Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 2002

              2
PROTECTING CHILDREN, FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES
Commitment to Safety, Keeping the Public and Probation Offi cers Safe 4
New Risk-Needs Assessment Tool for Juvenile Offenders 5
Arizona Building Blocks Initiative: Promoting Fair and Effective Justice Policies 5
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth Report 6
Protecting Vulnerable Arizonans through Improved Fiduciary Oversight 7
Court Protective Order Repository Created 7
PROVIDING ACCESS TO SWIFT, FAIR JUSTICE
Domestic Relations Committee Suggests an Integrated Family Court Plan for Arizona 8
Roll Out the AZTEC 9
Improving Limited Jurisdiction Courts 9
Orientation for a New Millennium 10
Recommendations for Interpreter Certifi cation 11
CONNECTING WITH THE COMMUNITY
Improving the Jury Experience 11
Public Access to Court Information 12
BEING ACCOUNTABLE
Chief Justice Jones Delivers Annual State of the Judiciary Address 12
Penalty Enforcement Plan Announced 13
SERVING THE PUBLIC BY IMPROVING THE LEGAL PROFESSION
Speeding Up Responses to Complaints: Restructuring Attorney Discipline 14
Complex Litigation Court Created 14
COURT STATISTICS BY FISCAL YEAR [JULY 1, 2001 - JUNE 30, 2002]
STATEWIDE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
3
On behalf of the Judicial Branch, it is my pleasure to
present our 2002 Annual Report. It is a summary of
some, but not all, of the achievements of this branch
of government, thanks in large part to the hard work and
commitment of thousands of dedicated employees in every
court within the boundaries of this great state. Each day,
employees working in courts at all levels of the judicial
system make “justice for all” a reality for the citizens of
Arizona.
While the report is not about budget defi cits and their im-pact
on the Arizona Judicial Branch, the signifi cance of budget
reductions is too great not to mention. My fi rst year as Chief
Justice has been extraordinarily diffi cult for the leaders of all
three branches of state and local government. Unprecedented
state budget defi cits have challenged everyone to be creative
in budget-cutting solutions, to revisit and reaffi rm the judicia-ry’s
core values and, at the same time, to maintain full perfor-mance
of our branch’s constitutional and statutory mandates.
The immediate future will present added challenge. As a
participant in balancing the state’s current budget, diffi cult
choices have been made. Certain choices resulted in the loss
of valued employees, the elimination of programs and ser-vices
offered to the public, and a reduction in the resources
provided to local probation departments whose purpose is
to protect the public through the supervision of more than
64,000 convicted felons who live and work in our communi-ties.
Good employees, good programs and public safety were,
I believe, casualties of the fi rst round of budget cuts.
Through good times and bad it is essential for the institu-tions
of government to remain committed to the fulfi lment
of all constitutional mandates. Justice for a Better Arizona, A
Strategic Agenda for Arizona’s Courts, embodies the priorities of
the Judicial Branch. My commitment to this agenda will not
diminish during “bad times.” With the help of many, and as
resources permit, we will pursue our agenda vigorously and
continue to provide better justice throughout Arizona.
We can be proud of our judicial system. It is one of the best
in the nation thanks to our employees and leadership over the
years. We are grateful to all employees and judicial offi cers
who are committed to the core principle of our branch: pro-viding
impartial justice for all who appear before us regard-less
of circumstance.
A Time of Challenges
2002 Report
Photography by John Beckett
4
THIS ANNUAL REPORT IS A SUMMARY OF THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH
DURING THE PAST YEAR. THIS REPORT IS ORGANIZED TO REFLECT THE ARIZONA JUDICIAL
BRANCH’S STRATEGIC AGENDA, “JUSTICE FOR A BETTER ARIZONA.” THE AGENDA IS COM-PRISED
OF FIVE OVERALL GOALS: PROTECTING CHILDREN, FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES; PROVID-ING
ACCESS TO SWIFT, FAIR JUSTICE; CONNECTING WITH THE COMMUNITY; BEING ACCOUNT-ABLE;
AND, SERVING THE PUBLIC BY IMPROVING THE LEGAL PROFESSION.
PROTECTING CHILDREN, FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES
Courts provide a fair and impartial forum for the resolution of disputes.
They ensure that those who violate laws are held accountable and serve to
limit the arbitrary use of governmental power. They protect against physical
or fi nancial harm to those in need due to age or infi rmity. 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.
Commitment to Safety, Keeping the Public and Probation Offi cers Safe
Chief Justice Charles Jones has established the following initiatives as
part of the Judicial Branch’s strategic agenda:
• to establish, implement, and monitor statewide policies concerning of-fi
cer safety, utilizing the continuum of force model, up to and including
the provision of fi rearms to offi cers;
• to ensure that ongoing safety training and equipment is provided to
probation personnel; and,
• to advocate for resources necessary to provide training and safety
equipment to probation personnel.
To advance these initiatives, a committee com-posed
of probation offi cers, surveillance offi cers,
probation management, judges, legislators, public
members and Administrative Offi ces of the Court
(AOC) staff developed a statewide, comprehensive
offi cer safety program for Arizona’s probation sys-tem.
The Arizona Judicial Council (AJC) approved
the recommendations of the committee to proceed
with the development of a standardized offi cer
safety program for the state.
These recommendations address the full range
of safety options, including equipment, training
needs, and the arming of offi cers. Offi cer qualifi ca-tions,
equipment and training standards have been
adopted by the Arizona Judicial Council (AJC) in
the following areas: powers and duties of offi cers,
safety training, and use of force and fi rearm stan-
Offi cer Safety
Academy in progress.
5
dards. Code sections dealing with
personnel practices and incident
reporting are currently being devel-oped.
A mandatory 40-hour Offi cer
Safety Academy and an optional
40-hour fi rearms training program
are in the fi nal stages of approval.
Both are required prior to an offi cer
receiving authorization to carry a
fi rearm.
Faculty development and trainer
classes have begun and are antici-pated
to be complete by February
2003 for defensive tactics. Firearm
instructor courses will begin before
the end of fi scal year 2003.
Both the Juvenile Justice Ser-vices
Division (JJSD) and the Adult
Probation Services Division (APSD)
of the Administrative Offi ce of the
Courts have made the initial pur-chase
of safety equipment. These
purchases, based on needs iden-tifi
ed by probation departments,
include: ballistic vests, fl ashlights,
handcuffs, pepper spray, and equip-ment
for carrying these items.
The development and imple-mentation
of this program will be an
ongoing and evolving process. Judi-cial
Branch leadership remains com-mitted
to creating a program that
will improve offi cer safety statewide
and continuing to build on progress
made.
New Risk-Needs Assessment Tool for
Juvenile Offenders
Juvenile probation offi cers may
now make more in-depth assess-ments
of juvenile offenders with the
expanded version of the Risk-Needs
Assessment Tool. This tool will as-sist
the offi cer in the development of
a case plan that addresses the needs
of juveniles under the supervision
of the juvenile court while ensuring
juvenile offender accountability to
victims and communities.
Using this tool, probation of-fi
cers will be able to prioritize po-tential
needs and assess parenting
issues, health issues, alcohol and
over-the-counter drug abuse, illegal
or prescription drug abuse, school
issues, education functioning, tru-ancy,
behavior and mental health
issues, severity of runaway behav-ior,
and relationship with family.
The tool also includes a “strengths”
assessment that identifi es and rein-forces
positive behavior in juveniles
and their families.
The assessments of the Risk-
Needs Tool were implemented on the
Juvenile On-Line Tracking System
(JOLTS), further expanding JOLTS’
utility as a case management tool.
Arizona Building Blocks Initiative:
Promoting Fair and Effective Justice
Policies
The Commission on Minori-ties’
Equitable Treatment of Minor-ity
Youth in the Arizona Juvenile
Justice System report states that,
“Nearly one in every 12 Hispanic
youth, nearly one in every six Afri-can
American youth, and nearly one
in every nine Native American youth
in Maricopa County are referred to
the juvenile justice system.” The
Building Blocks Initiative is part of a
multi-state effort to address overrep-resentation
of young people of color
in the justice system. Policies and
practices that may indirectly--and
unintentionally--contribute to over-representation
of minority youth in
the juvenile justice system are being
6
Arizona’s Juvenile Justice System.
This landmark study used 1990
census data to examine the extent
to which race and ethnicity infl u-ence
decision-making within the
juvenile justice system. It concluded
that minorities were overrepresented
at various stages within the system
when compared to their proportion
in the general population. Since
these fi ndings were published, a
number of activities have been initi-ated
to address this issue, which are
sponsored by the Commission on
Minorities in the Judiciary (COM).
Ten years later, with the 1993
report as its basis, the COM has
conducted a comprehensive follow-up
study to evaluate progress made
from 1990 to 2000 in the area of
minority overrepresentation in Arizo-na’s
juvenile jus-tice
system. These
updated fi ndings
provide compara-tive
data that are
particularly rel-evant
for policy
makers and those
who can impact
juvenile justice
policy.
The report
fi nds that while
conditions are
improving, minor-ity
youth are still
overrepresented
in the criminal
justice system.
The report data
and recommendations will be used
by COM and the Juvenile Justice
Services Division to explore solu-tions
to the overrepresentation issue
and to improve coordination among
studied. Staff at the Administrative
Offi ce of the Courts (AOC) is work-ing
with community leaders, school
offi cials, law enforcement, judges,
prosecutors, public defenders, and
probation and juvenile corrections
offi cers to understand why and how
minority youth are overrepresented
in Arizona’s juvenile justice system.
Their goal is to promote rational and
effective juvenile justice policies.
The fi rst phase of the initia-tive
has begun. It involves mapping
selected neighborhoods to identify
community resources and assessing
the perceptions and attitudes of its
residents and juvenile justice sys-tem
professionals. The pilot site for
this phase is Maryvale, a community
within the city of Phoenix. Oversight
and direction is being provided by a
governing board composed of com-munity
members and representa-tives
from law enforcement, the Mar-icopa
County Juvenile Court, the
Arizona Juvenile Justice Advisory
Commission, State Corrections, the
Maricopa County Attorney’s Offi ce,
the Maricopa County Public Defend-er’s
Offi ce, juvenile justice agencies,
and youth treatment providers.
The fi nal phase of this multi-year
project will provide recom-mendations
for change and funding
strategies for implementation. An
informational packet explaining the
project is available in English and
Spanish.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth
Report
In 1993, the Arizona Juvenile
Justice Advisory Council published,
The Equitable Treatment of Minor-ity
Youth: A Report on the Over-representation
of Minority Youth in
“Studies come and go,
attentions shift from
crisis to crisis from fi scal
year to the next, but
underlying these changes
appears to be a constancy
that overrepresentation
is considered a problem
across agencies and
positive progress is being
made.”
