Justice Management Institute report

8/10/2019 Justice Management Institute report

1/149

Franklin County Justice System

Business Process Analysis

The Justice Management InstituteJuly 16, 2014

1400 N. 14thStreet, 12thFloor

Arlington, VA 22209

Phone: 703-414-5477

Fax: 703-842-8665

www.jmijustice.org


2/149

Franklin County Justice System Business Process Analysis

Executive Summary

Franklin County is one of six growing counties in Pennsylvania, located on the south central border with

Maryland. Franklin is a fourth class1county with approximately 150,0002residents, 7 boroughs, 15

townships and numerous villages. The Board of County Commissioners of Franklin County,

Pennsylvania, in cooperation with the Court, commissioned the Justice Management Institute in

September 2013 to provide a business process analysis of justice system case processing. The justice

system is geographically focused around the courthouse and courthouse annex at the center of

Chambersburg, the county seat. Other key justice facilities include seven Magisterial District Courts,

located in one-judge courthouses around the county, adult probation and the jail located north, and the

Day Reporting Center, west of Chambersburg.

Franklin County is seeking solutions to streamline and improve processes and utilizing data to maximize

efficiency, effectiveness and resources associated with the Countys judicial functions for criminal

court [and family casetypes]. Franklin County goals to be addressed by the analysis will directly impact

criminal justice stakeholders, including departments, offices and operations inside and outsidethe

county organization:

Goal 1: Streamline and improve automated systems and processes

Goal 2: Identify and improve data for effective decision-making

Goal 3: Streamline and improve manual systems and processes

Goal 4: Improve efficiency and functionality to make a major, positive impact on service delivery

The justice system includes criminal, family, juvenile and civil matters. The Franklin County Criminal

Justice Advisory Board (CJAB), which is co-chaired by the Chairman of the County Commissioners and

the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, is responsible for review and advice over criminal

and juvenile delinquency matters. The CJAB includes membership from all criminal justice stakeholders.

Policy governance over civil, family and juvenile dependency matters rests almost entirely with the

President Judge and the judges of the Court of Common Pleas, with collaboration from the local Bar

Association. The study primarily focuses on criminal, family and juvenile matters.

1A fourth class county has a population of 145,000 to 209,999 residents.

22010 U.S. Census Bureau = 149,618 residents. 2013 estimate = 152,085, a 1.6% increase (.5% per year) since

2010.

The Justice Management Institute 2


3/149


Franklin County Innovation and AccomplishmentsThe Franklin County justice system is strong. Key examples of creative innovation and accomplishments

in the recent past include the following:

Criminal Justice Advisory Board (CJAB). The formation of the CJAB in 1999 was key to

establishing active collaboration among justice system stakeholders, the residual effects of

which transcend criminal and juvenile delinquency matters. County leadership, the courts, and

all justice agencies are skilled at communicating and working together.

Early Accountability Program (EAP). Central court was established more than ten years ago, but

since September 2013, the Court of Common Pleas has been scheduling plea hearings

immediately after Central Court to expedite early disposition of cases where the District

Attorney and defendants and the Public Defender or defense counsel negotiate a plea

agreement. The program has raised challenges regarding early discovery and fact-finding, but

these should be addressed following evaluation and review.

Alternatives to Incarceration. The County has established a number of effective diversion and

alternatives to incarceration programs, including the Day Reporting Center to assist with early

reentry of incarcerated defendants, jail diversion, and intermediate punishment, among others.

Juvenile Justice. Franklin County is a Pennsylvania leader in juvenile justice, including

participation as a study county in a 2009 Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency

(PCCD) evaluation project. Innovative programs include juvenile accountability programs and

the provision of high quality legal defense. See thePCCD report3for Franklin County, which

illustrates improvements in most performance measures over the last three years.

Criminal and Summary Clearance Rates. The justice system is generally keeping up with

criminal case filings. The clearance rate for the Court of Common Pleas in 2012 was 101%.4 The

clearance rate for the Magisterial District Courts (MDC) in 2012 was 93%. 5 While not as positive

for the MDC, it is highly likely that results are due to data entry anomalies. 6 See Table E1 and

Chart E1 for a summary of the data across all casetypes.

3http://www.pccd.pa.gov/Juvenile-Justice/Pages/PAYS-for-2013---County-Reports-.aspx#.U6nKLrFBlFU

42012 Court of Common Pleas criminal casetypes: 2,552 dispositions/2,531 filings = 101%. Clearance rate is a

standard measure of keeping up with filings. The goal is 100% clearance rate. Note that 2013 data are not yet

available for the Court of Common Pleas.52103 Magisterial District Courts criminal casetypes = 2,457 dispositions/2,641 filings = 93%.

6Allcriminal cases are disposed or bound over from the Magisterial District Courts to the Court of Common Pleas

in a very short time span. A 93% clearance rate is more indicative of data entry or recording delays on dispositions.

http://www.pccd.pa.gov/Juvenile-Justice/Pages/PAYS-for-2013---County-Reports-.aspx%23.U6nKLrFBlFUhttp://www.pccd.pa.gov/Juvenile-Justice/Pages/PAYS-for-2013---County-Reports-.aspx%23.U6nKLrFBlFUhttp://www.pccd.pa.gov/Juvenile-Justice/Pages/PAYS-for-2013---County-Reports-.aspx%23.U6nKLrFBlFUhttp://www.pccd.pa.gov/Juvenile-Justice/Pages/PAYS-for-2013---County-Reports-.aspx%23.U6nKLrFBlFUhttp://www.pccd.pa.gov/Juvenile-Justice/Pages/PAYS-for-2013---County-Reports-.aspx%23.U6nKLrFBlFUhttp://www.pccd.pa.gov/Juvenile-Justice/Pages/PAYS-for-2013---County-Reports-.aspx%23.U6nKLrFBlFUhttp://www.pccd.pa.gov/Juvenile-Justice/Pages/PAYS-for-2013---County-Reports-.aspx%23.U6nKLrFBlFU


4/149


Table E1

Franklin County Magisterial District Courts 2013 and

Court of Common Pleas 2012 Filings, Dispositions, and Clearance Rates7

Magisterial District Courts

2013

Filings

2013

Dispositions

Clearance

Rate

Criminal 2,641 2,457 93%

Summary Cases 22,974 22,312 97%

Private Criminal Complaints 707 639 90%

Traffic 17,928 17,799 99%

Non-Traffic 4,339 3,874 89%

Civil 1,336 1,231 92%

Landlord Tenant 1,036 999 96%

Total 27,987 26,999 96%

Court of Common Pleas2012

Filings

2012

Dispositions

Clearance

Rate

Criminal 2,531 2,552 101%

Civil 1,274 476 37%

Family 3,754 3,820 102%

Divorce 542 534 99%

Adoptions 49 48 98%

Relinquishments 58 55 95%

Appointment of Guardians 19 16 84%

Custody/Visitation 296 304 103%

Spousal and Child Support 3,218 3,303 103%

Protection from Abuse 114 94 82%

Juvenile Delinquency 321 316 98%

Juvenile Dependency 165 149 90%

Active Dependent 94 93 99%

Adjudicated Dependent 71 56 79%

Total 8,587 7,847 91%

7Source: Caseload Statistics, Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania. Note that 2013 data were not yet available

for the Court of Common Pleas.



5/149


Chart E2

Franklin County Justice System 2013 (MDC) and 2012 (CCP) Clearance Rates 8

8Note that the de facto national and international standard for clearance rates = 100% is rooted in the principal

that resolving fewer cases than are filed over a period of time (month or year) will begin to accumulate a backlog

and adversely affect the ability for judges to devote sufficient time to adjudication. The greatest collateral impact

is often case delay. Most justice systems effectively fluctuate between 97% and 103% clearance.

