State High Court, in Move to Trim Backlog, Curtails Oral Arguments

In an unusual move to speed decisions in pending cases, the state Supreme Court for a second straight month has sharply reduced the number of cases it will hear in oral argument.

The action, made public Friday, gives the justices more time to complete work on the dozens of cases that have been argued but not yet decided--including some widely watched civil disputes that have been pending for a year or more.

In a closely related development, a final agreement was reported near in a novel lawsuit that had sought to force the justices to strictly adhere to a state constitutional provision requiring judges to decide cases within 90 days after they are “submitted” or lose their salaries until they do.

A court spokeswoman declined to comment on reports that the justices have decided to adhere to the 90-day rule or to impose other deadlines on themselves to help speed pending cases. But an announcement on settlement of the suit could come as early as next week, she said.

Ordinarily, the justices hear arguments in up to 20 or more cases in monthly hearings held throughout the year in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Fewer cases are heard in the twice-yearly sessions held in Sacramento.

5 Cases in 2 Days

But earlier this month, the court heard only five cases in a two-day session in San Francisco. One case involved the validity of a sub-minimum wage for tipped workers, another the death sentence imposed on a convicted killer and the three others involved relatively minor attorney disciplinary matters.

And in a calendar released Friday, the justices said they will hear only six cases when the court convenes in Los Angeles on Oct. 5 and 6. One case concerns the firing of a police officer during a 1980 bookmaking investigation; the other five are lawyer discipline matters.

Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas declined through a spokeswoman to comment on the abbreviated calendar, except to say that it will enable the court to “focus on pending cases.”

The spokeswoman, Lynn Holton, said that Lucas plans to elaborate on the court’s backlog problem during an appearance before the annual convention of the State Bar in Monterey on Sept. 25.

Holton said also that state officials are “getting close” to announcement of an agreement in an unusual suit brought in San Francisco Superior Court by Malibu attorney Stanley Sapiro in behalf of a client seeking high court adherence to the 90-day deadline for deciding cases.

Lower Courts Comply

Lower courts in California ordinarily abide by the rule, issuing decisions within 90 days after a case is argued and final briefs are filed.

But the justices, because of the size and complexity of their workload, have sidestepped the rule by determining that a case has not been “submitted” until they are virtually ready to issue a decision. The court avoids a similar 150-day limit in capital cases by issuing a statement, as authorized by law, explaining why the deadline could not be met.

In the wake of the Friday’s action, legal authorities continued to express concern over the justices’ heavy workload and its impact on the court system.

San Mateo Superior Judge V. Gene McDonald, president of the California Judges Assn., said the justices have little choice but to take steps to speed the flow of decisions. Trial judges, he noted, are heavily dependent on the state’s highest court for rulings that will provide them guidance on important issues.

“They’ve got to get this thing under control or it’s going to eat us all alive,” McDonald said. “The longer an issue is before the court, the more uncertainty is built into our level of the judicial system. We can end up making a whole lot of mistakes and not realize it.”

Praises Court’s Effort

Colin W. Wied of San Diego, president-elect of the State Bar, credited the high court for moving toward its own “fast-track” system for deciding cases.

“In this sense, the court is probably its own biggest critic,” Wied said. “It’s clear that the court is faced with a real troublesome backlog and wants to begin moving its cases.”

Capital cases come to the court on automatic appeal and make up about half of its pending caseload. When Lucas was sworn into office in February, 1987, succeeding Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird, there were 171 capital appeals awaiting action. Since then, the court has decided 52 capital cases, upholding the death penalty 38 times. But by recent count, as death verdicts continue to stream into the court, there now 174 capital cases awaiting a decision.

In recent months, legal authorities have raised fears that important civil cases may be neglected as the court concentrates on reducing its capital workload.

For example, cases that could further define the rights of fired employees and settle questions about the scope of state antitrust law remain undecided 17 months after they were argued.

Further Delays Implied

And while curtailed calendars will help speed decisions in cases already argued, they likely also will mean further delay in dozens of cases in which the court has granted review but not yet heard argument.