estimated 39 employees, would be $425,000. I should like to supplement that by pointing out that there are some additional costs in connection with that involved in moving the personnel from the old courthouse to new quarters. That would amount to, including alterations, about $167,000 extra, or a total of $592,000 based on five judges. I should like, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to supplement something Mr. Vinson just said about the need for additional judges. I queried the Assistant Chief of the Law Enforcement Division of the Corporation Counsel's Office at the District of Columbia court of general sessions and I said, "Would 5 more judges be helpful to you," and giving due allowance for some hyperbole in this, he said, "My God, we could use 15 more." So apparently, from the standpoint of the prosecution, of the Corporation Counsel's Office, there is very urgent need for additional judges in the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. (The letter from Commissioner Tobriner follows:) GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, D.C., October 6, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives, DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The Commissioners have for report S. 2263, 89th Congress, a bill to establish a traffic branch of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions and to provide for the appointment to such court of five additional judges, as passed by the Senate on August 24, 1965. The annual report of the court for the year ended June 30, 1965, shows a substantial increase in the business of the court. The business of the court has been increasing from year to year since 1955. Under present law, the court consists of a chief judge and 15 associate judges. S. 2263 increases the number of associate judges by 5, and also establishes a traffic branch in the criminal branch of the court. The traffic branch would consist of two judges who would serve in that branch in their tenure of office. The chief judge is authorized, if he finds the work of the traffic branch not to be adversely affected, to assign any of the judges of the traffic branch temporarily to perform the duties of any of the other judges of the court. He is also authorized to assign any of the other judges to serve temporarily in the traffic branch if, in his opinion, the work of the traffic branch requires it. The bill requires that the traffic branch be open for transaction of business every day of the year (including night sessions) except Saturday afternoons, Sundays, and legal holidays. It is the view of the Commissioners that the expeditious handling and disposition of cases in the courts is of the utmost importance. They feel very strongly that additional personnel for the court is needed. They, therefore, recommend favorable action on the bill. The additional annual cost of five additional judges for the court together with supporting personnel is $425,000. Additional expenditures will also be required to provide space for the new personnel. The Commissioners have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of the administrations' program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress. Sincerely yours, (Signed) WALTER N. TOBRINER, President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia. Mr. WHITENER. Now, Mr. Bramhall. Judge SMITH. Mr. Chairman, may I point out that Mr. Bramhall has just come from a sick bed to appear here this morning. I don't know whether he has a prepared statement. 60-445-66- STATEMENT OF WALTER BRAMHALL, CLERK OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS Mr. BRAMHALL. Sir, I do not have a prepared statement. The only comment I can add is that I have watched the caseload of this cour increase year after year for the past 29 years, and I know of no other court in the country that has a caseload anywhere approaching it. Similar cities, that is where the population is similar, such as Cleveland and Pittsburgh, have landlord and tenant cases in the number of about 8,000 or 7,000 each year. This past year our court had over a hundred thousand, and everything else seems to be in proportion Our criminal division is now running through about 84,000 cases a year, and there does not seem to be any stop to it. It does not level off. So I think that five judges is the answer. Three judges might have been the answer 5 years ago, but three will not be enough now. I will be glad to answer any questions you gentlemen have. Mr. WHITENER. Thank you. Now, Mr. McArdle and Mr. Quinn. STATEMENT OF PAUL F. MCARDLE, ESQ., PRESIDENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL S. QUINN, ESQ. CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR ASSOCIATION Mr. MCARDLE. I have a prepared statement which Mr. Quinn and I worked on. Mr. WHITENER. We will make it a part of the record. STATEMENT OF PAUL F. MCARDLE, PRESIDENT, Bar AssociaTION OF THE DISTRICT Chairman Whitener and members of the subcommittee, I am delighted to have the opportunity to appear here this morning on behalf of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia in support of S. 2263, a bill relating to the composition of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions. As the subcommittee is aware, this bill passed the Senate on August 24, 1965, and received the enthusiastic endorsement of the bar association at hearings held on August 3, 1965, by the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia. This bill was introduced by Senator Morse and would increase from 15 to 20 the number of judges on the Court of General Sessions, and specifically provide for the selection of 2 judges who are particularly competent to serve on traffic The chief judge, however, may, if he finds the work of the traffic branch will not be adversely affected, assign either of the two judges of the traffic branch to temporarily perform duties of any of the other judges of the matters. court. The bar association specifically endorsed this proposal which would establish a traffic branch and which would expand from 15 to 20 the total number of judges on the court. We had initially supported Senator Bible's bill, S. 2255, which would have provided for the authorization of three additional judges, but we believe that the current requirements of the court justify a total of five expe rienced and competent members of the bar to serve on the court. that the selection of two of these judges should take into account ability and We also believe willingness to deal with traffice problems. We do believe, however, that the chief judge of the court should have sufficient discretion to determine how best to rotate and utilize all members of the court. I am here this morning to reiterate as forcefully as possible the total commitment of the members of our association to this bill. We believe that the report of the Senate committee which accompanied S. 2263 set forth in substantial detail the need for the early enactment of this bill. However, there are a few additional points which I believe could be made briefly at this time, since there are developments which have occurred since the Senate passed this bill and which substantially buttress the arguments in favor of this legislation. First, as the joint letter submitted by me and my predecessor, the Honorable Oliver Gasch, to the Senate committee indicated, the workload and the nature of the responsibilities of the court have increased tremendously since its creation by the Congress. The most marked increase has taken place when contrasting the year 1949 with the year 1965. For the year ending June 30, 1964, we note there has been an increase of 279 percent in the number of pending criminal jury trials; there has been a 101 percent increase in the total number of jury trials demanded in criminal cases; there has been a more than 120 percent increase in the number of criminal jury cases disposed of; the monthly average of criminal jury trials demanded has increased 101 percent, and the monthly average of f criminal jury cases disposed of has increased by 127 percent. Of the 6,049 demands for jury trials made by defendants before the Court of General Sessions in the year ending June 30, 1964, only 244 were tried by jury. These statistics are, we believe, very meaningful in themselves. In the time which has elapsed since these statistics were compiled, the increase in total workload has continued to grow dramatically. In addition, as this subcommittee is aware, when Congress expanded the jurisdictional amount of the court from $3,000 to $10,000 in 1961, the nature, scope, and importance of the issues which were brought to the court increased greatly. There is, therefore, a tremendous need for the appointment of additional competent judges to handle with efficiency and dispatch the ever-growing backlog of important litigation. A second development which has emphasized the need for the enactment of this legislation is the recent and timely scrutiny being given to administration of justice in the District of Columbia as is evidenced by the message sent by President Johnson to the Congress just last week. In addition, on March 8, there was a White House Conference on Crime which, Mr. Chairman, you attended. I note from the March 9 Congressional Record that you specifically endorsed the concept of a study to determine the advisability of the appointment of a commission to make a comprehensive review of Federal criminal statutes. Certainly, this effort is timely, and the bill which is pending before your subcommittee is intimately involved with the objectives of the White House Conference on Crime and the President's message on crime in the District of Columbia, since the appointment of additional competent judges would assure that the District of Columbia is able to better administer justice to all coming within the court's jurisdiction. On behalf of the bar association, I would like to take this opportunity to commend Chief Judge Smith for the outstanding work he has accomplished in administering the business of the court. Judge Smith's accomplishments have been remarkable when one considers the tremendous burdens and responsibilities confronting the court. We urge the committee to assist Judge Smith to even more effectively discharge his responsibilities by enacting S. 2263 without delay. We believe that such action is essential if the citizens of the District of Columbia are to enjoy the constitutional guarantee of administration of justice in an efficient, fair, and prompt manner. Mr. MCARDLE. I brought with me, Mr. Chairman, the February issue, 1966 American Motorist, which appears to be the monthly bulletin of the three A's and in there, beginning at page 11, is an article. on the traffic court which I thought might be of interest, the traffic court of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions. With your permission, I would like to have that made a part of the record. Mr. WHITENER. All right. It will be made a part of the record. (The article referred to follows:) [From the American Motorist, February 1966] OUR LOCAL TRAFFIC COURT-THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS (By Glenn T. Lashley, editor) American Motorist staff members have visited the traffic courts and interviewed many of the officials of metropolitan area jurisdictions, to obtain an evaluation of their operation of justice measured against the motorist's "bill of rights" suggested on page 10 by AAA's executive vice president, George F. Kachlein, Jr. In this issue we will deal with the District of Columbia traffic court which operates within the Court of General Sessions. In subsequent issues the traffe courts and traffic justice in the suburban jurisdictions will be discussed. The District of Columbia citizen who allegedly commits a traffic violation as a motorist or a pedestrian, and who elects to or is forced by the nature of the violation to go to court, appears before the Court of General Sessions. This court, in its dealings with traffic cases, compares very favorably with the points of the "bill of rights": In the District, it is not necessary for the defendant to make a trip to court for arraignment and then return for trial at a later date. Traffic justice is swift, and its timing depends on the first day after the date of the alleged violation on which the arresting officer is scheduled to appear in court unless it is a serious case such as reckless driving or driving while under the influence alcohol. Such cases are tried immediately. In the District of Columbia court the rights of the defendant are clearly ex plained before his case is called. This is particularly true where the motorist is not represented by counsel. The explanation includes applicable court rules which the defendant must follow in presenting his case. Sincere attention seems to be given to the motorists' side of the story, without undue weight being given to the policeman's report. When this reporter visited the traffic court sessions held by Judge George D. Neilson, recently, he saw several cases dismissed when some reasonable doubt was developed concerning the