93% 97% 92% 96% 101%

37%

98%90%

102%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

MDCCriminal

MDCSummons

Cases

MDCCivil

MDCLandlord

Tenant

CCPCriminal

CCPCivil

CCPJuvenile

Delinquency

CCPJuvenile

Dependency

CCPFamily

Goal = 100%

Clearance Rate



6/149


Franklin County ChallengesThe justice system in Franklin County, while organizationally strong, is negatively impacted by systemic

and structural bottlenecks and problems. Inefficient processes have evolved over many years. The

benefits of more and better data to help decision-makers have not been fully realized. Examples of

improving data for effective decision-making include recidivism studies of DRC participants.9 In large

part, the challenges are deeply rooted in our governmental structure, which fragments power and is

inefficient by design.

Criminal casetypes

Lack of effective system-wide data on criminal cases. Assessment of system dynamics on

individual cases and for each casetype from crime, arrest by law enforcement, to bail and

probable cause hearings, to mandatory arraignment and adjudication, through supervision

requires analysis of data from multiple systems. System-wide data will be much more accessible

through the new Unified Case Management System (UCMS)

10

modules. The goal will be tobuild easy-to-use analytical tools to understand the linkages and outcomes.

Time to disposition due to continuances on criminal cases. For criminal cases in the Court of

Common Pleas, 16% (116) of active pending cases on January 1, 2013 were older than 360 days.

Pennsylvanias time standard for jailed defendants is 180 days and for bail defendants is 360

days. Elapsed time is not counted for continuances requested by the defendant or waivers of

prompt trial by the defendant (see Rule 600)

Representation at Central Court. The Early Accountability Program is a key innovation to

criminal justice case processing events. System-wide improvements in providing arrest reportsand other discovery by law enforcement earlier in the process will enable defendants and

defense counsel to reasonably negotiate pleas with the prosecutor.

Inadequate pretrial screening and supervision alternatives. Currently, no pretrial risk screening

is utilized to help inform Magisterial District Judges about pretrial bail or detention decisions.

District judges may also be more inclined to consider bail and/or release decisions that include

supervision alternatives that increase the likelihood of compliance. Supervision alternatives

include pretrial case management contact, court date reminders, drug testing, electronic

monitoring (GPS supervision), day reporting, work release, and/or treatment referrals. While

each of these alternatives involve cost, they are a fraction of the cost of pretrial detention.

Criminal, family, juvenile and civil casetypes

9These types of studies, though, are not normative. They are not built into the data collection and reporting

process for all types of outcomes.10

Designed, built and owned by the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania (CCAP).



7/149


Fragmented technology. The report documents 19 different core mission applications

supporting numerous justice system operations in Franklin County. Other than the case

management systems that support the Court of Common Pleas (CPCMS) and the Magisterial

District Courts (MDJS), which are fully integrated, almost no other system shares data or is

integrated. This problem is being addressed to a large degree through the implementation by

the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania of a new Unified Case Management

System (UCMS) that will provide an integrated case management platform for Adult Probation,

the District Attorney, and the Jail. A module of UCMS is also planned for the Public Defender in

2015/16. As important, UCMS is planned to provide disposition and calendar information from

the two state-owned11court systems, CPCMS and MDJS. Critical to the future success of the

new UCMS system will be effective planning for adoption and use of the systems, staff training,

and understanding how to leverage the systems to reduce paper-driven processes.

Overwhelming paper-driven processes. Almost all business transactions in the justice system

continue to be paper-driven, in addition to requiring electronic data entry and record keeping.

This is due in large part to historical reliance on hardcopy forms and ink signatures, especially for

legal documents, filings, and court orders. Inefficiencies are exacerbated by the following

shortfalls:

1. Little to no use of electronic document management for transactional purposes . Most

electronic documents are primarily for archival purposes. The only core system in place

with electronic document management is Infocon for civil and family case management,

used primarily for archival purposes. In the Magisterial District Court, recent rules

changes permit the use of electronic (imaged) documents for archiving until retention.

The state case management systems, CPCMS and MDJS, do not include a document

management module. The new UCMS includes document management, but it is not a

robust document management system. No provisions have been made for integration

with county-wide imaging or document management resources. Justice system

stakeholders repeatedly cited the lack of electronic motions and orders and close to real

time transactional use as key drivers of business process delay.

2. Repeated data entry into multiple systems. Because of the historical fragmentation of

technology, the same information is entered into different systems multiple times. The

new UCMS will reduce the amount of repeated data entry, but only if effectively

implemented. The best example of this problem is the following:

The complaint and affidavit of probable cause from law enforcement include most

case initiation information about an arrest or summons, the defendant(s), charges

and potential evidence. The same information is separately entered into the

11Owned by the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC).



8/149


following systems: law enforcement field reporting and arrest reporting systems; jail

management system; Magisterial District Judges System; prosecutor management;

public defender case management; and adult probation case management.

3. No electronic filing is in place for criminal and family cases. Electronic filing has been

implemented for traffic citations from the Pennsylvania State Police, and by the Register

of Wills and Recorder for deeds. Electronic filing is rooted in the principle that the

information, forms, and documents needed to initiate a case and to provide a

mechanism for the filing of motions and the notification of parties regarding court dates

and orders starts with the litigants and attorneys who bring a dispute or charges to

court. In criminal cases, it starts with law enforcement complaints and citations.

Currently, only traffic citations are filed electronically by the Pennsylvania State Police

(PSP). All other opportunities to electronically initiate or manage cases in civil, criminal,

family, and juvenile cases are missed. The AOPC is implementing e-filing for family cases

through the Unified Judicial System (UJS). Because CPCMS is not a civil or family case

management system, e-filing through the AOPC will be standalone. The vast majority of

justice systems in the United States are considering and exploring ways of implementing

e-filing through the Internet.

Civil Casetypes

Clearance rate. While not studied as part of the report, collateral effects from prioritized focus

in the justice system on criminal, family, and juvenile matters cannot be ignored. See Table E1

and Chart E2 above. Civil pending caseloads are rapidly increasing. Historically, times to

disposition for civil cases have been very good. Pending cases are all within 30 months of time

to disposition, but positive results will rapidly deteriorate with increases in the caseload.

Community impacts will include increasing frustration by the business and commercial

community, as well as individual litigants with dispute resolution and delay in the justice system.

Court of Common PleasJan 1, 2012

Pending

2012

Filings

2012

Dispositions

Dec 31, 2012

Pending

Clearance

Rate

Pending Cases

25-30 Months

Civil 1,737 1,274 476 2,535 37% 134 10%



9/149


Business Process RecommendationsThe Justice Management Institute recommends a three-year implementation of the following major

initiatives to address the challenges faced by the justice system in Franklin County. The three initiatives

were the highest ranked of six initiatives, aggregated from issues and problems identified through

interviews and feedback from justice system stakeholders.

1.0 County-Wide Communication and Decision-Making

Develop county-wide process for involvement of stakeholders in decisions. Create mechanisms and

processes to involve all key players in the decision-making process. First-year recommendations

include:

Create a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) and full-time staff person, who will

report to the County Commissioners and Judges. The CJCC will be chaired by a CJAB

designee and will include one full or part-time staff person who will provide information to

the CJAB chair and to the committee once per month. The CJCC will include staff from allcriminal justice courts and agencies.

Create a cross-agency integrated data repository to include juvenile and adult case data

from law enforcement, MDJS, CPCMS, Adult and Juvenile Probation and Jail system; in order

to provide justice system decision-makers with information about outcomes related to

pretrial diversion, pretrial release, program evaluation, early accountability, recidivism, and

reduction in jail population.

Initiate a recidivism study that expands on prior studies to address diversion and other

programs, beginning with results from Accelerated Rehabilitative Dispositions (ARDs) andthe EAP program.

Begin a review of the Early Accountability Program (EAP). Initial analysis should focus on

outcomes of the EAP as compared to Central Court prior to September 2013 and means and

methods to improve discovery processes to better inform early plea negotiations.

2.0 Justice Reinvestment

Initiate a justice reinvestment initiative as a primary focus of the Criminal Justice Advisory Board

(CJAB) and CJCC coordinator. Justice reinvestment will be focused on pretrial and post-adjudication

alternatives to incarceration using evidence-based pretrial and sentencing outcomes. First-year andongoing recommendations include the following:

Expand probation supervision resources to include technologies such as electronic

monitoring and web-based check-in; and additional resources to increase pretrial and post-

adjudication supervision programs.



