Newsletter of the Federal Courts Vol. 43 Number 6 June 2011

Judgeship Bills Seek Relief ........................... 2

Patent Pilot Courts Selected ....................... 3

Hinojosa Tapped for Devitt Award .......... 6

INSIDE

Committee Sees Policy Impact

The Judicial Conference

Committee on Court

Administration and Case

Management has a cross-

cutting perspective—from

cameras in the courtroom to

patent pilots. For more, read

our interview with Judge Julie

Robinson on page 10.

INtErvIEw

AO Head, Jim Duff, Announces Resignation

James C. Duff, Director of the Admin-istrative Office (AO), will resign this summer to become President and Chief

Executive Officer of the Freedom Forum, a non-partisan private foundation dedicated to improving understanding of the First Amendment and the Constitution. Duff was appointed Director of the AO July 1, 2006, by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

Chief Justice Roberts described Director Duff as “a dedicated public servant who has led the Administrative Office with great skill.” The Chief Justice said, “Jim is widely respected throughout the federal courts; his work has always reflected his deep commitment to ensuring that the federal Judiciary has the administrative support to enable it to fulfill its vital role under the Constitution. I will miss his wise counsel.”

The AO Director oversees and coordinates an annual budget of $7 billion, supporting 35,000 employees nationwide, and serves as Secretary to the Judicial Conference of the United States and as a member of the Board of the Federal Judicial Center.

“I am very grateful to Chief Justice Roberts for the opportunity to work for him and our dedicated federal judges and courts, and with the AO staff for the past five years. Our nation’s federal judicial system is a model for other nations and is consistently held in the highest regard by the public,” Duff said. “It has been a privilege to serve the Third Branch, and I look forward to educating the public in my new position about our important Constitutional freedoms the courts have helped protect.”

Duff has served under three Chief Justices. In addition to his tenure as Director of the AO under Chief Justice Roberts, he was Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist’s Administrative

Assistant (now called “Counselor to the Chief Justice”) from 1996-2000, serving as the chief of staff at the Supreme Court and as liaison to the other two branches of government on behalf of the Chief Justice. He began his career as an office and courtroom assistant to Chief Justice Warren E. Burger from 1975–1979, while attending law school at Georgetown University Law Center.

Prior to his appointment as Director of the Administrative Office, he was managing partner of the Washington office of the law

Continued on page 7

Courts Selected for Federal Cameras in Court Pilot Study

Fourteen federal trial courts have been selected to take part in the federal Judiciary’s digital

video pilot, which will begin July 18, 2011, and will evaluate the effect of cameras in courtrooms. All 14 courts volunteered to participate in the three-year experiment.

The courts were selected by the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (CACM) in consul-tation with the Federal Judicial Center, the Judiciary’s research arm. The participating courts are:

Continued on page 2

Director of the Administrative Office, James C. Duff

The Third Branch n June 20112

Two bills creating new Article III judgeships were introduced in the Senate in May.

“When our courts become overbur-dened, we leave crime victims and criminal defendants in limbo and civil litigants without resolution to their

problems,” Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said as she intro-duced S. 1014, the Emergency Judicial Relief Act of 2011. The bill would create new judgeships

in five districts: four permanent judge-ships in the Eastern District of California; two in the District of Arizona; two in the Western District of Texas; one in the Southern District of Texas; and one in the District of Minnesota. The bill also would convert existing temporary judgeships in the District of Arizona and the Central District of California to permanent judgeships.

S. 1014 has bipartisan support in the Senate. It was introduced by Feinstein

and Senator John Kyl (R-AZ), with co-sponsors Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), John McCain (R-AZ), John Cornyn (R-TX), Kay Bailey Hutchinson

(R-TX), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Al Franken (D-MN).

S. 1032, introduced in May by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) with co-sponsor Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), would create

41 new judge-ships for all the federal districts in Arizona, California, Texas, and New Mexico. It also would convert four existing temporary judge-

ships to permanent judgeships.In early 2011, Administrative Office

Director James C. Duff, acting in his capacity as Secretary of the Judicial Conference, wrote to leadership of Congress and the Judiciary Committees asking for prioritized attention for the judgeships needs of the Eastern District of California and the Western District of Texas—two of the Judiciary ’s most consis-tently overburdened courts.

