"§ 11-1202. Judges; assignments "The Traffic Branch of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions shall consist of two judges of the court, who shall serve in that branch during their tenure of office. The chief judge of the court may, if he finds the work of the Traffic Branch will not be adversely affected thereby, assign any of the judges of the Traffic Branch to temporarily perform the duties of any of the other judges of the court. The chief judge of the court shall also have the authority to assign any of the other judges of the court to serve temporarily in the Traffic Branch if, in the opinion of the chief judge, the work of the Traffic Branch requires such assignment. "§ 11-1203. Sessions "The Traffic Branch, with at least one judge in attendance, shall be open for the transaction of business every day of the year (including night sessions), except Saturday afternoons, Sundays, and legal holidays. ❝g 11-1204. Jurisdiction; powers "The Traffic Branch and each judge sitting therein shall have the same jurisdiction over, and exercise the same powers in connection with, offenses arising out of violations of laws or regulations of the District of Columbia relating to the operation, licensing, registration, inspection, or parking of motor vehicles; the regulation and control of motor vehicle traffic; the issuance, suspension, or revocation of motor vehicle operating permits; and motor vehicle safety responsibility, as that lawfully had or exercised by the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions on the date immediately preceding the effective date of this section." SEC. 2. The Traffic Branch of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions shall have jurisdiction over all offenses arising out of any such violations referred to in section 11-1204 of the District of Columbia Code pending in the Court of General Sessions on the effective date of section 11-1204 of the District of Columbia Code. SEC. 3. Section 11-904 of the District of Columbia Code is amended by striking out "sections 11-1103" and inserting in lieu thereof "sections 11-1103, 11-1203,". SEC. 4. (a) Subsection (a) of section 11-902 of the District of Columbia Code is amended by striking out "fifteen associate judges" and inserting in lieu thereof "twenty associate judges". (b) Two of the judges appointed to the additional positions authorized by the amendment made by subsection (a) of this section to section 11-902 of the District of Columbia Code shall, during their tenures of office, serve as judges of the Traffic Branch of the Court of General Sessions. SEC. 5. The table of contents of part II of the District of Columbia Code, "Judiciary and Judicial Procedure", is amended by inserting immediately after "11. Domestic Relations Branch of Court of General Sessions________ 11-1101" the following: "12. Traffic Branch of Court of General Sessions_____ 11-1201". SEC. 6. The amendment made by the first section of this Act shall become effective sixty days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Passed the Senate August 24, 1965. Attest: FELTON M. JOHNSTON, Secretary. STAFF MEMORANDUM MARCH 14, 1966. S. 2263 PROVIDING FOR FIVE ADDITIONAL JUDGES AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A TRAFFIC BRANCH IN THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS S. 2263 (Senator Morse) was introduced for the purpose of increasing the number of judges on the District of Columbia court of general sessions from 15 to 20 associate judges and to establish a traffic branch within that court. The District of Columbia Court of general sessions is a "local" court as contrasted with the Federal (the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia). It is charged with the dispensation of justice in criminal matters in the nature of misdemeanors and is authorized to hear most civil matters in which damages of up to $10,000 are sought. It operates in two divisions, civil and criminal, and is further organized into the landlord and tenant court, traffic court, the domestic relations branch, and the small claims and conciliation branch. Increased court load is attributable to some factors, among them, the following: (1) The increased jurisdiction given to the court for cases involving amounts from $3,000 to $10,000; (2) Increased crime in the District of Columbia, where the volume of crime has more than doubled since 1957, with the largest percentage of this increase involving misdemeanors which are within the jurisdiction of the U.S. branch of the court of general sessions; (3) Increased activity in the enforcement of housing and building codes in the District of Columbia; (4) An increase in the number of traffic cases; (5) Increased case loads in other branches of the court. A separate traffic branch of the court is established under the bill, to be served by two of the five new judges who could be appointed temporarily to other branches of the court of general sessions. But the usual rotation and assignment of these two judges by the chief Judge, as presently authorized for all judges, would not be permitted under the bill. Night sessions of traffic court would be scheduled, and the court would be in operation every day except Saturday afternoons, Sundays and legal holidays. S. 2255 PROVIDING FOR THREE ADDITIONAL JUDGES S. 2255 (Senator Bible), to increase the number of judges from 15 to 18, was introduced at the request of the District of Columbia Bar Association. A hearing was held by the Senate