U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics State Court Organization 2004 Courts and judges Judicial selection and service Judicial branch Appellate courts Trail courts The jury The sentencing context Court structure August 2006, NCJ 212351 ------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/sco04.htm This report is one in a series. Most recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#sco ------------------------------------------------------- Alberto R. Gonzales Attorney General Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities Regina B. Schofield Assistant Attorney General World Wide Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov World Wide Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs For information contact National Criminal Justice Reference Service 1-800-851-3420 David B. Rottman, Project Director Shauna M. Strickland, Research Analyst A joint effort of the Conference of State Court Administrators and National Center for State Courts This project was supported by BJS grant number 2003-BJ-CX-K003. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Jeffrey L. Sedgwick Director, BJS This Bureau of Justice Statistics report was prepared by the National Center for State Courts under the Supervision of Steven K. Smith and Thomas Cohen of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The project was supported by BJS grant number 2003-BJ-CX-K003. Principle staff for the project at the National Center for State Courts were David B. Rottman and Shauna M. Strickland. Marianne Zawitz, Carolyn C. Williams, and Thomas Cohen provided editorial review. Jayne Robinson administered final printing production. This report was made possible by the support and guidance of the Court Statistics Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. Suggested Citation: David B. Rottman and Shauna M. Strickland, State Court Organization, 2004, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, D.C. USGPO, 2006. Please bring suggestions for information that should be included in future editions to the attention of the Director of the Court Statistics Project, National Center for State Courts, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185-4147 An electronic version of this report may be found on the Internet at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/. Conference of State Court Administrators, Court Statistics Committee Dr. Howard P. Schwartz Judicial Administrator, Kansas Judicial Center Debra Dailey Manager of Research and Evaluation State Court Administrator's Office, Minnesota Theodore Eisenberg Cornell Law School Director Donald Goodnow, Director Administrative Office of the Courts, New Hampshire Senior Judge Aaron Ment Supreme Court of Connecticut William C. Vickrey, Administrative Director Administrative Office of the Courts, California J. Denis Moran, Ex-officio Director of State Courts (Retired) Wisconsin Dr. Hugh M. Collins Judicial Administrator, Supreme Court of Louisiana Thomas B. Darr Deputy Court Administrator Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts James D. Gingerich Director Supreme Court of Arkansas John T. Olivier Clerk Supreme Court of Superior Court of Louisiana Collins E. Ijoma Trial Court Administrator, Superior Court of New Jersey Robert Wessels, Court Manager, County Criminal Courts at Law Texas Thomas Cohen, Ph.D., Program Monitor Bureau of Justice Statistics Wisconsin Washington, DC State Court Organization 2004 Advisory Committee J. Denis Moran, Chairman Director of State Courts (Retired) Wisconsin Collins E. Ijoma Trial Court Administrator Superior Court of New Jersey John T. Olivier Clerk Supreme Court of Louisiana Donald D. Goodnow, Director Administrative Office of the Courts New Hampshire Honorable Aaron Ment Chief Court Administrator(Retired) Supreme Court of Connecticut Thomas Cohen, Ph.D., Program Monitor Bureau of Justice Statistics Washington, DC National Center for State Courts, Board of Directors Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, Chair Supreme Court of Indiana Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Past Chair Supreme Court of Wisconsin Curtis (Hank) Barnette Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP Ruben O. Carrerou Court Administrator, 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida Zelda M. DeBoyes Court Administrator, Aurora Municipal Court, Colorado James D. Gingerich Director, Arkansas AOC, Supreme Court of Arkansas Judge Eileen A. Kato King County District Court, Seattle, Washington Chief Judge Rufus G. King, III Superior Court of District of Columbia Associate Circuit Judge Brenda S. Loftin St. Louis County Circuit Court St. Louis, Missouri Mary McCormick President Fund for the City of New York E. Leo Milonas, Partner Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Charles B. Renfrew Law Offices of Charles B. Renfrew Lee Suskin Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Vermont Mary C. McQueen, ex officio President, National Center for State Courts Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman, Vice Chair New York State Unified Court System Daniel Becker, Past Vice-Chair State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Utah Chief Judge Robert M. Bell Court of Appeals of Maryland Howard "Skip" Chesshire Court Administrator, Cobb County Superior Court, Georgia Judge Gerald T. Elliott Trial Court, Division 4, 10th Judicial District of Kansas Thomas A. Gottschalk Executive Vice President & General Counsel General Motors Corporation Judge Elizabeth (Beth) Keever 12th Judicial District, Fayetteville, North Carolina Presiding Judge Dale R. Koch Multnomah County Courthouse, Portland, Oregon Vice-Presiding Judge Gary L. Lumpkin Court of Criminal Appeals, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Charles W. Matthews, Jr. Vice President & General Counsel ExxonMobil Corporation Robert S. Peck, President Center for Constitutional Litigation, P.C. Associate Justice Ronald B. Robie Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, California Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal Supreme Court of South Carolina Acknowledgments This edition of State Court Organization, like the other four volumes in the series, is a product of the state court community. The Conference of State Court Administrators sponsors the series and makes available its Court Statistics Committee to guide compilation of each edition. The contents of each edition are determined by canvassing the issues and information items of primary concern to state court administrators and in consultation with staff from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. A special subcommittee of the COSCA Court Statistics Committee participated in all stages of work on the new edition. Their keen attention to matters of substance and format went beyond what reasonably can be expected, and their unflagging good spirits made our work enjoyable as well as productive. We are grateful for their continued active participation in the State Court Organization series. State court administrators and appellate court clerks are the primary source of the information included in this volume. Their generous investment of time and effort makes the State Court Organization series possible. Their patience and perseverance is greatly appreciated. Staff from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, notably Steven Smith, Ph.D. and Thomas Cohen, Ph.D., contributed their expertise on topics from survey design to the visual display of information. The Bureau's funding makes the entire State Court Organization enterprise possible. Neal Kauder of VisualResearch, Inc. provided the design concept and later refinements for the tables of information that follow, making the contents easier on the eye and patterns in the data easier to grasp. Finally, we are grateful to our NCSC colleagues who provided insight and assistance on specific topics. Special thanks are due to Paula Hannaford-Agor, Pamela Casey, William Hewitt, and Nicole Waters in the Research Division and to Carol Flango, Madelynn Herman, Jennifer Elek, and Anne Skove in Knowledge and Information Services. Despite all of the guidance, advice, and assistance received, responsibility for the accuracy of all contents of this volume rests with the project staff. Project Staff David B. Rottman Project Director Shauna M. Strickland Research Analyst Ann Keith Research Associate Amy E. Smith Senior Administrative Specialist Lynn Grimes Administrative Manager Interns: Juan Alarcon Steven Durbin Cynthia Lee Brian Hendricks Michael Zose Contents Introduction 1 Glossary 5 Part I. Courts and Judges 7 Table 1 Appellate Courts in the United States Court of last resort: name, place of session *Intermediate appellate courts: name, place of session, # of Chief Judges 2 Number of Appellate Court Judges Number of court of last resort (COLR) and intermediate appellate court justices and judges * Length of Term *Gender *Race and ethnic composition 3 Trial Courts and Trial Court Judges of the United States Number of judges *Length of term *Gender *Race and ethnic composition Part II. Judicial Selection and Service 23 Table 4 Selection of Appellate Court Judges Method of selection: unexpired term, full term *Method of retention *Geographic basis for selection *Method of selection/appointment of chief justice/judge *Length of term of chief justice/judge 5 Qualifications to Serve as an Appellate Court Judge Residency requirements: state, local *Minimum and maximum age *Legal credentials 6 Selection of Trial Court Judges Method of selection: unexpired term, full term *Method of retention *Geographic basis for selection *Method of selection of presiding judge * Length of term of presiding judge 7 Qualifications to Serve as a Trial Court Judge State and local residency requirements in years *Minimum and maximum age *Legal credentials 8 Judicial Nominating Commissions Name of the commission *Offices encompassed *Authorization *Year created and revised *Term covered 9 Provisions for Mandatory Judicial Education Initial/pre-bench education for general jurisdiction court judges *Continuing education for general jurisdiction court judges *Initial/pre-bench education for limited jurisdiction court judges *Continuing education for limited jurisdiction court judges *Initial/pre-bench education for appellate court judges *Continuing education for appellate court judges 10 Judicial Performance Evaluation Evaluating body/ authorization *Evaluation committee composition *Evaluation procedures 11 Judicial Discipline: Investigating and Adjudicating Bodies Name of investigating body *Number of judges Number of lawyers *Number of lay persons *Name of adjudicating body *Appeals from adjudication are filed with * Name of final disciplining body *Point at which reprimands are made public Part III. The Judicial Branch: Governance, Funding, and Administration 61 Table 12 Governance of the Judicial Branch Who is the head of the judicial branch * What authority establishes the head of the judicial branch *Source of authority 13 The Source of Rule Making Authority of Courts of Last Resort by Specific Areas Appellate and trial court administration *Appellate Procedure *Civil and Criminal Procedure *Evidence Judicial and attorney discipline *Trial court costs and fee assessment 14 Judicial Councils and Conferences Name of council/conference *Function *Authority *Year established *Reports to 15 Judicial Compensation Commissions Authorization * Number of members- appointment process * Does commission review non-judicial positions? * Meeting schedule * Commission reports to * Effects of commission recommendation 16 Preparation and Submission of the Judicial Branch Budget for State Funding Who prepares the budget? *Who reviews the budget? *Budget submitted to *Budget period * Can funds roll over from one year to the next? *Judicial % of state budget *Can executive branch amend the budget? * Is the judicial appropriation filed as a separate bill? * Number of budget line items *Can the Judicial Branch move funds between line items? 