositions numbered 206,349. * Methodof disposition: 205,372 family law petition cases were disposed of before trial and 977 aftertrial. ¢ The caseload clearance rate for family law petition cases was 85%. Juvenile Law. Juvenile filings totaled 92,713, and juvenile dispositions numbered 73,759. e JUVENILE DELINQUENCY:Juvenile delinquencyfilings reached a total of 45,824 cases, while juvenile delinquency dispositions numbered 41,932. * Method of disposition: 7,194 juvenile delinquency cases were disposed of before hearing and 34,738 after hearing. * The caseload clearance rate for juvenile delinquency cases ranged from 92% fororiginal petitions to 91% for subsequent petitions, with an average of 92% for this case type. e JUVENILE DEPENDENCY: Juvenile dependencyfilings reached a total of 46,889 cases, while juvenile dependencydispositions numbered 31,827. * Method of disposition: 1,614 juvenile dependency cases were disposedof before hearing and 30,213 after hearing. * The caseload clearancerate for juvenile dependency cases ranged from 75% fororiginal petitions to 26% for subsequentpetitions, with an average of 68% for this case type. Judicial Council of California xvi 2015 Court Statistics Report Probate and Mental Health Cases. e PROBATE: Probate (estate, guardianship, and conservatorship)filings reached a total of 44,298 cases, while probate dispositions numbered 30,183. * Method ofdisposition: 15,340 probate cases were disposed of before hearing and 14,843 after hearing. * The caseload clearancerateforall types of probate cases was 68%. e MENTAL HEALTH: Mental health filings reached a total of 27,377 cases, while mental health dispositions numbered 22,320. ¢ Method ofdisposition: 5,685 mental health cases were disposed of before hearing and 16,635 after hearing. * The caseload clearancerate forall types of mental health cases was 82%. Trials, By Type of Proceeding e JURY TRIALS: A total of 9,900 jury trials were recorded acrossall case types. Jury trials held in the superior courts in fiscal year 2013-2014 included 5,545felony, 2,724 misdemeanor, 1,226civil unlimited, 219 civil limited, and 186 probate and mental health cases. e ALL COURT TRIALS:A total of 472,763 court trials were recorded acrossall the case types detailed above (excluding small claims). These included 785 felony, 376,906 misdemeanorandinfractions, 32,187civil unlimited, 31,593civil limited, and 31,292 probate and mental health cases. e SMALLCLAIMSTRIALS:A total of 92,125 smail claims court trials were recorded, which may be distinguished from criminal and civil court trials for their tendency to be resolved in a single hearing. Trial Court Workload and Judicial Resources e Authorized judicial positions in the California courts in fiscal year 2013-2014totaled 2,024: 1,706 judges and 318 subordinatejudicial officers. e The 50 new judgeships authorized by Assembly Bill 159, effective January 2008,arestill unfunded but are included in the statewide numberof judgeships. e While the numberof authorized judicial positions for the year was 2,024, the assessed numberof judges needed (AJN) was 2,171. The California Court System California’s court system serves a population of more than 38 million people—about 12 percentof the total U.S. population—and processed almost 7.5 million casesin fiscal year 2013-2014. The judicial branch budget for the 2013-2014fiscal year excluding infrastructure of $3.1 billion represents about 2.2 percent of the California state budget and makespossible the case-processing activity detailed above while also providing the basis of support for approximately 2,000 judicial officers and 19,000judicial branch employees statewide. The vast majority of cases in the California courts begin in one of the 58 superior, or trial, courts, which reside in each of the state’s 58 counties. With more than 500 court buildings throughout the state, these courts hear both civil and criminal cases as well as family, probate, mental health, and juvenile cases. The equivalent of more than 2,000judicial positions statewide addressthefull range of cases heard each year by the superior Judicial Council of California xvii 2015 Court Statistics Report courts, as reflected in the sheer numberof casefilings and dispositions reported here. The superior courts report summariesoftheir casefiling counts to the Judicial Council, and the CSR reports those figures here in aggregate form. The next level of court authority within the state’s judicial branch resides with the Courts of Appeal. Most of the cases that comebefore the Courts of Appealinvolve the review of a superior court decision thatis being contested by a party to the case. The Legislature has divided the state geographically into six appellate districts, each containing a Court of Appeal. Currently, 105 appellate justices presidein nine locationsin the state to hear matters brought for review. Totals of Court of Appealcasefilings are forwarded to the Judicial Council; these are summarizedin the tables thatfollow. The Supreme Court sits at the apex of the state’s judicial system, and has discretion to review decisions of the Courts of Appeal in orderto settle important questions of law and resolve conflicts among the courts of appeal. Although the Supreme Court generally has considerable discretion in determining in which cases to grant review, it must review the appealin any casein whicha trial court has imposed the death penalty. The Supreme Court sends the Judicial Council its annual casefiling figures, which are reported here in summary form. Terminology and Rules for Counting Filings Technical definitions of most terms usedin this CSR can be found in the appendixes. Somecore definitions are presented here in more detail. Appellate Courts APPEAL. An appealis a proceeding undertaken to have a decision of a lowertrial court reviewed by a court with appellate authority over the matter. (Certain limited matters are reviewed by the appellate departmentof the superior courts.) A notice of appealis a written notification filed in the superior court to initiate the appealof a judgmentto the Court of Appeal. The Courts of Appeal have appellate jurisdiction in all trial court matters, except when a judgmentof death is entered, in which case the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction. If the matter is appealable, the court must hear the appeal. A fully briefed appealis onein whichall briefs have been filed with the court. Dismissal of an appeal involves the termination of a case for reasons otherthanits merit. An appealthat is awaiting a final decision is said to be pending. Each notice of appeal is counted as one newfiling. PETITION FOR REVIEW.A petition for reviewis filed in the California Supreme Court to ask that court to exercise its discretion to review a decision issued by a Court of Appeal in an appealor an original proceeding. The Supreme Court hasa total of 90 days to consider a petition for review, after which it loses jurisdiction. If a petition for review is granted by the Supreme Court then full briefing occurs on the case;if a petition is denied then the judgmentof the lower court becomesfinal as to the case. AUTOMATIC APPEAL. An automatic appeal!is the appealfollowing a judgment of deathin thetrial court. This type of appeal is unique becauseit movesdirectly from a superior court to the Supreme Court withoutfirst being reviewed by a Court of Appeal. Like other types of appeals,is fully briefed before being heard. An automatic appeal is counted as one newfiling. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING.An original proceeding is an action that maybe filed and heard forthefirst time in an appellate court. This action is not an appeal; rather, it is ordinarily a petition for a writ. Examplesoforiginal proceedings include a writ of mandamus,whichinstructs a lower court to perform mandatory duties correctly; Judicial Council of California xviii 2015 Court Statistics Report a writ of prohibition, or an order that forbids certain actions; and a writ of habeas corpus, which is described below. Each original proceeding is counted as one newfiling. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. A petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpusis typically filed to contest the legality of a party’s imprisonment or conditions of confinement. Each habeas corpus petition is counted as one newfiling. WRITTEN OPINION.A written opinion is a document issued by an appellate court explaining the terms and reasoningin its disposition of a case. The written opinion includes a statementof the legal facts in the case, relevant points of law, and the court's analysis and rationaleforits decision. In addition to the written majority opinion in a case, concurring and dissenting opinions also may befiled in each case. For each case, only the majority opinion is counted as a written opinion in these tables. DISPOSITIONS.The appellate court may dispose of a caseby affirming or reversing the action of the lower court, or it may send the case backto the lowercourt for further proceedingsif appropriate. RECORDOFAPPEAL.A record of appealis the compilation of documents and transcripts associated with a given superior court case underreview by an appellate court. The record is a componentof a new appellate case and as suchis not counted separately from theinitial appeal. REVERSAL OF CASE DECISION.A reversalis the overturning of a lower court’s decision by an appellate court. Superior Courts FILING. In the most general sense,a filing is the initiation of a legal action with the court through a carefully prescribed legal procedure. HowFilings Are Counted. The procedure used to countfilings for this report follows a set of rules consistent with national standardsforstatistical reporting. These rules differ according to case type: e Eachfiling in a civil case pertains to the complaint or petition that has been submitted to the court for action. A given civil complaint may name one or moreindividuals or groups as its object. However, regardless of the numberof parties namedin a case, eachcivil case is reported as onefiling or one disposition. e Eachfiling in a criminal case is associated with a single defendant against whom criminal charges have been filed. Multiple criminal charges may occur in a case wheredifferent charges have been brought against the same defendant, but only the single most severe charge against a defendantin a given caseis counted as a newcriminalfiling. When multiple defendants are charged with a crime, multiple filings are reported. e Eachfiling in a juvenile case pertains to a minor whois the subject of a petition madeto the court for adjudication. A minor mayhaveaninitial filing that brought him or her to the attention of the court, and subsequentfilings if new petitions or chargesarefiled over time. This practice continues until termination of the dependency or delinquencyjurisdiction by the court or when the minor has reached the legal definition of adulthood. In a single case involving multiple minors, each minoris counted as a separatefiling. DISPOSITION. In a general sense, a disposition may be described as a final settlement or determination in a case. A disposition may occur either beforeoraftera civil or criminal case has been scheduledfortrial. A final judgment, a dismissal of a case, and the sentencing of a criminal defendantare all examples of dispositions. In certain case types, however, a disposition may merely signal the beginning of the court’s authority over a case. Judicial Council of California xix 2015 Court Statistics Report For example, after the petition to appoint a conservatoris disposed of in conservatorship cases, the court assumescontrol over that case. Rules for counting and reporting dispositions mirror thoseforfilings, although a casefiled in one year maybe disposed of by the court in a subsequent year. California Judicial Branch: Structure and Duties The Courts CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT www,courts.ca.gov/supremecourt.htm e Has discretionary authority to review decisions of the Courts of Appeal; jurisdiction to review original petitions for writ relief; direct responsibility for automatic appeals after death penalty judgments e Hears oral arguments in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento COURTS OF APPEAL www.courts.ca.gov/courtsofappeal.htm e Review the majority of appealable orders or judgments from the superior courts; jurisdiction to review original petitions for writ relief e Six districts, 19 divisions, 9 court locations SUPERIOR COURTS www.courts.ca.gov/superiorcourts.htm e Havetrial jurisdiction overall criminal and civil cases filed in their respective counties; guided by state and local laws that define crimes and specify punishments,as well as defining civil duties and liabitities e Atotal of 58 courts—onefor each California county—each operating in 1 to 46 branches depending on county population, total local caseload, and other factors Branch and Administration Policy JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA www.courts,ca.gov/policyadmin-jc.htm The constitutionally created policymaking bodyof the California courts Branch Agencies COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS www.courts.ca.gov/5367.htm Confirms gubernatorial appointments to the Supreme Court and appellate courts COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE http://cjp.ca.gov Responsible for maintaining statewide standards for administration of justice and empoweredwith disciplinary authority to effect the censure, removal, retirement, or private admonishmentof judges and commissioners Decisions subject to review by the California Supreme Court Judicial Council of California xX 2015 Court Statistics Report HABEAS CORPUS RESOURCE CENTER www.courts.ca.gov/536L.htm Handles state and federal habeas corpus proceedings; providestraining and support for private attorneys who take these cases Related STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA www.calbar.ca.gov Serves the Supreme Court in administrative and disciplinary matters related to attorneys Judicial Council of California xxi 2015 Court Statistics Report California Judicial Officers and Court Employees Supreme Court 2 HEE a E i e anmnetage A S . L S S e e TotalFilings and Dispositions SupremeCourt Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Figures 1-2 Total Filings and Dispositions Fos Fvos. FvorT)=Fyns— FY? FY. FYM1 FIZ. FYI. FYE Filings 9203 9485 9198 10.752 4B «TSB 10.928 «9,282 aay r.907 Dispositions 8607 9.585 9,324 105839689837 10.20 rR aa 7,745 Figure 1: Totat Filings 2.0080 8.000 4.000 0 Fyos FYos rva? FvoB oo Fyig FYI. FYI2 FYI Fa Figure2; Total Dispositions 12,000 3,000, 2,008 Fyos FvOs.=rya?,= vag Fvog. ry. FyMd FYI Jusieial Counc of California 3 url Statistics Report Filings andDispositions: Summary Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 lings Figure 3: Patios for Review ! ps Figure 5: Automatic Appeals (Death Penatty Cases) Figure 7: State Bar Mattors « Notes: Supreme Court Figures 3-7 ——— Dispositions Figure 4: Original Proceedings * sec > Figure 6: Habeas Corpus Related To Automatic Appeals * 1 Petitions seeking rav ewfolowing Courl ef Appeal decisionappeals and vss. Detailad breakout is shown in Fryures 8106, 2 Original petitions for wrtfled cirectly in the Suorerse Court Detaled breakout is shown in Figures 11-136, 3 Includes petitiansfled both bofore the caurt kas Issucd an opinionin the related automate appoaland aftr affienance. 4 Fiings include State Bar Court recommendations for ciscipinary action,reports of criminal convictions ofsttomeys. motions for he ‘admissions of attomuys, requasts for ule yroposals, and olher administrativa malls relay tothe State Bar. Jusicial Couns of Calforria 2018 Cour Statistios Report Filings and Dispositions: Summary Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14. SupremeCourt Datafor Figures 3-7 Filings Haheas Campus Petitions for Original related to auromatic State Bar Fiscal yoor Total review proceedings Automatic appeals appeals meters Al @ o 1) 6 € rig 707 4134 2.758 19 41 385 Fvis 8.027 an9t 3.018 13 3 ™ FYT2 9,232 4,620, 3.575 18 45 ana it 40,328, 4,984 3,850 2 4 1478 ryt 9.759 5.128 3.633 28 4 985 FY08 9.488 5.159 3,846 aw a 728 FYo8 0.182 son 4,023, 7 2 63 Fyor 9,198 5.101 3.204 i? 35 Bat Fyo8 9.485, 5404 3.138 20 45 a8 FY05 9.203 5.408 3.184 18 4 551 Dispositions Habeas Corus Petitions for Origins related to automatic Stale Bar Fiscal year Tota raven, proveeings Aulomatic appeals so0eels matters w 8) (0) ) © a Fv ia 4.03 29881 2% Fy 970 rvs 3403 4281 3,80 2 a1 886 FvI2 9.724 4.549 4222 29 28 698 Feit 10,200 4.934 3.796 2B 30 tat FY10 9.837 5.096 3 2 34 879 Fyo8 8.680) 5.201 25 2 738 FY08 10,588 5.313 3.884) 2 Ey 72 Fyor 8.324 4,823 3.606 20 2» a8 FY08 5.985 5.52 3501 31 35 878 #YO5: 8.607 5.087 2.948 26 33 58 ‘Caseload Clearance Habeas Comus Petitions for origina ‘clated to automatic State Bar Fiscal yoar Total review proceedings, Automatic appeets ‘pests matters AL __{8) ©. 2) © ria 28% a 97% 737% co 403% Fyis 700% it 110% 162% 100% 11% FY. 105% 38% 118% tar% 51% 82% ryt 99% 20% 29% 127% 88% 90%, ryt 98 99% 90% 100% 4% Free 102% 11% io ‘04% 148% ‘oi Fyo8 98% 100% 74% or FYOr ior 95% 119% 118% a 701% F¥08 105% 102% 112% 155% 78% 102% FYO5 94% 9% 53% 1a, 76% 100% Goluma Key: (Sum ofB through F (8) Patios seaking review folbwng Court of Appes!recisonin appeals and wits, Detaled breakoutis showin Figures 8-10, (©) Original pettions for writs fied direcdyinthe Supreme Cour. Detailad breakoutis snowIn Flgutes 11-13 (2) Death panatty cases. (€) Includes petitions fled doth hefore the court has issued an opinion inthe lated automatic apooal ano ateralrmarce. fF) Flings include State Bar Court recommendationsfor dssplinary aelisn, reports 2cvim nal convictions ofstomneys. rmatians forthe admissions ofattorneys, request‘or rule proasais, and otheradministrative matters relating ta tae ‘State Bar. Detailed breakoutis shown in Table 2. Judleal Counel af California 5 2045 Court Statistics Report Filings and Dispositions: Petitions for Review Fiscal Years 2004-05through 2013-14 Figure 8: Total Petitions for Roview 8.000 6.000 4,000 2,000 FyDS FOB FYOTFYOBFYOS.FYIO. FYI Figure 9: Civil Total Figure 9a: Civil Appeals * Figure 9b: Civil Writs * Notes: 1 Petvons for review from decisions n civil appeals 2 Petivons for fewer arisingfom cil orighnal writs fled In tho Courtsof Appeal 3 Petitions for review from cecisions in criinal sppeals 4 Potions for review arisingfomhabos carpus doutions fllodin the Couns of Appeat 5 ations for rauarisingfem orginal cuminwis fad inthe (Countsof Appealothertan 3 petition for wrt of habess corpus, JJudicia! Council of Caloris 8 Supreme Court Figures 8-10¢ ——— ————— Dispositions riz FYI Fr Figure 10: Crirwinal Total PS Figure 108: Criminal Appeals * Figure 106: Criminal Habeas Corpus * Figure 10¢:Criminal ~ OtherWits = 2015 Cour StatistReport Filings and Dispositions: Petitions for Review Supreme Court Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Data for Figures 8—10¢ Flings 2 Sil 5 Criminal Fiscal year Total)” Appeals Wais ‘Appeals Tatas Corus) Other Wats io) p) fa fa is) im Fvia 829 222 3.013 2588 280 137 Fv 890 2a 3.080 2007 323 150 riz 918 285 3417 277 431 24 ryt 993 250 3742 2922 595 25 Frio 932 231 3.031 56 208 F¥O@ i084 240 3.834 3.089 565 173 Fv08 41,125 370 4415, 5.393, 790 2 For 4.087 308 3.882 2.885 502 175 FvO6 1,186 361 3.300 3.116 533 181 Fv0s 4.150) 387 3.838 3.152 513 173 Dispositions Grand cil Criminal Fiscal year total Total) Appeals ¥ Toiall Appeals) Habeas Corus) OtherWels w ®) icy © A (6) we. 4021 1,068 187 2985 2535 2a 187 4.251 114 82 137 570 308 143 4519 1.188 ao 381 2778 aay 206 4.984 1218 ea) 301 2913 588 220 5,095 1,228 988 3873 3,025 655 wa 5201 1,331 1931 3.870 3161 53 174 5.913 1487 at 4.846; 758 228 4.223 4,388 41981 3.494 581 212 5522 1,524 1.186 3,996 552 213 5.087 1430 1.964 eT 260 451 198 {C}Cagwsin whieh the Gout of Appea! cage was a el aapcal 1D} Casesin which the Gourt of Appeal case was a cil viginal proceeding El F-B-H {A} Casesin uhen the Courtof Appeal casa wine a ermal pel Cazesin wien the Court of Appeal case was 3 petition for ert of habess corps Cazesin ote Ihy Cour of Appeal case was a cdinal origina prooeocing atner than a pelttonfor wr Lat nabeas coraus, Juttcial Council of Galleria ' 2545 Cour Staistios Ra Summary ofActions on Petitions for Review Supreme Court Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 4 Actions takan on petitions for review Granted Granted anu Percentage Dispaced Tolal Granted andheld transfered Denice aranier. w ® wc) o © F) 6) Total 4031 4/030 58 a7 2 3806 3% Total civit 1,068 1,087 a 10 7 1013 a% iil azpeats 857 a9 25 9 5 09 5% Chl wits 2a 208 1 1 2 204 2% Total criminal 2.968 2973 2 a7 2 2883 3% Criminal appests 2,533 2,540 28 a 8 2498 2% Criminalwrits(excluding habeas corpus) 187 490 2 26 7 185 18% Habeas Corpus ag 243 2 2 6 233 a olurmn Key: (&) Sum of G through F. (Administrative dispositons are notincludesin this t! iG) {C+D+E)/0 Jed sil Council of Cabforia 4 2015 Cour Statistics Report Filings and Dispositions: Original Proceedings Supreme Court Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Figures 11-13b Figure 11; Total Original Proceedings 5.900 4,000 So aFilings vervonmeneeeen Dispositions 2,000 4100 Fyos FYO5 FYO7.«-FYOBFYOS FYI. FYIT. FIZ, FYIS. FYI Figure 12: Chl Total! | Figure 13: Criminal Total we Notes: 1 Includes origina! writ pestions, questions of state law referred by the federal courts. accusations ayalvstallnmeys. and petitions pertaining {a Commission on Judicial Performance roreacings 2 Petitons for wits of habeas corpus fied 'r the Supreme Court's orignal juiscetion. notincluding ings relnted to automatic appeals. 3 Primarily pliions (or writ af mandala andtor profilin, Judie! Council of Calfarnia 8 2015 CourtStatistics Report Filings and Dispositions: Original Proceedings Supreme Court Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 DataforFigures 11-136 Fillngs Grand Cia Criminal Fiscal yoar Iola PUG Total, “Habeas Corpse) Other Writs a) @ 6 fa) (e) Fyi4 2.758 2 2.5626 2.328 200 evIg 3,015 0 2.766 2.595 m1 FY12 3.875 Q 3,287 185, evn a 3,615 3380 235 FY10 3.633 3 3,386 3.189 197 Fy09 3,546 a 3.295 3.086 13 YOR 4,023 1 3.793 3617 176 FYO7 3,204 & 2.942 2776 185 FY05 2,138 3 2,860 2736 126 FOS 3484 1 243 2842 101 Dispositions - Civ Criminal Fiscal year Otner Total Habeas Corpus Other Writs 0) a) i Fy1a 198 2.484 2.285 FYIS 286 3,058 2.886 FYI2 8 3,946 3759 vit 282. 3.851 9314 FY19 2a. 3.058 Frag 238 3442 3.288 vag 232 3476 FO? 258 3.183 Fva6 231 3,207 3,085 FOS 28 207 2619 ColumnKey: (a) B+. +0. iC) Pelitors ‘errav ee af Puble Utility Commission mattersorig naly fled wy the Cour of Appel ave aflactea in Figure Mb. (2) Includes enighal wrt peitin's, questions of slals law reletret hy the enteral =cut, a Conimissionon Judieel Barfarmanes proceeairgs FrG Petitionfo mrs cf habeas corpus filesin the Suprome Gourt's arginaljuisdcion, neinclud ng illags related to ausomatic Primrly pions for wrt of mandate andor aration. ssations agaist atioineys, and asilions pertainingto Judie 1 Councat Catrnia 1. 2015 Cow Slatstics Ranort State Bar Matters Filed Supreme Court Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Figure 14 Table 2 Figure 14: Total State Bar Matters Filed * 00 1,000 500 FynsFYos FYO?.«FYD8 FYOS FY10.FYT1.FYI2, FYI FIG Table 2: Types of State Bar Matters Fited Fiscal Year __Tolal__Admission _Discipne __Other_Reinstatament_Resigaton_Propetl vie a 3 3 4 s a 2 Fra ™ 4 4a ? 2 ar 5 eva or ¢ 0 3 o si 3 en 1423 ote 5 3 ar o evo sas 2 os 4 5 8 2 re aa ‘ a ‘ ‘0 oes 3 va 19 3 401 2 4 oo 8 ner oe a ws a : a 2 +08 ssa 1 os 2 ‘ 16 2 ves ost Q on 5 7 tet 2 Note: 1 Fiirgs include Stale Bar Caurlrecommandal ons for cisciplinsy action, repons of criminal convictions ofattorneys, malianfor the admission of attaneys, requests far rule sropesa's, and athor adkninisvatve mallers rating tothe Stnte Bar, Judicial Council of California 4" 2015 Court Stalstics Report Business Transacted Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Figure 15: Written Opinions Figure 17: Petitions for Review ! Granted Figure 20: Rehearings — Granted Notes: Supreme Court Figures 15-22 Figure 16: Original Proceedings Figure 18: Petitions for Review Denied Figure 21: Rehearings — Denied Figure 19: Petitions for Review" Percent Granted Figure 22:Executive Clemency Applications * 1 The Supreme Cour's exercise of ts discretionto grantor deny potions for seviow consilutes a signitcan part offs workload, 2 Sea Cal. Const, art. V, 88 Judicial Coune! of California 2018 Court Statistics Raper! Business Transacted Supreme Court Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Data for Figures 15-22 Pettians for review" OFgirlproceedings Attornalve Writen Granted and) Granted and Percentage wits or orders omer Fiscalyear opinions Granted held) transfered Denied granted’ «=Total to shaw cause|dlspostiona a @ (c) o @ a Go o 0 Fy 85 59 a 283.896 3% 2.681 1 2,600 Fv 94 6 4 434082 4% 3.308 4 3.300 Fv er 6 ni 4 4aTe 4% 4.222 2 azo pi 9s n 6 sa 4769 4% 3,708 5 3781 Fv 96 a6 “4 4a aan 3% 3.502 4 3.498 Foe 116 39 33 36 4.896 2% 8.883 2 3.889 v0 1 22 210 si 5,406 6% 3.884 " 373 Fvor 18 92 252 384.609 5% 5,608 n 3.585 Fv08 105 a 6 425,226, 3601 13 Sue FY05 125 01 133 3a asa 2.888 8 2,938 Colum Key: WB+CrO)/ (B+ CrDHE) {5 Ofiginal proceedings disposed cf without an llernative wit or order to sh tothe Caurtaf Appeal 1 caUSR, 2g. deninls and administrative transfers Note: () The Supreme Cours exercige of ls eiseration to grantor dony patitlns for revew constiutos a significant pat afte workload Executive __ Rehearings comer Fiscalyear Granted) Denied) applicalions a to) Fy aa 3 FYB ° 7 4 FYi2 ° 20 1 Fy ° 7 a Fvt0 ° 2 ° F¥o8 o 40 1 Fv08 ° 56 0 Fyor 1 50 1 Fves 1 6 4 F¥05 1 7 0 Column Key: (©) SeeCal Const, art. ¥, § 8. Jusicial Council af Caivornia 13 2018 CourtStatities Report Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Depublished by the Supreme Court Supreme Court Fiscal Years 1995-96through 2013-14 Figure 23 Figure 30: Depublished Opinions + +00 aa ao 40 20 FyasFyas= FOO =FYo2 Fda Fé FOB FYI. FIZ. FYI Fiscal Year Note: 1) Depublished opinions ara Court of Appea!opinions thal Ine Court of Appeal has certiee for publication but thatthe Supreme Court,acting Under its constitutional power over apivon publication (Cal. Const, art. VI, § 14). ofaers not publishadin she Oial Reports, and chat may be cited ar relied unon cnly in ited circumstances (see Cal, Rules of Cour, rule 8.1115(b)}. Forinformation an the total number of published and unpubichod opinions Issued Ly the Courts of Appel, see Table 7 nt Figures 28-32 nthe Courts of Appeal section, Jacicial Cauncit of California. “ 2015 Court Sitistcs Report Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Depublished by the Supreme Court Supreme Court Fiscal Years 1995-96 through 2013-14 Datafor Figure 23 Fiscal year Depublished opinions a Fy 6 Fyi 16 Fyt2 4 Feat 2 Fvt0 4 FY08 na FY03 14 Fvor 18 FY08 18 F¥05 14 Fvoa 20 Fr03 18 Fyo2 21 FYO1 31 Fyo0 a Fy29 53 Fy98 56 Fyer 65 Fy86 63 Column Key: 1A) Deaublished opinions are Court o* Appealopinions thatthe Court of Appeal has carifor ouatcationbut thatthe Supreme Court. acting undo’ its constitutional power aver apirian yusiealion (Cal. Cane, al VI, § 14), aceraot publ sed in the Oficial Reports, and thal may be ciled orreed psn only in limited circumstances (see Cal Rulés of Cour, rule 8.114) For informasion onthe (otal rumber of publiste¢ and urpublishod opinions issucd by the Courtsaf Appssl, see Table 7 ‘and Figuies 28-32 m tne Gourts af Appeal secon, Counc! of California 16 2015 Coun Statistics Report Capital Cases in Which the Record Was NotCertified for Supreme Court Completeness Within 90 Days, and for Accuracy Within 120 Days Table 3 Fiscal Year 2013-2014 In the fallowing cases,the record was nolcertified for completenesswithin 90 days. (See Penal Code, § 190.8(¢),) Suprema Court Superior court Sentence County case number Name case number date There are no cases to report. In the folowing cases, the record wasnot certified for accuracywithin 120 days. (See Penal Code, § 190.8 (g).) Supreme Court Superior court Sentence County case number Name case number date There are no casesto report lusicial Council af Caitornia 16 2015 Court Slatisties Report Courts of Appeal A R E U e Performance Indicator Data Fiscal Year 2013-14 Courts of Appeal Table 1 Rumberof Fulltime Perding Appeals Appeals Majority opinions authorized lige —fillyriefed becoming dispasedaf by Original Disict iustices —equlvalants angeala —fuly briefed len opinion Appeals praceadings tay (8) i oO (Eh é (3) Statewide 105 101.9 3,982 9.861 9.592 9,345 435 Frat 2 va 595 1,380 1.281 1,201 88 Second 2 312 781 2904 3135 3,108 7, Tri 1 100 785 4,128 1087 1,088 18 Fourth 25 250 843. 2,808 2.695 2632 149 Fain ‘0 38 58 835 Boa 784 69 Sit 7 79 379 706 820 608 4 Columa Key: (A) Author zed justines as ef June 30, 2014, Does rotinclude assistance received through assignmonts, (8) “Fulbtime Judge equivalents” includes a court's regular number ot judges, pls 60 pernert ofthe time reported fr judgos _assignod to the court (tanstated into ful-ime postions}, minus the time roparted far tha assignments of he caun's regular ‘members to another court and for unfiled vacancies(translated into full-+me positior). (C} Appeals argued, caterlared, oF raady as of June 30, 2014, {2} Tho ttal numberof appeals that becamefully arofod during fiscal yoar 2912-14, E) _Appesis disposee of by opinion during fiscal year 2013-14, Includes appealsfled prortofiscal yaar 2013-4 [H} The number of wien opinions that dec: ded appeals. One npirion may have dec ded mare than oe appeal (G) The number of witson opinions that decided orginal pocaedings. Onogivion may have dacided more than one case. uicial Coneuf Catfornia 19 2018 Court Slal'sties Report Performance Indicator Data Fiscal Year 2013-14 Figure 1: Ratio of Pending Fully Briofed Appeals per 100 Appeals Disposed of by Writien Opinion 1hRSS FnSe ScRR bt 0 utTT Figure 2: Pending Fully Briefed Appeals per Authorized Justice as of June 30, 2014 ThvehSS Sh Fit)A ! (th At cot a ” an 60 e ouria Secore_(SESSSHSSR memes Sih [ERRNO | Fist 0 20 a ) Judicial Gounel of Caforis 2 Courts of Appeal Figures 1-3 This ratios 2 measure of pending workload as well 5 judival productvty nd isanestimate ofthe tinea court needs to disease of pending fully bvefed spneals, ratio af 100is equrvalert ta.one yea’, 20 is equivalent to sik months, and 50‘orth. he estates ase onthe sumption thatthe court wil geide the sarve number af poral is 7014-15 a5 jn 2013-24 he Second District had 24 full erieted appeals per 100 syacal disposed of byopinion in 2012-12, the investrai ‘rnong the ss appellate dist ct ‘The Third District had 72 pening fully briefed appeals per 300 appealsdisposed of byopinion,tnehighest rato among te sv snollare distr ts, Thestatewian average lncteased from4M in 2012-23 10.42 in zor The thied istic epite ve highest numberef peningfully briefed appeals per authoried justice, 70‘The Secund Distr et reoorted the lowest rumber of pendingfully briefed appeals yer authorized justice, 24‘The statewide average increased fram 2% in 7012-13 o 38,in201z-4 “udge ecuyalen” eles to the number of authorise justies adjustedforjudicial vacancies, assistance given to thercourts,snd judicialassistance rece'ved, ‘Thestatenide averageopinions pes judge equivileme was 36 ie 2013 14, compare ta $2.n 2012-18. ‘The Fourth D stireported the hghest rote, 112 opinions per judge eqaivatent—28 percent higher than the statruide average ‘The Fist District reporled the lowest opinion rate,67 per jude equivalent, sewever, tre First District hada low rnumoerof pendingfully briefed appeals per author ced Justice. The lewer disposition rate may reFecttol fewer ‘casesareavailable forthe justices Beyond an opsimum number of gains Inot et Hlenti-ed), high rates of postion dicate cveioad and a 2015 Cour Siststics Report Caseload Comparisons Fiscal Year 2013-14 Courtsof Appeal Table 2 Total appeals Numberof Pending appeals Natcosfled In disposedofin Pending appeals authorized District 8 07 63013 FY 2013.14 FY 2013-14 as of 630!" justices ‘ay @ (eh 2 © Statewide 13,303, 15213 14,998 13,504 105 First rare 2077 4,908 2039 20 Second 4038 4.880 4,853 4007 2 Thi 1,864 1.200 vat 1,92 1" Fourth 3,382 4288 4.998 3.275 25 ith 1.247 4.247 1.208 4,303, 10 Sith 962 98 900 1,099 7 Column Key: (1), (8) Includes appeals for which the record has not Bean filed, o Includes appeals for wnich the recont nas 10: beenfled, © ‘Authorized justices as of June 30, 2014, Judicial Cauneil af California a 2015 Court Statistics Report Caseload Comparison per Authorized Justice Fiscal Year 2013-14 Figure 4: Pending Appeals: Caseload Comparison per Authorized Justice Statewide First Second Thre Fourty Fit sixth 8 20 201482019 Figura 5: Filings and Dispositions: Cassload Comparison per Authorized Justice Statewice OTE od aS (ESTitERO S1eae Sot 50 100 160 "Flings por Justow ‘eDispesiinsper Justice Judicial Council of California 2 Courts of Appeal Figures 4-5 Depicts the change mncourte inventoriesof appeas perauthorized lustice by showirg pending cases asof June 30,2013, and pending cases as of June 30,2084 ‘TheThird District had thehighest level af pending appeais perJustice azot lune 30,2014-35 pereent higher than the statewide average, The statewide average of pending appeals ner ustice was 127 as of Jane 3, 2013, ad 129 28 of re $0, 2014—an neease of 2 percent The neogs and dispositions felales t= cours pending caseload, Uisposing fewer eases chan wevefed a atime periad would ate he natnbt cof pending casesane caurt hacky, 2 Fourth District sad (ne highest level of flingsardspositians perjusticein 2013-14, Hesper justice nthe fhe Distt were 17 percenthigherthanthe statewide average,any elsositors per Justice weve 23 aurcentNigher transhe satew de overage The Frat District Fad the lowest levels flings ard aiseostons per justice 2015 Gout Statistes Report Summaryof Filings Courts of Appeal Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Figures 6-7 Total Contested matters Te Records of appeal paren Figure 6: Total Contested Matters Ba cesissne 3e,000 now ——— so.c90 Fyos FyOsFYO? FYoe FOS FyId FYIT.FVI2. YTB FYI Figure 7: Total Contested Matters per Authorized Justice -oe 100 ° 2 Fyos FYG FYOT FYD8. YOO Fy#D) FVIt. FYI2. FYI. FYI Judicial Counc! of California B 2018 Court Stalistles Report Recordof AppealFilings Courts of Appeal Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Figures 8-14 Figure 8: All Di Ball cewiccse _ —_ PO cast —_—_—. Figure 8: First District Figure 10: Second District, Figure 1: Third District Figure 12: Fourth District SES 5090 oa © ves “6 rw me as Fre Fen Pew Figure 12: Fifth District Figure 14: Sixth District, i rd 8 3 ea Judicial Goune! of California 2 2048 Cavrt Statistics Report Original Proceedings Filings Gourtsof Appeal Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Figures 15-21 Figure 15: All Districts na — ex el Figure 16: First District Figure 17: Second District a fe Figura 18: Third District Figure 18: Fourth District . : afl a >SSS esc et eet are Fron avin Pytg Figure 20: Fifth Distret Figure21: Sith District Judical Counel of Gatorria 25 2016 Court Statistios Report Appeals Terminated by Written Opinion Fiscal Years 2011-12 through 2013-14 Affirmed Reversed i ‘otal appeals Fvt4 co rvs ore Fvi2 we Figure 24: Criminal appeals by prosecution Fria ee FYI 61% rviz 50% 2 Figure 26: Juvenile appeats (criminal violation} ma Pris i ma ‘2 Be Bio a 1% | [= [ Jul Cound of Calforia 2 Courtsof Appeal Figures 22-27 Dismissed Figure 23: Criminal appeals by defendants 4% 945 9% Figure 25: Civil appeals 0% 10% 738% Figure 27: Other juvenite appeals so ome 00% 2016 Court Salisties Report Percentageof Majority Opinions Published Fiscal Year 2013-14 Figure 28: Total Appeals States bt 5% Figure 28: Criminal Appeals voI Fis 5. Second EIN 3% Tod ED 3% For TT 2%, Fitts MD 2% SchTI Figure 31: Juvenile Appeals eeAa: ctes7. Second ND 3 hi!TT2 Forth TT Ft AD 1% Sixth EE2% of Y aicial Count of California 12% 1 we, ar Figure 30: Appeals Courts of Appeal Figures 28-32 Hg] ores ioI6 Fest 17%, SecondI15 iTS25°: rh 3% Ft)TT 15%, SCa.Sith Figure 32: Original Proceedings Statenede Fest SRD te nt Thue Foun Frey Sixth 0% 10% 20% 308 a. esss. ESET0s, bd 40% 0% 2915 CourtSlatiscsReport Civil Appeals: Time From Notice of Appealto Filing Opinion {90th Percentile and Median} Fiscal Year 2013-14 90%of Appeals Courts of Appeal Figure 33 Processed Within Court District Division Location (days) Median Timein Days Second 6 Ventura 705 a413 First 5 San Francisco 655 113 Fourth 3 Santa Ana m9 ROMANE 420 Second 4 Los Angeles 844 a149 Second 5 Los Angeles 673 Seo 451 First 3 San Fransisco 964 PTE 156 First 4 San Francisco 586 a451 Second 2 Los Angeles m SE457 Second 3 Los Angeles 750 N 485 Second 8 Los Angeles 873 =Ass Second a Los Angeles m EE491 Fourth 1 San Diego 773 —SSs 104 Statewide 807 = First 4 San Francisco 899 ET507 Second Los Angeles 631 a510 First i. San Fransisco 798 515 Fifth Fresno 737 eRFh Sixth San Jose 999 F 017 Third Sacramento Vi VT165 Fourth 2 Riverside 981 FATS113 Juciial Council of Calfemia a £2016 Court Statistics Roport Criminal Appeals: Time From Notice of Appealto Fiting Opinion Courts of Appeal (90th Percentile and Median) Figure 34 Fiscal Year 2013-14 90% of Appeals Court District_ Division Location Fourth 1 San Diego 566 LR 364 Second 5 Los Angeles 587 AP172 ‘Second 6 Ventura es7 Sn305 Second 4 Los Angeles 610 ES400 Second 8 Los Angeles 623 a613 Second 1 Los Angeles 837 AT414 First 1 San Francisco 742 Sa474 Fourth 3 Santa Ana 680 EE175 Sixth San Jose 737 ARES 43) Second 7 Los Angeles 634 MERA 432 Second 2 Los Angeles esr 437 Statewide 722 ——Sas First 4 San Francisco 861 e 144 First 2 San Francisco 7e8 SE450 Third Sacramento 903 a15? Fourth 2 Riverside 700 Se57 First 5 San Francisco 700 EN465 Second 3 Los Angeles 742 SNS475 First a San Francisco 902 EERE 490 Fitth Fresno 759 CAD557 Judicial Council of Cl aa 2015 Court Statistics Report uwodagysonsierguna uaz 0 Me949}oUNOD pe-IPA vee sort S S 688 sre ale 86 veh mur Ae coz BBL 28 eae eze'l ath si0z 0% zp eur's Laat ole or 190s r t Zee 599 w z zane ae 9 096 eue'2 iss zs ves cub 0s ser wat E t e6a'b ego uss ang rag} LST oss ez’ soe goes 08 ee asy'b byt osz ese mee e8L ect ast busz e6s'7 s ¥ 658 za 08 928 gaze wae vei'y B08" owe wise OUBISSE ION aie 20 ars 999 693 vy 7 = = u o t , vee we +5 998 808 068 = S = Lueswa 2re bee e9 675 592 062 ere esz zs 6 08 suoewa, 662 19 698 ves 902 6a = = = guesuia, ale wwe 83 iss 38 106 = - = puosnig eze aie 98 818 298 88 = - = even, ose exe 295 28 268 Ls = = zuaswig see se 158 ass ee ee = = a 4suoRWa hse eas'z zoos ese 08's a resz gIge 098" vere oue'e yaunsigpueses wz 102 v8 ue toe us = = a ake a5 68 ese sie 99 = = = we. we sae eee 665 108 = = oz soz 18 oe ee 965 = — = ez. zz zr 68 89. 909 S = sort Zarb 48) a06't go's eee . m z Lue ure ea’e rien pee auyh —aeerr euiee caste wer stor ear) eiz'sh am'ez z e e p w n s clad lad elas VAS Fig LAS tld PLAS Tad PAL iieg any ray reui6ug ‘Sonnsors esre1 pl-fL0z Pur EL-Z10z SueaA JeDst4 jeaddy jo suneg suonisodsiq pur sBuyjry 40 Arewwng uodea] sovenersunog soz, ‘ueyeS Jowound om 4 w s z w e Z S S B L L SOL S O L E R SZ EZ G U L L S u s a yeuisigwis, z 8 «zi s w B S s o L z O L S S s S I E @ e z Z _ — S s m s LLC w k S E S e k a vo19su d we e a C r e e e n eT bur z e SLL ESaECCdME:SCUE:SC e k k i ) = a C e ee e y 8 9S ASL BHOL Guy gy zz GBS R'L SOB baz’: gig'L «Sk H H L r u ' t ra'sOeL'L o e ) a e d vssp o , sel Sh aSHL Z L b e g 2 0 8 9 6 AZL ZT) «(DOSE bh! Soe puM'L ze} mpc’! 9 0 O e 1010 o a k a tw a8 eee w a z a ak S G M L L O I N Br SL OvGL weak: Shek vk GB aw'L us}. eas) bz't 65") 9B «AOL GON Zig’) BEZZ agl'Z —ouisG puOMag p e wok eS e e e ame w e e s ze ere a h a LZDL zo) m u a isny osy ter s a r y ses’? o z sis's zev'a cosy piety t L ASeZ panc u s cso aes apmaiess ELAS l A d G L A Z PLAS u d WAd CLAD FAS GLAS PIAd GLAS 7IAS GLA PiAd GLAS PAS Hneg ‘aueane reunauo, 9 oquoane reunuuo, io ‘sbupaeaaid readdeJoS=000N vaigeL PL-£L0z PUR £L-ZL0z S1BaA [eOS14 lraddy yo syinog sBuljig yo Arewuing uoday sousieigunog soz ze e1uioyles10younedreaper 8 eo 2 2 we 8 e t h Is 8 ose ue e a s t romsu e s 8 s o e a r 2 ) ol lL eRE Oh Z L youneig Ud a o a r e wor G S L s aee ore se Euojsisa z o 6 9 9 8 e e a a ze ebb uw 6 S S E LE Lo S C A ET 6 C Y T E sor Lb L e s a zw Bf CSHCSCSCLSChhOazz:—«sB_—SsCIT_—SCCLECSCSCCHE:SCSS P M L 4s lB. vetasig yuneg [ Bel B e k a S . z r y i PML, r g = u Ws o k S E L ) a 8 0 ) peubisse son b 2 s a @ a 7 a ‘au o z w a e a s e GS OB ee wm w m 8 B ost HF t O 0 n r ) a OF wz 8 te l b % 0S a e R O z o z e a e w e a s sk 8 z e k e z o y og 2 lyooss sz z s . wz 18 e e s t i o r t h z F r e e S a n e b e e ae oe 0 8 z p Sak ges e t e r c ) a © oc z o o k b o o k a m k s Zvotsvia b E S E aSere tw a e a e e m aah a s k ) u o t sb ty 8 aS G E E S E : G O S S H S A SHS AZT dbhL a1" iautsig puczes ° CREEL o w E T O N N N T T T T w e so 6 gueswig ¢ Z h w o e s o o e S e s ) v8 la u o a t ) r d a 0 s h 9 s aot aw e v o r o o t s e e s m e w 6 Ge an & PRLOTE se a S E S S s 201 ou e 4 sz eDL B S L L P R a w w aes aay 901 $8 gz S0z N e s s a SHE GOL oat) azi'l ep'L Jap'L ua} seo) ese'h on’ epimers vIAd A d PIAS CLAY PIAL GAS PLAS GLAU PLAY G1Ad PLAS GLAY FLAY IAS LAG nes ane eunuo, wo atuaane ewes 19 equaane e u m iy RIOD OE s a g e s leaddy jo sunog, oly pioves WORNdSO M A pi-eh0z ue ¢1-zi0z sie9A feast uoyisodsiq Jo poyjaw—sjeaddy is po si ti Fi sc al Ye ar s 20 12 -1 3 an d 20 13 -1 4 ns of Or ig in al Pr oc ee di ng s a y AO pi ni an Wi th au tO pi ni on Co ur ts of Ap pe al Ta bl e 6 co ur t Co mm in s F y Fr i. Ju ve ni le y t Fy 48 F y ci l Fy ia cr r v ry t “h ov er Fy i4 rt s St at ew id e First Dis tri ct No t a ss ig ne d Tr ed Dis tre t Fo ur th Di st ct Div isi on 1 Div isi on 2 Dis isi on 3 Fif th Dis tri ct Si ch Di st t 10 4a 1 18 4 16 1 a 4 7 65 4 3 4“ 2 12 8 38 50 2 16 2 19 9 55 4 2 7 0 4 49 13 18 ta 35 2 Fy 36 51 12 " " 17 51 28 6 45 no a r 94 ea a n a7 99 ia 45 6 13 5 12 5 19 6 87 78 1,8 08) at o 3 69 65 58 m8 1 9 4 86 ar 40 7 54 95 11 9 16 3 42 5 12 0 14 0 16 5 10 1 30 1 4, 59 6 60 1 12 0 32 47 12 1 32 1 18 18 22 a 21 3 18 0 22 24 19 7 60 1 10 17 17 9 60 4 25 5 45 16 96 14 4 7 13 6 13 1 13 0 or 23 2 21 2 20 3 19 9 16 7 ad zo r 18 0 o7 2 36 1 52 2 10 9 70 8 va r 13 0 8 10 14 16 16 18 22 0 10 3 1“ 18 4 19 6 16 13 39 10 13 n 10 Op in io ns Wr it te n Fi sc al Ye ar s 20 12 -1 3 an d 20 13 -1 4 Tot al Co ur t ry t F a Ap pe al s Co ur ts of Ap pe al Pr oc ee di ng s Ta bl e 7 aa n ev a ry t sdu ven ile F y ry t Cw r y ya , er a ev a Juv eni le e y ry t St at ew id e 9, 78 0 Fir st Dis tic t 12 89 Div isi on 4 27 7 28 1 26 2 21 5 28 4 Se co nd Di Div isi on 1 tut ici al Ca un e o f Ca li fo mi a 9, 62 0 12 81 269 ) 25 2 26 4 28 8 288 . 33 14 41 2 40 8 41 6 39 9 a7 44 40 4 38 6 1. 05 2 2. 69 1 4, 08 2 92 4 nS 4 55 8 2, 96 6 4a 7 10 2 19 7 35 9 39 0 141 32 8 2, 70 8 47 0 90 98 7 95 90 1. 12 2 13 6 46 13 0 12 4 18 7 13 9 49 1 72 47 92 51 7 11 2 10 3 95 101 40 8 50 6 42 ad 48 4 ie 181 27 8 18 8 16 3 71 6 +3 38 46 6 55 8 31 3 37 0 34 5 16 48 va s 82 a7 ar 48 49 60 7 22 20 53 ar 7 or aa a 46 6 18 4 94 17 2 34 1, 64 6 21 8 44 36 56 38 4 50 4 ft 76 a 7 7 82 6 aT wr 49 2 23 7 17 8 WT 12 8 re a2 4 18 13 12 0 sa 10 10 30 rH 90 8 2 3 o 1 7 ° 6 3 1 0 4 o 8 12 16 10 18 7 48 12 18 18 49 68 Fl 2 4 5 8 20 'S Co ur tS tat sti es Re po rt uuodey sonsneigunoo sL0z se 2940young [eEIBN aly aad youSeL puaomsayyYop 4) sfeaddeSeD10U) « :00N 8 on zl gtk k L re Bue we 88 sos evs zee a e R O e o we o r sor aes a a e0e'b 6 rh a a e n 8s ve sty e e s 2001 oz ez o s t ee a s h ssi gis 059 s t a z y aw 8 6 ssi 0b isz siz ris vec ory vas eey 988 b o r a ov zor pee ZG wOS E k me WOE OSTLzeSt zaeL g H suze votgsigune le wos e a g l e . bee 98 Wel ost ga os ess pes) zs't E a e 0 ° ° o 6 8 we ze Gly z e s t auBISSeON zu ez og oe o k 2 te Ie eel st er ize wor 8 2 o s oor aie s e a as L L G hh zuestc) 5 s oe v o t e s e e or ae cd BL 9st ler ob 9 voc, e 2 x o e s @ 1 9 8 oat toh sth e t e r v o s t a n c se wo 88 sor vot e o sub per aes ser Per uotstg s b a so 88 ei aah u e ea we 8 1 h u s o o a oy OF o e a v e ze ver a9 i ee o n z z s 8 = z ay ei vat zee Ory wor 86 92 por ge 2 5 k pee ues kes stor 2007 = iy Sad se 9 s s vr gol pat eee oe no 8 ie 65 le cot e o s set vel otez cae ty « ’ s e i s * ze y e est woz Dor zee ° 6 t e e We io or as 1s Pb luc sor a 8 e a e 6 66 66 ar ez ab se eee w a p wo wm ue var a ) ese Z W zsL BUT voz 862 WIL: eZO'_— sss vost «was zae'C RHE ahh e9s'soz0'sLC'eh a s t apemaneas, a PHDEIC meg reuuaya e e r , leeddy yo syino ‘sreaddepay Bupiea Loz ‘of aunp pue *¢1.0z ‘Og eunr yo se payeug Aung pue je}o1—sjeeddy Buipusg { W a S a Superior Courts Caseloads and Authorized Judicial Positions Superior Courts Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Figures 1-2 Get this ata Figure 1; Total Filings and Dispositions aa commnemeens Dispositions 12,000,000 9,000,000 6,000,000 3.000.000, 0 - Fyos Fvas Fay, YOR FOS FYI FIT. FIZ. FYI. FTA Figure 2; Total Filings and Dispositions perJudicial Position Filings per Judicial Position Dispositions par sudicial Position 8.00 4,500 ——— 3.000 1,508 Fvos pyos. FYO?, FYOB FYOS) FYI. FYIY, «BVH FYI. RV tudcial Counel of Calfornia 39 2015 Court Statistics Report Civil Filings and Dispositions Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Figure 3: Total Civil Filings and Dispositions Superior Courts Figures 3-9 20030 _ Flings ——— Dispositions sme ‘san eg fae eer eva aah pov) Pha Prarie Figure 5 MotorVilPOA Froute other Pypaiwo Figure4 civil Untimited \ sam sooan ae 000 ow = ( Figure 7: Civil Complaints { Fis sue Fr wu | = | sao Figure 8: Civil Limited Judeial Council of Calitornia Figure 9: Small Claims =. 40 2818 Coun Statistics Report CalCourTools: Caseload Clearance Rates Civil Unlimited,Civil Limited, Small Claims Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Superior Courts Figures 10-16 Bal] corse Figure 10; Total Civil Cirarance Rate equals the number of outgoing cases as a percentage (of tie number ofincoming cases, A clearance rate of 100% indicates that tio numer ot cases disposed ‘fin any given year equals ‘ha number of cases fled . Disposttionsa8 Clearance Rate= Filngs as Figure 12: MotorVehicle PLPOIWD Figure 13: Omer PUPOWD Figure 11: Civil Untimited \ 158 188 o% % ie (gure14: cia Complaints Figure 15: GivilLimited Figure 18: Small Claims Jucicil Council of Califia a 2015 Court Statistics Report CalCourTools: Time to Disposition Civil Unlimited, Civil Limited, Small Claims Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Superior Courts Figures 17-20 1)ee Givil Case ProcessingTime(percent of cases disposedwithin specified periods) TheStandardsof Judicial Administration establishes case processing timeto disposition goals for aifferent types ofcivil cases, which are presentedbelowwith the specific time standards and target performance level, Standard Tamet Time standard Gaal Figure 17: Civil Untirated 100% eee 50% ‘Standard witbin a8 months ass Within 12 months 0 25% a Free: Fro Fyn Pea Fiqure 18: Unlawful Detainer oY standard rat 100% Within 30Days ‘se 2% 0% 08 Py rs tuticial Council of California 2 Figure 18: Limited civil Se wateinomSeian Figure 20: Small Claims 100% “%en sone Standard aryet 200% Within 700345 sate 25% Fo05 Fro Fyn or 2018 Court Statistics Report Caseflow ManagementData Stage of Case at Disposition — Civil Figure 21 Fiscal Year 2013-14 Figure 21: How and at what stage are civil cases resolved? Unlimited Civil [Number disposed batfora tal Number disposed after trial Bytuy Box | 5CoTST2 (22%) Tate Nove BB 935% Limited Civil Number disposed before tril 475,918 (96%) Numberdisposed stertral 7 Bowe ‘Small Claims ‘Number disposes before ta 67,160 (22%) Number disposed afte trial 92.125 (58%) ugicia Counel of Caltornia 43 2075 Court Statistics Raport Criminal Filings andDispositions Superior Courts Fiscal Years 2004-05through 2013-14 Figures 22-26 Figure 22: Felony Filings — Disposiicas meen Fras Prue er Fea FY05 a ne Fras Poe vn rie Fes 1s a rw Judicial Gounel af Cal fornia “4 2015 Court Stalistes Report CalCourTools: Caseload Clearance Rates Criminat Felonies, Misdemeanors,Infractions FiscalYears 2004-05 through 2013-14 Figure 27: Felony Figure 28: Nontraffic Misdemeanor Figure 30: Nontraffic Infraction ay tudi.al Council of California Superior Courts Figures 27-31 Ba senses Clearance Rate equals the numbat of outgoing cases as a percantaye ofthe numberofincarning cases ‘clearance rate of 100% incicates thatthe number of cases diaposed ofin any givenyear equals the umberof easesfled Dispositions Clearance Rate ~ Filings Figure 23: Traffic Misdemeanor Figure 31: Traffe Infraction 2015 CourStatistics Report CalCourTools: Timeto Disposition — Criminal Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Figure 32: Felonies disposed within 12 months ro 100% —--—— 73% 50% 0% Fos rv Figure 33: Felonies resulting in bindover or certified pleas, Pia Superior Courts Figures 32-34 Bal) sens sao Criminal Case Processing Time {percent of eases disposed wihinspecified periods} The Standards of Judicial Administration establishes case processingtime to disposition goals for different types of criminal cases, which are presented below with the specific ime standards and target performancelevel In teas than 90 days inless than 45 days Tavtet wtEs ft100% 00% 100% see 13% 7B % soe 30% 25% 28% 25% a 0% OMFos FeV Sos we FY Prk rye rye pyit vid Figure 34: Misdemeanors disposed io tons thn 30 diye a than 90 days aes fn fees than {20 days dager 100% 100% 00% sm —~___ Se 7 75% 50% 0% 50% 28% 25% 28% o% ow o%reer vla ae tos emp ei Frat Jusiis! Counc of California 4 2015 Court StatistReport Caseflow Management Data Stageof Case at Disposition — Felony Fiscal Year 2013-14 Figure 35: How andat what stageare felony cases resolved? ‘otal felony dispositions (notincluding felonypetitions) 255,062 Number disposed before trial 248,734 (er) Court trials 75 (1%) Jury tals 5543 (ey Judicial Council of California a Superior Courts Figure 35 sa is dale NoynentTT ‘sceneMo amAeuilas missls, Hon nicsTTTox, Box mi Misdomeaner Aut, trie, and ier Feary eomietons ere MtnsBy an donisat,ore BD 14% ‘ransere 2035 Court Statistics Report Caseflow ManagementData Superior Courts Stage of Case at Disposition — Misdemeanors and Infractions Figure 36 Fiscal Year 2013-14 alc Figura 36: How and at what stage are misdemeanor and infraction cases resolved? Nontraffic Misdemeanors (99%) >7A3: Traffic Misdemeanors Nurnbor laposed before tal bal orotues 2% (39%) ote BI 19% Number disposeater il oei | cae 1%): yy SR 25 Nontraffic Infractions Number disposed before trial Bail Feretures TT 35% Ober RI 3375 Numbar disposed after vial - Court Tras any Hi - (o%) Traffic Infractions. Number disposed before ial Bal Fortec SAIN 3 (92%) tor RN 37% Number dispasadallerial CourtTats only ew Judicial Council of California 4B 2018 Cour Statistics Report Family and Juvenile Filings and Dispositions Fiscal Years 2004—05 through 2013-14 Figure 37: Family Law — Marital aI“ Figure 39: Juvenile Delinquency Judicial Couretof California 48 Superior Courts Figures 37-40 Got tnis dana Filings. —__ Dispositions —astammenet Figure 38: Family Law Petitions Figure 40: Juvenile Dependency 2015 Court Stalistes Report CalCourTools: Caseload Clearance Rates Superior Courts Family Law, Juvenile Dellnquency, Juvenile Dependency Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 CClearanca Rale equals the numbar af aulgoing cases as a percentage of the number of incoming cases. A clearance rate of 100% indicates thatthe numberofcasesd spased oFin any given yearequals the numberof casesfled. Dispositions Clearance Rat Flings Figure 44: Farnlly Law — Martal Figure 42: Family Law Petitions r 2% Figure 44: Juvenile Dependency Figure 48: Juvenile Delinquency ludiial Coune of California 0 2015 Covet Statistics Report Probate, Mental Health, Appeals, Habeas CorpusFilings and Dispositions Fiscal Years 2004-05through 2013-14 Figure 45: Probate Figure 47: Appeals, Jucicial Council of California st Superior Courts Figures 45~48 Bab sense. Filings —_— Dispostions seme Figure 46: Mental Health Figure 48: Criminal Habeas Corpus 5.000 a- 2015 Court Statstes Report CalCourTools: Caseload Clearance Rates Probate, Mental Health, Appeals, Habeas Corpus Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Superior Courts Figures 49-52 Clearance Rate equals the numberof ourgoing cases 3sa vercentage of the numberafIncoming cases. clearance rate of 100% indicates thatthe number ofcasosdisposee of in ary givenyear equals the aumber af casesfled, Dispositions Clearance Rate = Filings Figure 49: Probate Figure 51: Appesls lucia Council of Calfornia 22 Figure 50: Mental Health Figure 52: Criminal Habeas Corpus 2015 Court Statistics Report Caseflow ManagementData Trials By Typeof Proceeding Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Superior Courts Figures 53-65 uytie citi co Fae 53: Tals coving 500,000 os 15,900 & 400,000ue 12,000 w ° ° Jy Tals Court Trials ~ _7 =pe i ——__— Trial Court Workload and Resources Superior Courts Judicial Positions and UseofJudicial Assistance Figures 66-69 Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 I Gel Definition of Terms. Assossed Judiclal Neod (AJN}: Rapresonts the est mated numberofjusicial offiners needed ta handle the workload nthe tral caurts hased on the Judicial Needs Assessment Project. Tho Judiclal Needs Assessment Projecl was approved by he Juricial Caunel in 2001 as the retnoclagy for ‘evelvating judicial workload and the need for new judgeships. In 2004, the Judicia Counell approved a minor cnangein the assessment methocology thatuses 2 3-year average fkngs data instead of using a single year, The AIN numbers are updated ona 2-yoar cycle n even-numbered years, and the value for FY 202-14 rearescnts the recent2014 update that was presented ta ine Judirial Council atte December 2014 maating Judictat Position Equivalents (JPE): eflactsauthe‘ized judicialpostions adjusted for vacancies, assistance rendered by the cour, ard assistance recaived by the court tomassigned judges, temporary judges, commissioners, and referees, Authorized Judicial Positians (AIP): Numberof authorized judgeships, commissioners, ard referees. Authorized Judgeships: Number afjusigeships suthorzed in stetute. The 60 new judgeships authorized but not funded by Assembly Bil 18 cffectiva Janvary 2008, are includedin he stateside total Judicial Assistance Received by Trial Courts: Includes only assistanoe rendered by judgesthrough assignments. Deesnatinclude assistance Yenderad by commas uners, raferees, and temporary judges (these are included in JPE}, Figure 66: Total Judlelal Position Equivalents (JPE) Figure 67: Total Authorized Judicial Positions (AIP) and Assessed Judicial Noed (AN) and Assessed Judicial Need (AIN) OO rer 1 — aN * an re —ar Figure 68: Authorized Judgeships Figure 69: Judicial Assistance Received by Trial Courts (days receved So Judicial Council of Callornia oa 2015 Court Statistics Report Trial Court Workload and Resources Superior Courts Subordinate Judicial Officer Conversions Table 1 Fiscal Years 2007-08 through 2013-14 Background CCalfornia rule of cour: 10.709 providesfartho use af subordinate judicial lficers(Ss)to perfor subordinatejudicial dutics. A presiding judge mey also assign a SJO ta act asa temporary judge where lawl ithe presiding judge determincsthat itis necossary fa the affective edm istration of Justice because af a shoriage ofjudges, During the 1980s and 1980, the shortage ofjudicial postions across tha state led many ral cours fa create SJO positionste manage ther caseloads, ‘Tha stagnation in the number of new judgeships comsined withthe grawathinthe numberof S40 pasitions created an imhalance in many cous. with 80s spending much af their tine warklng as lw mporary judges. To restore the appropriate balance between ludges and SOsin the triscourts, in 2007 the Legislture passed AB 159 which authonzed the conversion ®t162 SJ0 positions to judgeshipsin 25 cours where the judciat workload assessment detoiminedthatthe numberof SJ0s exceeded the workload appropriate to 8JOs. ‘Table 1: Subordinate Judicial Officer Conversions Positions TotalEglo for Remaining ‘or Conversion 2097-08 2008-09 2009-10 201011201112 207213201314 Conversion ‘Alameda 6 0 a 1 2 3 ° 0 9 Contra Costa 6 a a 1 ° ° o 4 2 El Dorado 2 0 1 o 1 ° D 0 a Fresno 3 0 1 o 1 t ° 1 o Imperial 4 o a ° 1 a o o ° Korn 2 a 1 0 ° ° a a 1 Los Angeles nm 4 5 7 7 8 4 7 a4 Mein 2 a 0 o o 1 1 a ° Meroed 2 o 1 o o 1 a ° ° Napa 1 ° ° . 0 a 0 ° 1 Orange 14 1 2 2 2 a 2 2 ° Placer 1 ° o ° & a a ° 1 Riversiso 6 1 1 o a 1 3 o ° Sacrament 5 1 2 ° a 2 ° ° ° San Diego 7 2 0 a a ° 1 1 a San Francisco a 1 o 1 a ° ° ° 7 SanLuis Obispo 2 1 p ° 0 ° ° 4 1 San Mateo 2 ° ° 0 o ° ° 0 2 Santa Barbara 2 ° ° 2 o ° ° 0 a Santa Cruz 1 ° o o 8 1 ° ° ° Solano 3 1 2 o ° v a o Sonoma 2 0 o 1 1 ° 0 a o Stan'siaus 1 a 0 0 1 6 a ° o Tulare 2 a 0 1 0 a a 1 Yolo 2 1 0 o 0 1 Total 162 16 16 16 6 20 3 " 4 stucicial Council of California 2018 Court Statsties Report JBSIS Courts as of Fiscal Year 2013-14 ‘Thefollowing table shows the courts that are submitting data via JBSIS v2.3 (Judicial Branch Statistical Information System) asof the endof fiscal year 2013-14, For updated information, court staff with access. to the password-protected Serranus website maylog in directly to JBSISat hite/jbsis. courts.ca.gov. asgh 2 2 Fi Fide dR 2 gla $82 5 6 & 2/38 38 & ae Sueiorcon § 2 2 8 € 8 8 €@ & aoa. “Alameda x x x x | a. x ‘ine xxx x x) xX) xx xX) xX xX) xX Calaveras xx) x |x) x [x] x xix Tx Colusa x x x xx x xx Conia Gosta x x xX Xx x xX F1Dorado x kx |x x) x xX x x x HHumbot xX xX) xX Kx) x) x x KTR Imperial x x [x x x |x |x x) xX x x x r x x x x x x x x x x x | : x xX XK xX xX xX KK TX x >x x |x] x xX) x) x) x |x Kx eR EX ee eT x . eka x Pee a] x ix xxx xe peo eo x XO k «eX x x ee Ce Dee 7 xs x x x x x x x x x ° x x Plumas x Tx CTR ae RT x Riverekie x x x kK Sacramento a x ‘ KL San Bento x Xe ee ee x San Bemardn x 5 ~ San Joaquin - x x x x San Luis Obispo x HX ee ee “San Mateo x Sania Barbara x xX x xX x) x [ - x x x x x x x xx x x x | CRTET I x x Xx xk eX x xX x) x Xx x [x x |x px x x x |x DX xt x x x x x x x x x x | x x SX. {xe & lo» | 1% KK ke ek | x xX x) x) xX x xX x xX usiciat Caunel af California 56 2018 Court Statistics Report Appendixes Appendix A Courts With Incomplete Data JBSIS report type 4b Appellate Divisian Appeals JBSIS report type 5a Limited Civil JBSIS report type Sb Unlimited Civil JBSIS report type 6a Famiy Law JBSIS report type 7al7bi7e Felony JBSIS report type 64 JBSIS report type 9a UBSIS report type 10a JBSIS report type Ta Juvenile Delinquency Juvenile Dependency JBSIS report type 12a Probate UBSIS report type43a ‘Small Claims Court Report Mental Health Misdemeanors and Infractions Incomplete Data, Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Contra Costa Fresno Nevada Orange Placer Sierra Judicia! Council of California UBSIS report types 68, 8a, 98 JBSIS report type 9a JBSIS repart types 7a, 7b, 11a JBSIS report types 6a, 10a, ita, 12a JBSIS report types 7a, 7b, 10a, 11a JASIS report types4b, 5a, 5b, 6a, 7a, 7b,8a, 9a, 10a, 11a, 12a, 13a 59 Reportssubmitted but incomplete or na disposition data reported. Reports submitted but incomplete disposition data reparted. Reports submitted but incomplete disposition data reported Reports submitted but incomplete or nodisposition data reported. Reports submitted but incomplete disposition data reported Reports submitted but incomplete or no disposition data reported. 2015 Court Statistics Report APPENDIX B SupremeCourt Glossary Thedefinitions in this glossaty are intended anly to provide context and a general understanding ofthe information in this publication. They are not to be relied on as legal authority or cited as authoritative attorney disciplinary proceedings Proceed. ings concerning possible suspension, disbarment, and public ofprivate reproval of allorneysfor alleged violations of law or rules ofprofessional conduct. Other State Bar filings include requests for approval of ruls proposals. motions forthe admission of attameys, reports of criminal convictionsand other administrative matters relating to the admission anddiscipline of attorneys. Most matters are resolved bythe entry of anorderin the SupremeCourt adopting the recommendation of the State Bar Court. Requests for approval of a rule may be resolved by an order adopting or denying the request, ora retransfer of the matterto the State Bar, all undertaken by the Court acting atits weekly conference. If the Supreme Court grants review of an attorney disciplinary proceeding, the matterwill be handling in the same manner as any casein which review hasbeengranted. The California Rules of Court govern petilions for review of disciplinary matters by the respondent attormey and the Stale Bar's Office of Chief Trial Gounsel In addition, the Suprome Court may, onits own motion, grant review ar return a matterto the State Bar Court for reconsideration. automatic appeal A criminal appeal by opera- tion of law, directly from a superior court to the Supreme Court, upon imposition of a judgment of death. civil Pertaining to an appeal or original proceedingin a case that is neither a criminal nor a juvenile delinquencycase. criminal Pertaining to an appealor original proceedingin a case charging the violationof criminal law. Judicial Councl of Galtoria 60 depublished opinion A Court af Appeal opinion that the Court of Appeal has certified for Publication but that the SupremeCourt, acting Underits constitutional power over opinion publi- cation, directs the Reporterof Decisionsnot to Publish in the Official Reports, and that may be cited of relied upon onlyin limited circumstances (see Cal, Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b)}. inal proceedings Petitions for writs within the Supreme Court's originaljurisdiction. The most common types are mandamusand prohi- bition, which may relate to eithercivil or criminal matters, and habeas corpus. petition for review A request for Supreme Court review of a Court of Appeal decision. petition for review denied An order by the Supreme Court declining review of a Court of ‘Appeal decision. petition for review granted An orderbythe ‘SupremeCourt granting review af a Court of Appeal decision. petition for review granted and held An order by the Supreme Court granting review of a Court of Appeal decision that will be held for final action until a lead case addressing a related issue has been decided by the Supreme Court, petition for review granted and transferred An order by the Supreme Court granting review of Court of Appeal summary denialin an original proceeding and transferring reviow of the case to a Court of Appealfor further proceedings. request for publication or depublication A.case in which the sole relief requested is forthe SupremeCourt to order that a Court of Appeal decision be either published or depublished. written opinion The written decision, with reasonsstated, that describes and oxplains the ‘outcome of a Supreme Court case. 2015 Court Staistes Report APPENDIX C Courts of Appeal Glossary Thedefinitionsin this glossary are intended only to provide context and @ general understanding ofthe information in this publication. They are not to be relied on as legal authority or cited as authoritative. appeal A proceeding for direct review of a judgment of an appealable order afa trial court Excludescollateral review by means of an original proceeding. (See “civil appeal’ and “criminal appeal") civil appeat An appealin a casethat is neither a criminal nora juvenile delinquency case. civil original proceeding Any original pro- ceedingin which the underlying caseis not related to a violation of criminal law. Court of Appeal The California court that heats (1) appeals in all noncapital cases in which a superior court has original jurisdiotion and (2} appeals underother special circumstances, as prescribed by law. criminal appeal An appeal from the judgment or order in a case charging a violation of criminal law. criminal original proceeding Any original proceedingin which the underlying case is related ta a violation ofcriminal law. disposition Termination of an appealororig nal proceeding. Court of Appeal dispositions are either by written opinion or without opinion (with or without a record filed). fully briefed appeal A pending appealin which all briefs have been filed ludcial Counctaf California 8 mediantime In listing where time values are placed in order from shortest to longest, the value with half of the cases aboveit andhalf belowit. 90th percentile time In a listing where time valuesare placed in order from shortest to longest, the value with 10 percent afthe cases aboveit and 90 percent below it. notice filed The filing of a notice of appealin the superior court, initiating the appellate process. original proceedings Cases begunin an appellate court, commonly called writ proceedings. The most commonare writs of mandamusand prohibition, usually seeking an order addressedto a lowercourt, and writs of habeas carpus, usually addressed to a person holding anotherin official custody. (See "civil original proceeding’ and “criminal original proceeding.”) pending appeal An appeal awaiting decision, record filed Thefiling of the trial court clerk's transcript (copies ofdocumentsfiled in the case) and the reporter's transcript (the typed version of oral proceedings). 2018 Court Statistics Report APPENDIX D Superior Courts Glossary Thedefinitionsin this glossary are intended onty to provide context and a general understanding of the information in this publication. They are notto be relied on as fogal authority or cited as authoritative appeal A proceedingfor direct review of a civil of criminal judgmentfrom limited jurisdiction case,including small claims matters. assessedjudge need (AJN}: Represents the estimated number ofjudicial officers neededto handle the workloadin the trial courts based on the Judicial Needs Assessment Project. caseload clearance rate Clearancerates show the numberof outgoing cases as a percentage of the numberof incomingcases. They measure whetherthe court is disposing ofcases in a timely fashion or whether a backlog of cases is growing commissioner A subordinate judicial officer, employed by the court, who performs judicial or quasi-judicial duties assignedto him or her. A commissioner may be authorized to decide only limited pretrial issuesoffact and law of to con- duct complete trials, Commissioners frequently act as ternporary judges. disposition Termination of a proceeding. Civil dispositions before trial include transfers to another tral cour, dismissals, summary judg ments, and other judgments, Criminal dispositions before trial include transfers to another trial court, sentences after pleas of guilty oF no contest, and dismissals. Civil dispositions allertial include entry of judgment afterjury trial and court trial. Criminal dispositions aftertrai include acquittals, grants of probation, and sentences after conviction tudicial Counel of Calfornia cy family law (marital) Proceedings in which a petition has beenfiled for dissolution or voiding of a marriage ar for legal separation. family law petitions Family law cases other than marital cases, such as domestic violence petitions and petitions filed by the Departmentof Child Support Services (CSS)for reimburse- ment of child support felony A criminal case alleging an offense punishable by imprisonment in a state prison or by death. filings in civil matters Civil cases for which complaints or petitions have been filed. filings in criminal matters The number of defendants against whom criminal charges have been filed. filings in juvenile matters The number of minors who are the subjects ofpetitions, judgeship A judicial position conferring power to exercise the full legal authorityof the court in which the judge sits (by selection or assignment). The term "Judgeships." as used in this report, represents the numberof positions authorized by law, whether filled or vacant. judicial position equivalents An estimate of the numberof judicial officers who were present and available to conduct court business. Thenumber includes authorized judgeships (adjusted to reflect judicial vacancies and assis- tance given to other courts} and assistance teceived from assigned judges, full-time and part time commissioners and referees, and temporary Judges serving by stipulation of the parties. Judicial positions The numberof judgeships authorized by law, plus positions of referees and commissioners. juvenile delinquency proceedings Pelitions filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging violation ofa criminal statute, and petitions filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 601, alleging that a minoris boyond the controtof parents or guardians but has not 2015 CourtSalisReport violated any law. Anoriginal petition begins a delinquency proceeding. A subsequent petition addsallegations against a minor child who is, already subject to the courts jurisdiction. juvenile dependency proceedings Petitions filed under Welfare and Institutions Cade section 300, seeking to make a minorchild a ward of the court becauseof abuse or neglect. An original petition begins a dependency proceeding. A subsequent petition adds alfegations regarding a minor child who is already subject to the court's, jurisdiction. limited civil All civil matters with a value of $25,000 orless, except small claims matters. mental health proceedings Includes most types of mental health cases, inchiding but not limited to postosrtification treatment (W&I 5300), LPS Conservatorship (Wal 5350), narcotics addict (W&l 3050/3051), commitments (PC 2966), mental competency (PC 1368), sexually violent predator (Wl 6600), juvenile (W8l 1800), mentally retarded and dangerous (Wal 6500), and Wal Code, § 4500 motorvehicle personalinjury, death, and property damage Actions for damages in sxcess of $25,000 for physicalinjury to persons and property andactionsfor wrongful death related to matar vehicle accidents. nontraffic infractions Nontraffic violations of slate slalutes or local ordinances specified as infractions nontraffic misdemeanors Misdemeanors including intoxication complaints and violations of the Penal Code,local city and county ordinances, and the Fish and Game Code ‘other civil complaints and petitions Cases not covered in any other civil case category, including complaints for declaratory relief only. mechanics’ lens, and petitions for partnership and corporate governance. If the requested reliefis for money,it must be in excess of $25,000 ta befiled as a generaljurisdiction case. Judicial Council at Caifornia 83 other mentalhealth proceedings Includes, ‘other mental health cases not included in the mental health category as well as noncriminal habeas corpus. personal injury, death, and property damage All actions for damages in excess ‘of $25,000for physical injury to persons and property and all actions for wrongful death probate and guardianship All probate proceedings. will contests, guardianship and conservatorship proceedings {including con- setvatorship proceedings underthe Lanterman- Patris-Short Act), and petitions ta compromise ‘minars' claims {when not part of a pending action or proceeding). feduced to misdemeanor Cases in which a charge originally fled as a felonyis disposed of as a misdemeanor, referee A subordinate judicial officor employed bya county to handle matters assigned by the court, suchastraffic law violations small claims All matters filed in small claims court (value of $10,000 or less). time to disposition The amountoftimeit takes a court to dispose of cases within established time frames. traffic infractions Trattic-related violations of stato statutes or city or county ordinances specified as infractions, excluding parking violations. traffic misdemeanors Violationsof Vehicle Code § 20002 (hit and run, property damage), 23104 (reckless driving, causing injury), and 23152(driving und.ertheinfluence of aleahol ar drugs) and all other traffic misdemeanors. unlimited civil All civil matters with a value of more than $25,000. 2015 Court Sitisties Report APPENDIX E — Courts of Appeal Data Tables Summary ofFilings Courts of Appeal Fiscal Years 2004-05through 2013-14 Data for Figures 6-7 Bg oroorn Contested mates steel riginal proceedings Por Pac T Per utronrea suthorzed auther2e9 sushorzed Focal year | ust Total juste Total justice Tota usteo ® >) © ©) io 163 via 0s _23,188 92, 13.182 26 706 7 ra 10520301 443.020 ‘24 7371 70 FY2 Ws 21.84 208, 19.408, “29 339 ab ryt tos 23.021 21 13.980 193, 9071 ry 0 ws Z2515 2419738 a1 ar? a Fv08 405 _72.030 13617 10 sais 60 FvG6 10573675 ms 13870 133 705 2 Fv07 105 215 ate 125 9407 0 Fv06 105, 72.150, si) 13.598 129 set 2 FY05 105 21.801 zoo ae 126 ast 63 Coturan Key: 6) 11 “Total contested matter moans al aucand enginproceedings i exchades motions te demise oh clus arial, rehearings, ane misnalaneous cere, wich dono sigifcaly acta the cours weklood i ara © beK is) Fra Council of Californa 6a 2015 Court Statstios Repor: Recordof Appeal Filings Courts of Appeal Fiscal Years 2004-05through 2013-14 Data for Figures 8-14 All Districts Total Criminal Juvenile Fyt4 13,182 6,082 FY13 13,020 5,775 Fy12 13,498 6.145 eyt 13,880 6522 i) FY10 13,738 6.549 FY09 13.817 6,458 FYo8 13,970 6,531 FYo7 13,125 6,224 FYO6 13,539 6,351 FY05 13.227 6,162 District 4 District 2 Total Civil Criminal Juvenile Total Civil Criminal Juvenile Fyt4 1,876 826 862 388 Fvt4 4236 1,587 1,992 1,047 FY13 1,823 823 653 347 FAS 4.191 1,742 1,570 879 Fy12 1,848 843 674 331 Fy12 4399 1,700 4,704 Fytt 1,974 886 759 32602 FY41 4887 1,852 4,913 FY10 1,943 864 756 323 FY10 4415 1,723 1,808 Fy09 1,861 B12 704 345 FYOS 4,442 1,672 1,881 Fyo8 2,010 820 851 339 FYOB 4761 1,931 1,884 FYO7 2,054 846 818 390 FYOT 3906 1,513 4.732 Fyo6 1,973 798 B14 361 FYO6 4275 1,692 4,826 FYO5 2,014 868 806 340 FyOS 3.931 1,847 1,690 District 3 District 4 Total Civil Criminal Juvenile Total Criminal Juvenile Fy14 1,579 322 4,006 251 Fy 3,509 4,219 1,605 485 FY13 1,566 308 992 266 FYI 343g 1,274 1,437 728 Fvi2 1,666 323, 1,028 315 Fy12 3,588 41,282 1,551 755 FY11 1,708 324 1,019 366 rytt 3675 1,232 1,784 659 FY10 1,750 3t7 1,028 405 FY10 3515 1,173 1,744 598 FY09 1.718 305 957 453 FvoS 3585 4,214 1,701 673 FY08 1,704 294 1,058 362 FY0B 3,482 1,404 1,598 780 FYO7 1,629 290 985 354 FYO7 3513 1.187 1,541 818 FY06 1,753 357 1,002 394 FYO6 3472 1,206 4,871 695 Fv05 1,782 406 987 3890 FOS 3335 1,153 1.482 700 District 5 District 6 Total Civil Criminal Juvenile Total ci Criminal Juvenile Fyta 1,125 174 19 2320 «FY14 857 236 498 12 FY13 4,208 208 680 313 FY13 200 254 443 103 Fv12 4,182 208 693 281 Fy12 815 245 495 75 FY41 4.148 224 597 330 Fyit 760 232 450 8 Fy10 1,335 246 760 329 FY10 780 216 453 4 FY09 1,249 207 762 280 FYO9 768 215 453 97 Fy0B 1,252 224 713 318 Fyo8 761 253 427 a FYO7 4,270 210 723 3a7 Fvo7 753 246 425 82 vos 1,256 214 671 an FY06 810 234 467 103 FY0S 1,344 247 744 363 FYO5 824 245 453 123 Judicial Goune lof Caltornia 6 2018 Cour Statistics Rana Original ProceedingFilings Courts of Appeal Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Data for Figures 15-21 All Districts Total Civil Criminal Juvenile Fyt4 7.016 1,851 4,742 423 FY13 7.374 1,916 5,005 490 Fy12 8,396 1,982 5,945 469 FY11 9,074 2,122 8,533 416 at thie graphic Fv10 8,777 2,017 6,305 455 FvO9 8413 2,139 5,788 486 FYo8 9,705 2,444 6,701 560 FYo7 9407 2.488 6,195 724 Fy08 8.611 2,633 5,197 781 FY0S 8,674 2.517 218 District 1 District 2 Total Civil Criminat_ Juvenite Total Civil Criminal Juvenile Fy14 1.022 309 629 Ba Fy14 2.816 744 1,624 148 FY13 aa 330 704 7 Fy43 2,534 745 1,640 149 Fy12 1,236 307 860 69 Fyi2 2.813 795 1,863 155 FYI 4.298 320 904 74 FY 3,174 896 2,140 4138 FY10 1.313 320 931 62 Fy10 3,101 B16 2,100 185 FY09 4,239 381 787 ra Yo 2,948 842 1,958 148 FY08 1.426 430 928 68 FY08 3,619 984 2,426 209 FyoT 1,379 448 843 88 FYO7 3,183 978 1,962 243 FY06 1.314 456 757 101 FYO6 3,087 1,151 1,731 208 FY05 1,364 4i7 830 14 FYO5 3,012 1,028 1,781 203 District 3 District 4 Total Civil Criminal Juvenile Total Civil Criminal Juvenile Fy1a 793 134 598 61 Fyia 1.571 457 1,048 66 Fy1g 788 143 601 44 FY13 1,663 476 1,089 98 Fy12 295 162 631 43 Fv12 2,012 510 1,893 109 FYI 1,067 17 29 61 FYI1 2,076 490 1,518 68 Fv10 979 160 756 63 FY10 1,954 483 1,406 85 Fy09 894 160 660 74 FY09 1,946 530 1,317 99 Fyo8 1,056 192 792 72 FY08 577 1,408 118 yo? 1,052 234 752 66 FYO7 4,452 195 FYO6 855 207 577 m1 Frys 4141 251 FY05 869 218 581 70 FYO5 4.119 255 District 5 District 6 Total Civil Criminal Juvenile Total Civil Criminal Juvenile Fytd 769 102 B14 53 Fyt4 345 105 229 " Fv13 878 104 712 62 F183 397 118 259 20 Fv12 1,022 116 824 82 Fy12 ay 92 ata "1 FYt1 991 136 792 63 FYit 465) 103 350 12 FY10 966 144 752 70 FY10 464 94 360 10 FY09 923 122 729 72 Fyo9 463 404 337 22 Fy08 985 139 712 74 FYOB 516 122, 378 19 FY07 4,021 102 209 110 FYO7 529 130 377 22 Fy06 939 100 697 142 FYo6 426 121 294 " PY0S 978 92 735 184 FYOS 438 17 293 25 JJaicial Council of Calfornia 6 2048 CourStatistics Report Appeals Terminated by Written Opinion Courts of Appeal Fiscal Years 2011-12 through 2013-14 Datafor Figures 22-27 Ba ces came Total caoee ‘térnance Revered” Dismissed Toil Ful Wah moatcaton Fiscal year Number Percent, Number Percent Number Percent, Number) Percent Number Percent Number Percent LB IOS ONtatty Total appeals Fri 9.293) 100% 8% 7o% 1.629] 18%] 880) gh) 280 Fria 9.155 100% Br 89% 1618 tah 870.0% 2a Fvi2 9.846, -00% am 70% 1740 18% 884 t0% 05 Criminal appeals bydefendants Fria 2483, 100% 4.201) Bate] 3.082 4,109) 35x! es) a) aa) vis 4.593 100%) 4837 84% 3.568 Be%TLi71 25K tela Teo Fri2 2,860, 100% 4.523, 80% 3.305 BOK 1217 5% 212,GBH Criminal appeals by prosecution Fria 172) 100% 14]_—6a%| St] 70%) 0] aX St) ao) Fv 110 100% 67 BIBS Prt 12 100%, ot TK, BSH) TTR! cil appeals ua 2988 100%) 2.38i| AK) 2.068) 9%) 13) TO%| san)ar! is FYI Zeit 100% 2217 79% 491 Ga% BETO t Fv12 3112 100% 2.468 73% 2.178 7O% Zee,tB OTe Jovenappeals (criminal violation)” Fyi4 53d 100 ai8 | 352) 66% 128] 2A a7 9% 5 1% rvs 517 100% 459° 8K 820 Ha aT Bi tot Fviz 51219 47 92%|517,—62% 153) GOH) ner juvenite appeats® Fv 2420 100%) 962) BSS) BOT 7 8%) a) Fvi3 i124 100% 919° aK Bre 2h 98H H0% Pye 1282) Wome 1018, ga, ua som aT) 153, Column Key: IA} O-¥14+K Total does not match thatin column E of Tablo 1 because of missing data Percontages ane caculaled based ‘on totals shown ineolumn A 8) D1 +4. Camponanss may natadd total because of rounding Notes: > Juverile appesis fled under Weif Inst Code, § 802. allegingviolation ofa criminal statute © suerite appeased ander Wel & nel Code, § 300oF § 67. These eases do not nvplve va tions of criminal statutes Judicial Coune | of California a 2015 Cour! Stalistics Repor Percentageof Majority Opinions Published Courts of Appeal Fiscal Year 2013-14 Datafor Figures 28-32 TTeee Distt Tofel__ehitappenls__Appesis___Appoals_ Ora Proceedings sinteide *% 12% as 2% ak 10% im w 1% 10% sacons &% a o o% wm Ted v6 an % o% on Four r% 1m % % pith om 12% nm 1% sien *% we om Counel of California 68 2015 Court Statistics Report APPENDIX F — Superior Court Statewide Data Tables Caseloads and Authorized Judicial Positions Superior Courts Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Data for Figures 1-2 Bad) conse { I Fiirgs ispoiions | Prius! | Prius Total seston Tota poston! | | (ey | _ (2) i) 2.024 7.488.900 3.700, 6722.50 3221] 200d Tamas etre aan 2004 6556775 4.225, __7.575.260 3743 2022,” 9440.76, Sa. SS. 4.229| 222 orrava 4,984) 8.189.009 4.344) 2022 jo2s667s,~S~«S 072) Te8.st0 4336 2022) 9902,542 4744, 7.9001 1972 5.09.09 902) 7.893.892 122) _9,161,18« 4767| 7.776.098 iat?) aorz.0%4 46507 806.235 olurnn Key: a Judie’al positions include authorized commissioners and refereesin addtion to the number ofjudges suthorized for tre cour. Tha SO naw judyush ps autierizad bul not funues by Assembly8158, effective January 2008, sre includedin column A BIA (el EIA Note: Dispositions are unde-renarter sue tp incom plete data from some courts. See Appendix A for more iudicial Council of Caiternia 38 2015 Court Statistics Report Civil Filings, Dispositions, and Caseload Clearance Rate Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Superior Courts Data for Figures 3-16 Unfimited Givi =A Total Meter Other Cl Simall Fiscal Total Unlimited Vehicle Other Complaints Claims Limitek—=— Small Year civil Coil PEPDAND PUP= Petiions Appeals Civil Chali ial fel (6) (o ©. f (3) Hy Fuings Fvta 836,216 193,190 31,847 22.077 138,982 «$304 486.597 188,428 Fvis 923,589 199,587 30,169 3.114 198,733.51 555.969 168,083, Fvi2 999,202 212025 «20.468 «22.545 182.9 7,0dd OR, SES 184,612 ryt 1098,528, 2igeez 2781221849162 7.648 86,000 188.016 Frio 41,150,028 2773128964 20,028 169,908 443720908 211.987 Fyos) 4,227,779, 1565 8.85212 182,282 9.208 785,883 292,341 Fyo8: 1096,959 12815 28.431 20684 124696 «9.004 686,903 227,281 For 954,260 169,759 29830 20,875 110,871 8.683. 580,102 224,409 Fv08 912,923 v3978 3180 21,338 111,270 9.081 503,826 236,518 Fos: 901,478 166,385 28,681 20113 107,971 9.640 478,906 256,008 Dispositions HM aan 17320 25,386 17582 126,288 4.245 S07,72B 153,288. Fyt3 935,330 190,028 27,384 19588 198,198 4883 509.31 Tra.g70 Fvt2 41028,474 206201 27685 21216 152,116 «SABA 28,53 183,715, Fvtt arta? 216,198 28,060 19ga¢ $62,968 «5808 753.405 202,104 Fv10 4.112.138 193,865 27,738 vgazt 140933 gaty 702,350 214,921 Fy03 1,113,499 176.219 26.128 10583 248941914189 226,111 Fos 904,687 163.200 26,02 20,572 100,131 6.194 533,106 218,282 Fvo7 871,428 1247s 26.514 18,252 31.228 648810833 18,119 Fyo8 866,559 145553 27.995 14,048 aosrs 6g 74,793 248,713 FYOS: 570,090 140,237 28,922 19.429 9214. 7.872 ATOATa” 283,160 Caseload Clearance Rate a 101% 908% 0% 7985 2am 80% 104% Fria 402% 35% 81% 85% 80% 75% 102% Fviz 103% 37% 34% oat 90% 8% 106% rit 107% 99% 101% 92% 100% 7% 110% Fv10 7% 89% 94% 20% 88% at% 982% Fy09 91% 83% 90% 38% 2% 2% 1% Fyo8 2% 88% 9% 99% 80% 69% 78% FYO7 1% 8% 89% aH 83% 75% ott Fy08 95% 34% 39% 85% 53% 78% 4% Frys 1% 38% 101% 7% 34% 20% 988% Column Key: A) Sum of C through H (8) Sumof © through F [E) Givi comp rts and petitions rot speriiad .n columns C and. Priarta the 2004 Gourt Statistics Roo. his case type incuded miscellaneous fail lavpetions, which are now reportedinthe Farnly and Juvenile section, udiial Council af Calfornia 10 2015 Court Sstistes Report Civil Case Processing Time Superior Courts Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Datafor Figures 17-20 Had cos come Genera civ unted Lanien Uniedetainers mal cams dfeposed ofin ess disposed ofoss disposed ofin less then disposed of in loss than than manths than mont days «ays Fiscal yoor 2 2 a 2 3 45 70 90 (8) igh (D) fe zl i) fH ii mo Fria Thi a 03% «Sts 4B won «11% Fvia 81% 7% oh 83% 86% ah 2% 2% 70% Fvi2 83% 90% a ee som 7% ek 75% rit 1% OD state em ath rv10 ar 8% e% 97% 9% se 75% em 73% Fv09 hom 91% 8% 4% 6% Tat Fyv08 a4 o% oT 98% 55% 15% 50% 75% eyor en am 8% 9% 5% 18% 5am 78% F058 3% ot aee 5% 76% 5% 76% Fy05 tom te 5% 1% cox 78% 1% 8% Cotumn Key: ins Includes only tite soition se unl deta rs. Judic‘al Coune af Caltrnia n 2016 Court Statistics Report Caseflow ManagementData Stage of Caseat Disposition — Civil Fiscal Year 2013-14 Superior Courts DataforFigure 21 Gets graphs Unlimited Civil Before Trial AfterTal Dismissal for Tota Total Delay in Other Thalde Filings Dispositions Prosecution Before Trial __By.lury By Court __Novo STATEWIDE 193,180 173,40 9,896 126.022 128 SANT «4.089 Dispositions Before Tral 135,918 Dispositions After Tal 27,502 % 8% Limited Civil Before Trial AerTil Disimissal for Total Total Daleyin Other Flings Dispositions Prosecution Before Tral__ By Jury_By Court STATEWIDE 486,597 507,728 9,766 488,150 218 21,593 Dispositions Before Tiat 475,916 Dispositions After Trial 31912 1% 98% ‘Small Claims Before Trial Dismissal for Tetal Total Delayin other Flings __Dispostions Prosaculion _olora Tiial__Aftor Trial ‘STATEWIDE 395.428 169,285 18,580 48,580 92,125 Dispositions Before THal 67,180 Dispositions After Trial 92,125 Notes: ‘Other Before Trial incudes other dismissals and iranefers, summary judgments and al other judgments before tal. Judicial Gounal of California R 2016 CourtStatistics Report Criminal Filings, Dispositions, and Caseload Clearance Rate Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Superior Courts Data for Figures 22-31 fal Gotthis graphic Nontatfc TraeTotal Fiscal year Cririnal Fetnnies’ Misdemeanors Infractone “Misdemeanors —_Inactone a 6) (9) ol ©) fa Filings Fvia soeo8e 272.610 400,323 235.103 515.245 472,803 FB 6.237.651 281.268 390,82 278,924 935,987 474,290 Fvi2 e95e158 243,962 424,098 356,548 e49,514 5,279,640, FYI 7.715.654 241,222 s04eas Mi9 763.068 —_5865,068 Fy«o ari 248,448, 490,131 351,708, 893,719 8.347.018 Fy08 8,356,900 261,768 529,398 352,883 66,702 6,347,538 FY¥oa 7.832.780 272,764 616.597 386,440 36.401 §740,488 FYor 7.826.885 280,268 699,750 348,237 e11507 5,738,128 FYO8 7570454 279.095 628.415 314.194 790,102 5.557.648 Fy05 7807,180 274.877 867,468 291,186 758.208 435.857 Dispositions ryt 5.400132 254,410 338.498 195,504 404,296 4,200,028 FYB 5.183.780 240,797 322.408 222.308 417.407 —3.981,163 Fv2 8017929 226.272 371,862 313,170 500.861 4.606.274 ryt 6.892.911 228,587 398,068 304,600 41,625 5,389.431 FY10 7.116.253 238.754 429,715 321,855 591713 5.594.219 Fy09 7,082,731 236,309 444,480 291,589 612022 5.499.241 Fy08 6.553.253 210.035 511,238 368,005 555,829 4.008.148, ror 8452279 216,701 534.267 543.208 385,980 4,805,083, Fy06 5.370.261 219.078 545,980 289,052 565,930 4,749,821 FyO5 6,083,700 200,110 479,108 288,724 570,002 4,525,750 Caseload Clesrance Rate ryt 8% 93% 24% 59% 78% 91% ryt 83% 92% 83% are 70% 83% Fyi2 87% 93% 83% 85% 7% 87% FYit 89% 95% 79% 89% 11% 91% Fv10 86% 36% 8% a 71% 87% Fy0s 85% 90% aa a 1% am Fy08 4% 7% 43% 100% 65% 88% Fvor 82% 75% 83% 99% 9% 84% F¥08 84% 79% a% 92% 13% FY05 83% 73% a% 99% 78% 83% Column Key fA) Sum of B through F. (B} Since 2001, a felonyis counted as une fling ard one disposition foreach detertantthroughoutall stages of eriminal proceedings. Tris change iminated the double counting of cofendaris who wereheld to answer, corified on Quill pleas, or waived oraiminary hearings, and ieduce Jusicial Goune of Galfomia B numbers at‘lings and dispostians reported, 2016 Court Statistics Repart Criminal Case Processing Time Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Felonies resuting in bindovers Superior Courts Data for Figures 32-34 Wad coms cen Felonies fisdemeanorsdisposed cf mete ea alentae Fiscal year nege 20. 4s 80 30 99 120 8) {© iP) iE) iF) (6) Caseflow ManagementData Stageof Case at Disposition — Felony Fiscal Year 2013-14 Manner of Disposition Superior Courts Datafor Figure 35 Acquis, Tota Felony Misdemeanor dismissals, and Dispositions convictions convictions transfers STATEWIDE 253,082 178,476 32,632 41,954 Stage of Disposition Before Trial 208,734 179,272 22,366 41,096 ‘Aner Court Tal 785 598 23 cy Aer Jury Til 5583 4,505 243 735 Butero Tia 70% 17% ‘fier Court Trat “1% 29% 3% 8% AorJury Tial 2% 31% a% 4% Note: Does not include dispositionof felony peitlons, whichare reported only by JESIS courts and are only classified as @ sispostion sefere hearing orafter heering. sludicial Council ef California 2016 Court Statistics Report Caseflow ManagementData Stageof Caseat Disposition — MisdemeanorsandInfractions Fiscal Year 2013-14 Nontraffic Misdemeanors Superior Courts Data for Figure 36 Gattisgra Before Teal Aller Ta Total Tota! Filngs Dispostions all Forlsitures Gully Pleas Other By oud __By Jury STATEWIDE, 400,323, 336,484 3.082 208,808 0,502 1aat 1818 Dispositions Before Trlal 333.462 1% oa% 30% ositions After Trial 3097 aT BH Traffic Misdemeanors Before Trial Aller Tra Tota Total Filags _Disgosiions Bail rfetures Gully Pleas Other By Gout _By Jury STATEWIDE 515,245 404,298 13169312072 74,728 3210 4,108 Dispositions Before Trial 399,981 3% 78% 19% Dispositions After Telal 4318 1% 26% Infractions Betore Til AerTia Total Total Flings _Dispestions Ball Forfetures Guilty Ploas Omer ey Court ‘STATEWIDE 285,103 195,904 64,941 55,168 57,967 18,428 Dispositions Before Trial 77,478 30% 31% 30% Dispositions After Trial 18,428 Traffic Infractions Bofiora Tia AerTris Total Total Flings _Oispostions Ball Forfeitwes Gully Pleas Other By Court ‘STATEWIDE 4672,803 4,209,028 4,739,285 «878,778 1,497,158 953,847 Dispositions Before Trial 3,855,181 45% 18% 37% Dispositions After Trial 353847 Notes: Other Before Trial includes transfers, dismissals and dismissal ster diversion tuciial Council of Calor 78 2015 Cour Statistics Report Family and Juvenile Filings, Dispositions, and Caseload Clearance Rate Superior Courts Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Datafor Figures 37-44 He§ sets crmic Famiy Law Delnguerey Desendency Fiscal year Taal Maral Petiows Taial Orginal Subsequent Taal Orgnal” Subsequent fAL (8) ic) {D} fE) (Fi £g) Hy i Fiings rr 381.405 138.958 242518 48804 5.69 1B aoeco? «BAT Fv 300,229 1402511 249978 «52,732 a40B 29 an ace S818 evi 417,198 160.602 206,598 «82.997 4¥S00 «210? ©4060 95.998 «6.061 a 492453 184 277804 75.249. 47.982 BaF at Seat 8.892 Fv10 45500 154,534 30100 goat 62.900 7.531708 310630 Fy09 455,158 153.205 s04s3 8.558 67.9 BORAT 38.58.170868 Fy08 439420 181505 28791 6A T3072 aana2 a SIS 5972 tat FyOr 40437 isisis 30578 0372371232600 ABT BSG Fos 455.901 187.719 298,182 101.876.7843 91293 43.48 ae eY05 a7ss22 164906 2046 49D GoAIT—a90e2 a.758 3602s Bras Dispositions rvs 344,042 137.693 205534198228? 13795 31.827 30,100 1867 FYIS a54az4 136811 2180134858 DSA TTS 14d. 900142 pie 376400 198.739 297661 85.398 395.54 saad 3071428892 ©1822 rit 286451 150092 29551963993.38038. aa900 2.128 Fyi0 Beas 144628 240220 0.56 «54442 BOM 7.849 2.886 1,083 Fy09 389,785 161,129 225658 wads ona aaatG 92.855 Ose 27 Fy08 340238 127.854 212504 3878615320425. BHGTT 8281.78 Fvor 376279430470 245,400 aed SaATH e9974205509 tga Fy06 364,620 724,299 Z40aa1 79,396 «93,170 «280842 rer Fes 400542 118.467 262075 77.78 6SBIO—«2406H 58S aOR 1.924 Casoload clearance rate Fra 2o% 0% a 22% 2% 91% see 75% 25% a a1% fee Br 52% 8% 99% 7O% 77% 24% Friz 0% 82% OH 28% 86% 2% 73% 80% 30% Fvit so% 98% arm alte ry 7% 85% 28% Fr10 a 50% 86% 94% 80% 90% 33% Fyv09 asm 105% 75%, 20% 88% 94% amor 3% Fv02 7% Bah TA 2% aT% 92% ar% 90% 29% evr 22% 20% 2% 20% a 8h 2% ey08 eo% 79% BT 78h 8% 24% a0% 87% 30% FY0s e eam aM 83% a5 8% 33% column Koy: (6) Includesdssousion, aga seperaton, and sy (©) Includes Department of Chid Suppo Services (DCSS), domestic vclnce proverion, and ther misealaneousfarily mw peftions. Judicial Council of Caltoria 7 2015 Cour Statstes Report Probate, Mental Health, Appeals, Habeas Corpus Filings, Dispositions, and Caseload Clearance Rate FiscalYears 2004-05through 2013-14 Superior Courts Data for i)Mos ures 45-52 Mental Heath Appeals Habeas Corpus Fiscal year Probate Toll Menial Healin Other Tol Givi Gamma Criminal ‘ay (8) fcc) o €) fal (33 it Filings. Frid 44,298 2am 21081 6,258, 4a? 1193 sta 7410 Fria an s2r 25.013 19,198 5.878 5.224 3,568 eat Fyiz 40921 24,364 1g 5,728 5559 3,800 10,376 Fit 40,988 22,121 A717 4.948 7a 3.843 40,184 Fy10 42,214 18,856 128234243, 5013 3717 318 Fyoa 43,879 16,620 12859 3761 5,098 3,698 8757 Fyos 45,713 17.230 13.384 3.866 4500 3.275 8313 Fyor 48,277 s7.944 14118 3.828, 4245 2,999 24 Fv0s 49,898 16.274 13,763 2511 4,082 2.730 6.558 FY05 50,182 14,501 78.101 1.400 3.988 2,655 397 Dispositions. Frid 30,183 22.520 17.208 5,114 4960 1832 3,48 8.764 Fyi3 28,586 20,848 18968 4,860 5795 1.904 3.801 7.695 Fviz 30,368 20518 16788 4.750 ssa 1.802 4,032 9,790 Fy 32,292 98,590 14653 3.877 5241871 3.663 9442 Fv10 33,330 14,405 14,174 3.231 4549 1,306 3,343 7.403 FY08 34116 14,957 11,887 3,110 4501499 3011 7412 Fy08 35,276 16,305 133345 2.960, 47ia 1829 3,ta4 7.495 eyor 39,029 16,436 13648 2,868 4goa ari 2.793 6,953 Fr06 36,295 15,084 13544 4,540 4076 1.394 2,682 5316 Fy0S 834,292 12,963 1284830 408 1.0855 (2,653 6.448 Caseload clearance Fis 58% 82% eum a 115% 128% 110% 91% Fvig 59% 8% 3% 80% 119% 115% 100% 1% Fri2 78% 24% 85% 8% 105% 102% 106% 94% yi 79% 4% 35% 78% 9% 3% 85 3% Fy10 79% 35% am 76 90% 191% 80% 53% Fyoa 78% 90% 92% 83% 80% 107% 81% 35% Fyo8 77% 95% 100% 77% 105% 125% 87% 20% Fvo7 at% 2% 96% 75% 106% 137% 93% 34% Fyos 73% 93% 3% 81% 10% 105% 9% ar% FY05 68% 39% 7% 22% 109% 126% 190% 79% Column Key! {G) Includes mast types af mental Meats casesinc'uning but not len ted to Posteertfiction Treaiment (WB 5300). LPS Conservatershin (Wl S880), Narcot ex Aulet(WAI SO6Ui3051), Carnmitrments (FC 2968), Mental Competency {PC 1366), Sonually Volont Predator (Wl 8600). Juvenile (WAI *800}, Mentally Rexarded ard Dangerous {W8! 6S00),anu Wel. & Int Code, § 4500) (D} Includes other menial health cases no: included in (C} for JBSIS courts. and nonciininal habeas corpus reported by nan- JB5IS rourts, Judie al Counel ef Caltornia 6 2015 CourStatistics Report Caseflow ManagementData Trials By Typeof Proceeding Fiscal Years 2004-06 through 2013-14 Superior Courts Data for Figures 53-65, thi graphic Jay Trials PYPDAWD othor Civ Probate and Total Felony Misdemaanors Civil Unlimited Limited Mental Health wy is ici ) ia is) FY 3900 5,545 2.724 488 218 “8 FY gaT7 4923 2.882 mar 533 893 58 F¥i2 10038 5,296 3.002 730 ars 510 2a eit 10129 5.091 2,958 684 533 228 35 Frio 11053 8.022 3.404 788 a2 190 a Fyoe 128328705 3.904 m4 758 406 45 Fvoe 14138 5882 3,583 608 66 88 a Fy 14521 5.908 3,891 m7 587 387 38 vos 11.908 5531 3397 ast 633 838 8 Fyas 9se7 4776 2m sat 526 462 a Court Trials Misdermeanar ——_PPOAWD. Ofer Gil Probata and Total Feleny —andiinfscions Chil Unlimited Civil United Limited Mental Heath ww e) © ©) i) tH (S Fvia 472,78 785 975,806 331 31,356 31,883, 2 FS 470.648 00 362,371 938 932.773 44,490 Pvt 535,258, er 421,903 1,354 33,757 47.240 0.228 Fyit 628,658, 592 495,601 2185 34.570 48,080 30619 Frio 479,328 25 378,189 1.954 23,405 47543 27,393 FY09 443.442 mM 3a3731 1078 19,147 50.038 28,738 Fyce 520.779 1,088 434.677 313 14,288 anaza 28.444 Fyor 503,509 587 414.878 1,092 vaste 45,125 31435 Fro6 475.945 658 381.089 873 13,368 50,487 20.475 FY06 352,049 ar 257,910 745 11,428 51,359 29,732 Judieal Counc! ot California m 2515 Court Statstis Regent Trial Court Workload and Resources Superior Courts Judicial Positions and Use of Judicial Assistance Datafor Figures 66-68 Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Had) 526500 Jukipstions ‘Subord natejudicial officers sand pmentvostion Judi! Need Flecalyear Total gs Total Commissioners“ Referess egulvalonis (aan {AL iB) ( iD} fe) fF) ig) an 7008 7108 8 at 7 Zoe zat rue 2.008 1.595 29 302 2 2058 2208 evi2 2,028 1.012 ana 36 z 2088 2286 mi 2002 1.682 260 st a 2.2 2380 evo 2.022 1845 370 us z aie 23982 F¥09 2002 630 2 385 a 2.60 2388 Fy08 2.002 ev 408 281 2 2.75 2348 ror 4.972 ery 24 207 ar 2.87 23% FY08 922 1408 ws 387 2 228 2226 Fy05 1917 1.408 20 aur a 20% 2:28 Column Key a Bc (B) —_Thw 0 ewjudgeship nuova but not nde by Assemely BA 169, fective January 2008. ae inldd in eotunn B (Gl 0+. Total may not match exacy due rounding caused 2ypansine commissionerand rleroe palo (F) Refi authoricca oalions adjusted fr vacancies, assistancererdreby the caufo cher cours, and assistance cecshd by thecout from assigned judges, rmporaryJuoges,comnssores, and (fotos, With ha SU new udgesips author zed by Asser ly Bl 159 estore untied, perdng funn approval by the Leite eyae caneidored vacant andar cluded iv alum(nthe sare sytheullvc (6) Reqresanste esinaled rub of ual oficarsnasced fa kane th worslosd in te et cous boseon heJuda Needs Assessment Project. Te Judcal Needs Assessment Project was appovodby he Juice Gourel2001 asthe methodology or ‘evalting juricial workiond and she need for new jutgeships. ir 2004, the Judicial Gauncl approved a miner chang ithe assessment methodology that uses a 3-year average flings data Instwadofusing a single year. The AJN numbers are wadated an 2 2-yoar cycla In ever rumaered years, and the vakiesfor FY 20113 14 representthe recent 2014 updare that was presented Is the Judicial Council at the December 7014 meetirg sludicial Council of California 80 2015 Court Statistics Report Assistance Received and Rendered by Type of Court Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2013-14 Superior Courts Data for Figure 68 his grape Days rendered by judge source Retired ‘Court af Appeal Til court Fiscal year Total Judges Justices judges a ®) (i Days racelved by all courts Fyia aa7is 22.428 D 1287 Frys 24,580 33,794 0 786 FyI2 34714 34,002 ° 712 Fy 36.883 36.203 ° 580 Fria 40,377 39.987 1 sea Fy0a an948 40,100 8 1.835 Fyoe 35,723 35.554 oa 198 Fyo7 34045 33.691 o 356 Fyos 31,896 31,364 0 532 FVO5 23,393 23.320 e a Days received by Courts of Appeal Fyid 1.428 1a a +284 Fvi3 873 186 a 507 Fviz 607 8 o 532 Fit 820 12 o 518 FYI0 1350 500 1 349 Fy09 4,058 105 0 953 Fy0a 545 528 ” a Fror 413 % 0 340 Fy0s 465 0 a 485 Fr05 rs 0 0 44 Days received bytral courts Fis 32,289 32,288 0 3 Fria 233,907 33.628 o 273 Fyi2 34,107 927 ° 180 vit 36.253 36.081 o 182 Fy10 39.827 39.487 D 140 Fy0a 40,800 39.005 a 882 Fy08 35,184 38,026 ° 168 Fyor 33,692 33.618 a 4 FyoS 31431 31,364 o er YS 2349 23,320 a 2 Column Koy (A) Companents may nat add tototal due to rounding, lnchides only assistance rendered by judges thraugh assignments, Dies natinclude assistarce rendered by eomnmiss oners, refered, and temporary judges Judicial Councof Caltornia at 2015 Court Statisties Report APPENDIX G — County Tables Caseloads and Judicial Positions, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 1 authored Flings Dispositions “dial Judicial positions poston Prjut a50f equivalents Parjudicial postion county owaane “ania-14 Total sition Rank Tatal —equivalet Rank AD (8) iG) iD) iE} Fh (G) Hy STATEWIDE 20240-20018 7.485.900 3700 106,722,593, 3.358 Alameda 85.0 on 220.584 ama 793,060 aa 15 Aine 23 23 1531 es 57 war son 82 ‘mador 23 29 7.808 saa 30 5612 1906 48, ute 130 141 38.208 2as9 45 <6,066 asst at Cataveras 23 26 6442 2e0r 48 e172 28394 Colsa 23 24 9017 290 18 230 2M Conta Costa 460 a6 147.000 am 8 wtsiaze 267 Del Nore 28 33 738 288 Su v7 aor 1 E1Darado a0 107 ont 3088 a vue arate Fresno 490 502 471.025 adm a? (134559 2600 Gunn 23 24 11,089 2821 5 yee 4and 7 Humboiat a 87 29317 366 a0 2rans 3984 Impri na 118 71.989 8m6 4 ra36 tz 1 nyo 23 2a 10787 409010 so7e 4.441 5 Kem 30 air 211920 488 heae 3 Kgs as 97 snare 40588 MS aadt 8 Lake 4a 58 11319 248351 11 07 aT Lassen 23 aa 7860 ga 792802688 Les Angeles 05.3 sma 2aesett a7 oge60 385210 Madera 93 2a 27.795 290 42 erer) erin 45 144 48.648 335 47208 321 Moviposa 2a 25 266 145954 2.987 124 an Mendocino 84 a5 22.908 2 48 mss 2708 Merce 120 124 59,380 48 a S176 468g Hotoe 23 2a 2a2 401888 2255 65st ane 23 24 6.184 20 49 eeee Monterey a2 a4 arroe 318 39 we a7 ap 80 as 28.069 38 25a ama Nevada 78 a1 25.158 a8 wyses7 808 orange iano 1462 511,134 355024 (ae 7e (yn Placer 145 161 0,851 3507 2 ‘ism (ara Pumas 23 28 3686 1500 88 3.280 126449 Riversile 160 ea azs.40 sem 2 447298 sua 3 Sacraments ay 784 925,128 485 on 2i9.718 327820 SarBento 2a 24 7102 aa 38 7483 3428/26 San Bernardino 0 203 aintat an 8 wee ad San Diega 1589 1510 558351 2608 stent 3718 San Frenciaeo 850 687 x 399 ast 23 164.698 2471 _ San Joaquin m5 ata 121.834 aor oH vya201 we ‘San Luis Onispa 160 165 51,705 347 28 a7 3288 at San Mateo x0 wi 460.118, suse 4 163,960 sow 4 Santa Barbora 240 243 96.925 soe 4 soz ams SantaClara 200 ana 245,284 2188 a7 zoose 207 Santa Cuz 135 138 57.235 4m 2 sis arr 2 Shasta 20 82 42,100 as 25 arama 2ast 40 asicCouncil af California 82 2015Court Staiistios Report Caseloads and JudicialPositions, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 1 aushorized Filmgs Dispestions Juciciat aici positions postion Pr judicial asof eauivalents Pur juste position County osgana 201a-14 Toial postion Rank. Total equivalent Ronk ay 6) Gi (2) ie (jt STATEWIDE, 2028.0 2,001.8 7,436,900, 3,700 (i) 6,722,593 3,358 Sierra 23 23 623 an ae as 3 Siekiyou 50 54 17.430 Baz 28 16.743 3a15 a7 Solana 230 250 cate 297543 87.528 2698 a5 Scnoma 730 252 77.355 3383 tl 03,156 3,701 8 Stanislaus 240 248 Trait zag |r 69.19 2887 28 utter 53 58 19.430 3668 18 18,598 321222 Tehama 4a 46 20,870 4.320 6 11,883 2867 40 Trinity 23 13 2,896 1.28985 2801 1559 4B Tulare 20 254 85.284 3708 18 81,307 apr 23 Fudturane: 4a 50 10,300 aise 82 10.403 207348 Ventura 38.0 339 158,987 4818 7 182.438 5,385, 2 Yolo 124 128 35873 29888 33,698 263539 Yuba 53 87 16237 3046 I 14,138 2st 42 Column Key: a Judicia| pastians include caurt commissioners ana refereesin addition to the rumber ofjudges authorized for tha cau, The 50 new juddoships authorized but not funded ay Assetnbly Bill 159, fective Janvary 2008, ee includesithe statewide total but not shown in inividual courts like In previcus versionsofthe Court Statistics Report. @ Roflecis autherized judicialpositions adualad forvacancies, assislanne rendered by the coun fo nther cours, and assistance ‘received by the court From sse'gned judges, temporary jueges, commissiane’s, and relerons, o cra i F/B Notes: w Reports were either incomplete of not submitted fora fll oar. Der— The court reported that a casas oceutrad u the courl dit notsuomi a rept inthis category. Ranks nat computed forcourts with missing or incomplete dita Judicial Counc of California as 2015 Count Statistss Report Court Trials, by County and Type of Proceeding Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 2 PEPOAYD, Othe: Probate Mistlemeanor Unlimited Uniiritee timed and ‘couNTY Total Felony and Infractions ii ch Civil Mental Health at (8) _ig) iO 6) ial e ‘STATEWIDE 472,763 785 376,806 3t 31,368 31,593, 31,282 Aameda 12,668 1 8710 6 am 514 644 Apine 0 82 o 0 ° 0 Amador 18 34 2 38 2 18 Butte 199 585 a war 338 932 Cataveras 0 62 4 1 35 8 Colusa 2 128 0 1 4 % Contra Costa 2 28.905 3 480 oe zr Dit Norte 2 1179 0 ” ea 16 El Dorado 4 1,208 4 164 182 48 Fresna 6 1,102 2 8 1,242 200 Glenn 4 28 1 7 2B 40 Humbolat 6 887 4 a3 238 448 Imperial 1 Bou 5 23 163 2 Inyo o 4,708 2 6 a ° Kem 3 5,668 2 1“ 652 41298 kings 6 78 ° 3 0 4 Law 4 2.168 2 7% 14 17 Lassen ° 178 ° 5 3 5 Los Angelos 58 58,308 88, 8.942 ats 14,280 Modera 8 2.144 1 184 129 a Marin ° 4 248 2 155 Mariposa o 1ar 1 3 6 3 endtocine B 1,555 3 6 58 13 Merced 3 2,099 2 ser 385 wm Modoc ° 205 o 28 18 2 Mono 2 a6 a 2 7 1 Monterey 2.526 12 1823 10 370 tae 179 napa 3,983 ° 3,580 4 160 97 108 Nevada i291 a we a 1a cy 13 Grange (o4s6t 2 a a4 2204 2321 o Placer 312 1 33 2 toa 184 2 Plumas 140 1 7 1 15 a 18 Riverside 55,001 10 49.359 58 2.406 2707 aa Sacramento 18,151 o 11,395 08 2,850 2872 1426 San Berito 261 o 158 1 Fr x8 Ey ‘Son Bernardina 29.137 7 25,828 20 173 2.387 742 Sar Diaga 55,362 2 araue 7 a5 4,952 1.586 Sor Francisco 30,170 0 2781 “4 53 25 2097 San Joaquin S207 0 2,960 4 ra 4,304 285 ‘San Luis Obispo 2,683 288 1,836 a 238 289 a4 San Malea ove 7 14,387 1 38 165 394 Santa Barbara 2ait 8 2,812 2 65 148 165 Santa Clara 31,108 7 26,362 2 4,308 4,009, 1920 Santa Cruz 2.036 9 asa 1 2a7 a 65 Shasta 41,588 4 4,160) 2 184 203 38 Judicial Council of Califia a 2015 Court Stalistes Revert Court Trials, by County and Type of Proceeding Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 2 PEPONWD, ‘omer Probate Misdemeance Unlimited Unlimited Limited ‘and couNTY Total Felony and Infractions cul iv Civ Mantel Heat al 2) (Gi (0 6) fa iG) ‘STATEWIDE 472,763 785 376,908 a1 31,56 31,593 31,202 Slasra 0 a 0 0 a 0 o Siskiyou 4.000 0 en 6 a 59 1 Solana 3311 6 2m 2 6 432 2 Sonoma 1.860 8 875 r 409 175 384 Stofisiaus 2708 a 2588 ° a 142 a Sutter 1,631 4 1184 4 24 148 57 Tehama 478 ° » 18 8 1 Trinity 92 ° 1 24 v Tulare 13.758 1 5 163 446 591 Tulum 1,525 D 1 62 65 6 Ventura 8,004 3 at 290 738 a3 Yoto 1,788 4 a 64 6 40 Yuba, 882 a a ey 118 0 Column Key: 6) Inciudes trials for defendarts whose felony charges wore reduced fo m/sdemeanars bere the start of tril Notes: a Incompiete data; reports were submitted for lossthar ful yaar Dor — Tha caurtreporied that no nases oncurred ar the cour did no: submit a roportin this eategory, | Counel ef Caltornia a 2015 Cour Statistics Report Jury Trials, by County and Type of Proceeding Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 3 PUPDAD Other Probate Unlimited United Limited ‘and ‘cOUNTY Teal Felony Misdemeanor civ iil Chil Mental Health a) i 1. o ©) # (S) STATEWIDE 9.900 5.545 2724 738 488 219 186 Alameda 18 61 er 3 14 6 0 Alpine 0 ° B a a o ° Amador é 3 2 ° 1 a 0 Bulle 76 a 15 4 2 4 0 Calaveras é 3 3 0 ° 0 a Colusa 4 3 1 o o ° 0 Cora Costa a2 123 192 10 6 1 o Del Norte 10 a 2 o o o 0 ElDarade Ey 2a 19 5 1 0 1 Fresno zor 126 a 8 13 2 8 Glens 26 2 4 0 ° ° ° Humbolat 48 18 2 3 ° ° o rnp 40 v 18 4 0 1 o Inyo 1 7 4 o o ° 0 Kom 284 170 a9 3 2 o 0 Kengs 2s 13 2 ° ° ° o Lote 38 a 13 3 ° o ° Lassen 10 a 2 ° o ° o Los Angeles 3.048 2,008 or 26 122 a ° Madera 45 a 13 1 ° 0 a Macin 47 7 32 2 1 ° Mariposa 7 2 4 1 ° ° ° Mendocino 3 18 7 ° 1 2 9 Merce 109 ar ia ° 130 Madoc 5 2 0 ° o o 3 Non 8 4 2 1 1 0 a Monterey 89 38 45 4 2 0 a Napa 20 10 % 1 2 0 a Nevaca aig ns w3 ° ° 1 1 Orange ost ara 0 a 46 13 w Placor a cr 26 18 o 0 0 Pumas, 2 a 8 0 ° o o Roveralde 612 486 7 28 2 4 ° ‘Sacramento 322 268 2 18 8 2 0 San Benito ¥ 1 2 3 1 o ° ‘San Boman 562 282 23 M 22 6 18 ‘San Biega 709 245 285 st 98 30 ° San Francisco 357 152 “10 4B a a ° San Joaquin 110 58 2 1“ 10 10 ° ‘San Lus Obispo cy 14 28 7 6 4 a San Mateo 4 52 2 o a 0 9 Santa Barbara a aa 2 7 4 1 1 Sania Clara 266 127 92 28 14 1 4 Santa Cz 7 28 26 2 5 1 a Shasta 126 83 2 4 2 o 0 Judicial Council of California 86 2015 Court Statistics Report Jury Trials, by County and TypeofProceeding Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 3 PUPDIWD Other Probate Unirmites —_Uniimited Limited ‘and county Total Felony isiemeanor il Chl ill Mentat Health (as i) iS (e) ic. (@) STATEWIDE 9,900 5,545 2,728 738 438 219 188 Sera ot o ot 0 o 0 a Siskiyou 2 8 1 2 o 1 Solano 186 78 8 3 D 6 Sonoma 100 38 3 6 1 ° Stanistaus 181 04 5 ? 2 0 Suter 33 25 3 1 a 4 Tehama 7 4 a 1 0 3 “rity a 7 a ° a a Tara 1 6 a 1 1 18 Tuolumne at 3 a 8) 6 ° Ventura 215 102 a 19 13 a Yola 150 80 2 3 1 a Yuba 15 ° 1 ° o a Cotumn Key: 6) Includes tas for defendants whose felony charges ware reduced to misdemesnars bafars the start of al Notes: a Incomplala dats reports were subsnillad fer less than full year. Dor “The cour reported that no cases occurred or the count did not suamit a ropart in this category, Judicial Council of Galitornia ar 2015 Court Sta'sties Report TotalCivil Filings, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 4a oimitad civ Total Motor ‘ther Chil Small Toial Unlimited Vehisle. Other Complaints Claims. Limited Sra ‘coUNTY cv Coll PHPDWWD PLPEAVD &Petitons Appeals Cit Claims ‘ay (6 iS) w (e) FL (3) i ‘STATEWIDE 235.215, yea.190 31a? 22077 153,962 5.904 486,597 155,428 ‘Alameda wats asse 1,270 ar t91 pw 1228434 Alpin a 37 ° n 37 ° or 25 Amador 587 207 2 18 159 8 288 a Bute 3.733 sea 131 160 336 iT assr 592 Calaveras 692 250 2 22 208 1 336 106 Couss 213 37 6 ar ° 135 21 Comiva Costa tH.031 4988, 98 37a tat 40,748 2.918 De\ Nore 503 25. 8 208 6 223 55 E Dorado ps2 13 Bt 813 ar 1897 504 Fresno 48137 3828 225 32 543 63 11,g09 2.505 Glenn 438 a7 18 5 28 ° 4x7 54 Humbolst 2,199 15 37 st ei 14,980 404 Imperial 2.900 595 6 2 437 104,822 523 hyo 254 105 8 u 85 3 a an Kom 14,875 1722 516 33 342 33 10.998 2.657 Kings 2588 at Ts aT 152 1 4.870 any Lote 4.492 423 ar 23 387 8 743 268 Lascen e2r 128 8 2 106 2 257 uaz Los Angeles 263,985 carts 11.571 2488 42618 «2.098 t44t77 54.504 Madera 2g18 510 76 50 384 o 2.160 268 Marin 3817 1448 208 144 1,095 891.835 834 Mariposa 245 34 1 2 a1 ° 178 82 Merdacino 1887 664 4 a 573 4 798 228 Merced 4.268 at tat 8 522 2 2638 885 Modoc 197 20 1 0 43 o 5 22 Moro 187 6 1 8 46 14 aa 59 Montoray 5648 1427 188 1281072 a 3.409 rz Napa 2125 695 75 50 548 2 4028 408 Nevada +568 478 a 2 383 25 187 as Orange 63,709 16568 2057 2,082 11,389 49033104 13,057 Placer 5.043 1.909) a4 200 4,32 49 2906 1,028 Pumas 293 8 4 10 6 0 145 7 Rivers 50,888 760 1,254 sa 7.830 6230581 10,928 Sacramento 79.207 8556 1,738 9238738 162 951 4,720 Sar Beno 4278 189 2a "1 18 1 571 588 San Bamardino 8204 1,384 so8 6.558 er 31778 1,78 Sar Diego anoea 512 7BA 12.072 ers 32002 12,997 San Francisco 8575 898 an 4679 wo 73568 2.918 Sar Joaquin 27m 478 a 1973 2 Bray 1.584 ‘San Luis Obispo 1.068 “at 128 7 21,884 780 Sar Matoo 2,088 492 161.363 so egg 1.872 Santa Barbara 298 t981,238 B43907 1328 Santa Clara 70231071 sen S120 2 12931 4822 Santa Cruz 969 200 fa qe 2 agra 80" ‘Shasta 886 in a 61 2% 2070 468 ies! Coune of Calforia aa 2015 Court Slatistios Report Total Civil Filings, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 4a Untied Tota Mater ther Cv «Small Total United Vehicle Other Complains Claims Lamiled.»——_Srall ‘couNTY chi Coil PUPDAWD PLPOWD Petitions Appeals Civil Cisims “ay 8) io) (0) (e) 6) iG) i ‘STATEWIDE 335.215 195180 S847 «22,077 —«133,962~—=~=«04ST 155.428 Sieva ar 10 0 0 0 ° “4 3 Siskiyou 791 200 6 19 160 5 486 105 Solano esr 1.854 322 two 1.2Ra 72 8778 1.287 Sonoma 6.198 292 338 221,885 372675 1,882 Stanislaus 8a An7 328 1. 1,208 4 6300 24,114 Suter 1.790 516 94 a a7 " 4015 259 Tehama vee 268 13 15 237 3 685 395 Trinity 186 83 4 3 2 0 Ey 24 Tulare 7875 1,403 228 11.010 a saa7 1.028, Tuoiumne 880 248 33 22 ‘00 4 407 136 Ventura 14,208 3.495 599 412372 63 7400 3.313, 2.522 880 103 Bt 07 1498 407 Yuna “31 323 49 25 253 2 856 132 Column Key: ®) GiUnlimitedincludes columns (CHF.3 ©) Prior to tre 2004 Court Statistics Revort, this case typa included miscellaneous family law petitions thatare: naw rapartat in Tanle 11a Notes: io Incomplete data; reports ware subritiadfr less than full year. Dor “The court reportedthat ro cases occurred or the court did net submit a report in his eagory, luticial Council of California a9 2015 Court Statistics TotalCivil Dispositions, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 4b Uninited Civ TTotat Motor Other Cxil Small Total Unites Vehicle ther ‘Complaints Clams limited Sma couNTY Civ Chi PEPOWWD PUPDWO &Pettions Appeals Cit Claims (A) 3 fol 0) ‘© 2 (oy ( STATEWIDE, 640,433, 173420 «25.385 «7882 ~—«*128.288~~—=~« AG ~—«*SOT,P2B 150.285 Alameda 27.798 362 1.211 0656287 19 44.008 Sat Alpina a2 18 3 ° 18 ° 6 8 ‘made 488 oa 8 7 108 i 220 % Butte aqi7 963 137 a4 333 8 2638 ete alaveras 748 228 %2 28 202 3 388 128 Colusa 158 28 8 1 18 ° 112 18 Contra Costa an rao 3.998 698 792.786 Cned Del None 2.331 24 "1 18 85 51,226 “61 E: Dorado 3.128 m9 110 8 628 32 .en6 ere Fresno 9.793 27 43 42 6rd so B89 ar Glenn 360 a 5 3 18 ° 2a 0 Humbolet 2.584 at 43 2 573 7 1805 8 Irnperal 2379 616 m4 3 480 8 1.850 513 Inyo 198 81 2 7 6 3 6 32 Kom 1472 3.830 438 26 774 2 10889 2.40 Kings. 