Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 2005

              2005 Report
of the
Arizona
Judiciary
Message from Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch
On behalf of the Arizona Judicial Branch, it is my
pleasure to present our 2005 Annual Report.
This online document presents an overview of the
accomplishments of our court system. The progress made
by the court system and its components can be attributed
to the hard work and professional commitment of the
many court offi cers, employees, and citizen volunteers
statewide.
During the past decade, we have accomplished much
through our sustained efforts. We have applied technology
to become more effi cient. We have established specialty
courts to address critical quality of life issues such as drugs,
mental health, and domestic violence. By streamlining the
criminal justice system, we have hastened the delivery
of justice to defendants and victims of crime throughout
the state. Arizona’s innovative jury practices serve as a
model for courts across the nation. Our statewide efforts
also have assisted children and families. In recent years,
we adopted the model court program, which assures
more rapid permanent placement of dependent children.
We completed long overdue upgrades of our juvenile
detention facilities, and currently we are reengineering
our family courts to make them easier for everyone to
use.
These few examples illustrate how proactive and
innovative programs can improve our justice system,
and I am sincerely proud of our system’s tradition of
seeking improvement. Over many years and through the
dedication and efforts of many, Arizona has developed a
very good court system, one of which we should all be
proud. But together, we can make it even better. Through
teamwork and continued commitment to make our system
work for those who depend upon the courts, we can make
our system truly great.
The priorities outlined in our Strategic Agenda, which
features the theme, “Good to Great,” refl ect our
commitment to making Arizona’s justice system the
best system possible. We can achieve this goal, however,
only through work and leadership on every level and
participation from communities and citizens throughout
Arizona.
The Five Goals of the “Good to Great” Strategic Agenda
include:
Goal 1: Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice
Goal 2: Protecting Children, Families, and Communities
Goal 3: Being Accountable
Goal 4: Improving Communication and Cooperation with
the Community, with Other Branches of Government, and
Within the Judicial Branch
Goal 5: Serving the Public by Improving the Legal
Profession
Our court has sought advice from and will continue to call
upon citizens in every part of our state to take an active
role in improving our justice system. Many have already
answered our call for assistance by offering feedback and
suggestions as we developed the Strategic Agenda. I am
grateful for your efforts and ask that you continue to offer
input and support as we implement the Agenda.
I look forward to working with our many partners in
improving the delivery of justice, including the Arizona
Judicial Council, the Executive and Legislative Branches
of government, the State Bar of Arizona, and individual
citizens of Arizona. Together, we will take our system of
justice from very good to truly great.
Ruth V. McGregor
Chief Justice
2
Table of Contents
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch
MESSAGE FROM CHIEF JUSTICE RUTH V. MCGREGOR 2
MEET YOUR ARIZONA SUPREME COURT 5
HON. RUTH V. MCGREGOR 5
HON. REBECCA WHITE BERCH 7
HON. MICHAEL D. RYAN 8
HON. ANDREW D. HURWITZ 9
HON. SCOTT BALES 9
PROVIDING ACCESS TO SWIFT, FAIR JUSTICE 10
CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS REPLACEMENT 10
DUI CASE PROCESSING COMMITTEE 10
IMPROVING THE PROGRAM FARELY 11
VICTIMS' INITIATIVE 11
E-COURTS — WAY OF THE FUTURE 12
EXPANSION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT IN COURTS 12
ELECTRONIC CASE FILING 13
NEW FAMILY LAW RULES 14
COMMITTEE ON KEEPING THE RECORD 14
PROTECTING CHILDREN, FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES 15
BRIDGING COURT AND COMMUNITY 15
JOLTSAZ: AN INITIATIVE TO MODERNIZE 15
DOMESTIC RELATIONS ENHANCEMENTS 16
MARICOPA EFFORTS 16
CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE CALCULATOR 16
CASA 20TH ANNIVERSARY 16
CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT 16
NEW OFFENDER SCREENING TOOL 17
AZ SUPREME COURT HOSTS CONFERENCE 18
COUNTY DRUG COURT FUNDING OPPORTUNITY 18
APETS SURPASSES GOAL 19
EXPLORING IMPACT OF STATUTE CHANGE 19
PROGRESS IN CASE DISPOSITIONS 19
BEING ACCOUNTABLE 20
SETTING BENCHMARKS WITH COURTOOLS 20
RECORDS RETENTION 20
3
Table of Contents
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch
IMPROVING COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION WITH THE COMMUNITY,
OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, AND WITHIN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH
21
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES 'CONNECT WITH THE COMMUNITIES' 21
ASSISTING ARIZONA YOUTH REACH ADULTHOOD 21
JURY INNOVATIONS 21
ONE-DAY/ONE-TRIAL 21
LENGTHY TRIAL FUND 22
COURT LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE OF ARIZONA 22
COURT LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE 23
ONLINE APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATE HOLDERS 23
ENHANCEMENTS FOR NEW JUDGE ORIENTATION 23
SERVING THE PUBLIC BY IMPROVING THE LEGAL PROFESSION 24
APPLICATIONS FOR JUDICIAL POSITIONS ON THE WEB 24
JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMPLAINTS OPENED JAN. 1, 2006 24
SUPREME COURT RULES & COMMENTS ON THE WEB 25
IMPROVING ARBITRATION 25
COURT STATISTICS BY FISCAL YEAR 26
CASELOAD AND REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS 26
JUDICIARY ORGANIZATIONAL CHART 27
2005 CASE FILINGS BY COURT LEVEL 28
ARIZONA SUPREME COURT 29
COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION ONE 29
COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION TWO 29
ARIZONA TAX COURT 30
SUPERIOR COURT 30
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURTS 31
MUNICIPAL COURTS 31
JUVENILE COURT REFERRALS 32
JUVENILE PROBATION/CORRECTIONS 32
JUVENILE COURT PETITIONS 32
ADULT PROBATION 32
STATEWIDE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES SUMMARY 33
4
Meet Your Arizona Supreme Court
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 5
CHANGES AT THE TOP
Friday, June 10, 2005 was a historic day for Arizona.
On that date, Ruth V. McGregor became only the
second female Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme
Court and Rebecca White Berch became the Supreme
Court’s Vice Chief Justice. This transition took place due
to then Chief Justice Charles E. Jones’s retirement. Chief
Jones turned 70 and, by law, must retire from the Supreme
Court bench.
A NEW COURT MEMBER On June 14, 2005, Governor Napolitano appointed
Scott Bales to the Arizona Supreme Court.
During a formal Court ceremony on September 16, 2005
Justice Bales was sworn in as a member of the Court by
United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra
Day O’Connor.
HON. RUTH V. MCGREGOR
CHIEF JUSTICE
Ruth V. McGregor grew up in rural Iowa. Her formal
education began in a one room schoolhouse. She
later attended the University of Iowa, where she earned
bachelor’s and master’s degrees. McGregor was fi rst in
her class in the College of Liberal Arts as an undergraduate
and earned numerous honors, including Phi Beta Kappa.
Prior to attending law school, McGregor taught high
school speech and English, fi rst in Phoenix, Arizona, and
then in Selma, Alabama. During her time in Selma, the
school system was undergoing
the transition from a segregated
to an integrated system.
After returning to Arizona, Justice
McGregor entered law school at
Arizona State University, where
she would later graduate fi rst in
her class. While at Arizona State,
she served on the Editorial Board
of the Arizona State University
Law Journal. The Law Faculty named her as their
Outstanding Law Graduate in 1974. In 1998, the same
year she was appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court,
she earned a Master of Laws in the Judicial Process from
the University of Virginia.
After law school, McGregor practiced law for fi fteen
years with the Phoenix law fi rm of Fennemore Craig,
specializing in employment law. She was the fi rm’s fi rst
female hiring partner and the fi rst woman to serve on
the management committee. In 1981, she temporarily
left Phoenix to serve as a law clerk for Associate Justice
Sandra Day O’Connor during her fi rst term on the United
States Supreme Court.
Justice McGregor is a product of Arizona’s merit selection
process of judicial selection, and she was appointed by
Article continued on next page
Justice Bales
shakes hands
with United
States
Supreme
Court
Assocate
Justice
Sandra Day
O’Connor.
Photo
courtesy of
Stanton
Photography.
Meet Your Arizona Supreme Court
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 6
members of both political parties to the bench.
In 1989, Governor Rose Mofford, a Democrat,
appointed her to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
She served as the Chief Judge of Division One
from 1995 to 1997.
In her years on the Court of Appeals, Justice
McGregor recognized the importance of
administering the court’s caseload to assure
justice. She developed one of the nation’s fi rst
mediation programs for appellate courts and
reinvigorated the court’s expedited appeal
procedure. In addition, she worked with the
entire court to eliminate a substantial back-log
of cases.
In 1998, Governor Jane Dee Hull, a Republican,
appointed McGregor to Arizona’s highest state
court. At that time, no woman had served on
the court in over two decades. In June 2005,
Justice McGregor became Chief Justice of the
Arizona Supreme Court after serving three
years as Vice Chief Justice. Justice McGregor
is the second woman to serve as Chief Justice
in Arizona’s history; Lorna Lockwood, who
served as Arizona’s Chief Justice in 1965, was
the fi rst woman to serve as Chief Justice of a
state supreme court.
During Justice McGregor’s sixteen years in the
judicial branch, she has been active in a number
of different governance areas. She has been
active in legal and judicial education and serves
on the Board of Visitors for both of Arizona’s
state law schools. She not only frequently
visits the law schools, where she speaks with
students on substantive and practical issues, but
also travels to many law schools to judge moot
court competitions. On a national level, she is
currently serving as Vice-Chair of the Council
of the American Bar Association’s (ABA)
Section of Legal Education and Admissions to
the Bar. She has been a participating member
of the ABA’s Central European and Eurasian
Law Initiative since 1991, including two tours
in Lithuania to assist the Lithuanian parliament
in drafting a constitution and restructuring
the judicial system. In 1995, she helped
train members of Constitutional Court of the
Federation of Bosnia - Herzegovina.
Justice McGregor has also been a frequent
participant in and lecturer for the “We the
People” program and summer institute for
teachers sponsored by the Arizona Foundation
for Legal Services & Education. As Vice Chief
Justice, she helped reform new judge education
for limited jurisdiction judges. She also supports
educational efforts designed to maintain the
integrity of the courts through her activities
with the American Judicature Society and the
National Conference of Chief Justices.
Throughout her legal career, Justice McGregor
has taken an active role in professional
organizations, including those dedicated to
furthering the position of women. Locally, she
is a past President and former board member
of the Arizona Judges Association, and she is a
Founding Fellow of the Arizona Foundation for
Legal Services & Education. She is also a long
time member of the Arizona Women Lawyers
Association.
Justice McGregor’s national efforts include
service as a board member and offi cer of the
National Association of Women Judges. She
recently co-chaired a committee that developed
an educational program titled “Genome
Justice,” which explored the issues raised by
the advances in genetic knowledge, particularly
those that affect vulnerable populations.
Attorney ethics and discipline have always
been important to Justice McGregor. While
a practicing attorney, she was a member of
the Arizona Supreme Court’s Disciplinary
Commission. As a Court of Appeals judge,
she was a member of the Judicial Conduct
Commission. She lectures frequently about
ethical responsibilities to the public, legal, and
judicial communities.
Article continued on next page
Meet Your Arizona Supreme Court
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 7
During her years on the Arizona Supreme
Court, Justice McGregor has worked with the
other members of the Court and judicial system
to establish specialty courts that address critical
quality of life issues such as drugs, mental
health, and domestic violence. Together, the
judicial branch has streamlined the criminal
justice system and hastened the delivery of
justice to defendants and victims of crime
statewide. The Court also worked with other
members of the judicial system to establish
Arizona’s innovative jury practices which now
serve as a nationwide model.
Justice McGregor has taken a vital interest in
the court system’s technological needs and has
been a long time member of the Commission
on Technology, which sets technology policy
within the Arizona court system. She chaired
that Commission for the past six years. During
her time as Chair, the Commission completed
a statewide data network that allows the court
system access to a statewide data warehouse.
The warehouse includes a repository for
orders of protection. The Commission also
expanded the tax intercept program, established
cooperative programs with other justice
agencies, and vastly improved collections of
court fees, fi nes, and restitution payments.
In 2005, the American Judicature Society
(AJS) gave Chief Justice McGregor their
prestigious “Dwight D. Opperman” Award. The
AJS presents the Opperman Award annually
to a state court judge to recognize a career of
distinguished judicial service.
HON. REBECCA WHITE BERCH
VICE CHIEF JUSTICE
Rebecca White Berch was appointed to
the Arizona Supreme Court in March,
2002. Before her appointment to the Supreme
Court, she served the
State of Arizona in
several capacities, as
Solicitor General of
the State of Arizona, as
Special Counsel to the
Attorney General, as
First Assistant Attorney
General, and as a Court
of Appeals Judge.
Following graduation from law school in 1979,
Justice Berch practiced law in Phoenix. In
1986, she joined the faculty at Arizona State
University College of Law as the Director
of the Legal Writing Program, a position she
held until 1995. During her years at the law
school, Justice Berch earned a masters degree
in English and authored several law review
articles and magazine articles on legal writing,
two books, and two chapters for books. The
textbook she co-authored, "Introduction to
Legal Method And Process," is in its fourth
edition and is used in law schools throughout
the nation.
An active participant in the legal and social
communities of the State of Arizona, Justice
Berch has served as a judge pro tempore
of the Arizona Court of Appeals and the
Superior Court in Maricopa County, as chair
of the Commission on Technology, and as a
member of the Supreme Court's Committee
on Examinations, the Commission on Judicial
Article continued on next page
Chief Justice McGregor receives the Dwight D.
Opperman Award from Shirley Abrahamson, Chief
Justice of the state of Wisconsin. Photo courtesy of
the American Judicature Society.
Meet Your Arizona Supreme Court
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 8
Conduct, and the Judicial Ethics Advisory
Committee. She is also a member of Valley
Leadership and has served on the Board of
the Homeless Legal Assistance Project, among
other boards and committee memberships.
Justice Berch has remained active in legal
education, having served as Dean of the
Arizona Judicial College and as a member
of the Committee on Judicial Education and
Training. She maintains several other legal and
community involvements and continues to be a
frequent speaker at seminars on legal topics.
HON. MICHAEL D. RYAN
JUSTICE
Michael D. Ryan was appointed to the
Arizona Supreme Court in May 2002.
Before his appointment to the Supreme Court,
Justice Ryan served on
the Arizona Court of
Appeals, Division One
for more than fi ve years,
having been appointed
to that position in
September 1996. Before
his appointment to the
court of appeals, Justice
Ryan served as a Judge
of the Arizona Superior
Court for more than ten years. Before his
service as a judge, Justice Ryan was a deputy
county attorney with the Maricopa County
Attorney’s Offi ce for eight years. In that offi ce
he was assigned to the Major Felony Bureau
and later, he was selected as one of four trial
group managers for the offi ce and also served as
co-coordinator of the sex crimes unit.
Justice Ryan received his B.A. degree from St.
John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota
in 1967. After college he served in the United
States Marine Corps as an infantry platoon
commander from 1967 - 1969. He received a
medical retire ment because of wounds received
in combat in Vietnam, and was awarded two
Purple Hearts, and Bronze Star with a Combat
A “V” for heroism in combat.
He received his Juris Doctorate degree from
Arizona State University Law School in 1977.
Among the committees Justice Ryan serves or
has served on include the following. He served
as a member of the Board of Directors of the
Maricopa County Bar Association from 1997
to 2002, and also served as a member of the
board from 1987 to 1991. Since 1998, Justice
Ryan has been a member of the Maricopa
County Bar Association’s Task Force on the
Recruitment and Retention of Women and
Minority Lawyers. Justice Ryan also serves
on the State Bar Task Force on Persons with
Disabilities in the Legal Profession. He also
has volunteered as a judge for the Arizona High
School Mock Trial Program sponsored by the
Arizona Foundation for Legal Services and
Education for more than fi fteen years.
From 1974 through the present, Justice Ryan’s
wife and he have cared for more than 80 high
risk infants prior to their placement for adoption
or return to their birth parent or parents. In
2001, Justice Ryan received the Honorable
Henry S. Stevens Judge of the Year Award
from the Maricopa County Bar Association
and the Judicial Award of Excellence from the
Public Lawyers Section of the Arizona State
Bar. Also in 2001, he received the Semper Fi
award from the Phoenix Chapter of the First
Marine Division Association. In 2002, Justice
Ryan received the Committee on Minorities
and Women in the Law Award from the State
Bars Committee on Minorities and Women in
the Law. In 2003, he received the Arizona State
University’s College of Law’s Outstanding
Alumnus award and the College of Law’s
Distinguished Achievement Award. In 2005,
Justice Ryan received the State Bar of Arizona’s
James A. Walsh Outstanding Jurist Award.
Meet Your Arizona Supreme Court
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 9
HON. ANDREW D. HURWITZ
JUSTICE
Andrew D. Hurwitz was appointed to the
Arizona Supreme Court by Governor
Napolitano in 2003.
Justice Hurwitz received his undergraduate
degree from Princeton University (A.B. 1968)
and his law degree from Yale Law School (J.D.
1972), where he was
Note and Comment
Editor of the Yale Law
Journal. He served as
a law clerk to Judge
Jon O. Newman of the
United States District
Court for the District of
Connecticut in 1972; to
Judge J. Joseph Smith of
the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1972-73;
and to Associate Justice Potter Stewart of the
Supreme Court in the United States in 1973-74.
Before joining the Supreme Court, Justice
Hurwitz was a partner in the Phoenix fi rm of
Osborn Maledon, where his practice focused
on appellate and constitutional litigation,
administrative law, and civil litigation. He is
admitted to the bar in Arizona and Connecticut;
he received the highest grade on the Arizona
Bar examination in the summer of 1974. He
has argued two cases before the Supreme Court
of the United States, including Ring v. Arizona,
536 U.S. 584 (2002), which held the then-existing
statutory scheme for imposition of the
death penalty in Arizona unconstitutional.
Justice Hurwitz served as Chief of Staff to
Governor Bruce Babbitt from 1980 to 1983,
and Chief of Staff to Governor Rose Mofford
in 1988. He was a member of the Arizona
Board of Regents from 1988 through 1996, and
served as President of the Board in 1992-93.
