Courthouse Construction: Information on Courtroom Sharing	 
(12-APR-02, GAO-02-341).					 
                                                                 
In recent years, concerns have been raised that new courtrooms	 
continue to be built for district judges, even though existing	 
courtrooms appear to be under used. The judiciary wants to	 
maintain its one-judge, one-courtroom policy because of concerns 
about the effect of shared courtroom space on judicial		 
administration. The judiciary has not, however, determined	 
whether courtroom sharing may be possible among senior		 
judges--the likeliest candidates for such an arrangement because 
of their reduced caseloads. Some active and senior judges in	 
areas with a courtroom shortage are currently sharing space. Many
of these judges oppose courtroom sharing because they believe	 
that it interferes with the courts business and harms the	 
judicial process. The judiciary plans to have some senior judges 
share space in future courthouse projects. Significant courtroom 
sharing appears unlikely in the near future, even among senior	 
judges. 							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-341 					        
    ACCNO:   A03005						        
  TITLE:     Courthouse Construction: Information on Courtroom Sharing
     DATE:   04/12/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Courts (law)					 
	     Facility construction				 
	     Facility management				 
	     Judges						 


******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-341
     
Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

April 2002 COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION

Information on Courtroom Sharing

GAO- 02- 341

Page i GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 Background 2 Judiciary Policies on Courtroom Sharing 4
Extent of and Judges? Views on Courtroom Sharing at Selected

Facilities 7 Courtroom Sharing in Future Courthouse Construction Projects 14
AOC Comments and Our Evaluation 18 Scope and Methodology 19

Appendix I Judicial Conference Policy Statement 21

Appendix II Information From the Twelve Circuit Judicial Councils? Policy
Statements Related to Courtroom Sharing 23

Appendix III Information from Active and Senior District Judges in Ten
Facilities Where Courtroom Sharing Was Occurring 28

Appendix IV Comments from the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts 37

GAO Comments 40

Tables

Table 1: Information on 11 Facilities Where Courtroom Sharing Was Occurring
8 Table 2: Types of District Judges Sharing Courtrooms on a Regular

Basis at 11 Facilities 9 Table 3: District Judges and Courtrooms at 19
Project Locations

with Planned Courtroom Sharing 15 Table 4: District Judges and Courtrooms at
14 Project Locations

with No Planned Courtroom Sharing 16 Contents

Page 1 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

April 12, 2002 The Honorable Steven C. LaTourette Chairman The Honorable
Jerry Costello Ranking Democratic Member Subcommittee on Economic
Development,

Public Buildings and Emergency Management Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure House of Representatives

This report responds to your request for information on the judiciary?s
efforts to have district judges share courtrooms, especially district judges
with senior status, also known as senior judges. 1 As agreed, our specific
objectives were to (1) examine the judiciary?s courtroom sharing policies
for senior judges, (2) obtain information about the extent to which senior
judges are currently sharing courtrooms and their experiences with courtroom
sharing, and (3) determine the judiciary?s efforts to explore the potential
for senior judges to share courtrooms in future courthouse construction
projects.

Over the last few years, various members of Congress and the administration
have become increasingly concerned that district judge trial courtrooms may
be underutilized and that more courtrooms than needed have been, and
continue to be, constructed. The judiciary continues to believe that it
should retain its one- judge, one- courtroom policy for active district
judges because of the potential negative effects courtroom sharing may have
on effective judicial administration. However, the judiciary did determine
that courtroom sharing may be possible among some senior judges. Given this,
you wanted updated information on the status of courtroom sharing in the
judiciary by senior district judges. To meet our objectives, we examined
existing policies on courtroom sharing for all district courts, obtained
information about district judges? courtroom sharing experiences at
locations where

1 The judiciary has two categories of district judges who hear cases and use
courtrooms. Active district judges carry full caseloads. District judges
with senior status, whom we refer to in this report as senior judges, have
retired from their active judgeships, but continue to carry a full or
partial caseload. Senior status can be achieved when a district judge
reaches the age and service eligibility requirements for retirement.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

courtroom sharing was occurring, and reviewed courtroom needs assessment
studies done by the judiciary for 33 proposed projects in the judiciary?s 5-
year construction plan to identify where courtroom sharing was planned. On
March 5, 2002, we received written comments on a draft of this report from
the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts (AOC)- the judiciary?s
administrative arm. These comments are discussed later in this letter.

The judiciary?s current policies recognize that senior district judges with
reduced caseloads are the most likely candidates to share courtrooms. Some
active and senior judges were sharing courtrooms at facilities in some
locations. However, these judges were sharing courtrooms primarily because
there were not enough courtrooms to accommodate these judges. Active judges
at these facilities, along with some senior judges, generally opposed
courtroom sharing because, in their view, it often interferes with the
courts? business and can adversely affect the effective administration of
justice. The judiciary has plans for some senior judges to share courtrooms
in future courthouse construction projects. However, given the judiciary?s
belief in the strong relationship between ensured courtroom availability and
the administration of justice, its overall concerns about the workability of
courtroom sharing, and the wide discretion given to circuits and districts
in deciding when and how courtroom sharing may be implemented, it appears
that a significant amount of courtroom sharing will not occur in the
foreseeable future, even among senior judges. AOC generally agreed with the
information contained in this report.

The judiciary has a total of 94 federal districts located throughout the
United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories of Guam,
the U. S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The 94 districts
are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a court of
appeals, also known as a circuit court, which hears appeals from its
district courts. To help administer the operations of its circuit and
district courts, each circuit has a judicial council whose membership
includes the chief circuit judge as chair of the council and an equal number
of other circuit and district judges. Among other things, the council is
authorized to issue orders and establish policies to help ensure that the
circuit and district courts function as effectively as possible so that they
can provide the public with the effective and expeditious administration of
justice. The Judicial Conference, which is chaired by the chief justice of
the United States and includes the chief judge of each judicial circuit and
a district judge from each circuit, is the judiciary?s national policy-
making body. Results in Brief

Background

Page 3 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

The judiciary and the General Services Administration (GSA) have embarked on
a multibillion- dollar courthouse construction initiative to address the
space needs of the federal district courts and related agencies. The
judiciary?s most recent 5- year construction plan for fiscal years 2002
through 2006 identified new courthouses or annexes that are to be built to
accommodate new judgeships created because of increasing caseloads and to
replace obsolete courthouses occupied by existing judges. The plan
identified a total of 45 proposed courthouse construction projects that are
expected to cost a total of about $2.6 billion. This courthouse construction
initiative includes plans to construct hundreds of new district judge trial
courtrooms to replace inadequate facilities and to accommodate future
increases in federal judgeships. The results of our past work on courthouse
construction have shown that district judges? trial courtrooms may be
underutilized, and that trial courtrooms are expensive to build. 2

For several years, there has been much debate about whether district judges
could share courtrooms- operate in a courthouse with fewer courtrooms than
judges- to save taxpayer dollars without compromising effective judicial
administration. There has been a belief among various stakeholders outside
the judiciary, including some subcommittees and members of Congress as well
as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), that courtroom sharing may be
possible and could lead to cost savings. Trial courtrooms, because of their
size and configuration, are expensive to build and constructing any unneeded
courtrooms would waste taxpayer dollars. 3 On the other hand, the judiciary
believes that the availability of a trial courtroom is an integral part of
the judicial process because judges need the flexibility to resolve cases
efficiently. The judiciary and other key stakeholders believe that the
judiciary should retain its one- judge, one- courtroom policy for active
district judges to avoid ineffective judicial administration. However, the
judiciary has recognized that courtroom sharing may be possible among
visiting judges- judges from other locations who temporarily use courtrooms-
and senior judges who have reduced caseloads. According to AOC, as of

2 U. S. General Accounting Office, Courthouse Construction: Sufficient Data
and Analysis Would Help Resolve the Courtroom- Sharing Issue, GAO- 01- 70
(Washington, D. C.: Dec. 14, 2000); and U. S. General Accounting Office,
Courthouse Construction: Better Courtroom Use Data Could Enhance Facility
Planning and Decisionmaking, GAO/ GGD- 97- 39 (Washington, D. C.: May 19,
1997).

3 According to a May 2000 study by Ernst and Young- Independent Assessment
of the Judiciary?s Space and Facilities Program- the cost of constructing a
courtroom is estimated to be about $1. 5 million.

Page 4 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

September 2001, the judiciary had a total of 906 district judges, which
consisted of 592 active judges and 314 senior judges.

In March 1997, the Judicial Conference issued a policy statement that
discussed courtroom sharing by district judges and provided guidance for
determining the number of courtrooms needed in courthouse facilities. The
statement addressed three main topics: (1) courtrooms for active judges, (2)
factors to be considered in deciding whether senior judges who do not draw
caseloads requiring substantial use of courtrooms could share courtrooms,
and (3) planning assumptions to be used in determining the number of
courtrooms needed in a facility. As part of its statement, the Judicial
Conference recognized the potential for courtroom sharing by some senior
judges and asked circuit councils to consider the number of years a senior
judge will need a courtroom after taking senior status for which the
Judicial Conference recommended a 10- year time frame. However, the policy
was very clear that senior judges who had caseloads that required
substantial use of courtrooms should have their own courtrooms and that
courtroom sharing for any district judge- active or senior- is not required.
According to AOC officials, the Judicial Conference requested that each
circuit judicial council develop a policy on sharing courtrooms by senior
district judges. 4 The Judicial Conference policy statement encouraged
circuit judicial councils to develop policies on courtroom sharing only for
senior judges whose caseloads do not require substantial use of courtrooms.

The Judicial Conference policy clearly stated that one courtroom must be
provided for each active judge. Also, the Judicial Conference policy
recommended that senior judges retain courtrooms for 10 years after taking
senior status because they usually have caseloads sufficient to keep their
own courtrooms. Senior judges with more than 10 years in senior status
appeared to be the primary candidates for courtroom sharing. As of September
2001, 118 of the judiciary?s 314 senior judges had more than 10 years in
senior status. Therefore, about 38 percent of the total number of senior
judges would be considered the primary candidates for courtroom sharing.

4 28 U. S. C. sect. 462( b) provides circuit judicial councils with authority to
approve accommodations for judges, including chambers and courtrooms.
Judiciary Policies on

Courtroom Sharing

Page 5 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

Much of the Judicial Conference policy is devoted to a discussion of the
five factors that should be used in deciding whether some senior judges
could share courtrooms and the nine assumptions for circuit councils to
consider in determining the number of courtrooms needed in their courthouse
facilities. For example, one factor was the judicial workload in terms of
the number and types of cases anticipated to be handled by each judge.
Another factor is the number of years each judge is likely to be located at
the facility. Some of the assumptions, which primarily relate to caseload
projections and the time frames in which replacement, senior, and new judges
will occupy the facility, included (1) the percentage of the total
district?s caseload handled at a particular location and (2) the number of
years before replacement judges will be on board after a judge takes senior
status. The full text of the Judicial Conference policy, including the five
factors and nine assumptions, is contained in appendix I.

In 1997 and 1998, after the Judicial Conference policy took effect, the 12
circuit councils issued their own policy statements related to the courtroom
sharing issue. Our analysis showed that like the Judicial Conference policy,
all of the circuit councils? policies recognized that senior judges who do
not draw caseloads requiring substantial use of courtrooms would be
candidates for courtroom sharing.

Eight of the 12 circuit councils? policy statements made reference to and
used much of the language in the Judicial Conference policy, particularly
the language related to the various factors to be used in deciding when
senior judges should share courtrooms and the assumptions that should be
considered in determining the number of courtrooms needed in courthouse
facilities. Some of the eight circuit councils? policy statements also
included general discussions of their approaches to courtroom sharing. For
example, the first circuit council policy stated that the council had a
strong preference that, wherever feasible, each senior judge should be given
a courtroom dedicated to his or her use. However, the first circuit council
went on to say that it intended to comply with Judicial Conference policy
regarding senior judges sharing courtrooms, where appropriate. The eleventh
circuit council took a different approach and explained that the methods
employed by district courts for courtroom sharing by senior judges who do
not draw caseloads requiring substantial use of courtrooms varied greatly,
not only throughout the judiciary, but also within the eleventh circuit.
Given this, the district courts were in the best position to formulate
courtroom sharing policies that would be most applicable to their local
operations.

Page 6 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

According to AOC, as of September 2001, one of the nine district courts
within the eleventh circuit- the Southern District of Florida- had developed
its own local courtroom sharing policy. This policy stated that each senior
judge will be allowed a courtroom unless courtroom use hours and cases
assigned to that judge fall below the caseload requirements within a 5- year
period for substantial use of a courtroom. If the senior judge does not
maintain a caseload requiring substantial use of a courtroom in the 5- year
period, the courtroom will be made available for others to use. The policy
also stated that on the basis of historical data, senior judges are expected
to occupy a courtroom for 15 years after taking senior status and that this
time frame should be used for planning for courtroom needs. AOC was unaware
of any other district court policies on courtroom sharing.

The policy statements for the four remaining circuit councils- including D.
C. and the fifth, seventh, and eighth councils- were not as detailed as the
other eight circuit councils? statements. The four circuit councils
primarily issued brief policy statements that generally described their
positions on courtroom sharing. For example, the D. C. circuit council
policy basically stated that courtrooms should be provided for each active
judge and each senior judge who requires substantial use of a courtroom and
that courtroom sharing will be achieved on a collegial basis. The fifth,
seventh, and eighth circuit councils also issued policy statements that
recognized the need for senior judges to maintain courtrooms if such judges
continued to perform full judicial assignments. The fifth and eighth circuit
councils? policy statements go on to say that, when appropriate, the circuit
council may direct the joint use of courtrooms and adjunct facilities as
dockets and other circumstances warrant. The seventh circuit council stated
in its policy that decisions as to the assignment of chambers and a
courtroom for a senior judge who performs less than a full judicial
assignment shall be made by that judge?s court. According to the seventh
circuit council?s policy, a full judicial assignment means that the senior
judge continues to be assigned and perform the same work, both casework and
other assignments, as an active judge of the same court.

The Judicial Conference and the circuit councils? policies did not use
actual courtroom use data- how often and for what purpose courtrooms are
being used- as criteria for deciding whether senior judges should share
courtrooms. Instead, the policies used judges? caseloads and substantial use
of a courtroom as a primary basis for making decisions about senior judges
sharing courtrooms. According to AOC, under statute, the decision as to
whether senior judges should share courtrooms is left to the discretion of
each circuit judicial council. More information from the

Page 7 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

12 circuit councils? courtroom sharing policy statements is included in
appendix II.

Because the judiciary believes that courtrooms are an integral resource for
the administration of justice, judicial policies do not generally encourage
widespread courtroom sharing. However, some sharing was occurring in
existing facilities among some active and senior district judges. As of
December 2001, our analysis of AOC data showed that district judges were
sharing courtrooms in 11 facilities. According to AOC, there are a total of
337 federal district court facilities nationwide, but not all of these
facilities would be candidates for courtroom sharing. For example, some
facilities may have only one judge. Some of the facilities where courtroom
sharing was occurring were located in major metropolitan areas, such as
Brooklyn, New York, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, while others were in
smaller cities such as Benton, Illinois, and Fayetteville, Arkansas. Table 1
identifies the locations of the 11 facilities, the number of district
courtrooms in these facilities, and the number and types of district judges
at these facilities. Extent of and Judges?

Views on Courtroom Sharing at Selected Facilities

Page 8 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

Table 1: Information on 11 Facilities Where Courtroom Sharing Was Occurring
Number and types of district judges at facilities where

courtroom sharing was occurring Circuit Location of

facility Number of

district courtrooms in

facility Active district judges

Senior district judges with 10 years or less in

senior status Senior district

judges with more than 10 years in

senior status Total number

of active and senior district

judges

First San Juan, Puerto Rico 1 0303 Second Brooklyn,

New York 10 10 5 0 15

Third Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 29 18 7 5 30 Sixth Nashville,

Tennessee 6 4307 Seventh Benton, Illinois 1 1 1 0 2 Eighth Fayetteville,

Arkansas 1 1102 Rapid City, South Dakota 2 1113 Sioux City, Iowa 1 1 1 0 2
Tenth Salt Lake City,

Utah 7 4408 Eleventh Jacksonville,

Florida 3 3115 Orlando, Florida 4 4 1 1 6

Total 65 47 28 8 83

Source: Data from AOC and 11 facilities where courtroom sharing was
occurring.

The facilities varied in the types of district judges involved in courtroom
sharing. For example, some facilities had active judges, senior judges with
10 years or less in senior status, and senior judges with more than 10 years
in senior status sharing courtrooms, while others had only senior judges
with 10 years or less in senior status sharing courtrooms. Table 2 shows the
types of district judges who were sharing courtrooms on a regular basis at
the 11 facilities.

Page 9 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

Table 2: Types of District Judges Sharing Courtrooms on a Regular Basis at
11 Facilities

Types of district judges sharing courtrooms Circuit Location of

facility Active judges

Senior judges with 10 years or less in senior status

Senior judges with more than 10 years in senior status

First San Juan, Puerto Rico

Second Brooklyn, New York

Third Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Sixth Nashville, Tennessee

Seventh Benton, Illinois

Eighth Fayetteville, Arkansas

Rapid City, South Dakota

Sioux City, Iowa

Tenth Salt Lake City, Utah

Eleventh Jacksonville, Florida

Orlando, Florida

Source: Data from AOC and 11 facilities where courtroom sharing was
occurring.

At the 11 facilities, courtroom sharing was occurring because active and
senior district judges have to operate in facilities with fewer district
courtrooms than district judges. For example, at the Brooklyn facility,
courtroom sharing among judges was occurring because of an increase in the
number of judges at the facility and the partial demolition of the
courthouse complex in preparation for a new courthouse. Another example
involved the San Juan facility where, because of space limitations, only one
district courtroom was built to accommodate three senior judges. According
to AOC officials, construction projects are currently planned or under way
at the locations where active judges were sharing courtrooms.

Available data show that in 7 of the 11 facilities, each facility had one
less courtroom than district judges. For example, the Nashville facility had
a total of 6 district courtrooms to accommodate 7 active and senior judges.
At the remaining 4 facilities, the differences between the total number of

Page 10 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

courtrooms and the total number of district judges were greater.
Specifically, the Brooklyn facility had a total of 10 district courtrooms to
accommodate 15 active and senior judges; the San Juan facility had 1
district courtroom for 3 senior district judges; Jacksonville had 3 district
courtrooms for 5 active and senior judges; and Orlando had 4 courtrooms for
6 active and senior judges.

The data also showed that 4 facilities had a total of 8 senior judges with
more than 10 years in senior status and that 5 of these judges were in the
Philadelphia facility. The 8 judges make up a small part of the 118 senior
judges with more than 10 years in senior status who were on board as of
September 2001. According to AOC officials, there are reasons why some
senior judges with more than 10 years in senior status are not sharing
courtrooms. For example, although the Judicial Conference policy recommends
that senior judges with more than 10 years in senior status would be the
primary candidates for sharing courtrooms, such sharing is generally not
needed in facilities that have a sufficient number of courtrooms to
accommodate judges. Also, some senior judges with more than 10 years in
senior status may not require the use of a courtroom. The officials pointed
out that if the large number of judicial vacancies was filled, it is likely
that more of these senior judges would be sharing courtrooms. According to
AOC officials, data to show which of these senior judges have their own
courtrooms were not readily available.

At the time we completed our audit work, we had received survey responses
from 10 of the 11 facilities where courtroom sharing was occurring. One of
the facilities- Rapid City, South Dakota- did not respond to our survey. In
large part, active judges at the 10 facilities, including some chief judges,
generally viewed courtroom sharing as problematic for various reasons. For
example, at the Brooklyn facility, which had the greatest difference between
the total number of district judges and courtrooms- 15 judges and 10
courtrooms- judges reported several problems associated with courtroom
sharing. The problems included frequent delays with sentencing convicted
defendants and starting lengthy trials; the inability to deal effectively
with unforeseen trial events or take full advantage of visiting judge
resources; having to hold court proceedings in conference rooms, hearing
rooms, and chambers; an inordinate proportion of staff time devoted to
scheduling as opposed to case management; and adverse impacts on the court,
litigants, private counsel, the U. S. Marshals Service, and the United
States Attorney?s Office due to frequent time and location scheduling
changes of court proceedings. The chief judge at the Salt Lake City facility
reported that the courtroom sharing situation has become more difficult to
manage because,

Page 11 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

recently, the number of senior judges who are sharing a single courtroom has
increased from two to three. Thus, judicial officials have the difficult
task of either allocating time for the use of this courtroom among three
senior judges or finding the judges alternative space in the facility. The
chief judge also cited various administrative problems associated with
courtroom sharing, such as having to move evidence and equipment from one
courtroom to another in the middle of an extended trial, and problems in
notifying litigants, counsel, and the public of changes in courtroom
locations. Judges from the other facilities also described similar
experiences that illustrated courtroom sharing problems and presented their
views regarding the negative effects that courtroom sharing has on the
efficient and effective administration of justice.