17 Trial Court Expenditures and Funding Sources for Selected Expenditure Items Judicial expenditures: total, paid by state, paid by locality *Responsibility of salaries for judicial, clerks of court, trial court administrators, court reporters, other court personnel *Equipment * Court Record for Appeal *Buildings/Real Property * Travel Expenses General Operating Expenses * Indigent Defense * Child Support Enforcement * Juvenile Probation/Detention Language Interpreters * Jury Costs * Pretrial Services Adult Probation * ADA Compliance 18 Appellate Court Clerks' Office: Staffing and Responsibilities by Function Total staff * Accounting Accounts payable * Administrative meetings Appointments/assignments for sitting justices, supplemental justices, administrative staff * Attorney admissions Attorney registration * Audits * Bar grievance matters Budget preparation * Commissions and boards * Community outreach * Data processing * Facilities management Generate court statistics * Information/computer systems Judicial education * Judicial qualifications * Law libraries * Legal research * Liaison with legislature * Payroll Personnel * Property Control * Purchasing * Records Management * Research/Planning * Security * Other 19 Clerks of Appellate Courts: Numbers and Method of Selection Number of clerks * Method of appointment * Term of office * Minimum qualifications 20 Provisions of Law Clerks to Appellate Court Judges Number of Clerks for each Chief Justice/Judge * Number of clerks for each associate justice/judge * Number of central law staff 21 Administrative Office of the Courts: Staffing and Responsibilities for Trial Court Functions Total staff Accounting * Alternative dispute resolution * Assignments for sitting judges, supplemental judges * Audits * Budget preparation * Facilities management * Foster care review Human resources * Data entry * Records management * IT staff (technical) * Judicial education * Law libraries * Legal research (law clerks) * Legal representation (general counsel) * Other legal services * Liaison with legislature Probation - adult * Probation - juvenile * Public information * Purchasing * Research/planning * Security * Technical assistance to courts * Other Part IV. Appellate Courts: Jurisdiction and Procedures 131 Table 22 Mandatory and Discretionary Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts Civil Appeals * Criminal Appeals * Administrative agency appeals * Extraordinary writs * Guilty pleas * Post conviction relief * Death penalty cases * Sentencing issues 23 The Structure of Appellate Court Panels Number of panels * Size * Membership(permanent or rotating) * Frequency of rotation 24 Reviewing Discretionary Petitions Number of judges deciding whether to grant review * Number of judges necessary to grant review * Who makes the decision on granting petitions? 25 Expediting Procedures in Appellate Cases Types of expedited appeals * Types of expedited procedures 26 Limitations on Oral Argument in Appellate Cases Time limit * Must oral argument be formally requested? Cases oral argument is automatically scheduled for 27 Type of Court Hearing Administrative Agency Appeals Medical Malpractice * Worker's Compensation * Public Service * Unemployment Insurance * Public Welfare * Insurance * Tax review * Other agencies Part V. Trial Courts: Administration, Specialized Jurisdiction, and Procedures 157 Table 28 Presiding Judges: Authority and Responsibilities Title Source of authority * Geographic extent of authority * Extra compensation received? * Continue to hear cases? * Reduced caseload? * Supervise non- judicial employees * Assign cases to judges * Assign judges to court divisions * Request and assign visiting judges * Select quasi-judicial officers Supervise fiscal affairs * Establish special committees Represent the court in community relations * Maintain statistical and management data 29 Selection and Number of Trial Court Clerks and Trial Court Administrators Number of clerks that are elected, appointed by the judicial branch, appointed by a non judicial branch body *Trial court administrators appointed by AOC, judges, other * Number that serve by regions, individual court 30 Clerk of Court and Trial Court Administrator Responsibilities by Selected Function Caseflow management Collect fines and fees * Courthouse facilities management * Jury selection * Maintain the court record * Marriage licenses * Mortgage records * Record/maintain conveyance records * Repository of birth certificates * Supervise court reporters 31 Specialized Jurisdiction: Problem Solving Courts Community * Drug * Domestic violence * Family * Mental health * Re-entry * Other 32 Specialized Jurisdiction: Family Courts Court(year founded) * Locality * Domestic Relations Jurisdiction: Marriage dissolution, Paternity, Custody/visitation, Support, Adoption, Protection order, Other * Juvenile Jurisdiction: Abuse/neglect, Dependency, Termination of Parental Rights, Other * Probate Jurisdiction: Guardianship, Other * Civil Jurisdiction: Mental Health * Criminal Jurisdiction: Domestic Violence, Other 33 Tribal Courts Number of federally recognized tribes Number of Tribal justice forums * Number of CFR courts State jurisdiction under Public Law 280 * Treatment "as if" under Public Law 280 34 Cameras and Audio Coverage in the Courtroom Effective date for each court * Who must consent? * Who may object? Effect of objection * Limitations on coverage: cameras and audio, type of proceedings, type of participants 35 The Defense of Insanity: Standards and Procedures Pre trial standard of proof * Bifurcated * Trial standard of proof * Burden of proof * Jury informed of verdict consequences * Test for insanity * Insanity verdict *Treatment * Court has release authority 36 DNA Evidence: Post Conviction Analysis Statute * Time limit for relief * Convictions for which relief may be sought * Length of time biological evidence must be preserved * Standard for granting DNA testing (likelihood of producing new evidence) * Court believes DNA testing would result in: actual innocence, more favorable verdict 37 Making the Trial Record Does the court make a verbatim record of trials? * Methods used to create the record: steno type (court reporter), steno mask, audio recording, video recording, other Part VI. The Jury 213 Table 38 Grand Juries: Composition and Functions Indictment required for all felonies * Grand jury size * Size of quorum * Number needed to indict * Statutory term * Special civil duties 39 Trial Juries: Qualifications and Source Lists for Jury Service Statutory authority * Permissible sources of master list * Minimum age * Time since prior jury service *Convicted felons disqualified? * Residency requirement *English required? 40 Trial Juries: Exemptions, Excusals, and Fees Exemptions: age, professions * Term of service * Employer pays? * Base pay (per day) * Increase at X day of service 41 Trial Juries: The Allocation of Peremptory Challenges Number of peremptory challenges in criminal cases: capital, felony, misdemeanor, additional * Number of preemptory challenges in civil cases 42 Trial Juries: Size and Verdict Rules Felony decision-rule *Misdemeanor decision-rule Civil case decision-rule Part VII. The Sentencing Context 239 Table 43 Sentencing Statutes: Key Definitions and Provisions for Sentence Enhancement Felony range * Misdemeanor maximum *Felony fine range * Deadly weapon use * mandatory minimum * Habitual offender * Most serious non-capital sentence 44 Jurisdiction for Adjudication and Sentencing of Felony Cases Does the court have jurisdiction for: preliminary hearings, guilty pleas * Can felonies in this court be filed, dismissed, sentenced * Can the sentence be altered after it begins by the trial judge, appellate judge 45 Sentencing Procedures in Capital and Non-Capital Felony Cases Capital felony cases: original sentence set by, unanimous jury required, life without parole if no jury agreement, judge can alter sentence, applicable code provisions * Non-capital felony cases: original sentence set by, judge can alter jury sentence, separate sentencing hearing? 46 Active Sentencing Commissions/Sentencing Guideline Systems Commission name * Year established * Membership * Responsibilities * Sentencing guidelines: year established, mandatory, voluntary 47 Collateral Consequences of a Felony Conviction Voting rights restorable * Public employment * Jury service duty * Firearm ownership * Sex offender registration *Offenses for which parental rights are terminated Part VIII. Court Structure Charts 265 INTRODUCTION: Purpose, format, and method of compilation What is the purpose of the volume? The fifth edition of State Court Organization describes the diverse nature of the State courts in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Information distributed across 47 tables details the main features of how courts operate, ranging from the names of the various courts established in each State to specific aspects of law or procedure such as whether jury verdicts must be unanimous to convict in criminal cases or to decide on liability in civil matters. The primary reason, then, for compiling State Court Organization 2004 (previous editions describe court organization in 1980, 1987, 1993, and 1998) is to provide authoritative answers in a single volume to fundamental questions about the composition of each state's court system: How many appellate and trial courts have been established? What specific categories of cases does each court have the jurisdiction to decide? There is no standard, or typical, State court system: fundamental matters vary from state to state. A second purpose is to determine the patterns across States that exist amidst this diversity. Most State court systems have two levels of appellate courts and two levels of trial courts. This edition of State Court Organization facilitates examination of differing state approaches to court administration and related procedures and rules. The volume is also attentive to features of state court organization that vary within a state, rooted in counties, municipalities, townships, or other forms of local government. The more important points of variations within states are noted, sometimes in the table proper but more often through footnotes. A third purpose is to permit the analysis of trends over time in how states organize their judicial branch. Since 1980 significant changes have taken place in how judicial branches are governed. Questions that can be addressed include: Who is the head of the judicial branch? What official or institution formulates and submits the budget for operating the courts? What is the source of the rulemaking authority of State courts of last resort? Over time, editions of State Court Organization reveal the advent of professional trial court managers: administrators, clerks, and judges who view their role as managerial in nature. The 2004 edition of State Court Organization continues the attention first given in 1998 to the growing importance of specialized State court forums. Special forums are divisions, dockets, courtrooms or procedures dedicated to a designated set of cases and to which a specific judge has been assigned. Such forums typically are created through local court rules or custom, and carry the label of "court" as a matter of convenience. Information is included on the varieties of problem-solving courts, the most common form of specialized courts today. A separate table is retained on the more longstanding family court. How should the volume be used? The 2004 edition of State Court Organization contains 428 items of information (up from 397 items in 1998) spread across 47 tables. Tables are divided into seven parts according to broad topical areas: 1. Courts and Judges (Tables 1-3) 2. Judicial Selection and Service (Tables 4-11) 3. The Judicial Branch: Governance, Funding, and Administration (Tables 12-21) 4. Appellate Courts: Jurisdiction