Jon T. Perez, Ph.D.,
Committee Chair,
Juvenile Services
Subcommittee of the
Supreme Court’s
Commission on
Minorities and Ad Hoc
Committee
7
private and public agencies in the
state that work with juveniles.
Protecting Vulnerable Arizonans
through Improved Fiduciary
Oversight
Arizona enacted the fi rst pro-gram
in the nation designed to pro-tect
seniors and incapacitated per-sons
who rely on public fi duciaries
to manage their fi nances.
The Arizona Fiduciary Program
was fi rst implemented in 1998, fol-lowing
authorization and funding
by Arizona’s Legislature. The estab-lishment
of the program came after
some highly publicized cases of mis-management
and fi nancial exploita-tion
of incapacitated and protected
persons by fi duciaries. The Arizona
Fiduciary Program protects the pub-lic
by training and certifying individ-uals
who manage the fi nancial and
personal affairs of incapacitated and
vulnerable individuals, and by tak-ing
appropriate disciplinary action
when a fi duciary fails to perform
their duties competently or abuses
their position of authority and trust.
Although the vast majority of
fi duciaries perform their duties
competently and ethically, there
have been cases of fi duciaries and
attorneys being convicted of fi nan-cial
exploitation involving millions
of dollars. These cases of abuse led
to the appointment of a Fiduciary
Advisory Committee in June 2000
to review the accounting and case
management practices of fi duciaries
and to provide recommendations on
improvements.
The committee developed a com-prehensive
set of recommendations
including a number of statutory
changes. These changes, which were
enacted into law during 2002, pro-vide
superior court judges with addi-tional
enforcement powers when a
fi duciary fails to obey a court order,
allow enhanced sentencing when a
fi duciary commits a crime against
an incapacitated or vulnerable per-son,
and provides a funding source
to implement a statewide audit sys-tem
of fi duciaries and the cases they
manage.
Progress has also been made on
another recommendation of the Fi-duciary
Advisory Commission: state-wide
implementation of an automat-ed
system to give judges and court
staff better case management and
information accumulation abilities.
This automated system has been
successfully implemented in several
counties and soon will be used in 14
of the 15 counties in the state.
The Judicial Branch has worked
closely with members of the fi ducia-ry
and legal communities to improve
oversight and training of fi duciaries
statewide.
Protection of Arizona’s incapaci-tated
and vulnerable population is a
key component of the judicial de-partment’s
strategic plan. Chief Jus-tice
Jones has appointed a standing
Fiduciary Advisory Commission to
assist the judicial department in an
ongoing assessment of the manage-ment
of fi duciary cases.
Court Protective Order Repository
Created
Using Federal and state grants,
the Administrative Offi ce of the
Courts (AOC) has developed a state-wide
database of protective orders,
known as the Court Protective Order
Repository (CPOR). This database
is intended to increase knowledge
8
about domestic violence and en-hance
the protection afforded vic-tims
of domestic violence in Arizona.
There were 102 domestic violence
related homicides committed in Ari-zona
last year. Currently, the only
other electronic record of protec-tive
orders issued in Arizona
outside the county in which
they were issued, is the
National Crime Informa-tion
Center’s (NCIC) data-base,
which provides
nationwide criminal
records information to
law enforcement agen-cies.
Unfortu-nately,
the NCIC’s
data requirements
are so stringent that
less than 14 percent
of all orders issued
in Arizona are ac-cepted
by NCIC. The
new registry is greatly expanding
the number of protection orders
available electronically to law en-forcement
in Arizona. The absence
of easily accessible and up-to-date
protective order information can
cause diffi culties for law enforce-ment
agencies, including the courts,
and domestic violence victims. To
avoid their abusers, victims often
move out of the county or state in
which they originally obtained their
protective orders. They may later
encounter problems when local law
enforcement is unable to verify the
existence of the protection order.
The CPOR will provide a single,
readily accessible source of informa-tion
for determining whether a pro-tective
order is in effect.
A total of 149 courts are pres-ently
providing protection order data
to the repository. Through Decem-ber
16, 2002, more than 26,000 pro-tection
orders have been recorded
in the repository. Courts not cur-rently
participating in the program
are in the process of developing data
extraction programs necessary to
identify and transmit this data to
the CPOR.
PROVIDING ACCESS TO SWIFT, FAIR
JUSTICE
Our judicial system is predi-cated
on the belief that all citizens
coming before the courts are entitled
to equal justice, regardless of race,
ethnicity, gender, age, or economic
circumstance. Courts must resolve
cases swiftly and fairly. Courts must
ensure that litigants and victims fully
understand their rights and that
those rights are protected. 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 pro-ceedings.
Domestic Relations Committee
Suggests an Integrated Family Court
Plan for Arizona
The Domestic Relations Com-mittee,
a joint legislative commit-tee
staffed by the Supreme Court,
established the Integrated Family
Court Workgroup (IFCW). The work-group’s
purpose was to develop an
exemplary model “family court plan”
for our state.
Early in its deliberations, the
workgroup decided on the mission of
the Integrated Family Court Plan for
Arizona, which is, “To protect and
9
safeguard family life in general, and
family units in particular, by afford-ing
to family members all possible
help in resolving their legal prob-lems
and confl icts arising from their
interpersonal relationships....”
The IFCW developed a statewide
plan for an Integrated Family Court
that incorporates current trends in
family law for an ideal family court.
