Courthouse Construction: Better Courtroom Use Data Could Enhance Facility
Planning and Decisionmaking (Letter Report, 05/19/97, GAO/GGD-97-39).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the General Services
Administration's (GSA) construction and renovation of federal
courtrooms, focusing on: (1) how often and for what purposes courtrooms
have been used; and (2) what steps the judiciary is taking to assess
space and courtroom usage issues.

GAO noted that: (1) according to the judiciary, the availability of a
trial courtroom is an integral part of the judicial process because
judges need the flexibility to resolve cases more efficiently; (2) trial
courtrooms are expensive to construct, and constructing any unneeded
courtrooms would waste taxpayer dollars; (3) the extent to which trial
courtrooms are utilized for trials and nontrial activities is one
indication of need, but the judiciary does not compile data on how often
and for what purposes courtrooms are actually used or have analytically
based criteria for determining how many and what types of courtrooms are
needed to effectively administer justice; (4) therefore, the judiciary
does not have sufficient data to support its practice of providing a
trail courtroom for every district judge; (5) GAO's detailed work at
seven locations showed that courtroom usage for trials and nontrial
activities varied by judge and location; (6) on many of the workdays
during 1995, courtrooms were not used at all for these purposes; (7) on
average, trial courtrooms were used for trial or nontrial purposes about
54 percent of all the days that they could have been used; (8)
courtrooms were used for trials less than one-third of the days, and the
use of courtrooms for trials varied by location; (9) at the six
locations with more than one trial courtroom, all courtrooms at any
location were seldom used for trials or nontrial activities the same
day; (10) senior judges used the courtrooms assigned to them for trials
and nontrial activities considerably less frequently than active judges;
(11) GAO's discussions with district judges in the various locations
showed diverse opinions about changes to current courtroom
configurations or use practices; (12) all preferred having their own
courtrooms to help them resolve cases, but their views on the one judge,
one courtroom practices were mixed; (13) the Administrative Office of
the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) considers the data GAO developed limited because
GAO did not capture such other factors as "latent" use or cases that
settle just before a scheduled trial, leaving a courtroom available that
cannot be easily rescheduled; (14) the judiciary recognizes that it has
not developed the data or performed the research to support its practice
of providing a trial courtroom for every district judge; and (15) the
judiciary has taken some actions intended to help it better understand *

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-97-39
     TITLE:  Courthouse Construction: Better Courtroom Use Data Could 
             Enhance Facility Planning and Decisionmaking
      DATE:  05/19/97
   SUBJECT:  Federal courts
             Courtroom proceedings
             Trials
             Facility management
             Government facility construction
             Hearings
             Judges
IDENTIFIER:  Dallas (TX)
             Miami (FL)
             Albuquerque (NM)
             Santa Fe (NM)
             Las Cruces (NM)
             San Diego (CA)
             District of Columbia
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

May 1997

COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION - BETTER
COURTROOM USE DATA COULD ENHANCE
FACILITY PLANNING AND
DECISIONMAKING

GAO/GGD-97-39

District Courtroom Use

(240195)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  AOUSC - Administrative Office of the United States Courts
  FJC - Federal Judicial Center
  GSA - General Services Administration

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-271180

May 19, 1997

The Honorable Sam Brownback
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
 Restructuring, and the District of Columbia
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

The Honorable Carl Levin
United States Senate

The Honorable Jay C.  Kim
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Buildings and
 Economic Development
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives

The Honorable James A.  Traficant, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Public Buildings and
 Economic Development
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives

The Honorable Wayne T.  Gilchrest
House of Representatives

The General Services Administration (GSA) and the federal judiciary
have embarked on a multibillion-dollar courthouse construction
initiative aimed at addressing the housing needs of the federal
district courts and related agencies.  Included in this initiative
are plans to construct hundreds of new district judge trial
courtrooms to replace existing ones and to accommodate future
increases in federal judgeships.  Using GSA data, we estimated that
the cost to build a typical trial courtroom in 1995 dollars could
range from about $640,000 to $1.3 million depending on geographic
location.  The cost in Washington, D.C., was about $800,000.  Over
the last few years, various subcommittees and Members of Congress
have become increasingly concerned that courtrooms may be
underutilized and that more costly courtrooms than needed may have
been, and continue to be, constructed.  This report responds to your
request to (1) determine how often and for what purposes courtrooms
have been used and (2) examine what steps the judiciary is taking to
assess space and courtroom usage issues. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

The judiciary's process for administering justice is dynamic and
complex.  According to the judiciary, the availability of a trial
courtroom is an integral part of the judicial process because judges
need the flexibility to resolve cases more efficiently.  Nonetheless,
trial courtrooms, because of their size and configuration, are
expensive to construct, and constructing any unneeded courtrooms
would waste taxpayer dollars.  Currently, the judiciary maintains a
general practice of, whenever possible, assigning a trial courtroom
to each district judge. 

The extent to which trial courtrooms are utilized for trials and
nontrial activities\1 is one indication of need, but the judiciary
does not compile data on how often and for what purposes courtrooms
are actually used or have analytically-based criteria for determining
how many and what types of courtrooms are needed to effectively
administer justice.  Therefore, the judiciary does not have
sufficient data to support its practice of providing a trial
courtroom for every district judge. 

Our detailed work compiling data at seven geographically dispersed
locations--Dallas, TX; Miami, FL; Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Las
Cruces, NM; San Diego, CA; and Washington, D.C.--showed that
courtroom usage for trials and nontrial activities varied by judge
and location.  Furthermore, on many of the workdays during 1995,
courtrooms were not used at all for these purposes.  Our analysis for
1995 showed that: 

  On average, trial courtrooms were used for trial or nontrial
     purposes about 54 percent of all the days that they could have
     been used.  In other words, these courtrooms were, on average,
     used for some purpose 135 days and vacant 115 days out of the
     250 federal work days in 1995.  Overall, courtroom utilization
     rates varied by location, from 61 percent in Washington, D.C.,
     to 43 percent in Las Cruces, NM. 

  Courtrooms were used for trials less than one-third of the days,
     and the use of courtrooms for trials varied by location.  The
     highest average trial usage rate was 32 percent in Miami, FL,
     and the lowest was 13 percent in Santa Fe, NM.  Nontrial
     activities, such as pretrial conferences, motion hearings, and
     grand jury proceedings, consumed the remainder of the days
     courtrooms were used.  On most of the nontrial days, the
     courtrooms were used for 2 hours or less.  Figure 1 illustrates
     the percentage of days courtrooms were used for trials and
     nontrial purposes and the percentage of days with no such use
     for each of the seven locations during 1995. 

   Figure 1:  Percent of Days
   Courtrooms Were Used

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of data obtained at seven courthouse locations. 

  At the six locations with more than one trial courtroom, all
     courtrooms at any location were seldom used for trials or
     nontrial activities the same day.  Of the 250 workdays in 1995,
     Miami and Washington each had at least one unused courtroom on
     each of the workdays; San Diego and Dallas each had at least one
     unused courtroom on all but 1 day; Albuquerque had at least one
     of its five courtrooms unused on all but 7 days; and Las Cruces
     had at least one courtroom unused on all but 54 days, or about
     78 percent of the work year. 

  Senior judges--district judges who are eligible to retire but
     choose to continue to carry out judicial duties, often at
     reduced caseloads--used the courtrooms assigned to them for
     trials and nontrial activities considerably less frequently than
     active district judges.  For example, 41 active district judges
     at the locations visited used the courtrooms assigned to them
     about 65 percent of the days for both trials and nontrial
     activities, but average use for 21 senior judges was 38 percent. 
     For trials only, the active district judges' average utilization
     rate was 33 percent and for senior judges it was 17 percent. 

Our discussions with district judges in the various locations showed
diverse opinions about changes to current courtroom configurations or
use practices.  All preferred having their own courtrooms to help
them resolve cases, but their views on the one judge, one courtroom
practice were mixed.  Some district judges, like those in Miami, were
opposed to any type of courtroom sharing if it meant having fewer
trial courtrooms than judges.  Other district judges believed that
having fewer trial courtrooms or a mix of full-sized and smaller
courtrooms could work if scheduling and case management were better
coordinated.  According to the Chief Judge of the New Mexico
District, a new courthouse now under construction in Albuquerque has
been designed with fewer courtrooms than the projected number of
judges and should facilitate sharing among judges, including
magistrates.  Likewise, senior judges are to share courtrooms in the
new courthouse annex that is planned for San Diego. 

The Administrative Office of the U.S.  Courts (AOUSC), the
judiciary's administrative arm, considers the data we developed
limited because we do not capture such other factors as (1) "latent"
use whereby the threat of a trial in an available courtroom can
leverage the disposition of cases before trial; or (2) cases that
settle just before a scheduled trial, leaving a courtroom available
that cannot be easily rescheduled.  We agree that these and other
factors are important considerations, but the judiciary has not
developed data to show how much of an effect such factors may have on
the number of courtrooms needed. 

The judiciary recognizes that it has not developed the data or
performed the research to support its practice of providing a trial
courtroom for every district judge.  It has taken some actions
intended to help it better understand courtroom usage, which include
commissioning a study on the impact of providing fewer courtrooms
than judges and adopting a policy for exploring courtroom sharing
opportunities by senior and visiting judges.  However, these actions
do not include a plan to produce data on the actual use of courtrooms
for trials or nontrial activities or to systematically quantify the
latent and other usage factors.  In fact, the Federal Judicial Center
(FJC), the education and research arm of the judiciary, and the Rand
Institute for Civil Justice separately examined the
AOUSC-commissioned study and said that it had major limitations and
that more research must be done to adequately address the courtroom
usage issue. 


