Sunday, March 16, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.
Although the Clark County District Court has gone to the state Legislature to ask for more judges, statistics don't indicate that the court is in trouble of overload.
In fact, the 16 judges actually presided over fewer trials in 1996 than they did the year before. Only District Judge Sally Loehrer handled more than 20 trials.
District Judge Joseph Pav-likowski had the fewest at 10 and Judges Jeff Sobel and Stephen Huffaker conducted 11 each.
Many in the court system, even some judges, admit there is room for improvement. But they also say that the stagnant number of jury trials doesn't mean the need for more judges isn't there. The court calendars get bigger every year and the cases that actually make it to a jury trial are only the nastiest ones.
It seems that every week there is at least one murder trial and one week last year there were four. Those cases -- particularly if there is the possibility of the death penalty -- take longer than other trials.
The rest, said District Attorney Stewart Bell, are destined to be plea bargained.
There were 243 trials in 1996 -- a year when half the judges were preoccupied by contested elections -- compared with 252 the year before.
Of the 243 trials, 98 involved civil cases and 145 were criminal.
But the judges that handle civil and criminal cases spent more days hearing trials in 1996 than the preceding year -- 1,281 to 1,108.
Chief District Judge Myron Leavitt explained that the length of a trial can vary from a couple of days to several weeks and 1996 saw several multi-week trials -- two lasting nearly six weeks.
Leavitt conceded that the judges probably should be conducting more trials and said it's not unreasonable to expect that judges could hold two trials a month. Even considering vacations, training and seminars, that would mean the jury trial number should be closer to 350 than 250.
But he cautioned that because of the "enormous expenses" incurred at jury trials, judges should always first try to settle cases either by promoting plea bargains or urging settlements in civil cases.
At legislative hearings in mid-February, Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, questioned whether judges in Las Vegas are using all the time available to them.
District Judge Gene Porter said that while judges differ in how they handle their caseloads, "for the most part, everybody is working as hard as they can."
"You can't always tell by stats what a judge is doing," Bell added.
Yet one attorney, who asked not to be identified, said "the backlog in the judicial system could be reduced if judges managed their time better and worked a full 40-hour week."
"It is common knowledge in the legal community that certain judges do whatever they can to avoid trials through continuances, forced resolutions or avoidance," the lawyer charged.
He advocated that the Nevada Supreme Court install a strong chief judge system to provide some supervision for the judges who are independently elected officials and responsible, at this point, only to the voters.
He is not the only one to endorse a system that would give a presiding judge the authority to direct and supervise other judges.
Bell said a strong chief judge "that would hold the system and all players accountable definitely is in the public interest."
"A strong chief judge model with the ability to move things around and look at the court as a whole might allow us to use the system and judges more efficiently," said private attorney Kathleen England. "Ours is a system of independent fiefdoms."
Peter LaPorta, who heads the state public defender's office in Clark County, said a strong chief system might be a way to assign trials to judges who have open court dates.
A strong chief judge system would have to be enacted by the Nevada Supreme Court, which has administrative and supervisory authority over all lower courts.
The judges themselves understand that the growing judicial system in Clark County needs to be better organized and more efficient.
They have voted to create a specialized court system with six judges handling civil cases and eight judges doing nothing but criminal cases. At its administrative meeting Wednesday, the Nevada Supreme Court approved the one-year pilot program set to go into effect July 1.
The approach -- used in many other court systems -- generally has drawn cautious praise from civil and criminal attorneys.
"I like a judge that likes to do what I do -- civil law," said attorney Bert Brown. "And I think the split system will increase the number of jury trials."
Bell said it could increase by 40 percent the ability of the system to process and try criminal defendants.
Under the system, Leavitt and District Judge Jack Lehman would not have regular civil or criminal case calendars but would help out the other judges when necessary.
Leavitt, as chief judge, handles administrative duties and takes overflow trials. Lehman presides over the ever-expanding Drug Court, as he has for the past four years, but also takes overflow trials.
Leavitt noted that while it is anticipated the specialization system will result in more trials being held, "we have no way of knowing."
Although Leavitt holds the title of chief judge, he has no power over his fellow judges as some -- including a couple of Supreme Court justices -- are advocating to provide accountability.
Rookie Supreme Court Justice Bill Maupin said he is willing to look at any system that would increase the efficiency of the courts.
In 1994, the Supreme Court Workload Assessment Commission -- the so-called Rose Commission -- strongly recommended that in the larger courts the chief judges be given the power to supervise other judges.
As it is, judges have the right and responsibility to handle their own caseloads as they see fit and come and go as they please.
In response to Buckley, Porter said that when trials are done, "it doesn't mean we sit around with nothing to do."
"The perception that judges aren't working hard is a myth," said civil attorney Dan Polsenberg.
But with no supervisory system in place and with the lack of a centralized records system, it is not clear how judges spend their time or process their cases.
The number of jury trials is one of the few statistics available because it is compiled by the county's Jury Services Division.
Statistics not kept include:
* Nonjury "bench trials" that can take almost as much time as jury trials but are decided by the judge. Bench trials generally are confined to civil cases and are extremely rare in the criminal arena.
* The amount of time spent conducting arraignments, passing sentences and deciding pretrial issues. This can vary from an hour or so to half a day, depending on the judge, the calendar and the types of cases.
* Days spent off the job -- a statistic that has never been compiled and something that judges have resisted being tracked, according to courthouse insiders.
Similar problems exist at the Family Court where a $75,000 study is under way.
Florida consultant Dan Wylie has been frustrated in his efforts because there are no computer programs in place to track the information that would let him evaluate the functions of the court that has drawn harsh criticism from the legal community and citizens at large.
The gap in uniform record-keeping in all courts is a problem recognized two years ago by the Rose Commission, which recommended a centralized records system for the judiciary.
Although the jury trial statistics are one indicator of a judge's performance, some say they are not a good barometer by themselves for judging a judge.
"Any inference drawn from jury trial statistics is woefully uninformed," said attorney Tom Pitaro. "I don't think you can reach a conclusion that a good judge has high or low trial stats."
"We should have a resolution system rather than a trial system," said veteran criminal defense attorney Charles Waterman.
Bell said there has always been a division in the judiciary between judges who try to push cases to settlement or plea bargain and those who are more than willing to go to trial if lawyers aren't able to resolve the cases.
Many attorneys, however, say that judges should push cases to the point of trial because that is what finally forces resolution.
"The impetus to settle increases with imminent trial dates," England said. "So if judges schedule more trials ..."
But in criminal cases, some deputy district attorneys have complained that some judges force plea bargains by delaying trials to the point where prosecutors have to negotiate cases at bargain basement rates.
"If we can't get to trial, our bargaining position is impaired," Bell said.
Leavitt said even if judges increase the number of trials they hold, there still is a need for more judges, although he conceded it is unlikely the Legislature will grant the three civil-criminal judges and three Family Court judges being requested.
Bell agreed that "more judges are absolutely necessary."
"Statistically we have a low number of judges," he said. "If our judges had the same caseloads as Washoe County judges, we would have 33 judges."
Bell's office, in reality, doesn't rely on the judges to process criminal cases. That is done through plea bargains.
About 8,000 felony cases were filed last year, Bell said, and only 145 were resolved by trial.
To take every criminal case to trial would require more than 500 judges and the $9.3 million budget for civil and criminal courts would swell to nearly $280 million annually.
archive