Feinstein noted that no permanent judgeships have been created in the Eastern District of California since 1978, and the only temporary judgeship was allowed to expire, despite a weighted caseload per authorized judgeship that is the highest in the nation. Except for some caseload spikes due to isolated events, the Eastern District of California has had the highest caseload in the country since 2005, and the Western District of Texas has had the second highest caseload in the country since 2008. In March, the Judicial Conference submitted a request for 88 new judge-ships to Congress, which the Conference continues to seek.

“We are grateful that the sponsors of these bills have recognized these and other judgeship needs,” said Duff. All the judgeships in S. 1014 and S. 1032 are recommended by the Judicial Conference.

Judgeship Bills Seek Relief for Busy DistrictsLaw Day Celebration Draws International Students

High school students from Bosnia and Herzegovina joined D.C.

and Maryland students in a courtroom simulation at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to learn more about the Constitutional principles celebrated on Law Day. Eighteen students from various regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina are visiting the United States as part of a Youth Leadership Program funded by the U.S. Department of State. In addition to in-home stays with U.S. families, they participated in a three-part Civic Education and Leadership Institute at Willamette University. The program culminated in a trip to Washington, DC, where their visit coincided with Law Day events at the D.C. courthouse.

firm of Baker Donelson, where he served as counsel and secretary to the Freedom Forum. The Freedom Forum funds the Newseum, a Washington, D.C.-based interactive museum of history, news, and technology, and the First Amendment Center and the Diversity Institute at Vanderbilt University.

AO Head, Jim Duff, Announces Resignationcontinued from page 1

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Senator John Kyl (R-AZ)

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)

The Third Branch n June 2011 3

The patent pilot project courts are the:

Eastern District of New York

Southern District of New York

Western District of Pennsylvania

District of New Jersey

District of Maryland

Eastern District of Texas

Northern District of Texas

Western District of Tennessee

Northern District of Illinois

District of Nevada

Central District of California

Northern District of California

Southern District of California

Southern District of Florida

Fourteen federal district courts have been selected to participate in a 10-year pilot project designed

to enhance expertise in patent cases among U.S. district judges. The pilot, mandated by Pub. L. No. 111-349, begins in most selected courts in July.

To be eligible to participate, courts had to be among the 15 district courts in which the largest number of patent and plant variety protections cases were filed in 2010, or be district courts that adopted or certified to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) the intention to adopt local rules for patent and plant variety protection cases.

From among the eligible courts who volunteered for the pilot, the Director was required by statute to select three district courts having at least 10 autho-rized district judgeships in which at least three judges have made a request to hear patent cases, and three district courts having fewer than 10 authorized district judgeships in which at least two judges have made a request to hear patent cases.

The Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management will help implement the pilot. The Committee is encouraging the pilot courts in the project to use their case assignment system to ensure fairness in the distribution of the court’s workload and provide for the assignments of additional civil cases to those judges who decline patent cases.

The Federal Judicial Center (FJC), the research arm of the federal Judiciary, is creating a special webpage to assist the patent pilot courts with sample patent case local rules and forms, and FJC patent law publications and case management materials for patent cases. It also plans to provide specialized patent law and case management training for the pilot courts, resources permitting. Under the statute, the AO and the FJC will submit periodic reports to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees over the course of the pilot, with the first report due mid-way through the pilot.

District Courts Selected for Patent Pilot Program

In the pilot program, patent cases filed in participating district courts are initially randomly assigned to all district judges, regardless of whether they have been desig-nated to hear such cases. A judge who is randomly assigned a patent case and is not among the designated judges may decline to accept the case. That case is then randomly assigned to one of the district judges designated to hear patent cases.

Patent Cases Filed in Federal Court 2001–2010

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2010200920082007200620052004200320022001

2,520

2,814 3,075

2,700 2,7202,896 2,9022,830 2,792 3,031

Cas

es F

iled

12-Month Periods Ending September 30

The number of patent cases filed in federal courts increased 18 percent in 2010 over the previous 12-month period.

Judiciary News Delivered to You

Get updates on the latest Judiciary news, publications, and

statistics, and more delivered directly to your email. Simply visit the email subscription box on the uscourts.gov homepage to sign-up. Your alerts can be customized to meet your interests and changed at any time by signing into your account.