10/149


Evaluate and implement pretrial risk screening tools to provide better information to

Magisterial District Judges for bail and release alternatives. Recommendations include the

use of risk screening instruments that do not require defendant interviews and that can be

conducted by law enforcement or at the jail.

3.0 Franklin County Justice System Technology Strategic Plan

Few systemic issues can be addressed without good cross-agency data that are timely, integrated,

and provide clear direction at every stage of a case lifecycle. Each key component of the technology

strategy will be on a different planning and development timeline or cycle. Year Two projects

should be well into or completed the planning phase by the end of Year One. All of the technology

recommendations should be included in the county-wide strategic plan, but first-year focus must be

on active and planned IT projects to include:

IT Strategic Plan

Civil e-Filing

Criminal e-Filing

Data Integration (evaluation)

UCMS Evaluation and Support

Cross-Agency Technology Training

Jury Management Software

High Priority Recommendations. As part of the initial three-year implementation and ongoing, JMI

recommends that Franklin County also undertake high-priority recommendations identified by

stakeholders from the three additional initiatives:

4.0 Comprehensive Jury Management Project

Create a county/court committee to improve the jury management process. The committee and

implementation recommendations should include an evaluation and streamlining of jury

management staff and the requirements and specifications for new jury management software.

5.0 Civil Communication and Case Management Self Represented Litigants

Create a Civil Justice Committee to address issues that affect all civil and family related justice issues.

Expand the use of plain English forms for self-represented litigants, both in hardcopy and online. In

addition, JMI recommends that the county and courts expand self-represented litigant programs to

include self-help websites and volunteers at the courthouse to assist with process issues.

6.0 Facilities and Security Study

Initiate a facilities and security study to assess systemic problems, some of which overlap with

technology recommendations. The impact of facilities and security on business processes and

effectiveness is most pronounced at peak public hours in the morning and at Central Court. Both of

these events highlight the inadequacy of security and queuing space, the conflicts from moving

prisoners through secure staff and judge spaces, and accessibility for the disabled.



11/149


Franklin Justice System Implementation PlanJMI recommends the following county-wide business process implementation strategies. The

recommendations are iterative. They are intended to be revised as the implementation planning phase

evolves and is completed.

Implementation Strategy 1 Goals and Outcomes

Each initiative is written as an objective with an implied goal or outcome. JMI recommends that the

county and all justice stakeholders craft a goal or expected outcome for each initiative. This process

will be conducted in three steps:

1. Draft initiative goals and submit them to the project management steering committee.

2. The steering committee will review and edit.

3. A collaborative session of CJAB and family casetype stakeholders will help to discuss and refine

the initiatives. Consensus will be reached by majority vote.

Implementation Strategy 2 Three Year CyclesOrganize the initiatives and recommendations into three year cycles at the conclusion of the

implementation planning process:

Year One Current projects, capacity building and high priority recommendations with low risk

Year Two Current and new targeted projects, combined with building structural foundations

Year Three System-wide projects that are based on good data and improved technology and

that target specific outcomes.

Implementation Strategy 3 Year One

JMI strongly recommends that the county and justice stakeholders focus on initiatives and

recommendations in Year One that are current projects, capacity building and high priorityinitiatives and recommendations.



12/149


Business Process Improvement Costs and BenefitsThe following estimates are preliminary. Detailed breakdowns may be found in Chapter 8 Costs and

Benefits.

CostsCOMMUNICATION AND JUSTICE REINVESTMENT In-House Low High

1.1 Criminal Justice Coordinator

Total Cost $0 $1,700 $2,000

Total Annual Costs $0 $81,000 $101,250

1.2 Cross-Agency Integrated Data Repository

Phases One and Two Subtotal $0 $60,000 $90,000

1.3 Recidivism Study

CJCC Coordinator work $0

1.4 Early AccountabilityCJCC Coordinator work $0

1.5 Early Discovery


2.1 Pretrial Risk Screening

Subtotal $0 $10,000 $15,000

2.2 Pretrial Eligibility Determination


2.3 Pretrial Diversion


2.4 DRC Alternatives to Commitment In-House


2.5 Jail Population Reduction Strategies In-House


2.6 Probation Supervision Resources In-House Low High

CJCC Coordinator analysis and cost estimates $0 $0 $0

Increase GPS monitoring (low-50%; high 100%) $0 $0 $0

Add pretrial staff (low-2; high-4)

Subtotal Annual Costs $128,625 $257,125

IT STRATEGIC PLAN In-HouseContracted

Low Cost

Contracted

High Cost

3.1 Justice Technology Strategic Plan $0 $60,000 $120,000

3.2 Civil e-Filing

Subtotal $0 $34,500 $218,500

Annual maintenance $0 $0 $10,000



13/149


3.3 Criminal e-Filing

Subtotal $0 $230,000 $310,500

Annual maintenance $0 $15,000 $30,000

3.4 Data Integration

Subtotal $0 $110,000 $130,000

3.5 Document Management

Subtotal $0 $45,000 $90,000

3.6 UCMS

Function analysis $0 $0 $0

Gap analysis $0 $0 $0

3.7 Cross-Agency Technology Training

Training documents $0 $1,000 $3,000

3.8 Jury Management Software

Subtotal $500 $62,000 $125,000

Annual maintenance $2,000 $2,000 $5,000

RECOMMENDATIONS In-House Low High

5.0 Civil Casetypes Self-Represented Litigants

Hardcopy & online forms and assistance $0 $2,000 $5,000

Self-help website $0 $5,000 $8,000

Self-help center (1 staff + volunteers)

Subtotal Annual Costs $0 $45,325 $60,425

6.0 Facilities Expansion and Renovation

Subtotal $1,000 $15,329,500 $18,783,000

Annual maintenance (energy/environment) (TBD) (TBD)

6.1 Facilities Security

Study $0 $10,000 $15,000

COST SUMMARY In-House Low High

Total Investment Costs $1,500 $648,200 $1,164,000

Total Facility Costs $1,000 $15,329,500 $18,783,000

Total Annual Costs $2,000 $271,950 $463,800

Total Annual Costs x 3 years $6,000 $815,850 $1,391,400

Total Annual Costs x 10 years $20,000 $2,719,500 $4,638,000



14/149


Benefits

A Jail Reduction Strategies In-House Low High

Reduce time to disposition for 116 defendants NA $678,600 $1,017,900

Reduce pretrial population by 10% and 15% NA $581,263 $871,894

Subtotal Annual NA $1,259,863 $1,889,794

B Productivity Efficiency Strategies

3.2 Civil e-Filing 50% 100%

7,400 cases x 2 filings/case * 15 mins * $.06/min $6,660 $13,320

Reduction in hearings x 1 per case due to e-filing

notifications $80,048 $160,096

Subtotal Annual $86,708 $173,416

3.3 Criminal e-Filing 50% 100%19,146 cases x 2 filings/case * 15 mins * $.06/min $17,231 $34,463

Reduction in hearings x 1 per case due to e-filing

notifications $80,048 $160,096

Reduction in continuances x 1 per case (CCP only) $27,379 $54,757

Subtotal Annual $124,658 $249,316

Annual Savings NA $1,471,229 $2,312,526

Three-Year Savings NA $4,413,686 $6,937,578

Ten-Year Savings NA $14,712,287 $23,125,261



15/149


Table of ContentsChapter 1 Felony & Misdemeanor Casetypes ............................................................................................ 17

Level I Criminal Case Overview ............................................................................................................... 17

Business Process Analysis ................................................................................................................... 17

Significant Event Narrative.................................................................................................................. 25

Arrest, complaint and summons ......................................................................................................... 26

Workflow Diagrams ................................................................................................................................ 41

Chapter 2 Summary Casetypes .................................................................................................................. 53

Level I Traffic Case Overview .................................................................................................................. 53



Chapter 3 Juvenile Delinquency ................................................................................................................. 62

Juvenile Delinquency Casetype Overview .............................................................................................. 62



Chapter 4 Juvenile Dependency and Family Casetypes ............................................................................. 77