In contrast, unlike active judges, some senior judges at various facilities
generally believed that courtroom sharing did not pose significant problems
for them. Some senior judges mentioned that although they would prefer
having their own courtrooms they acknowledged that, in facilities with
limited courtroom capacity, the sharing of courtrooms was particularly
appropriate for senior judges with reduced caseloads. For instance, at the
Nashville facility, three senior judges- all of whom have reduced caseloads-
share the use of two courtrooms. One of the judges explained that, by
working collegially together along with proper advanced planning, the judges
have a courtroom sharing process that has generally worked well. Also, at
the Benton facility, the senior judge often shares a courtroom with a
magistrate judge and sometimes shares a courtroom with a bankruptcy judge.
The senior judge said that, for the most part, courtroom sharing at the
Benton facility has posed no major problems mainly because he has a reduced
caseload, and any minor problems with the scheduling of courtrooms at the
Benton facility have always been worked out amicably. This senior judge said
that he knows how convenient it is for a judge to have his or her own
courtroom and that one becomes very possessive about it. He went on to say
that judges use courtrooms only part of the time and sharing can almost
always be accomplished with proper scheduling and without any negative
impact on the efficient and effective administration of justice.

In addition to their comments about specific courtroom sharing experiences,
some judges who are sharing courtrooms provided their views on the concept
of courtroom sharing and how such sharing could affect courthouse operations
and the administration of justice. For instance, at the Orlando facility, a
judge stated that, in the real world, courtroom sharing leads to delays of
justice, interference with management of the court?s caseload, and erosion
of collegiality in a district

Page 12 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

that has frequent hearings and trials. The judge went on to say that in a
district such as Orlando, with a heavy caseload and frequent trials, the
number and length of trials cannot be controlled and the number, length, and
timing of hearings cannot be predicted; therefore, courtroom sharing becomes
an impediment to the dispensing of justice. More information on various
judges? courtroom sharing experiences at 10 facilities and their views about
courtroom sharing is included in appendix III.

In addition to the 11 facilities, AOC initially identified Rochester, New
York, as another facility that had fewer district courtrooms than district
judges and where courtroom sharing may be occurring. The chief district
judge in Rochester did not view his operation as courtroom sharing. He
explained that, in Rochester, there were a total of six judges and six
courtrooms- an equal number of courtrooms for an equal number of judges-
which meant that the situation in Rochester did not meet our criteria for
courtroom sharing defined as district judges operating in a courthouse with
fewer courtrooms than judges. The chief judge said that, at the Rochester
facility, there are six judges- two active district judges, one senior
district judge, one bankruptcy judge, and two magistrate judges. He stated
that the bankruptcy judge uses his courtroom exclusively. However, the other
five judges use all the courtrooms on occasion, usually depending on the
nature and the size of the court proceeding. The chief judge referred to the
use of courtrooms in this manner as ?courtroom trading? rather than
courtroom sharing. In commenting on these matters, the chief judge stated
that:

The system works fairly well, but there have been problems. We do have three
district judges, and we all try criminal cases. So far, we have been able to
schedule matters so that the two large courtrooms are utilized for criminal
matters and so far we have not had a situation where all three district
judges needed to utilize the large courtrooms for big criminal trials. That
would create a very real problem. The courtroom trading is not perfect. It
does involve coordination among five judges, some travel from one floor to
another, which disrupts staff, and it does often present difficulties in
scheduling matters on an emergency basis.

Another unique courtroom sharing experience that AOC identified involves the
Little Rock, Arkansas, facility. Judicial officials at the Little Rock
facility reported that it had a total of 12 judges- 5 active judges, 2
senior judges, and 5 magistrate judges- and 11 courtrooms. According to AOC,
in the summer of 1998, one of the senior judges decided to take a reduced
workload and to give up his courtroom so that two of the magistrate judges
would not have to share a courtroom. This senior judge now shares courtrooms
with the other district judges. Judicial officials at

Page 13 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

the Little Rock facility pointed out that courtroom sharing for a senior
judge with a 30 percent caseload has not had any negative effect on the
efficient and effective administration of justice. However, the officials
stated that, occasionally, it is difficult to schedule a courtroom for one
senior district judge, even with the availability of other district
courtrooms, because cases are scheduled months in advance, and it can be
difficult to identify which courtroom, if any, would be available. In
addition, the Little Rock officials mentioned that there are security
concerns with courtroom sharing in older facilities, which were not designed
to be used exclusively as courthouses. Specifically, they stated that there
is no separate, secured circulation for judges and prisoners and both must
use the same public hallways as other parties in the cases.

In addition to the Rochester and Little Rock facilities, AOC identified two
other facilities- Austin, Texas, and Sioux Falls, South Dakota- where
courtroom sharing was occurring. According to the district court clerk, the
situation at the Austin facility is unique because one of the two senior
judges who shares a courtroom at this facility, which is located in the
Western District of Texas, is an Eastern District of Texas judge who has
been designated by the fifth circuit judicial council to reside at the
Austin facility. This senior judge hears cases not only at the Austin
facility, but also he may hear cases at any facility in the Western District
of Texas. One of the senior judges at the Austin facility explained that he
and the other senior judge share the facility?s district courtroom not only
with each other, but also with judges from the court of appeals. The judge
further stated that courtroom sharing has had no negative effect on the
efficient and effective administration of justice mainly because the judges
have been resourceful and flexible in scheduling the use of the courtroom.
However, the judge mentioned that, on several occasions, he has had to use a
bankruptcy courtroom in the Austin facility to conduct district court
proceedings or reschedule a matter to avoid conflicts. At the Sioux Falls
facility, courtroom sharing was no longer occurring because, according to
the district court clerk, a senior judge had become inactive at the end of
2001.

In addition to district judges who reside at a facility, some district
judges travel outside their districts to hear cases in another district.
According to AOC officials, these judges- commonly referred to as visiting
judges- temporarily use the courtroom of a judge at the location visited.
AOC considers this use of courtrooms by visiting judges as a form of
courtroom sharing that would have some impact on the availability of
courtrooms, but the full extent of this impact is unknown. During fiscal
year 2000, AOC data indicated that judges visited and conducted judicial
business on 35

Page 14 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

occasions in the districts where the 11 facilities were located. The chief
judge for the Middle District of Florida reported that, during calendar
years 1999 through 2001, an average of about 15 judges visited the district
each year, and their visits usually ranged from 2 to 6 weeks. Also, during
January and February 2002, the district received assistance from 8 visiting
judges whose visits typically ranged from 2 to 6 weeks. The chief judge
pointed out that during this time period, the district had to occasionally
decline offers of assistance from some visiting judges because the district
had no courtrooms available for these judges to use. AOC had no readily
available data to quantify how often and for how long visiting judges used
other judges? courtrooms in all districts.

In addition to the courtroom sharing currently taking place, the judiciary
also has plans for courtroom sharing in some future courthouse construction
projects. The judiciary?s updated long- range plan- Five- Year Courthouse
Construction Plan (Fiscal Years 2002- 2006)- contained 45 proposed new
courthouse construction projects. The judiciary had completed courtroom
needs assessment studies for 33 of the 45 projects. These studies estimate
the number of courtrooms that will be needed for 10 years after a project?s
anticipated design date. Of the 33 courtroom needs studies, 19 indicated
that some courtroom sharing was anticipated to be occurring at the end of
the planning time frame, and the remaining 14 studies did not.

Our analysis showed that the 19 proposed courthouse projects are expected to
have 113 active judges, 90 senior judges, and 158 courtrooms at the end of
the 10- year planning time frame. This equates to about 5 judges for every 4
courtrooms. Consistent with the Judicial Conference policy, courtroom
sharing in these projects is expected to involve senior judges with more
than 10 years in senior status. Specifically, the plans have 44 senior
judges sharing courtrooms in these projects, and all of these judges will
have more than 10 years in senior status. Our analysis also showed that
three senior judges with over 10 years in senior status at these projects
were not scheduled to share because courtrooms were available for these
judges to use. Table 3 provides more information on the number of district
judges and courtrooms at these 19 locations that are included in the
judiciary?s long- range plan for fiscal years 2002 through 2006. Courtroom
Sharing in

Future Courthouse Construction Projects

Page 15 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

Table 3: District Judges and Courtrooms at 19 Project Locations with Planned
Courtroom Sharing Estimated number of district judges

Project location Active judges Senior judges

with 10 years or less in senior

status Senior judges

with more than 10 years in senior status

Total number of active and senior

judges Number of courtrooms

Austin, Texas 3 2 2 7 5 Benton, Illinois 2 1 1 4 3 Buffalo, New York 4 1 2 7
5 a Charlotte, North Carolina 3 2 1 6 5 Fresno, California 5 1 2 8 5
Greensboro, North Carolina 4 2 2 8 6 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 3 1 1 5 4
Little Rock, Arkansas 7 4 2 13 11 a Los Angeles, California 26 8 11 45 34
Mobile, Alabama 4 2 3 9 8 a Nashville, Tennessee 5 1 3 b 9 7 Norfolk,
Virginia 5 2 2 9 7 a Orlando, Florida 7 2 1 10 9 Salt Lake City, Utah 7 2 4
13 9 San Diego, California 16 5 5 26 21 a San Jose, California 5 2 2 9 7
Savannah, Georgia 2 2 1 5 4 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 2 1 1 4 3 Toledo, Ohio
3 2 1 6 5

Total 113 43 47 203 158

a Courtrooms will be in both the old and new facilities. b At the Nashville
facility, three senior judges are expected to have more than 10 years in
senior status at the end of the planning cycle. However, AOC pointed out
that two of these senior judges will not have more than 10 years in senior
status until late in the planning cycle and thus would qualify for their own
courtrooms for most of the planning cycle.

Source: GAO analysis of AOC data.