charges as presented by the arresting officer. Revenues from traffic fines, according to chief judge of the court of general sessions, John Lewis Smith, Jr., have no relationship whatsoever to the projected budget for the District of Columbia. The funds derived from traffic fines, imposed by the court or from collateral which nonappearing motorists post and forfeit, are placed in the general operating funds of the city. The matter of sufficient and trained personnel for the District court is com plicated by current legislative endeavors. Basically, the District has a panel of 15 judges in the Court of General Sessions, but they are not assigned specifically to one type of case or another, and rotate assignments, including traffic court. The high volume of traffic cases in the District of Columbia court-there were 33.643 cases cleared in the last fiscal year-have taxed the time and talents of even these 15 judges, and Chief Judge Smith last year persuaded retired Judge Neilson to return to the bench to help out. During the last year, Judge Neilson served for 220 days, trying many cases each day, and materially contributing to the court's good record for speedy justice. This traffic volume in the court has given rise to proposed legislation in Congress to appoint five additional judges. The bill, Senate bill 2263, will be before the Senate in the current session, having passed the House last year. The AAA and its District of Columbia advisory board have supported this bill, with some reservations. The bill calls for mandatory night sessions, but AAA feels that the matter of whether to hold night sessions ssould be left to the discretion of the chief judge. It has also been pointed out that the bill does not provide for paying the expenses of night sessions. The bill also provides that two of the five judges will be assigned full time to traffic court sessions. Chief Judge Smith, however, has said that he is not in favor of this provision, because it is better for the personnel in question if they can move around to different courts. In the case of Judge Neilson, in particular, the defendant in the District of Columbia traffic court is treated well, and before each session is told that in the court he has a friend, not an antagonist-that he is, as he should be, presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. Judge Neilson stresses that the court exists in the interest of traffic safety. We were deeply impressed with the fairness and firmness Judge Neilson showed in handling each case. While he was ready to acquit those who showed a clear conviction of innocence and able to establish a reasonable doubt as to their guilt, he is capable of dealing harshly with those who have repeatedly come before the court, and show a definite lack of respect for the law. Judge Neilson's philosophy of traffic safety and the courts is always explained to the assembled defendants as the first order of business. He says in part: "It is a deplorable fact that so frequently many people are being injured and killed on the streets of this, the Nation's Capital, and on the highways throughout the country. It is a tragic thing when, in fact, so many of the accidents and fatalities could have been avoided by the parties taking a little more time, and by displaying a little more care, caution, and courtesy. So many people are in a hurry really to go nowhere and they are taking their lives in their own hands every time they speed or drive carelessly. "Let us each try to contribute all that we can to make our streets and highways safe for ourselves and for our fellow citizens. Let us try to be good drivers and careful pedestrains, too. * * * You can achieve joy, happiness, and success if you do what is right, use good judgment and are careful, courteous drivers, obeying all laws of this great country of ours. "Let us help one another and be considerate of each other, and practice the Golde Rule on the street." Next month American Motorist will examine traffic court justice in the suburban jurisdictions. AAA believes that all citizens owe it to themselves, their families, and their neighbors, as well, to keep informed on matters pertaining to the administration and enforcement of all our laws, and the traffic laws in particular, as they are the statutes that affect us most intimately every day of our lives, whether we are drivers or pedestrians. AAA IN ACTION Former District Commissioner Renah F. Camalier received the American Automobile Association District of Columbia division's highest individual honor, the "Golden Wheel Award," Tuesday as he left his position as chairman of the AAA's District of Columbia advisory board. The outgoing chairman was instrumental in sparking a pedestrian program and cutting down the number of pedestrian fatalities in the District last year by urging stricter pedestrian enforcement and formation of a Pedestrian Traffic School. The new advisory board chairman, Gen. Louis W. Prentiss, also a former District of Columbia Commissioner, presented the plaque to Mr. Camalier and cited the following 1965 traffic fatality figures showing the drop in pedestrian deaths: "While total traffic deaths were reduced from 115 in 1964 to 101 last year he said, "the significant drop can be directly attributed to a dramatic decrease 1: pedestrian fatalities. "The 55 pedestrian deaths of 1964 were reduced to 35 in 1965. In light of 11rise in passenger fatalities, the decrease in pedestrian deaths offset the to figure by 14 persons," he added. General Prentiss concluded, "We are convinced that the Pedestrian Ne along with increased enforcement attention by the traffic division and the cincts has brought about this marked improvement." ATTENTION MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA MOTORISTS Beginning this year-in fact in just a few weeks when they start to a their 1966 auto license tags-Marylanders will have to furnish liability information on their application. From past experience, AAA knows that many people will be caugi" and go to a great deal of trouble at the last minute, because they o this information handy when they apply for tags. This Commonwe ginia has required this information for some years on auto tag applie In both States, the application calls for the exact name of t:carrier, and the policy number, numbers, or, in the case of Marya number. AAA suggests that you obtain this information from your policy write it down and have it with you when you apply for tags. OUR MEMBERS WRITE ABOUT TRAFFIC SAFETY The District of Columbia Division of the American Autor . |