He also served as the co-chairman of Governor
Napolitano’s transition team in 2002.
Justice Hurwitz is a member of the American
Law Institute and a master of the Horace
Rumple Inn of Court. He has regularly taught
at the Arizona State University College of
Law, and was in residence at the College of
Law as Visiting Professor of Law in 1994-95
and as a Distinguished Visitor from Practice in
2001. Justice Hurwitz delivered the Willard H.
Pedrick lecture at the College of Law in 1999.
He was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist in
2004 as a member of the Advisory Committee
on the Federal Rules of Evidence.
HON. SCOTT BALES
JUSTICE
Scott Bales joined the Arizona Supreme
Court in 2005. Before his appointment,
he had practiced law in Arizona since 1985 as
both a private and public
lawyer. He was a partner
at Lewis and Roca LLP
and served as Arizona’s
Solicitor General
from 1999-2001. As
Solicitor General, he
handled major appeals
in state and federal
court, oversaw the
enforcement of Arizona
election laws, and supervised the preparation
of legal opinions on issues concerning state
government.
Justice Bales also was a federal prosecutor in
the United States Attorney’s Offi ce in Phoenix,
a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the
U.S. Department of Justice’s Offi ce of Policy
Development and a Special Investigative
Counsel for the Justice Department’s Inspector
General. He clerked for Justice Sandra Day
O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court after
receiving his law degree and a master’s in
economics from Harvard University. Justice
Bales has taught several courses as an adjunct
professor at the law schools at the University of
Arizona and Arizona State University.
Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 10
The most fundamental aspect of our judicial system is that it be swift and fair. All citizens coming
before the courts are entitled to equal justice, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, age or economic
circumstance. Furthermore, courts must provide meaningful access to all, ensuring that no litigant
is denied justice due to the lack of counsel or the inability to understand legal proceedings.
DUI CASE PROCESSING COMMITTEE
In June 2005, Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor established
the DUI Case Processing Committee, and tasked the
committee with examining DUI cases from the time of
the commission of the offense through the imposition of
sanctions, with particular emphasis on the processing of
cases once they reach the court. Limited jurisdiction court
judges, court administrators and Administrative Offi ce of
the Courts staff comprised the committee.
Judges, court staff, defense attorneys, prosecutors, law
enforcement, treatment providers, and individuals from
other agencies and organizations provided the committee
with unique knowledge and insight into all aspects of a
DUI case. This information, combined with national
and local DUI statistics and case processing standards,
provided the basis for 30 recommendations detailed in the
fi nal report.
The committee suggested specifi c improvements to the
system and the fi nal report was submitted to Chief Justice
McGregor in November 2005. She announced that courts
will process cases faster, identify effective treatment
methods and increase efforts to work together with other
justice agencies. The Chief Justice also announced that
pilot courts would experiment with the committee's
recommendations to determind which ones work and
have positive impact on DUI case processing.
CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS REPLACEMENT
New case management system (CMS) development
projects currently underway address replacement
of a core system, AZTEC, as it approaches the end of its
automation life cycle. The guiding principles for new
CMS projects include updating outdated technologies and
gaining business process effi ciencies.
The existing case management system is AZTEC,
implemented in 13 of the 15 general jurisdiction courts
and over 130 limited jurisdiction courts. It is a generalized
system that provides functionality for both limited and
general jurisdiction courts. However, differences in
processing cases and workload volume create a need for
separate limited and general jurisdiction systems.
The Commission on Technology (COT), which guides
technology policy for the Arizona court system, considered
several options for replacing AZTEC and decided to
expand development of the Pima County Superior Court’s
plans to build a case calendaring system using the ".NET"
architecture. This will provide a potential solution for
general jurisdiction courts statewide.
Tempe Municipal Court is developing a limited jurisdiction
case management system for its use that could provide the
solution for limited jurisdiction courts statewide. In 2007,
the COT will evaluate Tempe’s system to determine its
feasibility for replacing AZTEC in the limited jurisdiction
courts. The Tempe project will coordinate closely with
the Pima County project to replace AZTEC on the general
jurisdiction level.
Leveraging the public investment is fundamental to
the judiciary’s approach to automation. Courts are
coordinating with each other to share developments and
increase effi ciency.
Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 11
IMPROVING THE PROGRAM FARELY
The Fines/Fees and Restitution Enforcement
(FARE) Program is a statewide initiative
of the judicial branch with goals of compliance
with and respect for court orders and the law. In
2005, the program enhanced customer service,
increased revenues, consistency and uniformity
in case processing, and effi ciencies in the
order enforcement and collections processes.
The program is a public/private partnership
involving the courts, the Motor Vehicle Division
of ADOT, the Department of Revenue, and
Affi liated Computer Services State and Local
Solutions, Inc (ACS-S&L), a private vendor.
To date, program collection efforts have
concentrated on ease of access to pay court
orders, fi nes and assessments of delinquent
cases. Since program inception, 48 courts
have collected more than $23.6 million dollars
on delinquent cases. Six additional courts are
scheduled to implement the program.
Bilingual Web-based and telephone credit card
payment began in 2004, collecting more than
$1.6 million. Approximately 19 percent of
these payments are from out-of-state or country
defendants.
In August 2004, the Traffi c Ticket Enforcement
Assistance Program (TTEAP) became
available. TTEAP allows the Motor Vehicle
Division, on instruction from the court, to place
a hold on a vehicle registration renewal when
a person owes more than $200 in outstanding
court obligations for civil or criminal traffi c
violations, or for failure to appear on a criminal
traffi c violation. TTEAP is utilized only after a
defendant has received several notices and has
had opportunity to comply with the court order.
This means defendants can pay in full or go to
court and request time to pay and an installment
plan to accommodate their particular situation.
There have been more than 155,000 registration
holds placed and 26,000 holds released due to
payment.
The Debt Set-off Program (state tax refund and
lottery intercepts) achieved a new high with
more than $5.5 million collected in calendar
year 2005 — $800,000 more than 2004. The
increase occurred in part because the FARE
program eliminated manual entry of claims
and, instead, pulled information from the FARE
database.
The City of Phoenix Municipal Court
implemented the full FARE model in July 2005.
This model provides a full range of collection
and order enforcement services to the court
including a pre-disposition reminder notice,
two delinquency notices, Web and Interactive
Voice Recognition (IVR) systems, skip tracing,
referral to TTEAP and the Tax Intercept
Program, and credit bureau reporting.
Local court retain responsibility for “front end”
and “back end” case processing while ACS-S&
L performs the “middle” (order enforcement
and collection activities).
VICTIMS' INITIATIVE
Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor announced
she will establish the Commission on
Victims in the Courts. The commission, chaired
by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Ron
Reinstein, will make recommendations to the
Arizona Judicial Council regarding training
and education of judges and court personnel
regarding victims’ rights, methods of improving
collection of restitution owed to victims and
other matters meant to preserve the constitutional
rights afforded to victims of crime.
Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 12
E-COURTS — WAY OF THE FUTURE
In the fi ve-plus years since Supreme Court
Rule 124 authorized pilot implementations
of electronic fi ling in Arizona, the courts
have worked hard to digitize information
and maximize opportunities to better utilize
that digital information. The Commission on
Technology (COT), which guides technology
policy for the Arizona Court System, proposed
that courts work together to use what exists
today in an evolutionary approach having three
parallel phases:
• Court-to-court fi ling, leveraging the
electronic appeal process;
• Leverage justice community information
using a clearinghouse for case-related
data; and
• Form-based attorney/public e-fi ling
using standardized, interactive,
statewide forms as the foundation.
At its June 2, 2005 meeting, COT created an
E-court subcommittee. The subcommittee will
oversee the business decisions, change process,
and plans that enable modifi cations in the three
aforementioned phases, while keeping COT
informed of its approach and progress.
The subcommittee, chaired by Justice Andrew
Hurwitz, includes representatives from all
levels of state courts in Arizona, as well as the
State Bar. The subcommittee developed a set
of principles to arrange the various aspects of
potential projects and evaluate the effectiveness
of solutions. The list may be supplemented over
time but not reduced.
Guiding principles include:
• Users should encounter a common look
and feel no matter the jurisdiction;
• Courts are too resource-constrained to
provide technical support themselves
for fi ling attorneys and the public;
• Only one E-fi ling interface should exist
per case management system;
• Data must be exchanged bi-directionally
between case management and E-fi ling
systems;
• No monopoly on electronic fi ling
services may be allowed, either
statewide or within a jurisdiction;
• Privacy and access issues must be
adequately addressed;
• The path to success involves general
consistency with national standards and
cooperation between courts and private
sector ventures.
Two key components of E-Courts are the
expansion of Electronic Document Management
Systems (EDMS) in the courts and electronic
case fi ling.
EXPANSION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT
MANAGEMENT IN COURTS
Because of Arizona's rapid growth in
population, courts face very serious records
management and case fi le storage challenges.
Electronic Document Management (EDMS)
includes the processes and environment in
which documents are created, stored, managed,
located, retrieved, and viewed electronically.
Electronic documents and records reduce the
need for traditional media (paper).
An electronic document management system
(EDMS) is generally made up of several
different integrated technologies, including
imaging, electronic fi ling, faxing, workfl ow
management, case management system
applications, computer output to laser disk
(COLD), and database management.
In 2005, seven general jurisdiction courts
implemented EDMS — Cochise, Gila, LaPaz,
Mohave, Navajo, Yavapai and Yuma counties
— bringing the total number of counties with
electronic document capability to 11. All
Superior Court Clerks plan to utilize EDMS
Article continued on next page
Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 13
within the upcoming three-year period.
The strategy to expand EDMS throughout
the criminal justice infrastructure, as well
as the courts, while satisfying system-wide
requirements is:
• Assist courts in developing alternatives
to their records storage and paper case
fi le routing/tracking challenges;
• Develop documentation and state-level
expertise to assist courts in selecting
the best model for their environment
while remaining non-proprietary
and capable of storing and sharing
documents between and among courts,
other government agencies, the legal
community and litigants.
ELECTRONIC CASE FILING
Electronic case fi ling focuses on receiving
documents, along with appropriate and
validated indexing information so documents
are automatically accepted and recorded into
both the electronic document management and
case management systems. This means that
electronically prepared documents are fi led
directly into the EDMS without fi rst printing,
signing and then imaging that document. This
initiative has risen in priority each year since the
fi rst information technology strategic planning
session in 1990.
The goals of electronic fi ling projects are to:
• Increase effectiveness of the Judicial
Branch and criminal justice system;
• Reduce cost;
• Improve service to the public;
• Study, coordinate and plan the transfer
of case records electronically between
courts;
• Promote pilots and models in different
courts.
Current pilot and experimental projects in
Arizona courts for electronic fi ling include:
• Pima County Consolidated Justice
Courts: Small Claims electronic fi ling;
• Pima Superior Court Probate fi ling
(limited);
• Arizona Court of Appeals, Division
2: Electronic Document Management
System project: electronic transfer
of court records on appeals from the
Superior Court in Pima County;
• The Clerk of Superior Court in
Maricopa County recently modifi ed
its model to expand beyond complex
civil litigation and to allow multiple
qualifi ed vendors to write data into
their EDMS and CMS via an XML
interface. In addition, expansion of the
electronic fi ling pilot project begins
early 2006 to four more general civil
court divisions.
With the introduction of digital signature
legislation in Arizona, the environment is
emerging to support the electronic fi ling of
documents. Meanwhile, the judiciary continues
to develop the most effi cient way for electronic
case fi ling.
Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 14
NEW FAMILY LAW RULES
In October 2005, the Arizona Supreme Court
adopted the Arizona Rules of Family Law
Procedure (ARFLP), a comprehensive stand-alone
set of statewide rules of procedure for
family law cases, aimed at providing fair,
effective, uniform and timely resolution of
family disputes. The ARFLP, effective January
1, 2006, apply in divorce, legal separation,
paternity, child custody, child support, and
other post-decree matters. The Committee
on the Rules of Procedure in Domestic
Relations Cases, comprised of 16 Family Law
practitioners, judges, clerks and a mental health
expert, with assistance from many others from
around the state, drafted the rules.
The new rules emphasize non-adversarial,
problem-solving approach to the extent
possible and appropriate. The Court also
established a Family Law Rules Review
Committee to entertain public comments as
the rules are implemented, conduct a review
and analysis of the rules, recommend revisions
and amendments, and provide a report to the
Arizona Judicial Council in two years. More
information about the new Family Law Rules
can be found at www.supreme.state.az.us/drrc/.
COMMITTEE ON KEEPING THE RECORD
Making and preserving an accurate record
of court proceedings is a core function
of the court system. The Committee on
Keeping the Record, established by then-Chief
Justice Charles E. Jones in 2004, evaluated a
comprehensive list of issues relating to court
reporting. These issues include evaluating the
viability of electronic recording technology
and whether, and to what extent, it can be
used to address the shortage of stenographic
court reporters in some counties without
compromising the provision of swift, fair
justice.
The Committee issued its fi nal report to the
Arizona Judicial Council in December 2005.
The report recommends new policies intended
to guide courts in deploying reporters and
electronic recording technology, using the
best and most effi cient balance of personnel
and equipment possible, while ensuring an
accurate record is made. The Committee’s
report also proposes revisions to existing
rules and statutes to authorize the use of
electronic recording technology where
appropriate. The report is available online at
www.supreme.state.az.us/ktr.
Protecting Children, Families, and Communities
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 15
BRIDGING COURT AND COMMUNITY
Providing citizen participation to the administration
of juvenile justice at the local level, the Community
Advisory Board (CAB) is an innovative and effective
approach to bridging court and community. CABs promote
and foster greater dialogue, education and understanding
between the community and the juvenile court. Appointed
by the presiding juvenile court judge and staffed by the
juvenile probation departments, CAB members address
issues ranging from juvenile justice legislation to dually
adjudicated youth to substance abuse. Essential to
creating a successful court-community partnership is the
opportunity to network with each other. Created in 1996,
CABs are operational in Cochise, Coconino, Maricopa,
Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai and
Yuma counties. The Yavapai CAB hosted the fi rst annual
CAB retreat in 1997.
The 8th annual retreat last fall, hosted by the Mohave CAB,
attracted more than 150 participants. Chief Justice Ruth
V. McGregor spoke at the retreat titled, “Children at the
Crossroads.” Each year, local youth are recruited to be a
part of a youth panel. Youth involved in local programs or
community service projects, including CRRYS (Colorado
River Region Youth Shelter) and YES (Youth Enjoying
Sobriety), shared their experiences with participants.
CABs volunteer years in advance to host the retreat; Pima
County will host in 2006.
Connecting to the community through CABs has a
long history in Arizona’s judicial system. It’s a win-win
formula with courts gaining an increased awareness of the
community and its needs, and the community gaining a
chance to guide youth in becoming productive members
of society.
Courts provide a fair and impartial forum for resolving disputes, ensure that those who violate laws
are held accountable, serve to limit the arbitrary use of government power to deprive citizens of their rights,
and ensure that those in need of protection due to age or infi rmity are protected from physical or fi nancial
harm. Arizona courts are an essential component of a justice system that exists, in substantial part,
to protect children, families, and the communities in which we live.
JOLTSAZ: AN INITIATIVE TO MODERNIZE
In 2004, the Administrative Offi ce of the Courts (AOC),
in partnership with Pima County and the rural counties,
embarked on an ambitious project to reengineer and
modernize the State’s Juvenile Online Tracking System,
an initiative named JOLTSaz. In 2005, the AOC JOLTSaz
team worked diligently, analyzing and building a detention
and visitation module, while the Pima JOLTSaz team
traveled the state documenting and completing a business
analysis on a statewide calendaring system scheduled for
a future release of JOLTSaz.
Santa Cruz County successfully implemented the JOLTSaz
Standard Detention Visitation module as a pilot program
on October 29, 2005. The module’s capabilities were
not a part of the legacy JOLTS database; employees are
now able to update and view these records automatically
instead of manually. This initial program will be enhanced
in early 2006 and deployed statewide.
Based on lessons learned to date, the remaining modules
will be converted to the new and complete JOTLTSaz
system and then rolled out at one time. The target date for
implementing the completed system is 2009.
Protecting Children, Families, and Communities
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 16
CASA 20TH ANNIVERSARY
More than 250 volunteers attended the July
22 to 23, 2005 conference celebrating
the 20th anniversary of the Arizona Court
Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Program.
It was established to help protect abandoned,
abused and neglected children. Advocates are
volunteers who help the court system determine
what is best for children who come under the
court's care.
The conference, “Getting Back to Basics:
Advocacy for the Next 20 Years” kicked off
with a pre-conference program July 22 featuring
discussions on the older youth in transition
program; participants also heard from Daniella
Anderson Rin Hover, a young woman featured
in the PBS documentary, “Aging Out.”
The celebration continued on Saturday with a
full day of concurrent workshops and a plenary
session on Empathy Fatigue, helping volunteers
learn strategies on how to deal with stress and
other factors often associated with providing
quality advocacy for a child.
During the luncheon program, county programs
and staff were recognized for their years of
service. Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice
Ruth V. McGregor attended the evening
volunteer recognition banquet. She recognized
CASA volunteers for their commitment to
Arizona’s children, and noted that during the
course of CASA’s existence, volunteers have
dedicated more than 375 work years to CASA
kids.
DOMESTIC RELATIONS ENHANCEMENTS
MARICOPA EFFORTS Superior Court Judge Norman Davis
continued improvements in the Maricopa
County Family Court Department in 2005. A
post-modifi cation court began in August in
which parties are encouraged to reach settlement
through a brief interview with court staff. If an
agreement is reached, necessary paperwork is
drafted and submitted to the court for entry of
an order. If an agreement is not reached, the
parties can go immediately into a hearing with a
court commissioner who makes a decision that
same day.
Additionally, the department installed petition
tracking software, helping the court track
statistics used for future projects. Other
measures to reduce pending caseloads yielded
great success as cases older than twelve months
dropped 36 percent in less than one year.
CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE CALCULATOR The Administrative Offi ce of the Courts, in
collaboration with the Arizona Division of
Child Support Enforcement (DCSE), developed
an online child support arrearage calculator,
known as “eCalc,” for judicial use in non-
Title IV-D cases. The calculator provides an
automated means of calculating support
arrearages as of the last day of the previous
month. Currently, these are hand-calculated and
subject to error and inconsistent application.
DCSE received a $400,000 grant from the
Federal Offi ce of Child Support Enforcement
for the project.
To arrive at a presumptively correct arrearage
calculation, payment and debt information is
extracted from the state case registry and Support
Payment Clearinghouse. Judicial offi cers will
calculate arrearage amounts from the bench,
view payment histories, and immediately apply
credits and recalculate the arrearage amount.
Training for judicial offi cers, court staff and
Clerk of Superior Court personnel begins in
Summer 2006.
CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT IN DEPENDENT
CHILDREN CASES
In September 2004, the Dependent Children’s
Services Division of the Administrative
Offi ce of the Courts invited key stakeholders
from three counties to participate in a pilot
project on casefl ow management. Cochise,
Maricopa and Yavapai counties focused on
Article continued on next page
Protecting Children, Families, and Communities
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 17
NEW OFFENDER SCREENING TOOL
On January 2, 2005, all Arizona adult
probation departments began administering
an evaluation tool designed to provide a broad
assessment of an offender’s overall risk
and needs — the Offender Screening Tool
(OST). Prior to implementation, employees
in all departments received comprehensive
training on how to administer and interpret the
OST. The Adult Probation Services Division
provided departments statewide with a training
video, making use of the tool and interpretation
of results consistent.
The Field Reassessment Screening Tool
(FROST) was implemented shortly thereafter
and requires that offenders be reassessed every
six months while on supervised probation.
Together, the new tools provide offi cers a
sophisticated and effective means to recognize
and respond to offender risk and determine
need levels. These tools further efforts to fully
incorporate evidence-based practices into
offender management.
improving their ability to more effectively
move the cases of dependent children through
the court process. Each participating court
has enjoyed signifi cant successes. The project
received national attention — participants of the
workshop presented at a national conference in
Columbus, Ohio on October 18, 2004, and it was
highlighted at a press conference in Washington
D.C. on June 21, 2005.
Each pilot county set multiple goals dealing
with a variety of issues. These goals share
the common thread of making the dependency
process more effi cient and effective for needy
children and their families. Highlights include:
Cochise
• The court developed and published a parent
handbook and held training for parents’
attorneys to encourage reviewing the
handbook with their clients.
• All mediation is scheduled within 30 to 45
days of the initial hearing.
• Adjudication hearings are scheduled at 60
days as opposed to the previous practice of
90 days.
Maricopa
• The court developed a packet explaining
the children’s resource staffi ng process and
other relevant juvenile court programs.
• Court administration created a Dependency
Court Practices Committee and began
monthly meetings to identify and address
issues specifi c to the dependency court
process.
• Four additional computers were installed
at the Durango court facility, allowing CPS
case managers to complete work while
waiting for court hearings.
Yavapai
• Personnel from a regional behavioral health
provider are present at the initial hearing to
ensure immediate availability of appropriate
services.
• Staff continues to work with AHCCCS
personnel to arrange immediate eligibility
verifi cation and appointments for parents.
• Trial continuances are kept to a minimum
per judge’s order.
Successful implementation of these goals was
contingent on several factors, including:
• Involvement of individuals from various
stakeholder groups to participate in the
training;
• Commitment from each participant
to remain active and involved upon
implementing the identifi ed changes in
their respective counties;
• Strong leadership provided by the
Presiding Juvenile Court Judge.
Planning begins in early 2006 to implement
the casefl ow management in the remaining 12
counties. This is expected to occur through a
series of regional workshops similar to the pilot
workshop.
Protecting Children, Families, and Communities
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 18
AZ SUPREME COURT HOSTS CONFERENCE
On March 17-18, 2005, Arizona hosted
the National Center for State Courts’
(NCSC) Extending Project Passport North-
South Western Regional Conference. The goal
of Extending Project Passport is to improve
recognition and enforcement of orders of
protection within and among states and tribes
by encouraging states and tribal courts to adopt
a recognizable fi rst page for orders of protection
(i.e., to include common elements and fi elds
necessary for the National Crime Information
Center).
The Court selected nine Arizona delegates
and teams from nine other states — Colorado,
Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming
— participated in the conference. Additionally,
the Project Passport Administration selected
tribal court judges and a member of the Arizona
Coalition Against Domestic Violence who
joined the state teams. The conference educated
state teams about the intricacies associated with
federal laws that pertain to orders of protection
in an effort to enhance victim protection
nationwide.
Following the conference, Arizona’s
team and the Committee on the Impact of
Domestic Violence and the Courts (CIDVC)
Domestic Violence Forms Workgroup worked
cooperatively with law enforcement and several
tribal courts to develop a fi rst page order of
protection following the Project Passport
model template. This workgroup also revised
auxiliary protective order forms in accordance
with the new order of protection. The Arizona
Judicial Council approved the new protective
order forms in June 2005. Implementation of
the form was postponed to provide suffi cient
lead time to reprogram computer systems.
Using a recognizable fi rst page for protection
orders helps victims of domestic violence by
offering greater consistency in the issuance and
enforcement of orders of protection. Nearly
two-thirds of the country has been introduced to
the model template and its potential to improve
court order enforcement and victim protection,
regardless of where victims live or where the
protection order was issued.
COUNTY DRUG COURT FUNDING
OPPORTUNITY
Drug Courts began in Arizona at the local
level, funded by federal grants through the
National Drug Court Institute and the Bureau
of Justice Assistance. This grant money allows
local jurisdictions to plan, train and implement
a drug court with the expectation that these
programs will receive state and other county
dollars after the federal grant money runs
out. As drug court programs around the state
began to reach the point of exhausting federal
funding, state support was needed to prevent
these successful programs from shutting down
operations. State Representative William
Konopnicki, District 5, supported the cause for
two years until the state appropriated $1 million
during the 2005 legislative session, to be made
available on July 1, 2006.
County courts have the opportunity to apply for
funds to serve medium and high risk offenders
with demonstrated substance abuse problems.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3401, $1 million has been
appropriated in support of Arizona Drug Courts
for the purpose of prosecuting, adjudicating and
treating drug dependent persons who meet the
criteria and guidelines for entry into Drug Court
programs. This initial state funding is intended
to foster, fund and promote adult and juvenile
drug courts in Arizona that incorporate national
best practices. Adult and juvenile probation
departments have until Feb. 28, 2006, to apply
for the grant through their presiding judge.
Applications are available through the Adult
Probation Services and Juvenile Justice Services
divisions Web sites. The funding awards are
available for fi scal year 2007.
Protecting Children, Families, and Communities
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 19
PROGRESS IN CASE DISPOSITION
The Fiduciary Program certifi es and regulates
fi duciaries, individuals who are appointed
by the Superior Court to serve as a guardian,
conservator or personal representative for an
incapacitated individual. This program is the
fi rst of its kind in the nation. Although the
vast majority of fi duciaries serve Arizona’s
incapacitated population professionally
and ethically, the number, seriousness and
complexity of complaints received alleging
misconduct by a fi duciary since certifi cation
of fi duciaries began in 1998 has presented
signifi cant challenges. Over the years, a
backlog of complaints developed, and the
time to process these complaints fell outside
accepted standards.
In FY 05, additional investigation staff and
development of a more standardized and
effi cient case processing procedure resulted
in dramatic improvements in case processing
time and reduction in the backlog. On average,
complaints received were processed within
7.7 months, and the case clearance rate, or the
number of complaints closed as a percentage of
the number of new complaints received, was
376 percent.
APETS SURPASSES GOALS
The Adult Probation Tracking System
(APETS) is a statewide automated
offender case management system initially
started in Maricopa County. Yuma, La Paz,
Pima, Yavapai, Coconino, Pinal and Graham
counties have adopted the system, completing
and surpassing the implementation goals
for calendar year 2005. Implementation in
remaining counties is scheduled for the end of
calendar year 2006. More than 90 percent of
the probation population was being supervised
using APETS by the end of 2005.
Today 1,862 department employees actively
use the system and have entered more than
159,655 probation records and 4.8 million
contact records. APETS is one single database.
The benefi ts of having a single database are:
• One complete client record no matter
where in Arizona the probationer has a
case(s).
• No duplicate probationer entry because
APETS records can be transferred
between counties.
• APETS provides easy access to
information and better tracking/
accountability in supervising
probationers.
EXPLORING IMPACT OF STATUTE CHANGE
With a change in statute (A.R.S. § 8-
223) enacted two years ago, parents,
guardians or custodians who are the object of
a termination of parental rights (or severance)
action now have the option to request that the
matter be tried to either a jury or a judge. To
ascertain whether any signifi cant differences
existed between cases handled by jury trial
and those that go through a traditional bench
trial process, the Administrative Offi ce of the
Courts contracted for a study of the system.
Preliminary fi ndings include:
• Severance fi lings in Arizona have
increased dramatically during the past
three fi scal years;
• The vast majority of both jury trials
and bench trials completed during the
two-year period since the passage of the
legislation have resulted in severance;
• Bench trials are more likely to be
completed than jury trials;
• Direct costs for jury trials are
substantially higher than for bench trials;
• Scheduled jury trials can have adverse
effects on court calendars whether or not
they occur.
Exploring the impact this change has on
dependent children and how their cases are
processed by the juvenile court was at the core
of the study. The completed report will include
the information found in the study and help to
determine how these cases are handled in the
future.
Being Accountable
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 20
In order to foster public trust and confi dence, the judiciary must be accountable to the public
and other stakeholders. The judiciary has an obligation to develop a clear strategic agenda; keep
the public informed of court operations, programs and initiatives; and ensure that all levels of staff
are competent, professional and customer service oriented.
SETTING BENCHMARKS WITH COURTOOLS
The National Center for State Courts published a
set of performance measures for courts to track
effectiveness and improve performance. CourTools
measures 10 areas, allowing courts to set benchmarks
against which they can measure. Benchmarks include:
clearance rate (a comparison of the number of cases fi led
and the number disposed during a given period of time),
time to disposition of cases, age of pending caseload,
trial date certainty, effective use of jurors, proportion
of monies collected, accessibility of the courts to all
court users, cost per case, court employee satisfaction,
and the reliability and integrity of case fi les. Although
these measures are not new for courts, combining them
to provide a comprehensive method for a court to clarify
performance goals, develop a measurement plan and
document their success provides a new way to focus on
important case processing issues.
The Arizona judicial system has begun to experiment
with CourTools measures — “One-Day, One-Trial,” the
FARE program, extending Project Passport, and casefl ow
management in dependency cases, and CourTools
projects in the Mesa Municipal Court and the Superior
Court of Maricopa County are examples of this effort.
Additional CourTools implementation will take place in
2006. For more information, visit www.ncsconline.org
and search for CourTools.
RECORDS RETENTION
Good public records management is vital to effi cient
court operations and to preserving the historical
record of court proceedings. The advent of electronic
fi ling and growing case volume necessitate periodic
revisions to the courts’ records retention and disposition
schedules.
In 2005, the Arizona Judicial Council approved an updated
schedule applicable in the superior court. A workgroup
of clerks of court and representatives from the Arizona
State Library Archives and Public Records drafted the
new schedule. The revised schedule is designed, in part,
to facilitate transfer of older fi les to the State Archives.
It also accounts for the growing number of records
maintained in electronic format in keeping with current
practices and provides more specifi city to better guide
clerks in carrying out their records management duties.
For the fi rst time, the new schedule lays out a process for
identifying historical and landmark cases to ensure their
long-term preservation. The new schedule also provides
relief for clerks’ overloaded document storage facilities
by permitting shorter, more realistic retention periods for
many categories of records.
Improving Communication and Cooperation with the Community,
other Branches of Government and within the Judicial Branch
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 21
Effective and meaningful communication within the judiciary and with the Executive and Legislative
branches of government is vital to serving the public effi ciently and effectively and to improving business
relations. It promotes better-informed policy making, improved collegiality, intra-branch cooperation and
participation in the administration of justice. Judicial outreach to the community is also critical so the
public can develop a greater understanding of the important role the court plays in democracy.
ASSISTING ARIZONA YOUTH REACH ADULTHOOD
According to Arizona law, children become adults
on their 18th birthday, and with that milestone
come many new rights and responsibilities. The Arizona
Foundation for Legal Services & Education produced
“When You Turn 18,” a booklet designed as a guide for
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES 'CONNECT WITH THE
COMMUNITIES'
Many members of the public do not fully understand
our courts and how they operate. To promote an
informed public, courts must undertake public outreach
and educational initiatives.
The members of the Arizona Supreme Court frequently
speak to communities statewide. The Court holds formal
Oral Arguments four times a year in counties around the
state. Each of these arguments provides a chance for the
court to meet with the local community members, leaders
and students. In 2005, justices conducted Oral Arguments
in Flagstaff, Yuma, and at the law schools in Maricopa
and Pima counties. In addition, individual Court members
have spoken to thousands of community members in
forums and events hosted by other civic, business and
community organizations. These efforts help the general
public understand the role and duties of the Judicial
Branch.
young adults as they learn their new legal rights and
responsibilities.
Covering 21 different issues, from drinking to banking,
housing to jury duty, the booklet also includes a list of legal
resources and Superior Court locations around the state.
Spearheaded by Justice of the Peace Lex Anderson and
the Superior Court in Maricopa County, with assistance
from students at Ironwood High School in Glendale, the
Administrative Offi ce of the Courts and members of the
legal community, every Arizona high school received
booklets to distribute to their students. Each County
Justice and Superior Court and each Juvenile and Adult
Probation Department also received copies to hand out to
young people in their communities.
Parents, educators and Safe School Offi ces are encouraged
to use the guide as a source of information. Updates to the
brochure and expanded information on Arizona law can
be found at www.LawForKids.org.
JURY INNOVATIONS
ONE-DAY/ONE-TRIAL On January 1, 2005, Arizona implemented the “One
Day or One Trial” term of jury service. “One Day or
One Trial” means that potential jurors come to court only
Article continued on next page
Improving Communication and Cooperation with the Community,
other Branches of Government, and within the Judicial Branch
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 22
COURT LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE
OF ARIZONA
In many courts, judges assume to a leadership/
management role without training in the
administrative operations of the court. In some
instances, courts do not have experienced court
administrators. Staff employees in larger courts
may be more specialized in particular areas
of the court but lack the overall knowledge
of leadership/management functions.
Additionally, the need for succession planning
grows as experienced court leaders retire or
move to other positions. To address this need,
Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor created the
Court Leadership Institute of Arizona (CLIA),
a new entity under the Committee on Judicial
Training and Education (COJET). The CLIA
will develop educational and mentoring
opportunities to assist current leaders and help
prepare our future court leaders.
In spring 2005, a workgroup of court
administrative leaders began meeting to
identify essential components for a course of
study for administrative leaders. This group
reviewed national models, academic offerings,
other states’ programs and current trends.
The group developed core competencies
and learning objectives for a comprehensive
leadership curriculum. Their work provides a
basis for CLIA to bring forward a full program
for Arizona court leaders.
once during their term of service. If selected,
a person’s term of jury service is fulfi lled after
serving on one trial. If not selected or assigned
to a jury after reporting the fi rst day, the person’s
jury service is deemed fulfi lled.
The one day or one trial system benefi ts both
the public and employers. Before the Court
adopted the system, prospective jurors were
often required to be available for weeks, not
knowing if or when their service was needed.
Now, potential jurors report for only one day
to learn whether their service is required.
Employers also benefi t because there is reduced
uncertainty about the availability of their
employees.
Initially, some parts of the court community
were skeptical about “One Day or One Trial.”
Some believed more jurors would be needed, in
light of the shortened term of service. The court
discovered, however, that more potential jurors
are willing to serve because of the shorter term
of service, resulting in fewer jury summons and
creating greater effi ciency for everyone.
LENGTHY TRIAL FUND Beginning in July 2004, Arizona became
the fi rst state in the nation to replace lost
wages of jurors who serve on longer trials. The
Arizona Lengthy Trial Fund, supported by a $15
fi ling fee imposed on certain civil case fi lings,
reimburses jurors who lose their regular income
while they serve as jurors.
The goal of this program is to eliminate the
fi nancial hardship that so often accompanies
jury service and thereby enable a greater cross-section
of the community to serve on longer
civil and criminal trials.
Eligible jurors must serve more than 10 days to
qualify. Compensation is capped at $100 per
day for Day 4 through 10 and $300 per day for
Days 11 and onward. Unemployed or retired
jurors serving on longer trials are eligible for
$40 per day in jury pay. This is a substantial
increase over the $12 per day all jurors are
customarily paid.
In Fiscal Year 2005, the fund provided wage
replacement to 217 jurors who served in 51
cases. The average daily payment for each juror
totaled $55. The average length of longer jury
trials was 19 days in criminal cases and 16 days
in civil cases.
ENHANCEMENTS FOR NEW JUDGE
ORIENTATION
The New Judge Orientation (NJO)
committee members and faculty continue
efforts to enhance the program for General
Jurisdiction judges. In 2005, the committee
selected essential material for new judges
and established an agenda/curriculum. The
committee plans to develop specifi c lesson
plans for each session, creating a cohesive
overall program and maintaining consistent
course content.
The program will incorporate adult education
methods in 2006. Strategies may include role-play,
fi lms, video-taping of practice sessions,
hypotheticals, and other activities placing the
judge in a simulated situation on the bench.
Improving Communication and Cooperation with the Community,
other Branches of Government, and within the Judicial Branch
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 23
COURT LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE
On December 12 and 13, 2005, presiding
judges, court clerks, court administrators,
presiding justices of the peace and their
administrators, probation chiefs, and juvenile
court directors gathered for the fi rst-ever Court
Leadership Conference. More than 170 court
leaders attended. Keynote speaker, Roger
Warren, Immediate Past President of the National
Center for State Courts, related key concepts
from Jim Collins’ book, “Good to Great” and
applied them to the court environment. Chief
ONLINE APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATE
HOLDERS
The Arizona Supreme Court became
one of the fi rst regulatory entities in
the state to offer online applications for
regulated professionals, starting May 2005. A
collaborative effort involving the Government
Information Technology Agency, Department
of Administration, State Treasurers Offi ce,
and three divisions within the Administrative
Offi ce of the Courts resulted in offering
professionals regulated by the Court the option
of completing an online application to renew
certifi cation. Certifi cate holders may fi le their
renewal application online, with payment by
credit or check card, or they can continue to
use the traditional method of mailing in a paper
application with a check. Applications fi led
electronically update the database maintained
on regulated professionals, eliminating an extra
database entry step and potential errors, and
provide for transition to electronic storage of
records.