The Third Branch n June 20114

Magistrate Judges: “Indispensable Resource” for Federal Courts

U.S. magistrate judges have been essential to federal court opera-tions for decades, but in fiscal

year 2010, their contributions reached new heights as they handled more than 1 million matters.

“Magistrate judges are an indis-pensable resource,” said Judge George King (C.D. Calif.), who chairs the Judicial Conference’s Committee on the Admin-istration of the Magistrate Judges System. “Quite simply, the federal trial courts would not be able to function without the magistrate judges who conduct all the important preliminary proceedings in criminal cases and perform a wide range of duties in civil cases.”

One of King’s predecessors as the Committee chair, Judge Philip Pro (D. Nev.) agrees. “I would characterize the role of a magistrate judge as fundamentally important,” he said. “The unprecedented growth of caseloads in federal court over the past half century, together with the complexity of many of those cases and the litigation process itself, has spurred reliance on magistrate judges to undertake substantially greater responsibilities.”

The nation’s 94 federal judicial districts are served by 528 full-time and 44 part-time magistrate judges. Full-time

judges are appointed to eight-year terms, and part-time judges to four-year terms, by district judges in their district. The terms can be renewed.

Magistrate judges preside over federal misdemeanor cases, handle preliminary matters in felony cases, and are usually the first judicial officer a criminal defendant sees after arrest or indictment. In most districts, magistrate judges also handle pretrial motions and hearings in civil cases and felony criminal cases, which are eventually turned over to district judges for final disposition.

However, at least 27 district courts include magistrate judges on the civil case assignment wheel for direct, random assignment of a portion of cases to them as the presiding judge, subject to the parties’ consent or request for reassignment to a district judge.

In FY 2010, magistrate judges (the job title was changed from magistrates in 1990) disposed of 12,470 civil cases with the consent of the parties and 116,983 misdemeanor and petty offense cases, took on 192,531 additional duties in criminal cases and 260,796 additional duties in civil cases, drew 21,878 prisoner litigation assignments, handled 368,157 preliminary proceedings and another

54,376 miscellaneous tasks—a record 1,027,191 matters in all, a 4.5 percent increase over the previous fiscal year.

“Although magistrate judges cannot fully compensate for an insufficient number of district judges,” said King, “magistrate judges perform critical duties to ensure the timely adjudication of both civil and criminal cases.”

His court, based in Los Angeles, recently renewed its Magistrate Judge Civil Consent Pilot Project for an additional two years. Established in 2008, the pilot assigns full-time magistrate judges with at least three years on the bench two civil cases each month. If all parties timely consent in writing to the magistrate judge’s exercise of civil jurisdiction, the case remains with that judge for all purposes—including trial and entry of a final judgment. (The district has 24 authorized full-time and one part-time magistrate judge positions.)

In a statement announcing the pilot’s extension, the district court said: “The project furthers the court’s core mission of the timely administration and just adjudi-cation of all matters before the court.”

Worth noting is one phenomenon regarding magistrate judges: they often are appointed to lifetime jobs as Article III judges, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. As of June 1, a total of 143 magistrate judges have been appointed as Article III judges. That total includes Judges King and Pro.

Pro explained those numbers as “consistent with the evolution of the magis-trate judges system over the past 40 years.”

“The varied duties of magistrate judges and their flexible utilization throughout the country well qualify them to undertake Article III responsibilities,” he said. “Equally important, the system provides an arena in which magistrate judges routinely demonstrate their ability to do so in a manner which makes them

Matters Disposed of by U.S. Magistrate Judges 1990–2010

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

20102005200019951990

450,565512,741

806,452 941,632 1,027,191

Continued on page 6

The Third Branch n June 2011 5

“I recommend that the Sentencing Commission . . . give retroactive effect to its recently promulgated

amendments lowering sentences for crack offenses,” Judge Reggie Walton (D. D.C.) said at a Commission hearing held this month to consider making recently promulgated crack cocaine amendments retroactive. Walton spoke on behalf of the Judicial Conference Criminal Law Committee.

The amendments would reduce penalties for crack cocaine trafficking and would modify the guidelines provi-sions related to simple possession of crack cocaine. The sentences of more than 12,000 federal inmates would be affected by a decision to make the amendments retroactive.