--------------------
\1 According to AOUSC, trials are defined as any contested
proceeding.  Nontrial activities include motion hearings,
arraignments, and other proceedings. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The U.S.  district courts are the federal courts of general trial
jurisdiction.  There are 94 district courts 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. 
These courts have two categories of district judges who hear cases
and use courtrooms.  The first is "active district judges" who carry
full caseloads.  The other is "district judges with senior status"\2
who have resigned from their active judgeships, but continue to carry
some caseload.  When an active district judge takes senior status, he
or she creates a judicial vacancy and the president may nominate a
replacement.  In this report we refer to active district judges as
district judges and to district judges with senior status as senior
judges.  District courts also have magistrate judges, who, according
to the FJC, can use district courtrooms and play an integral part in
resolving cases. 

Congress authorizes judgeships for each district based largely on the
caseload.  As of September 30, 1996, the judiciary reported that
there were 647 authorized district judgeships, 44 of which were
classified as vacant positions.  In addition, there were 274 senior
judges. 

Historically, the judiciary's practice has been to provide one trial
courtroom\3 for each district judge, and in many cases a courtroom is
provided for each senior judge and additional courtroom(s) for
visiting judges.\4 According to AOUSC officials, courtrooms are an
integral part of a court's ability to discharge its judicial
responsibilities, and no two courts use exactly the same procedure in
scheduling cases to be heard or in using courtrooms.  But there are
similarities in how courtrooms are used.  Cases are tried, witnesses
testify, and juries serve in district trial courtrooms.  In addition
to trials, other legal proceedings involving the participation of a
judge, such as arraignments/ pleas and pretrial conferences, are
sometimes held in trial courtrooms. 

In the late 1980s, the judiciary recognized that it was facing
growing space shortages, security shortfalls, and operational
inefficiencies at courthouse facilities.  To address these problems,
the Judicial Conference of the United States directed each of the 94
judicial districts, with assistance from AOUSC, to develop long-range
space plans identifying where new and additional space was needed. 
Generally, these plans were to assume that each district judge would
be assigned a trial courtroom.  AOUSC has provided each of the 94
districts with long-range facility planning guidance for projecting
space shortages.  Under the planning process, each district is to
develop space projections that are to be approved by the district's
chief judge and each district's circuit judicial council.  GSA uses
the district court's 10 year space projections to develop requests
for both new courthouse construction and expansion of existing court
facilities. 

GSA requests funding for courthouses as part of the president's
annual budget request to Congress.  Under the Public Buildings Act of
1959, as amended, GSA is required to submit to the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure detailed project descriptions,
called prospectuses, that contain project cost estimates and
justifications for projects that exceed a certain cost threshold. 
Under the act, GSA can adjust the threshold upward or downward on the
basis of changes in construction costs during the preceding calendar
year--the threshold for fiscal year 1997 was $1.74 million.  Once
courthouses are funded by Congress, GSA is to contract with private
sector firms for design and construction work. 

As a result of its planning process, the judiciary had initially
identified about 200 locations it estimated would be out of space
within the next 10 years.  Many of these locations also have security
concerns or operational inefficiencies.  The judiciary estimated that
new courthouses at these locations would cost about $10 billion.  In
commenting on this report, GSA said that expansion of the courts'
housing needs at 40 of these locations is no longer needed or will be
satisfied through leasing actions or building modernizations.  GSA
and the judiciary estimate that there are now 160 locations that need
a new courthouse or an annex to an existing building at an estimated
cost of $8 billion.  Of the 160 locations, GSA said that 40 projects
have received about $3 billion in funding, and the remaining 120
projects will require an additional $5 billion in funding. 

The judiciary does not maintain readily available aggregate data on
the number and cost of additional courtrooms that will result from
this multibillion-dollar courthouse construction initiative. 
However, AOUSC workload projections indicate that the number of
district judgeships could double or perhaps increase even more
significantly by the year 2020--from 647 judgeships in 1996 to
between 1,280 judgeships and 2,410 judgeships over this period.\5
Using GSA data, we estimate that the cost to build a typical trial
courtroom in 1995 dollars could range from about $650,000 to $1.3
million depending on geographic location.  The cost in Washington,
D.C., was about $800,000.  Using the Washington, D.C., cost, we
estimated that the cost of providing one courtroom for each new
judgeship, in 1995 dollars, could range from about $500 million to
$1.4 billion.  This amount does not include the cost of replacing
courtrooms for existing judgeships. 

In commenting on the report, AOUSC and FJC pointed out, and we agree,
that factors such as budget constraints and availability of senior
judges will influence the actual number of judgeships that will be
added in the future.  However, our intent in using these judgeship
projections was to provide Congress with some perspective on the
potential cost associated with providing a full-sized district
courtroom for each of these projected judgeships. 


--------------------
\2 Senior status can be achieved when a district judge reaches the
age and service eligibility requirements for retirement. 

\3 According to the U.S.  Courts Design Guide, a district trial
courtroom should customarily be 2,400 square feet with a proportional
ceiling height (16 feet) and contain a jury box capable of seating 12
jurors and 6 alternates. 

\4 A visiting judge is usually a district or senior judge who is on
temporary assignment to a U.S.  district court to which he or she is
not assigned.  Other members of the judiciary, such as a circuit
judge, can also use district courtrooms. 

\5 Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts, Judicial Conference of the
United States, December 1995. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

We did our work primarily at AOUSC in Washington, D.C., and at seven
courthouses located in five judicial districts.  Specifically, we
reviewed the use of 65 district courtrooms--the 8 trial courtrooms
located in Dallas, TX (Northern District of Texas); the 18 trial
courtrooms located in Miami, FL (Southern District of Florida); the 5
trial courtrooms in Albuquerque, the 1 trial courtroom in Santa Fe,
and the 2 trial courtrooms in Las Cruces, NM (District of New
Mexico);\6 the 12 trial courtrooms in San Diego, CA (Southern
District of California); and the 19 trial courtrooms in Washington,
D.C.  (District of the District of Columbia). 

Recognizing that many variables could be used to select courthouse
locations, we chose to judgmentally select the courthouses we visited
on the basis of geographical location; the size of the courts; and,
with the exception of Dallas, locations where new courthouse
construction projects were planned or already under way.  We included
Dallas because some of our staff working on this study were located
in Dallas, and we used the Dallas courthouse to test our methodology
before visiting other courthouses.  We limited the number of
courthouses and the time period under review (calendar year 1995)
because reviewing courtroom use at geographically dispersed locations
required time-consuming file reviews, extensive data development,
interviews with judges and their staffs, and significant travel
expense. 

To determine how often and for what purposes courtrooms were used, we
analyzed data at the seven courthouse locations.  Neither AOUSC nor
the courts that we visited compile or routinely use specific data on
how often or for what purposes courtrooms are used.  Therefore, we
had to compile information from numerous sources.  First, we reviewed
the judiciary's Monthly Report of Trials and Other Court Activity
(JS-10) for all district judges that were assigned in 1995 to the
locations that we visited and for all visiting judges who heard cases
at these locations that year.  From the JS-10 reports we determined
the number of days and hours that each judge was actually in trial
and the time spent conducting nontrial court activities.  We
considered all times recorded on the JS-10 reports as courtroom usage
by the judges, even though nontrial activities are sometimes held in
the judges' chambers or conference rooms. 

We validated the information taken from the JS-10 reports by
analyzing the judges' and/or courtroom deputies' daily calendars,
trial/clerk minutes, and case histories from the Integrated Case
Management System, which is an automated docketing system.  Our
analyses allowed us to determine when and how the courtrooms were
used by the district judges, senior judges, and visiting judges for
every federal working day in 1995.  We also discussed courtroom
usage, including the possibility of courtroom sharing; case
scheduling; and the importance of having available courtrooms with
judges, courtroom deputies, and other court officials at the
locations visited.  Also, we reviewed court management statistics and
other data that showed the use of trial courtrooms by individuals
other than federal district judges.  After examining all the data, we
credited each courtroom with one day of usage for all days that the
records showed that there was any activity in it.  We considered it a
trial day if it had any trial activity, regardless of any nontrial
activity that also may have occurred.  We determined the percentages
of days that courtrooms were used for all purposes by comparing
actual recorded usage with the maximum number of federal workdays on
which the courtrooms could have been used (250). 

To examine the steps the judiciary has taken to evaluate space and
courtroom usage issues, we interviewed AOUSC officials and reviewed
pertinent documents and studies on courtroom use.  Specifically, we
reviewed AOUSC documentation on initiatives to manage judicial space
and engaged an operations research consultant to assist us in
evaluating an AOUSC-commissioned study of the impact of providing
fewer than one courtroom per judgeship.\7 Lastly, we reviewed
documents prepared by the Federal Judicial Center \8 and the Rand
Institute for Civil Justice\9 that separately (1) examine various
aspects of AOUSC's impact study and (2) make suggestions for further
research on courtroom usage and courtroom sharing. 

We cannot project the results of our work to the universe of district
courtrooms nationwide, within the district where they were located,
or to the locations visited in other time periods.  We did our work
between January 1996 and April 1997, in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.  Appendix I discusses our
objectives, scope, and methodology in greater detail. 


--------------------
\6 In the District of New Mexico, we included courtrooms at multiple
locations in our analysis because many of the judges in this district
customarily hold trials and nontrial hearings in courtrooms located
in Albuquerque, Las Cruces, and Santa Fe. 

\7 The Impact of Providing Fewer Than One Courtroom Per Judgeship: 
Report to the Committee on Security, Space, and Facilities of the
Judicial Conference of the United States; Edward H.  Leekley and
William T.  Rule II, Washington, D.C., March 1996. 

\8 Federal Judicial Center Research Note on The Impact of Providing
Fewer Than One Courtroom Per Judgeship, Federal Judicial Center,
August 28, 1996. 

\9 Research on Courtroom Sharing, Project Memorandum, Terrence
Dunworth and James S.  Kakalik, Rand Institute for Civil Justice,
PM-598--1-ICJ, September 1996. 