1972 21 5 9 98, 6 1.843 228 Lake 1270 288 2 ro 250 2 742 242 Lassen 524 +40 7 a 116 3 280 124 Los Angeles 256.671 50578 7.458 «5482 4.175 1.8 183.854 58.938 Madera 3788 528 2 80 383 a 3018 240, Marin 4151 1518 120 11.443, 871707 26 Mariposa 209 34 1 2 3t a 181 24 Mendocino 1848 ar 35 40 586 6 955 254 Merod azn 666 129 61 476 0 2679 868 Modos 148; 8 1 2 83 ° 88 24 Mone 38 131 3 18 "9 "1 1 1 Momerey 5.837 1327 176 tes 1.002 443896 eu Napa 2.197 728 70 55 582 24.075 304 Nevada 1499 407 82 38 20 a vat 351 Orange 65,989 vess0 2502 1.g76 11,652 20 a8 14278 Placer 5.530 1718 war 181.167 38 art oa Plumas 230 81 3 "1 87 o 132 7 Riversiow S617 jozia 4,199 Breage Sacramento 78,702 7081 1.513, ea 4.543 eases 7.278 SanSenito 1218 463 19 8 135 598 454 San Bernardino 56,304 740 7.344 9284827 ad 35.508 13,688 San Diego e2.an2 14190 -.70T 1.215 10.908 3630 asa7S 12.747 Sen Francisco 15.410, 5.838 802 799 8 2 700 are San Joaquin 15.548 2822 482 253 1.766 a 11684 332 San Luis Obispo 8.674 909 410 Tr 662 21.939 823 San Mateo 10.082 2.333 586 189 1.528, wo 604871 Santa Barbara 5,740 1,528 z0 163 1.108 42906 1,308 Santa Clora 23.195 6.092 962 604.833 3712594 409 Sania Cuz 3.878 4,081 106 118 804 351.944 873 Shasta 3,866 945 7 na 2 227 aa lugicial Counil of Californla 20 2018 Court Statistics Report Total Civil Dispositions, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 4b Unlimited Civil Total Motor Other Givi Smal Total Unlimited Vehicle Other Complaints Claims Limited Small ‘couNTY Chi il PYPONWD PUPDWD & Petitions Appeals Cl Claims a) (53 . 2) © 6 (6) iH ‘STATEWIDE 340,433 173420 25,385 ‘17,532 126,258 ——«4,245~«~—~«SY,728 159,285, Siera 0 o a @ o to) @ Siskyou 735 143 "7 8 15 2 480 12 Solano 9,086 1808 320 190 1.244 m1 5808 1,328 Sorama 7,800 363 24 3,880 2 4292 1,398 Stanislaus 10,624 388. m3 193 13) Tbe. 488 Suter 1,786 105 38 ar 131088 210 Tehama ara 12 " 107 ° 782 30 Trinty 175 2 3 4 ° 87 2 Ture 6.509 197 ea sar 8 ane ear Tuolumne 892 25 30 22a 3 408. 194 Ventura 14.480 613 4782397 69 7757 3,138 Yolo 2318 108 Bt 362 8 o1ari 315 Yuba i292 a 15 280 2 855 139 Column Key: a (Chil Untied includes columns (6) (FJ © Prior to tho 2004 Court Sfatistles Repovt, this ease lype included miscetanegus family lawpebtions thet are now reparted in Table 1b Nates: u mplele data: reports were submited frless than a full year. Dor “The court reported that no cases occurred othe caurl Ut not submit report in this category, Jticial Council of California o 2015 Court SiatistiesRoper Total Civil—Method of Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table a Before Trial Aor ria Dismissal for Total Total Lack of other Thal de county Flings Dispastions Prosecuton Before Trial By Jury. ByCourt_ «Navn (AL (6) (oh ©) ©) © 1G) ‘STATEWIDE B36218 880,498 38,282 640,752 1445—«155.808 4,080 Aameda asais 27.708 o 18.385 19 Alpine 89 a2 a ° 5 o Amador 587 436 a 4 47 1 Butte 3,733 3717 o 2 988 8 Calaveras 692 m8 7 8 29 2 Colusa 213, 158 ° ° 2 a Contra Costa 1031 71,740 474 7 4408 2 Del Neste 503 2,331 an ° 215. 5 El Dorado 2,953 3.129 31 6 762 2% Fresno 18137 9,793 1 281,628 50 Glenn 438, 360 0 ° 6 o Humbolet 2.199 2504 497 3 378 6 Imperial 2,900 2378 33 5 786 8 Inyo 254 199 ° ° 141 0 Kem 1467s 14723 1.394 5 1899 a kings 288 1972 ° ° 214 o Lae 1.432 4,270 108 3 310 2 Lassen a2 52a ° ° 8 2 Los Angeles 263.398 258,671 2.988 198,908 ATL 47.081 1.858, Madera 2918 3,783 530 2822 1 430 ° Marin 3817 4.88 49 3.161 4 380 57 Mariposa 28 208 ° 172 1 236 ° Mendocine 1.687 1.848 a 1875 1 34g 6 Mernes 4.264 4211 307 2948 4 952 ® Modoe 497 148 5 85 a 58 0 Mono “7 345 18 21 2 78 "1 Monterey 5.648 esr 105 407 6 294 ey Napa 2428 2197 a 1,620 3 509 18 Novaea 1866 1499 164 937 Hl 376 a Orange 63,708 e5.999 5.219 46.768 43 13.439 370 Placer 5643 5,530 au 4,588 16 886 36 Plumas 293 200 13 208 a 69 a Riverside 50,685 55,117 478 37.737 so 13,889 2 Sacramona| 79.297 78,702 3.29 67.369 25 7.886 333 San Benito 1,278 1.215 15 968 4 228 a San Bernardino 54,356 58,404 aie 33.984 7 11,828 ear San Diego 62,082 62.312 387 45.548, 812,875 383 San Franciaca 16.29 15410 182 12,889 95 (2482 a2 San Josquin 43,192 15,548 513 11,084 eager 21 ‘San Luis Obispo 3,670 3671 50 2540 24,031 24 San Matoo 9869 19,092 2 7.690 0 4.370 30 ‘Santa Barbara ang 5,740 8 4819 2 4a54 7 Santa Clara 24.576 23,195 202 18,105 4% 4gI7 28 Sarta Cruz 3,562 3878 a2 2844 8 916 2 Shasta 3414 3,886 7 2942 8 mM 20 Judical Council of Cafornia ca 2015 Court Stetstics Repor Total Civil—MethodofDisposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 5a Before Tal Abr Trial Dismissal for Total Totat Lack of Omar Thal de county Filings O'spositions Prosecution Before Trisl_ By Jury ByCout Nova i, (8) oh (2) © (6 iG) ‘STATEWIDE 335215 840,493 38,242 640,752 1445155905 4.089 Siera 2 a a @ 0 w o Siskiyou 7a 135 2 sa 3 158 0 Solano 8.987 2 TT 8 197 n Sonoma 5,199 338 6,220 101.208 7 Stahislaus 8491 1485 8.038 14 oa: 8 Sutter 4,790 a 4167 4 581 13 Tehama 1,388 445, 4914 1 Be 0 Trinity 188 @ 108 a 63 ° Tulare 7878 2 5.095 21383 8 Tuolumne 850 83 srt o 255 3 Ventura 14,208 382 10,045 533.008 at Yato 2502 15 1854 6 398 ° Yuba 1311 2 988 1 328 2 Cotumn Key: {G)-{G} The total ofthe manrey of disposition catagories may nat add up to (2) because nal al courts were able to submit complete tala forall manner of dispesiion data elements o Includes transfers, dlsm seals. and judgments. ) [Data apn'y only to small claims apes. Notes: o Incomplete data; reports wera submittedfor less than a full year Dor — The court roporied that no eases occurred or the court did net submit a repart inthis callegory Judicial Counc! of Calfomia 3 2015 Cour Statistics Report Unlimited Givil—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 5b Before Trial ARer Tal Dismissal for Total Total Lack of other Thal de counry Filings Dispostions Prosecition Before Trial «By Jury @yCourt. «Nove iA @ © (0) fe ia @) STATEWIDE, 193,190 173,420 9,898 128,022 1226 —«32,187 4,089 Aimed asst 8.362 0 5.504 48 2708 0 pine ar 18 ° 18 a ° 0 Amador 207 tat 8 26 1 35, 1 Buna a4 583 ° 380 6 188 9 Calaveras 250 238 2 118 o 118 2 Cousa 87 8 ° Fa a 1 a Contra Costa 4.385 3,936 179 16 453 2 be: Norte 228 924 60 a 7 5 E Dorado 882 84g ° 6 188 28 Fresno 3,823 ar 1 26 110 sa len a7 7 ° a 8 a Huot 715 681 86 4 at 6 Imperial 595 B16 2a 4 208 a hyo 105 at . a a8 a Kom 1722) 1,530 5 18 2B ngs an 201 ° a 3 a Liske 423 288 2 a 7 2 Lassen 128 140 9 a 5 2 Los Angalus earia S878 4.328 398 9.025 1.885 Madera 510 825 5 1 165 o Maris 1498 118 26 3 252 8 Mriposa 34 ° 1 4 a Mennecina 64 64 1 96 a Mercoa 7a 7 4 189 a Modoc 50 3 a 25 a ‘Mono 69 3 2 12 " Monterey az it é 280 4 Napa 695 728 24 3 "63 18 Nevada 478 aor a2 a 28 a Orang 18,568 16.550 130 2238 370 Placer 1.908 1715: 8 +06 36 Plumas 8 a a 16 a Riverside 9,760 *0,210 45 2.485 2 Sarramento 8.586 7,031 23 R788 aa ‘San Benito 159 163 15 4 39 0 Sen Berradino 9.208 7.140 568 58 “93 ar Sen Olag 17.063 *4490 864 149 4.393 363 San Francisco 8575 5,838 56 74 er 12 Sen Joaquin 2am 2.822 178 a 758 a San Luis Obispo 4,068 09 25 a 248 a San Meter 2098 2338 ° a 29 0 Santa Barbara 1.788 1,526 2 " 68 a Santa Clara 7023 8,082 5 421.808 8 Santa Cruz 989 4.081 ° 7 248 29 Shasta 856 45: 6 6 185 20 Judicial Council of Calfornia Be 2015 Cour Statistics Report Unlimited Civili—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 5b Before After Til miss for Total To%al Lack of otter Thal de county Flings Dispositions Prosecution Before Tral_—«By Jury By Count Novo a 6) o 2) (e) © ) STATEWIDE wea.te0 178.420 3898 126.022 1220 S2187 4,009 sera 10 0 0 0 0 0 “ Siskiyou 200 143 1 112 3 az ° Solana 1.854 1.826 2 1738 8 8 n Sonoma 2.192 2.172 85 1616 sat " Stanislaus ant 2.067 “908 4.190 2 4 13 surter 516 530 14 281 4 38 3 Tehama 268 130 ° 1 1 8 ° Tinty 88 a 2 52 ° 2 a Tale 1.403 870 5 688 1168 8 Tudumne 239 21 58 167 ° 8s 3 Ventura 3.495 387 et 2aza 4 rt ot ela 850 sa 18 aa 5 u ° Yuba oa 208 2 208 1 80 2 Column Key: 10){G) The total ofte mannerof dlspeshion categariasmay nol add up to (8) Decne not all courts were able to submit complete data forsll manner of disposition data elements, @ Includes tansters, diemissals, and juagmert (6! Data app onlyte small clair appeals. Notes: & Incornplete dala; reportswere submied for less than a ful year. cr — The court reported that no cases accurrad orthe cour dd not submit a report n this estegory. Judicial Council of California 95 2015 Court Statistics Repact Unlimited Civil: Motor Vehicte PersonalInjury, Property Damage, Superior Courts and Wrongful Death—Methodof Disposition, by County Table 5c Fiscal Year 2013-14 Betore Tral AnerTeal Disimiesa’ for Total Total Lack of Other ‘cOUNTY Flings Dispasitons Prosecution Before Trial By Jury By Court a, a o. (0) «2 © ‘STATEWIDE 31887 25,985 27 724,219 383 398 Aameda 1,270 vat ° 4199 ‘4 7 Alpine 3 ° 3 ° ° Amador % ° 4 ° 1 Bute 131 137 ° 123 a 10 Calaveras 2 2 ° u ° 1 Calusa 6 8 D 8 6 o Contra Costa 698 638 4 ear 6 1 Dal Nera a " 1 10 ° ° Fl Dorado 131 110 ° 105 8 2 Fresno 25 113 0 108 4 4 Glenn 18 6 o 5 ° 1 Hunbotet a7 48 ° 4 e 2 Imperial 6 4 0 68 3 3 Inyo 8 2 0 2 6 a Kern 516 438 1 498 1 a kings 73 84 0 54 8 a Lake ar 2 1 26 2 a Lassen 8 1 0 7 0 a Los Angeles 11.574 7.486 st reer 142 36 Madera 6 a a 82 o 9 Maria 208 180 a 187 1 2 Mariposa 1 1 0 1 a a Mendocino 43 38 1 32 0 2 Mercea iat 129 7 126 1 1 Modoc 1 1 o 1 0 0 Mono 1 3 o 2 1 0 Monteray 183 178 ° 158 2 6 Napa Bs 1 ° a8 1 ° Nevada st 52 4 48 0 0 Orange 2ST 2302 16 2.44 ar 5 Placer ae 327 ° 318 8 ° Plumas 4 a o 3 ° ° Riverside 1.254 1198 2» 1146 14 13 Sacraments 4.738 asn3 “ 4.288 n 205 San Benito 2 19 ° 16 2 1 ‘San Bernardino asa aa 2 1.798 at 5 San Diego 2512 «a0 “4 1847 ar 8 Son Francisco 98 B92 13 354 » 5 San Joaquir 478 482 4 486 8 5 ‘San Lule Obispo 141 110 0 108 3 4 San Maleo 492 586 a 585 6 1 Santa Barbara 204 220 a 217 1 2 Santa Clara sort 962 a 943 18 a Sania Cuz 100 108 o 104 1 1 Shasta it oF 0 95 2 0 tticis| Council of Galtornia 96 2015 Court Silistics Report Unlimited Civil MotorVehicle Personal Injury, Property Damage, Superior Courts and Wrongful Death—Methodof Disposition, by County Table 5c Fiscal Year 2013-14 Before Trial AorTrial Daemissal for Total Total Lack of Other county Filings Dispositions Prosecution _Betere Trial By Jury By Court a @) co. ie ‘ ‘STATEWIDE ‘31867 25,285 aT 24,319 383 398 Siera ° ° o a ° a Siskiyou 6 v o 7 ° a Solana 322 320 a a7 3 a ‘Sonama 338 363 12 346 2 3 ‘Stanistaus 826 358 a 281 4 6 Sutter 94 105 1 100 1 3 Tehama 3 12 ° 2 ° a Tonity 4 2 o 2 D a Tulere 225 197 1 196 ° a Tuolumne 38 ey o Ey 0 a Ventura 598 613 7 555 12 39 Yalo 103 105 ° 106 ° a Yuba 43 3 o 30 1 a Column Key: (C-(F} The total ofthe manner ofdisposition categories may not add up to (8) because not al cours ware able to submit complete ‘nia forall manner of disposition data elements o Includes transfers, 'smseals, and judgmonts Notes: a Incomplete data: reyorts wore subiritedfor foss than a ful your, Dor “The court reported tha: no cases occurred or the court did nat submit a report in tas category. Judicia! Counsel of Calitorria, a 2015 Court Siatistios Report Unlimited Civil Other Personalinjury, Property Damage, Superior Courts and Wrongful Death—Methodof Disposition, by County Tabie 5d Fiscal Year 2013-14 Botore Trial ster Tal Dismissal for Total Total Lack of other county Flings Dispositions Prosecution afore Tra Sy Jury By Coun Ay @ 1 1 fl 6 ‘STATEWIDE 2077 17.532 5 16.87 345 435 Alameda 807 865 0 840 8 Aipine a o o D a a Amador 8 v o 16 o 1 Butte 100 84 o iy a n Calaveras 2 a 0 18 0 3 Colusa 4 4 ° 1 a o Conta Costa 352 378 3 370 4 2 Del Narta 5 13 2 1 o 0 Fl Dorado 8 78 ° 7 2 2 Fresno 492 412 A os 8 8 Glenn 6 3 o 3 0 a Humbatat st 82 3 on 3 2 Imperial a2 53 2 48 1 2 Inyo 8 7 o 5 ° 2 Kem 331 295 4 290 2 2 Kings ar 49 ° 49 ° ° Lake Fay 2» 2 Fa 1 2 Lassen 2 4 ° 16 o ° Los Angelos 8,486 9492 20 57a 134 ar Madera 50 60 0 58 1 1 Marin 14s 128 1 114 1 2 Mariposa 2 2 ° a 1 1 Menuosino wv “a 6 8 o 1 Merces 86 et 1 a 2 1 Modoc 0 2 ° 2 a 0 Mono 8 18 D 1a ° 0 Monterey 126 195 2 a 2 4 Napa 50 58 0 2 e a Nevada 28 35 3 32 © a Orange 2.062 4976 . 4.893 a a Placer 185 0 178 ’ 2 Plumas 14 0 10 a 1 Riverside a4 23 793 2 40 Sacrarnve a2 24 sit 4 108 San Benito 8 1 6 4 0 San Bernardino 928 “1 856 13 6 San Diego 1.784 1218 a anne 24 8 ‘San Frencisoo 839 799 12 755 2 8 San Joaquin 201 1 230 3 8 San Luis Obispo 129 412 2 102 4 4 ‘San Matec 168 139 ° 189 ° ° Santa Barbara 198 159 ° 147 6 ° Santa Ciera 680 560 ° 49 8 2 Santa Crue of 118 ® 115 1 0 ‘Shasta 59 6 0 cy 2 2 Judicial Gounel of California 8 2015 Court Statistics Report Unlimited Civil OtherPersonalInjury, Property Damage, Superior Courts and Wrongful Death—MethodofDisposition, by County Table 5d Fiscal Year 2013-14 Before Trial AfterTia Dismissalfor Total Total Lack of Other COUNTY Flings Dispositions Prosecution Before Trial ByJury By Court (Ap (cy a e) fa ‘STATEWIDE, 22,077 17,532 35 18437 345 438 Siena > 0 o o ° 6 Siskiyou 19 8 o a 1 o Sotana 180 +190 o 105 3 2 Sonoma 262 208 8 190 z 4 Stanislaus 168 208 58 tas 1 0 Sutter 37 35 7 25 2 1 Tehama 15 14 ° " ° o Trinity 3 3 o 2 ° 1 Tulare sat 124 9 119 ° 5 Tuotuine 2 39 ° 38 ° i Ventura at 478 1 426 8 2 Yolo 61 5 1 48 2 ° Yuba 25 18 ° 6 ° 0 Column Key: (C-) The totalof the manner af dispositioncategories may nol add up i (8) hecause not all courts were able to submit complete data forall manner of dispostondata elements o Includes transfer, uismigsal, andjudgments, Notes: w Incomplate dala; reports were submitted for lees than a ful year. er — The court reparted that no cases occurred or the courdd nelsubmit report inthis category, Judicial Count of California 2515 Court Statistics Report Unlimited Civil: Other Civil Complaints and Petitions— Superior Courts Methodof Disposition, by County Table 58 Fiscal Year 2013-14 Betore Thal AMtot Teal Dismissal for Tota Tota Lackof other county Flings Dipostions -—«~Prosecution «Before Tal «=—=«By Jury By Cou fay (8) (Ch 2) ie) fin STATEWIDE 007 776258 3.04 w.110 ass at a58 Nmeda 619 26 ° 37 27 ‘Alfna ” 45 ° 45 a ° ‘amader 158 108 a 68 1 33 Bute 28 33 ° 484 2 ur Cloveras 206 202 2 30 3 “st Cakiss 2 18 ° 1" a 1 Canta Costa aime 2166 12 238 6 460 Del None 706 6 sr 21 3 17 1 Dorado ora 2a ° at 1 164 Fresno 250 a2 3 st 18 88 Glenn 2a 0 ° " ° 7 Humbe ir 670 93 173 ° 313 Imperat ar a0 ns 258 > 203 iyo <5. 69 2 ° 48 Kem en 4 188 2 14 ings 150 96 ° 95 ° 3 Lats 367 220 116 > 15 Lisson 106 118 a ° 5 Ls Angeles r2ptn 22,176 20,886 iz age Madera 3a 383 224 ° 154 Marin 1095 hua 1 era 1 248 Mariposs u n ° 28 ° 3 enacino 873 208 «3 us 1 “3 Morced se 4% 60 28 1 187 Modoc 49 33 3 25 ° 28 Mano 4 18 3 103 1 Monterey 1072 1,002 9 a1 2 a7 Naa sea 82 24 286 2 160 Nevaea 362 208 36 us ° 133, Groves 41,380 +882 soe 00 4 2208 Pacer 302 167 12 ° 100 Phas we 8 0 ° 15 Rvenide 7590 oam ia37 4st 20 Baus Sectamento 735 ase 2 2,088 82450 SonBerito 118 195 1“ 2 1 38 San Berar 6555 4607 509 3928 2 17 Sen ego ra002 10.905 220 962 4316 Sau Fraalsco| 4879 4035 3,890 n 83 sen Josquin 978 1.786 38 0 nae San Luis D650 m4 652 386 15 238 San Mateo 12a 1.80 9 38 Sania Barbora 1296 4.306 2 034 2 36 Santa Clara 5.120 4593 3 3.120 121306 Sania Guz 74 ot ° 82 5 287 Shasta Ca 742 560 2 84 Judiial Council of Calfomia 100 2015 Coun Stastes Report Superior Courts Methodof Disposition, by County Table 5e Fiscal Year 2013-14 Before Trial AfterThal Disirissal for Total Total Lackof Othes ‘COUNTY Flings Dispositions Prosecution Before Trl ByJury By Court, ay e) © oO 6) (6 ‘STATEWIDE 133,962 126.258 9,304 35,110 481,368 Sierra 10 0 0 “ @ @ Siskiyou 160 115 1 85 2 ar Solano 4,280 1244 2 1,233 3 6 Sonoma 1,555, 1,580 Cy 4.401 6 409 Stanistaus 4,208 4488 ed 16 7 4 Sutter 376 377 é 16 1 2a Tehama 27 107 o 88 1 18 Trinity 82 4 2 48 D m4 Tulare 1,010 Bal 4 373 1 168 Tuolumne 10 204 38 108 o os Ventura 237 2397 53 1.435 19 890 Yolo 507 382 18 2a 3 8 Yuba 253 250 2 158 b 0 Column Key: (C)-(F) The totalof the manror afdisposition caiogorios may rol add up to (8) because nolall courts were able to subrnit compiste data forall manner of dspostion data elemens, Includes transtere, dismissa s, and judoments, Notes: @ Incomplete data:reports wore sulin ledfr lass than a fll year Gor The court reported that no cases occurred or the courtdid notsubmit a raport in this catagory. Judieal Counel of California 2015 Court Statistics Report ‘Small Claims Appeals—Stageof Caseat Disposition, by County Fiscal Year 2013-14 Stage af Case at Disposition Total Total COUNTY Flings Diepostions Before Hesring AfterTrial de Novo a (6 we oy ‘STATEWIDE, 5.304 4285 156 4,089 Alameda 230 18 o 19 Alpine ° ° a o Amador 8 1 o 1 Bulle 7 ° a 8 Calaveras 1 3 1 2 Calusa ° ° o o Contra Costa ot es 1 2 Del Norte 6 5 ° 5 1 Dorado 2 32 4 Ey Fresno 63 6 0 50 Glenn 0 ° 0 o Humbolet 10 7 1 5 Imperial 10 9 1 8 Inyo a a 3 0 Karn a 2a ° cy Kings 1 0 ° 0 Lake 4 2 ° 2 Lassen 2 3 1 2 Los Angeles 2,038 11855 o 4.895 Madera 0 0 6 a vin 6 st ° 87 Manpess o a ° ° Mendocino 1“ 8 o 6 Merced 2 a ° ° Modoe 0 a o 0 Mono “ 1" ° u Monterey 6 “4 *0 4 Napa 2 2 3 18 Nevada 25 2 b a Orange 490 420 5 370 Placor 42 % B 38 Pluras ° 0 ° 0 Riverside 6 3 1 2 Sacramento 162 333 0 333 San Benito 1 1 1 0 Sar Berraidino 28r 244 a 207 San Diego 875 388 a 363 San Francisco 159 a2 a 112 San Josquin 2 2 o 21 San Luls Obispo 28 1 ‘San Mateo 80 0 0 Santa Baruara 54 a7 ° Santa Clara 182 a a Santa Cruz 24 35 6 ‘Shasta 5 20 ° Judicial Gounell of Calitornia, a2 Superior Courts Table 5f 2016 Gourt Statistice Report Small Claims Appeals—Stageof Caseat Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table Sf Stage of Case at Disposition Total Total couNTY Flings Dispostions Before Hearing After Tlial be Nove a 2 o. @ ‘STATEWIDE 3.304 4245, 156 4,089 Stora 6 ° o ° Sisciyou 5 2 2 ° Sclana R n ° 1 Sonoma ar 5 8 7 Stanistaus 4 8 ° 19 Sutter 1 3 ° 13 Tehama 3 ° ° ° Trmty ° 6 o ° Tulare 2 8 ° 8 Tatura 4 3 ° 3 Vertua Ea ca 8 3 Yala 8 8 8 ° Yuba 2 2 ° 2 Column Key: [C-{0} The total ofthe manner of dlspasiton categories may noladd upto (8) because nol all courls were able 10 submit compile data forall mannes o disposition data elements, o Data are available only for eaurtsreporting dala va Uve Judicial Branch Slalstical Information System (JBSIS). Notes: a Incomplete date; reports were submitted for feesthan a fll yea. Our — The court reported that no cases orcurted or‘he court dd net submit a report inthis category Judicial Council of California 108 2015 Court Statistics Report Limited Civil—MethodofDisposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 5g Before Toal After Trial Dismissalfor Total Tosa Lack of other counry Fiings Dispositions Prosecution Before Tra ByJuy— 3y Court iA) @ ol (0h ) fa STATEWIDE 456.597 507,728 3,786 466,150 zg 34698 Atnmeda 12.123 14,008 o 13,485 6 std Aine 16 a 16 0 ° ‘Amador "1 188 ° 2 Bure 0 2.186 4 398 Calaveras 6 318 ° 55 Colusa a 108 o 4 Contra Costa 8 13,569 1 Det Nore 23 1.140 ° E Dorado o 1424 ° Fresno ° 6.915 2 Gicnn ° 255 ° Humbotot 395, a6 ° operat 6 4971 1 Inyo 0 a ° Kom 626 9361 e Kings 0 1888 ° Lake 2 ear ° Lassen 280 0 257 6 3 Les Angeles 142,177 13.364 2.555 492613 813 Madera 2.480) 3.018 497 2.802 a 120 arin 1,595 1707 16 1638 a 52 Mariposa 179 “51 6 198 a 45 Mendocino 798 955, 32 867 o 56 Hlerood 2638 2679 av 2267 o 8 Modoc 6 68 1 49 ° 18 Mone Ey 128 6 100 ° 7 Monterey 3.408 3.696 2 3541 o 12 Napa 1028 21075 14 ° a7 Nevada 181 7 33 1 83 range sh184 35,410 1086 SNS Plaver 2.906 287° 2 ° 184 Plumas 186 192 3 0 8 Riverside 30.581 34408, 11s 4 2767 Sacremento 85,951 64,393, 8 2 2st San Bonito Br 596 ° ° B San Bernardino 31.776 35,508, 4.370 18 2367 San Diego 32,042 36,875 72 30 1.952 Sar Francisco 7.356 7.100 68 a1 25 Sar Joaquin 3.747 rigae 289 16 4,304 San Luis Obispo 4851 1.998 24 4 260 Sar Mateo 5.899 5.008 2 a 65 Santa Barbara 3307 2.908 ° 1 +48, Saria Clara 12938 12.594 0 1 4.008 Santa Cruz 4772 sea 2 1 121 Shasta 2.070 227 o 0 203 Jucidl Counel ofCalifia 104 2018 Court Staistos Report Limited Civil—MethodofDisposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 5g Before Trish Dismiseal for Tota Tota Lack of otner county Filings Disgosivons Prosecution Sore Til Byluy By Court ay ® (S) 2) Sh fal ‘STATEWIDE 286,697 307728 3.786 “66,160 2931.89 Sierra 1 0 a ‘a 0 0 Siskiyou 480 ° at « sa Solano 5.903 o Bart ° az Sonam 4.282 33 4.053 1 175 Stanistaus 7404 347 eats 2 442 Sutter “048 7 eet 0 148 Tehama 782 183 528 ° m3 Teinty 8 ° 80 ° 7 Tulace ane 6 4.259 1 448 Tuokumne 408 ° 43 ° & Vartura 157 18 8987 13 133 Yola war 1 101 1 8 Yuba 855, ° 137 ° HB Column Key: {C4} The tolal of he manneaf cispositoncategries may not add up o (6) because not al courts were able to submit camplole data fra mannerof dieposilon dala elements 0) Includes bafore- and aterhearngcismisals, tensfers, andjudgment. Notes: oi Incomp ete data: reprts were submited for loss than afl yar. Ger — Tre courtreporie that nacases oscured or he coutnet Submit repor in his category. Judie’Council of Calforia 105 2518 Court Statistics Report Small Claims—MethodofDisposition, by County Fiscal Year 2013-14 Superior Courts Table 5h Before Trial Diainissal for Total Total Lack of other COUNTY Flings Dispesitons Prosecution _—Bef’e Trial AftTra a 8) © (oy fa) ‘STATEWIDE 155,428 169,285, "15580 728,580, 92,128 Alameda 4.934 543¢ ° 2.354 3077 Alpine 25 8 ° 2 a Amador a 5 2 2 7m Bute saz 616 ° 168 452 Calaveras 106 we . 8 109 Colusa 2 18 ° 1 7 Contra Casta 2318 2,705 720 986 1,999 Dal Neto 55 tat at 18 135 F Dorado 568 a4 a 21 412 Fresno 2.505 ear ° att 28 tenn 54 30 ° 10 49 Humbatst 404 398 6 65 327 Impera 523 513 18 120 375 Inyo a 32 6 ° 2 Kem 2557 2494 704 582 41351 Kings a7 228 ° 18 210 Lake 288 282 40 8 119 Lassen 2 12a 8 7 87 Los Angoles 54,504 56,398 2017 24319 29,903 aclera 258 240 2 86 148 Main 834 eae 8 342 576 aviposa 82 2 ° 7 7 Mendocino 228 284 1 42 197 Merced 885 88 183 285 soe Modo 22 4 1 a Mono 9 1 5 18 Monteray a2 an se 10 Napa 406 8 138 Nevada 34 80 m range 13987 14278 3.498 4.901 Placer 1028 4 2 338 Plumas 0 7 a 32 Riverside yor 11.499 2728 #004 Sacrannta 4020 1208 3213, 1.709 San Benito 548 454 9 798 San Bernardino agar 19.636 2007 208s San Diego 12997 12.47 261 3,356 ‘San Francisco 2518 2472 a a2 San Joaquin 4158 41.332 66 286 ‘Sen Luis Obispo 760 m3 1 308 ‘San Mateo 1872 4 0 545 Santa Barbara 4328 4,308 6 462 Sania Clora asz2 4,508 09 4.900 Santa Cuz eat 873 70 257 Shasta 493 54 1 191 Jucicial Council of Calforria 108 2018 Court Statistios Report Small Claims—MethodofDisposition, by County Fiscal Year 2013-14 Superior Courts Table Sh Bete! Disrriesal for Total Total Lack af Other county Flings Dispositions Prosecution Before Trial torThal A 8) io (o 6) ‘STATEWIDE 155,428 "158,285 "15580 48,580 92,128 Slera 3 w o 0 a Siskiyou 108 12 1 4 0 Solana 4,287 1.328 ° sr 757 Sonoma 41,332 41,336 188 531 et Stanisious 44 41453 0 ag 983 Sutter 259 210 0 18 195 Tenaima 395, 820 282 wT 191 Trinity 24 29 4 4 Fa Tulare 1078 ser 10 148 769 Tuolumne 184 198: 8 a 1 Vertura 3313 3.138 308 634 2.198 Yale 407 318 a 49 268 Yuba 132 139 ° 18 ye Column Key: (CHE) ~The tolaofthe mannerof dlspasition catoyorias may rol add upto (B) bucause notall courts were able ta submit complete data for al’ mannerof disposition data elements. 10 Inckudes before- and aller-hearng dismissals, transfers, and judgments Notes: 0 Incomplete data; reports wore submitted forlosethan a ful year, or — The rau reported that no cases orcurred or the court id not submit a repor in this category. Juci'al Council of Galfornia 107 2018 Coun Staistios Report Civil Case Processing Time, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 6a General Unlimited Ci Limited Chi Unlasful Detainess ‘Small laine Disposed of in Less Disposed cf in Less Disposed of in Loss Disposed of in Less Than _Morths “Than _ Months Than Days “Than _ Daye couNTY 7 cr 2 ee 30 6 70 90 ae 0 O fel Hy a. (is STATEWIDE 66% 77% «HG 86% «885% 49% 6B 60% 74% Alameda 0% AH 8% 58% 94% BT AI 58% 31% dam Alpine - - - - - ~ = = = Amadar - - = - - - — = = Butte 54% 78% 8% Bo% 96% 59% 78% 59% 7285 Calaveras T% 2% aT 88% S85 38% 58% 53% 86% Colusa 2% 8% UB 87h 90% 90% Bem TBR 70% 95% Contra Casta 1% 4% 8% 78% B88 48% 68% 45% 5485 el Norte = - = = - = - - = - El Dorada 72% 83% 80% 91% OHS sm a% 25% 37% Fresno = =ae3 = - = = ~ = = Glenn 78% 6% et 80% 190% BOM 78% Humbotat 73% 81% BG oat Bate 30% 44% 1% Impala BAT 8% em 83% 48% 6a Be Inyo 86% 91% a 92% 85% s0% 70% 9% Ker 79% 91% 95 err = 5 3 = Kags 81% 80% atm 85h 88 51% 68% 21% 75% Lake ya% 8% 3 87% 8% HTH 2% 6% erm 76% Lassen e2% 89% OS 88% 498 55% Bo 80% 90% Los Angeles 8% aI tty aes 4% 67% 50% 7385 Madera TH 85% 80% BT 8% 2% 41% 7e% 89% Mein 69% AION AB% 94% 87% 35% 47% 66% 7% Marposa 52% 70% 63% 78% TA 27% 88m 63% 71% Mengocino = - = = - = = - ~ = Meroed 66% 7% 8H 20% aT 81% 5e% 78% 62% 75% Modoe 30% 888 81% 100% 100% 43TH 83% 83% Mone 60% 86% 77% 58% 8% 81% 20% 47%, 28% 42% Monterey 72% 8% OH 73% 95% 8% 53% 81% a1 ae Napa 78% Ba OM ar a 9% AM 63% 55% Bake Nevada 8% 81 OTH 35% 7% 9% 24% Ba 65% 78% Orange 69% 8% HG 79% 8% 98%, 56% 75% 55% 71% Placer = = = = = = = = Plumas 76% BBB 93% 100% 100% 61% Riverside 72% 85% TS 85% 8% 85% 57% Tei Sacramensa 5% 78% 8B 6% ST 9a 100% 41% San Benito 58% 75% 78% Ce ee 62% atm ‘San Bemardina 68% BOK 90H 9am 99% «100% 8TM 136 San Diego a 70% 1% «96% 43% 3% San Francisca 48% 71% 8% co 37% 58% San Joaquin 57m TBH BBL an% 30% 0% ‘San Luis Obispo 57% 78% 86% 89% 50% 58% San Mateo 57% TB 8% 52% AN 8 55% 30% Santa Barbara 78% 90% 95% 88% 858TH 58% 73% Sarta Clara 8m BIB 88% 825% 65% 5644 Sarta Cruz 72% B% 82%BN 51% 86% 48% Shasta 2% 74% TH 4% 90% 100% 62% 78% 63% ludicfal Council af California 108 2418 Court Statsties Report Civil Case Processing Time, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 6a General Uninited Civt Linites civ Unlawful Detainers ‘Small Claims Disoosed of in Less. Disposed on Less Disposed ofin Lose Disposed afin Less Than Months Than Months Than Days Than _ Days couNTY 7% ee 2 1828 30 5 70 0 oO © iG) i a Ww ‘STATEWIDE, 6% 77% OBMGCEMSSC«RIT:SC*C*« 4% ah 60% 71% Siena - = = - — _ Siskiyou 78% 86% 91% 11% 97% 98% Bem TT 46% 56% Solana 26% 98% see 74% 56% 67% Sonoma 76% 89% 94% 56% TT 99% 6am 81% 65% 74% Stanislaus 58% GBH. 74% atk 8% a8 11% 8% 33% 4346 Sutter 68% 78% 86% 36% 1% 70% 88% 78% 85% Tenama 74% 89% 84% 64% 10% 73% 4w% 5a 39% 48% Trinity 10% 8% BT 7% 81% BT 39% 58% 8% 13% Tulane 82% 9% 96% Am 2% 95% 5a% Bane 63% ate Tuoumne 58% 68% 75% Be 99% HON «SOHN etm 70% Ventura 72% 86% 83% 3%97% Bee 7886 68% 17% Yolo 69% a Bae 83% 869% see 4% 63% Pte Yuba BI% BT 80% 38% «(98 Tm ot 78% 86% ‘Column Key: ()-(H)— Includas limited unkswfuldetsiners only. Note: = The court dia not submit a report in this category. Judicial Council of California “09 2015 Court Statistics Report Total Criminal Filings, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 7a Nonwatic Tia Total coUNTY Criminal “Folorias—Mesuameanons §—infrattions. Misdammaarors Infractions a) ) 6 (21 (e) fal ‘STATEWIDE 6,096,084 272,610 400,323 285,103 515,285 4,622,803 Alarneds Dra 7.93" 11.885 10,298 10,600 226,758 Alpina 1429 3 2 28 64 4314 Amador 6.528 528 331 40 ez 5.009 Putte 23,496 2.361 2937 2473 4528 20,038 Calaveras 4.920 378 510 197 4ar 3.387 Colusa 8.455 3a 295 2a 340 7.459 Contra Costa 118.902 4.708 5.680 4.288 4791 96,480 Del None 5.945 367 435 142 248 4058 Et Dorado 22001 1.128 1420 a5 150 17,333 Fresno 136.797 11,531 11,088 2.168 26.088 85,051 Glenn 9.931 232 B 182 243 8.281 Humbotd: 24.457 1.987 2.458 2497 asta 15,907 Imperial 64.575 2.108 2821 688 2701 56,579 Inyo 10,194 214 45 o 26 9,230 Kern 180.883, 40,120 18.928 1882 14,028 498.162 Kings 29.208 23343 127 3 sa2t 73,7083 Lake 9.007 1095 41268 358 687 5.624 Lassen eae 328 321 257 5431 Los Ang 1.775.280 55.665 117.057 20138 1,380,305, Madara 21.948 1887 4,208 208 3,486 14,484 Marin 41.981 1699 1598 1542 236,185 Mangos 2848 4a ° 247 2,008 Mendocina 19397 2.481 a7 2.198 tae Merced 47.323 2707 686 2776 38,520 Modoc 1.948 2 2 17 sara Mono 5ar4 674 437 805 4933 Montaray 58.520 5,192 1412 6.586 40,110 Napa 21.84 1.363, 857 1.967 18,376 Nevada 22.320 1.445 1.108 3728 17,373 ‘Orange 412,053 i83i4 25,632 13,543 30318 921,248 Placer 30.884 2,893 ata 2708 81,518 Plumas 151 167 288 2077 Riverside 18,195 4.564 23.493 269,428 Sacramento 10.820 30,082 zaoas 27.528 141434 ‘San Benito 45, 582 48 774 3,980 ‘San Bernardino 20.329 30.481 a6 39.28 aired San Diego 457,858 13,397 24,432 28.593 19,843 358,863 ‘San Franclsco 204,772 4038 2614 59.028 1,536 197,555 San Josquie 97.139 7281 6.435, 4,300 21,245 57,978 ‘San Lals Oblepo 44441 2,398 ett 4,885 4629 28,463 ‘San Mateo 141.634 3.502 7.876 4.988 4,248 421,059 Santa Barbara 35,353 3,560 659 40,160 4407 1.067 Santa Clara 204,710 9.487 15,408 12,483 11,678 155.634 Sarta Cruz 50,508 221 3.070 3.885 2,885 a247r Shasta 34,700 3,637 2,732 2001 1,790 24.540 tucletal Counc of California 110 2918 CourStatistics Report Total Criminal Filings, by County and Case Type Fiscal Year 2013-14 Superior Courts Table 7a Nonalie Trac Total coUNTY Criminal Felonies Misdemeanors Infractions Misdemeanors Infractians Ay (o) Gi ©) ie fe ‘STATEWIDE 5,096,084 200,323, 285,103 515,245 4,622,803 Siera sor st 8 20 ar Siskiyou 15,338 455, 301 482 13,870 Solana 52,297 3,508 1,108 2317 aunt Sonoma 64,989 6,956 2,298 5.28 ar.se2 Stanislaus 59,716. 