|
Standard
1.1: Public Proceedings
The
trial court conducts its proceedings and other public business openly.
Commentary.
This standard requires the trial court to conduct all proceedings openly,
contested or uncontested, that are public by law or custom. The court must
specify proceedings to which the public is denied access and ensure that the
restriction is in accordance with the law and reasonable public
expectations. Further, the court must ensure that its proceedings are
accessible and audible to all participants, including litigants, attorneys,
court personnel, and other persons in the courtroom.
Measurement
Overview.
The three measures for Standard 1.1 determine the degree to which a court
openly conducts its business. The measures assume that a trial court meets
Standard 1.1 if it (1) provides public access to its courtrooms, (2) ensures
that information regarding the status of court proceedings is obtainable,
and (3) ensures that judges and other court participants can be heard in
open proceedings. All three measures rely on direct observations. . The
three measures for Standard 1.1 determine the degree to which a court openly
conducts its business. The measures assume that a trial court meets Standard
1.1 if it (1) provides public access to its courtrooms, (2) ensures that
information regarding the status of court proceedings is obtainable, and (3)
ensures that judges and other court participants can be heard in open
proceedings. All three measures rely on direct observations.
The
measures require court staff to compile some basic calendaring information.
Once this information is available, each of the measures can be completed
within a few days. Each of the measures can be accomplished separately, but
it would be more efficient to conduct them simultaneously.
Although
almost anyone can serve as observers for these measures, as noted in the
overview of measures for Access to Justice beginning on page 1, it is
recommended that individuals who are unfamiliar with the court be recruited.
The same individuals also may be used for obtaining observation data for
measures related to other standards of access, particularly measures of the
convenience of access, perceptions of safety, courtesy, and responsiveness
of court personnel.
Go
to Performance Area 1
Measure
1.1.1: Access To Open Hearings
This
measure verifies that the public has access to court proceedings1
that should be open to the public. The coordinator for the measure provides
volunteer observers a list of scheduled court hearings and asks the
observers to verify whether they can enter the courtroom in which the
hearings take place.
Planning/Preparation.
Preparation for this measure involves identifying at least 30 court
proceedings for the volunteer observers to attend. The first step is to
select several days during which the observations will take place. The
number of days selected will depend on:. Preparation
for this measure involves identifying at least 30 court proceedings for the
volunteer observers to attend. The first step is to select several days
during which the observations will take place. The number of days selected
will depend on:
-
The
court’s daily volume of proceedings. If few proceedings are held each day,
the observations will have to be conducted over many days or weeks.
-
The
variety of proceedings conducted each day. If certain matters are heard only
on certain days (e.g., all or most civil and criminal motions are heard only
on Mondays), then several days will be needed to observe a cross-section of
proceedings.
-
The
number of volunteer observers available to conduct the measure. If a large
number of observers are available, data could be collected across many days
without asking observers to visit the courthouse repeatedly. Alternatively,
if observers must collect data on a number of proceedings, it will be more
convenient to do so on 1 or 2 days than to have them traveling to the
courthouse across many days.
-
The
observers’ schedules. The court may have to collect data across several
days (or in just a few days) in order to accommodate the various schedules
of the observers.
The
measure provides an example in which five volunteers observe two proceedings
each across 3 days. As noted above, the data collection process can be
modified to accommodate a court’s particular caseload and volunteers’
schedules. Select more or fewer days as necessary.
To
select the 3 days, first ask court employees involved in scheduling court
proceedings whether certain matters are heard only on certain days. If, for
example, most short matters are heard only on Mondays, be sure to include at
least one Monday in the sample.2 The selected
days should include a cross-section of the types of proceedings the court
hears. If the court hears the same types of matters each day, randomly
select 3 days.
Next,
review the list of proceedings scheduled for each day for nonpublic
proceedings. Eliminate any matters specifically noted as closed to the
public. (Eliminated proceedings may be examined in connection with Standard
3.1, Measure 3.1.1, to determine whether the court’s practices for closing
hearings are in compliance with Federal and State case law and applicable
statutes.)
Randomly
select 10 proceedings scheduled for each day.3
Because some proceedings (such as trials) may be canceled before their
scheduled start times, it is advisable also to select several additional
proceedings as backup.
On
the morning of the planned observation, give each of the five volunteers two
proceedings to attend. Make sure that the two proceedings are not scheduled
to take place at the same time in different courtrooms.
Data
Collection. An
observer returns to each scheduled hearing at the designated location and
time. For each event, the observer records (see Form
1.1.1, Record of Access to Courtroom) whether he or she was successful
in gaining access to the proceeding. If the observer is excluded from any of
the scheduled proceedings, he or she should talk with court officials and
record the reasons for exclusion.
If
some of the proceedings with individually scheduled start times (such as
trials) are canceled before the scheduled start time, additional proceedings
should be chosen to replace them. Canceled proceedings that are part of a
court session including many short matters do not need to be replaced. As
long as the observer gains access to the courtroom where the matter was
scheduled to be heard, the observer can record that the proceeding was
accessible.
Data
Analysis and Report Preparation.
Analyzing the data involves a two-step process.
If all of the court proceedings were open to the public, the court is
performing well on this measure and there is no need to undertake the second
step of analysis. If, on the other hand, some of the court proceedings were
closed, court officials should examine the legitimacy of the explanations
that were given for closing the proceedings. Were the proceedings closed
according to the standards enumerated by the Supreme Court in Press-Enterprise
Co. v. The Superior Court?4 These
standards include:
-
There
is an overriding interest that would be prejudiced by open proceedings.
-
The
closure order is no broader than necessary to protect that interest.
-
Reasonable
alternatives to closure have been considered.
-
The
trial court needs findings on the record adequate to support closure.
The
standards enumerated for closing a pretrial hearing in criminal cases are:5
If
any of the proceedings were closed for reasons other than these, the court
is not performing optimally on this measure. If proceedings were closed for
illegitimate reasons, court officials should take steps to ensure that, in
the future, the Supreme Court’s standards for closing proceedings are
followed.
_____________________________________
1 In general, the
reliability of the measure's results increases with an increase in the size
of the sample. During the demonstration, several courts increased the number
of proceedings they investigated by sampling over an extended timeframe or
asking volunteers to observe more than one proceeding.
2 A trial test of the measure using calendars
from one court, for example, did not include any Monday calendars.
Because of this, virtually all of the court's criminal and civil motions and
other short matters, including sentencing, child support, and so forth, were
excluded from the sample.
3 If the court's calendar tends to change
frequently, court staff may prefer to wait until the morning of the
scheduled observations before selecting the proceedings.
4 Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court,
464 U.S. 501, 104 S. Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984).
5 Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court,
478 U.S. 1, 106 S. Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986).
Go
to Form 1.1.1
Go to top of page
Measure
1.1.2: Tracking Court Proceedings
This
measure is a logical extension of Measure 1.1.1. If an observer has physical
access to a courtroom but cannot identify which proceeding is underway,
public access is compromised. The measure examines whether an observer can
obtain information about the status of specific court proceedings on the
court’s calendar.
Planning/Preparation.
This measure can use the same sample of court proceedings that was drawn for
Measure 1.1.1, Access to Open Hearings. The method for selecting the sample
of court proceedings is described in the planning/preparation section of
Measure 1.1.1.. This measure can use the same
sample of court proceedings that was drawn for Measure 1.1.1, Access to Open
Hearings. The method for selecting the sample of court proceedings is
described in the planning/preparation section of Measure 1.1.1.
Data
Collection. After
following the data collection procedure described for Measure 1.1.1, the
observer tries to determine when a specific court event will be heard. For
each court event, the observer records (see Form
1.1.2, Tracking Court Proceedings) how he or she determined the status
of the event (e.g., saw it take place or asked a court official) and any
difficulties encountered during the process.
Data
Analysis and Report Preparation.. If
the observers were able to identify the status of each scheduled court
event, the court is performing well on this measure. If the observers were
unable to determine the status of one or more court events, court officials
should review the types of court events that could not be tracked. Are there
any patterns in the data? For example, did most of the problems occur with
court events that did not have specific start times? In order to improve the
court’s performance on this measure, court officials should examine
observers’ reports of difficulties they encountered during the data
collection process and suggestions for improving the dissemination of
information regarding the status of specific proceedings (e.g., provide
periodic reviews of the calendar or post the calendar in the courtroom and
update it as matters are heard or rescheduled).
Go
to Form 1.1.2
Go to top of
page
Measure
1.1.3: Audibility of Participants During Open Court Proceedings
This
is a measure of the audibility of proceedings when court is in session.
Observers collect qualitative data regarding the audibility of judges,
attorneys, litigants, witnesses, and other court participants during court
proceedings.
Planning/Preparation.
The first step in applying this measure is selecting a
sample of court proceedings. A subset of the sample of court proceedings
drawn for Measure 1.1.1, Access to Open Hearings, may be used for this
measure. The method for selecting the sample for Measure 1.1.1 is described
in the planning/preparation section of that measure. From this sample, at
lease five court proceedings are selected to be observed for audibility.6
The sample should be stratified by courtroom to ensure that proceedings are
observed in several different courtrooms. (Smaller courts may prefer to test
all of their courtrooms.)
The
second step is the identification and recruitment of observers with normal
hearing. The observers may be volunteers or court employees.
Data
Collection.. An
observer with normal hearing attends each of the selected court proceedings
and sits for approximately 5 minutes on each side of the courtroom’s
public seating. The time spent in the courtroom may need to be extended if
the observer only had the opportunity to hear one or two of the court
participants speak.
After
observing each court proceeding, the observer should answer the questions on
Form 1.1.3, Courtroom Audibility
Evaluation Form, and record any specific acoustic and human speech
factors that seemed to affect audibility in the courtroom. This qualitative
information will help court officials identify factors that may be
contributing to poor audibility in the courtroom.
Data
Analysis and Report Preparation.
A report should be prepared that compiles and synthesizes the results of the
qualitative evaluations by the observers in the various courtrooms. If
audibility is a problem, the report should address whether the problem is
common across courtrooms and types of proceedings or generally limited to
one courtroom or one type of proceeding.. A report
should be prepared that compiles and synthesizes the results of the
qualitative evaluations by the observers in the various courtrooms. If
audibility is a problem, the report should address whether the problem is
common across courtrooms and types of proceedings or generally limited to
one courtroom or one type of proceeding.
The
report should be disseminated to the court administrator and other
appropriate court officials. If a problem exists across all courtrooms,
court officials should consider contacting a sound engineer for suggestions.
Other problems may be alleviated by making minor changes in a courtroom’s
environment or by developing and enforcing administrative rules related to
courtroom audibility.
_________________________________
6 This "subsample"
of court proceedings should include both trials and shorter matters that are
part of a busy calendar session. If the sample is too uniform (e.g., sample
consists only of trials), a stratified sample should be drawn.
Go
to Form 1.1.3
Go to top of page
Go to Table of Contents |