Despite significant anticipated budget reductions for the Judiciary and the workload associated with sentence reductions for more than 12,000 inmates, Walton told the Commission that the Criminal Law Committee “continues to believe that an extremely serious admin-istrative problem would have to exist to justify not applying the amendment retroactively. At this time, the Committee does not believe that an extremely serious problem exists.”

Walton also said there continues to be strong support throughout the Judiciary to remedy the injustices related to crack sentencing.

“If the guideline is faulty and has been fixed for future cases, then we also need to undo past errors as well,” he said.

Among the witnesses testifying at the hearing were Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Thomas R. Kane, acting director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, along with panels of practitioners, law enforcement experts, and academics, and a community interest panel.

Holder also called for the retro-active application of the guideline amendment—with a proviso that applies to certain dangerous offenders: “those who have possessed or used weapons in committing their crimes and those who have significant criminal histories should be categorically prohibited from receiving the benefits of retroactivity,” said Holder.

Walton noted that the Criminal Law Committee’s recommendation in favor of retroactivity is limited to two parts

Judiciary Supports Retroactivity of Crack Cocaine Amendments

Judge Reggie Walton (D. D.C.) testified in June before the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

After promulgating crack cocaine amendments in 2010, the U.S. Sentencing Commission asked for comment in public hearings on whether the amendments should be retroactive. A hearing was held June 1, 2011, in Washington, DC.

Continued on page 6

The Third Branch n June 20116

Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa (S.D. Tex.) is the recipient of the 29th Annual Edward J. Devitt

Distinguished Service to Justice Award. The award, named for the late Judge Edward J. Devitt from the District of Minnesota, honors Article III judges whose careers have been exemplary, measured by their significant contribu-tions to the administration of justice, the advancement of the rule of law, and the improvement of society as a whole.

The Devitt Award selection was made by a panel chaired by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, with members Judge Robert A. Katzmann (2nd Cir.) and Judge Marvin E. Aspen (N.D. Ill.)

In announcing the selection, Sotomayor stated: “For over twenty-seven years, Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa has served with highly noteworthy distinction as a dedicated federal jurist and committed public servant. In addition to serving as a member of an impressive list of Judicial Conference committees and advisory groups during his extensive judicial

service, Judge Hinojosa was Chair of the United States Sentencing Commission from 2004 until 2009. He is credited with having stabilized the work of the Commission during the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker that declared the Sentencing Guidelines advisory. Judge Hinojosa also shepherded the Commission’s work in recommending and implementing measures to reduce the sentencing

disparities between crack cocaine and cocaine powder offenses, an issue that had been under consideration by the Commission for many years. Judge Hinojosa has also handled one of the busiest criminal dockets in the nation and devoted himself to a wide variety of community activities.”

Judges who have worked with Hinojosa describe him as “tireless, modest, effective, intelligent, patriotic, compassionate, seasoned, [and] knowl-edgeable,” with “common sense, good judgment, the ability to chart a successful path to a long-term goal, and complete dedication to the Judiciary as an institution.” According to his former colleagues on the Commission, his “chairmanship exemplified the best in government stewardship,” earning him “great credibility and trust.”

Hinojosa was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in 1983, where he has served as chief judge since 2009.

The Devitt Distinguished Service to Justice is administered by the American Judicature Society with funding provided by the Dwight D. Opperman Foundation. The award will be presented at a ceremony later this year.

Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa Selected to Receive 29th Annual Devitt Award

Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa (S.D. Tex.)

credible candidates for nomination to district and circuit judgeships.”

King added that magistrate judges, through their service, offer “a reliable yardstick by which to measure the candi-dates’ qualifications . . . a proven track record as judicial officers.”

“They carry a judicial footprint from their body of work, their commitment to the rule of law, their temperament and demeanor on the bench, and their dedication to the public service,” he said.

Magistrate Judgescontinued from page 4

of the amendment: Part A, affecting the drug quantity table for offenses involving crack cocaine; and Part C, which deletes a cross reference in the guidelines manual that effectively lowers guideline ranges for certain defendants involving simple possession of crack cocaine. Both of these amendments, “are consistent with the Judicial Conference’s position opposing sentencing differences between crack and powder cocaine and

agreeing to support the reduction of those differences,” said Walton.

In October 2010, the USSC promulgated a temporary emergency amendment that implemented the emergency directive in section 8 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. In April 2011, the USSC re-promulgated the temporary amendment as a permanent amendment, which will become effective, absent congressional action, on November 1, 2011. At the same time, the Commission asked for comment on whether it should give the amendment retroactive effect.