At the December meeting of the
Arizona Judicial Council, a pilot pro-gram
for testing the recommended
components of an integrated family
court was approved. IFCW’s Inte-grated
Family Court proposal will
commence in Maricopa, Coconino
and Pinal Counties.
The complete proposed plan
and an executive summary are
available on the Internet at: http:
//www.supreme.state.az.us/
courtserv/IFC/IFC_Plan.asp.
Roll Out the AZTEC
The Judicial Branch is continu-ing
to promote the goal of providing
access to swift, fair justice by utiliz-ing
technology.
Toward that end, the Arizona
Court Automation Project (ACAP)
provides 143 courts with AZTEC, a
case processing and fi nancial man-agement
system. The winter 2002
release of AZTEC provided key en-hancements
including: high volume
citation entry and scheduling; a
probate and arbitration module; an
enhanced Windows compliant inter-face;
a warrant reconciliation mod-ule;
quick receipting enhancements;
a protective order module; imaging
system integration; and, Motor Ve-hicle
Division and criminal history
reporting integration.
By the end of 2003, the Mari-copa
County Clerk’s Offi ce, the
Superior Court in Pima County and
the Maricopa County justice courts
are expected to join more than 1,400
court employees in 143 locations
currently using AZTEC.
Improving Limited Jurisdiction
Courts
“Maricopa County has some of
the best functioning limited jurisdic-tion
courts in Arizona; it also has
some of the most problematic.” With
these words, Chief Justice Jones
commenced dramatic reform in the
administration of municipal and jus-tice
of the peace courts in Maricopa
County.
A foundation for improve-ment
and reform is being pursued
through a comprehensive set of ad-ministrative
directives. Implementa-tion
of these directives will fall to the
presiding superior court judge who
will be assisted by the newly cre-ated
Judicial Oversight Council for
Maricopa County Limited Jurisdic-tion
Courts. The new council, which
consists of judges, justices of the
peace, lawyers, court administrators
and public members, is intended to
provide a forum for the exchange of
ideas and an opportunity for broad-er
participation in policy setting by
the presiding judge.
These new administrative direc-tives
include:
• Restructuring of justice court
administration.
• The replacement of the legacy
computer information sys-tem
used by the justice of the
peace courts with the state’s
standard system, AZTEC,
10
which will allow for the timely
and effi cient transfer of vital
information to the Department
of Public Safety, the Motor
Vehicle Division, the Depart-ment
of Economic Services,
and the Protection Order Cen-tral
Repository maintained by
the Administrative Offi ce of the
Courts.
• To review and recommend
a bond and deposit schedule
that is uniform and countywide
in regard to fi nes and the ap-plication
of surcharges, taking
into account local fees imposed
by individual cities.
• The creation of a “Courts of
Distinction Program” to rec-ognize
the best of Maricopa
County’s limited jurisdiction
courts.
Making these changes will re-quire
strong judicial leadership and
continuing commitment to improve
our limited jurisdiction courts en-suring
that the hundreds of thou-sands
of Arizonans who depend on
these courts have access to swift,
fair justice.
Orientation for a New Millennium
Limited Jurisdiction Courts
process more than a million cases
annually and handle millions of
dollars in revenue every year. New
laws and expanded jurisdiction have
resulted in more complex cases be-ing
heard in municipal and justice
of the peace courts. In response to
these increasing challenges facing
limited jurisdiction courts, Chief
Justice Jones directed that existing
training for new limited jurisdiction
judges be expanded and the curricu-lum
revised to provide new judges
with every opportunity to acquire
the information and skills needed to
perform their jobs.
The Limited Jurisdiction Court
New Judge Orientation program
has been developed and was pre-sented
for the fi rst time during the
January 6-17 orientation program.
The program provides training on
relevant laws, procedures, and
rules for limited jurisdiction judges.
Teaching methods were revised to
focus on participatory learning and
giving new judges the opportunity
to practice what they are learning.
In addition, an assessment compo-nent
was developed to measure the
participants’ comprehension of the
material.
A Limited Jurisdiction New
Judge Orientation Planning Com-mittee
was established as a standing
subcommittee of the Judicial Col-lege
Board of Arizona to oversee the
project. The committee’s members
include limited jurisdiction court
judges, administrators and attor-neys.
Orientation exercise
11
Recommendations for Interpreter
Certifi cation
Each day, Arizona’s population
becomes more diverse. In addition to
the growing Spanish-speaking popu-lation,
the number of people whose
primary language is other than
English is increasing. People with
limited English skills often appear in
our courts. The courts must be ac-cessible
and responsive to everyone;
there can be no language barriers to
justice.
Chief Justice Jones formed an
advisory committee to study inter-preter
issues in Arizona’s courts.
The committee’s charge included
considering methods for improv-ing
the number and the quality of
interpreters who are available for
Arizona’s courts so that all individu-als
are provided access to justice.
This committee proposed four inter-related
recommendations designed
to enhance the quality of language
interpreters.
First, the committee recom-mended
that a statewide court in-terpreter
certifi cation program be
established. From existing reports,
the committee recognized that the
demanding job of interpreting re-quires
skills above a normal fl uency
in English and another language.
A second committee recommen-dation
was that extensive training
be made available and promoted by
the courts so that prospective inter-preters
are afforded opportunities to
effectively prepare for certifi cation.
The expected result is an improve-ment
in the number of individuals
earning acceptable test scores.
The committee also recognizes
that changes to statute and court
rules are required to implement a certifi cation program.
As such, the committee presented proposals for chang-es
to laws and court rules.
Finally the committee recommended that a board
be established to advise the court on policy issues relat-ing
to interpreter concerns.