   COURTROOM USAGE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

According to the judiciary, courtroom availability is a key component
in providing judges the flexibility to resolve cases more
efficiently.  Nonetheless, trial courtrooms are expensive to
construct, and any unneeded courtrooms would waste taxpayer dollars. 
The extent to which trial courtrooms are utilized for trial or
nontrial activities is one indication of need, but the judiciary does
not compile data on how often and for what purposes courtrooms are
used or have analytically-based criteria for determining effective
courtroom utilization.  Therefore, the judiciary does not have
sufficient data to support its practice of generally providing a
trial courtroom for every district judge.  Our detailed work
compiling data at seven geographically dispersed locations--Dallas,
TX; Miami, FL; Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Las Cruces, NM; San Diego,
CA; and Washington, D.C.--showed that courtroom usage for trials or
nontrial activities varied by judge and location.  Furthermore, on
many of the workdays during 1995, courtrooms were not used at all for
these purposes. 

Our analysis of use data for the 65 courtrooms we reviewed showed
they were used for trials or nontrial activities an average of 54
percent of the workdays in 1995.  Stated another way, they were not
used for any of these recorded purposes 115 out of 250 possible days
that year.  Utilization rates varied widely from one location to
another--the highest rate being 61 percent and the lowest 43 percent. 
It was seldom that all courtrooms at any location were used for trial
or nontrial activities on the same day.  Specifically, at two
locations--Miami and Washington, D.C.--there was not 1 day of the 250
workdays when all courtrooms were used; and at Dallas and San Diego,
there was only 1 day when all the courtrooms were used.  Table 1
shows the number of days in 1995 during which all courtrooms at each
location were used on the same day.\10 Appendixes II through VI
provide greater detail on the use of courtrooms at each location. 



                                Table 1
                
                   Number of Days All Courtrooms at a
                Location Were Used for Trial or Nontrial
                Activities on the Same Day in 1995 (250
                          available workdays)

                                         Number of  Number of days all
Location                                courtrooms     courtrooms used
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Albuquerque                                      5                   7
Dallas                                           8                   1
Las Cruces                                       2                  54
Miami                                           18                   0
San Diego                                       12                   1
Washington, D.C.                                19                   0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO analysis of data collected at six courthouse locations
with more than one courtroom

We also found differences in the extent to which courtrooms were used
for trials and nontrial activities.  For instance, our analysis
showed that: 

  Courtroom use for trial purposes varied by location, ranging from a
     low of 13 percent in Santa Fe, NM, to a high of 32 percent in
     Miami.  At all locations, courtrooms were used for trials less
     than one-third of the available days.  On average, each
     courtroom included in our analysis was used for trials 27
     percent of the time, or 69 days in 1995. 

  Nontrial use--for activities such as motion hearings or
     arraignments--also varied by location, ranging from a low of 24
     percent in Albuquerque to a high of 35 percent in Santa Fe.  For
     the most part, on nontrial days, the courtrooms were used for 2
     hours or less. 

  Washington, D.C., courtrooms had the lowest incidence of no use for
     trials or nontrial activities at 39 percent; courtrooms in Las
     Cruces, NM, had the highest incidence of no use for trial or
     nontrial activities--57 percent. 

According to court officials, these differences occurred for a
variety of reasons, including the differences in caseloads and the
dynamics of each individual case.  Table 2 shows the percentage of
days courtrooms were used for trials and nontrial activities and the
percentage of days with no use for these purposes for courtrooms in
the seven locations visited. 



                                Table 2
                
                 Percentage of Days Courtrooms Were Not
                Used At All or Were Used for Trials and
                 Nontrial Purposes at Seven Courthouse
                         Locations During 1995

                                             Trial  Nontrial
Location                                       use       use    No use
----------------------------------------  --------  --------  --------
Albuquerque\a                                  20%       24%       56%
Dallas                                          30        26        44
Las Cruces\a                                    18        25        57
Miami                                           32        25        43
San Diego                                       25        34        41
Santa Fe\a                                      13        35        52
Washington, D.C.                                27        34        39
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1:  Dallas, Miami, and San Diego reflect some miscellaneous
usage in the nontrial category by court personnel other than district
judges. 

Note 2:  If any time was recorded for the day, we considered the
courtroom used for the entire day.  Days when the courtroom was used
for both trial and nontrial activities were recorded as trial days. 

\a We developed courtroom usage information for these separate
locations because the judges told us that many of them routinely use
each other's courtrooms.  Appendix IV discusses our analysis of
overall usage at all three locations combined and separately. 

Source:  GAO analysis of data collected at seven courthouse locations

As shown in table 2, courtrooms were used more often for nontrial
purposes than they were for trials at all but two locations (Dallas
and Miami).  Furthermore, on most of the nontrial days, the
courtrooms were used for 2 hours or less, which, in our view, raises
a number of questions regarding the utilization of courtrooms.  Some
of these questions include: 

  Could some nontrial activities be scheduled to more fully utilize
     individual courtrooms on any given day? 

  Could some nontrial activities be carried out in smaller
     courtrooms, hearing rooms, conference rooms, or chambers? 

  Would it be feasible for some nontrial activities to be carried out
     without a courtroom by using video or audio technology? 

We recognize that some trial and nontrial activities demand
full-sized trial courtrooms that accommodate one or several
defendants and seat 12 jurors and 6 alternates.  For example, our
analysis of the total 1995 trial time at the seven courthouses showed
that 70 percent of the more than 4,000 trial days involved civil or
criminal jury trials.  On the other hand, many of the courtrooms in
the locations we visited were not used on many of the available days
in 1995, and the 30 percent of the remaining trial days involved
nonjury trials or contested proceedings that may not have had to take
place in a full-sized, jury box-equipped courtroom. 


--------------------
\10 The seventh location that we visited, Santa Fe, has only one
trial courtroom; therefore, we did not include it in our analysis of
how often courtrooms at each location were used simultaneously. 


      COURTROOM USAGE VARIES BY
      JUDGE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

At all locations we visited, most judges--both district and senior
judges--used the courtrooms assigned to them for trials and nontrial
activities.\11 The senior judges used courtrooms assigned to them
significantly less often than the district judges.  Specifically, the
senior judges used the courtrooms 38 percent of all days in 1995,
whereas the district judges averaged a 65 percent usage rate.  The
difference in trial days was also significant--senior judges averaged
17 percent for trial time as compared to 33 percent for district
judges.  Court officials told us that the lower senior judge usage
rates occurred primarily because many senior judges do not carry full
caseloads or do not carry as many criminal cases as the district
judges.  Table 3 compares courtroom usage for trial and nontrial
purposes and no use among the district and senior judges in the seven
courthouse locations. 



                                     Table 3
                     
                      Percentage of Days Courtrooms Were Not
                         Used or Were Used for Trials and
                     Nontrial Purposes by District and Senior
                        Judges at Six Courthouse Locations
                                   During 1995


                        Nontrial                            Nontrial
Location   Trial use         use      No use   Trial use         use      No use
--------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Dallas\a         33%         26%         41%         N/A         N/A         N/A
Miami\a           45          28          27         25%         20%         55%
San               37          34          29          17          26          57
 Diego\a
Albuquer          20          27          53          13           8          79
 que\b
Las               18          22          60          18          27          55
 Cruces\b
Washingt          33          41          26          16          22          62
 on,
 D.C.\c
Overall           33          32          35          17          21          62
 averages
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A - not applicable because no senior judges used courtrooms. 

\a Each district and senior judge in Dallas, Miami, and San Diego was
assigned his/her own courtroom.  These statistics measure district
and senior judges' usage of their assigned courtrooms in these
locations. 

\b The eight judges in New Mexico did not use their assigned
courtrooms exclusively.  Instead, they moved between the five
courtrooms in Albuquerque, two in Las Cruces, and one in Santa Fe. 
For this table, we assumed that four of the courtrooms in Albuquerque
were used predominantly by district judges and the other one by
senior judges; and that one Las Cruces courtroom was used by district
judges and the other courtroom was used by senior judges.  Santa Fe
was not included in this table because it had only one courtroom,
which was shared by both district and senior judges. 

\c There were 19 courtrooms in Washington, D.C.  Twelve of these
courtrooms were assigned to district judges and 7 were assigned to
senior judges.  During 1995, 22 district and senior judges used these
courtrooms.  These statistics show all district judge usage in the 12
courtrooms assigned to district judges and all senior judge usage at
the 7 courtrooms assigned to them. 

Source:  GAO analysis of data collected at six courthouse locations. 

We also found wide variances in how often individual district and
senior judges at each location used their courtrooms.  For example,
although the 41 district judges used their assigned courtrooms on
average 65 percent of the workdays, individual judges' utilization
rates ranged from a low of 32 percent to a high of 82 percent. 
Courtroom usage also varied widely for the 21 senior judges--the
lowest rate was 16 percent and the highest was 66 percent. 

Due to the absence of readily available criteria for measuring
effective courtroom utilization and the limited scope of our review,
we did not attempt to determine the number of courtrooms that are
actually needed.  However, our data suggest that there may be
opportunities for the judiciary to reduce costs by building fewer
trial courtrooms.  Whether opportunities to reduce costs could be
realized would depend on the potential impact or benefits and costs
of other options, such as instituting courtroom sharing practices;
changing the configuration of courtrooms by building a mix of
full-size and smaller, less expensive courtrooms or hearing rooms; or
holding meetings or proceedings in facilities other than trial
courtrooms, possibly by using audio or video technology.  In
commenting on a draft of this report, FJC noted that some federal
courts are now using two-way videoconferencing for some court
proceedings.  FJC also said that federal trial judges have used the
telephone for hearings or motions and other matters for over 20
years. 


--------------------
\11 In Washington, D.C., most of the 22 judges had assigned
courtrooms, but since there were only 19 trial courtrooms, 3 of the
judges did not have assigned courtrooms.  These three judges used one
of the other judges' assigned courtrooms when it was vacant.  In
Santa Fe, NM, two judges shared one trial courtroom; the other six
judges, who sat in Albuquerque and Las Cruces, had assigned
courtrooms.  However, these judges, as well as the ones in Santa Fe,
routinely held court in courtrooms other than those assigned to them. 


