Standard 3.4 requires that it be clear how compliance with court orders and judgments is to be achieved. Dispositions for each charge or count in a criminal complaint, for example, should be easy to discern, and terms of punishment and sentence should be associated clearly with each count upon which a conviction is returned. Noncompliance with court pronouncements and subsequent difficulties of enforcement sometimes occur because orders are not stated in terms that are readily understood and capable of being monitored. An order that requires a minimum payment per month on a restitution obligation, for example, is clearer and more enforceable than an order that establishes an obligation but sets no time frame for completion. Decisions in civil cases, especially those unraveling tangled webs of multiple claims and parties, also should connect clearly each issue and its consequences.

The purpose of this measure is to determine how well the court communicates the terms and conditions of criminal sentences. Sentences deprive individuals of liberty. Consequently, courts should not contribute to incorrect applications of punishment. Courts should state sentences clearly and precisely enough in orders that correctional officials, probation officers, and others know how to administer them. This measure requires the random selection of 50 criminal cases in which the defendant was found guilty (the measure, with few adjustments, is also suitable for application to juvenile delinquency or offender cases). Specific information about the details of the judgment and sentence that are key indicators of clarity of the court’s orders can be recorded on data collection forms and analyzed quantitatively.

Planning/Preparation. From a pool of criminal cases disposed within a recent 6- to 12-month period in which the defendant was found guilty, at least 50 cases are selected at random. To select the cases, the total number of cases on the list must first be determined. For example, the court may have disposed of 1,220 criminal cases in a 6-month period in which the defendant pled guilty or was found guilty after a trial. This total number of cases is then divided by 50, the total number of cases desired in the sample. In the example, this results in 24.4 (round to 24). Next, a number between 1 and 10 is randomly selected and used to identify the initial case for inclusion in the sample. For example, if the random start number is 6, the first case selected is the sixth case on the list. Thereafter, every 24th case is selected. In the example, case numbers 6, 30, 54, 78, and so forth on the list would be selected until the sample comprises 50 cases.

The source of the data for this measure will be the documents wherein the findings of the court and the judgment and sentence are set forth.

Data Collection. Based on an examination of the findings from judgment and sentencing documents, a data collection sheet for each case is used to record information concerning the following issues: (1) Is it clear from the findings what each charge was and how each was disposed? (2) Is a distinct sentence articulated for each charge for which the defendant was convicted? (3) Is it clear whether sentences are to run consecutively or concurrently? (4) If financial conditions are imposed, is there an unambiguous payment schedule? (5) If there is a finding of joint and several responsibility among multiple defendants, is it clear from the order what will count as noncompliance? For a sample of a data collection sheet see Form 3.4.1, Illustrative Data Collection Form/Clarity of Judgment and Sentence.

This measure evaluates how well the court states the final action taken in the adjudication of a civil dispute. Integrity demands that courts clearly state the terms and conditions of obligations decided by a trial or a court-approved settlement. The measure parallels Measure 3.4.1 but differs in the types of cases selected for review, in the details of the data collection form, and by the addition of a step to determine the clarity of injunctive or declaratory orders/judgments.

Planning/Preparation. From a pool of civil cases disposed within a recent 6- to 12-month period, at least 50 civil cases are selected at random in the same manner as described for Measure 3.4.1. (The greater the number of cases included in the sample, the greater the measure’s reliability.) In selecting the cases for which data are to be collected, care must be taken to ensure that they are cases for which a judgment was entered by the court (i.e., the sample should result in at least 50 cases that do not include orders of dismissal or cases disposed by reference to a settlement agreement, the terms of which are not incorporated into a judgment of the court). The sample should be stratified to include at least 10 cases in which the order/judgment involves injunctive or declaratory relief (or approximately 20 percent if a sample of more than 50 cases is used.)

The source of the data for this measure will be documents in which the terms of the order and judgment are set forth. The last order/judgment should be examined in complex multiparty cases that had final adjudication among some but not all of the claims or parties prior to the adjudication and judgment that is dispositive of the entire case. For example, if there are two orders/judgments found in the case file, one dated January 1, 1990, and one entered July 1, 1990, the latter is the order/judgment from which data will be collected.

Data Collection. Based on an examination of the findings and judgment documents, a data collection sheet for each case is used to record information concerning the following issues: (1) If money judgments are involved, is it clear who is the judgment debtor and who is the judgment creditor with respect to each claim? (2) Is it clear how and when money judgments are to be paid? (3) If there are special conditions of the order, are they clearly set forth (e.g., is the order’s intention clear with respect to the calculation of both pre- and postjudgment interest, if any)? (4) If the order/judgment includes declaratory or injunctive relief, are its terms clear? (5) Is it clear from the order/judgment whether it is dispositive of the case in its entirety (i.e., does it state that there are no more unresolved claims among parties to the suit?) For a sample questionnaire, please refer to Form 3.4.2, Illustrative Data Collection Form for Clarity of Civil Judgments.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. Because civil judgments are the basis for restoring or compensating for financial loss, enjoying rights in property, or establishing the credit worthiness of judgment debtors and creditors, trial courts must achieve the highest level of clarity in stating the terms of judgments. Confusion in acting on the terms of judgments must be avoided, especially as a cause for postjudgment litigation initiated merely to clarify the meaning of the order/judgment. Should postjudgment action be required to enforce a civil judgment, the official(s) responsible for enforcement should clearly understand what the court intended when the facts were adjudicated and the rights and duties of the parties were established.

There are several interrelated indicators of performance in this regard. First, orders/judgments on claims for monetary relief should clearly state each of the creditor/debtor relationships. Second, all money judgments should include a specific dollar amount. Third, the basis for computing any judgment interest should be stated unambiguously and incorporated into the terms of the order/judgment. Fourth, in complex cases, the judgment that is dispositive of all issues and claims should be identified as such. Finally, the details of injunctive or declaratory relief should be spelled out in such a way that no further authority is required to determine if the conditions of the order/judgment have been met.

Good performance is indicated by meeting these requirements in no less than 100 percent of all money judgments for the first two factors, while a lesser standard is tolerable for the third and fourth factors. Statistical methods are inappropriate for the fifth factor—the clarity of conditions of declaratory or injunctive relief—because it is inherently more qualitative.

This measure complements the previous two measures by looking at clarity from a different perspective. While Measures 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 provide quantitative data concerning details of orders that are presumed to be necessary, this measure assesses the extent to which lack of clarity is seen as problematic by various individuals who are called on to read, interpret, and enforce orders. The measure allows the court to discern whether problems in the clarity of orders are related more to certain types of judgments or relief and to explore how these might be addressed.

Planning/Preparation. The first step for completing this measure is to compile a list of individuals who regularly read and interpret court orders. The list should include up to 10 individuals in each of the following groups: judges, probation officers, criminal and civil attorneys, clerk’s office staff who regularly record terms of judgments, and employees of title companies or other private agencies who regularly search judgment dockets. If a court employs more than 10 persons in any of these categories, a random selection of at least ten from each group is desirable. A total of 50 individuals should be included.

Data Collection. Form 3.4.3, Illustrative Questionnaire Form/Experience in Interpreting Orders and Judgments, can be used to collect data through a telephone or in-person interview of the individuals identified above.³⁸ The data collection form contains questions to determine the respondents’ views about clarity of orders in general as well as questions that target specific areas in which clarity may be a problem. The specific questions are broken into two parts, covering criminal and civil cases, respectively. The data collection form instructs interviewers to skip those sections that are not relevant to the respondent’s experiences.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. Responses to the questions can be averaged to obtain an overall indication of the respondents’ views. The fewer the number of individuals who state that they never or rarely have difficulties understanding court orders, the better the court is performing on this measure. The distribution of the responses also needs to be examined because different spreads in the responses indicate different problems. For example, a survey in which 41 of the respondents say they never experience problems with clarity of court orders but 9 say they often do calls for a different interpretation than a survey reporting that 15 say they never and 35 say they almost never have problems, although the average scores would be nearly the same.

More importantly, however, the responses of different groups of respondents should be compared to discern whether some groups experience problems that are not experienced by others. Judges who are called upon to rule on alleged violations of orders in criminal cases may experience different problems more frequently than do probation officers or lawyers; judgment clerks may experience problems frequently that attorneys do not encounter at all. Finally, responses to the questions in Parts II and III should be examined to determine whether there are particular practices that regularly cause problems; these practices may indicate areas that can be improved systematically.