District Committee on both S. 2255 and S. 2263, after which the Senate reported and passed S. 2263, amended, which is before this committee today. Estimated costs of additional judges For 3 judges For 5 judges Salaries at $23,500. Other benefits, including classified personnel, and equipment for additional judges, secretaries, reporters, advisers, bailiffs, clerks, etc.. Mr. WHITENER. Will all you gentlemen who are appearing on this legislation come forward. Now for the benefit of the committee, starting with Mr. Vinson, will each of you give us your full name and position so that the committee may know. Mr. VINSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name is Fred Vinson; I am the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division, Department of Justice. Mr. KNEIPP. Robert Kneipp, Assistant Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia Commissioners. Judge SMITH. John Lewis Smith, chief judge, District of Columbia, Court of General Sessions. Mr. BRAMHALL. Walter Bramhall, clerk of the Court of General Sessions. Mr. QUINN. Paul Quinn, attorney in private practice in Washington appearing as acting chairman, legislative committee, District of Columbia Bar Association. Mr. MCARDLE. My name is Paul F. McArdle, I am president of the Bar Association in the District of Columbia. Mr. WHITENER. Thank you. Judge Smith, you said you had some preliminary remarks that you would like to make. I understand, Mr. Vinson, you have the same situation. Well, either one of you gentlemen who prefer may proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN LEWIS SMITH, JR., CHIEF JUDGE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS Judge SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I strongly recommend favorable consideration of S. 2263, which the Senate passed by unanimous vote during the 1st session of this 89th Congress. In view of the steadily growing volume of criminal and civil cases in the Court of General Sessions, the large number of jury cases pending on the trial calendars and the complex litigation resulting from the court's increased jurisdiction, legislation authorizing the appointment of additional judges is urgently required. I would like to read a brief excerpt from my semiannual report to the Attorney General for the first half of the present fiscal year, July 1 to December 31, 1965: There was a substantial increase in the business of the court during the first 6 months of the fiscal year 1966; 122,621 new cases were filed in the criminal and civil divisions-an increase of 8,937 cases or 7.86 percent. Fees, fines, and forfeitures totaled $2,426,996.77-$158,243.29 more than was received during the corresponding period of the previous year. In the civil division, there was a marked increase in the number of jury cases pending December 31, 1965-3,528 as compared with 2,853 on the same date of the previous fiscal year. Many of these cases involve larger amounts of money and complex issues, requiring more trial time than those filed under the former jurisdictional limit, that limit of course was $3,000, our present limit is $10,000. The scheduling of civil jury cases for pretrial conference had lengthened to 12 months after joinder of issue as compared with 6 months for the previous year and the delay between pretrial conference and trial was 5 months. In view of the large number of jury cases pending and being placed on the ready calendar, it is anticipated that the time between joinder of issue, pretrial conference and trial will continue to increase. Civil nonjury cases were being scheduled for trial within 2 months after joinder of issue. During the first half of the present fiscal year 45,285 criminal cases were filed as compared with 39,137 in the same period of the previous year-an increase of 6,148 or 15.71 percent. Nonjury cases were being scheduled for immediate hearing unless continuances were requested by counsel. Criminal jury cases were being scheduled for hearing within 1 month after demand for jury trial. However, due to the increasing caseload and the policy of giving priority to incarcerated defendants, some cases in which the defendants were on bond could not be reached on the daily assignment, resulting in a record backlog of 1,324 pending criminal jury cases. At the present time the court's greatest backlog is in the number of civil and criminal jury cases on the trial calendars. At the close of business last Friday, March 11, an alltime high of 1,532 criminal jury cases and 3,701 civil jury cases were awaiting trial. We are desirous of obtaining additional judges on any conditions. which Congress deems fit. S. 2263 provides for the establishment of a traffic branch in the Court of General Sessions. Although extremely important, the traffic branch is not, at this time, the most pressing problem in the court. I prefer the language of Senator Bible's bill, S. 2255, which would amend section 11-902a of the District of Columbia Code by striking out "15" and inserting in lieu thereof the number of judges authorized. This would permit the assignment of judges where they are most needed and, in my opinion, would attract higher caliber lawyers to the bench. Past experience has demonstrated that judges perform most efficiently when assignments are rotated. Except for the creation of the domestic relations branch in 1956, the number of judges has not been increased in the courts since 1950. However, during the past 10 years there has been an increase of 61,169 