Judiciary Supports Retroactivity of Crack Cocaine Amendmentscontinued from page 5

The Third Branch n June 2011 7

Middle District of AlabamaNorthern District of CaliforniaSouthern District of FloridaDistrict of GuamNorthern District of IllinoisSouthern District of IowaDistrict of KansasDistrict of MassachusettsEastern District of MissouriDistrict of NebraskaNorthern District of OhioSouthern District of OhioWestern District of TennesseeWestern District of Washington

The pilot will provide for participation by more than 100 U.S. district judges, including judges who favor cameras in

view. Coverage of the prospective jury during voir dire is prohibited, as is coverage of jurors or alternate jurors.

Electronic media coverage of criminal proceedings in federal courts has been expressly prohibited under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 since the criminal rules were adopted in 1946, and by the Judicial Conference since 1972. In 1996, the Conference rescinded its camera coverage prohibition for courts of appeals, and allowed each appellate court discretion to permit broadcasting of oral arguments. To date, two courts of appeals—the Second and the Ninth—allow such coverage. In the early 1990s, the Judicial Conference conducted a pilot program permitting electronic media coverage of civil proceeding in six district courts and two courts of appeals.

Earthquake Scenario Tests Court Response

District and bankruptcy courts along the midwest New Madrid

fault participated last month in a FEMA-sponsored National Level Exercise to test and evaluate their incident response and recovery capabilities.

The exercise scenario involved a catastrophic earth-quake in the New Madrid and Wabash Valley seismic zones, which cross several Midwestern states. Coincidentally, in June, a minor earthquake was felt in the St. Louis, Missouri, area. Fortu-nately, no damage or injuries were reported.

The district and bankruptcy courts for the Northern District of Mississippi, the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Northern District of Alabama,

the Western District of Kentucky, the Eastern District of Missouri (including the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals), the Southern District of Indiana, and the Southern District of Illinois participated in table-top exercises, together with federal defenders, U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Trustees, and U.S. Marshals.

“This was one of the most constructive training sessions I have attended, with fantastic inter-agency participation,” said Clerk of Court Laura A. Briggs in the Southern District of Indiana. “We found several areas of our COOP that needed tightening.”

Prior to the exercise, coordi-nators from the Administrative Office’s Judiciary Emergency Preparedness Office conducted site visits and training sessions to prepare court staff.

Cameras in Court Pilot Studycontinued from page 1

court and those who are skeptical of them. Districts volunteering for the pilot must follow guidelines adopted by CACM. The pilot is limited to civil proceedings in which the parties have consented to recording.

No proceedings may be recorded without the approval of the presiding judge, and parties must consent to the recording of each proceeding in a case. The recordings will be made publicly available on www.uscourts.gov and on local participating court websites at the court’s discretion.

The pilot recordings will not be simulcast, but will be made available as soon as possible. The presiding judge can choose to stop a recording if it is necessary, for example, to protect the rights of the parties and witnesses, preserve the dignity of the court, or choose not to post the video for public

The map of the New Madrid and Wabash Valley seismic zones shows earthquakes as red circles—earthquakes that occurred 1974–2002 with magnitudes larger than 2.5.—and as green circles, earthquakes prior to 1974.

Map courtesy of the US Geological Survey.

The Third Branch n June 20118

Published monthly by theAdministrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Office of Public AffairsOne Columbus Circle, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20544

(202) 502-2600

Visit our Internet site at www.uscourts.gov

DIRECTORJames C. Duff

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFDavid A. Sellers

MANAGING EDITORKaren E. Redmond

PRODUCTIONOmniStudio, Inc.

CONTRIBUTORDick Carelli, AO

Please direct all inquiries and address changes to The Third Branch at the above address or to

Karen_Redmond@ao.uscourts.gov.

Up-to-date information on judicial vacancies is available at

http://www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudgeships/JudicialVacancies.aspx

June Judicial Milestones

JUDICIAL BOXSCOrE

Appointed: Vincent L. Briccetti, as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, April 21.

Appointed: Edward M. Chen, as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, May 17.

Appointed: Mae A. D’Agostino, as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, April 18.

Appointed: Roy Bale Dalton, Jr., as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, May 4.

