of the visiting judge program locally, and an unsurpassed number of days on the bench per district court judge. To be compared is the total number of criminal cases disposed of during calendar year 1968-namely, 1,890-and the fact that a significant proportion of the serious crime committed in the District of Columbia can be attributed to persons at large awaiting trial on earlier charges.

Evidence amassed by the President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia dramatically illustrated the profound adverse effect of congestion and delay on the administration of justice. The Commission reported that, although there has been a steady increase in the number of felonies committed within the District of Columbia in recent years, there has been a decrease in the number of felonies actually prosecuted in the courts. Additionally, there has been a sharp increase in the number of pleas to lesser offenses that have been negotiated by the prosecutors. The Commission concluded from these facts that the U.S. attorney's office, cognizant of the backlog in the district court and of the consequent inability of the court to handle its caseload, tends (1) to "no paper"; that is, refuse to prosecute cases that otherwise might be prosecuted if the courts were not so congested, and (2) to bargain for guilty pleas to lesser offenses than charged. Such a situation short circuits the enforcement of the law. Respect for the law cannot be maintained if an offender, although apprehended, may not be charged, and, if charged, can probably "cop a plea."

This committee was mindful of the anomoly inherent in burdening a Federal district court with sole general jurisdiction over the full panoply of local legal matters. The burden is acute in the District of Columbia, the seat of the Federal Government, where, in the absence of inordinately crowded dockets (both civil and criminal), a substantial and greater quantum of genuinely Federal litigation might best and conveniently be brought. Yet, at present the median time for civil jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is nearly double the median for Federal district courts nationwide. In recent years as many as 12 out of 14 judges of the Federal court in the National Capital have been assigned full time to the trial of local felony offenses.

Finally, the committee was likewise mindful of the inefficiency fostered by the existing court system. The 893-page publication constituting the record of hearings on court reorganization before this committee (Crime in the National Capital, pt. 3, U.S. Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, 91st Cong., first sess.) details the committee's findings regarding management deficiencies in the existing system. Moreover, note should be taken of such wasteful, disfunctional institutional defects (in the existing system) as (1) differentiated jurisdiction over related offenses-whereby, as an illustration, an individual charged with both felony and lesser, local misdemeanor offenses cannot be tried at once on all charges-(2) differentiated jurisdiction over related civil matters-whereby, for example, except as to matters before the domestic relations branch, the court of general sessions is divested of jurisdiction over any civil matter where title to real property is at issue, no matter how insignificant the controversy or amount in controversy and (3) the absence of independent, general equity powers in a modern court of law, the general sessions court.

HISTORY OF LEGISLATION

The committee has had for consideration during this session six bills on the subject generally of court reorganization-S. 1066, S. 1067, S. 1214, S. 1215, S. 1711, and S. 2601. Although S. 2601 was not introduced and referred to this committee until July 11, 1969, hearings on the other bills were conducted as early as May 19, 20, 21, and 22, 1969. Following the introduction of S. 2601, further hearings were conducted on July 15, 16, and 17, 1969, and on August 7, 1969. The record available to the committee on the specific subject of court reorganization includes the testimony and other official communications from over 100 agencies, officials, organizations, lawyers, judges, and other citizens. Reference has been made notably to the publication "Crime in the National Capital," U.S. Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, 91st Congress, first session, part 3, Reorganization of the District of Columbia Courts, and, related thereto, part 1, Implementation of the Recommendations of the President's Commission on Crime and Regional Aspects of the Crime Problem, part 2, Drug Abuse in the Washington Area, and part 2A, also Drug Abuse in the Washington Area. Moreover, as court reorganization hearings were conducted jointly with the Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, some reference has been made likewise to the publication "Federal Judges and Courts," Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 91st Congress, first session. In sum, of the official legislative materials available to and relied upon by the committee in preparing the amended version of S. 2601 now reported, the published materials alone are nearly 3,000 pages in length.

The legislation recommended by this committee consists, to repeat, of an amended version of the bill S. 2601 as introduced. It should be noted that the amendatory process drew heavily upon other legislation on court reorganization, both that which was pending at the time of the consideration of S. 2601 and other legislation considered by this commmittee in recent years. Also, the amendments, including recommendations of the local bar association and its staff, were made largely in cooperation with the staff of the Department of Justice. Finally, reference should be made to another bill, pending S. 2869, to revise the criminal law and procedure of the District of Columbia (91st Cong., first sess.). The latter bill contains those provisions of the original S. 2601, as introduced, which fell outside of the scope of court reorganization as such, which were not technically requisite for full implementation of the provisions of title I on court reorganization in S. 2601 as introduced, and which, according to numerous community witnesses before this committee, could not be adequately dealt with without further submissions of testimony and other advice.

ABSTRACT OF BILL

Briefly, S. 2601 as amended creates a unified and expanded trial bench, the District of Columbia Superior Court, with eventual jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters of a purely local nature.

The bill expands the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and renders it the final reviewing authority of the District. As original

jurisdiction gradually devolves upon the new Superior Court, final appellate jurisidction likewise devolves upon the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Amended S. 2601 creates an advisory committee to assist in the selection of local judges, a removal commission to superintend the removal of local jurists who are disabled or guilty of misconduct, and a new outside advisory committee to oversee the administration of justice here generally and intercede for the courts with the Congress. An executive officer under the bill would lend managerial expertise to the operations of the court. The outmoded local office of the coroner is abolished, to be replaced by medical officers with largely medical functions to perform (the new office of medical examiners).

Finally, under title II of S. 2601 as amended, the courts of the District are granted the modern bases of personal jurisdiction and modes of out-of-town service in civil actions approved by recent case law and incorporated in the first two articles of the Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act.

(See appendix herein for description of existing judiciary for the District of Columbia.)

PRINCIPAL FEATURES OF THE BILL

Timing of Jurisdictional Transfer

A major feature of S. 2601 is the transfer of jurisdiction over District of Columbia litigation from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to the new Superior Court for the District of Columbia. This transfer will bring the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts in the District of Columbia in line with the jurisdiction exercised by the Federal courts in the several States, and will give the local courts jurisdiction over all purely local matters.

The Senate District Committee has concluded that the plan of jurisdictional transfer would best be set forth in a single piece of legislation, as an indefinite or incomplete transfer would make adequate and necessary planning extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible.

In determining, further, the pace at which transfer of jurisdiction should be accomplished, the committee was mindful of the wisdom expressed by the present chief judge of the District of Columbia. Court of General Sessions, the Honorable Harold Greene, in a speech delivered in January 1969. Judge Greene stated: "A court is not a commodity that can be produced, full blown, like an electric appliance. A judicial tribunal, to be an effective instrument of justice, must grow in an orderly progression, by measured, natural states." This concise statement expresses well the need for staging the transfer of jurisdiction in an orderly progression, to assure an orderly development of the court receiving the judicial business.

To accomplish that end, this committee has decided to recommend a transfer of jurisdiction in four stages, over an extended period of 5 years. This pace was selected because:

1. Although the general sessions court has made significant improvements in its operations during the past several years, the local court still suffers from an almost overwhelming caseload, and from some severe defects in personnel and administration.

2. As some local cases are moved out of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the latter court, with its present and largely irreducible number of judges, will be better able to dispose of its staggering backlog and better equipped to give prompt attention to pending matters.

3. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia now has facilities which, though not expandable, are amply suited to the needs of the court, while the local courts must await the construction of truly necessary facilities.

4. The present very effective operations of probate work in the U.S. District Court should not be transferred until a time when fully adequate facilities and resources can be expected to be available for the local court.

The following table sets forth the proposed jurisdictional transfer:

Size of Court

Meeting the criminal case backlog_requires adequate additional judgepower. The Committee on the District of Columbia was impressed with the reasonableness of the proposal of the Department of Justice for 10 additional trial court judgeships in the first phase of reorganization.

The Committee on the Administration of Justice of the District of Columbia Judicial Council and the chief judge of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions had earlier recommended the creation of five additional judgeships just to enable that court to cope with its existing workload and commence reducing the crescent backlog of pending criminal cases.

The Committee on the Administration of Justice further recommended the creation of seven additional positions for the general sessions bench as the necessary increase to cope at the outset with the demands of jurisdictional transfer.

Of this total of 12 positions recommended by the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the Congress has so far provided only two, leaving a figure of 10 (three remaining for the existing workload, plus seven to meet the new demands of expanded jurisdiction). The bill S. 2601 provides for the first phase of transfer precisely this figure

of 10.

The Senate District Committee is advised that of the seven additional positions needed to meet the new demands of the first jurisdictional transfer, at least two would be required to process new civil business, and five to process new felony filings. Then in the second and third phases of transfer, with the rerouting of all local litigation except matters in probate, additional positions would be created commensurately.

Many new civil actions filed in the first phase of transfer can be expected to reach trial readiness at approximately phase 2. It is with this in mind that the new positions for handling civil business are relatively delayed. Nevertheless, at each phase, the creation of new judgeships precedes the likely actual accession of the new workload by a recommended lead time of 6 months.

Significantly, the nine new positions recommended for phase 2 in S. 2601 reflect the completed transfer at that phase of full and exclusive local criminal jurisdiction. To be compared is the recommendation of the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, presently charged with the District's plenary criminal jurisdiction: "In my opinion 15 additional judges would be a realistic minimum figure just to try title 22 indictments if such indictments are to be tried expeditiously.'

It should be noted that the overall figure in S. 2601 for new trial bench positions has been characterized by the administration as "tentative." While recommending authorization now for an eventual superior court bench of 50 judges at the completion of all civil and criminal jurisdictional transfer (compared with 27 at present), the administration has suggested that experience in the first months and phase of the reorganized court may justify a legislative adjustment at some future date in the overall authorization.

Finally, the recommended and much needed increase in the size of the local court of appeals is only loosely tied to the ultimate size