The 14 projects that did not include courtroom sharing over the 10- year
planning time frame generally did not anticipate having senior judges with
more than 10 years in senior status- a key criterion for determining if
courtroom sharing should occur. According to AOC officials, senior judges at
these projects may very well be sharing courtrooms after the 10- year
planning period. For the 4 projects that anticipated having senior judges
with more than 10 years in senior status, courtrooms were not shared because
of specific circumstances at those locations. For example, in Anniston,
Alabama, the senior judge will be the only judge at the facility and thus
will be assigned the facility?s only courtroom, but visiting judges also
hear cases at the Anniston location. Table 4 provides more

Page 16 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

information on the anticipated number of district judges and courtrooms
planned for these 14 locations.

Table 4: District Judges and Courtrooms at 14 Project Locations with No
Planned Courtroom Sharing Estimated number of district judges

Project location Active judges Senior judges

with 10 years or less in senior

status Senior judges

with more than 10 years in senior status

Total number of active and senior

judges Number of courtrooms

Anniston, Alabama 0 0 1 1 1 Cape Girardeau, Missouri a 0 0 002 Cedar Rapids,
Iowa 2 0 1 3 3 El Paso, Texas 5 1 0 6 6 Erie, Pennsylvania 1 0 0 1 1 Eugene,
Oregon 2 0 0 2 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 5 2 2 9 9 Fort Pierce, Florida 1 0
0 1 1 Greenville, South Carolina 3 1 0 4 5 Jackson, Mississippi 4 2 0 6 6
Las Cruces, New Mexico 3 0 0 3 3 Richmond, Virginia 3 1 1 5 5 Rockford,
Illinois 1 1 0 2 2 San Antonio, Texas 5 2 0 7 7

Total 35 10 5 50 53

a No active or senior judges reside at this facility. Workloads at this
facility are handled by district judges who reside in different locations
within the district. Source: GAO analysis of AOC data.

The judiciary plans to incorporate courtroom sharing in some future
courthouse construction projects, but the amount of sharing that will take
place within the 10- year planning time frame at these courthouse locations
will depend on how well the planning assumptions used to estimate courtroom
needs materialize. For example, in planning for courtroom sharing at a
facility, the judiciary assumed that the number of new judge positions
created by law and the appointment and confirmation of the judges to fill
positions will be timely. 5 This assumption may not be fully realized. Past
experience indicates that creating new judge positions and

5 In its policy statement, the Judicial Conference recommends that a 3- year
time frame be used when planning for the number of years it will take for a
new judge position to be approved by the Judicial Conference and Congress.

Page 17 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

appointing and confirming judges to fill positions may not always be timely.
For example, from 1976 through 2001, data provided by AOC officials showed
that the Judicial Conference had requested new judge positions 14 times.
However, during this 25- year time period, Congress enacted legislation to
increase the number of new judge positions only five times- specifically, in
1978, 1984, 1990, 1999, and 2000. 6 In addition, getting judges appointed
and confirmed to fill judge positions has been no easy task. The difficulty
is demonstrated by the length of time that some judge positions have been
vacant. For example, on November 23, 2001, there were 102 judge vacancies,
of which 29 had been open for more than 2 years. In fact, 1 of the 29
vacancies had been open for more than 7 years. The timing of legislation
creating new judge positions, and the length of time it takes for the
appointment and confirmation of judges to fill positions will influence the
extent to which and when courtroom sharing will occur.

Another courtroom planning assumption the judiciary has used is that all
active judges will opt for senior status within the first year of
eligibility, which, according to AOC officials, is generally when judges
reach at least 65 years of age and have 15 years of service. Under the
judiciary?s courtroom needs assessment studies, when an active judge elects
to take senior status, a facility needs two courtrooms- one for the new
senior judge and one for the active judge that will replace him or her.
However, if an active judge defers taking senior status when he or she
becomes eligible, the facility will need a courtroom for only one judge at
that time, which reduces the need for courtroom sharing.

In July 2001, AOC issued a memorandum to the chief justice and members of
the Judicial Conference that, among other things, identified trends in the
timing of judges? decisions to take senior status. To identify these trends,
AOC examined available data on all judges eligible to take senior status
from 1984 through 2000 and reported that of 579 judges, 355, or about 61
percent, took senior status within 1 year of eligibility. AOC further
reported that from 1984 through 1995, 27, or about 7 percent, of 388 judges
deferred taking senior status for more than 5 years after they became
eligible. The extent to which judges defer taking senior status can

6 The 1978 legislation was Public Law 95- 486; the 1984 legislation was
Public Law 98- 353; the 1990 legislation was Public Law 101- 650; the 1999
legislation was Public Law 106- 113; and the 2000 legislation was Public Law
106- 553.

Page 18 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

directly affect the amount of courtroom sharing that will actually take
place.

In preparing courtroom needs assessment studies, the judiciary estimates
which judges will be at the facilities over the course of the 10- year
planning cycle. The studies identify the judges who will be provided their
own courtrooms, and the judges who will not be provided courtrooms because
they will be expected to share courtrooms. In this type of estimate, there
will always be some uncertainty associated with trying to predict which
judges will be at the facilities, especially senior judges with more than 10
years in senior status. The 44 senior judges who are indicated in the
studies as sharing courtrooms at the end of the planning cycle will have
more than 10 years in senior status and will be from 75 to 98 years old. As
with any planning process, the assumptions that have to be made will always
involve some uncertainty. In this instance, the extent to which these senior
judges continue to serve will affect how much and when courtroom sharing
actually occurs.

On March 5, 2002, AOC?s associate director provided written comments on a
draft of this report and generally agreed with the information contained in
the report. AOC also provided additional information on the judiciary?s
courtroom sharing efforts. In its comments, AOC said that the information in
our report on judges? courtroom sharing experiences confirms the judiciary?s
position that courtroom sharing is feasible only in limited circumstances.
The information we obtained from judges at the facilities where courtroom
sharing was occurring was limited to those facilities and was only intended
to describe the judges? experiences with and views on courtroom sharing.
Given this, the information cannot be generalized to facilities in all
judicial districts. Furthermore, we did not attempt to determine the extent
of the courtroom sharing problems cited by judges or whether those problems
could have been mitigated by such means as courthouse design changes, use of
different scheduling practices, or additional staff training. We clarified
the report?s scope and methodology to better reflect these limitations. AOC
also raised some points about the report, which we believe need further
discussion. A discussion of these points and a copy of AOC?s written
comments are included in appendix IV. On February 27, 2002, AOC provided
oral technical comments on a draft of this report, which we incorporated,
where appropriate. AOC Comments and

Our Evaluation

Page 19 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

To meet the first objective, which was to examine the judiciary?s courtroom
sharing policies for senior judges, we obtained, analyzed, compared, and
contrasted the various judicial policies regarding courtroom sharing.
Specifically, we examined the Judicial Conference policy, which is in the U.
S. Courts Design Guide, and the individual policies established by the
circuit judicial councils and discussed them with AOC officials.

To meet the second objective, which was to obtain information about the
extent to which senior judges are currently sharing courtrooms and their
experiences with courtroom sharing, we worked with AOC staff to identify the
locations where district judges were sharing courtrooms. We also used a
brief survey document and follow- up telephone calls to contact the district
court clerks at these locations and collect information on the district
judges who were sharing courtrooms. In addition, we solicited information
about the judges? experiences with and views on courtroom sharing. We
analyzed the information obtained and discussed the results of our work, as
necessary, with judiciary officials. We did not attempt to determine the
extent of the courtroom sharing problems cited by judges or whether the
problems could have been mitigated by such means as courthouse design
changes, use of different scheduling practices, or additional staff
training. Furthermore, the results of our work can be applied only to the
facilities discussed in the report and, therefore, cannot be generalized to
facilities in all judicial districts.

To meet the third objective, which was to determine the judiciary?s efforts
to explore the potential for senior judges to share courtrooms in future
courthouse construction projects, we reviewed the methodology that the
judiciary used to prepare its courtroom needs assessment studies and
analyzed the studies that had been completed for 33 of the 45 proposed
projects in the judiciary?s long- range construction plan for fiscal years
2002 through 2006. We identified the projected number of judges and
courtrooms planned for each of the 33 projects and analyzed the studies to
determine how much sharing was planned for these projects. Our analysis
focused on identifying the active and senior district judges who were
expected to be permanently assigned to the 33 projects and the senior judges
who were expected to share courtrooms on a regular basis at these projects.
We did not include visiting and rotating judges in our analysis of these
studies because their visits are temporary in nature and usually for short
periods of time. In addition, we reviewed the legislation increasing the
number of district judges and data on the ages of senior judges expected to
share courtrooms in the 33 projects. We discussed our results with AOC
officials. Scope and

Methodology

Page 20 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

To obtain general information related to all of our objectives, we reviewed
previous studies on or related to courtroom sharing that were done by us,
AOC, the Rand Institute for Civil Justice, the Federal Judicial Center, and
private consulting groups and discussed the courtroom sharing issue with AOC
representatives. We did our work from June through December 2001 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. On March
5, 2002, AOC provided written comments on a draft of this report. On
February 27, 2002, AOC provided oral technical comments on a draft of this
report, which we incorporated, where appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of the report until 15
days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to appropriate congressional committees; the director, AOC; the director,
OMB; and the administrator, GSA. Copies also will be made available to
others upon request.

Major contributors to this report were William Dowdal, Anne Hilleary, Gerald
Stankosky, and John Vocino. If you or your staff have any questions, please
contact me on (202) 512- 8387 or at ungarb@ gao. gov.

Bernard L. Ungar Director, Physical Infrastructure

Appendix I: Judicial Conference Policy Statement

Page 21 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

In March 1997, the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted a policy
statement that provided guidance for determining the number of courtrooms
needed in facilities. The policy was included in the December 1997 version
of the U. S. Courts Design Guide. As stated in the Guide, the policy
encourages courts to take several factors into account when considering the
construction of additional courtrooms. Also, the policy encourages circuit
judicial councils to develop policies on courtroom sharing by senior judges
when such judges do not draw caseloads requiring substantial use of
courtrooms. The complete text of the policy statement follows.

?Recognizing how essential the availability of a courtroom is to the
fulfillment of the judge?s responsibility to serve the public by disposing
of criminal trials, sentencing, and civil cases in a fair and expeditious
manner, and presiding over the wide range of activities that take place in
courtrooms requiring the presence of a judicial officer, the Judicial
Conference adopts the following policy for determining the number of
courtrooms needed at a facility:

?With regard to district judges, one courtroom must be provided for each
active judge. In addition, with regard to senior judges who do not draw a
caseload requiring substantial use of a courtroom, and visiting judges,
judicial councils should utilize the following factors, as well as other
appropriate factors, in evaluating the number of courtrooms at a facility
necessary to permit them to discharge their responsibilities.

 An assessment of workload in terms of the number and types of cases
anticipated to be handled by each such judge;  The number of years each
such judge is likely to be located at the facility;  An evaluation of the
current complement of courtrooms and their

projected use in the facility and throughout the district in order to
reaffirm whether construction of an additional courtroom is necessary;  An
evaluation of the use of the special proceedings courtroom and any

other special purpose courtrooms to provide for more flexible and varied
use, such as use for jury trial; and  An evaluation of the need for a
courtroom dedicated to specific use by

visiting judges, particularly when courtrooms for projected authorized
judgeships are planned in the new or existing facility.

?In addition, each circuit judicial council has been encouraged by the
Judicial Conference to develop a policy on sharing courtrooms by senior
judges when a senior judge does not draw a caseload requiring substantial
use of a courtroom. Appendix I: Judicial Conference Policy

Statement

Appendix I: Judicial Conference Policy Statement

Page 22 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

?The following assumptions, endorsed by the Judicial Conference in March
1997, should be considered to determine courtroom capacity in new buildings,
new space, or space undergoing renovation. This model allows assumptions to
be made about caseload projections, and the time frames in which
replacement, senior, and new judgeships will occupy the facility. The model
affords flexibility to courts and circuit judicial councils when making
decisions about the number of courtrooms to construct in a new facility,
since adjustments to the assumptions can be made to reflect a specific
housing situation ?on- line. ?

 The number of new judgeships approved by the Judicial Conference and
recommended for approval by Congress, and the year approval is expected; 
The number of years senior judges will need a courtroom after taking

senior status (a ten- year time frame is recommended);  The average age of
newly- appointed judges at the court location;  Caseload projections based
upon the district?s long range facility plan

(other caseload measures such as raw or weighted filings might also be
considered);  The percentage of the total district caseload handled at the
location;  The ratio of courtrooms per active and senior judge (at present
the model

assumes a ratio of one courtroom per judge);  The number of years it will
take for a new judgeship to be approved by the

Judicial Conference and Congress once weighted filings reach the level that
qualifies a court for an additional new judgeship (a three- year time frame
is recommended);  The number of years before replacement judges will be on
board after a

judge takes senior status (a two- year time frame is recommended); and  The
year the judges are expected to take senior status once they become

eligible (a court or council should assume a judge will take senior status
when eligible).

?The planning assumptions described above are subject to modification by
courts in consultation with the respective judicial council.?

Appendix II: Information From the Twelve Circuit Judicial Councils? Policy
Statements Related to Courtroom Sharing

Page 23 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

First Circuit Date of circuit council policy statement: April 7, 1998.

Information from the circuit council policy statement:

 The first circuit council strongly preferred that, wherever feasible, each
senior judge be given a courtroom dedicated to his or her own use. However,
the council intended to comply with Judicial Conference policy regarding
senior judges sharing courtrooms in those cases where appropriate.

 The first circuit council suggested that, when courtrooms are designed,
consideration should be given to making district, magistrate, and bankruptcy
courtrooms interchangeable where permitted by program requirements.

 The decision as to whether to include one or more visiting judge?s
chambers in a new construction or substantial renovation project would
depend upon an evaluation of the caseload to be handled in that location.

Second Circuit Date of circuit council policy statement: February 11, 1998.

Information from the circuit council policy statement:

In determining whether to provide dedicated courtrooms for senior and
visiting judges in new construction and alteration projects, the second
circuit council will consider all relevant factors, as applicable, including
the Judicial Conference policy?s courtroom sharing factors.

Third Circuit Date of circuit council policy statement: October 20, 1997.

Information from the circuit council policy statement:

 For the construction of new facilities and major renovations of existing
judicial facilities, the third circuit council stated that, in evaluating
the number of courtrooms needed at such facilities to permit senior and
visiting judges to discharge their responsibilities, the council will
consider the Judicial Conference?s courtroom sharing factors in concert with
other factors it deems appropriate.

 The third circuit council also described the overall process to be used in
preparing, reviewing, and approving district courts? proposed plans for
determining the number of courtrooms in the construction or major renovation
of judicial facilities. This process included the use of a computer model
planning document developed by the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts
(AOC), which the third circuit council plans to use as a tool to help
district courts explain and justify their proposals for the construction of
courtrooms in new facilities.

Fourth Circuit Date of circuit council policy statement: April 6, 1998.

Information from the circuit council policy statement:

 For the construction of new facilities and major renovations of existing
judicial facilities, the fourth circuit council stated that, in evaluating
the number of courtrooms needed at such facilities to permit senior and
visiting judges to discharge their responsibilities, the council will
consider the Judicial Conference?s courtroom sharing factors in concert with
other factors it deems appropriate.

 The fourth circuit council also described the overall process to be used
in preparing, reviewing, and approving district courts? proposed plans for
determining the number of courtrooms in facilities. This process included
the use of a computer model planning document developed by

Appendix II: Information From the Twelve Circuit Judicial Councils? Policy
Statements Related to Courtroom Sharing

Appendix II: Information From the Twelve Circuit Judicial Councils? Policy
Statements Related to Courtroom Sharing

Page 24 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

AOC to help district courts explain and justify their proposals for the
construction of courtrooms in new and existing judicial facilities.

Fifth Circuit Date of circuit council policy statement: October 10, 1997.

Information from the circuit council policy statement:

 The fifth circuit council provided its December 1990 and May 1995
resolutions on courtroom sharing as its policy statement. In the
resolutions, the fifth circuit council stated that the council may direct,
when appropriate, the joint use of courtroom and adjunct facilities as
dockets and other circumstances warrant.

 The fifth circuit council also addressed other matters related to
providing chambers and staff and, if required, courtrooms to judges who plan
to take senior status. Among the matters addressed are the following:

 When the fifth circuit council has been advised that an active judge
intends to take senior status and continue working at a level that qualifies
under the council?s guidelines for the assignment of chambers and staff, the
council will take the immediate and necessary steps to provide appropriate
senior judge chambers, and, if required, courtroom facilities.

 Unless special circumstances cause the fifth circuit council to direct
otherwise, a judge taking senior status, whose replacement will have the
same official duty station, is to make available to the newly appointed
active judge the chambers and facility used during the period of active
service.

 If two or more senior judges are occupying active judge chambers, the
determination of which of those active judge chambers is to be occupied by
the newly appointed active judge shall be made by the court in question.

Sixth Circuit Date of circuit council policy statement: December 9, 1997.

Information from the circuit council policy statement:

The sixth circuit council stated that a separate courtroom will not be
provided for each senior district judge or for visiting judges unless the
council determines, after consideration of the Judicial Conference?s
courtroom sharing factors, among others, that a separate courtroom is
necessary for the senior or visiting judge to discharge his or her
responsibilities.

Seventh Circuit Date of circuit council policy statement: September 30,
1997.

Information from the circuit council policy statement:

 The seventh circuit council stated that each senior judge who is
designated and assigned to perform judicial duties shall be entitled to
suitable chambers, including furnishings and supplies, and, if applicable,
suitable courtroom facilities.

 A senior judge who continues to perform a full judicial assignment should
not be required to give up the chambers or courtroom the judge occupied in
active status, except to the extent that lack of facilities for new judges
requires sharing of facilities. In that case, senior judges with a full
judicial assignment should be treated the same as active judges in the
determination of a sharing arrangement.

Appendix II: Information From the Twelve Circuit Judicial Councils? Policy
Statements Related to Courtroom Sharing

Page 25 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

 Decisions as to the assignment of facilities for senior judges who perform
less than a full judicial assignment shall be made by that judge?s court.
The council defined the term ?full judicial assignment? to mean that the
senior judge continues to be assigned and perform the same work, both
casework and other assignments, as if he or she were an active judge of the
same court.

Eighth Circuit Date of circuit council policy statement: April 15, 1998.

Information from the circuit council policy statement:

 When the eighth circuit council has been advised that an active judge
intends to take senior status and continue working at a level that qualifies
under the council?s guidelines for the assignment of chambers and staff, the
council will take immediate and necessary steps to provide appropriate
senior judge chambers and, if required, courtroom facilities.

 The eighth circuit council may direct, when appropriate, the joint use of
a courtroom and adjunct facilities as dockets and other circumstances
warrant.

Ninth Circuit Date of circuit council policy statement: March 19, 1998.

Information from the circuit council policy statement:

 The ninth circuit council stated that the courtroom sharing factors and
planning assumptions are to be used as guidelines and may be modified on the
basis of unique circumstances of each district and that they shall be used
when the districts update long- range plans and prepare requests for adding/
releasing space.

 The ninth circuit council further stated the following:

 Each district is encouraged to develop a local policy to address senior
and visiting judges sharing courtrooms.

 The policy is to be provided to the circuit council?s Space and Security
Committee.

 The policy shall be submitted when the district requests additional
courtroom space or releases courtroom space.

 The ninth circuit council policy also stated that when considering the
need for new courtrooms, districts

 shall consider the factors discussed in the report prepared by the
council?s Space and Security Committee task force that affect the projection
of courtroom needs, and

 should take into consideration using space for multiple purposes to the
extent feasible and with consideration of both initial and long- term fiscal
impacts.

Tenth Circuit Date of circuit council policy statement: October 22, 1997.

Information from the circuit council policy statement:

 The tenth circuit council stated that one courtroom should be provided for
each senior judge who draws a caseload requiring substantial use of a
courtroom.

 The tenth circuit council also stated that in determining the number of
courtrooms in existing facilities for senior district judges who do not draw
caseloads requiring substantial use of courtrooms, it will consider not only
the Judicial Conference policy factors but also the availability of
courtrooms and the feasibility or nonfeasibility of releasing courtroom
space to the General Services Administration.

Appendix II: Information From the Twelve Circuit Judicial Councils? Policy
Statements Related to Courtroom Sharing

Page 26 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

Eleventh Circuit Date of circuit council policy statement: September 25,
1997.

Information from the circuit council policy statement:

In adopting the Judicial Conference?s factors and assumptions, the eleventh
circuit council discussed in its policy statement two major topics related
to the courtroom sharing issue: (1) the process to be used in planning for
the number of courtrooms in new facilities and (2) courtroom availability
and sharing.

 Planned number of courtrooms in new facilities. In addressing this topic,
the eleventh circuit council described the overall process to be used in
preparing, reviewing, and approving district courts? proposed plans for
determining the number of courtrooms in new judicial facilities. This
process included the use of a computer model planning document developed by
AOC, which the eleventh circuit council plans to use as a tool to help
district courts explain and justify their proposals for the construction of
courtrooms in new judicial facilities.

 Courtroom availability and sharing. In discussing this topic, the eleventh
circuit council recognized that methods varied greatly throughout the
judiciary and within the eleventh circuit for the sharing of courtrooms by
senior judges who do not draw caseloads requiring substantial use of
courtrooms. The council further recognized that district courts were in the
best position to determine the need for courtrooms in facilities and the
number of courtrooms that are necessary to ensure the fair, efficient, and
expeditious handling of civil and criminal cases. Thus, the eleventh circuit
council determined that, at the present time, it would not adopt a written
courtroom sharing policy, but the council directed each district court to
submit no later than January 1, 1998, a written report that described the
district court?s local situation and the courtroom sharing policy that the
district court adopted to meet its own local needs.

As of September 2001, AOC identified one of nine district courts within the
eleventh circuit- the Southern District of Florida- that had developed its
own local courtroom sharing policy. This policy stated that each senior
judge will be allowed a courtroom unless courtroom use hours and cases
assigned to that judge fall below the caseload requirements within a 5- year
period for substantial use of a courtroom. If the senior judge does not
maintain a caseload requiring substantial use of a courtroom in the 5- year
period, the courtroom will be made available for others to use. The policy
also stated that, on the basis of historical data, senior judges are
expected to occupy a courtroom for 15 years after taking senior status, and
that this time frame should be used for planning for courtroom needs.

The eleventh circuit council also discussed other matters related to
courtroom availability and sharing. Specifically, the council stated that
the availability of a judge to hear a case and a courtroom within which to
conduct a trial or hearing are the two principal elements that drive
settlements or pleas and that, statistically, settlements or pleas are the
means by which most controversies are concluded. The council recognized that
current statistics on courtroom use do not adequately capture these
activities and that better data must be collected in this area. In
discussing this topic, the eleventh circuit council cited the May 1997 GAO
report in which some data were captured that attempted to indicate the
overall use of courtrooms, such as the actual number of hours that a
courtroom was in use (i. e., whether the courtroom?s lights were ?on? or
?off?).

In an attempt to obtain more information on courtroom use, the eleventh
circuit council required that district courts provide data that will more
accurately reflect courtroom activities, including such data as when a
courtroom has been ?booked? for a trial (i. e., case set for trial); the
number of days a trial is anticipated to take; and how a case was terminated
(e. g., trial, plea, or settlement). The council stated its belief that this
type of information would provide the hard data

Appendix II: Information From the Twelve Circuit Judicial Councils? Policy
Statements Related to Courtroom Sharing

Page 27 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

that will enable various stakeholders, including Congress, GAO, and the
public, to understand the appropriate functions that a courtroom- even a
seemingly ?dark courtroom?- plays in the administration of the judicial
system.

D. C. Circuit Date of circuit council policy statement: October 22, 1997.

Information from the circuit council policy statement:

The judges of the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia
unanimously determined that

 a courtroom should be provided for each active judge and each senior judge
who requires substantial use of his or her courtroom; and

 courtroom sharing will be achieved on a collegial basis, as is the
tradition of the judges of the court.

The judicial council for the District of Columbia circuit supported the
district court?s determination.

Appendix III: Information from Active and Senior District Judges in Ten
Facilities Where Courtroom Sharing Was Occurring

Page 28 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

San Juan, Puerto Rico (First Circuit)

Types of district judges sharing courtrooms on a regular basis:

 Senior judges with 10 years or less in senior status.

Approximate length of time courtroom sharing has been ongoing at the
facility: 1. 5 years.

Reported experiences of active and/ or senior judges at facilities where
courtroom sharing was occurring:

 Positive experiences: None reported.

 Negative experiences: When two or more senior judges need a courtroom at
the same time, the conflict is resolved by giving precedence to the judge
who first scheduled the courtroom. When two proceedings must occur at the
same time, the courtroom deputy must negotiate with all the judges to
accommodate their needs. The typical solution is for one of the judges to
use the court of appeals courtroom, which creates two difficulties. First,
using this courtroom involves an extra level of coordination because the
appellate court controls the courtroom, and the courtroom may not be
available every time that it is needed. Second, the court of appeals
courtroom does not have the computers installed or network connections
needed for district trials. Thus, the courtroom deputy cannot accomplish
needed tasks that must be accomplished during proceedings. In addition, the
court of appeals courtroom does not have a digital recording system so court
reporter services, which are very hard to find in the Puerto Rico area, must
be contracted.

General comments: The chief judge said that sharing courtrooms is not the
best way to run trials efficiently because of the unpredictable nature of
trial proceedings. Therefore, judges should have separate courtrooms for
motions and hearings. If conflicts occur with the senior judges? courtroom
sharing situation, these conflicts would be exacerbated if active judges
with full schedules also needed to share the facility?s courtrooms. The
chief judge also believes that one courtroom for three judges does not
promote efficiency in judicial proceedings.

Brooklyn, New York (Second Circuit)

Types of district judges sharing courtrooms on a regular basis:

 Active judges.

 Senior judges with 10 years or less in senior status.

Approximate length of time courtroom sharing has been ongoing at the
facility: 4. 5 years.

Reported experiences of active and/ or senior judges at facilities where
courtroom sharing was occurring:

 Positive experiences: None reported.

 Negative experiences: Sentencing of convicted defendants, both
incarcerated and on bail, is frequently delayed.

Lengthy trials are often delayed, even though ready for trial, due to the
inability to obtain a courtroom for the anticipated time required.

Severe security concerns because U. S. Marshals Service personnel are forced
to transport prisoners through public corridors.

Proceedings involving defendants in custody are frequently conducted in
conference rooms, hearing rooms, and chambers.

Inability to take full advantage of visiting judge resources.

Appendix III: Information from Active and Senior District Judges in Ten
Facilities Where Courtroom Sharing Was Occurring

Appendix III: Information from Active and Senior District Judges in Ten
Facilities Where Courtroom Sharing Was Occurring

Page 29 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

Inordinate proportion of staff time devoted to scheduling as opposed to case
management. Inability to effectively deal with unforeseen trial events. Any
delay whatsoever in a scheduled trial proceeding affects the schedules of at
least two other judges, which results in cascading delays.

Frequent time and location scheduling changes in court proceedings adversely
affect the court, litigants, private counsel, the U. S. Marshals Service,
and the United States Attorney?s Office.

Proceedings delayed or interrupted, security breached; technology duplicated
or compromised; housekeeping deteriorated.

One judge commented that he has had to switch courtrooms in midtrial,
causing lawyers tremendous inconveniences such as having to move file
cabinets and large exhibits. The judge also stated that he has had to
postpone a late- day detention hearing because another judge needed the
courtroom, causing the defendant to spend an additional night in jail. The
judge commented further that with no ?home? courtroom, he cannot keep all
the books and materials he would otherwise have in court; thus, he often
does not have a resource that he would use in helping him make decisions.

General comments: A district judge stated that when a judge is engaged in a
trial of long duration, as is frequently the case in the Brooklyn district
court, courtroom sharing is patently impossible. The judge commented that
when he or she is not engaged in a trial, the day- to- day work of a
district judge in a busy metropolitan court consists of a dizzying array of
various matters, such as motions argued in civil and criminal cases;
arraignments; pleas; sentencings; modification of bail hearings; and orders
to show cause that may require immediate attention, such as those seeking
temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions, Title 3 wire tap
applications, and violation of bail or supervised release hearings. Such
proceedings are held at intervals over an entire day and make courtroom
sharing difficult, if not impossible.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Third Circuit)

Types of district judges sharing courtrooms on a regular basis:

 Active judges.

 Senior judges with 10 years or less in senior status.

 Senior judges with more than 10 years in senior status.

Approximate length of time courtroom sharing has been ongoing at the
facility: 12 years.

Reported experiences of active and/ or senior judges at facilities where
courtroom sharing was occurring:

 Positive experiences: None reported.

 Negative experiences: The chief judge stated that active and senior judges
have voiced their concerns that, on too many occasions, they cannot schedule
proceedings on a regular, openended basis in the same courtroom. This
situation has caused some confusion and consternation for the attorneys,
jurors, and litigants who use the courtrooms on a shared basis and has also
resulted in the wasteful and inefficient use of court support staff who must
deal with the uncertainty of scheduling proceedings in courtrooms yet ?to be
announced.?

General comments: The chief judge stated that, since 1989, active and senior
judges have shared available courtrooms while a number of major construction
projects were being completed. Since completion of the projects, sharing
regularly occurs only in one courtroom. However, the chief judge expects
that over the next few years, the district court will expand, and a major
space crisis will occur because the present courthouse has reached its limit
for accommodating judges. It is anticipated that

Appendix III: Information from Active and Senior District Judges in Ten
Facilities Where Courtroom Sharing Was Occurring

Page 30 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

more courtroom shortages will occur, causing more active and senior judges
to have to share courtrooms.

The chief judge said that although the judges have been very understanding
of the situation and very cooperative in arranging their calendars to cope
with courtroom shortages, judges generally felt that permanently assigned
courtrooms greatly improve courtroom management, increase the efficiency of
judges and support staff, and expedite the timely administration of justice.
Without the stability of permanently assigned courtrooms, some judges are
concerned that the public?s perception of the judiciary as an independent
branch of government suffers when judges are compelled to share courtrooms.

In addition, the chief judge stated that the judges view a dedicated
courtroom as a catalyst for the resolution of litigation. A judge?s ability
to schedule promptly a proceeding in a dedicated courtroom often results in
the resolution of litigation disputes. The chief judge likened the
availability of a dedicated courtroom to the availability of an ambulance or
a fire engine. Although neither of these items is in constant use, both are
essential for the expeditious delivery of safety and health services to
citizens on an as- needed basis.

Nashville, Tennessee (Sixth Circuit)

Types of district judges sharing courtrooms on a regular basis:

 Senior judges with 10 years or less in senior status.

Approximate length of time courtroom sharing has been ongoing at the
facility: 3 years.

Reported experiences of active and/ or senior judges at facilities where
courtroom sharing was occurring:

 Positive experiences: The chief judge for the Nashville district court and
a senior judge stated that the senior judges in Nashville are very collegial
and operate with reduced caseloads, so courtroom sharing has worked. The
chief judge said courtroom sharing has not posed problems for these judges.
Through proper planning and mutual sacrifice, the three senior judges have
worked together nicely to utilize two courtrooms.