Appointed: Amy Berman Jackson, as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, April 21.

Appointed: John A. Kronstadt, as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, April 25.

Appointed: John J. McConnell, Jr., as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, May 17.

Appointed: Kevin Hunter Sharp, as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, May 4.

Appointed: Michael F. Urbanski, as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, May 13.

Appointed: Arenda L. Wright Allen, as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, May 13.

Appointed: Beth A. Buchanan, as a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, May 10.

Appointed: Tony N. Leung, as a U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, April 29.

Senior Status: U.S. District Judge Raymond J. Dearie, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, April 3.

Senior Status: U.S. Chief District Judge Roger L. Hunt, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, May 26.

Senior Status: U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, June 1.

Elevated: U.S. District Judge Robert Clive Jones, to Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, succeeding U.S. District Judge Roger L. Hunt, May 6.

Retired: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Duncan W. Keir, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland, March 31.

Deceased: U.S. Court of Appeals Judge M. Blane Michael, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, March 25.

Deceased: U.S. Senior Court of Appeals Judge Thomas G. Nelson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, May 4.

Deceased: U.S. Senior District Judge John Feikens, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, May 15.

Deceased: U.S. Senior District Judge Dan M. Russell, Jr., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, April 16.

Deceased: U.S. Senior District Judge L. T. Senter, Jr., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, May l8.

As of June 1, 2011

Courts of Appeals Vacancies ..................................16 Nominees .................................10

District Courts Vacancies ..................................73 Nominees .................................38

Court of International Trade Vacancies .................................... 1 Nominees ................................... 0

Courts with “Judicial Emergencies” .........35

The Third Branch n June 2011 9

Where the Money Goes

Six months into FY 2011, the Judiciary, along with the rest of the federal government, received its

annual funding. While Congress had been considering final appropriations levels, the courts had deferred hiring for most staffing vacancies and limited non-salary spending to only essential expenditures, in addition to other spending restrictions. Now, with $6.91 billion in funding for the Judiciary approved for FY 2011, courts are looking at spending levels that will allow clerks of court and probation and pretrial services offices to maintain current staffing levels on a national basis, with some court units able to hire staff to meet growing workload needs. Based on current projec-tions, final appropriations should be sufficient to make full year payments to Criminal Justice Act panel attorneys.

where FY 2011 Funding is Allocated The Salaries and Expenses account receives 73 percent of the Judiciary’s total FY 2011 funding. This funding covers rent, judges and court personnel salaries and benefits, operating expenses, information technology, and other expenses.

Funding for federal public defender and community defender organizations, compensation for private attorneys repre-senting indigent defendants, and fees of persons providing investigative, expert, and other services under the Criminal Justice Act is provided from the Defender Services account. This account receives 15 percent of the funding.

The Court Security account provides funds that are transferred to the U.S. Marshals Service and the Federal Protective Service for the procurement, installation, and maintenance of security equipment, and for protective services, including contract security officers for the courts. The account receives 7 percent of the funding.

The Fees of Jurors account, 1 percent of the Judiciary’s total funding, pays for juror fees and expenses.

The remaining 4 percent funds the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals for

FY 2011 Judiciary AppropriationsFinal Enacted Appropriations (P.L. 112-10) ($000)

Appropriation AccountFY 2010 Enacted Appropriations

FY 2011 Enacted Appropriations

U.S. Supreme CourtSalaries & Expenses $ 74,034 $ 73,921

Care of Building and Grounds 14,525 8,159Total 88,559 82,080

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 32,560 32,511U.S. Court of International Trade 21,350 21,447Courts of Appeals, District Courts & Other Judicial Services (CADCOJS)

Salaries & Expenses—Direct 5,011,018 5,004,221Vaccine Injury Trust Fund 5,428 4,775

Total 5,016,446 5,008,996Defender Services 977,748 1,025,693Fees of Jurors & Commissioners 61,861 52,305Court Security 452,607 466,672

Subtotal CADCOJS 6,508,662 6,553,666Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 83,075 82,909Federal Judicial Center 27,328 27,273Judiciary Retirement Funds 82,374 90,361U.S. Sentencing Commission 16,837 16,803

Total $ 6,860,745 $ 6,907,050

the Federal Circuit, the Court of Interna-tional Trade, the Administrative Office, the Federal Judicial Center, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and the Judiciary Retirement Trust Fund.