   JUDICIARY'S VIEWS ON CHANGES TO
   CURRENT USAGE PRACTICES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Our discussions with district judges in the locations we visited
indicated a courtroom for each judge is their preferred approach for
ensuring the availability of a courtroom to try cases and conduct
hearings as scheduled.  The judges generally stated that having the
courtroom available gives them the flexibility to manage their own
caseloads without having to worry about scheduling conflicts.  On the
other hand, some of the judges we spoke with acknowledged that
courtroom sharing is feasible.  In fact, some judges told us they are
currently sharing courtrooms. 

The Chief Judge of the District of New Mexico is a proponent of
courtroom sharing.  According to this judge, the district's judges
are currently sharing courtrooms.  In addition, the new courthouse
under construction in Albuquerque is to have fewer trial courtrooms
than judges, and none of the courtrooms are to be assigned to judges,
including magistrates.  The Chief Judge told us that judges in his
district can usually find a courtroom when one is needed.  He also
said that he believes that many of the proceedings that a judge does
in a courtroom do not necessarily need to be done in a full-sized
trial courtroom.  Our work showed that in several locations, some
judges held nontrial proceedings in chambers or in courtrooms or
hearing rooms smaller than the judiciary's standard trial-sized
courtroom. 

In Dallas, the four judges with whom we spoke told us they would
prefer to continue having their own courtrooms to assist them in
resolving cases more efficiently.  However, they said that having
fewer full-size trial courtrooms than judges is workable.  In their
opinion, hearing rooms could suffice for some criminal case functions
as well as for nonjury trials and motion hearings, if proper security
were provided. 

In Washington, D.C., three district judges did not have assigned
courtrooms for all months in 1995 because there were more judges than
courtrooms.  The judges with whom we spoke told us they would prefer
that each judge have an assigned courtroom to ensure more efficient
case management.  According to the Chief Judge, courtroom sharing was
implemented out of necessity.  Two of the judges who shared
courtrooms told us that even without assigned courtrooms, they always
had access to a courtroom when one was needed. 

Judges at several locations also told us that courtroom sharing by
senior judges, especially those who do not carry full caseloads,
would be easier than district judges sharing courtrooms.  For
example, the Chief Judge in San Diego said that courtroom sharing
among senior judges could work.  In fact, she told us that the new
courthouse annex will house chambers for senior judges who will not
have assigned courtrooms, but instead will share courtrooms. 

On the other hand, judges at several locations were opposed to
district judges sharing courtrooms.  The Chief Judge in San Diego
said that courtroom sharing by district judges would be very
difficult because of their heavy caseloads.  In this judge's opinion,
courtroom sharing by district judges could decrease their case
management efficiency because the availability of a courtroom is a
key factor in getting cases to settle prior to trial.  A district
judge who shares a courtroom with a senior judge in Santa Fe told us
that in her opinion courtroom sharing may be a good concept, but in
her experience it makes case scheduling more difficult.  She further
stated that courtroom sharing has required her to reschedule hearings
or conduct them in her chambers.  Furthermore, in Miami, the judges
with whom we met were adamantly opposed to having fewer courtrooms
than judges.  In their opinion, having fewer courtrooms than judges
would create a host of scheduling problems resulting in delays and
higher litigation costs for all parties. 

If the judiciary were to adopt some form of courtroom sharing, it may
need fewer trial courtrooms than the number of judges, provided that
judges could still effectively discharge their judicial
responsibilities.  Relatedly, a mix of full-sized and smaller, less
expensive courtrooms could be built if it is feasible to conduct
nontrial activities in courtrooms smaller than, and perhaps
configured differently from, the standard trial-sized courtroom. 
Some of these nontrial activities might be candidates for hearing
rooms, conference rooms, or chambers; or, if feasible, they could be
held in multiple locations using video and audio conferencing
technology, thereby eliminating the need for fully equipped
courtrooms. 

AOUSC believes that it would be premature to change the practice of
one courtroom per judge or to build courtrooms smaller than the
standard trial-sized courtroom solely on the basis of actual
courtroom utilization data.  It maintains that the courtroom is a
tool the judge uses to bring cases to resolution, and unimpeded
availability of a courtroom is critical to ensuring that justice be
dispensed and cases resolved in a timely manner.  According to AOUSC,
one important element of the one judge, one courtroom practice is
"latent" use whereby a judge is able to use an available courtroom
and the scheduling of that courtroom as leverage to encourage a case
to settle without going to trial.  AOUSC officials also believe that
when a case settles at the last minute--the day before or the day of
the scheduled trial--a judge often cannot immediately reschedule
another case.  AOUSC and the courts we visited were unable to provide
data on how often this occurs. 

According to AOUSC, another important element is the dynamic nature
of the justice system.  An AOUSC official said that judges cannot be
certain when, or even if, a specific case will go to trial or how
long the trial will take to complete; they cannot anticipate the
filing of motions that must be dealt with expeditiously; nor can the
judges predict when criminal defendants will be arrested and
arraigned.  Therefore, to effectively deal with all of these
situations, AOUSC believes that judges must have courtrooms
available, and the best way to ensure that courtrooms are available
is for each judge to have a courtroom.  In commenting on a draft of
this report, AOUSC cited as additional evidence that a recent survey
had been issued showing that state courts also have policies of
providing one courtroom for each judge.\12

The judiciary has not developed data to substantiate the degree to
which these factors affect the number of courtrooms needed.  Thus,
neither we nor others are able to quantify how scheduling issues or
the dynamic nature of the justice system might affect the number of
courtrooms needed.  For example, we were unable to determine how
often the availability of a courtroom causes civil litigants to
settle or criminal defendants and U.S.  Attorneys to plea bargain
before trial.  Judges and other court officials with whom we spoke
told us that many cases settle prior to trial after a firm trial date
is set.  Therefore, some judges schedule more than one case for trial
on the same day with the expectation that all cases will not go to
trial.  In fact, an AOUSC study\13 showed that most cases filed in
federal district courts in 1994 settled prior to trial--only 3.5
percent of all civil filings reached trial, and only 7.5 percent of
criminal filings went to trial. 

Our work was designed to examine actual courtroom usage at the
locations we visited.  We recognize that other factors are important
considerations in determining the need for courtrooms.  Information
on usage as well as other relevant factors can only enrich the
courtroom usage analysis and provide a better context for discussing
actions needed and identifying opportunities to achieve overall
efficiencies. 


--------------------
\12 Dan Hardenbergh, "Courtroom Sharing Practices Among State and
Local Trial Courts," September 13, 1996. 

\13 Leekley and Rule, op.  cit. 


   JUDICIARY HAS TAKEN SOME STEPS
   TO EXAMINE COURTROOM USE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

The judiciary is aware of growing concerns about the cost and use of
courtrooms and has made some attempts to measure and examine
courtroom use and its related policy issues.  It views these efforts
as a starting point in resolving the debate over the number of
courtrooms needed and the practice of providing one courtroom for
each judge.  For instance, until recently, neither GSA nor the
judiciary had readily available data on the total number of federal
courtrooms in buildings nationwide.  During the middle part of 1996,
AOUSC began surveying courts to not only determine the number of
courtrooms, but also to obtain information about those courtrooms,
such as jury box capacity and the general functionality of the space. 
AOUSC is currently verifying the information from this survey and
plans to use it to analyze space rental costs and compare and
contrast the amount of space occupied by the courts.  In commenting
on this report, AOUSC pointed out that the judiciary has efforts
under way to improve space management, control rent costs, improve
facility use, and examine the need for facilities with no permanently
assigned judge. 

The judiciary has also started an effort to explore a courtroom
sharing policy.  In March 1996, the Judicial Conference directed its
Court Administration and Case Management Committee and the
Bankruptcy, Magistrate Judges, and Judicial Branch Committees to
address the concept of courtroom sharing and its implications for
case management and administration.  According to AOUSC, the
Committees are to examine courtroom sharing for district and senior
judges and determine whether sharing would delay or otherwise
adversely affect case processing.  As part of this effort, each
judicial council was encouraged to submit a position on courtroom
sharing.  Furthermore, the Subcommittee on Space Management
Initiatives developed a survey instrument that was sent to all chief
judges to solicit input on courtroom sharing, and a consultant was
retained to survey state and local sharing practices.  In commenting
on a draft of this report, AOUSC said that the Judicial Conference
adopted a policy related to courtroom utilization during its March
1997 session.  The policy retains the practice of providing one
courtroom for each district judge, and it encourages each judicial
council\14 to examine opportunities for senior and visiting judges to
share courtrooms.  The policy, which was incorporated in the United
States Courts Design Guide, recognizes several factors, such as the
anticipated number and types of cases and the number of years judges
are likely to be located at a facility, that should be used to
evaluate whether courtroom sharing opportunities exist. 

One important aspect of the judiciary's efforts is focused on an
assessment of the impact of changing the ratio of courtrooms to
judges.  In March 1996, AOUSC released a report on the impact of
providing fewer than one courtroom per judgeship,\15 which examined
some of the potential operational issues associated with providing
fewer than one courtroom per judgeship.  The report used case studies
and the data provided by the courts and the judiciary to test the
applicability of mathematical models for predicting the impact of
fewer courtrooms than judges.  Among other things, the study said
that (1) case delays would increase when district judges are provided
fewer than one trial courtroom each, and (2) the cost savings
resulting from not building and maintaining a new courtroom must be
weighed against staff costs resulting from the additional scheduling
workload and the cost to litigants for delays imposed by additional
congestion.  The report recommended that the judiciary and GSA

  continue to build one courtroom for every district judgeship;

  consider the direct court construction costs and the indirect costs
     to litigants in determining the number of courtrooms to be built
     in new courthouses; and

  consider building more courtrooms than there are judges to avoid
     the greater costs of subsequently adding additional courtrooms
     for new judgeships. 

In June 1996, the Judicial Conference's Committee on Court
Administration and Case Management asked the Federal Judicial Center
(FJC), the education and research arm of the judiciary, to review the
March 1996 report.  In August 1996, FJC issued a detailed critique
that focused on many of the technical and nontechnical aspects of the
AOUSC report.  FJC praised the March 1996 report for pointing out
some of the limits of current data and the complexities of dealing
with matters like courtroom scheduling, but it reported that the
"limitations of the analysis, some of which are acknowledged in the
report, substantially limit its value as a basis for any policy
decision." FJC went on to discuss the major limitations that led it
to caution against relying on the recommendations.  For instance, FJC
found that the quantitative analyses used were not as sophisticated
as they could have been, and other more useful techniques might have
been developed; the objectives of the study were unclear, and the
findings and recommendations went beyond the data presented; and the
conclusions and their corresponding recommendations failed to
consider alternatives other than fully equipped courtrooms or
chambers where nontrial proceedings could be held. 

The Rand Institute for Civil Justice also expressed similar concerns
about the March 1996 AOUSC report.  In September 1996, the Institute
issued a project memorandum entitled Research on Courtroom Sharing. 
The memorandum, prepared under contract for AOUSC, was designed to
review the most important research on courtroom sharing and determine
whether additional research was needed.  The Institute found that
prior research is limited and does not resolve the one
courtroom-per-judge issue.  In fact, only one of five studies
discovered during Rand's research--the March 1996 report--had a
federal court focus, and none "satisfactorily resolve the
courtroom-per-judge issue and do not offer a solid empirical or
theoretical basis for federal court facilities decisionmaking."

Like FJC, the Institute also critiqued various aspects of the March
1996 report.  For example, the Institute questioned whether the
report fully explored some of the analytical techniques available and
suggested that the techniques employed might have been more fruitful
had they been further explored or more detailed data incorporated. 
In another instance, the Institute expressed concern about a key
assumption made in the report-- specifically, that additional staff,
a full-time scheduler, would be needed to manage courtroom scheduling
if judges were required to share fewer courtrooms.  In its critique,
the Institute stated that it could not assert with confidence that no
additional staff would be needed but found it difficult to accept the
assumption.  Furthermore, the Institute pointed out that even if a
scheduler were needed, fewer courtrooms might reduce the need for
other personnel, such as courtroom deputy clerks or security
personnel. 


--------------------
\14 Circuit judicial councils consist of the chief judge of each
circuit and an equal number of appellate and district judges.  The
councils manage caseloads and carry out related administrative
responsibilities. 

\15 Leekley and Rule, op.  cit. 


      RESEARCH GROUPS EMPHASIZE
      NEED FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

The growing debate over courtroom use and construction costs, coupled
with the limitations of available research on courtroom usage and
sharing issues, has prompted both FJC and Rand to suggest further
study on courtroom utilization and related operational issues.  For
example, FJC noted that "it seems likely the judicial branch can
expect the current pressure for economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness to continue and quite probably to intensify" and that
"expenditures for features beyond the most Spartan will have to be
defended with hard data." Furthermore, FJC proposed major changes to
the judiciary's regular data collection "so that the elements,
dynamics, and effects of court operations can be substantively
reported without assembling an ad hoc study each time a specific
aspect of the system is questioned and singled out for scrutiny." FJC
went on to suggest that there may be more to be learned by exploring
a more sophisticated use of the analytical techniques than those used
in the March 1996 study.  In addition, FJC proposed two other
possible research-based approaches for further examining this and
other policy issues facing the judiciary. 

First, FJC suggested that the judiciary do short-term research to
address the effect of abandoning the practice of assigning a
full-time, fully equipped courtroom for each district judge.  As part
of this research, 10 to 15 courts would be asked to continue to
manage actual operations in existing facilities, but they would
establish a staff to simulate operations as if there were fewer
courtrooms than those available.  The simulation would then allow
judges and staff to deal with scheduling issues and their resolution
and collect data and information on such things as the type of
activities planned by judges, scheduling and other problems that
arise under realistic conditions, and solutions to problems caused by
fewer courtrooms.  In FJC's view, such an approach would help the
judiciary (1) formulate criteria for allocating facilities for
various situations and circumstances; (2) build a database about the
scheduling and proceedings; and (3) show a good faith effort to
develop tools to cope with resource reduction or, if no tools are
available, help justify the one judge, one courtroom policy. 

Second, FJC suggested a longer term commitment to improvements in the
judiciary's data collection systems so that it could more fully
describe the activities of the courts.  In FJC's view, such an effort
would anticipate the types of information needed to build a database
that could respond to various questions and future scenarios, ranging
from the types of activities that need to be held in a courtroom to
the features of a case or proceeding that make a courtroom
environment essential. 

As mentioned earlier, Rand's Institute for Civil Justice also
emphasized the importance of further study on courtroom utilization
issues.  Specifically, the Institute stressed the need for the
judiciary to understand the effects of courtroom sharing on the
judicial system when making facility decisions and concluded that: 

     "Making decisions without such an understanding presents two
     kinds of risks.  On the one hand, reducing the
     courtroom-per-judge ratio may unacceptably impair the ability of
     the federal court system to meet its judicial obligations and
     may have other potentially negative effects.  On the other hand,
     not reducing the ratio may forego an opportunity to save
     taxpayer dollars."

The Institute suggested that the judiciary, Congress, AOUSC, and GSA
would be well served by a methodologically sound empirical study that
would require investigating the effects of varying the
courtroom-to-judge ratio.  Furthermore, the Institute proposed a
research process that would

  examine existing courtroom sharing systems and data, including data
     on the number and adequacy of courtrooms from AOUSC's recent
     space inventory; information on courtroom and event scheduling;
     actual usage data from JS-10 reports, real time observation, and
     other supplemental data sources; and information on intangible
     factors, such as latent usage--and develop a research design;

  use a sample of district courts to collect new data and develop
     analytical methods and research findings based on the results of
     stage 1, including, again, information on actual courtroom
     utilization as well as information on case management, budgets
     and expenditures, and practitioner views on the latent affects
     of courtroom availability; and

  incorporate and operationalize the results of data collection and
     analysis into AOUSC's facility planning process to extend the
     results to other districts and judges, and revise and update the
     analysis as necessary. 

The Institute also offered suggestions for selecting districts to
study as well as requirements for data to collect and reviewed
various analytical methods. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

The judiciary's process for administering justice is complex and
dynamic, and courtrooms are an integral part of making it work. 
Nonetheless, trial courtrooms are expensive to build, and unneeded
courtrooms would result in wasted taxpayer dollars.  The extent to
which courtrooms are utilized is one indication of need, but the
judiciary does not compile data on how often and for what purposes
courtrooms are actually used for trials or nontrial activities or
have analytically-based criteria for determining effective courtroom
utilization.  Furthermore, it has only recently begun to collect
information on the total number of courtrooms in the federal judicial
system and consider the possible impacts of providing fewer than one
trial courtroom per judge.  Therefore, the judiciary does not have
sufficient data to support its practice of providing one trial
courtroom for every district judge or for projecting how many new
courtrooms should be built. 

Our analyses of actual courtroom usage for trials and nontrial
activities at seven courthouse locations suggests there may be
opportunities to reduce costs by building fewer full-sized trial
courtrooms in the judiciary's multibillion-dollar courthouse
construction initiative.  In 1995, courtrooms at the locations we
visited were, on average, not used for trials or nontrial activities
about one-half of the days they were available, and they were used
for trials--a major factor in determining the size, configuration,
and overall cost of district courtrooms--less than one-third of the
days.  It is also important to recognize that on most nontrial days,
the courtrooms were used for 2 hours or less and that senior judges'
usage, on average, was substantially less than district judges'
usage.  Whether opportunities to reduce costs could be realized would
depend on the need for the one judge, one courtroom practice and the
potential impact or benefits and costs of other options. 

Other factors, such as latent use and scheduling issues, are
important considerations in determining the need for courtrooms. 
However, the judiciary has not developed data to substantiate the
degree to which these factors affect the number of courtrooms needed. 
The judiciary recognizes that the courtroom usage issue needs to be
examined in more depth and has made initial efforts to explore the
issue.  However, one of these efforts--a study commissioned by
AOUSC--was found to have major limitations by FJC and the Rand
Institute for Civil Justice.  Both FJC and Rand believe that more
research is needed to adequately address the courtroom usage issue,
and each had a number of ideas to get the process started. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

We recommend that the Director, AOUSC; the Director, FJC; and the
Judicial Conference's committees on (1) Court Administration and Case
Management and (2) Security, Space and Facilities design and
implement cost-effective research to fully examine the courtroom
usage issue to form a better basis for determining the number and
type of courtrooms needed, as well as whether each district judge
needs a dedicated courtroom.  This effort should include: 

  establishing criteria for determining effective courtroom
     utilization and a mechanism for collecting and analyzing data at
     a representative number of locations so that trends can be
     identified over time and better insights obtained on court
     activity and courtroom usage;

  designing and implementing a methodology for capturing and
     analyzing data on latent usage, courtroom scheduling, and other
     factors that may substantially affect the relationship between
     the availability of courtrooms and judges' ability to
     effectively administer justice;

  using these data and criteria to explore whether the one judge, one
     courtroom practice is needed to promote efficient courtroom
     management or whether other courtroom assignment alternatives
     exist; and

  establishing an action plan with time frames for implementing and
     overseeing these efforts. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

On April 7, 1997, AOUSC and FJC provided us with their written
comments on a draft of this report and on a related correspondence on
courtroom usage at four selected locations\16 (see apps.  VII and
VIII).  GSA's Public Buildings Service provided written comments on
April 11, 1997 (see app.  IX).  An overall description of the
comments and our evaluation are discussed below.  Additional
evaluations of some AOUSC and FJC comments are contained in apps. 
VII and VIII.  AOUSC and FJC also provided several technical comments
under separate cover that we considered in finalizing the report. 


--------------------
\16 COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION:  Information on the Use of District
Courtrooms at Selected Locations (GAO/GGD-97-59R, May 19, 1997). 


      COMMENTS FROM AOUSC
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

AOUSC said that it shared our interest in conserving the judiciary's
resources and that the judiciary is aggressively exploring
opportunities to save taxpayer dollars by examining and evaluating
space needs.  For example, it said that the Judicial Conference of
the United States--the policymaking body of the judiciary--recently
adopted a new policy related to courtroom utilization.  This policy
continues the practice of assigning each active district judge a
courtroom, but it encourages circuit judicial councils to examine
opportunities for senior and visiting judges to share courtrooms and
to develop a policy on sharing courtrooms by senior judges.  It cites
several factors that should be considered when assessing sharing
opportunities, such as the anticipated number and type of cases
expected and the number of years judges are likely to be located at a
facility. 

