San Diego Superior Court provides no reporters for civil cases--but it's building a brand new courthouse. Justice doesm't seem to be the top priority here.

What is said by the judge and the litigants in Superior Court is a critically important part of the case record.

The court's ability to dispense justice is impaired by the budget-driven decision to stop providing court reporters in civil cases.

But it now seems that the Court's decision to stop paying for court reporters might have been political. It seems that a whole lot of money is available to the San Diego Superior Court, but it's being used to build a new courthouse BEFORE restoring a service as basic as court reporters.

The developers must be very happy--as well as their friends in positions of power.

Now I understand why people have been complaining about car allowances for judges.

Why aren't San Diego Superior Court judges raising their voices in a united, ear-shattering cry for a return to basic court services before building a new courthouse?


Los Angeles Superior Court also stopped providing court reporters in most civil cases:

EFFECTIVE JUNE 14, 2013: The Los Angeles Superior Court will no longer provide court reporters for general jurisdiction civil matters, except in the writs departments – 82, 85 and 86 - located in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The writs departments will continue to use the established matrix for court reporter assignments.

$555M courthouse construction beginning

22-story building downtown will replace 1961 county courthouse in 2016
By Roger Showley
SDUT
Feb. 21, 2014

The new courthouse will rise 22 stories and 389 feet on the block bounded by State, Union, B and C streets. Note top cornice which doubles as a shade structure for the east-facing corridors. — Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

San Diego will break ground next month on its most expensive public office building ever: The $555.5 million, San Diego Central Courthouse.

Funded from increased court fines and fees, the 704,000-square-foot building at Union and C streets downtown will replace the obsolete county courthouse that opened 53 years ago.

“I think, in part, we live in a very different world than when the current buildings we occupy were built,” said David J. Danielsen, presiding judge of the San Diego Superior Court. “I don’t think any of us had any clue way back in the day of the potential danger of asbestos. I don’t think anybody ever designed a building with modern terrorists in mind.”

Due for completion in 2016, the building also breaks the mold in courthouse design. No more Classical columns or bell towers, such as those that existed in earlier San Diego courthouses. This courthouse is a 22-story skyscraper — 389 feet tall...


Judges keep car perks
Despite enormous service cutbacks, Superior Court maintains nearly $1 million in vehicle allowances
By Dave Maass
City Beat
Sep 25, 2012

...“The cuts envisioned by our budget reduction plan will affect every judge, court employee and ultimately the litigants, court users and citizens in San Diego County,” Presiding Judge Robert Trentacosta said in a June statement. “These cuts will significantly reduce or eliminate access to our court system and are devastating to those of us who have worked so hard to convince the Governor and Legislature that such cuts threaten the stability of our third branch of government.”

The California budget crisis has trickled down to the local justice level, with the San Diego County court looking to make up a $33-million shortfall in what had been a $190-million budget. The court was ordered to drain its rainy-day reserves—roughly $22 million—leaving $11 million left to slice in the coming fiscal year, with even bigger cuts predicted in the next cycles.

As fall arrives, the court has begun shutting down outlying courtrooms, shortening hours, laying off some employees and furloughing others.

But the Superior Court did not cut one line item: nearly $1 million per year in transportation allowances set aside for judges and executive managers.

...The court has shut down probate-court operations and a juvenile-dependency courtroom in Vista. The Ramona court facility was shuttered, and six criminal courtrooms and one civil courtroom were closed at the Downtown courthouse. Employees are being forced to take 24 unpaid furlough days during the next two years. The court also plans to close down civil courtrooms in East County and South County, remove court reporters from civil cases and lay off at least 60 employees.

“At a time when we are asking all levels of government to reduce spending, any and all additional perks should be scrutinized for potential savings,” Chris Cate, vice president of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, wrote in an email reacting to CityBeat’s research. “Taking into account total compensation, these car allowances should be the first item eliminated as a means to reduce spending by close to $1 million.”

This is one of the few occasions when the Taxpayers’ Association and public-employee unions are on the same page.

“A benefit such as a car allowance is quite a luxury, especially in these economic times and especially in the public sector in California,” says Michelle Castro, California director of government relations for Service Employees International Union. So far, 27 of the 125 court reporters represented by the union are being laid off...

Those who passed the bar exam have failed to create a just legal system; it's time to let other experts practice law

“'This is the 50th anniversary of Gideon,' said Shapiro, referring to the landmark 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright Supreme Court decision requiring states to provide lawyers to criminal defendants who can’t afford one. 'If this continues, there won’t be anyone to hear Gideon’s trumpet,' she said.

"Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in that state, suggested the Gideon approach of publicly paid lawyers should be applied to some civil cases.

"He proposed that other changes, such as greater use of expert non-lawyers, should also be considered."

Deep Cuts To Court Funding Make CA Chief Justice “afraid to see the future”
San Francisco Appeal
August 9, 2013

The chief justices of California, Texas and New York and three federal judges deplored funding cuts and other roadblocks to public access to justice at an American Bar Association meeting in San Francisco Thursday.

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said she had reluctantly supported some increases in court fees as “desperate measures” in the face of deep funding cuts that have resulted in the closure of 40 courthouses and 77 courtrooms statewide.

“When it comes to keeping courts open, if these aren’t desperate measures, I’m afraid to see the future,” she said.

Cantil-Sakauye and the five other judges spoke at a session entitled “Are Courts Dying? The Decline of Open and Public Adjudication” on the first day of the ABA’s annual meeting at Moscone Center West.

About 8,000 lawyers and guests are attending the meeting, which continues through Tuesday.

The judges said public access to courts is impaired not only by funding cuts but also by the high cost of lawyers in civil cases and the so-called “outsourcing” of adjudication.

Examples of outsourcing, they said, are the use of private judges for those who can afford it and the use of mandatory, closed-door arbitration instead of open courts to resolve consumer disputes.

“There are reports that 75 percent of the people in our state can’t afford a lawyer” in civil cases, said Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson.

“There are people who have been denied their rights who will just give up,” he said.

U.S. District Judge Norma Shapiro of Philadelphia and retired U.S. District Judge Royal Furgeson of Dallas said funding cuts are hurting federal as well as state courts.

They said the current U.S. budget sequestration is resulting in reductions in federal public defenders, limits on auxiliary services such as probation supervision and delays in needed technology upgrades.

“This is the 50th anniversary of Gideon,” said Shapiro, referring to the landmark 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright Supreme Court decision requiring states to provide lawyers to criminal defendants who can’t afford one. “If this continues, there won’t be anyone to hear Gideon’s trumpet,” she said.

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in that state, suggested the Gideon approach of publicly paid lawyers should be applied to some civil cases. He proposed that other changes, such as greater use of expert non-lawyers, should also be considered...

California State Auditor blasts Superior Court Executive Michael Roddy for kowtowing to judges who ignore the law

Michael Roddy has been complaining about budget cuts, but he's been falling down on the job when it comes to procedures for making sure that violent criminals make appropriate payments.

San Diego Superior Court judges blasted by state auditor for waiving domestic violence payments
Matt Potter
San Diego Reader
October 1, 2012

The California State Auditor has issued a blast at the San Diego Superior Court, saying that judges here have been waiving legally required payments due from those convicted of crimes of domestic violence.

According to the state auditor's report, issued September 6, San Diego courts have the worse collection record of four counties the office sampled over a four-year period. The other counties were Los Angeles, Santa Clara and Sacramento.

The money paid by the domestic violence probationers is earmarked to fund a network of local shelters for domestic violence victims.

"Because of the relatively low rate of collections of payments in the four counties, fewer resources are available for local shelters to provide services to victims of domestic violence."

"Some counties had higher collection rates than others—collections in Los Angeles County averaged 57 percent of the amounts owed while collections in San Diego County were only 12 percent," the audit found.

The state auditor identified one San Diego court problem in particular: its judges, who according to the audit have been arbitrarily reducing some probationers’ payments.

"Although state law specifies that assessed domestic violence payments may be reduced or waived if the court finds that the defendant has an inability to pay, judges in one of the counties reduced or waived the payment for other reasons, such as the probationer’s successful completion of batterer intervention programs."