One senior district judge went on to say that each of the three senior
judges has a schedule of 6 weeks in courtroom and 3 weeks in chambers. If
one of the senior judges has a multidefendant case that requires a larger
courtroom, he or she can swap with an active district judge. Scheduling
cases 6 to 9 months in advance is a reason that courtroom sharing has worked
well. Also, one of the senior judges said that, if a senior judge
occasionally has a case that exceeds the allotted time in the courtroom, the
senior judges work it out.

 Negative experiences: The chief judge said that on occasion, the courtroom
sharing arrangement for the senior judges does not work because litigation
involves unpredictable variables, such as ancillary hearings; trial length;
and availability of attorneys, witnesses, and jurors. When such events occur
and a judge not scheduled for the courtroom needs one, the affected judge is
forced to try to find an available active judge?s courtroom or postpone the
trial or proceeding. In some cases, this has necessitated one judge moving
his hearings to another facility in Columbia, Tennessee.

General comments: The chief judge and a senior judge stated that courtroom
sharing among active district judges would not be a good idea. The chief
judge said such sharing would be inefficient, costly, and time- consuming
and would defeat the purpose of personalized case management. Active judges
handle all sorts of trials, motion hearings, emergency requests for
injunctions or temporary restraining orders, guilty pleas, sentencings,
suppression hearings and a variety of other hearings, as well as
conferences. The time frames of such proceedings are often unpredictable,
and many arise

Appendix III: Information from Active and Senior District Judges in Ten
Facilities Where Courtroom Sharing Was Occurring

Page 31 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

with short or no warning. Courtroom sharing would severely affect the
judge?s ability to move his cases through the judicial process in an
efficient and effective manner. The attorneys and public also would suffer
greatly.

The chief judge also stated that, as an active judge, he is in his courtroom
conducting legal business almost every day. The courtroom deputy schedules
cases in advance for most weeks throughout the year. The chief judge went on
to say that he could not imagine sharing his courtroom with another judge on
a regular basis without drastically sacrificing his productivity and
efficiency.

A senior judge stated that active judges often need their courtrooms on
short notice and have longer cases, which makes courtroom sharing more
difficult to manage.

Benton, Illinois (Seventh Circuit)

Types of district judges sharing courtrooms on a regular basis:

 Active judges.

 Senior judges with 10 years or less in senior status.

Approximate length of time courtroom sharing has been ongoing at the
facility: 9 years.

Reported experiences of active and/ or senior judges at facilities where
courtroom sharing was occurring:

 Positive experiences: The senior judge at the Benton facility said that
there have been no major problems with courtroom sharing. The only problems
have involved scheduling the use of courtrooms; but so far, such scheduling
has always been worked out amicably. An important reason for the lack of
problems is that the senior judge has a reduced caseload.

 Negative experiences: None reported.

General comments: The senior judge at the Benton facility stated that he has
been on the federal bench for 29 years and knows how convenient it is for a
judge to have his or her own courtroom- one becomes very possessive about
it. However, he said the fact of the matter is that when all is said and
done, judges only use courtrooms part of the time and sharing can almost
always be accomplished with proper scheduling and without any negative
impact on the efficient and effective administration of justice.

Also, according to the senior judge, the Benton facility has one district
courtroom, one magistrate courtroom, and one bankruptcy courtroom. The
district judges also use the latter two courtrooms, although the bankruptcy
courtroom is suitable only for motion hearings or nonjury cases because it
does not have a jury box. In addition, the active judge at the Benton
facility said that using the courtrooms has worked very well and that all
judges have been able to coordinate the use of these courtrooms.

Fayetteville, Arkansas (Eighth Circuit)

Types of district judges sharing courtrooms on a regular basis:

 Senior judges with 10 years or less in senior status.

Approximate length of time courtroom sharing has been ongoing at the
facility: 3 years, 1 month.

Appendix III: Information from Active and Senior District Judges in Ten
Facilities Where Courtroom Sharing Was Occurring

Page 32 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

Reported experiences of active and/ or senior judges at facilities where
courtroom sharing was occurring:

 Positive experiences: The senior judge thinks that given his situation,
courtroom sharing is a good idea.

 Negative experiences: None reported.

General comments: The chief judge said that the Fayetteville facility has a
district courtroom and a bankruptcy courtroom. The chief judge uses the
district courtroom, and the senior judge and the bankruptcy judge use the
bankruptcy courtroom. The senior judge decided that given his caseload and a
desire to minimize scheduling conflicts with the district courtroom, it
would be best for him to share the bankruptcy courtroom. The bankruptcy
judge was receptive to this arrangement.

Although the chief judge reported no problems with this arrangement, he said
that he had strong concerns about the notion of sharing courtrooms among
active and senior judges in the Western District of Arkansas. He said that
his district?s experience at its Hot Springs facility cast doubts on the
practicality of sharing. This facility has one courtroom and no assigned
judge. Four judges- two district, one magistrate, and one bankruptcy- have
had proceedings there at the same time. This experience has been
unsatisfactory to all involved. The chief judge explained that, if attempts
to schedule cases and coordinate the use of one courtroom by multiple,
nonresident judges are difficult, the problems would be exacerbated if
district judges had to share a courtroom where they were in residence.

The chief judge believes that convenience and efficiency in handling the
court?s dockets are decidedly reduced in the Hot Springs facility, and other
facilities, where courtrooms are shared among multiple, nonresident judges.
He believes that courtroom sharing among active or senior judges is not a
good idea in his district and should be discouraged.

Sioux City, Iowa (Eighth Circuit)

Types of district judges sharing courtrooms on a regular basis:

 Senior judges with 10 years or less in senior status.

Approximate length of time courtroom sharing has been ongoing at the
facility: 5 years.

Reported experiences of active and/ or senior judges at facilities where
courtroom sharing was occurring:

 Positive experiences: According to the senior district judge, in this
facility, there are four judges- a chief judge, a senior judge with 10 years
or less in senior status, a bankruptcy judge, and a magistrate judge- and
three courtrooms, including a district courtroom, a bankruptcy courtroom,
and a magistrate courtroom. The senior judge explained that determining the
present and future availability of a courtroom is easily done via computer
and that he uses any of the three courtrooms when they are not being used by
the other three judges. The senior judge went on to say that, on those few
occasions when all three courtrooms were being used at the same time, he has
used a video conference room in the basement of the facility as a courtroom
with no problems.

 Negative experiences: The chief judge stated that, first and foremost, the
negative impact of courtroom sharing in this facility is minimal. This is
due to the cooperation and open communication among all four judges. Any
negative impact would tend to be on the ?efficient? rather than the
?effective? administration of justice. There have been a few times when the
chief judge and the senior judge have had trials set for the same week. Most
often, one judge was able to hold court in either the bankruptcy or
magistrate courtroom. However, there have been occasions where a trial had
to be continued because a courtroom was unavailable. Also, in one of

Appendix III: Information from Active and Senior District Judges in Ten
Facilities Where Courtroom Sharing Was Occurring

Page 33 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

the chief judge?s recent trials, the trial was held in a different courtroom
each of the 3 days that the trial lasted. This was a major inconvenience for
all involved and proved to be somewhat confusing and distressing to the
jury.

The chief judge also mentioned that the space in the bankruptcy courtroom is
extremely confined and has only a makeshift jury box. He said that such an
atmosphere tends to take away from the dignity of the proceedings. Also, the
lack of courtroom space limits the court?s ability to do mass criminal trial
settings. In addition, attempts to bring judges in from around the state to
assist with the increasing criminal docket have been impeded because there
is no courtroom in which to hold the trials.

General comments: The chief judge did not look on the courtroom- sharing
situation in the Sioux City facility as a major problem. However, he said
that, at times, the court has not been able to operate as efficiently as it
could because of the lack of space. With the ever- increasing caseload, it
may become more of a problem in the future.

The senior judge stated that sharing is not the right word for the use of
courtrooms at the Sioux City facility. He said that the procedure for using
courtrooms has worked well, and that the other judges have been very
gracious and helpful. The senior judge also said that, from his point of
view, this arrangement has had no negative impact on the efficient and
effective administration of justice.

Salt Lake City, Utah (Tenth Circuit)

Types of district judges sharing courtrooms on a regular basis:

 Senior judges with 10 years or less in senior status.

Approximate length of time courtroom sharing has been ongoing at the
facility: 2 years.

Reported experiences of active and/ or senior judges at facilities where
courtroom sharing was occurring:

 Positive experiences: None reported.

 Negative experiences: At this facility, all four of the senior judges have
reduced caseloads, but two of the four judges spend a significant amount of
time in court, averaging more courtroom time per case than the active
judges. Until recently, two of the four senior judges had their own
courtrooms, and the remaining two senior judges were sharing the one
courtroom that is located on the fourth floor of the building. The sharing
arrangement involved the two judges sharing this courtroom on a rotating
weekly basis, subject to changes that the judges worked out between
themselves. In some instances, the two judges needed the courtroom at the
same time, which required one of the two judges to find a courtroom that was
vacant elsewhere in the building.

This situation has become more difficult to manage because, recently, one of
the senior judges who had his own courtroom had to make it available for an
active judge who is expected to come on board within the next 3 to 6 months.
This senior judge has been relocated and now shares the fourth floor
courtroom with the two other senior judges. Thus, at the present time, three
of the facility?s four senior judges are sharing courtrooms. The court is
now faced with the difficulty of allocating time for the use of the fourth
floor courtroom among three senior judges or coming up with another
alternative.

One alternative involves one of the three senior judges using the first
floor courtroom that is still assigned to the fourth senior judge, who has
retained his own courtroom. To get to this courtroom, the senior judge who
needs a courtroom must walk the length of the building- about one- half of a
city block- and take the secured elevator, which is also used for prisoner
transport, to the first floor. Then, the senior judge who needs a courtroom
has to either walk through the chambers of

Appendix III: Information from Active and Senior District Judges in Ten
Facilities Where Courtroom Sharing Was Occurring

Page 34 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

the fourth senior judge or use a public corridor and enter the first floor
courtroom through the attorney?s entrance, an option that creates security
issues. Clearly, for the judge to have to go such a long distance from his
chambers on the fourth floor to get to a first floor courtroom presents a
very awkward and inefficient situation. For example, the judge may want to
call counsel into chambers in the middle of a jury trial for a brief
conference, which is not an uncommon occurrence. If he is using the first
floor courtroom, the judge would either have to take counsel all the way
back up to his chambers on the fourth floor, leaving the jury waiting, or
use the fourth senior judge?s chambers, thus imposing on one of his
colleagues.