4.1 Juvenile Dependency Cases ........................................................................................................ 77

4.2 Divorce ........................................................................................................................................ 79

4.3 Custody ....................................................................................................................................... 79

4.4 Domestic Relations & Child Support ........................................................................................... 81

4.5 Adoption Orphans Court ......................................................................................................... 83

4.6 Protection from Abuse ................................................................................................................ 84


Chapter 5 Information Technology ............................................................................................................. 94

UCMS....................................................................................................................................................... 94

CPCMS, MDJS and Infocom ..................................................................................................................... 95

Main Integrations .................................................................................................................................... 96

Chapter 6 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 108

Integration Touchpoints ....................................................................................................................... 117

Chapter 7 Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................ 120

Implementation Strategy 1 Goals and Outcomes .......................................................................... 120



16/149


Implementation Strategy 2 Three Year Cycles ............................................................................... 120

Implementation Strategy 3 Year One ............................................................................................ 120

Years One and Two Implementation Communication and System-Wide Decision Making .............. 123

Years One and Two Implementation Justice Reinvestment .............................................................. 125

Years One and Two Implementation Information Technology Strategic Plan................................... 126

Years One and Two Implementation High Priority Standalone Recommendations .......................... 131

Chapter 8 Costs and Benefits .................................................................................................................... 132

Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 139

Initiatives and Recommendations Survey Results ................................................................................ 139

Appendix 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 144

Teams and Participants ......................................................................................................................... 144

Appendix 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 147

Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission (CJCC) Coordinator Sample Job Description ..................... 147



17/149


Chapter 1 Felony & Misdemeanor CasetypesThe foundation for an integrated business process analysis of criminal casetypes in Franklin County is to

map and assess what happens to a case from arrest and the filing of a complaint through to disposition

and post-adjudication for defendants that are found guilty of a crime and sanctioned by a judge. A case

is defined by Pennsylvania rules and by national convention as a single defendant, for a single or

multiple incidents and crimes, with one or more charges brought against them. The litigants on a

criminal case are the defendant and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, represented by the District

Attorney (the prosecutor). A defendant may be represented by an attorney from the Public Defender or

by private counsel; or they may be self-represented. The courts and adjudication are at the center of

criminal case processing. Once brought by complaint, only the court can resolve or dispose of a case,

although the prosecutor may choose to withdraw charges, a form of disposition. The Magisterial District

courts may dismiss a criminal case, but only the Court of Common Pleas may adjudicate a criminal case,

after charges have filed by the District Attorney as Information at the Court. 12

Other stakeholders in criminal case processing include law enforcement, the Sheriff, adult probation,

the jail and the day reporting center. Adjudication decisions made by judges on pleas are strongly

informed by plea negotiations between the prosecutor and defense or defense counsel. Adult

probation also provides recommendations to judges in the form of draft orders for many cases,

especially probation and parole violations that may or may not involve new charges.

Level I Criminal Case OverviewKey significant and secondary events define the criminal process for every case. The significant events

at the core of the process are on the critical path, defined by Pennsylvania (PA) rules of procedure as

sequential. Please see Table 2.1 on the following page for an illustration of the full process under the PA

Code of Criminal Procedure.

Business Process Analysis

A large majority of criminal cases13in Franklin County originate from summons and arrests made by

Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and local (borough/township) law enforcement. Criminal cases may also

be initiated by private complaint. If an arrest occurs outside of business hours and the individual is taken

12For the purposes of the report, felony and misdemeanor casetypes are defined as criminal cases.

13A criminal case generally refers to misdemeanor and felony casetypes that can only be adjudicated at the Court

of Common Pleas.



18/149


Table 2.1

Felony and Misdemeanor Casetypes PA Criminal Code Rules Analysis

District AttorneyMagisterial District CourtJailPolice Court of Common Pleas

Crime

Report

Pa.R.Crim.P. 430

Issuance of

Warrant

Pa.R.Crim.P. 440

Arrest WithoutWarrant

Pa.R.Crim.P. 441

Procedure

Following Arrest

Without Warrant

Pa.R.Crim.P. 517

Procedure in Court

Cases Where

Warrant of Arrest

is Executed

39th Jud. Dist. Rule

39-210 Arrest

Warrants

Pa.R.Crim.P.

520 Bail may

be set at any

time before

verdict

Pa.R.Crim.P. 521

Bail may be set

after verdict and

before

sentencing

Pa.R.Crim.P. 541-

Defendant may

waive preliminary

hearing

Pa.R.Crim.P. 565 Court may allow

case without

preliminary hearing

in exceptional

cases

39th Jud. Dist. R.

Crim. P. 39-

300(A)(B)

Preliminary call

two weeks prior to

each criminal term

39th Jud. Dist. R.

Crim. P. 39-311

Pretrial

conferences to

determine if cases

are likely to go totrial

Pa.R.Crim.P. 577

Procedures

regarding motion

practice

Pa.R.Crim.P. 579

Omnibus motions

to be filed/served

within 30 days

after arraignment

Pa.R.Crim.P.540

Preliminary

arraignments

Pa.R.Crim.P. 571

Arraignment

Pa.R.Crim.P. 573

Pre-trial discovery

Pa.R.Crim.P. 310

Accelerated

Rehabilitative

Disposition

Pa.R.Crim.P.

590 Pleas and

plea agreements

Pa.R.Crim.P.

600(A) Trial must

begin within 365

days after

complaint is filed

Pa.R.Crim.P.

600(B) Defendant

must be released

after 180 days pre-

trial incarceration

If released,

charging in 5 days

Custody

14 days or less

Out of custody

21 days or less

1

Arrest

2

Booked at

Jail

3

Preliminary

Arraignment

6

DA Review

7

Information

Filed

4

Preliminary

Hearing

5

Plea?

8

Arraignment

10

Discovery

11

Pretrial

Conference(s)

12

Trial

9

Call of the

List

13

Verdict

14

Sentence

15

Appeals/pos

conviction

relief

6A

Grand Jury

1A

Summons

7A

Indictment

Filed

Trial within 365 days of filing of complaint

Arraignment 10

days after

information filed

4,814

arrests

1,863

pretrial

bookings

2012

100%

2,674 criminal

cases filed3,453 complaints

filed (incl private

complaints)

56% of arrests

90% remain

Dispositions159 guilty pleas (5%)

173 withdrawals (6%)

22 dismissals (1%)

3,442 scheduled2,086 waivers (60%)

766 continuances (22%)

223 Held for court (6%)

Other (4%)

19% remain

Dispositions17% disposed

1,374 scheduled*47% continue

15% pretrial conf.

4% FTA

4% remain

Dispositions15% disposed

301 scheduled*58% continue

27% trial

3% FTA

0% remain

Dispositions3% verdict/trial

1% plea

90 scheduled*13% continue

90% remain

2,405 filed

36% remain

Dispositions36% disposed (GP, DM)

18% ARD

2,762 scheduled*14% cont, no action

30% call of the list

4% FTA

*The percentage of cases that remain at the end of each event is the ratio of the number (2,674) of cases filed. Scheduled cases always exceed the number of

cases filed, due to continuances and re-scheduling of the same cases.



19/149


County Jail, the Jail (1.0) will hold the person in custody until the person may post bail bond or the case

is disposed.

Once a criminal case is initiated, it proceeds to the Magisterial District Courts (3.0) where it may be

disposed or continue to the Court of Common Pleas (5.0). When a case proceeds from the Magisterial

District Court to the Court of Common Pleas, the case is processed by the District Attorney (4.0) and a

Public Defender (2.0) may be selected or ordered by the court. Cases may be disposed if the Court (3.0,

5.0) dismisses the case, the Commonwealth withdraws the case (4.0), or the defendant pleads guilty or

is found guilty at trial in Court (3.0, 5.0). Cases that have reached disposition may receive a sentence

from the Court (3.0, 5.0) that can include assignment to Jail (1.0), Probation (6.0), Day Reporting (8.0), or

State Prison.

Normative standards for analysis of case processing include assessment of filings and dispositions for a

fixed period of time.14 Table 2.2 illustrates a summary of criminal cases filed and disposed in Franklin

County.

Table 2.2

Criminal case filings, dispositions and clearance rate in Franklin County15

Year Criminal (MDJ)* Criminal (CCP)**

Filings DispositionsClearance

Rate

Filings +

ReopenedDispositions

Clearance

Rate

2013 2,641 2,457 93% NA NA NA

2012 2,674 2,545 95% 2,531 2,552 101%

2011 2,644 2,464 93% 2,421 2,370 98%

2010 2,775 2,827 102% 2,434 2,306 95%

2009 2,877 2,777 97% 2,307 2,331 101%

Source iswww.pacourts.us

*MDJ = Magisterial District Judges

**CCP = Court of Common Pleas

The Pennsylvania (PA) courts evaluate key performance measures for case processing, including

clearance rate (see Table 2.2 above) and age of active pending caseload. Age of active pending cases

measures in Franklin County illustrate that, at the end of 2012, 116 (15.8%) active Common Pleas

14While selected data are available for 2013, for the wide range of integrated data needed for the report, only

2012 data were sufficiently complete to enable analysis.15

The international and PA standard for clearance rate is 100%, with typical ranges from 97% to 103%. It is a

measure of keeping up with the caseload and is calculated by dividing dispositions/filings (+reopened). Courts

carry inventory all the time, and the active pending inventory carried over from year to year is what increases or

decreases depending on the clearance rate.

http://www.pacourts.us/http://www.pacourts.us/http://www.pacourts.us/http://www.pacourts.us/


20/149


criminal cases, and 107 (24.6%) of active Magisterial District Court criminal cases are over the PA

standard for detention cases of 360 days.16

Performance measures were enacted in PA in response to historic, nationwide problems with delay and

public perceptions of access and fairness. In criminal cases, especially, constitutional rights to a speedy

trial resulted in statutory provisions for elapsed time to reach key events and ultimately trial and

disposition on every case. In addition to the right to have an accusation brought by the Commonwealth

against a citizen resolved in a fixed period of time, a significant number of defendants are held in

custody awaiting trial. Pretrial detentions are primarily the result of a determination by the court that

the defendant may pose a risk to the community, may commit another crime, or may not appear for a

hearing or trial. Other factors may include the inability to post a bond or money bail that has been

ordered by a judge to ensure appearance at the next court event; or occasionally to evaluate mental

health.17

Case processing delay has other pervasive impacts on the criminal justice system that include the use of

resources to adjudicate, prosecute and defend cases, transport and incarcerate custody defendants

from jail, and provide various types of pretrial supervision. Given the axiom that a defendant is innocent

until proven guilty, the justice system must be constantly tuned only to use the time necessary to reach

a fair outcome or verdict.

Case Fallout by Disposition

Table 2.3 below illustrates the 2012 dispositions and fallout by significant event as defined in the rules

map above and the PA rules of procedure. The dynamics of what type of disposition and how and why

they occur is the very core definition of caseflow management and is impacted by the local legal culture,

all the justice system stakeholders, as well as the defendant and defense counsel.

Case processing events and measures that work and are highly successful

A number of key significant events in Franklin County criminal case processing are highly successful by

both state and national standards. These include the following:

Call of the List and Trial Calendar

The Franklin County courts are following best practices with highly commendable results in the

approach to narrowing the cases ready for trial and ensuring that only those cases with a high

likelihood of going to trial will encumber the trial calendar. This is reflected in both the 1% plea and

13% continuance rate at trial; both of which indicate a commitment to trial date certainty, in

16Source ishttp://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-768/file-2598.pdf?cb=a425ec.

1717In general, lengthy delays in a limited jurisdiction court, not responsible ultimately for the final disposition of

cases, are a result of data entry anomalies, including not adequately closing out a case. It is recommended that

the courts conduct a backlog analysis of aged active pending criminal cases to determine if these cases are indeed

active.

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-768/file-2598.pdf?cb=a425echttp://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-768/file-2598.pdf?cb=a425echttp://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-768/file-2598.pdf?cb=a425echttp://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-768/file-2598.pdf?cb=a425ec


21/149


addition to an almost 1.5 to 1 ratio of trials scheduled and trials held. 18 The most important use of

judicial attention is at trial, and the key to timely resolution is certainty on the part of the litigants

and attorneys that the trial will take place. In addition, this helps ensure efficient use of jurors.

Table 2.3

Case Fallout by Disposition

Sources includehttp://www.pacourts.us,MDJS, CPCM, jail management system, and CCAP data

i. Note that dispositions at trial include 3% by trial and verdict and 1% by plea (see Table 2.1).

ii. Note that dispositions, including withdrawals of prosecution by the District Attorney and dismissals

by a judge, may occur at preliminary arraignment, but no data is available.

In the focused attempt to ensure trial certainty, though, the court is granting a high ratio of

continuances. This is resulting in procedural delays that consume justice system resources.

Promoting earlier settlements, especially for cases that inevitably reach a plea negotiation is better

justice.

18Precise data on scheduled and held trials are not available, but are inferred by the continuance rates. It is not

clear how many cases are disposed by plea in the few weeks and days leading up to trial, although the continuance

rate (58%) at pretrial conferences infers that a significant number of pleas are being taken at hearings between the

pretrial conference and the trial.

100%

0%

10%

54%

17% 15%

4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ComplaintsFiled

PreliminaryArraignment

PreliminaryHearing

Arraignment/Plea

CalloftheList

Pretrial

Conference/Pleas

Trial

Dispositions by Event



22/149


Central Court and Early Accountability

The MDJs have been scheduling preliminary hearings at a central location at the main courthouse in

Franklin County for approximately ten years. This measure is consistent with many PA counties and

helps increase efficiency, in part because of the rule that the affiant may be called to testify in the

hearing. Affiants are often law enforcement officers and the demands for coordination of

appearances have been highly simplified. Since September 2013, the Franklin County Court of

Common Pleas has been assigning a trial judge to a plea hearing calendar immediately following

preliminary hearings in central court. Defendants who wish to make a guilty plea and waive their

preliminary hearing are able directly to appear in front of a Common Pleas judge for disposition. In

effect, this is accelerating the arraignment in the Court of Common Pleas, which historically has had

the highest number of dispositions by plea of any other event. The acceleration of a plea hearing is

worth from two to four weeks in case disposition time.

Case processing events and measures that have challenges or may need improvement

A number of key significant events in Franklin County criminal case processing have challenges by both

state and national standards and may need attention. These include the following:

Pretrial Jail Population

Over 70% of the county jail population is being held for trial or awaiting an order or adjudication by

a judge for new charges following probation or parole violations. This exceeds the national average

of 61%, but more importantly, the causes and effects of pretrial jail population increases are directly

related to case processing and factors impacted by all justice system stakeholders. The national

average is not a standard, but it is a normative benchmark to help assess why Franklin Countys

pretrial jail population is higher.

1. The most important factor impacting pretrial jail population is the length of time that a custody

defendant is being held awaiting trial, primarily for defendants who have the greatest likelihood

of going to trial and not pleading. Judicial decisions to hold a defendant pending trial are not to

be questioned. Certainty and better data about outcomes and likelihood to appear or commit

another crime are critical to enabling a judge to choose other supervision approaches or to

release a defendant on their own recognizance. Jail data are not currently sufficient to identify

the defendants that are being held pre or post-trial, although a recent Jail Population Study

cross-matched this data [1.2C]19. CPCMS data identify defendants that are in custody and those

that are not, but these data are not aggregated for reporting purposes.

2. The second most important factor impacting pretrial jail population is related to money bail and

the time it takes a defendant to post bail. In some cases, especially with high bail, the

defendant is never released, even if the high bail is an indication that the judge has determined

that the defendant does not pose a risk to the community. Jail and CPCMS data do not currently

191.2C Track jail population by pre/post trial



23/149


identify the number of pretrial defendants that are being held pending posting money bail

[1.2C]20.

Hearings and Continuances

The number of continuances at key hearings contributes to case delay and also impacts the pretrial

jail population. While no national standards exist for the number of continuances at any significant

event, any event with the number of cases that might get a continuance approaching half of those

scheduled reduces the pressure on defendants and attorneys to prepare for those events. The

actual cumulative amount of time that a prosecuting attorney spends on all felony casetypes,

according to national averages, is 7.1-10.1 hours.21 The urgent cases crowd out the important cases.

Table 2.4

Number of 2012 continuances as a percentage of cases scheduled at each event

Magisterial District Courts and Court of Common Pleas criminal cases

Continuances place a burden on the court, justice system stakeholders and the defense, in large partby increasing the average number of hearings per disposition. In Franklin County, not including

motions and sentencing hearings, one disposition requires on average approximately four

201.2C Track jail population by pre/post trial

21How Many Cases Should a Prosecutor Handle, Results of the National Workload Assessment Project, 2002,

American Prosecutors Research Institute, with a grant by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

0%

22%

14%

47%

58%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


PreliminaryHearing

Arraignment/Plea

CalloftheList

Pretrial

Conference/Pleas

Trial



24/149


hearings. 22See Table 2.5 below. National data on the number of hearings needed for misdemeanor

and felony cases are quite diverse, but high performing justice systems confront this issue and work

hard to mitigate events that are scheduled but do not take place. The cases that reach close to trial

before pleading have the greatest impact on both the number of hearings, judicial time and other

stakeholders. Many continuances (see Table 2.9 below) are requested by the defendant or defense

counsel. This may be the result of inadequate resources or for other reasons. The causes and

remedies of continuances should be studied and improved.

Table 2.5

2012 Dispositions and Hearings

Significant Event Percent Dispositions Hearings

Preliminary Arraignment 0% 0 1,863

Preliminary Hearing 10% 269 3,442

Arraignment/Plea 54% 1,444 2,762Call of the List 17% 455 1,374

Pretrial Conference/Pleas 15% 401 635

Trial 4% 105 105

Total 2,674 10,181

2210,181 hearings/2,674 dispositions in 2012 = AVG 3.8 hearings per disposition, not including motions or omnibus

hearings.



25/149


Graph 2.6


Significant Event NarrativeThe following narrative is indexed to the business process analysis diagrams at the conclusion of the

chapter. Recommendations relevant to the three primary initiatives and high priority recommendations

are footnotes to the text, with blue-highlighted recommendations representing those that were

selected for the first year of implementation. A summary is provided at the end of the chapter and

aggregated into separate implementation plans for each of the three initiatives:

A. Communications and System-Wide Decision Making

B. Justice Reinvestment

E. Franklin County Justice System Technology Strategic Plan

0 269

1,444

455 401 105

2,674

1,863

3,4422,762

1,374 635 105

10,181

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000


PreliminaryHearing

Arraignment/Plea

CalloftheList

PretrialConference/Pleas

Trial

Total


Dispositions

Hearings



26/149


Criminal Case Initiation

Arrest, complaint and summons

39th Jud. Dist. Rule 39-130

234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 440, 441, 502, 503, 509, 510, 515, 516, 517, 519

Law enforcement, private complainants, District Attorney, jail, Adult Probation (for cases under

probation supervision)

Criminal proceedings in court cases are initiated with the filing of a written complaint (and the

subsequent issuance of a summons or warrant for arrest) or by warrantless arrest (and the subsequent

filing of a complaint) [3.2A].23In cases where an arrest is made and the defendant is in custody, the

defendant will have a preliminary arraignment by a Magisterial District Judge, typically within 24 hours.

If the defendant is not arrested, a complaint must be filed in the Magisterial District Court within 5 days.

Summons casetypes include second degree misdemeanors and first degree misdemeanors in cases

arising under 75 Pa.C.S. 3802 (driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance), except

as set forth in paragraph (2) of Rule 509.

Table 2.1 illustrates the number of misdemeanor and felony arrests and summons made in Franklin

County during 2012 by law enforcement and by private criminal complaint; and the number that were

filed as court cases. The difference (2,140) represents a decision not to file charges, a consolidation of

charges, or a determination that a person was not responsible for a crime following an arrest.

Table 2.7

Arrests, Booking and Cases

Franklin County 2012

Criminal Arrests* 4,814

Jail Bookings** 1,863

Criminal Complaints*** 3,453

MDJ Cases Filed 2,674

* PA crime data

** jail management system

*** includes private criminal complaints

Following arrest, a defendant is taken to central booking at the Franklin County Jail. Key responsibilities

of the jail include booking, inmate supervision and release [1.2C]. 24

23Recommendation 3.2A - Efiling from law enforcement

24Recommendation 1.2C - Track jail population by pre/post trial



27/149


Jail Central Booking

Central Booking is responsible for the processing of pre-adjudication arrestees [2.3B],25and post-

adjudication commitments. After arrest, the transporting or arresting officer delivers the arrestees to

the central booking area.

Upon receipt of an arrestee, the central booking officer enters information into the jail management

system [3.3A, 3.4A, 3.4D],26conducts an inventory of their property, completes a suicide risk assessment

questionnaire, conducts LiveScan processing to capture photos and fingerprints, performs a

Commonwealth Photo Imaging Network (CPIN) and NCIC criminal history check and completes risk

assessment, family and social information intake questionnaires [2.2A, 2.3A, 2.4A, 2.7A].27

Jail Booking

The booking process is for those arrestees who are committed to the jail. Booking staff enter

information in the Inmate Population Tracking Sheet. Inmates are showered and changed to jail

uniforms. Following the initial intake information, medical staff conduct intake assessments. Booking

staff assign the inmate a security classification and then assign a housing unit.

Public Defender Intake and Defendant Qualification

Detained defendants are presumed qualified for a public defender, as long as they remain in pretrial

detention and do not post bail/bond. Since defendants are not able to work and earn income while

detained, the Public Defender Office will assume responsibility immediately. However, for those who

receive a summons or are released or post bail/bond (even if previously appointed counsel while in

pretrial detention), they must affirmatively make an appointment for intake at the Public Defender

Office. This process typically happens after the arrest, booking in jail, and the preliminary arraignment

at the Magisterial District Court [3.3B].28

25Recommendation 2.3B Consider bail recommendations as a result of risk screening

26Recommendation 3.3A Data Integration: Jail

Recommendation 3.4A Document Management: Complaint, warrants and affidavits

Recommendation 3.4D Document Management: Embed DMS into UCMS

27Recommendation 2.2A Risk Assessment: PSA-Court Risk Assessment Instrument

Recommendation 2.3A; 2.7A Expand probation resources to conduct screening

Recommendation 2.4A Evaluate pretrial diversion alternatives

28Recommendation 3.3B Primary complaint document integration with Public Defender



28/149


The Public Defender office regularly reviews a list of new pretrial commitments to jail who have

preliminary hearings the following week, so that they can be assigned counsel immediately and counsel

can arrange visits. For those who are not detained, qualified defendants may meet with counsel that

day or set up an appointment soon after intake [3.2C].29

The intake process involves determining whether the defendant is indigent and conducting a check for

possible conflicts. Indigency is based on percent of the federal poverty guidelines, as reviewed by an

intake coordinator at the Public Defender Office using custom software built for this purpose. Conflicts

are checked by the intake coordinator prior to the intake appointment based on the named individuals

on the complaint and police report, as available.

Once a public defender is assigned, adjudication of the defendant proceeds through the normal court

caseflow through to disposition and sentencing, if convicted. Public defenders, upon request by the

defendant, may continue representation post-sentencing in cases of appeals. Public defenders may also

represent offenders during probation revocation hearings.

In court cases in which a magisterial district judge exercises jurisdiction, a defendant may plead guilty

any time up to the completion of the preliminary hearing. The defendants court case may be

transferred to another judicial district or charges may be withdrawn. Before information is filed, the

District Attorney may withdraw one or more of the charges.

Preliminary Arraignment234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 117, 130, 131, 516, 517, 519, 540, 541

Magisterial District Court, District Attorney, defendant, defense counsel

Arrest

In cases where an arrest is made and the defendant is in custody, the defendant will have a preliminary

arraignment by a judge at one of seven Magisterial District Courts, typically within 24 hours. Warrants

on new charges face the same time limits. At preliminary arraignment, the court provides the

defendant with a copy of the complaint, and any warrant(s) and supporting affidavit(s) [3.4D].30 The

judge is required to provide the defendant with a copy of the warrant and affidavits, or to determine

probable cause if the defendant was arrested without a warrant. If probable cause is not established,

the defendant cannot be detained. The judge is not permitted to question the defendant about the

complaint. The Court sets the date and time for a preliminary hearing. Defendants represented by

counsel may waive the preliminary hearing following preliminary arraignment. During weekday workinghours, law enforcement officers generally bring the defendant to the district court with jurisdiction.

29Recommendation 3.2C - Efiling from Public Defender

30Recommendation 3.4D Document Management: Embed DMS into MDJS



29/149


After-hours and on weekends, the preliminary arraignment is conducted by video conferencing from the

jail to the district court.

At preliminary arraignment, if the defendant is detained and the offense is eligible for bail, the district

judge will determine release on bond and any pretrial supervision conditions [2.3B, 2.4A].31If the

defendant is released on bail bond, the monetary and nonmonetary conditions of bail are determined

by the District Court. A defendant may remain in custody without bail or until conditions can be met. If

a defendant fails to comply with of the conditions of the bail bond or conditions of release, the

defendants bail may be modified or revoked by the Court.

If a judge sets bail at the arraignment and the defendant posts bail or is released on their own

recognizance, the booking officer at the jail retrieves and returns property items to the arrestee. In the

event that the Magisterial District Judge (MDJ) orders an arrestee to be committed or the arrestee

cannot post bail, the booking staff processes a formal commitment of the arrestee.

Summons

If the defendant is not arrested, they are given a summons by a law enforcement officer and a complaint

must be filed in the Magisterial District Court within 5 days. The summons instructs the defendant to

appear at a preliminary hearing and includes a copy of the complaint and an order to submit to

fingerprinting. The summons provides notice to the defendant to secure counsel and of the

consequences of failure to appear. If the defendant is in custody, a preliminary hearing will be scheduled

within 14 days. If the defendant is not in custody, the preliminary hearing is set within 21 days. The

summons will be sent to the defendant via first class and registered mail. If mail is returned, the District

Court will make additional attempts to deliver the summons before issuing an arrest warrant.

If the defendant fails to answer the complaint or fails to appear at preliminary arraignment a bench

warrant is issued by the Court. The warrant is served by law enforcement and local constables. When a

defendant has been arrested with a warrant in a court case, a preliminary arraignment is scheduled by

the Court in the warrants local jurisdiction.

Office of the District Attorney

Following the preliminary arraignment, an attorney for the Commonwealth may determine whether

sufficient evidence exists to justify formal charging of defendants. At this stage, defendants mayat the

discretion of the prosecutorbe offered an early disposition plea offer [1.4A]. 32

Adult Probation Pretrial Supervision

31Recommendation 2.3B Consider early screening, bail recommendations by Probation

Recommendation 2.4A Evaluate pretrial diversion alternatives

32Recommendation 1.4A- Evaluate early screening/waivers/ARD/EAP



30/149


At preliminary arraignment, the court will make release or custody determinations for arrested and held

defendants. District judges have a number of options before them based on type and amount of bail

and unconditional or conditional release which may include pretrial supervision. Often, judges will offer

defendants the option to accept a reduced bail on the condition that they submit to and comply with

pretrial supervision.

Even if judges do not release defendants, Adult Probation staff may review cases [2.2A, 2.4B]33in the jail

after the preliminary arraignment and file recommended orders to the Magisterial District Court. These

are filed with some regularity and are considered in cases when Adult Probation has determined that

the defendant would not pose a flight risk or public safety hazard if placed under their supervision.

Generally, judges respond favorably to probation recommendations.

Once defendants enter pretrial supervision, Adult Probation staff use screening and assessment tools to

help classify the level of supervision and to identify any mandated services. Adult probation uses the

LSI-R SV as an initial screening instrument and the full LSI-R assessment only in cases of moderate to

high risk defendants. Risk measured by these tools refers to risk to commit a new crime. Probation

officers build individualized case plans for each defendant, which are used by a probation officer to

monitor defendants and evaluate compliance and progress. If conditions of supervision are violated,

Adult Probation staff will generally handle those matters internally first, making adjustments to the

intensity of supervision and treatment. In more extreme cases, such as due to persistent violations and

always for new crimes, cases will be referred back to the court of jurisdiction, which may be the

Magisterial District Court or the Court of Common Pleas. Pretrial supervision defendants are discharged

after the disposition of their cases, and, if convicted and sentenced to probation, transferred to post-

conviction supervision.

Table2.8

Criminal cases filed in Franklin County Magisterial District Courts*

Year

Newcase

filed

Cases

disposed

Boundto

court

Waiverof

Prelim.

Hearing

GuiltyPlea

Dismissal

Prosecution

withdrawn

Summary

docket

Other

Cases

Pending

Inactive

2012 2,674 2,545 259 2,089 2 22 173 * 0 435 322

2011 2,644 2,464 218 1,997 2 63 176 4 4 469 325

2010 2,775 2,827 227 2,112 12 55 220 164 37 577 560

2009 2,877 2,777 203 1,998 14 55 273 189 45 601 300*Source:www.pacourts.us

33Recommendation 2.2A Risk Assessment: PSA-Court Risk Assessment Instrument

Recommendation 2.4B Evaluate pretrial diversion alternatives



31/149


32/149


not been fingerprinted, Court Staff instruct them to be fingerprinted on the first floor of the old

courthouse. Attorneys may confer with their clients and discuss the case with the Commonwealth,

usually in the back of the Jury Assembly Room.

Bench warrants

39th Jud. Dist. Rule 39-150

234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 117, 150, 516, 517, 559

A bench warrant may be issued by a judge instructing law enforcement to detain the defendant and

arrange for a bench warrant hearing. If the defendant has been arrested outside of the County a bench

warrant hearing is arranged once the defendant is in local jail custody. Bench warrant hearings may be

conducted via advanced communication technology. Once a bench warrant hearing has been

conducted, the warrant expires and the case continues. A defendant may remain in custody following

the bench warrant hearing.

Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD)234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 300, 302, 310-20, 550, 551, 561District Attorney, defendant, defense counsel, Adult Probation, Court of Common Pleas

Following the initiation of criminal proceedings in a court case, but prior to filing an information, the

District Attorney may move that the defendants case be considered for Accelerated Rehabilitative

Disposition (ARD) [1.4A].36 A hearing is conducted, in lieu of a plea hearing, to determine acceptance of

the defendant into the ARD program. Following the defendants successful completion of the ARD

program the defendant may move for an order dismissing the charges in the case. If a judge determines

the defendant has committed a violation of the ARD program, the judge may order that the program be

terminated and the case shall proceed on original criminal charges.

During 2012, 429 cases, or approximately 17% of cases were disposed by accelerated rehabilitative

disposition. Most ARD dispositions were made following waiver of the preliminary hearing, on the same

day as Central Court. It is anticipated that the results for 2013 will be substantially higher due to the

early accountability program.