More than 70 percent of the fi rst group of
professionals offered this option successfully
processed their applications electronically. As
a result, this service is now being implemented
for other professional groups certifi ed by the
Supreme Court.
Justice Ruth V. McGregor articulated the
Judicial Branch's 2005-2010 strategic agenda,
and emphasized the role of every court leader
in striving to meet those goals and move their
courts from good to great. She also announced
the creation of a new leadership initiative – the
Court Leadership Institute of Arizona.
Participants attended several educational
sessions: DUI Update, Domestic Relations
Case Processing Improvements, Jury Service
Enhancements, Victims' Issues, Juvenile
Sanctions and Treatment, Correctional
Intervention/Adult Probation, Managing the
Courts during a Disaster, Media Relations,
Relationships Among the Three Branches of
Local Government, and Drug Court Research.
The conference also provided a forum for
county meetings. Conference evaluations
conveyed appreciation and expressed a desire
for an event of this nature to continue. Plans for
a December 2006 Court Leadership Conference
are underway.
Serving the Public by Improving the Legal Profession
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 24
The Supreme Court regulates the practice of law and, along with the rest of the judiciary, plays
a crucial role of protecting individual rights and liberties in a free society. The court must determine
how the legal profession can best serve the public through examining existing rules governing
the practice of law, attorney admission and disciplinary systems, and legal practices and procedures
that encourage unnecessarily adversarial proceedings in and our of the courtroom.
APPLICATIONS FOR JUDICIAL POSITIONS
ON THE WEB
From time to time, vacancies for merit selected judicial
positions occur. To apply for a position, a person must
fi ll out a lengthy application. Due to a change in court rules,
applicants may now apply using an electronic document
downloaded from the web. Also, the Court has determined
that most information submitted on the applications is
available to the public and can be reviewed electronically
at: http://supreme8/hr/judicialvacancies.htm.
JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMPLAINTS
OPENED JAN. 1, 2006
Taking another step forward in making the judicial
branch more open and accessible to the public, the
Arizona Supreme Court modifi ed the rules governing the
Commission on Judicial Conduct.
On June 9, 2005, the Court approved a petition to revise
the Rules of the Commission on Judicial Conduct to
provide greater public disclosure of judicial disciplinary
records. The petition generated considerable public
comment, both favorable and adverse, and the Court’s
resolution attempted to balance the concerns refl ected in
the comments.
Prior to the changes, the rules provided public access only
when formal charges were brought or at the commission’s
discretion. The petition proposed making public all
reprimands and all complaints against any judge,
including those dismissed for lack of merit.
The Court received many well-founded objections to
these proposals based upon the public interest in an
independent judiciary and the need to shield judges
from purely vindictive complaints. The Court, however,
also considered the concern that the practices of the
Commission in dismissing complaints should not be
shielded from public view and that doing so may engender
public mistrust of the judicial discipline system.
The Court’s resolution accommodated both positions.
Under the amended rules, which took effect January 1,
2006, any fi nding of judicial misconduct will result in
disclosure of the sanction imposed at the time of the order
imposing it. Dismissed complaints against judges will
be made public, but only after information identifying
the judge, court or complainant is redacted. Judges and
complainants will be identifi ed in dismissed complaints
solely by number. Finally, private reprimands are
eliminated as a form of discipline.
No change was made to formal proceedings, which will
continue to be made public following the fi ling of the
judge's response.
Serving the Public by Improving the Legal Profession
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 25
SUPREME COURT RULES AND
COMMENTS ON THE WEB
Seeking to simplify the court rule-making
process, the Supreme Court announced it
will consider rule petitions once per year with
the exception of emergency matters or other
compelling circumstances.
The following annual schedule became
effective December 2005 for new rule petitions
fi led in 2006:
• November 1: Deadline for fi ling rule
change petitions
• December 20: Rule change petitions
circulated for comment
• May 20: Deadline for comments to rule
change petitions
• June 30: Deadline for responses to
comments
• September: Court consideration of and
action on petitions
• January 1: Effective date for all new
rules adopted by the Court
Other changes under consideration include
requiring all rule change petitions to be fi led in
electronic format, providing alternative means
for public comment (to include electronic
fi ling and/or public hearings), and relaxing the
requirement of compliance with Rule 6(c), Ariz.
R. App. P., as to the form of fi lings.
IMPROVING ARBITRATION
Beginning in 1971, Arizona’s civil courts
have included mandatory, non-binding
arbitration as a part of the system. In FY
2004, the Administrative Offi ce of the Courts
commissioned a study to examine the court-connected
arbitration system to determine its
effi ciency and effectiveness as an alternative
dispute resolution tool. The study, presented
to the Arizona Judicial Council (AJC) on June
5, 2005, addressed program administration,
performance, Arizona attorneys' perspective
on court-connected arbitration and arbitration
programs in other states. The AJC discussed
and concluded additional analysis of the reports
research and fi ndings was needed.
In November 2005, Chief Justice Ruth V.
McGregor established the Ad Hoc Committee
on Compulsory Arbitration to review the
report fi ndings and other relevant material
and to make recommendations to improve the
arbitration system. The Court anticipates that
the Committee will complete its report and
recommendations by summer 2006.
Annual Report Statistics
Caseload and Revenue Highlights
• Arizona Courts had a total of 2,536,966 case fi lings.
• On average, 10,229 cases were fi led in Arizona Courts every working day.
• On average, 1,279 cases were fi led in Arizona Courts every working hour.
• Statewide case fi lings increased by 37,300 or 1.5%, while Court of Appeals' fi lings increased by 12.0%.
• Superior Court case fi lings in Pima and rural counties increased by 3.0% and 2.0%, respectively, while
Maricopa County reported a decrease of 0.8%.
• While statewide Justice Court case fi lings increased by 0.8% in FY 2005, rural Justice Court case fi lings
decreased by 6.0% and Maricopa case fi lings increased by 8.0%. The majority of the increase in Maricopa
Justice Courts occurred in the civil traffi c case category. Civil traffi c case fi lings increased by 15.7%, or
23,300, in Maricopa Justice Courts in FY 2005.
• In FY 2005, statewide Municipal Court case fi lings increased by 2.1%, while the rural Municipal Courts and
Pima County case fi lings decreased by 3.8% and 3.4%, respectively, during the same period.
• 88,547 DUI cases were fi led in Justice and Municipal Courts, an increase of 325 case fi lings from FY 2004 to
FY 2005.
• Civil traffi c case fi lings accounted for 56% of all case fi lings in Justice and Municipal Courts, an increase of
12,700 case fi lings, or 1.0% from FY 2004 to FY 2005.
• Statewide case fi lings, revenue and expenditures followed a similar trend this fi scal year from recent fi scal
years. Case fi lings increased by 1.5%, while revenue increased by 12.6% and expenditures increased by 8.6%.
The increase in revenue is due in part to the extensive collection efforts by the courts and the Administrative
Offi ce of the Court’s Fines and Restitution Enforcement (FARE) project.
• Arizona courts have collected more than $1.6 billion in additional unpaid fi nes and fees over the $70 million
benchmark established in FY 1988.
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 26
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 27
Judiciary Organizational Chart
Supreme Court
5 Justices, 6-year terms
Chief Justice, Vice Chief Justice
3 Associate Justices
Court of Appeals
22 Judges, 6-year terms
Division I, Phoenix
Chief Judge & 15 Associate Judges
Counties: Apache, Coconino, LaPaz, Maricopa,
Mohave, Navajo, Yavapai, Yuma
Division II, Tucson
Chief Judge & 5 Associate Judges
Counties: Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee,
Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz
Apache 1 Greenlee 1 Pima 30
Cochise 4 LaPaz 1 Pinal 8
Coconino 4 Maricopa 93 Santa Cruz 2
Gila 2 Mohave 6 Yavapai 6
Graham 1 Navajo 3 Yuma 6
Apache 4 Mohave 5
Cochise 6 Navajo 6
Coconino 4 Pima 10
Gila 2 Pinal 8
Graham 2 Santa Cruz 2
Greenlee 2 Yavapai 5
LaPaz 3 Yuma 3
Maricopa 23
Judges Courts Judges Courts
Apache 3 3 Mohave 4 4
Cochise 6 6 Navajo 4 4
Coconino 6 4 Pima 18 5
Gila 5 5 Pinal 9 9
Graham 2 3 Santa Cruz 2 2
Greenlee 1 1 Yavapai 9 9
LaPaz 2 2 Yuma 4 4
Maricopa 65 23
Justice of the Peace Courts
85 Judges, 85 Precincts, 4-year terms
Superior Court
168 Judges, 4-year terms
Presiding Judge in each county
Municipal Courts
140 Full- and Part-time Judges, varying terms
In addition to the judicial positions listed above, there are approximately 95 full-time and part-time judges
pro tempore, commissioners and hearing offi cers in the Superior Court.