3,608 aia 6.982 A430 Sutter 18,787 1,360 599 578 11.987 Tehama 18,005 1.198. 23 1729 13.895 2.282 11 48 212 1518 59,953, 7.005 1.185 4.046 S281 Tuolumno, 8230) 337 286 788 8478 Ventura 133,937 8.0% 3,045 4.008 113,777 Yolo an2a8, 27s 197 2728 23.432 Yuba 13,205 1.875 54 480 2614 Column Key: 8) Since 2001, felony is counted as oneSling and one dispasiven far each de‘endant throughautal stages af criminal proceedings, This cvange eliminated double-counting ofdefendants wha were hold to answer, certfiod anyullyplaas, oF waived preliminary hearings. and itresucee! the rumbers of flings and dispositions reported 8) This column also inckides miscellareous‘slony pettions reported only by JBSIS cours. Notes: @ Incomplete deta; reports were submitted forlessthan a full year. Gor — The court repurted that na eases accurredor he court did not submit a report inthis category. Judicial Counel af California 2015 Court Statistics Report Total CriminalDispositions, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 7b Nonvatic Teal Tolal counry Crimimal ——Felonias Mitdemeancrs Infractions Misslemeanars infractions ay 8) wo o © é STATEWIDE 5,400,132 254,410 335,498 195,908 404296 4,200,028 Alameda 250,584 7.954 411,680 5.273 agit 217,106 Alpine 28 3 19 28 35 4,238 ‘Amador 4.762 220 20 398 3a Butte 27.908 2.913 1978 1923 13,946 Calaveras arr 407 188 487 3,349 Colusa 9,797 348 40 480 4187 Contra Casta 114,875 407 asia 440 07.778 Del Norte a.ase 982 146 1,031 5.588 Zl Doracto 23,507 1,330 1.588 1.544 ta.o14 Fresno 109,204 8,050 sett 13,195 75,693 Glenn 967 8 133 we ea Humbolat 22,580 ata 1.10 1,628 15,708 imperial 69,058 2578 622 2.578 so.228 nyo 10,298 3B a 281 3.451 Kon 165,718 18184 428 11,488 115,829 Kings 29,304 4,779 15 1,398 25.4441 Lake 3.835, 1,296 382 08 5279 Lassen 648 312 3 461 5.504 Los Angeles: 1,805,188 99.175 37.587 tette2 1,422,021 Madara 19516 4114 204 3,128 13,206 Marin 40,138 4344 1105 4.408 a 2879 368 0 2 Mondocina 20,170 2577 633 1908 Merced 44,108, 2aa2 2.022 685 2345 Modoc 1.921 181 230 2 108 Mono 4,016 v9 392 404 603 Moncorey 56,986 3.234 5245 4,200 aasz Nave 21.287 1,298 1176 308 1938 Nevada sate ay 152 i) 282 (98 (339 (02,348 range (18,707 46707 “ @ o © Pracar 6.028 (9 1,028 2582 aa 2078 fe Pumas 2815 17 278 12 228 1930 Riverside 382.870 17,608 w21 s9.200 291.679 Sacramento sara anor sea 6.003 115.678 ‘San Bento 5,545 ar az 709 3,896 San Bemardina 294.101 18,088 3797 22,898 28.208 199,020 San Diego 419.807 15,298 zaaze 26,640 18870 335.877 San Francleco 139.387 5626 1,100 13343 187 113.801 San Jozguin s1ar7 5.548 6.113 15,808 61,203 ‘San Luls Obispo 43,282 2,466 8,820 4,008 4.838 29049 Sen Mateo 147,907 3.028 8.408 18,555 4.098 115,825 Sena Barbara 79378 2.880 5,944 2,596 3.734 58,242 Santa Clara 201,217 3449 sant eur *o541 159,873 Santa Cruz 44,309 3.052 3,045 5503 2.848 30.083 Shasta 0,424 3,350 Bate 4,983 1522 21,754 Judical Gouncl of California 112 2015 Crus Stststcs Report Total CriminalDispositions, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 7b Nanvatie Trac Total couNTY Cerminal Felonies Misdemeanors Infractions. «Misdemeanors Infractions ‘ay 8) C oO. © ©) ‘STATEWIDE 3,400,132 254,410 ‘336484 195,908 404,296 4,209,028 Sterra we 02 ws ot “ o Siskiyou tapas 420 378 187 390 13,608 Solana 53,378 3.856 120 a8 2.138 44.048 Sonoma 73,469 3217 6.982 atet 5.868 59,20 Stefislaus 53,161 8715 2829 862 4.085 38,700 Sutter 14841 4,234 1.443 382 128 11.058 Tehama 9,087 28 205 44 ore 7938 Thity 22347 322 141 4a 16 1.850 Tuare 58,902 4,358 6.056 4119 3.683, 53,708, Tuolumne 8,346 745 383, 299 138 5.701 Ventura 156,380 4228 10,880 2.540 5.082 133,853 Yolo 28.988 4.803 1.998 181 2.155 22.899 Yuba 11.275 816 4,220 374 a5 8,450 Cotumn Key: a Since 2001, a felonyis counted as onefing and one disposlian for eachwefendant throughoutall stagesofcriminal proceecingsThis change eliminated double-counting of defendants who were held to answer, cortfied on guity pleas, oF ‘waivedpreliminary hearings, andit reduced the pumbers of flings and dispositions reported Notes: o Incomplete deta; reports were submited for less thar a ful year, This columnsiso includes niscellaneus‘elony petiions reporied only by JBSIS covrts Bor — The court reporiodthat no cases occurredor the courl uid na! subi a report ints calgary Jadiciat Council of California a 2015 Court Statistes Report Felonies—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2012-14 Table Ba Before Trial AlterTal Other — Before Other — Aer Total Total Pleas of Preliminary Preliminary ‘coUNTY Filings Dispusiioes Guity Heanng By Coun, By Jury A ® ial O) fal 1S) ‘STATEWIDE 272,810 254,610 208,638 30,050 758845 Alameda 7.931 7884 5,138 1.928 1 at Alpine 3 3 0 3 0 a a Amador 28 302 250 7 7 1 4 Butte 2381 2.359 1648 283 17a 199 4 Calaveras 379 328 258 30 u 0 2 Colusa 341 162 86 50 2 2 3 Contra Costa 4,708 4.135 3228 610 im 2 123 Del None 387 ear 445 a Ea a 8 El Dorado 1,128 a2 6 48 4 28 Fresno 11,531 10745 41,589 829 6 108 Glenn 232 208 16 4 4 2 Humtotat 1.987 2027 486 258 6 8 Imperial 2.108 20st 348 323 1 7 Iya au te u 23 a ? Kem 40,120 10011 4167 863 3 170 Kings aa 801 226 142 8 “3 Lake 1.095 ana 224 55 4 7 Laveen 328 27 6 a ° 8 Los Angeles 55.686 55.264 5,058 117 58 2.008, Madera 41.762 288 7 6 31 Main a0 102 2B ° 4 Mariposa 139 at iy o 2 Menaocine on 188 110 8 18 Merced 2042 353 128 3 ar Modo 181 at 13 o 2 Mono 149 24 20 2 4 Monterey 3.234 204 608 95 2 uM Napa 1,298 41,922 217 45 5 10 Nuvava (yrs2 125 thet 02 o aa Orange 10.707 13,600 2.207 524 2 374 Pacer 1,025 wars «aan 80 ot aan Plumas 187 128 18 8 1 4 Rivers *7,908 16.158 502 370 10 465 Sacramenita “007 3,007 1439 402 o 288 Sen Benito ar 318 2 6 a 1 San Bereardina *8,089 *s.472 ara eau 7 280 San Diego 15,298 13341 1084 648 2 245 San Feancisca 528 4.625 zai 558 0 182 San Joaquin 5545 4.022 4.944 123 ° Ea ‘San Luis Obispe 2.466 4,800 924 43 288 “4 San Mateo 3.028 2,182 533 ate 7 82 Santa Barbara 2.860 2,122 435 e 18 a Sunta Clara 34a9 8,208 $20 8a 7 ar Santa Guz, 3.052 2aat 472 82 9 38 ‘Shasta 3,380 2478 405 360 1 oa Jocie's! Gounel of Caltornia a4 2015 Court SatisiesRepor Felonies—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 8a Before Tal Aor Tia ‘Dir Bolare Other — Aor Tota Tolal ——Pinascf —Prliinary Pel minay county Flings Dispositions Gulty Hearng —Hoarng «By Court By uy fay (8) (G) iD} {E) if) is} STATEWIDE Fee aeas0 208,838 3005012382 75845 Sora 30 2 ® ae o 0 Skiyou en 388 " 1% ° a Solano 3583 3.858 2284 a6 476 3 76 Sonoma 2987 217 2295 se 231 8 38 Stanislaus 7972 ars 4.080 422 689 ° En Suter 1283 zt 1076 07 2 4 7 Tehama 82 28 33 134 a 3 2 Tiny 289 32 222 7% 20 a 7 Tule sare 4308 202 4a 11 1 aa Tuolumne 794 948 563 106 a8 a H ventura aan 4225 33582 12 an 3 we Yala 2186 1803 41548 283 +10 4 ea Yuba 362 16 355 ‘31 4 n a Column keys ® Since 2001, felonyecunled as ore fing and ane disposition ar eachweferdanktroushous al slagesfein proacodings. This cnange eliminated couble-counting ofdefendants wo were hed to snswe,ceifiod On guilypleb. of ‘yaved preliminary nearngs, andi edued the numbers af fings an clpastions reported @ “This clualsoincludes iscellarcousflorpeitionsreported only by JBSIS cous dspesed befers til n columns (0) and (E (01-3) Thea oftns manner of cpostion catagories may nt aad upto (8) becouse etal couts were abla o submit complete da forall manner of spostiondeta elements Pleasof quit before the star tl Incudesfelonies reduced to misdemeanors that subsequently went al IE) Includes dizmlsals and ranstors # Inches als for daferdants whose eloncharges ware cued to misdemeanors afoathe start of in Notes a incomplets data, reports were submitted for lass thana full yoar. Sor “The court reported thet ro eases oonue or tr courte actsubst a repotin tis catagory JJciial Council of Caltoen'a 2015 Court Statistles Report Felonies—Dispositions, by Outcome and County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 8b Total Total Feiony Misdemeanor Acqutals and Felory COUNTY Fitings Dispositions Corviefanz_Corwiclions “Dismissals. Transfers. ~Ptihons w 8) fo 2 ) © 1S) STATEWIDE 7261025410 —~—~—«78.A78 32,632 38.697 2257 1.388 Alameda 7.931 7,854 3446 1748 2.880 ° a Alpine 3 3 0 0 3 o ° ‘Amador 528 302 282 o 2 " 3 Butte 2.381 2.369 1.854 27 486 2 Calaveras 379 325 250, a 82 ° 6 Colusa 341 482 87 0 8 0 7 Contra Costa 4.708, 4.135, 2.802 735; 376 70 52 Del Nore 387 87 248 206 182 1 E1Dorario 4.128 4121 aa) 223 109 1" ° Fresno 1153 10.748 7.405 4.699 4876 Eo B Glenn 232 208 136 0 3 15 = Humbolet 1.987 2.02 ey 501 68 ° Fy Imperial 2.108 2.064 1.085 331 583 a a Ina 2a 12 “a 6 38 ° 2 Kern 40.120 toon 6346 11808 1768 0 2 Kings 2.313, ot a7 160 37a ° Lake 4.095 1412 572 256 278 Lassen 326 347 23 8 3 2 18 Los Angeles 55,668 55.264 45317 2.760 6.253 23a Madera 1.887 4.762 1922 278 sat 6 8 Marin 978 a0 407 an 432 ° = Mariposa 178 138 103 6 2 8 0 Meneocine 1.058 asa 330 16 26 62 7 Merced 2,639 24a 4.505 452 46 a 18 Modoc 472 451 43 ar 53 2 ° Mono 175 149 st “4 a a - Monterey 3,260 3.294 1928 659 m™ 2 ° Nase 4.401 1.298 684 35% 280 o 4 Nevada (tse wa 5a ize ti S Grange 16.707 8.455 5476 2ats 118 246 Placer (1.028 11266 waa 0.485 i = Plumas 187 94 40 23 0 ° Riverside 17.606 14.492 2.169 733 128 8a ‘Sacramonta 11.107 7782 4.485 18/0 0 San Benito air ‘ea 135 94 ° ‘San Bamardino 18.089 18.689, ® 229 7 24 San Diego 12.258 1.339 4,708 ° 2 ‘San Francisco 2671 2.086, 68 0 = San Joaquin 4.028 39 4423 5a = San Luis Obispo 4.870 2a 4 35 San Mateo anit 30 167 o 0 Santa Barbara 2.158 0 408 80 64 Santa Clara 6.508 sara ear 62 42 Santa Cruz 2.281 226 546 9 = Shasta 2078 468 740 23 a uicial Coune | af California 18 2015 Cour Statics Report Felonies—Dispositions, by Outcomeand County Superior Courts FiscalYear 2013-14 Table 8b Tata Total Felony Misdemeanor Acguittals and Folory ‘COUNTY Flings Dispositions Canwllons.-Corwictions Dismissals. Transfers. Paltions a (8) (o) (os fe) ff (9) ‘STATEWIDE, 272,610 254,410 178476 32,632 35,697 72257 1348 Siera 30 2 a o the 0 7 Siskiyou 581 420 301 5 48 5 18 Solano 3.593 3.656 1698 643 4.201 113 - Sonarna 2.087 3217 1914 ate 440 28 425 Stanisious 7.972 arts 4528 308 4,688 107 0 Suter 1,283 1234 786 art 155 35 Tehama 4,182 628 430 7 187 a Trinity 289 322 131 a 84 10 Tulare sai8 4,388 ania as 576 16 8 "Tuolumne 79 74s 43 95 198 8 a Ventura 472 4225 2.086 1007 458 ar Yolo 2.188 4,803 1.362 st 361 6 Yuba 952 ate 87 0 190 a3 ° Column Key: (C)-(G! The purpose ofthistable is to provide a general summaryof broad categories ofdisposticnsin criminal proceedings and is olan exhaustiv lisafl possible disnasitionsin individual criminal cases. The table categorizesdismiseals and ‘oquitals together. The table doos notspecify the types or reasonsfordismissal ar acqultal, nordoesit rclude other futcomes such 9s diversion programs, deferred entries of udgment, or dismissalsresulting from pursuit supervision revocations in few af fonval eanvietions (CH{G) The total of he mannerof cispositian categories may not el upto 1B) hecause nota courts wore able lo submit comp ete {ata foall manner of dispositiondata alements. io Defendants canvicted af ane or mora m'sdemeanars bul acl sorvinted ofa felony. (9) Disaositian of felony peiions are reported only By JBSIS cours and are only classified as a dispositionbefore hearing or aftr hearing, Notes: a Incomplete data; reports wore submitedforloss than ful year. Dor — The court reported fnat no cases occured orthe court did not submit a report inthis ca:ogory Judiciat Council of Cal feria 7 2015 Cour Statsties Report Nontraffic Misdemeanors—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Yoar 2013-14 Table 9a Before Tral AlarTal Total Total Bail Guilty county Filings Dispositors —_Forfetures Pleas, Other By Court By Jury os ey ) io) eh A ©) ‘STATEWIDE 400,323 336,494 3092 200,808 120,562 Tat 1816 Alameda 11,888 11,680 Bt 5,100 “4 a Alpine 2 8 15 o a a Amador asi 220 ° 8T 0 a Butte 2997 29:3 2 1.142 18 10 Calaveras 510 407 6 188 1 2 Colusa 295 248 8 50 a 1 Contra Coste 5.880 4607 1 1,873 4 128 Del Norte 495 982 8 223 2 1 El Dorado 1420 4,390 2 297 3 12 Frasno 41,088 8,080 9 $368 1 20 Glenn 7 88 D 22 7 3 Hurnbol 2488 zara ° 1.230 7 19 Imperial 2621 2.576 7 1.409 2 a Inyo a5 384 10 96 8 B Keen 18,928 16,184 2 548 4 6 Kings 1377 4778 ° 608 4 10 Lake 1.288 41,296 ° era 3 1" Lassen 321 312 7 86 o zi Les angeles 17.057 93,176 2ast 26,502 340 365 Nedera 1,118 1 372 2 4 Matin 4.344 5 az “4 6 pose 388 30 a a 1 Mendecine 207 3 52 8 10 Merced 2,922 4 978 q 8 Modoc 230 3 136 4 o Mono 382 134 45 7 ° Monet 5.245 8 11803 14 or Napa 1178 o 398 a 18 Newaen 140s; (282 w es ot 08 Orange 28.882 ) o @ a o Placer 2.285 2.582 0 1.365 3 2 Plumas, 304 278 1 6s 1 1 Roverside 13,238 7212 48 7.183 8 45 Sacramento 10,082 9.589 ° 3.480 50 u San Beno 582 542 0 208 1 1 ‘San Bemardina 30,481 31,797 4 14,178 3 va San Diego pasa 23.422 70 7.580 39 17 San Franrisoo 2619 1,100 2 389 sy m2 San Joaquin 6.435 6.113 22 1.940 8 16 ‘San Luis Obispo eat 6323 481 267 387 16 San Bataa 7478 5,08 0 1,72 4 “6 Santa Barbara 6.459 5,946 2 284 13 1s SantClara 15,428 14717 ° 5314 ° 60 Santa Cruz 3.070 3.085, 1 4.409 6 18 Shasta 2732 2at2 o 1.928 1 18 Jugieial Council af Caltomia 18 2018 Caut Statstios Report Nontraffic Misdemeanors—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 9a Betore Trial After Trial Total Total Bal Gully ‘coUNTY Flings Dispositions _‘Forfeitures Pleas Other By Coun By Jury a ) O i E fa (3) ‘STATEWIDE, “400,323 336,494 3,092 209,808 «120,562 1421818 Sera 31 3 or ® wr 0 at Siskiyou 318 3 238 16 1 3 Solana 3.120 3 1.032 2018 15 st Sonoma 8.932 1 478 2716 2 38 Starislatis ‘S08 2828) 4 2,028 783 13 2 Sutter 1.390 1,483 2 855 575 4 ° Tehama 1.196 205 5 5 120 4 Trinity ng ut ° 69 88 3 ° Tuare 7.008 6,056 1 5148 e73 6 30 Tuolumne: oar 86 a aid 47a, Ba 8 Ventura 8034 10,880 192 5787 4688 1 61 Yolo 2734 1.998 28 928 1,094 12 38 Yuba 1875 1,220 1 68 532 14 ® Column Key: {C}-(G) The tolaofIna manner af disgusiton ualugorles may nat add up ta (i) because not al cours were sble to subst ‘complete data forall manner of dieposivon data clements © Other Before Trialincudes lransters, dismissal, and dismissals aflersizersion Notes: w Incomplete dala; reports were eubilled fo ase than a full year. Dor “The court eparted thas no cases occurred or the court did nat submit arepert in this category. udieal Caune | of Calfornia 119 2015 Court Statistics Report Nontraffic Infractions—Methodof Disposition, by County Fiscal Year 2013-14 Superior Courts Table 9b Before Trial Tat Total Total Bai Guilty county Flings Dispositions Forfetres Pleas Other By Gourt a oy o ie fa ‘STATEWIDE 265,103 64,341 55168 87.867 18.428 Alameda 10,238 4,328 217 1.538, 278 Alpine 2B 24 o 2 2 Amsdor 40 18 6 5 6 Butte 2ars ant 580 er 20 Calaveras 197 6 0 33 10 Calusa 2 4a 5 7 18 ° Contra Costa 4.265 3314 4,150 B10 4,280 24 Dal Net 2 146 95 20 2 "1 El Dorado 816 1.888 1459 o 20 38 Freena 2.169 4611 54 957 572 28 Glenn 162 133 38 36 50 u Hurbolat 2497 1,108 383 133 548 a Imperal 6 22 160 288 ur sa Inyo ° a o ° ° a Ken 4.882 1,228 218 586 a9 25 Kings 93 318 0 160 at 134 Lake 386 ata 182 92 33 Laseen 38 34 8 18 8 Los Angeles nga 37.587 9.362 said 13211 Madera 238 201 37 28 70 6 Min 1595 4,105 743 8 or 189 Mariposa ° ° ° ° B 0 Mendecing 887 533 221 178 208 2 Mercea 628 658 42 428 153 3 Modoe a 6 ° 7 a D Mona 407 404 213 at @ 48 Monierey sate 1,200 st 28 ara st Nana 87 303 16a 31 7a 20 Nevada 9 1.108 95 2 to20 20 03 range 13,643 o o 0 @ o Placor ote a4 © me es 8 Plumas 187 12 az at 20 4 Riverside 4.564 7,833 5.839 a 12a an Sacramento Pane 5.479 1016 2601 693 1.199 ‘San Benito 48 a o at 24 6 ‘San Bemarcino 2418 22.898 14.464 a 5,520 2.915 ‘San Diego 30a 26.880 ast 8a 9,386 2,109 San Francisco 59,023 16,343 4.904 1,361 3873 3,208, San Jnequin 4.300 3218 287 1,095 ame 122 ‘San Luis Obispo 1.855, 1,008 162 483 238 123 Sen Maco 2,869 18.555 4877 9,958 3.808 au Santa Baraara, 10,160 8.698 gaz 2208 5.049 or Santa Clara 12.483 6.837 2.888 4,258 2.203 sor Sania Cruz 9.86 5,503 3,098 1.80 625 179 Shasta 2,001 4,383 185 434 ber 80 Judie al Council af California 120 2015 CounStatistics Report Nontraffic Infractions—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table Sb Bafore Tia 5 Trial Total Total Boi Guilty ‘coUNTY Frings Dispositions Forfeituras Pleas, Other By Court Ai ®) (6) oO) fe) (f) STATEWIDE 285,103 195,906 4,341 55,168 «57,967 78.428 Sierra a ot 0 o et 0 Siskiyou sui 187 a 88 6 13 Solana 4.108 418 a ar a 58 Sonam 2,298 3161 804 703 1637 7 Stanislaus 4 ae Cy 3 384 28 Sutter 599 382 94 40 ar Tohama 274 a4 7 5 2 Triity 6 48 2a 7 16 2 Tulare 4145; 1119 29 759 194 17 Tuolumne 256 298 8 121 2 a Ventura 3,045 2540 732 11208 58 8g Yolo 197 161 4 136 10 uw Yuba 534 374 8 191 104 45 Cotumn Key: [C-1F} The tala! af tre manner af disposition categories may pot add up to (B) because not all cours wre abla ts submit complete data forall mannerof disposition data elernonts 6 ther Befere Talincludes transfers, dismissal, and dismissals aterdiversion, Notes: a plete dala; reports ware submitted forless than ail yer. Dor “The court reported thar ne cases occurred oF ne court did not submit a repartn this eatery, Juscia! Council of California ai 2018 Court Statstis Report Traffic Misdemeanors—Method ofDisposition, by County Superior Courts Fiseal Year 2013-14 Table $c Be‘ore Trial Aker Teal Total Totat Bail Guilty couNTY Flings Dispositions Freitures Pleas Other By Cour By Jury “vy o i o) il fa 6) ‘STATEWIDE 15,265 408,298 13183 —«912072—~«TATES 3210 1,108 Alameda 10,600 Bent st 6538 1,375 155 a Alpine: 84 35 4 8 4 4 o ‘Amador ez 9 D an 126 a 2 Bute 1629 1,828 2 1318 205 8 5 Calaveras ar 487 3 34d 138 1 1 couse 340 480 126 306 48 a o Canira Cast 4791 440 4 3.348 1810 10 8 Del Norte 248 4,031 a 903 tna a 1 El Dorada 4510 1544 sa 1.206 267 5 7 Fresno 26,068 19,198 2439 8152 4562 15 a Glenn 243 12 0 140 30 J] 1 Humboldt 1540 1828 1 1143 art 3 8 Inmperiat 2701 2.578 a a9 ars 4 10 nye 275 zai 5 250 2 3 1 Kern 14921 11489 4 9.508 4,818 4 0 Kirgs 1.324 1,338 2 1.190 140 4 2 Lake 667 608 1 478 ag 6 2 Lassen 27 451 128 287 48 5 ° Los Angelos 201,318 91,182 4775 187.888 26,283 202 208 Madera 3,488 3,129 1 2764 353 z a Macia 1,862 1.498 3 1287 12 7 2 Masnosa per 2a 39 178 19 2 3 Mendacina 2.198 4,908 6 1air 355 5 7 Merced 2778 2245 318 4.280 724 13 10 Modoc 197 126 o 92 34 a a on 605 603 190 252 186 3 2 Monterey 6.998 6.462 37 5.580 32 18 Napa 1967 1.939 ° 1.653 278 1 7 Navada 4.728 casa rz «258 was ota war Orange 30.316 o o @ w o 0 Placer 2704 2.079 ° 1,666 395 1 7 Plumas 288 220 18 187 1 1 Rversida 73.498 18,200 3 11.788 6.388 2 52 Sacramento 27.525 B04 b 5.525 507 a u San Benito 774 709 2 616 ea 2 i San Bernarcina 39.305 28,206 at 19,155 8.925 105 ” San Diego 19,843 48.87 502 15.184 3,083 18 113 San Frantisce 1,536, 187 ° 700 38 3 58, San Joaguin 21.245 45,008 3.335 7942 4.364 123 4 Sen Luis Obispo 4629 4438 262 450 286 6 San Mata 4248 40M a 430 6 a Santa Barbara aor 3,734 0 389 6 6 Santa Clara 11,678 10,501 at 1197 D 82 Sania Cruz 2,885 2.846 6 570 6 1 Shasta 4,790 4522 o 28 1 7 Judie ai Council at Caitornia 12 2016 Court Stites ‘Traffic Misdemeanors—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 9¢ Before Trial AerTrial Total Total Bal Guity county Flings Dispositions —_Forfeitures Preas Other By Cour By Jury a oO (0 (0) fi) 6) iS) ‘STATEWIDE 515,245 404,298 13483 —«312072—(74,728 3210 1,108 Sera 2 i) @ o o o ® Sskiou 462 390 o 345 a7 1 7 Solana 2si7 2,138 8 1.593 400 10 24 Sonoma 5.126 5.889 ° 4.621 1212 8 ” Stanislas 6,692 4,085 wt 2are 1,833 a6 31 Sutier 578 rea 2 482 27 13 a Tehama 1.79 aa 18 184 65 5 1 Trinity 22 106 a 146 37 1 2 Tulare 4.084 3,683 o 3.208 ara 1 14 Tuolumne 168 738 1 wor 8 70 5 Ventura 4,008 5,082 v7 31D 1,389 7 3 Yola 2,178 2.485 8 1.821 480 19 28 Yuba 450 415 2 243 eo 3 0 Column Key: (0! (G) The total of he manneradispositan categories may not aud up to @) because nolall cours were able to submit complete dats for all mannerof cisposition data elements, «© (thor Before Trial Includes sransfars, dismissal, and dismissals aller diversion. Notes: w Incomplete data; reports wore submited forloss than a fll year Dor — The court reported that no cases occurred orthe court aid ct submit a report inthis category Juccial Council of California 2015 Coun Statistics Report Traffic Infractions—MethodofDisposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 9d BeforeTal Aller Total Total Bal Gulty county Flings Dispesitons Forfeitures Pleas other By Court a. 8 1 (O ie) fa ‘STATEWIDE 4622803 4,209,028 1,739,285 678,778 «1,437,118 253,847 Alameda 238,788 217.168 erazr 92751 48,756 azue Abine 4314 1.238 4.134 Ey 4 75 ‘Amador 5.008 sett 1133 255 2.045 378 Butte 20.038 19.268 7,992 4.048 sag 469 Calaveras 3,387 349 94 129 1.886 00 Colusa 7.489 4767 3,980 a3 1.128 126 Contra Casta 96.460 43,185 13731 12.268 256°7 Del Norte 4.755 2,382 748 1.384 1.119 El Dorado 17.333 10,770 828 5238 181 Frasno 85.951 35.387 8.024 sites 1416 Glenn zat 4.228 1384 aad 364 Hurbotat 16.9867 15,708 11.403 404 3087 800 Imperial 56.579 39,228 32467 asi7 12586 8573 Inyo 9,230 94st 7,503 m2 179 1.597 Kern 196,162 115.825 e412 28.830 ‘18,850 5,633 kegs 23,708 19991 2936 4.380 624 Lake 5,626 2 238 585 2.128 Lassen 31 5.594 3737 4108 1st 178 Los Angaloe 4,360,305 1,422,021 450,102 256,568 10279 58.072 Madera 14,464 13,06 6 2732 2134 ann 238,188 35,387 508 13,030 2.614 Mariposa 2,008 1,890 a 2 1a Mencocina -3,041 sa213 1072 2304 4819 Merced 34,520 36,642 S920 esas 1,994, Modoc 4.378 4,388 7 138 204 Hono 4033 4528 ve 2.004 258 Monterey an, 140 40,765 838 6.155 1748 Napa 18.376 18,560 1a 2,108 3.549 Nevaca tra7a 2048 386 (166 i721 O75 Orange 21,248 o @ w ti Placer 31518 6 a 6 ae Plumas 2077 gay 87 60 228 Riverside 268,423 2a 879 149.085 2.450 agar Sacramento vanaae 18,623 52,082 21423 15,832 San Benito 3.980 3,896 249 297 4,400 ‘San Beenarcino 217.484 193,020 67,379 29,057 73807 San Diogo. 356,863 335,877 ants anars 3590 San Francisco 197.555 113501 36.291 12.280 46,033 ‘San Jesu S778 61.293 suit 15.524 2.861 Sen Luis Obispo 28.403 29083 12512 2782 43,008 San Mateo 121,089 118,928 41,105 9502 53.992 Santa Barbara 61.067 58,342 20,808 8761 aan Santa Clara 155,694 159,873 75.523 10.508 ar a67 Sania Cruz seare 30,068 12517 497 12.007 Shasta 24.540 21754 40.201 6.200 4275 dusciat Counel of Califortia 104 2018 Court Stalistcs Report Traffic Infractions—MethodofDisposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 9d Before Tra Trial Total Total Pai Guity county Flings Dispositions Forfetuios Pleas Other By Court a) @ oy © ©) fal ‘STATEWIDE, 4922.6034209,028 1,739,285, 878778 1a37,118 353,847 Sora aor 0 w o @ @ Siskiyou 13,570 43803 to,a7a 1,988 1.143 208 alana arin 44.088 27410 ead 6998 2,690 Soroma 47.622 59,200 29,868 5871 23,003 B45 ‘Stanislaus! 41.480 36,700 12241 ase2 M4518 B82 Sutter 11,957 11,088 3.498 2473 4287 1120 Tehams 13.655 7.938 4785 B 2787 264 Tniy 1.818 11850 1.164 a7 308 a3 Tulare 52.341 53.708 20975 2,088 924 sata Tuolumne: 5478 5701 2978 304 i201 447 Ventura 113.77 133.863 raT2 7.058 45.508 a4 Yolo 23.492 22.838 7431 3.781 10.366 4881 Yuba 9614 8.480 2.408 3.64 224 354 Column Key: (O11) The total of sha mannar of dispositun categories may notalto {8 because not al courts wore abla ta sulimicomplete stafor amanner of dispesitondata clement. © thor Before Till includes iransfes, dismissal, and dismissals efterdiversion Notes: w complete data; raparts were aubmilled for ls than a fal year. Dor — The court reported that no cases occured oFthe court ad not submit a reportbr this eatsoory Judicial Council of Caloris. 125 2015 CourtStatistics Report Criminal Gase Processing Time, by County Fiscal Year 2013-14 Superior Courts Table 10a ee, Felonies Daposedof Medrieanos Dispel ot ae Intess Than_ Daye intess Then Days counry Te nonihs % ea UC fay (ap icy {2} €) Fy {Gy SareWOE 38% som 80% 70 omen Aamed o% 5% he a Ape - ae oS = Amador = 7 = - = = Bute 2% a 6m ae a calaeree 5% Se eH ce | conse 28% wh ah ae hw Contra Cosa 1% eH eM Deltone = = a te = 7 : Doro sere 22% sr fom 6% TOR Freana Sea Se lean 2% me aH Hurbolat 9% en ee Impecl 1% Be SOK lye 51% a ee ier oe ee Kings 50% Lke ae eh Lassen 70% e Loe angeles 2 om We ew Hadora we wa Harn 7% 4% a sagan 100% it mh OK Meacocino = 7 a. es — Merced ee eeee are a Hodoe sz m% Wh ast a ono se 2% km 2% eas Montcroy oe 2% Tah orm 1% Nepa et rc “0% sens Nevada er ne 28% ae = = 2 orenge = Sa = = = Placer = = Pumas esta wheOH 7% versie sore oa woe Te Sacraments oi ae a San Bento oon oe er ee TH San Bernardino 79% 10h son Diego a oe BB San Frarion 7% Wea 1% 7% sen tooqun % ae suas Ser ul Oo ae sx om aK ne Te San Matso ont 4% 48% se TH Sana Bata os ae oh st Santa Cua a 1% aKa 7% is santa Guz e Me HTH 1% som Shasta ee SION 1K 70% Judicial Council af Caltornia 126 2015 Court Statsies Report Criminal Case Processing Time, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 10a Felonies Felonies Disposed of Misdemeanors Disposed ofDisposed of inae tn cess Than Day in Less Then _ Days ‘county r fA) (8. (ce) {D) ie) if) co ‘STATEWIDE 8% 50% OST o1% 7% ~«BSMS Sierra = = - — - Siskyoa 84 2% a5 TH 2% 51% ate Solano - ~ - — ~ — — Sonama 73% 25% 38% 83% 45% 74% 8% Sianistus 8% 48% 55% 60% 50% 7m at Suller 85% 4% 8m 8% 42% 0% 7% Tehama 84% 2%BH a Trinky 1% 13% 18% 38M 21% 44% 50% Tulare 83% 40% HTM 5% 79% BI Tuolumne” 8%. 51% 59% Bo 39% 78% 82% Ventura 74% Be M8 43% 76% at Yolo 76% B% ATH TM 2%TO Yuba 74% 28% 4% 8% 22% 55% Cotumn Kay: ‘a This colurnn consisis nly at easesin which defendants were held to anewer or were ceriiad on quily pleas. Processing tire is based on tire Fe" fist appearanceIn Intec jurlsuctioncourt Loinal eiaosiion in unlmted-usdiian coun. (BH{O) Based enthe time from fing of he inital complaint lo cared lea, birdover, or cismissalato” belore peliminary Rearng Note: = ‘The court did not submita report inthis category. udicial Council of California ver 2015 CourStatistics Repor, Family and Juvenile Filings, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 11a Family Law Delinquency Dependency couNTY Total Marital Pottians Total Onginal Subseyuunt Talal Original Subsequent A) ol cy 2) (e if) (3) tt4) Y STATEWIDE Beds 136.960 242,518 «45.824 30.699 5,125 «a,88R 40,442 6.447 Alameda 4737 7.883 126298 284 ma 720 13 Aipine 4 2 3 ° a 0 0 Amador 181 282 sa " “a 44 ° Bute 1018 2,408 353 149 204 325 208 18 Calaveras 7183384 52 45 7 140 140 o Colusa we 89 103 5 32 8 3 24 9 Contra Costa az «3.762058 980 740 240 873 aaa 2a Bil Norte eo 18 512 119 38 we 80 a 13 El Dorado sara 742 4,087 aus 162 286 249 12 68 Fresno toee2 3877 7.508 2351 1485 908 12385 128 Glenna 453 sar 28 15 1 82 6? 15 Humbotct a2 50142 120 n 48 173 188 5 Impetial Bate 698 2.776 216 210 6 4B 248 . Inyo 216 82 194 m1 er 4 7 7 e Kenn 1135-2973 8,362 1788 4,163, or 02 36 kings 2004 S87 14 163 8s 7 209 a Lake ‘oot 275728 118 er 48 50 1 Lassen 505153382 sa 35 15 55 1 Los Angeles 58,081 3047 5.235 3.812, 2.00 4,526 Madera 2.126 318 187 13 war aT 10 Main 798 287 86 et 65 65 a Marinesa, 17 10 10 1 3 13 a Htendncino 798 27 15 192 188 180 8 Moreed 2,486 435 297 138 408407 1 doe 184 Laas 25 a 4 16 14 2 one nR ae aa 34 4 0 2 2 a Monterey 3808 1,298 2.507 261 457 acd a0 170 0 apa 1308wu aut air 94 108 108 0 Nevada es at 525 ar 7 o 58 53 0 Orange 24s20 14229 13,300 3307 2.992 1.085 1296 1,290 8 Placer 3aTe 1861 1.318 44409 % 585538 7 Plumas 2 sa 170 18 14 4 2 2 ° Rivorside 26187 8830 19,387 3413 1.886 4387 ase 3,530 22 Sacraments 19428 8875 13.554 sae 1.088 458 14% 1,868 8 San Bonito a0 476) 3t4 23 12 "1 7 2 6 San Bemardino zaese 991 21,703 3402 2.839 563 2m 2677 104 San biaga vez 13807 2878 ° 101.324 16 San Francisco a7 2570 443 18 836 558 278 San Joaquir 7850 2,236 513 29 T8476 fd San Luis Obispo 2100 a72 170 60 286282 2 San Mateo 4808 2,287 174 11068 m2 210 492 Santa Barbara 34311487 5465, 285 22282 a Santa Clara Maat srt 00 382 5 srt 3 Santa Crue 20s2 BAB 348 92 230 198 32 ‘Shasta 2722870 207 290 ma ee 2 atic! Council of Calfornia 128 2918 Court Statistics Report Family and Juvenile Filings, by County and Case Type FiscalYear 2013-14 Superior Courts Table ta Family Law Delinquency Dependancy counTy Total Marital Petitions Total Original Subsequent Total Original Subsequent Al 8) (ch, 2) al é (Sp (4, a ‘STATEWIDE 61,405 198,968 242,518 «45,824 30,099 «15,125 46,889 «40,42 Cad Sura a 8 38 3 5 ° 2 0 a Siskiyou 24 167 587 ” 1 ° 8 78 0 Solana 5410 1889 3,760 483393 90 m8 287 2 Sonoma 3ea4 1,863 2.031 604 412 80 221 212 8 Stanislaus are. 2223 4.655 50S 7a 428 aaa 8 sunor 1968425 aD 12 143 2 69 cy o Tehama 4,092 310782 at 7 4 161 181 0 Teiity Due waa 28 15 u 65 65 o Tulare 50001703 3.297 4 aot 283 ri 708 8 ‘Fuslanine 8 23 rs 65 51 “4 187 88 * Ventura 7207 3256 3.951 1.863 1,482 381 53612 at Yolo 1,990 ran 1400 3786 1 240240 0 Yuba 4.244 sey Bar 89 89 ° 22 ate a Cotumn Key: 8: Includes d'ssolutin, legal separation, ano nulity ic} Includes Department of Child Suspart Services (OGSS), domestic violonca prevantien, anather miscellaneousfamily law peiitions. Notes: 0 Incomplete data; reports ware submitted forless than 8 full year. Dor — The court reported that no cases occurred or he court Ud vctsubmis rrt inthis category Judicial Council of Calforia 129 2015 Court StatistReport Family and Juvenile Dispositions, by County and Case Type Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 11b Family Law Del nquency Depandency couNTY Tolal— Mavial_— Petitions Total Original Subsequent Total Original Subsequent a ) (ch (O) él a 1G) (ey a STATEWIDE, 246082 197,693 208349 «44,992 08,137 13,785 1.827 30,160 1.687 Alar vos 4438670 1493 1,025 488 726 m8 u" Aine 10 4 8 D a D 0 ° a Amador 339 7183 40 28 14 16 16 a Bune 30991523 20365 128 281 260 2 Catoverae 433 6288 a 3 6 128 128 Colusa 151 70 Bt 62 2% 38 20 20 Q Contra Costa {3440 (433. (3.007 w 0 @ o w o el Norte saz 128 1,808 ver 4 3 a 66 5 El Derado 4735 787948 308 [7 aia 200 120 a0 Fresna 14909 1,842 10,087 2058 1,996 723 4s er wre Glenn 444 104 3a 74 18 58 m8 64 9 Humttot 1.931 031,122 114 68 46 146 141 5 Imperial 4524614 3.910 a6 om 5 174 174 ° Inyo 242 9 151 28 13 5 o ° 0 Kein 10.964 2.296.869 1841 4,287 58a 72 730 a kings 375 03s a 48 a 16 16 0 ake 69s area 7 73 44 st sy 4 Lassen 402 16286 2 50 2 «8 aT Los Angeles 102087 49.887 52.400 5645 3.57 2988 10217 9.844 673 Madera 2557 485.072 337208 131 27285 8 Marin 1,886 1.085680 264 102 182 15 % ° Maripasa, 137 102 25 14 18 2 7 w o Mendocino 1.234 Ben 874 2a 6 155 187180 % Merce 1958717 1.242 470 at 449 az a2 ® ‘logos 109 6 2 2% 8 2 A 19 2 Mona 125 85 cy 45 8 ° 7 ” 5 Manter 2981 1.027 4,954 103320 418 17% 174 4 Napa 41,308 sv 8 a0 ar 3 6 2 a Nevada sor 37522 32 2 a 82 a a Orange mado 8.408 o 3768 2,686 4.120 1346 1,262 a4 Placer 2986 1.287 1,739, 546485 at agg 85, 4 Pumas 288 4 we 1s 0 5 rm 0 Riverside 29198 8823 20,373 2933 1,638 604 3.974 16 Sacramento 16207 35a 11,825 1684 4,098 586 1614 1.470 144 San Benito 435 162283 22 18 14 R or ‘San Bernardina a5 7.854 2187 2893 2371 522 2707 2,602 105 SanDiega 25.030 12488 12,74 2480 2.480 ° 1,568 1.560 8 ‘San Francisco 5.199 2.208 2.951 512 ats 298 az ee ° ‘Sar Joaquin Bors 2.161 5.914 aot 528 278 503585 8 San Luis Obispo 1803 93588 723280 33 189 189 a Sen Mateo 3380 1,984 1,398 15860778 787 at 28 m2 Santa Barbara 2aa0 7.420 1,280 76s 00 285 205 208 f Santa Clara 9874 48834991 1319970 348 eo4 aa o Sania Cruz 2985 11841411 498 at 237 205 128 n Shasta 294 839 1.285 353108 245; 184 189 5 JJugisial Counsel of Caitcania 130 2015 Courl Statstcs Report Family and Juvenile Dispositions, by Countyand Case Type Fiscal Year 2013-14 Superior Courts Table 11b Family Law Detinguency Dependency coUNTY Total Marital Pettions Tolal Griginal Subsequent Total Original Subsequent fay (ay 1 (o) ie) © 8 Hy an ‘STATEWIDE ‘4aoa2 187,693 205348 «47,992 —«28,137 —=«13,795——«3,827 0,160 1667 Sierra a2 @ m2 o o @ 0 o a Siskiyou mss 252701 60 6 ° 2 2 o Solano 35461538 2.018 m6 328 378 ut an 0 Sonoma 4607 2199 2.438 e458 106 205 199 6 Stanistaus 5089. 4.939 3,130 357.283 104 2 84 ° Suter 1413483950, 201 26 7 a ° Tehama 790 284808 7 2 107 107 0 Trinity 298 e820 “a 8 or ar ° Tulare 3876 1.718 1,960 968 293 sau 874 4 Tuolumne 78 a) 56 2 186 87 og Ventura 6877 2.787 4080 1972 374 1 1.202 130 Yolo 4.981 rea 1b 258 1 12 ° Yuba 522838789 63 5 152 ® Column Key: (8 Includes dissolution, egal separation, and nukity fc! Includes Deparimentof Chié Support Sersices (DCS), domestic violence prevention, and other miscellaneous family law peliions Notes: mn Incomplete data; reports ware submitted fer less than a full year, Gor “The court reported that nocases occurred or the court did not submit a rapor In this eatery Judizial Counel of Gaitarnia at 2015 Court Satstcs Report Family Law (Marital}—Method ofDisposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 11¢ Before Til DDismassalfor Total Total Deiayin Other county Flings Dispositons Prosecution Before Trial AlterTrial A 8) io 2} © ‘STATEWIDE 738,968 137,693 72820 133,556 1317 Alameda 437 aay R 4343 6 Alpine 4 4 o 2 e Amador 181 ‘er 3 164 ° Butte 1016 ots ° ots ° Calaveras 168 185 0 933 2 Colusa 39 7 0 68 2 Contra Casta 3.762 «433 na (429 o Dal Norte 18 129 8 120 a El Dorada 742 Ter 15 784 a Fresno 377 1,842 195 1847 ° Glenn 9% 104 o 104 a Humbolat sot 809 2 208 1 Imperial 698 ere 8 ear 42 Iya 82 at 0 8e 2 Kem: 2973 2,296 3 2.208 ° ings 587 ° 0 ° a Lake 275 278 a0 " Lassen 153 116 0 116 a Los Angeles 38,282 49,607 898 48,794 a Madera 525 485, 1 aT é avin a5 1,088 4 1,082 a Mariposa 88 102 a 99 3 Mandedine mao 360 4 385 a Merced 931 mt a 18 1 Medoe 52 6 2 54 o Mono 2 65 7 58 0 Manterey 41,208 4.027 1 21 45 Napa 595 577 6 sa? 4 Nevada 3r 375 13 382 a Orange 11,228 8404 0 404 0 Placer 4.881 1247 16 4,234 o Plumas 94 a 6 105 ° Riverside 8830 407 8.202 4 Sacrament 581 ° 3,582 ° San Benito 176 182 1 181 a San Bemardina 791 7.354 409 6,901 “4 ‘San Dingo 13,507 10.456 8 12,397 ° Son Franriseo 2870 2,208 24 2.184 D San Joaguin 2238 2.16: 6 1,989 272 San Luis Obispo 972 995 ° #42 93 San Matue 2237 +954 8 1.984 ° Santa Barbara 1.457 4.120 1 4074 45 Santa Clara 871 4.883 5 4,855 2a Santa Cruz 895 1.154 55 1028 n Shasta 870 339 4 7 6a ludicial Councof Galifomia 132 2015 Court Statistics Repart Family Law (Marital)—MethodofDisposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 11¢. Before Tal Dismissalfor Total Total Delayin ober county Frings Dispositions Prosecution Before Til After Tal fan fe o 2) 6 ‘STATEWIDE 138,368 157,683 2.820 133.556 1317 Sion 8 0 a a o Siskiyou 167 282 0 228 28 Solana 1.880 1.538 0 1.420 116 Sonoma 1,863 2.138 358 1am ® Stanislaus 2,208 8 1,708 226 Sutter 45 46 44 Ey Tehama 310 ° 278 6 Trinity 80 10 88 0 Tulare 4,703 4 1.705 7 Tuolumne: 263. 5 188 ‘0 Ventura 3.256 ° 2781 6 Yolo 380 132 srt 20 Yuba 387 0 385 2 Column Key: (CHIE) The fota of the manner odspositon categories may notadd up to (8) because not all courts were able to suber complete dala forall mance of dispositiondala elaments ro) chides before- and aterhearrg dismissals, transfers, and judgments, Notes: wo Incomn ete tata; reportswere sumed for less thana fll yea. Dor — The court reported thatno vasesoccured orthe courl did netsubmit a report in this cate. Judie’Counc af California 133 2015 CourtStatistics Report Family Law Petitions—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 11d Before Tia Cissefor Tota Total Delayin OtherBefore tor county Flings Dispostions Prosecution Heating Hearing ‘Mer Tra ia) (8) Cj {2} ( iF STATEWIDE was 206349 77.008 waar Coy 377 Alameda 1804 sar sr 4.302 1.982 “4 Aine 2 8 ° 8 9 ° Amador 292 163 ° 155 3 ° Bure 2446 age ° 28 1308 ° Calaveras 364 208 5 207 7 9 couse ua 81 ° “ 7 1 Conta Costa 8058 (3.007 (408 (231 (w2sz2 0 1Nore sana 258 101 2 ° 1 Dorado oe 8 358 530 nm Fresno 1508 10.087 var 9320 @ ° Glen 387 140 2 208 132 3 Humbotat yan 112 130 asa 355 3 tra 2n6 aon 7 4708 1,989 8 Inyo 194 151 ° 118 3 ° Kem ae 568 1.596 5x05 1697 ° Kings 1817 378 " 338 2% ° Lake ns a7 6 an 2 " Lassen 382 208 ° m 1“ ° Los Angales st.o8t 52.400 e402 21988 2409 ° Madera 2.128 2072 35 084 1038 2s in 7a 620 6 an 159 ° Mariposa 137 35 ° 7 18 ° endosina 734 ara 58 181 mn ° Marcoa 2496 4.202 ° 0a 24a , Hodes 132 3 2 36 6 4 one 40 eo 2 or a ° Monterey 2507 1,904 4 s278 o72 3 Naga 203 728 4 451 224 8 Nevada 525 322 41 155, 128 ° Orange 13:00 0 a 0 0 @ Placer 1913 re ca ‘aa 0 > Plumes 170 17 14 10 2 1 Riverside 19,357 20373 1.928 12.208 8.167 a Sacramento 1,625 o 2.20 ara7 ° San Benito 283 28 165 0 a Son Bernarin 2,708 as 7.088 sa e227 ” San biago 18.138 ve 640 11807 a ° ‘san Francisco 3.909 2951 3 zeta 132 ° San Joaquin std sou a 442 sara 8 San Luis Obispo 4.948 268 a 519 220 a Sen Mateo 2.69 1,996 a agar 49 ° Santa Barara 1474 1.260 3 028 au 7 Santa Clera 8.580 4.991 ° 2285 ara7 8 Santa Cate 197 40 189 304 515 8 Shasta 1982 1.298 2 oor a3 2 Judicial CounofCalflora 14 2018 CauStatistics Repor Family Law Petitions—Methodof Disposition, by County Superior Courts FiscalYear 2013-14 Table 11d Before Till Dismissal for Total Total Dalayin tier Before Alter ‘COUNTY Filings Disposivons Prosecution Hearing Hearing After Trat a (5) (C) (0) (e) #6 ‘STATEWIDE. 242,518 206,349 17,006 124,473 66,895 aT Sierra B we 0 m2 w a ‘Siskiyou 857 701 o 805 93 3 Solana 3.760 2.010 o 1571 406 33 ‘Saroma 2031 2,438 407 1,487 ova a ‘Stanisiaus, 4.655 3.40 2 2017 983 107 Sutter 340 360 a 551 63 208 Tehama 182 506 2 408 94 2 Trinity 24 200 8 86 108 a Tulare 3.297 4,960 0 1.334 626 0 ‘Twolamne: ara) 530 8 302 128 a Ventura 3.951 4,090 1 3,205 741 a Yolo 1.400 1.268 105 827 31 5 Yuba 857 839 o 245 394 a Column Key: (Aland (D) Includesjuverile cependencyadoptioncases reparted enJBSIS. #) ‘The tota’ of the manner ofdisposition catagories may not acd to(8) because not all courts were able to submit complete data forall manner of disposition data elements, 19) Includes transfore, dismissals, and judgments. Notes: Farnily lawpetitionsinclude Departmentof ChiSupport Services (DCS), domestic violence prevention. and ather family lawcases u mp eo dat: opr worsubm ted for los than 9 floor. Dor ‘The court eporsedthat no cases occurred or he court did nt submit @repor in this category ‘Juaioial Gouncl of California 15 2015 Coun Statistics Report Juvenile Delinquency—StageofCaseat Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 11e ‘Stage af Case at Dlapasiton Total Total Betere ‘tier coUNTY Flings Dispositions Hearing Hearing ‘STATEWIDE Alameda 1,262 1403 Alpine 3 0 ° 0 Amador 5a 4a 7 a Bute 353 293 3 290 Calaveras a 4 a Colusa 82 2 50 Contra Costa w a o et Norte ut 7 140 El Dorado 308 0 308 Fresno 2,088 582 41.506 Gum % 1 iy Humbolat 114 1" 108 ienpenal 216 2 148 Inyo. 2 5 0 Kem 14 8 1.283 Kings 87 2 26 Lake "7 18 102 Lassen 50 2 3 59 Los Angeles yan 6649 670 5975 Madera 318 3a7 a 28 Macin 27 ee ? 257 Mariaasa, 10 18 8 5 Mendacino 27 aa av 1“ Moread 435 470 2 439 Maco Ey 20 é 4 ona 4 45 8 a7 Monterey 881 4,938 a a Napa at 320 a at Nevada uw » 5 Hn Orange 3397 3.786 50 3736 Placer 484 55 % et Plumas 18 15 2 3 Rworside 3113 2333 526 1807 Sacramento 1,546 3,684 19 4.874 San Bona B 32 1 a San Bemardino 3,102 2808 867 2026 San Diego 2.878 2.480 533 1947 San Francisco at6 512 63 49 Sen Josquin 792 201 439 362 San Lule Obispo 250 723 6 es7 San Mateo 1,840 1,558 24 4.342 Sanla Baroara 831 785 2 733 Santa Clara 1482 1318 ae sat Santa Cruz 440 498 116 382 Shasta 497 353 @ 284 Judicial Council of Calforia 136 2915 Court Statistics Report Juvenile Delinqueney—Stageof CaseatDisposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 11e couNTY ‘STATEWIDE Siena Sekiyou Solano Sonoma Stanislaus user Tehama Trinity 7 Tuolumne Vvertura Yolo Yuba Column Key: Notes: Oar — Stayo of Cas Totat Total Before Aer Filngs Dispositions Hearing Hearing A e o 45,624 41.932 7184 3 o o n 60 3 483 704 148 501 24 17 505 3a ‘9 172 201 5a at 37 . 2% 30 é 2a 774 3658 na 743 65 56 2 54 1.888 1972 321 1.881 M7 286 44 222 Ey 63 28 35 “The tola ofthe mannerof sisposition categories may not add wp ta (B) because notall courts wore able lo submit 5 Frasna 964 ast % 79 8 va Glenn 52 4 1 2 u 8 Humbotat ans 80 12 20 ° 248 Imperial 256 2a 15 205 0 1" Inyo 2a 8 2 15 0 ° Kem 1073 49 12 36 a S76 ings 218 110 12 0 ° Lake 161 182 4 4 118 Lassen 59 8 2 a a Las Angeles 10.952 820 a 248 0 8,069 Madore 164 143 18 5 o 70 Marin 43 423 n air a wn Mariposs 38 2 a o 1 Mandacina sez 200 168 a 4 Merced 331 Bt 5 Ze o a Modoc: 28 26 4 13 a 12 Mana 12 1 1 ° o 0 Monterey a8 364 25 278 a an Napa 238 213 a 191 0 4 Nevada 160 109 7 88 4 3 Orange 3316 0 @ @ w © Parner aay @ w o a 4 Pumas 82 5a 10 2 ° 7 Riverside zen 2,708 oma 1,998, ° 336 Sacrament 4,723 es ° 188 ° 220 San Benito 59 53 5 18 o 30 ‘San Bernardina 2206 115 481 195 4 38 San Diego 2,800 1.654 137 1.887 ® a San Francisco 989 599 6 a ° 588 San Joaquin 793 eat a sat ° a7 ‘San Luis Obispo 376 313 38 138 a 140 SanMateo 860 460 6 140 ° a4 Santa Barbara 539 227 a 388 0 3 Sarta Clare 1970 702 1 m a +829 Santa Cruz 288 285 tw 259 a 8 ‘Shasta 363 a4 20 ova a io Judicial Cours of California 144 2015 Court Siatistes Report Probate(Estates, Guardianships, and Conservatorships)— superior Courts MethodofDisposition, by County Table 12¢ Fiscal Year 2013-14 Before Trial ater Tal Total Total ——_Disrniggale and ther ‘COUNTY Flings Dispositions Transfers Before Tial By Jury By Coun tay 8) fe 1 ) fal ‘STATEWIDE 44,208 30,183 2,268 13,072 19 14,028 Sierra "1 w @ @ @ @ Siskiyou 108 7 8 4 a 0 Solana a4 304 tor 262 6 25 Sonarsa Baw 74 a8 733 0 4 Stanistaus, 72 384 24 365 0 5 Suller 162 Mg 2 134 2 ° Tehama 141 94 8 4 ° 4 Trinity 38 ey 1 a 0 1 Tulare 503 28 13 a a 29° Tuolumne 135 135 10 108 0 16 Ventuea 1001 768 Bt 95 o 607 Yolo 207 431 u «7 ° 3 Yuba ag or 16 a ° o Column Key: (oF) Tha fatal ofthe manner ef dsposilion categories may notaud up fo(6) because not al! cours were able to subi ‘complote data forall manneraf disposition data eloments, (o Includes other sismissals and trars’ers and cases dismissed for lack of prasecition ‘o Includes surnmary judgments and all clner judgments before tral Notes: w incomplete data; reports were suortted forloss than a fll var. Ger — Tha caurtreporied that nocases accuured orthe court did notsubmit @ reporin this category. Judicial Cauneil of Cabfernia vas 2015 CoutSlatistos Report Mental Health—Stageof Caseat Disposition, by County Fiscal Year 2013-14 Slaga of Case al Dispos Superior Courts Table 12d Totat Total Before far ‘couNTY Flings Dispasstions Hearing Hearing ay o (a oO) STATEWIDE 2377 22.520, 5.655 16.635 Aameda 258 898 288 63 Bipine 0 ° ° 4 Amador 4 19 8 18 Butte 2a 248 5 263 Calaveras 26 18 o 18 Colusa 16 18 4 7 Carita Cost 298 21 28 228 Dal None 146 st 1a 5 El Dorad 2a 45 5 4“ Fresno 332 402 a sa Glenn 4 ” 18 2 Humbolat 18 215 7 198 Imperal 7a 16 4 2 leyo ° a 0 0 ern 812 680 33 esr kings 12 199 103 6 Lake 4 a4 3 8 Lassen 18 8 4 5 Los Angeles: 7.832 7.487 1.238 6221 Madera 34 4 3 Or Marin 287 253 saz ri Mariposa 2 3 1 2 Mendocino st 2 aa 4 Merced 188 a 6 265 Modoc 2 3 ° 3 Mono 1 1 a 1 Monraruy oy 75 7 68 Napa 1ar 15 18 tor avada 2 2 2 o ‘Orange 2.016 fi) ai) ao Pacer 27 we wi 2 Plumas 2 2 1 1 Riversic® 406 eat 27 8s Sacramento 2071 2.263 1.857 606 ‘San Benito 15 . 0 0 ‘San Berrandino 960 B82 163 m9 ‘san Diego 1858 1.878 93 1.85 Sen Francisca 2.853 2,658 345 2314 San Jeaquin 1,154 408, 18 238 San Luis Obispo 698 236 32 204 San Mateo 12 103 13 0 Santa Barbara 327 201 3 464 Santa Clara 828 ata 379 295 Santa Gruz 64 2 15 57 Shasta 49 0 @ 2 diziCouncil of Calfornia 16 2018 Cour Statstics Report Mental Health—Stageof Case at Disposition, by County Fiscal Year 2013-14 Superior Courts Table 12d Stage of Gas Total Total Botore After counry Flings Dispostions Heering Hearing A) (3 fo (0) STATEWIDE watt 722,320 5,685 16.635 Sierra 2 0 0 wo Siskiyou 5 4 2 2 Solana 5 103 38 er Sonoma 585 54 153 381 Stanistous, 375 4 0 4 ‘Sutter a8 oe 5 3 Tehama 13 1 1 D Tenly 6 a ° o Tulare 293 aa 1 313 Tuciamne 45 “4 * 40 Ventura 603 set 175 368 Yolo or ar 1 48 Yuba 2 4 “4 ° Column Key: {C}-(D} The total of the manner ofdisposition categories may rot add up to ¢B) because not all cours were able tosubmit comp ate {8ta forsll mannerof disaosition dats elements, 0 After Heatingincludes jury tials Notes: w Incomplete data; reports were eubritted for less than a fll ya. Dor — Tne court reported that no cases occurred or the court did not submit & repon in this category. {Judicial Council of California ver 2018 Coun Statistis Report Civil and Criminal Appeals—Stage of Caseat Disposition, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 12e 198 of Caseat Disposition Total Total Before ‘Attor county Flings Dispositions Hearing Hearing ‘ay (8) (cy on ‘STATEWIDE 4317 4960 2,400 2,560 Alameda 150 200 95 105 Alpine 0 ° ° o Amador 2 6 1 5 Butte 2 20 2 8 Calaveras 0 a = Calusa 3 0 0 o Contra Costa 200 168 42 128 Dal Norte *0 1" 4 T El Dorado 32 16 3 13 Fresna 50 48 1 a Glenn ° o 0 Humboint 20 7 a Imperial 54 48 89 ’ Inyo 3 6 6 a Kern 54 2 0 2 kings 2 13 7 6 Lake 4 18 16 a Lassen 8 o ° 0 Los Angeles 23 ar20 536 584 Madera 7 % 11 3 arin by a8 10 108 Mariposa 4 0 ° ° Mendocino 16 ” 2 10 Merced 2 5 3 2 Modo 0 ° 9 ° ‘Mono 1 7 ° ar Monterey a 43 13 38 apa 49 6 5 10 Nevada 4 14 4 10 Orange 296 302 148 14 Placer 30 7 a a Plumas 3 1 1 a Riverside 284 228 163 187 Sacramena 15 160 7 a San Benito 4 1 1 0 ‘San Bernarding 485 163 6 5 San Diego 324 902 788 118 San Francisco 178 288 38 250 San Joaquin 104 es 5 29 ‘Ban Luis Obispo 25 8 6 9 San Mateo 52 oT 16 a Santa Barbara 7 54 84 ° Santa Ciera 179 194 50 aq Santa Cruz ” 5 28 Shasta uw T Jasal Counel of Cal fornia 148 2015 Courl Salisties Report Givil and Criminal Appeals—Stageof Caseat Disposi Fiscal Year 2013-14 Stage of Case at Dlepasition ion, by County Superior Courts. Table 12e Total Total Betore ‘Aftor county Flings Dispositions Hering Hearing iy @ {© o ‘STATEWIDE 437 4,960 2,400 72,580 Siena 2 a “ o Siskiyou 8 10 6 4 Solana 107 7 82 47 Sonoma 42 “a " a3 Sinisiaus a 2 19 Zi ‘Suter 7 6 5 1 Tehama 2 2 2 0 Trity 3 1 1 ° Tulare 56 28 3 45 ootumne 19 8 3 6 Ventura 75 a 35 $6 Yolo B w 8 14 Yuba 0 a ° o Column Key: [G-{D) The otal ofthe manner of dispasition calegerles may nol ad up ta (B) because not all curls were ahle to submit complete data forall manneraf dispositon data elements, Notes: 0 Incomplete data; repons were submitted forless than a fll year. Dor — Tha court rapartou thal no casas accurrad or the court did nel subril a rapa in is calagory. Judicial Council of Caltornia 19 2015 Court Statistics Report Habeas CorpusCriminal —Stage of Caseat Disposi Fiscal Year 2013-14 ion, by County Stage of Case al Disposition Superior Courts Table 12t Total Total Betore ‘ler COUNTY Flings Dispestians Hearing Hearing A 8) (ch O ‘STATEWIDE 7.410) 6,764 6,060 704 Alomeds 166 ar er ° Alpine o ° . 0 ‘Amador 44 45 44 1 Bulle 109 199 103 6 Calaveras ° ° oO ° Colusa 2 6 ° ° Conta Costa 121 es 65 2 Dal Nore ' o ° ° El Doraue 32 a 33 a Fresno 389 369 368 ° tenn 6 ° ° ° Humbotat 64 8 ar ' Impesial ar ot 1 20 Inyo. a ° e ° Kern 482 445 aa 1 ings 261 288 29 o Lake et 5 4% 12 Lasean 78 86 85 ° Los Angeles 954 354 et a Madera 42 95 9 1 Marin 92 a a2 1 Mariposa 5 ° D ° Mendocino 28 a 2 2 Merced ® 8 0 0 Modoc 7 7 7 a Moo 1 4 a a Montoray 228 28 2a a Napa 38 31 3 a Nevada 18 & ‘ a Orange 823 zor a 297 Placer 96 at eu R Plumas 4 4 a Riverside 00 ear 4 Sacramento 608 Tes 54 San Benita o a a ° an Bemaraino 493 328 27 1 San Diego 368 398 335 “ ‘San Franeieve 127 7 16 4 San Joaquin 142 "7 2 ‘San Luis Obispo 184 145 7 ‘San Mateo 80 54 3 Sante Rarhara ” n 8 Santa Clara 124 189 64 Santa Griz 7 1 4 Shasta 120 120 2 Judiefal Coune | of Califia 150 2015 Cour Stotsties Report Habeas Corpus Criminal —Stage of Caseat Disposi ion, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 12f Staga of Case Disposition Total Total Before ater county Flings Dispositions Hearing Hearing Al 5) i) oO) STATEWIDE 7.410 3.764 6.060 708 Siena ° ‘i Oo H Siskiyou 7 7 7 ° Solano et 187 a7 40 ‘Sonoma 54 58 48 10 Storislaus 6 ° 0 ° Sutter 10 8 6 2 Torwma z zw 2 ° “Trinity ° 0 ° Tuiare Ed m rR 2 “Tuolumne 33 3 1 a Ventura ° ° 0 ® Yolo o o ° ° Yuba 2 20 20 ° Column Koy: (G10) Thetotalof the mannerof disposition categories may not add up to (8) because notal couns wara able a submit completa dala forall mannerof tisposition data elements. Notes: w Incomplete data: roports were submitted frlessthan a ull year Sor — The court reported that ro-cases occured orthe cour didnotsubmit a reporinthis ca:euory. Jucicial Councit of Calitrnia 151 2018 CourtStatistics Report Authorized Judicial Positions and Judicial Position Superior Courts Equivalents, by County Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 13a lusicial Pasitins ae of June 20, 2014 Subordinate Jt! Ofoee Seba county Tom sadgoe Tal Corvrisuunets Refers Eaulalens (Ai (8h iG) (Oy (E) ih STATEWIDE node 1706 80 moe avs Baat.e Unfunded udgestips = Aoreda 50 8 00 106 ea Aine 23 2 03 03 23 Amador 2a 2 03 03 va aut 130 1 20 2o a1 Calaveras 2A 2 oa oa 28 cokes 23 2 03 oa 2A Cera Costa 460 8 80 80 wna etNone 2a 2 os 08 33 Dern 90 8 10 10 nz Fresno 490 8 eo 80 02 Glenn 23 2 03 03 2A Harb a0 7 10 10 ur Imperl 14 ‘0 \4 oa to 118 tye 2a 2 oa oa aA ern 430 36 70 60 10 an kenge 3s 7 ts 1s 97 Lake 48 4 08 oe sa Laon 2a 2 oa 03 a0 Los Anglos ses3 95 103 wo as sma edera 9a Q 03 03 aa warn 145 2 2s 20 os 14 apo 23 2 oa 03 2s Mendon es 2 ba ba 8s serced 120 0 20 20 wa Medco 23 2 oa aa 23 one 23 2 03 03 2a onterey aa 22 2 aa Nop 80 8 20 2a as Nevada 1 8 18 18 84 orange uso ‘a4 200 0 ‘62 Pacer 125 0 45 40 os te Pumas 23 2 aa 26 versie 00 ® 140 140 sas Sacramania as w tas 40 a5 4 san Bento 23 2 03 03 2A San Berandino sea A 180 150 eva san Diego fst 2 za 220 1st San Frenisca 50 2 ‘30 130 war sn Joaquin x35 2 4s 40 as 48 San us Onepo 150 2 20 a0 455 an ao 80 mB ro 70 7 santa Barbara 240 a 30 a0 243 Sania Cra eso 3 100 100 ane sania Cuz 135 1 2s 1s 10 ‘38 Shoe 120 ‘0 20 20 122 Auicial Council of California 182 2018 Courl Statistics Report Authorized Judicial Positions and Judicial Posit Superior Courts Equivalents, by County Table 13a Fiscal Year 2013-14 Judicial Positions as of June 30, 2014 dictSubordinate Judicial Of Samet county Total Juudges ‘Total Commissioners Referees Equivalents A (B) fel @} © é STATEWIDE 2,024.0 1708 318.0 29038 23 2,004.8 Unfunded judgeships 80 Slerra 23 2 03 03 23 Siskiyou 50 4 10 10 54 Solano 23.0 Ey 30 3.0 250 Sonoma 20 2 30 30 252 Stenistuis 249 2 30 30 248 Sutter 53 5 as 03 58 Tehama 43 4 0s 03 48 Trinity 2a 2 oa 0a 13 Tulare 230 19 40 30 40 254 Tuotuniie 28 4 os 08 50 Ventura 330 29 40 4a 338 Yolo 124 10 24 14 10 a Yuba 53 5 oa 03 87 Cotumn Key: @ The 50 new juigeshipsauthoriaad by Assemby Bil 159, eHlect we Janvary 2008,ae includedin the statewide totalIn (B.) These judgeshps aresill unfunded and are net showin individualcourts kein previous versions cf the Court Statistics Report 6 ‘Sum of (0) + {© Total may not match exactly becauseof rounding caused by frat onal commissioner and reforoe postions # Reflects authorzed judicialpositions adjusted for vacancies, assistance rendered bythe cour, and assistance received by ‘the court from assigned uéges, ‘empararyjudges. comm seioners, and referees. Jacicial Counc af Califomia 153 2015 Court Statistios Report Judicial Position Equivalents, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 13b Permanont Resources as of June 30,2014 Doys in Fiscal Year 2013-14 udicia Assislance Assistance Pasion county Judges Comm/ssioners Referees Vacanciea Receive Rendered Equivalents (al 8) ic) Oy 5) fa) 19) STATEWIDE +706 708 23 31307 «27,622,842 20018 Untunded judgeships 30 50 Aamesa 8 190 o78 sz 224 ant Aine 2 os ° 23 Amador 2 03 as 28 Butte " 20 282 144 Calaveras 2 03 14 208 26 cousa 2 a2 14 2a Conta Costa 38 80 409 985 180 476 Del Norte 2 oa 1 aa EI Dorada 8 10 n 44s 107 Fresno 4 80 164 S42 7” 02 Glenn 2 os 28 24 Humboldt 7 10 11 az Inperia 16 o4 10 st 118 Inyo 2 03 32 24 Kern 38 60 10 oz 04 “47 ings 7 1s 798 97 Lake 4 oe 248 5a Lassen 2 03 17 3a Los Angeles a5 25.0 143 ser 3616 1.340 soa Madera ° 03 7 8 99 arin 2 20 os 218 1a 14a Maripasa 2 03 28 endacina 8 aa 8s Meroe 10 2a 197 124 Motos 2 os 23 Mono 2 03 24 Montoray 18 22 24 205 na Napa 6 20 138 35 Nevada 6 16 130 as Orange ‘24 200 22a) 2.662 1482 Placer 10 40 os 403 16.1 Plunas 2 D3 Ea 28 Riverside 8 140 tose 3,104 343 Sacramento & 49 85 758 gar yea Sen Benita 2 oa 2 2a San Bernardina n 15a sas +400 893 San Diego 132 zo 1.387 64 1510 San Francisca 82 ‘3a sig 1,028, oor San Joaquin 29 40 08 248 882 388 San Las Oblepo 12 30 118 185 San Marea 2 70 229 148 327 Santa Barbara 2 30 230 357 243 Santa Clara 7 100 421 282 886 Santa Cruz " 18 10 83 134 Shasta 10 20 18 a3 132 tual Counell of Calfornia 54 2016 Geun Statistics Report Judicial Position Equivalents, by County Superior Courts Fiscal Year 2013-14 Table 13b Days in Fiscal Year 2013-14 Judicial Assistance Assistance Postion ‘COUNTY Judges Commissioners Referees Varannies Revelved Rendured —Equivaients A @ i) oy ie) fl (9) STATEWIDE, 1,708 290.8 273) 3307 27,622 1,842, 2,001.8 Unfunded judgeships 50 50 Siewa 2 os 8 23 Siskiyou 4 10 8A Ba Solana 20 30 124 6x2 250 Soroina 20 30 681 252 Stanislaus 2 30 282 248 suater 5 03 "7 58 Tehama 4 D3. ™ 46 Triity 2 03 246 137 19 Tulare 13 39 10 aa 933 24 Zuotumae 4 oa 118 186 50 Ventura 2 40 ait 34 5 aaa Yolo 10 14 1 18 128 Yuba 5 03 0 57 Column Key: w “The 50 new judgeships authorized sul notfunded byAssembly Bll 159, e“ectiva January 2008,ae included inthe statewide {otal but not shown in inaivical courslke in prosious versions efhe Court Statistics Report. o Numberof working days duringthe fiscal yesr that were nol ulized 2ecause of an untied judge postion © Assistance received fram assigned judges, tomparary cami ssianers and referees, and attoreys acting as lemporary i Assistance rendored ta othertil coutsor appellate courts (S) {A)+(B)~ (C1+[( +E. FY 248), Thoro wera 248 available working daysin Fiscal Year 2013—14. rhe 5M newjudgeshipe authorized by AssemblyBill 159, eective January 2008, are inctuded in (A.) Wilh the postions unfiled ceding fundicg approval oythe Legislature, ey are cons dered vacant and counted in eslumn (D.) Judiciat Councit of Caiornia 18 2018 Court Statistics Report Supreme Court Issues Annual Report on Workload Statistics for 2014-2015 Page | of 3 close this page CALIFORNIA COURTS THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF CALIFORNIA Supreme Court Issues Annual Report on WorkloadStatistics for 2014-2015 FOR RELEASE Contact: Cathal Conneely, 41 5-865-7740, PDF Version October 8, 2015 Supreme Court Issues Annual Report on Workload Statistics for 2014—2015 Opinions decrease, butfilings increase SAN FRANCISCO—The Supreme Court of California today releasedits annual workloadstatistics for September 1, 2014, through August 31, 2015,theofficial court yearfor statistical purposes. Overail, the numberof opinions issued by the court decreased from 83 last court year to 72 in 2014-2015. Although dispositions also decreased from 7,751 to 7,473, totalfilings with the court increased from 7,836 to 8,024. The statistics detail an