SCOTUSblog » Academic Round-up

Friday, September 2, 2011

If the Courts Don't Function, Do we Have a Government?

I was called to jury duty last week, and while my "service" consisted of reporting to a jury room, offering to come back the next day and then being excused, I learned a lot.

The Commissioner began our day by explaining that the State of New York, because it had no money, had restricted the way the court system could operate. In order to avoid paying court personnel, like court reporters, any overtime at all, the state's Chief Judge, Jonathan Lippman, ordered that courts operate under strict time limits: lunch must start exactly on time and court must end no later than 4:30. Furthermore, the position of family court judge was never filled when the last judge retired. As a result, Judge Stephen Greller must fill two roles in about half the time. In the morning he clears his "part" of routine pleas and motions, handles family court issues and deals with administrative tasks. Then he can preside over criminal matters for exactly three hours a day.

As the Dutchess County Commissioner (whose name, oddly enough, had disappeared from the website within the last 24 hours) pointed out to us in the room, one consequence of all these cuts is that the wheels of the system grind even more slowly than usual. Jurors only have to work half days, but for twice as long. Delays in adjudication mean that some people have to settle civil cases when they ought to go before a judge. Criminal defendants must wait longer.

During the Civil War, in a case called Ex Parte Milligan, the US Supreme Court ruled that government could be considered in tact so long as the courts were open for business. If the courts could not function, civil government effectively did not exist and martial law could be imposed. What does it say about the state of New York that our courts are operating at half steam? Might it be worth funding them fully so we could say, in all honesty, that we do have a functioning government?

No comments: