Integrity should characterize the nature and substance of trial court procedures and decisions, and the consequences of those decisions. The decisions and actions of a trial court should adhere to the duties and obligations imposed on the court by relevant law as well as administrative rules, policies, and ethical and professional standards. What the trial court does and how it does it should be governed by a court’s legal and administrative obligations; similarly, what occurs as a result of the court’s decisions should be consistent with those decisions.

Integrity refers not only to the lawfulness of court actions (e.g., compliance with constitutional rights to bail, legal representation, a jury trial, and a record of legal proceeding) but also to the results or consequences of its orders. A trial court’s performance is diminished when, for example, its mechanisms and procedures for enforcing its child support orders are ineffective or nonexistent. Performance also is diminished when summonses and orders for payment of fines or restitution are routinely ignored. The court authority and its orders should guide the actions of those under its jurisdiction both before and after a case is resolved.

Overview of Standards. The demand for equality, fairness, and integrity is articulated by six performance standards. The first standard encompasses the all-important legal concept of due process and requires that trial courts adhere to relevant law, rules, and policy when acting in their judicial and administrative capacities. The equality and fairness afforded to litigants and disputes are determined not only by judges and court personnel but also by juries. Standard 3.2 requires that trial courts do their utmost to encourage equality, fairness, and integrity by ensuring that individuals called for jury duty are representative of the population from which the jury was drawn.

Standard 3.3 focuses on what many consider to be the essence of justice. The standard requires that the decisions and actions of trial courts be based on legally relevant factors consistently applied in all cases. Furthermore, those decisions and actions should be based on individual attention to each case. In accordance with the call for integrity in court performance, Standard 3.4 urges trial courts to render decisions that clearly address the issues and specify how compliance with their decisions can be achieved. Clarity is a prerequisite for both compliance and enforcement.

Standard 3.5 encourages trial courts to assume responsibility for the enforcement of their orders. Finally, Standard 3.6 requires the prompt and accurate preservation of trial court records. Records of court decisions and the process followed to arrive at decisions constitute, in an important sense, the law. Both the accuracy of the records and reliable access to them are fundamental to the achievement of the purposes of trial courts.

Overview of Measures. Twenty-three specific measures are associated with the six standards in Performance Area 3: Equality, Fairness, and Integrity. They are intended to provide systematic information on the many facets of this complex and important topic. For most of the individual standards, the measures use similar data elements, data gathering procedures, and methods of analysis. For example, Standard 3.6 states that "Records of all relevant court decisions are accurate and properly preserved." For five of the six measures, a common database is used to assess the integrity of the court’s record management systems. The measures use some portion of the same pool of cases to examine the extent to which court records are adequately stored. Use of a joint database is called for in other standards, including Standard 3.3, which requires trial courts to "give cases individual attention, deciding them without undue disparity among like cases and only upon legally relevant factors." Measure 3.3.3, Equality and Fairness in Sentencing, and Measure 3.3.4, Equality and Fairness in Bail Decisions, rely on the same set of cases and the same methodological approach to determine whether legally irrelevant factors play a role in bail and sentencing decisions. Hence, a court that decides to undertake the measurement of a given standard will find that it can apply all of the measures within that standard in an efficient manner.

The most common approach to all of the measures in this area is the analysis of case-related information. Case files are used as a primary source of data for many of the measures. In some instances, the information in the files is gathered and analyzed to assess the fairness of court decisions in areas such as bail and sentencing. On the other hand, case-related information is also used in Standard 3.1 to determine the extent to which the court adheres to laws and procedures. Standard 3.1 states that "Trial courts faithfully adhere to procedural rules, and established policies." Here the case-related information is used as a way to verify compliance to laws.

The second most common approach is the use of mail questionnaires to assess the views of key participants in the trial court process. Different measures target different sets of respondents. For example, Measure 3.3.3 seeks to determine both court employees’ and attorneys’ assessment of court performance in applying the law. Measure 3.3.1 targets the bar’s view of the fairness of court decisions and actions. Measure 3.3.2 surveys the opinions of court users. Measure 3.6.6 examines the views of attorneys toward the adequacy of the court record when cases are appealed.