36Recommendation 1.4A- Evaluate early screening/waivers/ARD/EAP



33/149


Table 2.9

Early Accountability Dispositions Sep 2013 to April 201437

Disposition/OutcomeSep-Dec

2013

Jan-Apr

2014Total %

Guilty Plea 68 65 133 6.06%

Held for court after a hearing was held in

absentia51 42 93 4.23%

Held for court after a preliminary hearing was

held38 24 62 2.82%

Waiver to mandatory arraignment 204 240 444 20.22%

Plea at Court of Common Pleas 38 432 362 794 36.16%

Continuance due to defendant39 160 151 311 14.16%

Continuance due to Attorney 50 51 101 4.60%

Continuance due to Commonwealth (DA) 41 25 66 3.01%

Continued due to weather 0 40 40 1.82%Continued by judge 2 4 6 0.27%

Continued after a request from the affiant 1 1 2 0.09%

Withdrawal 47 30 77 3.51%

Dismissal 8 7 15 0.68%

Failure to appear with bench

warrant/continuance7 7 14 0.64%

Incarcerated on other charges 0 7 7 0.32%

Bond 0 5 5 0.23%

Stayed 0 2 2 0.09%

Case sent back to MDJ 3 3 6 0.27%Paid in Full 2 2 4 0.18%

Moved to a non-traffic offense 0 2 2 0.09%

Charge changed 1 4 5 0.23%

Settled (in office) 3 1 4 0.18%

Remanded back to Central Court 1 0 1 0.05%

Other (error/admin closure) 2 0 2 0.09%

Totals 1,121 1,075 2,196 100%

37Data provided by Court Administration

38Recommendation 1.4D Reduce affiants appearances by 60-80%

39Recommendation 1.4C Reduce continuances.



34/149


Information234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 560, 561, 562, 565, 570, 572

District Attorney, Court of Common Pleas

Following the preliminary hearing the District Attorney prepares what is called an information andfiles it with the Court of Common Pleas. The information identifies the defendant(s) and the alleged

offense(s). In certain circumstances, information may be presented without a preliminary hearing. After

information has been filed, the court may order parties in the case to appear in court.

Pennsylvania law allows the District Attorney to use an investigatory grand jury in place of the

preliminary hearing, but all Pennsylvania county courts have abolished the use of a grand jury to return

an indictment. Currently, grand juries are not used in Franklin County. The District Attorney has

expressed a desire to begin the use of grand juries at an unspecified time in the future.

Mandatory Arraignment234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 571

Court of Common Pleas, District Attorney, defendant, defense counsel, Adult Probation (for new charges

while under probation supervision)

Once a case has been filed in CPCMS [3.4D],40a mandatory arraignment is scheduled in the Court of

Common Pleas. Arraignments are typically scheduled in the Court of Common Pleas within 10 days of

the filing of the case. If the defendant is in custody, arraignment may be conducted via advanced

communication technology.

The purpose of the mandatory arraignment is to ensure the defendant identifies counsel, is advised of

and understands the charges, rights to file motions, and consequences of failing to appear. At the

mandatory arraignment, the Judge, the Commonwealth, the defendant and their counsel, if any, confer

regarding the case. Once the mandatory arraignment is complete, if the case has not been disposed,

the period for pretrial discovery and motions commences.

Approximately 52% of defendants have their charges disposed at Mandatory Arraignment, primarily by

plea agreement and verdict. Approximately 30% of cases are not disposed and proceed to the call of the

list. An additional 12% are continued to another arraignment date. A small ratio of cases (4%) has

bench warrants issued for failure to appear.

The Franklin County court typically calendars afternoons on Monday and Thursday for custody hearings

for persons detained with a bench warrant. These hearings are conducted via video conference using

technology in the jail court room and the Court. Once the Judge has made a finding the order is signed

40 Recommendation 3.4D Document Management: Embed DMS into CPCMS



35/149


by the Judge and filed with the Clerk of Courts. Within the next business day, the defendant must

appear at the Clerk of Courts office and sign release documents.

Based on Jan-Sep 2013 data, the following are aggregate outcomes of the mandatory arraignment in

Franklin County:

Table 2.10

Mandatory Arraignment Outcomes Jan-Sep 2013*

# outcomes % total

Dispositions (guilty plea, dismissal, withdrawal) 1,224 52%

Waived to Call of the List 722 30%

Continued [2.6C]41 274 12%

Bench Warrant 105 4%

No Action Taken 49 2%

Total outcomes 2,374

*Source: Court Administration reports

Pretrial Discovery and Motions39th Jud. Dist.Rule 39-300(A), 39-300 (B), 39-311

234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 114, 573, 575, 577, 579, 580, 586

Attorneys for the defendant and the Commonwealth may file motions with the Court of Common Pleas

for pretrial discovery and relief. A judge may order a party to answer a pretrial motion or may order awritten answer or oral response. A judge may schedule a hearing to argue or dispose of the motion. All

motions, answers and documents that require filing in the case record are submitted to the Clerk of

Courts. Upon the completion of pretrial motions and discovery, if a case is not disposed, the case may

proceed to the call of the criminal list.

Call of the (Criminal) ListIn Franklin County, the call of the criminal List is conducted by the Court of Common Pleas two times

each trial term (2 months) to identify cases ready to proceed to trial. Attorneys for the defense and the

Commonwealth confer, review cases pending disposition, make motions for continuance, or set a date

for pretrial conference. Once a date for trial has been set at the pretrial conference, if the defendant has

requested a jury trial, court administration will conduct jury selection.

Based on Jan-Sep 2013 data, the following are aggregate outcomes of the mandatory arraignment in

Franklin County:

41Recommendation 2.6C - Reduce continuances at all CCP hearings.



36/149


Table 2.11

Call of the List Outcomes Jan-Sep 2013*

# outcomes % total

Dispositions (guilty plea, dismissal, withdrawal) 468 34%

Continued [2.6C]42 642 47%

Waived to pretrial conference 203 15%

Bench warrant 61 4%

Total outcomes 1,374


Pretrial ConferenceFranklin County Local Court Rule 39-311 Criminal Pretrial Conferences

The purpose of the pretrial conference is to determine which cases have a significant potential for trial

by jury, to attempt to settle the case by plea agreement and to prepare for trial. Once the case is

scheduled for trial, no plea agreement will be accepted except in extraordinary circumstances.

In Franklin County, pretrial conferences are scheduled for the Thursday prior to the date for jury

selection once each term (two month period).

Table 2.12

Pretrial Conference Outcomes Jan-Sep 2013*

# outcomes % total

Continued [2.6C]43 175 58%

Jury Trial Scheduled 70 23%

Dispositions (guilty plea, dismissal, withdrawal) 35 12%

Trial Scheduled (w/o Jury) 13 4%

Bench Warrant 8 3%

Total outcomes 301


42Recommendation 2.6C - Reduce continuances at all CCP hearings.

43Recommendation 2.6C - Reduce continuances at CCP hearings.



37/149


Trial, Verdict and Sentencing39th Jud. Dist. R. Crim. P. 39-703(d)

234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, 620, 622, 630, 631, 640, 648, 700-5, 721

Trials in a court case are required within 356 days from the date the complaint is filed with theMagisterial District Court. If the defendant is in custody, the trial must commence 180 days from the

date the complaint is filed. The defendant and the District Attorney may waive a jury trial with the

approval of the judge and a verdict is returned within 7 days of the non-jury trial.

Before a jury trial is conducted, a panel of 12 qualified jurors + 2 alternates is typically selected and

sworn to hear the case. Court administration typically conducts Jury selection several times a trial term

on Mondays. If the defendant is found guilty by jury, the Judge will impose a sentence. The Judge may

order a pre-sentence investigation report from Probation, a psychiatric or a psychological examination.

Where a conviction occurs, a sentencing hearing follows. Depending upon the particulars of the

sentence judgment, post-sentence proceedings such as probation hearings may occur. At theconclusion of the case, the case file is closed and archived. In Franklin County, trials are scheduled for

once each term (two month period), although judges schedule their own dockets and my add trial

dockets to their calendar.

Table 2.13

Trial Outcomes 2012*

# outcomes % total

Jury trial verdict 60 33%

Non-jury trial verdict 21 11%

Inactive 58 32%

Other 45 24%

Total outcomes 184 100%

*Source: CPCMS Case Management Statistics

Recent data from CPCMS suggest that Franklin County has made progress in managing case flow and

clearance and is beginning to reduce backlogs of pending cases. In late 2012, case clearance rates varied

greatly from month to month while numbers of cases carried over increased. In recent months,

clearance rate has stabilized and numbers of cases carried over have declined.



38/149


Table 2.14

Case clearance and cases carried over*

As case clearance rates have trended up, volume of pending cases has declined from local highs in mid-

2012. The percentage of pending cases that are over 60 days has increased, specifically in the 61-180

day range. About 20% of pending cases

Documents

Justice Management Institute report