Judges Often OK Oral Bids to Delay Trials in Spite of Law

Los Angeles Superior Court judges routinely fail to enforce a state law that requires attorneys in criminal cases to make written requests for most postponements, a survey by the court has found.

Judges granted 22,700 continuances in a two-month period this year but required written requests in fewer than 500 of them, the survey found.

Written notice has been a legal requirement since 1977 and is aimed at discouraging delays. The law requires that a lawyer seeking a postponement of a hearing or trial give written notice to his adversary and to the court at least two days in advance. Unless they can show a good reason for not giving notice, lawyers may be fined up to $1,000.

The survey also found only 84 written requests for continuances out of 6,100 granted to a specific group of defendants--664 indigents in jail for more than six months whose lawyers were paid for by taxpayers.

The survey was conducted at the order of the county Board of Supervisors and cost about $450,000, Superior Court administrator Frank S. Zolin said. The survey takers spent about 20,000 hours going through court records by hand.

The supervisors ordered the survey, which produced no surprises, to check on an agreement they made with the Superior Court last fall.

To avoid federal court penalties for jail overcrowding, the supervisors had insisted that the judges enforce the written-request provision and make other substantial procedural changes to reduce the time it takes to settle criminal cases. The board in turn promised to spend $25 million more annually on the courts.

Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge Richard P. Byrne said Monday that the court committed itself to trying to reduce the number of continuances in criminal cases, but whether the written notice provision is complied with “is really a matter that is properly before each judge who is hearing a criminal case. . . . Each one of the judges is an independent elected official.” He said the presiding judge cannot tell them what to do.

Oral Motions Permissible

The law states that oral motions are permissible but that the court has to hold a hearing on them and, if it grants a continuance, state its reason in the record. The survey takers found records of fewer than 500 hearings. Byrne said he believes most judges dispense with the written-notice requirement because “they feel that the requirement of a piece of paper isn’t going to make any difference as to whether a continuance is granted.”

Byrne said he believes there are relatively few cases in which judges request postponements. But, he said, “I’m sure that happens on a daily basis. . . . We need more courts.”

Superior Court supervising criminal Judge David A. Horowitz said he believes judges are granting continuances only for good reasons such as attorneys becoming ill or witnesses becoming unavailable.

He also said he believes the written-notice provision can properly be waived if neither side objects.