CONNECTING WITH THE COMMUNITY
Courts exist to serve the public and cannot serve ef-fectively
if meaningful communication with the communi-ty
does not exist. This strategic initiative, “CONNECTING
WITH THE COMMUNITY,” focuses on enhancing judicial
communication with the public and the other branches of
government, as well as fostering public understanding of
the important role of the judiciary in our democracy.
Improving the Jury Experience
Juries play a fundamental role in our judicial pro-cess.
Often, jury service is a citizen’s fi rst or only en-counter
with the judiciary. It can be an experience that
shapes a person’s perception of the judiciary for bet-ter
or worse. In fi scal year 2002, 29,481 individuals in
Maricopa County and 13, 539 in Pima County failed
to respond to their summonses for jury duty. This is a
concern to the judicial branch because public participa-tion
in the justice system is essential to the administra-tion
of justice and to maintaining trust and confi dence
in our courts.
In keeping with prior Supreme Court efforts to im-prove
the jury experience, the Arizona Judicial Council
recommended that a committee be established to ex-plore
ways to promote and encourage jury service.
The committee worked diligently during the past
year to develop 15 specifi c recommendations to im-prove
jury management and administration. When
developing its recommendations, the committee paid
particular attention to how jurors are managed by the
court, how courts enforce summonses, the effi cacy of
the current source lists for summoning jurors, excuse/
postponement policies, and citizen education cam-paigns.
Another signifi cant action taken by the commit-tee
was revising the 1994 Juror Bill of Rights originally
proposed by the Arizona Supreme Court Committee on
the more effective use of juries.
12
The Arizona Judicial Council, at
its October 2002 meeting approved
the concept of the committee’s re-port.
However, the committee con-tinues
to discuss juror anonymity
practices and whether to amend the
juror anonymity provision of the
proposed jury management admin-istrative
code provision. The com-mittee’s
report is published at http:
//www.supreme.state.az.us/jury.
Public Access to Court Information
During the past several years
the Supreme Court’s Commission
on Technology and the Administra-tive
Offi ce of the Courts (AOC) have
made it a priority to develop web-based
access to the millions of court
records that are stored in the AOC’s
data warehouse. In early FY 2002,
this vision became a reality when
the Public Access to Court Informa-tion
web-based search feature was
added to the Judicial Branch’s Inter-net
home page.
This public response to this
new Internet-based service has been
astonishing. To date more than
100,000 citizens have accessed this
site generating more than 17 mil-lion
“hits.” During the month of
November 2002, the site was visited
by almost 24,000 visitors who initi-ated
more than 1.2 million hits, or
approximately 50 pages viewed per
visitor.
The AOC will continue to ex-pand
the data warehouse as fund-ing
permits, making access to court
information easier and more com-prehensive.
BEING ACCOUNTABLE
The judiciary, like the executive
and legislative branches of govern-ment,
must be accountable to the
public. This strategic initiative, “BE-ING
ACCOUNTABLE,” focuses on the
obligation of the judiciary to ensure
staff at all levels are competent,
professional, and customer service
oriented.
Chief Justice Jones Delivers Annual
State of the Judiciary Address
At a moment when our Nation’s
peace was shattered by terrorists
and during a record-breaking state
budget defi cit, Chief Justice Jones
presented the second State of the
Judiciary address to the Arizona
Legislature on January 30, 2002.
Chief Justice Jones acknowl-edged
the challenges, but his speech
focused on the future and lauded
the accomplishments made in the
state’s courts during the tenure of
former Chief Justice Thomas Zlaket.
Chief Justice Jones reiterated
that he will continue to, “Administer
justice under the rule of law, equally
and independently.”
He also promised to focus
on improving limited jurisdiction
courts, advancing technology, re-forming
family court procedures and
creating a complex litigation court.
In his State of the Judiciary
speech, Chief Justice Jones remind-ed
the Legislature that the three
branches of government must work
together and that the objectives he
has placed before them are impor-tant
to maintaining the trust and
confi dence of the people of Arizona.
13
Penalty Enforcement Plan Announced
As the condition of the state’s
general revenue collections contin-ued
to worsen and deeper budget
cuts were being contemplated by
the Legislature and Governor, Chief
Justice Charles Jones announced
a Judicial Branch initiative to step
up court ordered sanction enforce-ment.
The new initiative, known as
the Penalty Enforcement Plan (PEP),
proposed a collaborative solution to
increasing state and local revenue
through a four phase strategy de-signed
to improve the enforcement
of court ordered penalties.
Phase I would expand to all
courts the Administrative Offi ce of
the Court’s Debt Setoff Program.
This program certifi es delinquent
court ordered debt to the Arizona
Department of Revenue for the in-tercept
of state tax refunds or lottery
winnings otherwise payable to those
who owe the debt. This program col-lected
more than $2 million in cal-endar
year 2002.
Phase II proposed to expand
the tax intercept program to Federal
income taxes, and will require Con-gressional
approval.
Phase III would implement exist-ing
law that permits the suspension
of vehicle registrations for nonpay-ment
of court ordered penalties.
Implementation of this phase, which
is now possible for the Judicial
Branch because of its own statewide
automation initiatives, will require
computer system programming
changes for the state’s Division of
Motor Vehicles.
Phase IV proposed the establish-ment
of a “centralized collections
bureau” similar to those that have
been established in jurisdictions in
other states around the country. The
bureau, as now envisioned, would
handle penalty enforcement activity
such as sending payment notices,
skip-tracing and address verifi ca-tion.