and Procedures (Tables 22-27) 5. Trial Courts: Administration, Specialized Jurisdiction, and Procedures (Tables 28-37) 6. The Jury (Tables 38-42) 7. The Sentencing Context (Tables 43-47) An eighth part contains a one-page court structure chart for each State, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. The charts complement the information provided in the tables by depicting the essential structure of a State's court system in terms of subject matter jurisdiction and routes of appellate review. Each part begins with a brief explanatory note and a recommended bibliography of sources relevant to the topic under consideration. The introductions indicate why the information provided is important for understanding the nation's courts and notes considerations to bear in mind when using the part's tables. Two kinds of tables are presented. One kind of table is formatted to describe what is defined at the state level, such as the juror source lists, definitions of a felony offense, the functions of administrative offices of the courts, and other aspects of court organization that apply to all appellate or trial courts within a state. Another kind of table reports on features that differ from court to court within a state, such as the number of judges or procedures for selecting a presiding judge. The "court" in trial court generally applies to a statewide court system. For example, the Circuit Court of Virginia is divided into 31 circuits each serving a specific geographical area. Some trial courts, though, include an entire State within their geographic jurisdiction, as in New Jersey's Tax Court. Appellate courts are typically statewide in their jurisdiction, but intermediate appellate courts are established on a regional basis in Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Washington. In these States, intermediate appellate courts may establish rules and procedures that vary between regions (usually called a district or division). Several States have multiple intermediate appellate courts (Alabama, Indiana, New York, Introduction 1 Pennsylvania, and Tennessee) and two states -Oklahoma and Texas -have two courts of last resort. Some tables contain extensive footnotes. Footnotes tend to appear in tables that cover topics for which a simple answer was deemed unhelpful and consideration of the footnote's content is necessary to make comparisons across states or to grasp fully the nature of the arrangements that pertain in individual states. A general cautionary statement is offered here. This volume covers an unusually diverse set of topics. There is no single state authority that maintains current and complete information on each topic. Therefore several sources were contacted in each state and extensive searches were undertaken of court rules and state statutes. The next section of this introductory essay describes the process by which information was obtained and verified. How was the volume compiled? The contents for this edition were selected and the relevant data collected through the following main steps. The first step was a project staff review of the contents State Court Organization 1998. In the course of that review all members of the Conference of State Court Administrators were asked to evaluate the usefulness of each information item published in State Court Organization 1998 and to nominate additional topics that could usefully be included in the new edition. Some information items were judged to be essential for the continuity of the series, new information was identified to keep pace with the changing shape and interests of the court community, and still other information items were found to be of limited contemporary interest. These decisions were made in consultation with other National Center for State Court staff members and relevant academic and research experts on court- related topics. Staff from the Bureau of Justice Statistics also participated in the review process. A tentative list of information contents was compiled by project staff and then reviewed in detail by the members of the Conference of State Court Administrator's Court Statistics Committee. At a subsequent meeting, the Committee members reviewed the data collection design and drafts of the data collection instruments. The chosen information items were divided according to the most reliable and cost-effective data collection method and included: * A survey of administrative offices of the court designed for distribution by mail to the state court administrators of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The questionnaire dealt with aspects of court organization that are primarily administrative in nature and either new to the 2004 edition or likely to have changed significantly since 1998. Various versions of the new survey were pilot tested through the kind cooperation of states represented on the Court Statistics Committee. * A similar survey relating to information concerning appellate courts designed to collect new or changeable descriptive information on courts of last resort and intermediate appellate courts. Approximately 150 surveys were completed and returned. * A third survey form designed to update some of the information items carried over from the last edition and judged unlikely to have changed significantly over the previous five years. Respondents were presented with the information published in the 1998 edition and were asked to update it to be current as of December 31, 2004. Separate update surveys were prepared for administrative offices of the courts and appellate court clerks. Protocols were developed to conduct statute and rule searches that would compile tables of information on specific laws, legal procedure and legal practices that applied statewide. Such searches were the primary source of data about juries and sentencing. Figure 1 indicates the primary data collection methods for each table of information. Upon return, surveys were reviewed for completeness and clarity by project staff. Telephone calls and fax messages were used to ensure that accurate and comparable information was available from all survey respondents. Information collected through update surveys and through statute and rule searches were entered in electronic tables. The main step in the verification process was to return all tables completed through surveys or update forms back to state court administrators. This provided a second check on the information, often by a second pair of eyes, and served as a check on the accuracy of any revisions made by project staff. All tables compiled through statute or rule searches also were sent to the state court administrator with a request that the contents be examined and modified or corrected as necessary. Verification often involved a series of iterations passed back and forth between project staff and the administrative office of the courts or appellate court clerk. The result is a reference source that covers a wide range of information about trial and appellate courts and state court administration. There are some obvious limitations. Provisions and procedures that relate to criminal cases receive more attention than those concerning civil dockets. The focus, moreover, is on statewide court organization. Within states there is significant variation by locality that is beyond the scope of this volume to describe. Finally, State Court Organization is a companion series to the annual State Court Caseload Statistics reports prepared by the Court Statistics Project of the National Center for State Courts. Please bring suggestions for information that might be included in future editions to the attention of the Director of the Court Statistics Project, National Center for State Courts, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185. What is new to the 2004 edition? A glossary defining symbols, abbreviations and acronyms has been added to the front of the volume. Some tables from the 1998 edition were not repeated in 2004: Table 21 - Court Automation Table 35 - Provisions for Processing Domestic Violence Cases Table 47 - The Availability of Intermediate Sanctions Table 50 - Good Time Accumulation and Parole Tables appearing for the first time in 2004 are: Table 31 - Specialized Jurisdiction: Problem Solving Courts Table 36 - DNA Evidence: Post-Conviction Analysis Table 37 - Making the Trial Record (last covered in 1993) There has been some reorganization of the contents: Table 5 in 1998 Terms of Appellate Court Judges (combined with Table 4–-Selection of Appellate Court Judges) Table 23 in 1998 -- Structure of Panels Reviewing Discretionary Petitions (divided into two new tables: Table 23 --The Structure of Appellate Court Panels and Table 24 –- Reviewing Discretionary Petitions) Table 27 in 1998 -- Special Calendars in Appellate Courts (combined with Table 25 -- Expediting Procedures in Appellate Courts) State Court Organization 2004 enhances the coverage of clerks of (trial) courts and trial court administrators. The previous edition allocated one table to each type of official, and provided information only on their method of selection and source of funding. For 2004, Table 29 provides information for both clerks and administrators on their method of selection and numbers in each trial court system. Table 30 describes the functional responsibilities for both sets of officials using a common set of responsibilities. Glossary of Selected Abbreviations, Definitions, and Symbols Abbreviations ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act AOC = Administrative Office of the Courts AP = At pleasure CASA = Court Appointed Special Advocate CJ = Chief Justice CLE = Continuing legal education CS = Court selection DS = District DU = Duration of service EX = Executive GE = Gubernatorial appointment with approval of elected executive council GJ = General jurisdiction GL = Gubernatorial appointment with consent of the legislature GN = Gubernatorial appointment from judicial nominating commission GNE = Gubernatorial appointment from judicial nominating commission with approval of elected executive council GNL = Gubernatorial appointment from judicial nominating commission with consent of the legislature GU = Gubernatorial appointment Definitions: A.L.I. = Accused lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his/ her conduct or conform his/her conduct to the requirements of law. Irresistible Impulse = If a mental disorder caused the individual to experience an irresistible impulse to commit the offense, even if he/she remained able to understand the nature of the offense and its wrongfulness. M'N = (M'Naghten) The accused party, at the time of committing the act, was laboring under a defect of reason from disease of the mind, not to know the nature and quality of the act he/she was doing, or if he/she did not know it was wrong. Symbols: ? = Both mandatory and discretionary jurisdiction ? = Discretionary jurisdiction ? = Mandatory jurisdiction ~ = Not applicable * = Mandatory list ? = No/none ? = Shared ? = Total ? = Yes IA = Intermediate appellate court ID = Indefinite IT = Information technology JD = Judicial JN = Judicial nominating commission appoints LA = Legislative appointment LD = Locally determined LG = Legislature LJ = Limited jurisdiction LWOP = Life in prison without parole NP = Non-partisan election NR = No response N/S = Not stated PE = Partisan election RA = Reappointment RE = Retention election SC = Court of last resort SCJ = Chief justice/judge of the court of last resort appoints SN = Seniority SW = Statewide TCA = Trial court administrator US = Federal VA = Varies Part I: Courts and Judges The number and variety of appellate and trial courts is the logical starting point for anyone interested in court organization. The fundamental distinction is between trial courts, which are courts of first instance that decide a dispute by examining the facts, and appellate courts, which review the trial court's application of the law with respect to those