or 35.08 percent in the number of cases filed annually in the court and an increase of $2,546,434.74 or 117.15 percent in the fees, fines, and forfeitures received. For the foregoing reasons, I strongly recommend passage of legislation creating additional judgeships for the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions. Mr. WHITENER. Judge Smith, you have provided for the committee, in addition to the statement which you have made in part, certain exhibits. Mr. Reporter, we will make the judge's prepared formal statement and the exhibits a part of the record. (The exhibits referred to follow :) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, The Honorable the ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEAR MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have the honor to submit herein the semiannual report of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions for the first half of the present fiscal year, July 1 through December 31, 1965. There was a substantial increase in the business of the court during the first 6 months of the fiscal year 1966. In the criminal and civil divisions, 122,621 new cases were filed-an increase of 8,937 cases, or 7.86 percent. Fees, fines, and forfeitures totaled $2,426,996.77-$158,243.29 more than was received during the corresponding period of the previous year. In the civil division there was a marked increase in the number of jury cases pending December 31, 1965-3,528 as compared with 2,853 on the same date of the previous fiscal year. Many of these cases involve larger amounts of money and complex issues, requiring more trial time than those filed under the former jurisdictional limit. The scheduling of civil jury cases for pretrial conference had lengthened to 12 months after joinder of issue as compared with 6 months for the previous year and the dealy between pretrial conference and trial was 5 months. In view of the large number of jury cases pending and being placed on the ready calendar, it is anticipated that the time between joinder of issue, pretrial conference, and trial will continue to increase. Civil nonjury cases were being scheduled for trial within 2 months after joinder of issue. During the first half of the present fiscal year 45,285 criminal cases were filed as compared with 39,137 in the same period of the previous year-an increase of 6,148, or 15.71 percent. Nonjury cases were being scheduled for immediate hearing unless continuances were requested by counsel. Criminal jury cases were being scheduled for hearing within 1 month after demand for jury trial. However, due to the increasing caseload and the policy of giving priority to incarcerated defendants, some cases in which the defendants were on bond could not be reached on the daily assignment, resulting in a record backlog of 1,324 pending criminal jury cases. In the domestic relations branch there was an increase of 11.11 percent in the number of new cases filed and the cumulative nature of the litigation continues to increase the daily workload. Further increases are anticipated due to Public Law 89-217, 89th Congress, effective September 29, 1965, reducing residence requirements for divorce, legal separation, and annulment of marriage. On December 31, 1965, there were 538 more cases pending than at the end of the same period of the previous fiscal year. Contested cases were being scheduled for trial within 4 to 6 weeks after pretrial and uncontested cases within 4 to 6 weeks after joinder of issue. Collections and disbursements of support, maintenance, and alimony payments in both local and reciprocal enforcement of support cases totaled $1,316,473.96 for the first half of the fiscal year-an increase of $149,452.60 over the same period of the preceding year. 60-445-66-2 Again, I desire to acknowledge the fine cooperation of the judges and court employees in handling the heavy caseload of the court. I should like also to acknowledge the assistance of Judge Neilson, retired, who served 122.5 days on the bench during the first 6 months of the fiscal year 1966. In view of the large number of jury cases now pending on the trial calendars, the steadily growing volume of criminal and civil cases, and the complex letigation resulting from the court's increased jurisdiction, new legislation authorizing the appointment of additional judges is urgently required. Photostatic copies of the monthly reports of the judges for the period July 1 through December 31, 1965, are transmitted herewith in accordance with Public Law 512, 77th Congress, section 3(c). The originals of these reports are on file in the office of the clerk of the court and are valuable for public inspection. A duplicate of this report is being submitted to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. Respectfully submitted. JOHN LEWIS SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF THE BUSINESS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS COVERING THE FIRST HALF OF THE PRESENT FISCAL YEAR, JULY 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 1965, AND A COMPARISON WITH THE SAME PERIOD OF THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR, JULY 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 1964. TABLE I.-Number of new cases filed during period July 1 through Dec. 31, 1965, as compared with period July 1 through Dec. 31, 1964 TABLE II.-Cash income of the court during period July 1, 1965, through Dec. 31, 1965, as compared with period July 1 through Dec. 31, 1964 |