Additionally, a centralized
Internet- or phone-based system for
making payments would be offered
to make it more convenient for citi-zens
to comply with court orders.
If all four phases are fully
implemented, it is estimated that
$51 million to $114 million in new
revenue could be generated. This
new revenue would go to victims for
restitution owed and other state and
local funds earmarked by the Legis-lature.
In his transmittal letter an-nouncing
the Penalty Enforcement
Plan, Chief Justice Jones warned
that further cuts to the judicial and
local level could delay or, worse,
prevent the implementation of this
important initiative.
SERVING THE PUBLIC BY IMPROVING
THE LEGAL PROFESSION
The judiciary has long recog-nized
the indispensable role of the
legal profession in protecting indi-vidual
rights and liberties in a free
society. We continue in that tradition.
Because the Supreme Court regu-lates
the practice of law, however,
the judiciary must determine how the
legal profession can best serve the
public. While the traditional adver-sarial
system for resolving disputes
may be applicable in the majority of
legal disputes, that system may not
be desirable in all cases.
“The rule of law is the
bulwark of a free society,
the leavening that affords
essential balance among
all of society’s interests,
both public and private.
It is the immutable
principle that guaran-tees
a judicial branch
free from the maelstrom
of partisan politics. It
is our foundation, and
the Supreme Court of
Arizona remains fi rmly
committed
to it.”
Chief Justice Charles
E. Jones, Arizona
Supreme Court
14
Speeding Up Responses to
Complaints: Restructuring
Attorney Discipline
In cooperation with the
State Bar of Arizona, the
judicial branch’s efforts to
restructure the processing of
attorney discipline cases con-tinues.
When the project was
fi rst initiated, processing of serious complaints against
attorneys was taking three to four years to resolve.
However, adoption of new court rules and procedures
have resulted in signifi cant and ongoing improvements
to the case processing times, moving closer toward the
goal of processing 98 percent of all cases within 22
months.
With that goal in mind, Chief Justice Jones ap-pointed
the Ad Hoc Committee on Attorney Discipline
with representatives from the legal community, State
Bar, Disciplinary Commission, and Administrative Of-fi
ce of the Courts. The committee has reviewed the dis-ciplinary
process, rules and policy, and suggested pro-cedural
improvements. A major focus involves ensuring
that the process provides complainants with notice and
reasonable opportunity to be heard in discipline pro-ceedings,
and that restitution is being investigated and
provided where appropriate.
Much of the improvements realized to date result
from the work of the volunteers who support the attor-ney
discipline process. Attorney hearing offi cers, attor-neys
and public members of the Disciplinary Commis-sion
contribute thousands of hours each year, bringing
their valuable time, expertise and insights to the pro-cess.
Complex Litigation Court Created
A committee established by Chief Justice Jones re-cently
examined ways to improve the manner in which
complex litigation cases are handled in Arizona courts.
The committee concluded that establishing a separate
complex civil litigation department governed by rules of
procedure crafted to handle these cases is a more ef-fi
cient and effective way to adjudicate complex cases.
Additionally, the committee concluded that removing
complex cases from the overall mix will allow the civil
bench to devote more resources to
the large volume of civil cases.
Active hands-on management by
the judge is the foundation for suc-cessful
processing of complex litiga-tion.
To develop this skill, judges
selected for this program will receive
special training in case management
techniques as well as substantive
law areas common to complex cases.
One judge will oversee all aspects
of a case, and will stay with the
case until resolution. Case manage-ment
will be aimed at encouraging
early resolution of cases or parts of
cases. Program judges also will be
available on short notice to resolve
pretrial disputes. Program partici-pants
will be encouraged to utilize
electronic communication and stor-age
and transmission of evidence in
each case. Appearance at pretrial
hearings by remote electronic means
could become routine. Periodic case
management conferences will be the
norm.
The program will be pilot tested
in the Superior Court in Maricopa
County and primarily will rely on
the reallocation of existing resources
in Maricopa County. To the extent
extra funds are needed to imple-ment
this program, new funds may
be generated through imposition
of extra fi ling fees on complex case
litigants. The pilot program will be
evaluated and the results submitted
to the Supreme Court.
15
Judicial Organization Summary 2002*
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
5 Departments (A, B, C, D & E)
Presiding Judge & 2 Judges Each
Counties: Apache, Coconino, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave,
Navajo, Yavapai, Yuma
Division II, Tucson
Chief Judge & 5 Associate Judges
2 Departments (A & B)
Presiding Judge & 2 Judges Each
Counties: Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Pinal,
Santa Cruz
Superior Court
160 Judges, 4 Year Terms
Presiding Judge in Each County
Apache 1 Greenlee 1 Pima 28
Cochise 4 La Paz 1 Pinal 6
Coconino 4 Maricopa 91 Santa Cruz 2
Gila 2 Mohave 5 Yavapai 6
Graham 1 Navajo 3 Yuma 5
Justices of the Peace
83 Judges, 83 Precincts, 4 Year Terms
Apache 4 Greenlee 2 Pima 8
Cochise 6 La Paz 3 Pinal 8
Coconino 4 Maricopa 23 Santa Cruz 2
Gila 2 Mohave 5 Yavapai 5
Graham 2 Navajo 6 Yuma 3
Municipal Courts
153 Full- & Part-Time Judgeships, 2 Year Terms, 84 Cities/Towns
Judges Courts Judges Courts
Apache 3 3 Mohave 3 3
Cochise 5 5 Navajo 4 4
Coconino 13 4 Pima 16 5
Gila 5 5 Pinal 8 8
Graham 3 3 Santa Cruz 2 2
Greenlee 2 2 Yavapai 7 8
La Paz 2 2 Yuma 4 4
Maricopa 61 23
*Numbers may change throughout 2003. In addition to the judges listed above, there are a number of paid full- and part-time
judges pro tempore, commissioners and hearing offi cers, as well as hundreds of volunteer judges pro tempore who handle
cases.