Where the Money Goes

■ Salaries and Expenses

■ Defender Services

■ Court Security

■ Fees for Jurors

■ Other Judiciary Accounts

15%

7%4%

73%

1%

The Third Branch n June 201110

INtErvIEw

Judge Julie A. Robinson (D. Kan.)

A Committee’s Cross-Cutting Perspective

Judge Julie A. Robinson has chaired the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management since 2009. She was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in 2001.

Q: Is it too much of an exaggera-tion to say your Committee’s jurisdiction touches on nearly every aspect of the federal court system?

A: No, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration. The Committee’s name itself—Court Administration and Case Management (CACM)—indicates the broad expanse of issues that it is asked to consider or provide input on to other Judicial Conference committees. This wide area of jurisdiction allows the Committee to take a cross-cutting perspective and enables it to consider the impact of a particular policy recommendation on the overall ability of courts to fulfill their mission.

Q: the Judicial Conference recently approved a pilot project to evaluate the effect of cameras in federal district courtrooms and the public release of digital video recordings of some civil proceedings. why did CACM revisit cameras in courtrooms after the early 1990 pilot?

A: Judges in some federal courts indicated a strong interest in revisiting the issue of allowing taping of certain courtroom proceedings. Also, in the 20 years since the last pilot so very much has changed in technology and in providing easier public access to recorded proceedings. The steep decline in the cost and obtru-siveness of video equipment and the rise of technology that makes it easier to share video files over the internet affords courts an opportunity to provide direct access to certain court proceedings.

Q: How does this study differ from the 1990–91 pilot?

A: The CACM Committee recom-mended, and the Conference agreed, that this pilot would differ from the previous pilot in a few ways. First, this pilot would emphasize public access rather than media access. Next, it would allow courts, rather than the media, to make recordings of civil proceedings so that the full proceeding would be available to viewers, as if they were in the courtroom.

We took this approach because the prior pilot study found that in 90 news stories of covered proceedings that were broadcast, the average amount of courtroom footage used per story was about 56 seconds. On average, reporters narrated 63 percent of all the courtroom footage with the video of the proceedings as a visual aid, rather than an oppor-tunity for the public to watch and learn from an actual trial. We are hoping that this pilot will provide the public with a more objective experience, without the commentary or the real or imagined drama of a fleeting newscast segment about the proceeding.

Q: Your Committee was tasked with developing guidelines for courts in the pilot project. what considerations were taken into account with these guidelines?

A: One of the most important consid-erations was the guidance provided by the Supreme Court in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger in which the Court halted the broadcasting of the Propo-sition 8 trial in California in early 2010 (which was before the current pilot was

approved). The Supreme Court was concerned that witnesses would be discouraged from testifying because of the media exposure and the failure of the court to provide sufficient public notice before it adopted a local rule allowing the broadcasting of proceedings. The guidelines for the pilot require partici-pating pilot courts to adopt a local rule change permitting video recordings with a sufficient period of public notice before allowing broadcasting during the pilot. No proceedings may be recorded without the approval of the presiding judge and parties must consent to the recording of each proceeding in a case.

The Committee also was concerned about privacy and security in this age of identity theft and because of the ease with which recordings can be shared today. Courts may not make recordings available to the public in which personal identifiers are disclosed or if there are any potential security or other privacy concerns. Another important guideline is that each judge has total discretion as to whether to record or make a proceeding publicly available, even if the parties have no objection.

Finally, the Committee agreed that the courts participating in the pilot

The Third Branch n June 2011 11

See Interview on page 12

should have a variety of judges willing to participate—in other words, both those who support and those who oppose cameras—but no judge in the pilot courts would be forced to participate.

Q: And in yet another pilot pro-gram, what advantages or benefits are expected from a patent pilot program? why was this program initiated?

A: On January 4, 2011, the President signed a bill into law establishing a 10-year pilot project regarding the assignment of patent cases in certain district courts (Pub. L. No. 111-349). According to the law, the pilot project is intended “to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges.” Although the Conference did not take a position on the legislation, the Committee monitored it closely to ensure that the random case assignment system would not be under-mined and alerted the sponsor to this issue.