Given this initiative and the judiciary's continuing facilities
planning efforts to reduce overall space costs, such as controlling
rent costs and closing nonresident facilities, AOUSC requested that
we recast our recommendation.  Instead of recommending what it
thought could be a time-consuming and expensive study of the
courtroom usage issue, AOUSC requested that we recommend that the
Judicial Conference committees on Court Administration and Case
Management and Security, Space, and Facilities monitor the
implementation of the Judicial Conference's recent policy initiatives
on courtroom sharing and other facilities planning activities and
their impact on case management and effectiveness in reducing costs. 

We chose not to recast our recommendation as AOUSC requested.  We
agree that the Judicial Conference committees mentioned above should
be involved in any research on courtroom usage, and their involvement
was meant to be implicit in our recommendation.  To clarify this
point, we have changed the recommendation to specifically include
these committees.  We also agree that the judiciary should monitor
the implementation of the Judicial Conference's policy initiatives
and consider any outcomes as part of its overall evaluation of how to
use courthouse facilities most efficiently.  However, just monitoring
these initiatives would be an incomplete basis for making courtroom
construction decisions because it would not include information and
analysis on actual courtroom usage.  Without such information and
analysis, there will continue to be questions about how many
full-sized trial courtrooms are really needed.  Accordingly, we
continue to believe that further study of courtroom usage is
warranted. 

AOUSC also said that it appreciated our understanding that the
process for administering justice is complex and dynamic but that a
simple counting of the time a courtroom is actually occupied over a
short period cannot be the measure for the number of courtrooms
needed at a facility.  AOUSC acknowledged the draft report's
recognition that scheduled and latent uses of courtrooms are
important considerations in determining the number of courtrooms
needed.  AOUSC added that the courtroom occupancy rate of 65 percent
by active district judges cited in the report is only a fraction of
the real use of the courtroom, given that these latent use factors
were not part of the study.  AOUSC also highlighted the scope
limitations set forth in our objectives, scope, and methodology
section and reiterated that such limitations would not allow a
determination of the number of courtrooms needed. 

We agree with AOUSC that the process for administering justice is
complex and dynamic and that a measurement of actual courtroom usage
would not, by itself, be a sufficient basis for determining the
number of courtrooms in a facility.  We also agree that scheduled and
latent use are important components that should be considered when
analyzing courtroom usage.  However, as discussed in the report, the
judiciary lacks information on how significant an impact these
factors have on courtroom usage rates and how many courtrooms are
actually needed.  In the absence of such information, there is no way
to determine whether AOUSC's observation that if scheduled and latent
use were included, the 65 percent average usage rate for active
district judges would be much higher is correct.  As mentioned in our
report, individual active judges' courtroom utilization rates at the
locations we visited ranged from a low of 32 percent to a high of 82
percent--showing that individual usage patterns vary significantly. 
Furthermore, on most of the days active district judges used their
courtrooms for nontrial activities only, the courtrooms were used for
two hours or less. 

Although our available resources only allowed us to examine courtroom
usage at a limited number of locations, our work provides insight
into how often and for what purpose these courtrooms were actually
used, which is more information than the judiciary previously had. 
Further, each location we visited, with the exception of one, is
under consideration for project funding, according to the judiciary's
March 1996 5-year plan for courthouse construction.  Data on usage
patterns like we developed could aid in planning, designing, and
constructing each of these facilities.  We recognize that more study
is needed to adequately address the courtroom usage question and this
recognition helped form the basis for our conclusions and
recommendations. 

Finally, AOUSC stated that it hoped we understood the consequences of
providing Congress and the public with information that could lead to
unintended and erroneous conclusions.  In doing so, AOUSC
characterized our data as "selectively edited." While it is always
possible that someone will draw "unintended and erroneous"
conclusions from any data we present, we disagree strongly with such
a characterization of our data.  Our report clearly describes the
data we collected and identifies other relevant factors such as
latent use for which data were not available.  We also clearly state
the limitations of our methodology and acknowledge that additional
data and analysis would be needed to determine the number of
courtrooms needed.  Our recommendation addresses what we believe
needs to be done to conduct a comprehensive study.  At no time during
this work were any data "edited" in or out of our analysis. 


      COMMENTS FROM FJC
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.2

Many of FJC's comments were similar to those from AOUSC.  To reduce
redundancy, we are not replying separately but note those references
in app.  VIII.  In general, FJC acknowledged the report's recognition
that courtroom use policy is a complex matter involving many
variables, not all of which are subject to easy measurement.  FJC
also stated that it is willing and able to design research and
examine the courtroom usage issue as we recommended if requested to
do so from within the judiciary.  It said that such research should
be done in cooperation with the Judicial Conference and its
committees.  We agree and have modified the recommendation
accordingly. 


      COMMENTS FROM GSA
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.3

GSA provided updated figures on the universe of 200 locations the
judiciary identified as needing new projects.  GSA reported that of
the original 200 locations, GSA and the judiciary have now determined
that 160 locations require new construction.  In the remaining
locations, expansion of the courts' housing is no longer needed or
will be satisfied through leasing actions or building modernizations. 
Of the 160 locations, 40 projects have received approximately $3
billion in funding.  The remaining 120 projects will require an
estimated $5 billion.  GSA pointed out that most of the larger
projects are already well into the design and construction process. 
GSA said that in general, the remaining projects will be smaller
courthouses and will offer less flexibility for sharing courtrooms. 

We recognize that several larger projects are well under way and in
some cases completed.  Thus, the judiciary may have missed
opportunities to reduce costs by exploring different courtroom sizes
and courtroom sharing.  We do not see the basis for GSA's comment
that there is less flexibility to share courtrooms in the remaining
smaller projects.  First, as outlined in this report, the judiciary
does not compile data on how often and for what purposes courtrooms
are actually used or have criteria for determining how many and what
types of courtrooms are needed to effectively administer justice. 
GSA's statement that sharing opportunities may be limited at
remaining locations is therefore not based on any analysis of usage
patterns.  In fact, our work at smaller courthouses, such as
Albuquerque, showed some of the lower usage patterns.  Second,
several projects that remain are large.  The judiciary's March 1996
5-year plan for courthouse construction identifies eight projects
that are estimated to cost more than $100 million each.  According to
an AOUSC official, another project not in the plan--Los
Angeles--could cost over $200 million.  We issued a separate report
in December 1996 on the judiciary's 5-year plan.\17


--------------------
\17 COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION:  Improved 5-Year Plan Could Promote More
Informed Decisionmaking (GAO/GGD-97-27, Dec.  31, 1996). 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.4

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman, Judicial
Conference Committee on Security, Space, and Facilities; Director,
Administrative Office of the U.S.  Courts; Administrator of GSA;
Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested
congressional committees.  The major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix VII.  If you have any questions, please contact me
on (202) 512-8387. 

Sincerely yours

Bernard L.  Ungar
Director, Government Business
 Operations Issues


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

Our objectives were to (1) determine how often and for what purposes
district trial courtrooms were used and (2) examine what steps the
judiciary is taking to assess space and courtroom usage issues.  We
did our work at the Administrative Office of the U.S.  Courts (AOUSC)
and the General Services Administration (GSA) and at 7 courthouses
located in 5 of the 94 federal judicial districts--Dallas, TX, in the
Northern District of Texas; Miami, FL, in the Southern District of
Florida; San Diego, CA, in the Southern District of California;
Washington, D.C., in the District of the District of Columbia; and
Albuquerque, Las Cruces, and Santa Fe, NM, in the District of New
Mexico.  These 7 locations encompassed 65 district trial courtrooms. 

To meet our first objective, we met with AOUSC and GSA officials to
discuss the judiciary's practice of providing a trial courtroom for
each district judge, the number of courtrooms nationwide, and the
availability of data on courtroom usage.  From these meetings, we
learned that (1) AOUSC does not maintain systematic data on courtroom
usage for any location, (2) neither AOUSC nor GSA maintains an
inventory of district courtrooms by location or courthouse, and (3)
each court and each judge tends to manage cases and courtrooms
differently.  As a result, we had to analyze usage at individual
courthouses.  Many variables, such as judgeship vacancies or senior
judge workload, could have been used to select courthouse locations. 
However, we judgmentally selected the seven courthouse locations
considering the availability of staff and travel costs; geographic
dispersion; and courthouse size (small, medium, and large).  First,
we selected the Dallas courthouse because it gave us the opportunity
to explore the availability of courtroom usage data, develop data
collection techniques, and learn about the various aspects of
courtroom usage issues at a single, small-sized facility (eight
courtrooms and seven judges). 

Once we completed our work in Dallas, we selected Miami; San Diego;
Washington, D.C.; and Albuquerque for detailed review because each
had a new courthouse construction project that was either planned or
under way.  While making our selections, we took into account the
following: 

  Miami was considered a large courthouse with 18 trial courtrooms
     and 14 judges located in 3 separate buildings.  According to the
     judiciary's 5-year plan, Miami is slated for $26 million in site
     and design funding in fiscal year 1998 and $91.4 million in
     construction funding in fiscal year 2000. 

  San Diego was considered a medium-sized courthouse with 12 trial
     courtrooms and 11 judges.  According to the judiciary's 5 year
     courthouse construction plan, San Diego is scheduled for $18.2
     million in site funding in fiscal year 1998, $5.2 million in
     design funding in 2000, and $91.2 million in construction
     funding in fiscal year 2001. 

  Washington, D.C., was considered a large courthouse with 19 trial
     courtrooms and 22 judges.  The judiciary's construction plan
     lists Washington with $5.7 million in design funding for fiscal
     year 1998 and $98.2 million for construction funding in fiscal
     year 1999. 

