2010 Annual Director's Report - Judicial Discipline Reform

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2010 Judicial Business 25 Percent Change in Criminal Case Filings, by District Twelve-Month Periods Ending September 30, 2009 - 2010 Percent Change in Criminal Filings Decreased More Than 10% Decreased 10% or Less or No Change Increased Less Than 10% Increased 10% to 25% Increased More Than 25%
26 Adminstrative Office of the United States Courts grown 14 percent. Both pending cases and the number of defendants in pending cases have exceeded filings and terminations of cases and defendants since 2005. Immigration cases have soared 72 percent over the last five years and in 2010 constituted 36 percent of criminal cases filed compared to 25 percent in 2006. This year, the number of fraud defendants was the highest since 2002, and fraud cases constituted 12 percent of criminal filings compared to 11 percent in 2006. Table 5 and the D series of the appendix tables contain detailed data on the criminal caseload by district. Trials Completed The number of civil and criminal trials completed in the U.S. district courts by active and senior Article III judges rose 3 percent to 13,805 (up 445 trials). Increases occurred both in civil nonjury trials and in criminal nonjury trials. For statistical purposes, district court trials include proceedings resulting in jury verdicts and other final judgments by the courts, as well as other contested hearings at which evidence is presented. Total civil trials grew 1 percent to 5,360 as 41 of the 94 district courts reported higher numbers of civil trials. Civil nonjury trials increased 1 percent to 3,206, with 44 district courts reporting higher numbers of these trials. Civil jury trials rose 1 percent to 2,154 as 37 district courts reported growth in these trials. Total criminal trials increased 5 percent to 8,445 (up 394 trials) as 43 districts reported more criminal trials. Criminal nonjury trials climbed 10 percent (up 518 trials), with 50 districts reporting more trial activity. Criminal jury trials declined 4 percent (down 124 trials), with 41 districts reporting less trial activity. Article III judges accepted guilty pleas from 78,401 felony defendants. From 2006 to 2010, the number of guilty pleas accepted by judges grew 12 percent (up 8,544 pleas) as more felony defendants accepted plea agreements to avoid going to trial. Trials lasting four days or longer dropped 7 percent to 2,571 this year and have fallen 11 percent since 2006. Although overall trials rose 9 percent in the past five years as criminal trials climbed 13 percent, most of the criminal trials involved cases addressing immigration (which are usually terminated quickly), drugs, and weapons and firearms. Since 2006, civil trials have increased 5 percent. In addition to trials conducted by active and senior Article III judges, 6,602 trials were conducted by magistrate judges, a rise of 2 percent (up 110 trials). These comprised 2,214 petty offense trials, 504 civil consent trials, 152 misdemeanor trials, and 3,732 evidentiary hearings. Judges not only conduct trials, but also perform many other case-related functions, including those related to courtroom activity, research and opinion drafting for motions for summary judgment and other dispositive motions, hearings on sentencing issues, Daubert hearings on expert witnesses, evidentiary hearings in pro se prisoner and other cases, supervised release and probation revocation hearings, alternative dispute resolution activities, and settlements. This year, 46 districts operated mediation and arbitration programs that involved more than 22,500 civil cases. Appendix Tables C-7, C-8, C-10, T-1, and T-2 provide additional data on civil and criminal trials conducted by Article III judges. Appendix Tables M-1 through M-5 provide data on matters handled by magistrate judges. Weighted Filings per Authorized Judgeship Weighted filings (i.e., the sum of all weights assigned to civil cases and criminal defendants) per authorized judgeship rose 2 percent to 490 (up 10 filings) from the previous year. Weighted civil filings per judgeship increased 2 percent to 372, compared to 363 one year ago. Criminal weighted filings per judgeship remained relatively stable, rising by less than 1 percent to 113. Weighted filings statistics account for the different amounts of time district judges take to resolve various types of civil and criminal actions. The Federal Judiciary has employed techniques for assigning weights to cases since 1946. Under the system approved in 2004, the average civil cases or criminal defendants each receive a weight of approximately 1.0. For more time-consuming cases,
Page 2 and 3: Judicial Business of the United Sta
Page 4 and 5: 2010 Judicial Business 3 Table of C
Page 6 and 7: 2010 Judicial Business 5 Table S-19
Page 8 and 9: 2010 Judicial Business 7 Table C-3.
Page 10 and 11: 2010 Judicial Business 9 Table E-3.
Page 12 and 13: 2010 Judicial Business 11 Table M-2
Page 14 and 15: 2010 Judicial Business 13 U.S. Bank
Page 16 and 17: 2010 Judicial Business 15 Judicial
Page 18 and 19: 2010 Judicial Business 17 agency ap
Page 20 and 21: 2010 Judicial Business 19 case fili
Page 22 and 23: 2010 Judicial Business 21 percent r
Page 24 and 25: 2010 Judicial Business 23 pace this
Page 28 and 29: 2010 Judicial Business 27 Weighted
Page 30 and 31: 2010 Judicial Business 29 coordinat
Page 32 and 33: 2010 Judicial Business 31 Percent C
Page 34 and 35: 2010 Judicial Business 33 proceedin
Page 36 and 37: 2010 Judicial Business 35 those cas
Page 38 and 39: 2010 Judicial Business 37 continued
Page 40 and 41: 2010 Judicial Business 39 and 12 by
Page 42 and 43: 2010 Judicial Business 41 trate jud
Page 44 and 45: Supplemental Tables Judicial Busine
Page 46 and 47: 45 Table S-2. U.S. Courts of Appeal
Page 52 and 53: 51 Table S-8. U.S. District Courts
Page 54 and 55: 53 Table S-8. (September 30, 2010
Page 64 and 65: 63 Table S-13. Federal Probation Sy
Page 68 and 69: 67 Table S-17. Matters Disposed of
Page 70 and 71: 69 Table S-18. Three-Judge District
Page 74 and 75: 73 Table S-20. Cumulative Summary o
Page 76 and 77:
75 Table S-22. Report of Action Tak
Page 78 and 79:
77 Table S-22. (September 30, 2010
Page 80 and 81:
79 Table S-23. (September 30, 2010
Page 82 and 83:
Appendix Tables Judicial Business o
Page 84 and 85:
83 Table B. U.S. Courts of Appeals
Page 86 and 87:
85 Table B-1. (September 30, 2010
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
89 Table B-1A. (September 30, 2010
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
93 Table B-2. Petitions for Review
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
105 Table B-4. U.S. Courts of Appea
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
109 Table B-4C. U.S. Courts of Appe
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
115 Table B-5A. U.S. Courts of Appe
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
133 Table B-10. U.S. Bankruptcy App
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
139 Table C. (September 30, 2010—
Page 142 and 143:
141 Table C-1. U.S. District Courts
Page 144 and 145:
143 Table C-1. (September 30, 2010
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
147 Table C-2A. U.S. District Court
Page 150 and 151:
149 Table C-2A. (September 30, 2010
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
163 Table C-3B. (September 30, 2010
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
187 Table C-10. U.S. District Court
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
205 Table D. Cases (September 30, 2
Page 208 and 209:
207 Table D. Defendants U.S. Distri
Page 210 and 211:
209 Table D. Defendants (September
Page 212 and 213:
211 Table D-1. Cases (September 30,
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
217 Table D-1. Defendants (Septembe
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
243 Table D-4. (September 30, 2010
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
255 Table D-7. U.S. District Courts
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
277 Table D-13. Cases U.S. District
Page 280 and 281:
279 Table E-1. Federal Probation Sy
Page 282 and 283:
281 Table E-1. (September 30, 2010
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
285 Table E-2. Federal Probation Sy
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
289 Table E-3. (Continued—Septemb
Page 292 and 293:
291 Table E-7A. U.S. District Court
Page 294 and 295:
293 Table F. (September 30, 2010—
Page 296 and 297:
295 Table F-2. U.S. Bankruptcy Cour
Page 298 and 299:
297 Table F-2. (September 30, 2010
Page 300 and 301:
299 Table F-8. U.S. Bankruptcy Cour
Page 302 and 303:
301 Table F-8. (September 30, 2010
Page 304 and 305:
303 Table G-2A. U.S. Court of Feder
Page 306 and 307:
305 Table H-1. U.S. District Courts
Page 308 and 309:
307 Table H-1. (September 30, 2010
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
315 Table H-3A. (September 30, 2010
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
329 Table H-14. U.S. District Court
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
333 Table H-14A. (September 30, 201
Page 336 and 337:
335 Table J-1. U.S. District Courts
Page 338 and 339:
337 Table J-1. (September 30, 2010
Page 340 and 341:
339 Table J-2. (September 30, 2010
Page 342 and 343:
341 Table K-1. Federal Defender Org
Page 344 and 345:
343 Table K-1. (September 30, 2010
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
355 Table M-1. U.S. District Courts
Page 358 and 359:
357 Table M-1. (September 30, 2010
Page 360 and 361:
359 Table M-1A. (September 30, 2010
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
379 Table M-4B. U.S. District Court
Page 382 and 383:
381 Table M-4B. (September 30, 2010
Page 384 and 385:
383 Table M-4C. (September 30, 2010
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Page 390 and 391:
389 Table T-1. (September 30, 2010
Page 392 and 393:
391 Table T-2. U.S. District Courts
Page 394 and 395:
393 Table T-2. (September 30, 2010
Page 396 and 397:
395 Table V-1. (September 30, 2010
Page 398 and 399:
Page 400 and 401:
Page 402 and 403:
Page 404 and 405:
Page 406 and 407:
Page 408 and 409:
Page 410 and 411:
409 Table X-1A. U.S. District Court
Page 412 and 413:
411 Table X-1A. (September 30, 2010
show all

2010 Annual Director's Report - Judicial Discipline Reform

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?