Another reported difficulty that this facility experienced involved the
fourth floor courtroom, which was the facility?s only electronic courtroom.
In addition to the senior judges who share this courtroom, active judges
also occasionally needed to use the fourth floor courtroom. At the present
time, a project is under way to provide electronic evidence presentation
capabilities in the facility?s remaining courtrooms. This project is
expected to be completed in May 2002 and will eliminate the pressure on the
use of the fourth floor courtroom.

Occasionally, one of the senior judges sharing the fourth floor courtroom
may be involved in an extended and complex trial that takes several weeks to
complete. Because one of the other two senior judges sharing the courtroom
may need it during his week, the senior judge with the extended trial will
have to prevail upon the attorneys to move their exhibits, equipment, and
trial materials from one courtroom to another on a different floor. When a
complex civil trial involves numerous boxes of documents, devices,
equipment, or other nonpaper evidence, the need to move these items can
impose a significant burden on the litigants. Additional administrative
burdens, such as scheduling and notifying litigants, counsel, and the public
of courtroom changes, also occur when proceedings are moved from one
courtroom to another.

General comments: The chief judge is concerned that courtroom sharing
inevitably affects courtroom availability and that judges will be placed in
a difficult position when the availability of a courtroom has the potential
to affect the administration of justice. He cited two examples of such
difficulty- one related to motion hearings and the other to the scheduling
of trials.

 Motion hearings. Judges have the discretion to grant or deny motions to
hear oral argument on critical matters relating to a case before them. If
they opt to grant the motion for oral argument, they also have the
discretion to determine the length of oral argument. To the extent that
courtroom sharing imposes constraints on the courtroom time a judge has
available to him or her, the administration of justice may be compromised if
such constraints are weighed among the factors for denying oral argument or
restricting the amount of time the litigants seek to argue their case.

 Scheduling trials. The Constitution guarantees a right to trial, but a
judge can exercise some influence over the parties? decision to opt for a
trial. He or she may urge them to engage in settlement discussions as an
alternative to trial. Alternatively, he or she may indicate a strong
willingness to accept a plea bargain with the caveat that opting for trial
may entail the full weight of the sentencing guidelines if the defendant is
convicted on all counts. One factor that has the clear potential to affect
how a judge approaches the issue of whether to proceed to trial is courtroom
availability. A judge who has unlimited access to a courtroom is likely to
be less inclined, other factors being equal, to avoid scheduling a trial
than another judge whose courtroom access is limited and whose courtroom
calendar already may be crowded with previously scheduled proceedings.

In both instances, the chief judge expressed a strong view that courtroom
availability should not be a factor in the decision whether to schedule oral
argument or whether to proceed with a trial if the judge believes that the
substantive elements of the issue or the case at hand otherwise

Appendix III: Information from Active and Senior District Judges in Ten
Facilities Where Courtroom Sharing Was Occurring

Page 35 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

demand it. To the extent that courtroom availability does play into such
decisions, serious questions are raised about the effective administration
of justice.

Jacksonville, Florida (Eleventh Circuit)

Types of district judges sharing courtrooms on a regular basis:

 Active judges.

 Senior judges with 10 years or less in senior status.

 Senior judges with more than 10 years in senior status.

Approximate length of time courtroom sharing has been ongoing at the
facility: Over 10 years.

Reported experiences of active and/ or senior judges at facilities where
courtroom sharing was occurring:

 Positive experiences: None reported.

 Negative experiences: Judges prefer having their own courtrooms because
resources, such as books and files, can be kept in the courtroom and are
always there when needed. A shared courtroom may not be adjacent to chambers
and, thus, may restrict easy access to law clerks and equipment for printing
transcripts.

Courtroom sharing can also affect the ease with which a courtroom?s
equipment, such as that used for real- time reporting, can be set up. In
addition, with courtroom sharing, it may not be possible to identify and
provide advance notice of the specific courtroom where the proceeding is to
take place. Without this information, lawyers and the public will be
confused about where to go to attend the appropriate proceeding.

General comments: All the judges share out of necessity and believe it
affects their efficiency and the efficiency of their staffs. They would
prefer having their own courtrooms. Also, although the court has not
encountered any negative impact on the efficient and effective
administration of justice, judges cited speedy trial issues as an area that
could pose problems if courtrooms are not readily available.

Orlando, Florida (Eleventh Circuit)

Types of district judges sharing courtrooms on a regular basis:

 Active judges.

 Senior judges with 10 years or less in senior status.

 Senior judges with more than 10 years in senior status.

Approximate length of time courtroom sharing has been ongoing at the
facility: 1. 5 years.

Reported experiences of active and/ or senior judges at facilities where
courtroom sharing was occurring:

 Positive experiences: None reported.

 Negative experiences: In a court with a heavy caseload and active trial
calendars, the logistics of scheduling can affect the dispensing of justice.
For instance, if the courtroom scheduling process gives priority to the
district judge with more time in active status, the judge with less time in
active status has to wait to set cases or conduct hearings.

In addition, it is very difficult to coordinate courtroom use with six
judges and four courtrooms, especially when lengthy trials and frequent
trials are involved. When scheduling a single courtroom for more than one
proceeding, the court staff must be sure that the length of time for one
proceeding does not interfere with the scheduling of another proceeding.
This is often

Appendix III: Information from Active and Senior District Judges in Ten
Facilities Where Courtroom Sharing Was Occurring

Page 36 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

impossible because proceedings often take longer than counsel estimate,
which delays the other proceedings of all of the judges in a courtroom-
sharing situation.

Another complicating factor is courtroom size. When possible, courtroom size
must be taken into consideration when courtrooms are scheduled because the
size of a courtroom may be inappropriate for the proceeding. The consequence
of courtroom sharing is that multiparty cases, which may be best scheduled
for a large courtroom, sometimes have to be convened in a small courtroom
because another judge may already be using the larger courtroom.

Hearings and trials are sometimes delayed until a courtroom can be located.
Difficulty in locating courtroom space can result in hearings not being
scheduled and cases decided on written submissions (i. e., motions) instead
of valuable oral arguments.

Books and furniture for one judge must be moved to a different courtroom so
that the materials used to make rulings are readily available for the judge
when he or she needs them to make rulings.

General comments: Renovations for one of the four district courtrooms have
been planned and will cause further problems with courtroom sharing. The
Orlando facility will be left with three rather than the current four
district courtrooms for six active and senior judges. Courtroom sharing will
not work in facilities undergoing renovation.

Theoretically, and in an ideal world, courtroom sharing should work.
However, in the real world, it leads to delays of justice, interference with
managing the caseload, and the erosion of collegiality in a district that
has frequent hearings and trials. In such a district, the number and length
of trials cannot be controlled, and the number, length, and timing of
hearings cannot be predicted. When all the judges in a division carry a
substantial caseload and have frequent trials, courtroom sharing becomes a
nightmare and defeats the purpose of the court, which is to dispense justice
without delay.

The court provided an example of the cascading effects of trying to deal
with courtroom needs. A district judge was recently moved to a magistrate
judge?s courtroom, which left the magistrate judge without a courtroom.
There were plans to renovate the facility?s grand jury suite for magistrate
judges to use as an alternate courtroom in the event that a district judge
needed to use the magistrate judge?s courtroom. However, after the grand
jury suite has been renovated, space will be needed for the grand jury to
meet.

Appendix IV: Comments from the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts

Page 37 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

Appendix IV: Comments from the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the end
of this appendix.

See p. 18.

Appendix IV: Comments from the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts

Page 38 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

See comment 4. See comment 3. See comment 2.

See comment 1.

Appendix IV: Comments from the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts

Page 39 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

Appendix IV: Comments from the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts

Page 40 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

The following are GAO?s comments on AOC?s letter dated March 5, 2002. 1. AOC
said that the report confirmed the May 2000 Ernst and Young

findings that courtroom- sharing policies resulted in a 20 percent reduction
in the number of courtrooms planned for new facilities. Our report does
state that 19 courthouse projects expect to have 113 active judges, 90
senior judges, and 158 courtrooms. This equates to about 5 judges for every
4 courtrooms, which would indicate a 20 percent reduction. In the 19
projects, the 44 senior judges expected to share courtrooms will have more
than 10 years in senior status and will range in age from 75 to 98 years old
at the end of the planning time frame. The 20 percent reduction would appear
to be reasonable if it is assumed that, without the current courtroom
sharing policies, the judiciary would have planned construction of new trial
courtrooms for these senior judges.

2. AOC mentioned that some future construction projects listed as having no
plans for courtroom sharing would have been categorized as having courtroom
sharing if we had counted visiting and rotating judges. Our analysis focused
on identifying active and senior district judges who were expected to be
permanently assigned to the 33 future courthouse construction projects for
which the judiciary prepared courtroom needs assessment studies. We also
focused on identifying senior judges who were expected to share courtrooms
on a regular basis at these projects. We did not include visiting and
rotating judges in our analysis because their visits are temporary in nature
and usually for short periods of time. We clarified our scope and
methodology to reflect this point.

3. AOC expressed disappointment that we did not comment on the validity of
the judiciary?s courtroom planning assumptions. Our work was not designed to
perform a detailed assessment of these assumptions, and, as such, we are not
in a position to comment on their validity.

4. AOC pointed out that our discussion of the uncertainties associated with
the planning assumptions may unintentionally leave some readers with the
impression that the precise timing of events is important, such as
predicting exactly when an active judge will take senior status or when a
judgeship vacancy will be filled. AOC goes on to say that the timing of
these events is immaterial in the long term. As mentioned in the report, the
timing of events will have a direct impact on the extent GAO Comments

Appendix IV: Comments from the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts

Page 41 GAO- 02- 341 Information on Courtroom Sharing

of and when courtroom sharing will occur during the planning period. Our
discussion of the planning assumptions was intended to show that there is
always some uncertainty associated with any assumptions used in a planning
process and that the expected outcomes will be dependent on how well the
assumptions materialize.

(543001)

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to
support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help
improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal
programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other
assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO?s commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the
Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts and full- text
files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their
entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and
select ?Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products? under
the GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail: fraudnet@
gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U. S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO?s Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***