facts. Table 1 lists the number and types of appellate courts in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Appellate courts are divided into two basic categories, namely courts of last resort(COLR) and intermediate appellate courts(IAC). Each state has a COLR, which has final jurisdiction over appeals. Oklahoma and Texas split final appellate review between separate civil and criminal COLRs. Courts of last resort typically were established in the state's constitution and sit in one location, the state capital. IACs hear initial appeals, the outcome of which can be subject to further review by the state's COLR. Intermediate appellate courts, a more contemporary institution, often sit in multiple locations throughout the state. Table 2 lists the total number of appellate judges serving the state courts. Information on term lengths as well as the gender and racial and ethnic composition of the bench is provided, where available. The state appellate bench consists of 1,335 members. Term lengths vary between states from four to sixteen years; only Rhode Island selects judges to serve for life, while Massachusetts and Puerto Rico mandate terms that last until retirement at age 70. All COLRs are established with an odd number of justices, in contrast to the structure of the jury as a decision-making institution, which usually consists of an even number of members. The most common arrangement is a seven judge COLR, found in 28 states and in Puerto Rico. Five justices serve on COLRs in 16 states, while five states follow the federal nine-justice model as does the District of Columbia. Both Texas COLRs have nine justices. Oklahoma has a nine-member Supreme Court and a five member Court of Criminal Appeals. Intermediate appellate courts often undertake review through panels of three or more judges rather than by the full court sitting "en banc". California has the largest state IAC, with 105 authorized and 88 serving judgeships divided into nine divisions. Trial courts are listed state-by-state in Table 3, noting which are courts of general jurisdiction (GJ) and which are courts of limited (or special) jurisdiction (LJ). General jurisdiction trial courts are the highest trial court in a state, where felony criminal cases and high stakes civil suits are adjudicated. They often exercise some form of appellate review over outcomes in limited jurisdiction courts or decisions by administrative agencies, exercising what is termed incidental appellate jurisdiction. A limited jurisdiction trial court, one or more of which is to be found in all but six states, typically holds preliminary hearings in felony cases and has exclusive jurisdiction over misdemeanor and ordinance violation cases (Table 44 details the jurisdiction over felony cases by courts of limited jurisdiction). Civil jurisdiction is restricted to a fixed maximum amount, and typically includes a separate category of small claims cases for which simplified procedures are established. Juvenile and domestic relations cases are typically heard in a court of general jurisdiction, but in some states a special court may exist for such "family law" cases. Table 3 indicates the number of judges serving on each trial court statewide. Some courts, especially those with limited jurisdiction, use part-time or senior judges to help with caseloads. Courts may also make use of quasi-judicial staff to hear cases as referees, commissioners, or hearing officers. Table 3 provides information on term lengths for trial court judges as well as their gender and racial and ethnic composition, where available. The length specified is for a "full" term. Judges may be appointed to serve an initial term for a fixed period of time before becoming eligible to serve a full term. Even in states that elect their judges, most sitting judges are initially appointed to the bench to fill an unexpired term created by the resignation or death of a judge. By and large, general jurisdiction trial courts are divided into circuits or districts. In some states (e.g., California) the county serves as the judicial district. Most states, however, construct judicial districts that embrace a number of counties. Limited jurisdiction trial courts vary in whether they possess county-wide jurisdiction across a county or serve a specific local government unit, such as a city or village. Jurisdiction beyond a specific county is rare, except for those courts with special jurisdiction that applies statewide (water courts and workers' compensation courts are examples). In comparing court structures, it should be noted that even basic nomenclature can vary markedly. Supreme Courts are usually courts of last resort but in New York "supreme" designates the main trial court; the Court of Appeals is the state's court of last resort. Justices and a Chief Justice usually serve on courts of last resort but a number of COLRs have judges and a Chief Judge. Judge is the standard title for those serving on intermediate appellate courts. Select Bibliography: The American Bar Association, Facts About the American Judicial System, Washington D.C.: 1999. Lawrence Baum, American Courts: Process and Policy, Fifth Edition 2001, Houghton Mifflin. Robert A. Carp, Judicial Process in America, Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004. Henry Glick, "State Court Systems", Encyclopedia of the American Judicial System, Vol. II, R. Janosik (Ed.). New York: Charles Scribner's, 1987. William S. Miller, A Primer on American Courts, New York: Pearson Longman, 2004. David Neubauer, America's Courts and the Criminal Justice System: 8th Edition, Wadsworth Publishing, 2004. Robert W. Tobin, Creating the Judicial Branch: The Unfinished Reform, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1999. Tables 2 & 3 Diana R. Irvine (Ed.). The American Bench: Judges of the Nation, Fifteenth Edition 2004/05, Sacramento, CA: Forester-Long. National Database on Judicial Diversity in State Courts, The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Judicial Independence http://www.abanet.org/judind/diversity/home.html. Part II: Judicial Selection and Service How judges are selected and their terms of service on the bench differ sharply between the federal and state courts, and the differences among states are often nearly as significant. All federal judges are nominated by the President and serve "during good behavior" once confirmed by the U.S. Senate unless they resign or are impeached and convicted by the U.S. Congress. State court judges are likely to face an election as a part of their selection process and to serve fixed terms, which for COLR justices range between six and 14 years (15 years in the District of Columbia). Only Rhode Island offers appellate judges lifetime appointments, while the judges of Massachusetts's and Puerto Rico's Supreme Court serve until age 70. Judicial selection occurs for three purposes in the state courts: to fill an unexpired term upon the retirement, resignation, or death of an incumbent judge; to select for a full term; and at the end of a special term. Table 4 describes the various ways in which appellate justices and judges are selected, for "unexpired" and "full" terms, as well as for subsequent terms, while Table 6 describes procedures for selecting trial court judges. One marker for examining the diverse selection methods adopted by the states is the "Missouri Plan." In 1940, the State of Missouri amended its constitution to establish a statewide nominating committee for appellate judgeships and circuit-level commissions for general jurisdiction trial court judgeships. A judge, representatives of the state bar association, and non-lawyers appointed by the governor make up the committee. The governor must appoint one of the committee's three nominees to fill a vacancy. The new appointee then faces a retention election in one year's time, running against their own record and further retention elections at 12-year intervals. Thirty-seven states use some form of judicial nominating commission in judicial selection, which became popular in the 1970s, although only 15 combine such a commission with retention elections on the Missouri model. Since 1998, two states changed from partisan to non- partisan judicial elections. In Arkansas the public voted in November 2000 to make all judicial elections non-partisan. North Carolina made that change for District Court trial judges in 2000 and for all appellate judges in 2002. All appellate courts and most trial courts have a chief justice or judge. Table 4 explains how chief justices and chief judges of COLRs and IACs are selected in each state. The length of their term in office can also be found in the table. How trial court chief judges (sometimes termed presiding judges) are selected is detailed in Table 6. The judges in a district or circuit typically select one of their peers to serve as the chief judge for a fixed number of years, but the appointment may be made at the state level by the governor, Chief Justice of the COLR, or the COLR collectively. In some instances a specific individual is elected or appointed as the chief judge and holds that title throughout their tenure. In other trial courts, seniority establishes who is selected as the chief judge. Qualifications for service as a judge are stated in the constitutions and statutes of the various states. Tables 5 and 7 indicate the constitutionally or statutorily mandated qualifications in terms of residency, age, and legal credentials that are mandated for appellate and trial court judgeships, respectively. Many states require judges to participate in some form of legal education beyond the Continuing Legal Education expected of all state bar members. Mandatory judicial education is accomplished through a wide range of judicial branch and private entities and is funded by a variety of sources. Nineteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico make formal provision for an ongoing evaluation of judicial performance. States with retention elections for judges are the most likely to evaluate performance and make public the results, but some with nonpartisan elections do so as well (Minnesota), as do many with a system of judicial appointments (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont). Table 10 identifies the body responsible for operating the program, the implementing authority, the membership of the evaluating body, and how the evaluation is undertaken. Judicial conduct organizations are the main arbiters of what constitutes judicial misconduct in the states. Conduct organizations investigate complaints against members of the judiciary and typically include a mix of judges, lawyers, and ordinary citizens. The adjudicatory function is usually exercised by the COLR, although sometimes the original conduct organization both investigates and adjudicates complaints. In such instances there is usually a right of appeal to the state's COLR. Table 11 highlights the various investigating and adjudicating bodies as well as their respective organizational structure. This table also indicates which court or other entity adjudicates complaints, hears appeals, has final disciplinary authority, and at what point reprimands are made public. Select General Bibliography: American Bar Association, Standards on State Judicial Selection: Report of the Commission on State Judicial Selection Standards, Chicago, IL: 2001. Call To Action: Statement of the National Summit on Improving Judicial Selection: Expanded Edition with Commentary, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2002. Available online: http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/CallToActionCo mmentary.pdf. Philip J. Dubois, From Ballot to Bench: Judicial Elections and the Quest for Accountability. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1980. Judicial Merit Selection: Current Status, The American Judicature Society, Des Moines, IA, 2003. Richard C. Kearney, "Judicial Performance Evaluation in the States" Public Administration Quarterly 22, no. 4 (Winter 1999). Doris Marie Provine, Judging Credentials: Nonlawyer Judges and the Politics of Professionalism, Chicago, IL:, University of Chicago Press, 1986. Malia Reddick, Merit Selection: A Review of the Social Scientific Literature, American Judicature Society, 2003, Available online: http://www.ajs.org/js/LitReview.pdf. Judith Rosenbaum, Practices and Procedures of State Judicial Conduct Organizations, Chicago, IL: American Judicature Society, 1990. Elliot E. Slotnick (Ed.), Judicial Politics: Readings from the Judicature, Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2005. Standards on State Judicial Selection: Report of the Commission on State Judicial Selection Standards, American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Judicial Independence, Chicago: 2001. Mary Volcansek, Judicial Impeachment: None Called for Justice, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1993. Penny J. White, "Judging Judges: Securing Judicial Independence by Use of Judicial Performance Evaluations," Fordham Urban Law Journal 29, no. 3 (February 2002): 1053-78. Tables 4 & 6 Hunter Center for Judicial Selection (American Judicature Society), Judicial Selection in the States http://www.ajs.org/js provides a comprehensive state-by-state resource on current methods of judicial selection for all court levels and extensive background material on the history of judicial selection. Part III: The Judicial Branch: Governance, Funding, and Administration Each state as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico has an independent judicial branch. As indicated in Table 12, either the Court of Last Resort(COLR) (fifteen states) or the Chief Justice of the Court of Last Resort (34 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia) is the designated head of the judicial branch. In Utah, the Judicial Council is the designated head. The formulation of rules for court procedure is basic to the governance of the judicial branch. Table 13 indicates whether the state constitution or the legislative branch grants the rule-making authority of the COLR in key procedural areas. The specific areas covered in Table 13 are appellate and trial court administration; appellate, civil, and criminal procedure; rules of evidence; attorney and judicial discipline; and trial court costs and fees assessment. Many state judicial branches incorporate councils or conferences in either a policy-making or advisory capacity. Table 14 lists the relevant bodies that report to the state's COLR and cites their purpose, statutory or constitutional authority, and the year in which they were established. Most councils or conferences are established by statute, but they may also be established by the state constitution or by a COLR rule. Twenty-three states have established Judicial Compensation Commissions that meet periodically to set the salaries of judicial officials. Table 15 offers information on the statutory or constitutional authority, composition, and meeting schedule of these commissions. Whether the respective commissions report to the legislature, executive, or the judiciary as well as the effects of their recommendations is also stated in this table. Table 16 explains the preparation of the judicial branch's budget. In most states the budget is initially prepared by the state's administrative office of the courts, generally followed by a central review of budget submissions by the state's COLR or administrative office of the courts. The situation in many states is complex, which is reflected in the number of footnotes appended to the table. Table 16 also focuses on the role of the executive and legislative branches in submitting and possibly amending the judicial branch budget, and provides an estimate of the percentage of the total state budget accounted for by the judicial branch. There is some new budget-related information in the 2004 edition. Specifically, the table gives the number of budget line items in the judicial branch budget and states whether that branch can move funds between those budget lines. Table 17 begins with the expenditures for trial court operations, distinguishing (where possible) between state and local funding sources. The table also describes some specific expenditures that fall within the trial court budget. Table 17 lists 18 expenditure areas, noting whether the source of funding is the state, county/local government, or fees. Often expenditures are funded through several sources. In using this table it should be noted that it refers only to the funding of trial courts, and is therefore not directly comparable to the dollar amounts offered in Table 16, which describes the entire judicial branch budget. Table 17 highlights important differences in the scope of state judicial branches, specifically whether they encompass functions such as child support enforcement, juvenile probation and detention, or indigent defense. Such differences in scope, along with differences in which expenditures are state funded and which are locally funded or fee supported, explain to a substantial extent differences in the proportion of the state budget designated for the judicial branch as well as staffing levels of administrative offices of the courts. Appellate courts have a designated clerk with responsibilities that range from administrative tasks to legal research. Table 18 indicates whether a clerk's office has total, shared, or no responsibility for 29 functional areas. In addition, this table reports the total number of full time equivalent staff that report to the clerk of court. In most states, the appellate court clerk is appointed by the members of the court and serves at the pleasure of the court. (The clerk of the Supreme Court in Montana is an elected official, as are the clerks of the 12 regional intermediate appellate courts in Ohio). In 14 states, the clerk of the court of last resort also serves as clerk of the state's other appellate court(s). Minimum qualifications for clerks vary dramatically between states. Some call for a high school diploma, while others require admittance to the state bar. Details are in Table 19. Law clerks provide direct support to appellate court justices and judges, or to the court in general through a central staff. The number of law clerks allocated to the chief justice or judge and to the associate justices or judges of each appellate court can be found in Table 20. The number of central law staff is also indicated. Every state has a central office that has day to day administrative responsibilities for the state courts. The head of that office, the state court administrator, is usually an appointee of the state judiciary, with the chief justice or the COLR exercising the appointment authority. The administrative office's role in the budget process was described in Table 16. A more comprehensive description of what administrative offices do is provided in Table 21, which indicates the nature of the responsibility of the administrative office for 25 functional areas relating to a state's trial court. The first column of the table reports the number of staff in the administrative office, expressed as full-time equivalent positions. The size of the administrative office staff reflects both the degree to which there is centralized coordination of key functions and the allocation of some substantial responsibilities, such as juvenile probation, to the administrative office of the courts. Select Bibliography: American Bar Association (Judicial Administration Division), Standards Relating to Court Organization: 1990 Edition, Chicago, IL: The ABA Press, 1990. Larry Berkson and Susan Carbon, Court Unification: History, Politics and Implementation, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 1978. Thomas Henderson, et al., The Significance of Judicial Structure: The Effect of Unification on Trial Court Operations, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 1984. Robert G. Nieland and Rachel N. Doan (revised by Mayo H. Stiegler),State Court Administrative Offices: Second Edition, Chicago, IL:, American Judicature Society, 1982. Court Watch of North Carolina, Nationwide Report Comparing State Trial Judges and their Support Staff, Greensboro, NC, 1997. Survey of Judicial Salaries, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2005 (semiannual series). Available online: http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/KIS JudComJudSal040105Pub.pdf. David B. Rottman, Trends and Issues in the State Courts: Challenges and Achievements, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2004. Available online: http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/ Res_WorkLd_TrendsIssuesStateCourtsPub.pdf. Brian J. Ostrom, Matt Kleiman and Nicole L. Mott, Minnesota Court Workload Assessment, 2004, Williamsburg, VA, National Center for State Courts, 2004. Available online: http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/ Res_WorkLd_MinnCtStaffWkLdAs_04Pub.pdf. Table 13: Donald Pugh, et al., Judicial Rulemaking: A Compendium, Chicago, IL:, American Judicature Society, 1984. Felix F. Stumpf, Inherent Powers of the Courts, Reno, NV: National Judicial College, 1994. Part IV: Appellate Courts: Jurisdiction and Procedures Appellate courts do not determine guilt in criminal cases, or liability in civil cases, nor do they ensure that trial proceedings in lower courts are flawless. Instead, appellate courts are charged with assessing whether or not errors have been committed at trial. Courts of last resort were established early in a state's history, while intermediate appellate courts are a more contemporary development. In 1957, only 13 states had a permanent intermediate appellate court. Some states, however, had previously established and then disbanded such a court. Currently 39 states have both types of appellate courts. In these states parties wishing to challenge a trial court decision typically bring their appeal first to the intermediate appellate court. For most criminal appeals the intermediate appellate court must accept the case because the court's jurisdiction is mandatory. Because intermediate appellate courts tend to have some discretion to decide whether to hear civil appeals, not all civil cases are necessarily accepted. Once the intermediate appellate court hears a case and reaches a decision, a dissatisfied party may petition the court of last resort for further review. The COLR, which generally has broad discretionary jurisdiction in both civil and criminal appeals, must first decide whether to accept the case for review. If the petition is granted, the court hears the case and renders a decision. However, if the petition is denied, the litigation is terminated and the ruling of the intermediate appellate court stands. The major exceptions to this scenario are death-penalty cases. In those states with capital punishment, death- penalty appeals are invariably filed directly in the court of last resort as a mandatory appeal. Table 22 describes the allocation of mandatory and discretionary jurisdiction for eight types of appeal. In ten states and the District of Columbia, there is a single appellate court. Generally, a court of last resort in a state with no other appellate court has mandatory jurisdiction for most categories of appeal. There are exceptions to this rule such as West Virginia which has discretionary jurisdiction. Intermediate appellate courts typically conduct their business in panels rather than en banc. The information on panel structure contained in Table 23 is therefore basic to these courts. The number of panels in each appellate court, their size, whether they are permanent or rotating, and the frequency of rotation are indicated in this table. Appellate courts with discretionary jurisdiction require procedures for selecting the cases to be reviewed. Table 24 indicates who makes the decision to grant a petition in each appellate court with discretionary jurisdiction: the court en banc, a panel, a commissioner, or a single justice. The decision-ratio used for granting review is also indicated where the decision is made by the court en banc or a panel of justices/judges. In all but four states and the District of Columbia, the court of last resort reviews petitions en banc(the exceptions are Florida, Iowa, Virginia, and Washington), although some COLRs use a combination of en banc proceedings, panels, or a single justice depending on the nature of the case. A majority of the court or panel must agree to accept the case in most courts of last resort. In 15 states, a minority, and, in a few courts, a single member of the full court or panel can grant review. The decision rule may vary by the type of case under consideration. Most appellate courts provide for expediting procedures that allow especially time-sensitive cases to be heard more expeditiously. Table 25 describes the types of expedited appeals for each appellate court as well as the respective procedures applied in processing appeals. Appellate courts may restrict oral argument for routine cases. Table 26 indicates the time limit imposed on both appellants and respondents, whether a formal request for oral argument must be filed, and under what circumstances oral argument is automatically scheduled. Appellate courts often review the decisions of administrative agencies. Table 27 describes which courts have jurisdiction to review the decisions made by eight categories of administrative agencies in each state. That review is sometimes undertaken by trial courts exercising their "incidental appellate jurisdiction." Select Bibliography: Carol Flango, Roger Hanson, and Randall Hansen, The Work of Appellate Court Legal Staff, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2000. Carol R. Flango and David Rottman, Appellate Court Procedures, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1998. Victor E. Flango and Carol R. Flango, A Taxonomy of Appellate Court Organization, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, July 1997. Available online: http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/csp/ Highlights/V ol3No1Taxom.pdf. Roger A. Hanson, Appellate Court Performance Standards, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1995. Roger A. Hanson, Appellate Court Performance Standards and Measures, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1999. Roger A. Hanson, Jurisdiction, Caseload, and Timeliness of State Supreme Courts, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2001. Robert A. Leflar, Internal Operating Procedures of Appellate Courts, Chicago, 1976. Daniel J. Meador, et al., Appellate Courts: Structures, Functions, Processes, and Personnel, Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company, 1994. Robert L. Stern, Appellate Practice in the United States: Second Edition, Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, 1989. Paul Brace and Kellie Sims-Butler, "New Perspectives for the Comparative Study of the Judiciary: The State Supreme Court Project," The Justice System Journal, Volume 22, Number 3 (2001). Part V: Trial Courts: Administration, Specialized Jurisdiction, and Procedures Perhaps the most fundamental feature of state trial court systems is the distribution of subject matter jurisdiction. The pattern followed in each state and the differences among states are most readily identified by means of the court structure charts found in Part VIII. Trial court administration generally involves judges with managerial responsibility (presiding, chief, or administrative judges of the court or of divisions within the court), clerks of court, and trial court administrators. A chief or presiding judge generally serves as an executive overseer who ensures that court policy is implemented. Their method of selection and terms of office are described in Table 6, whereas Table 28 highlights their specific responsibilities across nine areas. This is a substantially enhanced coverage of the role of the administrative judge from that provided in 1998. The vital administrative tasks of a clerk of court are typically the responsibility of an elected or appointed official. The method of selection may vary among the general jurisdiction courts of the individual states. Court administrators, by contrast, are not elected officials and are most often appointed by the chief or presiding judge. Table 29 reports the number of clerks and administrators serving each court system in a state and their method of selection. A clerk of court typically has responsibility for docketing cases, collecting court fees, overseeing jury selection, and maintaining all court records. While clerks of court are traditional positions in almost all state court systems, trial court administrators are more recent participants in the management of court operations. They are responsible for the non-judicial aspects of court administration including staffing, budgets, efficient caseload processing, etc. In some trial court systems, the same official is both the administrator and the clerk. Information on the specific responsibilities in ten functional areas of both clerks of court and trial court administrators can be found in Table 30. Problem solving courts have emerged in most states over the past several years and specialize in targeting issue areas such as domestic violence and drug addiction. Table 31 lists six different types of problem solving courts and indicates the number of each type operational in the individual states. By far, the most common problem solving courts are drug courts and family courts. In most cases, family courts are a unit of a district, circuit, trial, or superior court rather than being independent. The jurisdiction assigned to family courts in each state is detailed in Table 32. The table also indicates whether family courts exist statewide or only in a limited number of local jurisdictions. Table 33 recognizes the significant role that Native American tribal courts have in many states by indicating the number and types of tribal courts that are in place in each state. Public Law 280 (1953) extended state jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases to Native American lands. Table 33 indicates whether a state has assumed that jurisdiction. This listing is not a comprehensive guide to the presence of tribal courts. The table is compiled from several sources, listed below, and cannot be regarded as definitive. The territory of tribal lands is not necessarily bounded within a state, making the presentation of accurate descriptive information on tribal courts problematic for this volume's format. Moreover, there is a complex division of jurisdiction over civil disputes and criminal offenses between federal, state, and tribal courts. As such, there are Tribal Court-State Court Forums in a number of states, with the Tribal Courts and State Courts: The Prevention and Resolution of Jurisdictional Disputes Project, established in 1989, as an example. Additional information on tribal courts can be obtained by contacting the organizations responsible for the volumes used as sources or the individual courts. The status of cameras in trial and appellate courts is described on a state-by-state basis in Table 34. Television cameras may be allowed in some courts and for some types of proceedings within a given state. Whether camera coverage is carried out on an experimental basis or has permanent status is indicated, as is whether the consent of the parties is required. All but three states (Idaho, Montana and Utah) provide for an insanity defense. For the other states, Table 35 indicates the legal test for insanity and highlights pre-trial, trial, and post-trial standards and procedures for each state. Recent scientific advances have enabled law enforcement to solve crimes by extracting DNA from a mere speck of blood or a strand of hair left at a crime scene. Table 36 provides information on the 45 states that have adopted a statute regarding post-conviction analysis of DNA evidence. This table, included for the first time in the 2004 edition, specifies the time limit for relief, convictions for which relief may be sought, the length of time biological evidence must be preserved, and the standard for granting DNA testing. Finally, the methods employed by each state's trial courts to make the trial record available can be found in Table 37. This topic was last addressed in State Court Organization 1993. The table first indicates whether or not a trial court makes a verbatim record. If a record is made, four specific methods are listed, with a provision for states to fill in any other methods being used. Select General Bibliography: Pam Casey, Trial Court Performance Standards: Implementation Profiles, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2003. Fred L. Cheesman, et al., Developing Statewide Performance Measures for Drug Courts, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2004. Steven W. Hays and Cole Blease Graham, Jr., Handbook of Court Administration and Management, New York: Marcel Dekker, 1993. Martindale Hubbell, United States Law Digest, Summit, NJ: Martindale Hubbell, 2004 (Up-to-date digests of the laws of the 50 states and text of more than 50 uniform codes and model acts). F. Dale Kasparek, Leading the Unfinished Reform: The Future of Third Branch Administration, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2005. Ruthie Elizabeth Reeves Stewart, The Changing Relationship Between Cameras and the Courts, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 1998. Table 31: Pam Casey and David Rottman, Problem Solving Courts: Models and Trends, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2003. Available online: http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/ Publications/COMM_ProSolProbSolvCtsPub.pdf. C. West Huddleston, III, Karen Freeman-Wilson, Douglas Marlowe, and Aaron Rousell, Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs in the United States, Vol 1, No. 2 (May 2005). Robert W. Tobin, Creating the Judicial Branch: The Unfinished Reform, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1999. David B. Wexler, " Therapeutic Jurisprudence: It's Not Just for Problem-Solving Courts and Calendars Anymore ," Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2004. Available online: http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/SpeP roTherapTrends2004.html#_Therapeutic_ Jurisprudence _ and. Table 32: American Bar Association, United Family Courts: A Progress Report, 1998. Contents originally derived from Barbara A. Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law: A Blueprint to Construct a Unified Family Court, Southern California Law Review, Vol. 71, No.3, University of Southern California: March, 1998. Carol R. Flango, "Trends 2002: Family Friendly Courts." Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2002. Available online: http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/KIS_FamJus Trends02_FamFriendPub.pdf. Table 33: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Native American Tribal Court Profiles, Washington, D.C., 1985. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Entities Recognized as Eligible to Receive Services for the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs (also Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 234, December 5, 2003). William C. Canby, Jr., American Indian Law in a Nutshell: Third Edition, St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1998. Carol Goldberg-Ambrose, Planting Tail Feathers: Tribal Survival and Public Law 280(UCLA American Studies Center: 1997) (with Time Seward). H. Clifton Grandy and Ted Rubin, Tribal Court--State Court Forums, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1993. National American Indian Court Judges Association, Tribal Court Database, May 28, 1998. National Indian Court Justices Association, Indian Court Judges Directory: Third Edition, Washington, D.C., 1991. Native American Tribal Court Database, http://www.tribalcourts.com/ (last visited December 7, 2005). Part VI: The Jury This section uses several tables to describe jury selection, jury verdict rules in the state courts, and the composition and function of the grand jury in state courts. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment at a grand jury." That clause from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies to all felony prosecutions in the federal courts. The information in Table 38 shows that while most states retain the option of a grand jury indictment, few require it to begin felony proceedings. A diminished role for the state grand jury in processing felony cases can be seen early in this century. Grand jury indictments were largely replaced by the practice of prosecutors filing a document called a criminal information, a practice ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (In re McNaught, 1909; Palko v. Connecticut, 1937). Table 38 indicates whether a grand jury indictment is required for all felony prosecutions, the size of the grand jury, the number needed to indict, the statutory term of grand jury sittings, and the civic duties undertaken by grand juries. Table 39 starts the description of trial juries by indicating the basis for the master list from which the jury pool is drawn and the relevant state statute. Most states use a variety of sources to compile a master list. Sources followed by an asterisk must be used; others are generally used at the discretion of local jury commissioners. Qualifications for jury service in terms of age, time elapsed since a prior jury service, residency, and English proficiency are specified. The table indicates, through footnotes, the states that have adopted the provisions of the Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act, which was drafted in 1970 by the National Conference of Commissions on Uniform State Laws. Table 40 lists the factors that exempt an individual from jury duty. Exemptions are generally based on age or occupation. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia do not grant automatic occupational exemptions; several other states limit exemptions to those on active military service. Excusals from jury service follow from claims of undue hardship, extreme inconvenience, public necessity, or mental disability. Table 40 also details the obligations that employers bear in each state toward maintaining the salaries of employees while on jury service. The daily fee, if any, paid to serving jurors is also indicated. The allocation of peremptory challenges is described in Table 41. The number of peremptory challenges available to the parties to a dispute is indicated for civil and criminal cases. Criminal cases are subdivided into capital, felony, and misdemeanor cases. In criminal cases, the number of peremptory challenges may be different for the state and the defense. Additional provisions for peremptory challenges are sometimes specified for the selection of alternate juries and in cases involving multiple parties. Since 1970, U.S. Supreme Court decisions have allowed states to move away from the traditional federal jury standard of 12 members who must reach a unanimous verdict. Specifically, six-member juries were found to be constitutional in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970) and non-unanimous verdicts in Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972). Table 42 specifies jury size and verdict rules for felony, misdemeanor, and civil cases. The relaxation of traditional size and verdict requirements is most prevalent for misdemeanor criminal cases. Four states use eight-(Arizona and Utah) or six-member juries (Connecticut and Florida) in their courts of general jurisdiction for non- capital felonies, and two states (Louisiana and Oregon) and Puerto Rico do not require a unanimous verdict in such cases. States that continue to use a 12-member, unanimous verdict jury typically allow the parties to agree to a smaller, non-unanimous jury. Select Bibliography: Jeffrey B. Abramson, We, The Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy (with new preface), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001. Paula L. Hannaford, et al., Are Hung Juries a Problem?, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2002. Paula L. Hannaford, A Profile of Hung Juries, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, State Justice Institute, 2003. Paula L. Hannaford-Agor, Making the Case for Juror Privacy: A New Framework for Court Policies and Procedures, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, State Justice Institute, 2001. Juries in Depth: Jury Decision Making, American Judicature Society. Available online: http://www.ajs.org/jc/juries/jc_decision_overview. asp. Gerbert L. Litan (Ed.), Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury System, Washington, D.C., 1993. Nicole Mott, Jury Size, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2003. G. Thomas Munsterman, Paula L. Hannaford, and G. Marc Whitehead (eds.), Jury Trial Innovations, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1997. G. Thomas Munsterman and Paula L. Hannaford, "Reshaping the Bedrock of Democracy: American Jury Reform During the Last Thirty Years", Judicature, Vol. 36, No. 4, 1997. G.T. Munsterman and Paula L. Hannaford, The Promises and Challenges of Jury System Technology, Williamsburg, VA: Research Division, National Center for State Courts, 2003. Thomas Munsterman and Paula Hannaford-Agor, "Building on the Bedrock: The Continued Evolution of Jury Reform" Judges' Journal, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2004. G.T. Munsterman, Multi-Lingual Juries, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, State Justice Institute, 2000. Henry Stacey, Evaluation of Grand Jury Cases Ignored and Indicted Within Sixty Days: Resources Used by the Criminal Justice Community, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2004. Michael Vitiello and J. Clark Kelso, Final Recommendation Reform of California Grand Jury Statutes, Sacramento, CA: Capital Center for Government Law and Policy, 2003. Michael Vitiello and J. Clark Kelso, Grand Jury Background Study, Sacramento, CA: Capital Center for Government Law and Policy, 2001. For links to prominent web-sites devoted to jury issues, see http://www.ncsconline.org/Juries/ links.htm. Table 42: NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Death Row U.S.A. (a periodical). Patrick E. Higginbotham, "Juries and the Death Penalty," Case Western Reserve Law Review, Volume 41, Number 4, 1991. "'Black Box Decisions' on Life or Death--If They're Arbitrary, Don't Blame the Jury: A Reply to Judge Patrick Higginbotham," Case Western Reserve Law Review, Volume 41, Number 4, 1991. Part VII: The Sentencing Context The five tables in this section describe facets of the sentencing process. The fundamental statutory framework for felony and misdemeanor sentencing is outlined in Table 43. Minimum and maximum sentences are indicated for both felonies and misdemeanors followed by the dollar fine range for felonies. Mandatory minimum sentences facing those convicted of a felony involving a firearm or deadly weapon also are described. The definition, if any, of a habitual offender is given and the attendant penalties stated. Finally, the table indicates the most severe sentence other than the death penalty in a state. In most states, provisions exist for a sentence of "life without the possibility of parole" (LWOP). For those states with capital punishment, that sentence is often the default if the jury cannot agree on the appropriate sentence. Courts of general jurisdiction have unlimited authority to hear and dispose of felony cases. However, courts of limited jurisdiction in most states conduct preliminary hearings and bind over felony defendants for trial and in the course of doing so may have the jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea to a misdemeanor and then impose sentence. In some states, this extends to accepting a guilty plea to a felony charge but rarely to imposing a sentence. Table 44 describes how jurisdiction over felony cases is distributed within each state's court system. The authority of a trial court judge or an appellate court to alter a sentence once it has been implemented also is indicated. Table 45 describes the sentencing responsibilities of judges and juries for both capital and non-capital felony cases. The table indicates whether the judge or the jury sets the original sentence in death penalty cases, whether it must be unanimous, if there is an automatic default to life without parole if the jury fails to agree, and whether the judge can alter the jury's sentence. Table 45 also explains who is responsible for sentencing in non-capital cases. Most states have a sentencing hearing that is separate from the trial for non-capital felonies. In Blakely vs. Washington (June 2004) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a judge may not increase a sentence beyond what is known "solely on the basis of the facts related in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant." The implications for the judicial role in sentencing are reviewed in the Wool and Stemen reference in the bibliography. Table 46 offers a detailed look at sentencing commissions. Topics covered include the name of the commission, when it was established, membership composition, and responsibilities. The table notes whether guidelines developed by a commission are voluntary or mandatory. Conviction for a felony offense can bring certain "civil disabilities" in the form of collateral consequences. These typically extend beyond the point at which a person leaves prison or is released from probation or parole supervision. However, states differ in whether collateral consequences apply to all convicted felons or only to those incarcerated. Table 47 considers the impact that a felony conviction has on voting rights, eligibility for public employment, jury service, firearm ownership, and parental rights. Whether there is a registration requirement for convicted sex-offenders is also described. Selected General Bibliography: "A Symposium on Sentencing Reform in the States," University of Colorado Law Review, 64, No. 3, 1993. Fred L. Cheeseman, "Blended Sentencing in Minnesota: On Target for Justice and Public Safety?" Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2002. William L. Gillespie, "State Sentencing Policy: Review and Illustration." Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2003. Available online: http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/KIS_SentenJ SJV24No2.pdf. Brian Ostrom, Offender Risk Assessment in Virginia, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2002. Brian Ostrom, Neal Kauder, David Rottman, and Meredith Peterson, Sentencing Digest: Examining Current Sentencing Issues and Policies, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1998. Ann L. Pastore and Kathleen Maguire (Eds.), Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2003, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, USGPO, 2003. Sandra Shane-DuBow, Alice Brown, and Erik Olsen, Sentencing Reform in the United States: History, Content, and Effect, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985. Cyrus Tata and Neil Hutton, Sentencing and Policy: International Perspectives. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Sentencing Statistics, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/sent.htm. (last visited December 7, 2005). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Felony Sentencing in the State Courts, 2002, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fssc02.htm. (last visited December 12, 2005) Capital Punishment: Holly Shaver Bryant, Trends 2002: Capital Punishment/ The Death Penalty, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2002. Felony Laws: Wayne Logan, Lindsay Stellwagen, and Patrick Langan, Felony Laws of the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 1986, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Habitual Offender Statutes: William McDonald, Repeat Offender Law in the United States: Their Form, Use, and Perceived Value, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 1986. Paul H. Robinson, "Punishing Dangerousness: Cloaking Preventive Detention as Criminal Justice," Boston: Harvard Law Review, 2001. Judge and Jury Sentencing: Jon Wool and Don Stemen, Aggravated Sentencing: Blakely v. Washington, Practical Implications for State Sentencing Systems, Vera Institute of Justice, August 2004, Available online: http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/242_456.pdf. Life Without the Possibility of Parole: Julian H. Wright, "Life-Without-Parole: An A lternative to Death or Not Much of a Life at All?," Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 43, 1990. Derral Cheatwood, "The Life-Without-Parole Sanction: It Current Status and a Research Agenda," Crime and Delinquency, Volume 34, Number 1, January 1988. J. Mark Lane, "Is There Life Without Parole?: A Capital Defendant's Right to a Meaningful Alternative Sentence," Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Volume 26, January 1993. Mandatory Minimums: Lawrence Brinkley, Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: Overview and Background, Hauppauge, NY: Novinka, 2003. Kent H. Ronhovde and Gloria P. Sugars, Survey of Select State Firearm Control Laws, Federal Regulation of Firearms, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (prepared for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee), 1982. Barbara S. Vincent and Paul J. Hofer, The Consequences of Mandatory Minimum Prison Terms: A Summary of Recent Findings, Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center, 1994. Table 47: Background Information About Offender Re-Entry and the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions. New York: New York State Judicial Institute, 2005. Available online: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ip/ partnersinjustice/Offender-Re-Entry.pdf. Velmer S. Burton, Jr., Francis T. Cullen, and Lawrence F. Travis III, "The Collateral Consequences of a Felony Conviction: A National Study of State Statutes," Federal Probation, September 1987. Walter Matthews Grant, John LeCornu, John Andrew Pickens, Dean Hill Rivkins, and C. Roger Vinson, "The Collateral Consequences of a Felony Conviction," Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 23 Number 5, October 1970. Margaret Colgate Love, "Relief From The Collateral Consequences Of A Criminal Conviction: A State-By- State Resource Guide," Washington: The Sentencing Project, 2005. Available online: http://www.sentencingproject.org/rights-restoration.cfm. Debra Parks, "Ballot Boxes Behind Bars: Toward the Repeal of Prisoner Disenfranchisement Laws," Philadelphia: Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review, 2003. Richard G. Singer, "Conviction: Civil Disabilities," Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, Vol. I, S. Kadish (Ed.). New York: The Free Press, 1983. Part VIII: Court Structure Charts The court structure charts summarize in one-page diagrams the key features of each State's court organization. The format meets two objectives: (1) it is comprehensive, indicating all court systems in the state and their interrelationship, and(2)it describes the jurisdiction of the court systems, using a standard set of terminology and symbols. The court structure charts employ the common terminology developed by the National Center for State Courts' Court Statistics Project (CSP) for reporting caseload statistics. The first chart is a prototype. It represents a state court organization in which there is one of each of the four court system levels recognized by the Court Statistics Project: courts of last resort, intermediate appellate courts, general jurisdiction trial courts, and limited jurisdiction trial courts. Routes of appeal from one court to another are indicated by lines, with an arrow showing which court receives the appeal or petition. The charts also provide basic descriptive information, such as the number of authorized justices, judges, and magistrates (or other judicial officers). Each court system's subject matter jurisdiction is indicated using the Court Statistics Project case types. Information is also provided on the use of districts, circuits, or divisions in organizing the courts within the system and the number of courts. CSP Case Types The State Court Guide to Statistical Reporting organizes cases into a three-level hierarchy. The first, and broadest, level is the case category, which consists of civil, domestic relations, criminal, juvenile, and traffic/other violations cases. The second level, the case sub-category, refers to classes of cases within the case category. For example, tort cases are a sub-category of civil cases and felony cases are a sub-category of criminal cases. The third level of the organizational hierarchy is the case type. The case type is the most precise descriptor of the case in question. Case types can further refine the cases within a sub-category (e.g., DWI/DUI is a case type within the sub-categories of both felony and misdemeanor cases) or they can describe a case within a case category (e.g., adoption is a case type within the domestic relations case category). For the purposes of both simplicity and consistency with previous volumes of this publication, the court structure charts use the term "case type" to refer to each court system's subject matter jurisdiction, even if the jurisdiction listed is actually a case category or a case sub-category. In most instances, the case category is listed when the court in question has jurisdiction over all of the case types within the category. In turn, the case sub-category is listed when the court has jurisdiction over all of the case types within the case sub-category. Case types are listed individually when (1) the case type does not fall under a case sub-category, (2) the court has jurisdiction only over that specific case type, or (3)specific attention is being drawn to the case type(such as DWI/DUI and domestic violence jurisdiction). Appellate Courts The rectangle representing each appellate court contains information on the number of authorized justices; the number of geographic divisions, if any; whether court decisions are made en banc, in panels, or both; and the Court Statistics Project case types that are heard by the court. The case types are shown separately for mandatory and discretionary cases. The case types themselves are defined in other Court Statistics Project publications, specifically the State Court Guide to Statistical Reporting. An appellate court can have both mandatory and discretionary jurisdiction over the same Court Statistics Project case type. This arises, in part, because the Court Statistics Project case types are defined broadly to be applicable to every State's courts. There are, for example, only two appellate Court Statistics Project case types for criminal appeals: capital and noncapital. A court may have mandatory jurisdiction over felony cases, but discretionary jurisdiction over misdemeanors. The list of case types would include "criminal" for both mandatory and discretionary jurisdiction. The duplication of a case type under both headings can also occur if appeals from one lower court for that case type are mandatory while appeals from another lower court are discretionary. Also, statutory provisions or court rules in some states automatically convert a mandatory appeal into a discretionary petition for example, when an appeal is not filed within a specified time limit. A more comprehensive description of each appellate court's subject matter jurisdiction can be found in Appellate Court Procedures, 1998. Trial Courts The rectangle representing each trial court also lists the applicable Court Statistics Project case types. These include civil, domestic relations, criminal, traffic/other violation, and juvenile. If a case type is simply listed, the court system shares jurisdiction over it with other courts. The presence of exclusive jurisdiction is always explicitly stated. The absence of a case type from a list means that the court does not have that subject matter jurisdiction. The dollar amount jurisdiction is shown when there is an upper or a lower limit to the cases that can be filed in a court. A dollar limit is not listed if a court does not have a minimum or maximum dollar amount jurisdiction for general civil cases. In criminal cases, jurisdiction is distinguished between "felony," which means the court can try a felony case to verdict and sentencing, and "preliminary hearings," which applies to those limited jurisdiction courts that can conduct preliminary hearings that bind a defendant over for trial in a higher court. Trial courts can have what is termed incidental appellate jurisdiction. The presence of such jurisdiction over the decisions of other courts is noted in the list of case types as either "civil appeals," "criminal appeals," or "administrative agency appeals." A trial court that hears appeals directly from an administrative agency has an "A" in the upper-right corner of the rectangle. For each trial court, the chart states the authorized number of judges and whether the court can impanel a jury. The rectangle representing the court also indicates the number of districts, divisions, or circuits into which the court system is divided. These subdivisions are stated using the court system's own terminology. The descriptions, therefore, are not standardized across states or court systems. Some trial courts are totally funded from local sources; others receive some form of State funds. Locally funded court systems are drawn with broken lines. A solid line indicates that some or all of the funding is derived from State funds. Symbols and Abbreviations An "A" in the upper-right corner of a rectangle, representing either an appellate court or a trial court, indicates that the court receives appeals directly from the decision of an administrative agency. If "administrative agency appeals" is listed as a case type, the court hears appeals from decisions of another court on an administrative agency's actions. It is possible for a court to have both an "A" designation and to have "administrative agency appeals" listed as a case type. Such a court hears appeals directly from an administrative agency ("A") and has appellate jurisdiction over the decision of a lower court that has already reviewed the decision of the administrative agency. The number of justices or judges is sometimes stated as "FTE." This represents "full-time equivalent" authorized judicial positions. "DWI/DUI" stands for "driving while intoxicated/driving under the influence." The dollar amount jurisdiction for civil cases is indicated in parentheses with a dollar sign. Where the small claims dollar amount jurisdiction is different, it is noted. The court structure charts are convenient summaries. They do not substitute for the detailed descriptive material contained in the 47 tables of State Court Organization 2004. Moreover, they are based on the Court Statistics Project's terminology and categories. This means that a state may have established courts that are not included in these charts. Some states have courts of special jurisdiction to receive complaints on matters that are more typically directed to administrative boards and agencies. Since these courts adjudicate matters that do not fall within the Court Statistics Project case types, they are not included in the charts. The existence of such courts, however, is recognized in a footnote to the state's court structure chart. Finally, the Court Statistics Project updates court structure charts in its annual State Court Caseload Statistics series. For current court structure information, access http://www.ncsconline.org/D_ Research/csp/CSP_Main_Page.html. End of file 08/30/06 ih