California Civil Courts Backlogged

Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Los Angeles. Photo credit: www.lacourt.org

Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Los Angeles. Photo credit: www.lacourt.org

Civil courts in California were already backlogged before they basically shuttered in March. Now with COVID-19, Los Angeles County is not considering civil trials until at least January 2021 and Orange County’s civil trials are on hold through at least November. So, while we don’t know exactly when the courts will open again for trials, one lawyer has ideas about how to jumpstart the court system when it does open: consider less jurors for each trial.

Rob Shwarts, of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in San Francisco, argues in a recent article in The Recorder, “We need to get over the idea that there must be 12 jurors in the box to conduct a state court civil trial. This number is not legally required, and while COVID-19 persists, it is simply not a practical or feasible count for the jury.”

For those who have suggested using video conferencing technology, such as Zoom, to jumpstart the process, Shwarts thinks it’s “impractical.”

“Indeed, there is no way to know what screen a juror is looking at so long as the video function of his or her computer is on, raising the specter of juror doing research in real-time,” notes Shwarts. “In another twist, Alameda County Judge Brad Seligman had to address a motion for mistrial, because, while the attorneys were in a private Zoom room with the court, the plaintiff started a conversation with several jurors about the seemingly harmless topic of Zoom backgrounds. We all surely agree that litigants are not only entitled to an impartial jury, but to a jury paying attention to their case’s evidence and to the court’s admonitions.”

New courthouse in Placerville – unsought by judiciary – funded in California budget

7048-004-675BA472A controversial effort to build a new courthouse in Placerville received a boost in California’s $215 billion budget.

The Recorder by law.com reported on June 13 about the $2.8 million allocation, which will pay for about 5 acres of vacant land, the prospective site of a new courthouse.

The land is owned by El Dorado County, “acquired by the county in a 2014 land swap with John V. Briggs, a former Republican assemblyman and state senator.” Described as an example of pork-barrel politics, the allocation was not requested by the judiciary.

“The judicial branch has no immediate plans to build the courthouse,” The Recorder reported. “The Judicial Council hasn’t secured the funding for a project with an estimated price tag of $82 million.”

California legislators approved the budget on June 13. The $2.8 million allocation for courthouse land “was not vetted in months of budget committee hearings this spring. It appeared for the first time Sunday night as a line item in the budget deal reached between Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers,” The Recorder reported.

“The current three-story, four-courtroom building in Placerville is postcard pretty, but at 106 years old it lacks modern-day features. It is crowded and has no holding cells for in-custody defendants, no dedicated jury assembly room and limited public parking. The idea of building a new courthouse instead of renovating and expanding the existing one has been a contentious one for decades. A 1965 grand jury report recommended relocating the court. Local residents balked and the existing courthouse was remodeled instead,” the article noted.

Obama’s ‘Rocket Docket’ Policy Comes Under Scrutiny

The so-called “rocket docket” policy of the Obama administration is coming under fire for lack of judicial training and for allowing non-judges to determine which cases get priority, according to four attorneys’ groups.

The Courthouse News is reporting that “… the groups — including the American Immigration Lawyers Association — claimed the Department of Justice, which oversees EOIR, refused to turn over records on policies and procedures for expedited immigration dockets, or “rocket dockets,” in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

The CN also noted that the groups “… say the lack of clear policies and guidelines made it harder for unaccompanied minors, one-parent families and their attorneys to navigate the system and avoid deportation.

See the story here: https://www.courthousenews.com/foia-reveals-spotty-procedures-immigration-courts/

Rights Group Notes Immigration Courts Backed Up 3 Years

The Human Rights First advocacy group is noting its new study indicating that the U.S. Immigration Courts are backed up for about three years now, and it’s only getting worst. The Courthouse News in Los Angeles reports that the group “… says the problem is most pronounced in Texas and California where 89,000 and 81,000 immigration cases are pending, respectively.”

Also noted in the CN story: The group says: “The number of cases pending before the court will soon exceed 500,000, far too many for a court staffed with only 254 immigration judges – a fraction of the number needed to timely address removal cases.” Congress took a small step towards fixing the problem in December when it approved funding for 55 new immigration judges as part of a spending bill for fiscal year 2016, Human Rights First said.

But experts say lawmakers have been overly focused on the front door of illegal immigration, the U.S.-Mexico border, and the threat of terrorists entering the country so that, from 2001 to 2010, the number of Border Patrol agents at the border more than doubled to exceed 20,000.

Read the CN story here:
CNS – Report Outlines Backlog in Immigration Courts