  Albuquerque was considered a small courthouse since it had five
     courtrooms and five judges.  A new courthouse with an expected
     total project cost of over $50 million is currently under
     construction. 

We also selected Albuquerque because, during our interviews with GSA,
we learned that the judges in Albuquerque plan to share courtrooms
once the new courthouse is completed.  After we started our fieldwork
in Albuquerque, we learned that two judges sitting in Santa Fe share
one courtroom and that many of the judges in the District of New
Mexico customarily conduct trials and nontrial hearings not only in
the courtrooms in Albuquerque, but also in the courtroom in Santa Fe
and the two courtrooms in Las Cruces.\1 Therefore, we decided to
include these courthouses in our study. 

At all seven courthouse locations, we toured trial courtrooms and
discussed courtroom usage with judges, District Clerks, and other
court officials involved in scheduling and managing the use of the
courtrooms.  Specifically, we discussed how judges schedule cases and
use their courtrooms, the importance of having a courtroom available
when one is needed, and the possibility of district judges sharing
trial courtrooms.  We learned that the individual courts also do not
compile statistical data specifically on how often courtrooms are
used or for what purposes.  Thus, we had to compile and analyze data
from numerous sources.  Due to time constraints and the volume of
information and records at each location, we decided to limit the
scope of our detailed review to calendar year 1995. 

In doing our detailed audit work, we first reviewed Monthly Reports
of Trials and Other Court Activity (JS-10) compiled by the courts for
1995 pertaining to all district and senior judges assigned to the
locations we visited and Monthly Reports of Visiting Judge Activity
(JS-10A) compiled for 1995 pertaining to all visiting judges who
heard cases at these locations.  The JS-10 is supposed to be used to
report trials and nontrial proceedings\2 conducted by individual
district or senior judges on a monthly basis.  The judiciary requires
a JS-10 report for each active district judge each month even if the
judge did not have any trials or proceedings that particular month. 
A JS-10 is also required for any senior judge during each month that
the judge had court activity.  Likewise, the JS-10A is supposed to be
used to report the court time of visiting judges who are temporarily
assigned to a court and is supposed to be completed by the court
receiving the services.  Figures I.1 and I.2 are samples of the JS-10
and the JS-10A forms, respectively. 

   Figure I.1:  Sample JS-10 Form

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Statistics Manual, Vol.  I - Administrative Office of the
United States Courts. 

   Figure I.2:  Sample JS-10A Form

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Statistics Manual, Vol.  I - Administrative Office of the
United States Courts. 

According to AOUSC, the JS-10 was not designed to provide information
on how often courtrooms are used.  AOUSC officials said the JS-10 was
designed to provide information on (1) the number and length of
trials conducted in district courts and (2) the amount of time judges
spend on other court activities in which both sides of the
controversy were involved.  AOUSC officials acknowledge that the
JS-10 might allow for an approximation of courtroom use data in some
courts, but it does not provide a satisfactory substitute for actual
data on courtroom usage.  They contend that much of the time
courtrooms are in use does not appear on the JS-10 because it does
not capture such things as use by other types of judges and time when
the courtroom must be available to enforce trial schedules or foster
settlement of litigation. 

Court officials at all locations we visited told us that (1) active
district and senior district judges are the primary users of the
trial courtrooms and (2) the JS-10 is the best source for determining
how often and for what purposes the judges used their courtrooms. 
From page 1 of the JS-10 reports, we were able to determine the date
that each trial began and the total number of hours and separate days
that each judge spent on each trial during the month.  We were not,
however, able to determine from the JS-10 reports the specific days
that the judges used the courtrooms for trials.  Using page 2 of the
JS-10 reports, we determined the number of hours and the specific
days that each judge spent conducting nontrial proceedings, such as
arraignments/pleas, motions, pretrial hearings, and other
proceedings.  Although these proceedings may have been held in either
the courtrooms or the judges' chambers, we decided to consider all of
this time as courtroom usage time regardless of the location where
the event occurred. 

To determine the specific days that the courtrooms were used for
trials and because of AOUSC's concerns about the JS-10, we validated
the courtroom usage information taken from these reports by reviewing
various detailed records.  Since each of the courts we visited
maintain different daily records pertaining to the activities of the
judges, we had to tailor our detailed analyses for each location.  In
some cases, we analyzed the judges' and/or their courtroom deputies'
daily calendars.  These calendars provided the specific days and
types of proceedings that the judges conducted throughout the year. 
In other cases, we reviewed the minute orders or clerk's minutes
maintained by the courts.  Like the daily calendars, these documents
provided such details as the dates and type of hearings that were
conducted by each judge on a case-by-case basis.  Finally, for some
judges we had to review case histories from the Integrated Case
Management System, which is an automated docketing system that keeps
track of case events, such as trial and hearing dates. 

Our detailed analyses of the various daily records showed that the
JS-10 data was generally accurate, but when we found errors, we made
corrections before recording the data into our database of courtroom
usage.  Identifying errors with the JS-10 data was possible because
our detailed analyses allowed us to determine all the days that the
senior, district, and visiting judges held trials and nontrial
proceedings that could have taken place in a courtroom. 

Also, we reviewed court management statistics and other data, where
available, that showed the use of trial courtrooms by individuals
other than federal district judges.  This included use by magistrate
judges and administrative law judges as well as various ceremonial
uses of the courtrooms.  The miscellaneous usage was included in our
overall calculation of courtroom usage.  After examining all the
data, we credited each courtroom with a full day of usage for all
days that the records showed that there was any activity in it.  We
then determined the percentage of days that courtrooms were used by
comparing actual usage with the maximum number of federal workdays on
which the courtrooms could have been used (250) in 1995.  We
recognize that courtroom usage may be affected by a number of
variables, such as the number of judgeship vacancies in a district
and the number and workload of senior judges.  However, the purpose
of our work was to determine actual courtroom usage at the locations
visited, not analyze the reasons for the usage patterns we found.  We
did determine, on a location-by-location basis, how many courtrooms
were in use on every working day in 1995.  This analysis allowed us
to identify the number of days when at least one courtroom was vacant
at each location. 

To meet our second objective, we interviewed AOUSC and GSA officials
and reviewed various documents and studies pertaining to courtroom
usage.  Specifically, we reviewed AOUSC documents pertaining to its
nationwide inventory of federal courtrooms and initiatives to better
manage the judiciary's space.  We also reviewed, with the assistance
of an operations research consultant, the AOUSC-commissioned study on
the impact of providing fewer courtrooms than judgeships.\3
Additionally, we reviewed documents prepared by the Rand Institute
for Civil Justice and the Federal Judicial Center that examine
various aspects of courtroom usage, including courtroom sharing. 
Lastly, we interviewed an official from the National Center for State
Courts to discuss the concept of courtroom sharing. 

The results of our analysis on courtroom usage at the seven locations
visited cannot be projected across all federal district courts,
within the districts where they were located, or to the locations
visited in other time periods.  We did our work between January 1996
and April 1997, in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. 


--------------------
\1 According to the judiciary's 5 year construction plan, Las Cruces
is also slated for a new courthouse project.  This project is
scheduled to receive $3.5 million in site and design funds in fiscal
year 1999 and $20 million in construction funds in 2001. 

\2 According to the AOUSC, trials are defined as any contested
proceeding.  Nontrial activities include motion hearings,
arraignments, and other proceedings. 

\3 Leekley and Rule, op.  cit. 


DISTRICT COURTROOM USE IN DALLAS,
TEXAS
========================================================== Appendix II


   BACKGROUND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

In 1995, the U.  S.  District Court, Northern District of Texas was
authorized 12 judgeships, but it had two vacancies that remained open
at the time of our review.  In addition, there were three senior
judges in the district, but none sat in Dallas.  The average number
of trial days per judgeship was 76.  The district typically holds
court in four locations-- Amarillo, Dallas, Fort Worth, and
Lubbock--but in 1995 trials were also conducted in three other
locations--Abilene, San Angelo, and Wichita Falls.  Forty-six percent
of the more than 400 trials in the district were held in Dallas, and
this was the only location in the district included in our review. 

All eight trial courtrooms in Dallas are located in one building--the
Earle Cabell Federal Building and Courthouse.  In 1995, seven of
these courtrooms were assigned to and used predominantly by the seven
district judges sitting in Dallas.  Another courtroom was used
primarily by visiting judges.  According to the District Clerk, the
visiting judge courtroom has poor acoustics, which makes it difficult
to use for jury trials.  In addition to the trial courtrooms, there
is a small courtroom (approximately 1,000 square feet) in Dallas that
is used for hearings and other nontrial activities.  We did not
include this courtroom in our analysis because it is not a full-sized
trial courtroom.  A construction contract has been awarded for a
ninth trial courtroom, and a tenth courtroom is planned.  According
to a court official, the two new courtrooms are being constructed to
accommodate the two new district judges who have been appointed by
the President but not yet confirmed by the Senate. 


   OVERALL COURTROOM USAGE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

In 1995, seven district judges sitting in Dallas, one visiting judge
from another district, and one district judge from another location
within the Northern District of Texas were the primary users of eight
trial courtrooms in Dallas.  Overall, our analysis showed that the
eight courtrooms were used 56 percent of the total workdays in 1995,
or 1,131 days of the 2,000 possible days.  Trials accounted for 30
percent of the workdays, nontrial activities accounted for 26
percent, and the courtrooms were reported not used 44 percent of the
workdays.  On most of the nontrial days, courtrooms were used for 2
hours or less.  In addition some of the nontrial time--3 percent of
the total workdays--was for miscellaneous activities by
administrative law judges, magistrate judges, and judges from the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Figure II.1 illustrates overall
usage of the eight trial courtrooms in Dallas, Texas. 

   Figure II.1:  Overall Usage of
   Eight District Courtrooms in
   Dallas, TX, in 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of U.S.  District Court records. 

We did a frequency analysis of courtroom usage to determine how often
all eight courtrooms were used on the same day in 1995.  Our analysis
showed that all courtrooms were used on only 1 day--in other words,
on 249 days of 250 possible workdays in 1995, at least one courtroom
was vacant in Dallas. 