The legislation provides that patent cases will be initially randomly assigned to all judges in a court, with the option for any judge to return a patent case to an assignment wheel consisting of volunteer designated patent judges. The Federal Judicial Center is assigned the task of evaluating whether the designated patent judges will gain greater expertise in the area resulting in less delay and fewer appellate reversals in patent cases.

After enactment, the Director of the Administrative Office asked us to work with him on its implementation. We have recommended district courts for partici-pation in the pilot. We also developed guidelines for the pilot that address such issues as how courts can ensure fairness in the distribution of their workload and provide for the assignment of cases to judges who do not participate to ease the burden of the designated patent judges.

Q: the Next Generation of the Judiciary’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files System is in development. Can you tell us something about how that process is going? Is it too soon to talk about what might change in CM/ECF?

A: We are still in the early stages of devel-oping the new CM/ECF system, but I can tell you that in this first phase of the project—determining functional require-ments for the system from judges, court executives, court staff, and external users—we have identified a number of ways to improve our own practices, further automate our current practices, and leverage new technologies to help us work more efficiently. One goal is to provide compatibility between all the different Judiciary automated systems to ease transfer of data between these different systems.

We are working with the entire court community and representatives from over 60 groups of external users, including the Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service, American Bar Associ-ation, state governments, and academia, to ensure that the needs of all users are considered. I am really excited by all of the proposed new functionality, from new reporting and calendaring systems that will help us better manage our cases, to new functionality that will decrease errors in docketing and improve the look and feel of the new system benefitting judges, court staff, and the public.

Q: the entire judicial branch is focused on both cost contain-ment and the need for adequate funding for court operations. what practices and programs in the area of court administra-tion and case management are

being reviewed with an eye toward fiscal austerity while maintaining court operations at a necessary level?

A: Well as we all know, the Judiciary is facing a funding crisis that may be larger and last longer than those of recent memory. In order to plan for the next few years, the Budget Committee has asked each of the Conference’s committees for cost-containment suggestions for fiscal year 2012 and beyond. Because of CACM’s broad reach, we will consider a large number of suggestions.

We will be looking at any number of cost-containment ideas both from a long-term and a short-term perspective. I should also note that our Committee has been a role model in containing costs for the programs under our juris-diction. For example, we have consistently recommended a libraries and law books budget significantly below the rate of inflation. This has required librarians and chambers to reduce their “hard” collec-tions, while still maintaining a robust collection. So, too, for the Judiciary’s records. The Committee has worked hard with the National Archives to press for significant changes to the records dispo-sition schedules, resulting in significant savings for the federal Judiciary while ensuring that the federal court records are maintained appropriately.

Q: the Committee’s jurisdiction includes issues relating to jurors. the federal court system called over 260,000 jurors last year. Are there any initiatives under consideration to improve the juror experience?

A: We have supported a number of initiatives over the years to improve the juror experience. A periodic statistical

FIRST CLASS MAILPOSTAGE & FEES

PAIDU.S. COURTS

PERMIT NO. G-18

FIRST CLASS

Administrative Office of the U.S. CourtsOffice of Public AffairsOne Columbus Circle, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20544

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

INtErvIEw continued from page 11

report on juror utilization levels has been supported by the Committee. Recently, at the Committee’s request, charts of 10 years of court specific data in a user friendly format have been sent to each district court to help them assess their efforts in more efficient use of jurors and assess how they compare with other courts in their circuit and in the nation.

In addition, we recently requested that the FJC resume its juror utilization workshop for large district courts that consistently have a high number of jurors that appear for jury duty that do not serve, are not selected, or are not challenged. The FJC has already

conducted one such workshop and its success indicates the benefit of further workshops in this area. While some higher usage of jurors is inevitable because of late settling cases, notorious cases, or other unavoidable reasons, this Committee has set a target goal endorsed by the Conference to better control the number of jurors who do not participate in the process. The partici-pating courts will provide information about their juror utilization rates in the coming months to measure the impact of implementing new practices.

Q: what are your goals and priori-ties as CACM chair?

A: I would have to say that our prior-ities are the initiatives we discussed, all of which share the common threads of improving public access to, experience with, and understanding of our courts, and containing our operating costs.

As chair, my goal is to ensure that the CACM Committee continues to study and support the most efficient methods for court administration and case management in order to help the Judiciary fulfill its mission of securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive determi-nation of every action before us.