16
COURT STATISTICS BY FISCAL YEAR [JULY 1, 2001 - JUNE 30, 2002]
FY 2002 Case Filings by Court Level
Supreme Court............................................... 1,227
Court of Appeals ............................................ 3,619
Division One .................................................. 2,596
Division Two .................................................. 1,023
Tax Court....................................................... 1,007
County Superior Justice Municipal
Apache 750 9,858 1,747
Cochise 3,706 51,596 11,390
Coconino 3,415 31,951 26,502
Gila 2,267 18,603 6,285
Graham 1,392 6,748 3,154
Greenlee 318 2,502 691
La Paz 802 15,557 3,132
Maricopa 113,235 351,278 851,712
Mohave 5,645 39,903 23,995
Navajo 2,754 25,282 9,938
Pima 26,262 208,794 317,367
Pinal 7,306 42,282 28,622
Santa Cruz 1,690 11,212 14,615
Yavapai 6,727 40,629 36,102
Yuma 5,411 20,660 25,047
TOTALS 181,680 876,855 1,360,299
FY 2001 FY 2002 Difference
Total
Filings:
2,442,112 2,424,687 (17,425)
-0.7%
Statistical Trends/Highlights
• More than 2.4 million cases were
fi led in Arizona courts in FY 2002.
• Total case fi lings decreased 0.7%,
but total court revenue increased
9.1%.
• The cost to process a case in 2002
was $125.87 compared to $118.84
in FY 2001.
• Since the benchmark year of 1988,
Arizona courts have collected more
than $1 billion in additional revenue.
• A total of 64,564 individuals were
under the jurisdiction of Arizona
adult probation at the end of FY
2002, up 6.2% from FY 2001.
• DUI case fi lings are up 15.2% in
justice of the peace courts and
19.5% in municipal courts.
• Commitments to the Arizona
Department of Corrections
increased by 1,037 or 12% over FY
2001 commitments.
• Civil fi lings in the superior court
increased by 8.1%.
• Domestic violence cases increased
by 24.5% in the superior court;
13.3% in justice of the peace courts;
and, 16.5% in municipal courts.
17
• FY 2002 case terminations decreased
by 10.8%.
• Total cases pending increased 2.8%
from 1,041 on July 1, 2001, to 1,060 on
June 30, 2002.
• Total case fi lings in FY 2002 increased
by 1.8% from FY 2001.
• Total case terminations decreased
3.9% in the same period.
• Civil case fi lings increased 8.1% from
41,025 in FY 2001 to 44,335 in FY
2002. In the same period, civil case
terminations decreased 11.7% from
50,565 to 44,647.
• Criminal case fi lings increased 0.9%
from 47,380 in FY 2001 to 47,804 in
FY 2002. Criminal case terminations
increased 1.8% from 45,111 to 45,931.
• Domestic relations cases decreased
0.9% from 49,388 in FY 2001 to 48,938
in FY 2002, and domestic relations
case terminations decreased 2.8% from
50,668 to 49,225. Domestic violence
petition fi lings increased 24.5% in
superior court from 5,007 to 6,236 in FY
2002.
• There were 186,104 total cases
pending in July 1, 2001, compared with
181,680 cases pending on June 30,
2002, a decrease of 2.4%.
• Juveniles with direct fi lings to adult
court decreased by 18.2% from 583 in
FY 2001 to 477 in FY 2002. Juvenile
cases transferred to adult court
increased by 15.3% from 85 in FY 2001
to 98 in FY 2002. A total of 575 juvenile
cases were either transferred or directly
fi led in adult court in FY 2002 compared
to 668 in FY 2001, a decrease of
13.9%.
• Total fi lings in FY 2002 increased
by 1.6% from FY 2001. Total case
terminations increased by 2.7%.
• Civil and criminal traffi c fi lings, which
comprise almost two-thirds of all justice
court fi lings, decreased 0.8% from
552,876 in FY 2001 to 548,583 this
year.
• Criminal (misdemeanor and felony)
case fi lings increased 2.7% from
156,223 in FY 2001 to 160,464 in
FY 2002. Criminal case terminations
increased 2.0% from 138,818 in FY
2001 to 141,629 in FY 2002.
• Domestic violence petition fi lings
increased 13.3% in justice courts from
8,506 to 9,638. Petitions for Injunction
Against Harassment increased 10.9%
from 8,143 to 9,034.
• Total cases pending increased
4.5% from 594,401 in July 1, 2001, to
621,023 on June 30, 2002.
• Case fi lings in FY 2002 decreased
2.5% from FY 2001. Total case
terminations increased 0.3% in the
same period.
• Civil and criminal traffi c fi lings, which
comprise about three-fourths of all
municipal court cases, decreased 1.2%
from 1,019,574 in FY 2001 to 1,007,480
in FY 2002.
• Criminal misdemeanor case fi lings
decreased 2.5% from 224,703 in FY
• Supreme Court FY 2002 case fi lings
decreased 1.7% from cases fi led in FY
2001.