“This practice results in fewer resources being available for domestic violence programs."

"In San Diego County, of the probationers in the 16 misdemeanor cases that we reviewed at San Diego Court’s central division, eight had completed batterer intervention programs. For each of those eight cases, the court reduced domestic violence payments, and the reductions ranged from 25 percent to 43 percent.

"San Diego Court should ensure that procedures are in place so that courts do not reduce or waive domestic violence payments for reasons other than a probationer’s inability to pay."

In their response to the audit's findings, San Diego court officials generally agreed with most of its findings and said they would implement the auditor's recommended reforms.

But San Diego Superior Court executive director Michael Roddy said in a letter dated August 17 that he didn’t have the authority to overrule judges when they reduced the domestic violence payments.

"Judges are independently elected officials and have the discretion to impose a sentence that they deem to be appropriate for the offense," wrote Roddy.

"Court administration is not in a position to establish procedures to ensure that domestic violence payments are not reduced or waived for reasons other than inability to pay.

"The court has established Sentencing Guidelines, which include a recommended fine amount and also include information about each fine and fee and whether they can legally be reduced for reasons other than inability to pay.”

That drew this response from the auditors:

"We recognize that the San Diego Court administration is not in a position to establish procedures unilaterally that affect sentencing practices.

“However, as discussed at our exit conference, we would expect the court administration to discuss our report findings with the court’s judicial officers and work together to establish procedures so that the San Diego Court can ensure that domestic violence payments are not reduced or waived for reasons other than inability to pay.”

Comments
SurfPuppy619
Oct. 2, 2012 @ 1:32 p.m.

"Judges are independently elected officials and have the discretion to impose a sentence that they deem to be appropriate for the offense," wrote Roddy.

That is an outright, whopper lie. Roddy better go back to court executive school and get a clue.

Judges must follow the laws passed by the state legislature, they are not kings and courtrooms are not their fiefdoms. They cannot impose, or not impose, legally mandated laws-including fines. The Auditor should file for a writ of mandamus with the DCA and force the idiot judges to comply with the law.

San Diego Judges keep car perks

Judges shouldn't have their compensation cut. There is no fat to cut in the courts, but slabs of it are kept out of sight in other agencies. The State Parks and Recreation Department was caught sitting on $54 Million in extra funds while 70 state parks across California struggled to stay open. Since the Parks Department only had a $22 million budget shortfall, that leaves $32 million that could be given to the courts. Furthermore, I think judges' pay should be raised; then we could replace some of the floundering judges with more competent jurists.

Judges keep car perks
By Dave Maass
City Beat
Sep 25, 2012

Through a summer-long media blitz, San Diego County Superior Court officials warned the public about drastic, near-cataclysmic reductions in services on the horizon.

“The cuts envisioned by our budget reduction plan will affect every judge, court employee and ultimately the litigants, court users and citizens in San Diego County,” Presiding Judge Robert Trentacosta said in a June statement. “These cuts will significantly reduce or eliminate access to our court system and are devastating to those of us who have worked so hard to convince the Governor and Legislature that such cuts threaten the stability of our third branch of government.”

The California budget crisis has trickled down to the local justice level, with the San Diego County court looking to make up a $33-million shortfall in what had been a $190-million budget. The court was ordered to drain its rainy-day reserves—roughly $22 million—leaving $11 million left to slice in the coming fiscal year, with even bigger cuts predicted in the next cycles.

As fall arrives, the court has begun shutting down outlying courtrooms, shortening hours, laying off some employees and furloughing others.

But the Superior Court did not cut one line item: nearly $1 million per year in transportation allowances set aside for judges and executive managers.

San Diego judges each receive $572 per month ($6,864 annually) in car stipends, while the presiding judge, assistant presiding judge and supervising judges each collect $674 per month ($8,088 annually).

Between the 126 current judges, that’s $903,427 per year in vehicle allowances. Nine administrators collected a combined $59,472 per year, bringing the figure to $962,899. Another $8,281 was reimbursed for out-of-county travel.

The 24-year-old practice is particular to San Diego County as a carryover from when the county government paid for the courts and the benefit was tied to the Board of Supervisors’ compensation package. Now, the state funds the court, and there’s no mandate from Sacramento to provide these vehicle allowances...

