MUCH HAS BEEN written in recent weeks concerning the decision by the New Hampshire Superior Court to eliminate jury trials during the months of December 2001, and April, July, August and December 2002. Much of the reporting and commentary, I believe, has focused on a "symptom" rather than on the root causes.

Superior Court Chief Judge Walter Murphy’s decision to suspend the jury trials in certain months was a painful choice. There are negative impacts to the delays that will result from not convening juries in civil cases during those months. But to focus solely on the problems caused by fewer jury trial opportunities misses the larger point: This policy decision was forced on the courts by inadequate funding by the legislature.

Given the budget problems (see Judge Murphy’s Perspective on this page for details on the court’s financial constraint), what would you have done in his place? To those who object to the prospect of having their civil trial delayed a few months, I suggest that they consider the alternatives: Would you prefer that the superior court lay off the people who serve the public, the people who make sure that the court’s orders are sent out and answer the many questions they are asked? Probably not. No one wants to see a family suffering from the trauma of divorce experience undue delays in the issuing of a divorce decree and child support order.

Perhaps, you’d rather see the cuts come from the security budget. Given the heightened consciousness of safety in the wake of the events of Sept. 11, that’s not a reasonable option either. Criminal matters, of course, must be taken care of as promptly as possible. Remove those from the options, and you see that Judge Murphy had few choices, and he made the best call he could. But that’s not all.

There will likely be more cutbacks in services — in the Superior Court as well as the other courts — and these moves too will prove to be unpopular. But keep in mind that these will be due entirely to inadequate appropriations for the proper operation of the judicial branch in this state. While substantial improvements in the processing of cases and scheduling of jury trials were made in the 1990’s, the courts in this state have been underfunded for years.

The chair of the House Finance Committee, Rep. Neal Kurk, has publicly questioned why the judicial branch cannot achieve increased efficiencies with computers. The answer is simple. The courts are using DOS-based computer systems from the 1980’s. No e-mail, no Internet, no Windows. Judges cannot even search opinions that they have authored from prior cases because the technology does not exist in the courts to allow them to do so. While money was appropriated for technology for the courts in the past, this money was part of the overall inadequate budget, and had to be used to pay salaries, jurors, supplies, building costs, etc. It is simplistic and misleading to suggest that the court has neglected past opportunities to invest in technology.

Remember that the court system, like most government operations, is heavily dependent on people, and that means the overwhelming portion (75 percent) of the judicial budget goes to salaries. While state employees were voted a 4.2 percent raise, the gross increase in the judiciary’s budget was less than this amount alone.

The family court project — which provides a higher level of services to litigants— has been extremely expensive to operate, and these costs have come from the court’s regular budget, with no specific increase provided to fund these new courts.

This year, the legislature created a new Judicial Conduct Commission touted as being "independent" of the courts. The $250,000 annual appropriation to operate this new legislatively created JCC, however, comes from the judicial branch budget. This is a major financial hit: the existing court-appointed JCC was administered by the staff of the Supreme Court and the only specific appropriation in the budget for it was $23,000. As you can see, the legislature’s action represents a ten-fold increase in this expense category alone.

Jury trials are being deferred in certain months because inadequate funding coupled with increased demands caused the court’s administrators to make difficult choices. The choices they made were designed to have the least impact on the quality of service that the courts provide to the citizens of New Hampshire.

To use an old courtroom phrase, this is an open-and-shut case. If the people of this state want a fully functioning justice system, complete with sufficient staff, adequate security, convenient access and efficient technology, they will have to provide adequate funding for it.

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer