ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> JURIST - The Paper Chase

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal News

: JURIST - The Paper Chase

California Supreme Court upholds dismissal of criminal cases over judge shortage

By Maureen Cosgrove

ADVERTISEMENTS
Photo source or description
[JURIST] The California Supreme Court [official website] on Monday upheld [opinion, PDF] the dismissal of 18 criminal cases in Riverside County because there were not enough judges available to hear the cases. The Superior Court of Riverside County, a California state trial court, has been heavily burdened [RCBRTF report, PDF] with criminal cases in recent years, with nearly 25 percent of jail inmates awaiting trial for over a year, and as many as 32 inmates awaiting trial for more than four years. During the criminal proceedings at issue, the lower court diverted many of its resources, including judges and courtrooms, to the criminal case docket at the expense of pending civil trials, but the reallocation of resources failed to reduce the criminal caseload. After the defendants were told that no courts or judges were available for each of their scheduled trial dates, the defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Section 1382 of the California Penal Code [text], California's speedy trial statute. The statute requires that felony cases be brought to trial within 60 days of arraignment. Chief Justice Ronald George addressed the lower court's reasoning:
Here, the trial court reasonably could find that the lack of a number of judges sufficient to timely try the present case (and the 17 other criminal cases that were dismissed at the same time in the Riverside Superior Court) was fairly attributable to the state's failure, over a considerable period of time, to provide a number of judges sufficient to meet the needs of Riverside County's rapidly growing population and caseload - a circumstance fairly attributable to the fault or neglect of the state.
The court also concluded that "good cause" to continue the trials, 16 misdemeanor cases and two felony cases, at a later date did not exist under the state's penal code.

California has employed a number of money-saving tactics to reduce the state's $20.7 billion budget deficit [California LAO report]. In September 2009, California courts implemented monthly closures [JURIST report] to ease the budget crisis. California Code 68070 [text] authorizes closure of the courts, "for the transaction of judicial business for one day per month and may adopt rules of court to implement this section." California court employees rallied [Marketplace report] in protest of the closures, arguing that court closures harm the public. George has also voiced similar concerns [SDNN report] about the court closures.

Full post as published by JURIST - The Paper Chase on October 26, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0142 secs (new cache)