Stenographers to be cut from some San Diego Superior Court courtrooms

Justice slips further out of reach for lower middle class and poor people.

Stenographers to be cut from some courtrooms
By TERI FIGUEROA
North County Times
September 10, 2012

Important note: Starting Sept. 3, the San Diego Superior Court will close all business offices on Friday afternoons...

San Diego Superior Court officials said that by Nov. 1, budget cuts will force them to stop providing stenographic reporters in courtrooms that handle many civil cases.

And by January or so, court reporters may also disappear from some family law court hearings, where divorce and child custody matters are addressed.

Court officials will cut the jobs of 41 stenographic reporters, commonly called court reporters, who take verbatim notes of hearings. And without the reporters, there will be no record of who said what in court proceedings, which are already adversarial by nature.

Critics of the planned layoffs say not having a verbatim record troubles them, more so if there is no such record in the high-stakes personal cases, such as those dealing with child custody.

Without a verbatim record of the proceedings, litigants are hamstrung if they need to appeal. There will be no clear record to provide to the appellate court to review a judicial ruling. Also, having no record reduces a litigant's ammunition in a complaint about poor performance by an attorney or a judge in the courtroom.

So any party to a civil who wants a record will have to pay to hire a freelance court reporter. Can't afford it? Too bad. There will be no verbatim record of the proceedings.

Not everyone can afford to bring in a freelance court reporter, particularly those who are acting as their own attorneys in order to save money, critics said.

"The loss of court reporters in civil proceedings is going to put access to justice out of reach for average San Diegans. Shifting the cost of justice to those who can least afford it is an inappropriate solution to the state's budget problem," said David Garcias, the president of the local union representing the reporters at the local courts, in an emailed statement to the North County Times.

Even without court reporters, courtroom clerks will keep a record of rulings by the judge. But exactly what the judge said to attorneys, and exactly what a witness said on the stand, will be lost.

And forget about tape recording the civil proceedings for an official record. State law does not allow it.

Stenographic reporters and the service they provide will be the latest victims of the court's budget cuts, as officials look to reduce spending by $11 million this fiscal year, which started July 1. The courts will save about $6 million by slashing a third of the 120 or so of its court reporter jobs, said Michael Roddy, the executive director of San Diego Superior Court, which runs the county courts...

Eleven court reporters agreed to an early retirement and 30 court reporters will be laid off, Roddy said. Most will be gone by November. Other layoffs will probably take effect in January, he said.

"Court reporters play an invaluable role in providing checks and balances. These cuts put us one step closer to a two-tiered system of justice which offers transparency only to those who can afford it," said union board member Jim Partridge, who is also a stenographic reporter in the local courts, in an emailed statement to the North County Times.

Citing budget cuts, officials earlier this month shut down Vista's probate court and Ramona's small courthouse. They also closed court business offices at noon each Friday, and opened Vista's traffic court an hour later each weekday, at 8:30 a.m.

By next summer, local court officials said they plan to shut down small-claims offices and courtrooms in all branch courts ---- including Vista ---- in anticipation of deeper cuts in the fiscal year starting in July...

However, the courts are required to provide a court reporter for criminal matters.

Roddy said court officials are still working to keep the reporters in family courts as often as possible, citing concerns of local judges...

In about 90 percent of all cases in family court, at least one side does not have an attorney, usually because they can't afford one...

Court reporters use a special machine as they take verbatim notes in shorthand in the courtroom. Many of the reporters are also able to plug into a judge's computer to give the judge a real-time transcript of who said what. Many judges often refer to the live transcription during hearings, sometimes doing so as they make decisions regarding objections raised by lawyers.

In cutting court reporters, San Diego is following the blueprint laid out by Los Angeles and San Francisco counties, which cut court-reporter jobs in recent years.

Overall, officials say they will cut $11 million, or 5.8 percent of the budget. But next year, San Diego courts face a 17 percent revenue cut, with no reserves to help. Officials say courtroom closures and service cuts are required to operate the court system on a $157 million budget next year...