Ways Not to Solve Court Crunch : Justice: More space is needed, not more studies that will only prove once again the ineffectiveness of night courts.

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors established a citizens’s committee Wednesday to study, once again, the feasibility of night court and shared courtrooms. The board has chosen to ignore studies financed at considerable expense by prior boards that concluded that night court is not a cost-effective approach for reducing the need for building more courts.

A 1978 Omni Group study for planning courts in the East County and South Bay regional centers contained an elaborate cost analysis of whether night-court sessions could economically reduce the total number of courtrooms needed.

The comprehensive study concluded that it would take three night courts operating four nights a week to accomplish the work of one new courtroom operating on normal daytime hours. And the cost of operating the three night shifts would be almost five times the $47,000 annually that would be saved by not building one new courtroom.

The subject was re-analyzed in a 1985 county study conducted by Geisler Smith Associates. The consultants concluded that night court “is not cost effective as an approach to reducing the need for construction,” and the “implementation of shared courtrooms is not in the interest of the court or the county.” The study discussed purely economic considerations as well as logistical and procedural problems typically associated with the issues.

Among other data, the study calculated hourly court personnel costs and the comparative costs of operating night courts, newly constructed courts and new courtrooms built in existing buildings.

They found that the costs for night courts were $17 an hour more per courtroom than for day sessions contrasted with $10.66 additional per hour for courtrooms in new courthouses and $4 additional per hour for additional court space constructed in existing buildings.

Choosing night court is thus the most expensive way possible to meet court space needs, with nothing to show for the money spent. It is an economic luxury masquerading as the easy way out of replacing seriously deteriorated facilities, which do not provide the physical layout needed for maximum court efficiencies.

This is not to say that night court has no place in the justice system. Despite the higher costs of a second shift, night court is appropriate for those few high volume calendars that do not involve prosecution and defense lawyers, expert witnesses, juries and the increased security problems represented by the transfer of prisoners from distant locations. Municipal Court small claims and traffic cases fit the criteria and are, in fact, offered in San Diego for public convenience. The San Diego Municipal Court offers this service at a 14% loss in productivity despite the fact that night traffic court is often under-utilized by the public.

San Diego Superior Court, with its serious felony caseloads, obviously does not meet the night court criteria.

Los Angeles County spent four years doggedly pursuing the hope, against all evidence, that night court could reduce the need for new Superior Court construction. The Los Angeles night court pilot project placed six judges in three courtrooms with a devastating 15% loss in productivity per court. The night courts receive only the shorter, simpler cases, and still the split courts fail to meet state Judicial Council efficiency standards. One reason is the significant time lost in setting up and breaking down exhibits each day, for each shift, that would normally remain undisturbed in court throughout a trial. Another is the sharing of chambers, which reduces judges’ trial time. The six judges produce the same amount of work as five regular court judges because they work shorter hours. And the $1 million in productivity lost over 18 months is not the worst part. The real tragedy is that the taxpayers’ lost million could more than pay the annual debt service, set at $300,000 per courtroom, for two new courts.

Substantial logistical problems are experienced with night court, including difficulty in convincing citizens who work all day that they must leave their families and pay close attention to night trials. The lack of night child care, the dangers associated with parking downtown at night, and the absence of necessary personnel from other agencies seriously limits the kinds and types of cases that can be heard at night. Night court skims off the shorter easier cases and bogs down day court with long difficult matters and a more inflexible calendar. Attorneys resist assignments to both day and night court, showing up late more often in night courts and peremptorily challenging judges to avoid night appearances before the next morning’s day cases.

But that is Los Angeles, and this is San Diego. I do not for a moment believe that the county’s new task force will lead San Diego into the dead end where Los Angeles now finds itself.

San Diego Superior Court has worked diligently, despite its space handicaps, to computerize systems, alter local court rules, and change procedures to advance more cases through the system faster with existing resources. As the first court in the state to adopt fast-track civil rules, we have succeeded in reducing the average length of trial from 11 days to 4.2 days. We now dispose of 65% of civil filings within 12 months and 85% within 18 months, but demand for court space has not abated.

The culprit, as we all know, is the 80% increase in criminal cases in the past five years, significantly above the 55% state average. We have instituted a probation revocation court to expedite the transfer of repeat offenders to prison, but new violators take their place. The danger is that criminal cases will eventually eliminate civil matters from the calendars.

San Diego County Superior Court has now 77 judges and commissioners scattered among six locations. New judges are working out of temporary quarters in the County Administration Center, National University and the Ramona Municipal Court. Existing facilities are bulging at the seams with clerks, court reporters, judges and exhibits and files stocked in crowded and terribly under-maintenanced spaces. Case projections adopted by the Board of Supervisors acknowledge 23 more Superior Court judges will be needed in just five years. Where will they sit?

I urge the citizen’s committee to take a close look at the existing inhumane court conditions and confront the real issue we are facing--a need for permanent courtrooms. I have proposed to the city and county a joint effort to work creatively on financing for a new downtown court. Both the mayor and the chairman of the board have expressed an interest in this effort.

The courts and the community face a terrible problem with no easy solution. Let us plan now for the court facilities necessary to build on our gains and make the justice system even more efficient.

DR, Steve Lopez