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 28
Court Filings
Supreme Court 1,164
Court of Appeals 3,871
Division One 2,970
Division Two 901
Tax Court 1,019
County Superior Justice Municipal
Apache 1,044 8,215 1,464
Cochise 4,259 43,008 9,527
Coconino 3,591 24,514 26,066
Gila 2,338 15,480 7,257
Graham 1,327 5,610 3,071
Greenlee 341 1,279 408
La Paz 994 15,864 3,657
Maricopa 127,890 375,970 1,003,469
Mohave 5,901 46,483 29,959
Navajo 2,855 21,221 4,747
Pima 31,069 186,581 272,299
Pinal 8,291 46,415 24,010
Santa Cruz 1,973 9,906 20,142
Yavapai 7,486 34,369 40,426
Yuma 6,157 21,238 22,741
Total 205,516 856,153 1,469,243
FY 2004 FY 2005 Difference
Total Filings 2,499,668 2,536,966 37,298
1.5%
FY 2005 Case Filings by Court Level
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 29
• Supreme Court FY 2005 case fi lings decreased
0.5% from cases fi led in FY 2004.
• Cases terminated by the court in FY 2005 decreased
7.3% from case terminations in FY 2004.
• The difference between fi lings and terminations
resulted in a pending caseload increase of 12.3%, up
from 367 on July 1, 2004, to 412 cases on June 30, 2005.
• Filings in FY 2005 represented a 14.4% increase from
FY 2004. Total criminal fi lings, the largest category,
increased 34.9% from 967 in FY 2004 to 1,304 in FY
2005.
• FY 2005 case terminations decreased 2.0%.
• Total cases pending increased 18.4%, from 2,114 on
July 1, 2004 to 2,502 on June 30, 2005.
• Total fi lings in FY 2005 increased 4.6% from FY 2004.
Total criminal fi lings, the largest category, increased
10.8% from 417 in FY 2004 to 462 in FY 2005.
• FY 2005 case terminations increased 45.0%.
• Total cases pending decreased by 23.3%, from 1243
on July 1, 2004 to 954 on June 30, 2005
Arizona Supreme Court
Court of Appeals, Division One
Court of Appeals, Division Two
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 30
The Arizona Tax Court serves as the statewide venue for
all civil actions involving a tax, impost or assessment.
• A total of 1,000 original cases were fi led in the court
during FY 2005, a decrease of 20.2% from the 1,253
cases fi led in FY 2004.
• Of the FY 2005 cases fi led, 670 were property tax
actions, accounting for 67.0% of the total.
• A total of 910 cases were terminated, 371 by judgment.
• As of June 30, 2005, there were 932 cases pending in
the tax court.
• Total case fi lings increased by 0.4% in FY 2005 from
FY 2004.
• Total case terminations decreased by 5.4% in the same
period.
• Civil case fi lings increased 0.7%, from 52,523 in FY
2004 to 52,885 in FY 2005. In the same period, civil case
terminations were down 8.8%, from 55,114 to 50,285
• Criminal case fi lings increased 0.5%, from 56,078
in FY 2004 to 56,359 in FY 2005. Criminal case
terminations increased 6.1%, from 49,248 to 52,271.
• Domestic relations cases increased 1.2%, from 53,434
in FY 2004 to 54,093 in FY 2005, and domestic relations
case terminations increased 6.1%, from 52,884 to 56,104.
Domestic violence petition fi lings increased 12.2% in
Superior Court, from 7,455 to 8,363 in FY 2005.
• Juveniles with direct fi lings to adult court increased
2.3%, from 393 in FY 2004 to 402 in FY 2005. Juvenile
cases transferred to adult court decreased 9.5%, from
105 in FY 2004 to 95 to FY 2005. A total of 497 juvenile
cases were either transferred or directly fi led in adult
court in FY 2005 compared to 498 in FY 2004, a
decrease of one case or 0.2%.
Arizona Tax Court
Superior Court
• There were 214,609 total cases pending on July 1,
2004, compared with 218,346 cases pending on June 30,
2005, an increase of 1.7%.
• Total fi lings in FY 2005 increased 0.8% from FY 2004.
Total case terminations decreased 4.3%.
• Civil and criminal traffi c fi lings, which comprise
almost two-thirds of all justice court fi lings, increased
1.2%, from 519,457 in FY 2004 to 525,604 in FY 2005.
• Criminal (misdemeanor and felony) case fi lings
decreased 1.0% from 144,276 in FY 2004 to 142,812 in
FY 2005. Criminal case terminations increased 2.0%,
from 132,805 in FY 2004 to 135,526 in FY 2005.
• Domestic violence petition fi lings decreased 1.4%
in justice courts, from 11,016 to 10,867. Petitions for
Injunctions Against Harassment increased 8.0%, from
10,102 to 10,915.
• Total cases pending increased by 3.9%, from 639,984
on July 1, 2004, to 665,103 on June 30, 2005
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 31
• Case fi lings in FY 2005 increased 2.1% from FY 2004.
Total case terminations increased 3.4% in the same
period.
• Civil and criminal traffi c fi lings, which comprise about
three-fourths of all municipal court cases, increased
1.0%, from 1,047,l72 in FY 2004 to 1,057,934 in FY
2005.
• Criminal misdemeanor case fi lings increased 1.7%,
from 234,139 in FY 2004 to 238,156 in FY 2005.
Criminal misdemeanor case terminations increased 1.7%,
from 250,526 in FY 2004 to 254,730 in FY 2005.
• Domestic violence petitions decreased 4.3%, from
13,405 in FY 2004 to 12,827 in FY 2005. Petitions for
Injunctions Against Harassment remained fl at, from
9,412 in FY 2004 to 9,416 in FY 2005.
• Total cases pending decreased 6.4%, from 839,507
on July 1, 2004 to 785,528 on June 20, 2005.
Justice of the Peace Courts
Municipal Courts
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 32
• The number of individuals under the jurisdiction of
Arizona adult probation departments at the end of FY
2005 increased 2.5%, from 66,642 on July 1, 2004, to
68,336 on June 30, 2005.
• Of the 68,336 under the jurisdiction of adult probation,
63,061 were on standard probation, 4,010 on intensive
probation, and 1,265 were interstate compact cases.
• There were 73,125 referrals to juvenile court in FY
2005, a 3.8% decrease compared to 76,049 in the
previous year.
• 76,412 referrals were terminated in FY 2005, a 2.1%
decrease compared to the 78,049 referrals terminated in
FY 2004.
• The number of juveniles on probation at the end of FY
2005 decreased 3.9%, from 9,115 on July 1, 2004
to 8,762 on June 30, 2005.
• A total of 8,449 adjudicated juveniles were placed on
probation in FY 2005, a 6.0% decrease from the 8,988
youth placed on probation in FY 2004.
• 8,740 juveniles were released from probation, an
increase of 0.5% from the 8,696 terminated last year.
• 863 juveniles were committed to the Arizona
Department of Juvenile Corrections during FY 2005,
a decrease of 2.4% from the 884 committed last year.
Adult Probation
Juvenile Court Referrals
• A total of 30,082 petitions were fi led in FY 2005,
a 3.0% decrease from the 31,008 petitions fi led
in FY 2004.
• A total of 28,821 petitions were terminated in FY 2005,
a 3.0% decrease from the 29,727 terminated in FY 2004.
Juvenile Court Petitions
Juvenile Probation/Corrections
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 33
• Total statewide court revenue increased 12.6%, from
$252.3 million in FY 2004 to $284.2 million in FY 2005,
refl ecting the continuing efforts of the courts statewide
to collect court-ordered fi nes, fees and surcharges. See
Graph A.
• Graph B represents the trend in increased court
revenue above the $70 million benchmark established
in FY 1998. Since that time, courts have collected just
under $1.6 billion in additional revenue.
Statewide Revenue and Expenditures Summary
Revenue • 49.1% of total court revenue was generated by
municipal courts, 25.1% by justice courts, 24.1% by
Superior Court and 1.7% by appellate courts. See Pie
Chart A.
• Of the total court system revenue, the state received
37.5%, counties received 32.9%, and cities and towns
29.6%. See Pie Chart B.
• Total restitution payments for victims collected by
courts increased 12.1%, from $16.1 million in FY 2004
to $18.0 million in FY 2005.
Pie Chart A Pie Chart B
Graph A Graph B
2005 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 34
• Total statewide court expenditures increased 8.6%,
from $516.5 million in FY 2004 to $561.1 million in FY
2005. See Graph A.
• 63.6% of the total funds spent by the court system
come from the counties, 21.5% from the state, 14.5%
from cities and towns, and 0.4% from federal and private
sources. See Pie Chart A.
• 71.8% of total court expenditures occured in Superior
Court (including probation), 14.6% in municipal courts,
7.0% at the appellate level (including statewide adminis-tration)
and 6.6% in the justice courts. See Pie Chart B.
The data contained in this report was compiled from the Supreme Court fi nancial records, caseload reports from courts, and responses to the
unaudited Supreme Court survey of expenditures and revenues for fi scal year 2005 (July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005). All data received by the
publication deadline is included but some information is preliminary. Final counts will be published in the 2005 Arizona Courts Data Report
in early 2006.
©2006 Arizona Supreme Court
Published by
Arizona Supreme Court
Administrative Offi ce of the Courts
1501 W. Washington St., Ste. 411
Phoenix, AZ 85007-3231
602-542-9300 TDD 602-542-9545
www.supreme.state.az.us
This publication may be provided in an alternative format or other assistance may be provided upon request by a qualifi ed individual with a
disability under the provisions of The Americans with Disabilities Act.
Expenditures
Graph A
Pie Chart A Pie Chart B