• Cases terminated by the court in FY
2002 decreased by 6.9% over case
terminations in FY 2001.
• Pending caseloads decreased 13.0%,
down from 454 on July 1, 2001, to 395
cases on June 30, 2002.
• Filings in FY 2002 represented a 7.5%
increase from FY 2001. Total criminal
fi lings, the largest category, decreased
5.0% from 1,110 in FY 2001 to 1,054 in
FY 2002.
• FY 2002 case terminations decreased
by 0.5%.
• Total cases pending increased 5.9%
from 1,823 on July 1, 2001, to 1,931 on
June 30, 2002.
• Total fi lings in FY 2002 decreased
by 2.4% from FY 2001. Total criminal
fi lings, the largest category, decreased
1.7% from 544 in FY 2001 to 535 in FY
2002.
18
• Of the 64,564 under the jurisdiction
of adult probation, 58,949 were on
standard probation, 4,295 on intensive
probation, and 1,320 were interstate
compact cases.
• There were 77,302 referrals to juvenile
court in FY 2002, a 3.0% decrease
compared to 79,660 in the previous
year.
• 79,836 referrals were terminated in FY
2002, a 7.9% decrease compared to the
86,699 referrals terminated in FY 2001.
Juvenile Court Petitions
• A total of 31,443 petitions were fi led
in FY 2002, a 4.4% decrease from the
32,881 petitions fi led in FY 2001.
• A total of 30,895 petitions were
terminated in FY 2002, a 5.2%
decrease from the 32,574 terminated in
FY 2001.
• The number of juveniles on probation
at the end of FY 2002 decreased 0.1%
from 9,625 on July 1, 2001, to 9,618 on
June 30, 2002.
• A total of 9,349 adjudicated juveniles
were placed on probation in FY 2002, a
2.7% decrease from the 9,605 youths
placed on probation in FY 2001.
• 9,359 juveniles were released from
probation, an increase of 0.8% from the
9,286 terminated last year.
• 1,018 juveniles were committed to
the Arizona Department of Juvenile
Corrections during FY 2002, a decrease
of 5.8% from the 1,081 committed last
year.
Revenue Summary
•
Total statewide court revenue increased
9.1% from $197.4 million in FY 2001 to
$215.3 million in FY 2002, refl ecting the
continuing efforts of courts statewide
to collect court ordered fi nes, fees, and
surcharges.
Revenue in Excess of 1988
Benchmark
Increased Revenue Trend
• This graph represents the trend in
increased court revenue above the
$70 million benchmark established in
FY 1988. Since that time, courts have
collected approximately $1 billion in
additional revenue.
2001 to 219,164 in FY 2002. Criminal
case terminations decreased 6.2% from
221,885 in FY 2001 to 208,185 in FY
2002.
• Domestic violence petitions
increased 16.5% from 11,442 in FY
2001 to 13,330 in FY 2002. Petitions
for Injunction Against Harassment
increased 12.8% from 8,533 to 9,629.
• Total cases pending decreased
2.6% from 874,261 on July 1, 2001, to
851,119 on June 30, 2002.
The Arizona Tax Court serves as the
statewide venue for all civil actions
involving a tax, impost or assessment.
• A total of 1,007 original cases were
fi led in the court during FY 2002, a
decrease of 11.8% from the 1,142
cases fi led in FY 2001.
• Of the FY 2002 cases fi led, 609 were
property tax actions, accounting for
60.5% of the total.
• A total of 962 cases were terminated,
407 by judgment.
• As of June 30, 2002, there were
779 cases pending in the tax court.
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Caseload Summary 2002 (calendar
year)
Inquiries—891
Complaints—352
Informal Actions—20
Advisory Letters Sent—24
Formal Actions—9
Adult Probation
• The number of individuals under the
jurisdiction of Arizona adult probation
departments at the end of FY 2002
increased 6.2% from 60,800 on July 1,
2001, to 64,564 on June 30, 2002.
STATEWIDE REVENUE AND
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
19
Expenditure Summary
• Total statewide
court expenditures
increased 5.4% from
$480.5 million in FY
2001 to $506.5 million
in FY 2002.
Funds Expended by Source
• 54.2% of the total
funds spent by the court
system were from the
counties, 30.8% from the
state, 14.5% from cities
and towns, and 0.5%
from Federal and private
sources.
Funds Expended by Court Level
• 68.8% of total court
expenditures were
in superior court
(including probation),
14.5% in municipal
courts, 9.8% at
the appellate level
(including statewide
administration) and
6.9% in the justice
courts.
The data contained in this report was compiled from 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 2002 (July 1, 2001-June 30, 2002). All data received by the publication deadline is
included, but some information is preliminary. Final counts will be published in the 2002 Arizona Courts Data Report early in 2003.
Published by
Arizona Supreme Court
Administrative Offi ce of the Courts
1501 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3231
(602) 542-9300 TDD (602) 542-9545
http://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.
© 2003 Arizona Supreme Court
Revenue Received
• Of the total court
system revenue, the
state received 36.8%,
counties received 35.1%
and cities and towns
28.1%.
Revenue Generated
• 44.3% of total
court revenue
was generated by
municipal courts,
25.3% by justice
courts, 28.3% by the
superior court and
2.1% by appellate
courts.
Restitution
• Total restitution
payments for victims
collected by courts
increased 67.0% from
$15.6 million in FY
2001 to $26.0 million
in FY 2002.*
*Increase due to TRW
fi ne payment.