increasein civil writ petitions, original petitions for noncapital habeascorpusrelief, and State Bar of California matters. There was a modest decreasein petitions for review along with a slight decreasein actions by order onpetitions for writs of habeascorpusrelating to death penalty judgments. Requests for publication and depublication of Court of Appealopinions both increasedthis court year. Following the retirement of Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard in April 2014, the court continued to assign justices from the Courts of Appealto sit as justices pro tempore for the oral argument sessions held from September 2014 through December2014. This practice is typically followed whena justice is not available to serve, and continues until a replacement has been appointed, confirmed, and joins the court. Justice Marvin R. Baxter's subsequentretirement, effective January 2015, was followed bythe arrival of two new associate justices in January 2015. Thelack of a full complementof permanentjustices and the corresponding staff changes during suchtransitions can have an impact on the court's ability to produce and file opinions. OPINIONS FILED including Death Penalty Appeals and Related Habeas CorpusPetitions In the 2014-2015 court year, the Supreme Court held oral argumentafterfull briefing andfiled opinions in 71 cases, of which 26 involvedcivil matters, 31 involved noncapital criminal matters, and 14 resolved automatic appeals arising from judgments of death. In one additional extraordinary matter, the court, without holding oral argumentorfull briefing, filed an opinion in a State Bar matter, abrogating its own decision from 125 years earlier that denied bar admission to the first Chinese native to practice law in America. In in re Hong Yen Chang (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1169, the court granted posthumousbar admission to Mr. Chang, acknowledging that his discriminatory exclusion was a grievous wrong andaffirming his rightful place among the ranks of persons deemed qualified to serve. Overail, the numberof opinionsfiled by the court was 11 fewer than the prior court year. Opinionsin death penalty appeals were 11 fewer, opinionsin civil cases decreased by7, but opinionsin noncapital criminal casesincreased by 6 over the previous court year. In addition to the opinionsfiled during the 2014-2015 court year, the court acted by order upon 22 petitions for writ of habeas corpusrelating to death penalty judgments, one fewer than the prior court year. When a petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied without the issuance of an order to show cause, the court does not issue an opinion and instead disposes of the matter by order. Nevertheless, even when noopinion results, the preparation of intemal memoranda and the related disposition of death-penalty-related habeas corpuspetitions draws heavily upon the court's resources. The petitions and records in such cases frequently are lengthy and complex, and are analyzedin internal memoranda that often exceed 75 to 100 pagesin length. OVERALLFILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS Totalfilings increased from 7,836 in the prior court year to 8,024 in the most recentcourt year. Filings of petitions for review decreased from 4,138 to 4,073,civil petitions for review decreased from 1,158 to 1,146, and criminalpetitions for review decreased from 2,987 to 2,927. Totalfilings in original proceedings rose http://www.courts.ca.gov/33297.htm?print=1 3/20/2017 Supreme Court Issues Annual Report on Workload Statistics for 2014-2015 Page 2 of 3 from 2,727 to 2,802 with the balance oftotalfilings consisting of State Bar-related matters and death penalty matters. State Barfilings increased by 147 from 936 last year to 1,083 in the most recent court year. The largest increase wasin attorney resignations, which increased by 77 from 469 to 546. The numberoffilings in matters arising outof disciplinary actions also increased by 44 from 391 to 435, and mattersfiled in the Supreme Court byindividuals after their complaints to the State Bar had been rejected without action increased by 27 from 69 to 96. Original habeas corpuspetitions in noncapital matters decreased from 2,279 to 2,259. However, there was a slight increase in the numberof petitions for review in these matters, which increased from 262 last year to 303 this year. Dispositions Decrease In the 2014-2015 court year, the court disposed of 7,473 petitions for review, petitions in original proceedings, and actions arising out of State Bar Court disciplinary proceedings. That amounts to 278 fewer matters than were disposedofin the prior court year. Disposition of petitions for review decreased by 255, from 4,074 to 3,819, and dispositionsin original proceedings decreased by 119, from 2,712 in the prior court year to 2,831 in the most recent court year. The court must decide whetheror notto grant a petition for review within 60 days, with a possible extension of an additional 30 days,orit loses jurisdiction and the matter is deemed denied. As has beenthe casefor manyyears, the court did not jose jurisdiction in any matter governed by these time constraints. The numberof dispositions in noncapital-case original criminal habeas corpus petitions decreased by 9 percent, from 2,289in the prior court year to 2,084 during the most recent court year. An increase occurredin attorney discipline dispositions, which rose from 909in the prior court yearto 1,024 in the most recent court year. Although most State Bar matters do not require substantial internal conference memoranda, the numberand variety of matters in which such memoranda were prepared have increased significantly over the past few years. Publication and Depublication Orders Beginningin the 2001~2002 court year, the Court Statistics Report, published by the Judicial Council of California, has included information concerning depublication and publication orders issued by the Supreme Court. In 2014-2015, one opinion of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court and 14 Court of Appeal opinions were ordered depublished by the Supreme Court. Measured from the 2002-2003 court year, the numberof Court of Appeal opinions ordered depublished has ranged from 31 last court year to a record iow of 10 in 2007-2008. In contrast, depublication orders regularly exceeded 100 per year in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Supreme Court ordered publication of two Court of Appealopinions, one fewer than the previous court year. The numberofopinions ordered published dependsin large part upon the numberof requests to publish received by the Supreme Court. The court rarely orders publication of a Court of Appeal opinion without such a request;it is more likely to depublish without a specific requestto do so. OTHER INFORMATION For several years, as part ofits outreach and education efforts, the court has annually heard oral argument at a location other thanits courtroomsin San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento, and engaged the participation of locat high school students, local media, and the public for these occasions. In October 2014, the court piloted an in-house special student outreach session, inviting students from a local high school, a community college, and a university to participate in a televised special oral argument session in its San Francisco courtroorn. This special session was the last special session at which Justice Marvin R. Baxter sat before his retirement. After Justice Baxter announced that he would not standfor retention to a new twelve-yearterm, Governor Edmund G. Brown,Jr., nominated Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar to stand for retention in his stead. Following confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments and retention by the voters in the general election in November, Justice Cuéllar was sworn into office on January 5, 2015. On November24, 2015, Govemor Brown appointed Leondra R. Krugertofill the vacancy created bythe earlier retirementof Justice Joyce L. Kennard. Following confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments,Justice Kruger was also sworn into office on January 5, 2015. BACKGROUNDINFORMATION Beginningin 1996, the Califomia Supreme Court has issuedstatistics utilizing a reporting period of September1 through August 31. The court designated this period as the official court yearfor statistical purposesafter determining that this period best correspondswith the flow of the court's opinion production and bestfacilitates consistency in monitoring the pace of the court’s' work. Fiscal yearfigures are also separately developed and used for budgeting and other purposes. http://www.courts.ca.gov/33297.htm?print=1 3/20/2017 Supreme Court Issues Annual Report on WorkloadStatistics for 2014-2015 Page 3 of 3 The court releasesthese statistics following the usual interval in July and August during which the court does not regularly calendaroral argument. These figures are not the sameas those releasedas part of the Statistics report for the entire branch, which are based onthefiscal year. During the monthsin which nooral argumentis held, the court continues to issue opinions in matters arguedat the court's oral argument sessions in Apni, May and June, andto hold its regular weekly conferences at which it decides which cases to grant for review. The court resumed oral argument on September2, 2015. Ht PRGIP Lyaicial Council of California http://www.courts.ca.gov/33297.htm?print=1 3/20/2017 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION DIVISION OF ADULT OPERATIONS Printed Date: 01/06/201 Death Row Tracking System Condemned Inmate Summary List Thefollowing is a statistical summary of inmates sentenced to death in California Ethnicity Ethnic/Race Total Count Percent Total Males Percent Total Females Percent White 251 33.56 240 32.09 11 1.47 Black 273 36.50 271 36.23 2 0.27 Hispanic 182 24.33 176 23.53 6 0.80 Other 42 5.61 40 5.35 2 0.27 Age Range Age Total Count Percent Total Males Percent Total Females Percent 10-19 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 - 29 8 1.07 8 1.07 0 0 30 - 39 83 11.1 79 10.56 4 0.53 40 - 49 234 31.28 230 30.75 4 0.53 50 - 59 235 31.42 227 30.35 8 1.07 60 - 69 144 19.25 142 18.98 2 0.27 70 - 79 40 5.35 37 4.95 3 0.4 80 - 89 4 0.53 4 0.53 0 0 90 - 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 - 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page# 1 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION DIVISION OF ADULT OPERATIONS Printed Date: 01/06/201 Death Row Tracking System Condemned Inmate Summary List Thefollowing is a statistical summary of inmates sentenced to death in California Year Received Year Total Count Percent Year Total Count Percent 1978 1 0.13 1997 34 4.55 1979 6 0.80 1998 31 4.14 1980 6 0.80 1999 38 5.08 1981 8 1.07 2000 30 4.01 1982 17 2.27 2001 19 2.54 1983 11 1.47 2002 15 2.01 1984 15 2.01 2003 19 2.54 1985 11 1.47 2004 9 1.20 1986 13 1.74 2005 20 2.67 1987 12 1.60 2006 16 2.14 1988 24 3.21 2007 16 2.14 1989 24 3.21 2008 21 2.81 1990 20 2.67 2009 29 3.88 1991 19 2.54 2010 28 3.74 1992 34 4.55 2011 10 1.34 1993 30 4.01 2012 13 1.74 1994 22 2.94 2013 24 3.21 1995 34 4.55 2014 12 1.60 1996 35 4.68 2015 14 1.87 Page# 2 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION DIVISION OF ADULT OPERATIONS Printed Date: 01/06/201 Death Row Tracking System Condemned Inmate Summary List The followingis a statistical summary of inmates sentenced to death in California Sentencing County County Total Count Percent County Total Count Percent Alameda 43 5.70 Alpine 0 0.00 Amador 1 0.13 Butte 3 0.40 Calaveras 0 0.00 Colusa 2 0.26 Contra Costa 18 2.38 Dei Norte 0 0.00 El Dorado 5 0.66 Fresno 15 1.99 Glenn 0 0.00 Humboldt 2 0.26 Imperial 3 0.40 Inyo 0 0.00 Kern 27 3.58 Kings 7 0.93 Lake 1 0.13 Lassen 0 0.00 Los Angeles 234 30.99 Madera 4 0.53 Marin 2 0.26 Mariposa 0 0.00 Mendocino 0 0.00 Merced 1 0.13 Modoc 0 0.00 Mono 0 0.00 Monterey 5 0.66 Napa 2 0.26 Nevada 0 0.00 Orange 66 8.74 Placer 2 0.26 Plumas 0 0.00 Riverside 89 11.79 Sacramento 31 4.11 San Benito 0 0.00 San Bernardino 40 5.30 San Diego 39 5.17 San Francisco 1 0.13 San Joaquin 7 0.93 San Luis Obispo 2 0.26 San Mateo 13 1.72 Santa Barbara 9 1.19 Santa Clara 27 3.58 Santa Cruz 0 0.00 - Shasta 7 0.93 Sierra 0 0.00 Siskiyou 0 0.00 Solano 2 0.26 Sonoma 3 0.40 Stanislaus 8 1.06 Sutter 0 0.00 Tehama 0 0.00 Trinity 0 0.00 Tulare 14 1.85 Tuolumne 1 0.13 Ventura 17 2.25 Yolo 2 0.26 Yuba 0 0.00 Page# 3 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION DIVISION OF ADULT OPERATIONS Printed Date: 01/06/2041 Death Row Tracking System Condemned Inmate Summary List The followingis a statistical summary of inmates sentenced to death in California Sentencing County County Total Count Percent County Total Count Percent The following is a statistical summary of inmates sentenced to death in California. Total Inmates on CondemnedInmateList: 748 Total Death Sentences: 755 Total Sentences Affirmed by the California State Supreme Court: 278 Total Sentences Reversed Awaiting Retrial: 10 Page# 4 VENUE,Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014), venue VENUE Bryan A. Garner, Editor in Chief Preface | Guide | Legal Abbreviations venue (ven-yoo) [Law French “coming”] (16c) Procedure. 1. The proper or a possible place for a lawsuit to proceed, usu. because the place has some connection either with the events that gave rise to the lawsuit or with the plaintiff or defendant. 2. Theterritory, such as a country or otherpolitical subdivision, over which a trial court has jurisdiction. — Also termed(in senses 1 & 2) proper venue. Cf. JURISDICTION. - improper venue (1851) A place or court where jurisdiction is not authorized under a statute or by agreementof the parties. 3. Loosely, the place where a conference or meetingis being held. 4. In a pleading, the statementestablishing the place for trial. 5. In an affidavit, the designation of the place where it was made. “Venue mustbe carefully distinguished from jurisdiction. Jurisdiction deals with the power ofa court to hear and dispose of a givencase; in the federal system,it involves questions of a constitutional dimension concerning the basic division of judicial power amongthe states and between state and federal courts. Venueis ofa distinctly lowerlevel ofimportance;it is simply a statutory device designed to facilitate and balance the objectives of optimum conveniencefor parties and witnesses andefficient allocationofjudicial resources.” Jack H. Friedenthalet al., Civil Procedure § 2.1, at 10 (2d ed. 1993). “The distinction mustbe clearly understood between jurisdiction, which is the power to adjudicate, and venue, whichrelates to the place where judicial authority may be exercised and is intended for the convenienceofthelitigants. It is possible for jurisdiction to exist though venuein a particular district is improper,andit is possible for a suit to be brought in the appropriate venue thoughit must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The most important difference between venue andjurisdiction is that a party may consent to be sued in a district that otherwise would be an improper venue, and it waives its objection to venueifit fails to assert it promptly. This is in striking contrast to subject- matterjurisdiction, which cannotbe conferred by the parties,if it has not been granted by Congress, whether by consent, waiver, or estoppel.” Charles Alan Wright, The Law ofFederal Courts § 42, at 257 (Sth ed. 1994). Westlaw. © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. End of Document ©2017 Thomson Reuters. No claimto original US. Government Works, WESTLAW © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original US. Government Works. 4 venue. Vv BALLENTINE'S LAW DICTIONARY BALLENTINE'S LAWDICTIONARY venue. ven'u 1. The county or district wherein a cause is to be tried. 56 Am J1st Ven § 2. The county ordistrict in which an indictmentis returned. 27 Am J1st Indict § 12. In the original meaning,the county district, or neighborhood from which the jury was to come. 2. Not to be confused with "jurisdiction," since jurisdiction may not be conferred by consent or waiver, whereas the venueofan action asfixed by statute may be changedbythe consentof the parties and an objection thatthe plaintiff brought his suit in the wrong county may be waivedbyfailure to makea timely objection, thereby permitting the court to proceed and rendera valid judgment. Authority 1. Eck v State Tax Com. 204 Md 245, 103 A2d 850, 48 ALR2d 4185. 2. Hardenburgh v Hardenburgh, 115 Mont 469, 146 P2d 157. BALLENTINE'S LAW DICTIONARY Copyright (c) 2010 LexisNexis ®, a division of Reed Elsevier, plc. End of Document Erica Rothenberg Official Voter Information Guide PROP 66 DEATH PENALTY. PROCEDURES.INITIATIVE STATUTE. ARGUMENTIN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 66 California’s elected law enforcement Jeaders, police officers, frontline prosecutors, and the families of murdervictims ask you to REFORMthe California death penalty system by voting YES ON PROPOSITION66! Weagree Califomia’s current death penalty system is broken. The most heinouscriminals sit on death row for 30 years, with endless appeals delaying justice and costing taxpayers hundredsof millions. It does not needto be this way. The solution is to MEND, NOT END,Califomia’s death penalty. The solution is YES on PROPOSITION 66. Proposition 66 was written to speed up the death penalty appeals system while ensuring that no innocent person is ever executed. Proposition 66 means the worst of the worst killers receive the strongest sentence. Prop. 66 brings closure to the families of victims. Proposition 66 protects public safety—these brutal killers have no chance of ever being in society again. Prop. 66 saves taxpayers money, because heinous criminals will no longerbesitting on death row at taxpayer expense for 30+ years. Proposition 66 was written by frontline death penalty prosecutors who know the systern inside and out. They know how the system is broken, and they know how tofix it. It may sound complicated, but the reforms are actually quite simple. HERE’S WHAT PROPOSITION 66 DOES: 1. All state appeals should be limited to 5 years. 2. Every murderer sentenced to death will have their special appeals lawyer assigned immediately. Currently, it can be five years or more before they are even assigned a lawyer. 3. The pool of available lawyers to handle these appeals will be expanded. 4, Thetrial courts who handled the death penalty trials and know them bestwill deal with the initial appeals, 5. The State SupremeCourt will be empowered to oversee the system and ensure appeals are expedited while protecting the rights of the accused. 6. The State Corrections Department(Prisons)will reform death row housing; taking away special privileges from these brutalkillers and saving millions. ARGUMENTAGAINST PROPOSITION 66 Prop. 66 WASTES TENS OF MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS. Evidence shows MORE THAN 150 INNOCENT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SENTENCEDTO DEATH, and sorne have been executed because of poorly written lawslike this one. Prop. 66 is so confusing and poorlywritten that we don’t know all of its consequences. We do knowthis: it will add more layers of government bureaucracy causing more delays, cost taxpayers money, and increase Califomia’s risk of executing an innocent person. Experts agree: Prop. 66 is DEEPLY FLAWED. ** PROP. 66 COULD INCREASE TAXPAYER COSTS BY MILLIONS. According to nonpartisan analysis, Prop. 66 could cost “tens of millions of dollars annually” with “unknown” costs beyond that. Read the LAO’s report posted at www.NoOnCAProp66.org/cost. (http:/nooncaprop66.org/cost/) Experts say Prop. 66 will: e INCREASE PRISON SPENDINGwhile schools, social services, and other priorities suffer. e INCREASE TAXPAYER-FUNDEDlegal defense for death row inmates, requiring the state to hire as many as 400 new taxpayer-funded attorneys ¢ LEAD TO CONSTRUCTIONof new TAXPAYER-FUNDED DEATH ROWfacilities. This initiative authorizes the state to house death row inmates in new prisons, anywherein Califomia. e Lead to EXPENSIVE LITIGATIONby lawyers whowill challenge a series of poorly written provisions. “Prop. 66 is so flawedthatit’s impossible to know for sure all the hidden costsit will inflict on Califomia taxpayers.” — John Van de Kamp, former Attomey General of Califomia. ** PROP. 66 WOULD INCREASE CALIFORNIA'S RISK OF EXECUTING AN INNOCENT PERSON. Instead of making sure everyonegetsa fair trial with all the evidence presented, this measure REMOVES IMPORTANT LEGAL SAFEGUARDSand could easily lead to fatal mistakes. This measure is modeled after laws from states like Texas, where authorities have executed innocent people. Together, these reformswill save Califomia taxpayers over $30,000,000 annually, according to former Califomia Finance Director Mike Genest, while making our death penalty system work again. WE NEED A FUNCTIONING DEATH PENALTY SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA Death sentences are issued rarely and judiciously, and only against the very worst murderers. To be eligible for the death penalty in Califomia, you have to be guilty of first-degree murder with “special circumstances.” These special circumstances include,in part: e Murderers who raped/tortured their victims. ¢ Child killers. e Multiple murderers/serialkillers. * Murders committed by terrorists; as part of a hate-crime;orkilling a police officer. There are nearly 2,000 murders in California annually. Only about 15 death penalty sentences are imposed. But when these honible crimes occur, and a jury unanimously finds a criminal guilty and separately, unanimously recommendsdeath, the appeals should be heard within five years, and the killer executed. Help us protect California, provide closure to victims, and save taxpayers millions, Visit www.NoProp62YesProp66.com (http:/www.NoProp62YesProp66.com) for more information. Then join law enforcement and families of victims and vote YES ON PROPOSITION66! JACKIE LACEY,District Attorney of Los Angeles County KERMIT ALEXANDER, Family Memberof Multiple Homicide Victims SHAWN WELCH,President Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriffs Association REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENTIN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 66 Prop. 66 is a poorly-written and COSTLY EXPERIMENTthat would INCREASE CALIFORNIA’S RISK OF EXECUTING AN INNOCENT PERSON,add newlayers of government bureaucracy and create even more legal delaysin death penalty cases. **Read the measure for yourself: According to the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, this measure could cost taxpayers TENS of MILLIONS of DOLLARS. Prop. 66 is not real reform. Here’s what EXPERTS SAY Prop. 66 WOULD ACTUALLY DO: e INCREASEthe chance that California executes an innocent person ¢ INCREASE TAXPAYER FUNDEDlegal defense for death row inmates People like Cameron Willingham and Carlos De Luna, both executed in Texas. Experts now say they were innocent. Prop. 66 will: e LIMIT the ability to present new evidence of innocence in court. « LEAVE people whocan’t afford a good attorney vulnerable to mistakes. * CLOGlocal courts by moving death penalty cases there, adding new layers of bureaucracy andplacing high profile cases in the hands of inexperienced judges and attorneys. This would lead to costly mistakes. “If someone's executed and later found innocent, we can’t go back.”—-Judge LaDoris Cordell, Santa Clara (retired). ** A CONFUSING AND POORLY WRITTEN INITIATIVE THAT WILL ONLY CAUSE MORE DELAY. Prop. 66 is a misguided experiment that asks taxpayers to increase the costs of our justice and prison systems by MILLIONS to enact poorly-written reforms that would put Califomia at risk. SF Weekly stated, “Combing throughtheinitiative’s 16 pagesislike looking through thefirst draft of an undergraduate paper. The wording is vague, unfocused and feels tossed off.” Instead of adding new layers of govemment bureaucracy and increasing costs, we deserve real reform of our justice system. Prop. 66 is not the answer. “Instead of reckless, costly changesto our prison system, we need smart investments that are proven to reduce crime and serve victims."—Dionne Wilson, widow ofpolice officer killed in the line of duty. JEANNE WOODFORD,Warden Califomia’s Death Row prison, 1999-2004 FRANCISCO CARRILLO JR., Innocent man wrongfully convicted in Los Angeles County HON. ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA, Mayor City of Los Angeles, 2005-2013 REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENTAGAINST PROPOSITION 66 Proposition 66 wascarefully written by California's leading criminal prosecutors, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and other top legal experts—people who know from experience what’s needed to MEND, NOT ENDourstate’s broken death penalty system. The anti-death penalty extremists opposing Proposition 66 knowit fixes the system, and will say anything to defeat it. Don't be fooled. Proposition 66 reforms the death penalty so the system is fair to both defendants and the families of victims. Defendants now wait five years just to be assigned a lawyer, delaying justice, hurting their Case No.: $238309 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THESTATE OF CALIFORNIA Ron Briggs and John Van de Kamp, Petitioners, Vv. Jerry Brown,in his official capacity as the Governor of California; Xavier Becerra, inhis official capacity as the Attorney General of California; California’s Judicial Council; and Does I through XX Respondents. PROOF OF SERVICE BY FEDERAL EXPRESS ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP Christina Von der Ahe Rayburn (No. 255467) Lillian Jennifer Mao (No. 267410) 2050 MainSt., Suite 1100 1000 Marsh Rd. Irvine, CA 92614 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: (949) 567-6700 _ Telephone: (650) 614-7400. Fax: (949) 567-6710 Fax: (650) 614-7401 e-mail: cvonderahe@orrick.com e-mail: Imao@orrick.com Attorneysfor Petitioners Ron Briggs and John Van de Kamp RECEIVED MAR 21 2017 CLERK SUPREME COURT I am more than eighteen years old and not party to this action. My business address is Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, The Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street, San Francisco, California 94105-2669. On March 20, 2017, I served a true copy of the attached documententitled: - PETITIONER’S MOTIONFORJUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF FURTHER REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR -EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF by placing true and correct copies thereof in sealed packages designated by Federal Express for that purpose, with such packages addressed for delivery : as follows: Xavier Becerra Attorney General of California Office of the Attorney General 455 Golden Gate, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 (415) 703-5500 Judicial Council of California 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 415-865-4200 Jerry Brown — Governorof California c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173 Sacramento, CA 95814 Kent S. Scheidegger Criminal Justice Legal Foundation 2131 "L" Street Sacramento, CA 95816 Charles H.Bell, Jr. Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 600 Sacramento, CA 95814 David P. Mastagni Mastagni Holstedt, APC 1912 I Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Michele A. Hanisee Los Angeles County District Attorney 555 West Sth Street, co Suite 31101 Los Angeles, CA 90013 I declare under penalty of perjury underthe laws ofthe State of California that the aboveis true andcorrect. Executed on March 20, 2017, at San Francisco, California. M. Ober MichaelJ. O'Hara,