   COURTROOM USAGE BY DISTRICT
   JUDGES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

The seven district judges in Dallas in 1995 all had assigned
courtrooms.  The four judges with whom we spoke told us that they
sometimes use another judge's courtroom, but most trials and nontrial
proceedings are held in their own courtrooms.  They explained that
having assigned courtrooms is preferred because the current culture
assumes that each judge will have his or her own courtroom, and each
manages his or her caseload differently. 

As Figure II.2 illustrates, the district judges used their assigned
courtrooms, on average, 59 percent of the workdays in 1995.  Most of
this usage--33 percent of the total workdays--was for trials; whereas
26 percent of the days the courtrooms were used for nontrial
activities.  On most of the nontrial days, courtrooms were used for 2
hours or less.  Individual courtroom usage ranged from a low of 48
percent, or 120 days, to a high of 80 percent, or 199 days. 

   Figure II.2:  Use of Seven
   Courtrooms by District Judges
   in Dallas, TX, in 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of U.S.  District Court records. 


   COURTROOM SHARING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4

The judges we spoke with in Dallas said that they prefer to have
their own courtrooms to help them resolve cases more efficiently. 
They commented that the current culture assumes that each judge will
have his or her own courtroom.  Furthermore, they stated that
lawyers, litigants, and the public have become accustomed to this
arrangement, and any change could be difficult.  Nonetheless, the
judges said that having fewer trial courtrooms than district judges
is workable.  They said that if proper security were available,
hearing rooms could suffice for some criminal case functions as well
as for nonjury trials and motion hearings.  However, the judges said
that they and their staffs would have to coordinate more closely with
other judges to ensure that a trial courtroom was available when
needed. 


DISTRICT COURTROOM USE IN MIAMI,
FLORIDA
========================================================= Appendix III


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

The U.S.  District Court, Southern District of Florida, was
authorized 16 judgeships in 1995 but had 2 vacancies at the time of
our review.  In addition, there were six senior judges in the
district.  In 1995, the average trial days per judgeship was 143
days--80 percent higher than the national average.  The district
judges customarily hold court in five locations--Miami, Fort
Lauderdale, Fort Pierce, Key West, and West Palm Beach.  All five
sites have at least one trial courtroom.  Miami, with most of the
district's trial activity, has the most courtrooms and was the only
location in the district that we visited. 

In Miami, there are 3 separate buildings housing the 18 district
courtrooms that we reviewed.  The newest building is the Federal
Justice Building, constructed in 1993.  There are six trial
courtrooms in this building, and in 1995 all were assigned to
district or senior judges.  The U.S.  Courthouse, which was
constructed in 1983, has nine courtrooms with eight assigned to
district or senior judges and one left unassigned in 1995.  This
unassigned courtroom did not have a fully equipped and functional
chamber for the first half of the year, but it was still used by
visiting judges.  There are four trial courtrooms in the Old
Courthouse (the U.S.  Post Office and Courthouse).  This building,
built in the 1930s, has two courtrooms that have been vacant due to
air-conditioning and mildew problems since the Federal Justice
Building was occupied in 1993, according to the District Clerk.  The
Clerk also said that because the building lacks secure corridors, the
movement of prisoners to these two courtrooms can occur only in the
public corridors.  The Clerk explained that the other two courtrooms
in the Old Courthouse do not have attached chambers; therefore,
judges must travel public corridors to and from the bench. 
Consequently, these courtrooms are primarily used by visiting judges
for emergency hearings and administrative matters where security is
not an issue. 

The Clerk suggested that since two of the four courtrooms in the Old
Courthouse are not used that often for criminal trials, we should
exclude them from our analyses, leaving a total of 16 courtrooms
instead of 18.  However, because courtroom usage records showed that
all four courtrooms were used by visiting judges, we included these
courtrooms in our analyses.  We did not include the large ceremonial
courtroom located in the Old Courthouse in our analyses because it is
primarily used for ceremonial purposes. 

A new courthouse, which is estimated to cost over $100 million, is
planned for Miami.  The judiciary's 5 year courthouse construction
plan cites the Miami project as requiring $26 million in site and
design funding in fiscal year 1998 and $91.4 million in construction
funding in fiscal year 2000. 


   OVERALL COURTROOM USAGE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

In 1995, there were nine district judges and five senior judges
sitting in Miami.  The district had two vacant judgeships that year. 
In addition to these 14 judges, 6 visiting judges from other
districts and 5 judges from other locations within the district
conducted trials and held hearings in Miami in 1995.  Overall, the 18
courtrooms were used 57 percent of the workdays (2,581 days of the
total 4,500 workdays).  Trials accounted for 32 percent of the
workdays and nontrial proceedings accounted for 25 percent.  The
courtrooms were not used 43 percent of the days.  On most of the
nontrial days, courtrooms were used for 2 hours or less.  Some of the
nontrial time--5 percent of the total workdays--was for miscellaneous
purposes.  Miscellaneous use included proceedings conducted by
administrative law judges, naturalization and judicial swearing- in
ceremonies, jurist training, mock trials, and hearings conducted by
someone other than a federal district judge. 

If, as previously suggested by the District Clerk, we excluded two of
the four courtrooms in the Old Courthouse from our analysis, the
overall courtroom usage rate in Miami would have been 65 percent
instead of 57 percent.  Figure III.1 illustrates overall usage of the
18 district courtrooms in Miami during 1995. 

   Figure III.1:  Overall Usage of
   18 District Courtrooms in
   Miami, FL, in 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of U.S.  District Court records. 

We did a frequency analysis of courtroom usage to determine how often
all 18 courtrooms were used on the same day.  We found that all of
the courtrooms were never in use on the same day in 1995.  In fact,
there were no days when more than 15 courtrooms were used on the same
day.  In other words, on any given day in 1995, there were at least
three trial courtrooms reported as vacant. 


   COURTROOM USAGE BY DISTRICT
   JUDGES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3

The nine district judges sitting in Miami in 1995 all had assigned
courtrooms, which they used for most trials and nontrial activities. 
The five judges with whom we met told us that they sometimes borrow
another judge's courtroom, but most trials and nontrial proceedings
are held in their assigned courtrooms.  They explained that having
their own courtrooms is important because each judge manages his or
her caseload a little differently, and with an assigned courtroom
they always know when they can schedule a trial or hearing.  The
judges pointed out that having a courtroom available at all times is
important because they are frequently called upon to issue temporary
restraining orders, many of which must be completed immediately. 

As figure III.2 illustrates, the district judges used their nine
assigned courtrooms, on average, 73 percent of the workdays in 1995. 
Most of this usage--45 percent of the total workdays--was for trials;
whereas 28 percent of the days the courtrooms were used for nontrial
activities.  On most of the nontrial days, courtrooms were used for 2
hours or less.  Individually, the district judges' courtroom usage
ranged from a high of 80 percent, or 200 days, to a low of 59
percent, or 147 days. 

   Figure III.2:  Use of Nine
   Courtrooms by District Judges
   in Miami, FL, in 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of U.S.  District Court records. 


   COURTROOM USAGE BY SENIOR
   JUDGES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4

The five senior judges sitting in Miami in 1995 also had assigned
courtrooms, which they used for most trials and nontrial activities. 
Most of the senior judges carried reduced caseloads in 1995, but
according to the court officials with whom we spoke, all of them need
their own courtrooms to ensure that scheduled trials and hearings are
not delayed.  Our analysis showed that the senior judges used their
five courtrooms, on average, 45 percent of the workdays in 1995.  The
courtrooms were used 25 percent of the days for trials and 20 percent
for nontrial proceedings.  The senior judges used their courtrooms
considerably less than the district judges used their courtrooms. 
The senior judges' courtroom utilization rates varied from a high of
66 percent, or 164 days, to a low of 20 percent, or 50 days.  Figure
III.3 shows the use of five assigned courtrooms by senior judges in
Miami. 

   Figure III.3:  Use of Five
   Courtrooms by Senior Judges in
   Miami, FL, in 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of U.S.  District Court records. 


   COURTROOM SHARING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5

The judges in Miami are opposed to courtroom sharing if it means
having fewer trial courtrooms than judges.  The judges that we spoke
with said that they believe that every district judge and senior
judge in the Southern District of Florida should have his or her own
courtroom.  In their opinion, anything less would create a host of
scheduling problems, which would lead to an increase in case
continuances and delays and higher litigation costs for all parties. 
Furthermore, the district's official position is that each facility
occupied by resident judicial officers should also have a fully
functional visiting judge courtroom with a 14-person jury box and
furnished and equipped judge chambers. 


DISTRICT COURTROOM USE IN
ALBUQUERQUE, LAS CRUCES, AND SANTA
FE, NEW MEXICO
========================================================== Appendix IV


   BACKGROUND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1

The New Mexico District covers the entire state of New Mexico.  In
1995, the district was authorized five judgeships and had no
vacancies.  In addition to the five district judges, three senior
judges served in the district that year.  The district averaged 74
trial days per judgeship, which was slightly below the national
average.  Court is customarily held in three locations--Albuquerque,
Las Cruces, and Santa Fe.  There are five trial courtrooms located in
Albuquerque, two in Las Cruces, and one in Santa Fe.  A ninth
courtroom is located in Roswell, but there was no recorded use of
this courtroom by the district or senior judges in 1995.  According
to the District Clerk, the courtroom in Roswell is leased by the
District of New Mexico, but it is used almost exclusively by a judge
from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.  We did not visit or include
this courtroom in our analyses. 

In 1995, the five courtrooms in Albuquerque were assigned to four
district judges and one senior judge.  According to the District
Clerk, one of these courtrooms is not a full-size trial courtroom;
consequently, using it for jury trials is difficult.  The Clerk
suggested that because of its limitations we not include this
courtroom in our analyses of trial courtrooms.  However, we included
it because the courtroom was assigned to a senior judge who used it
for trial purposes in 1995, and it is still used for trials. 

One of the two courtrooms in Las Cruces was assigned to a senior
judge, and the other was used by other judges from within the
district who routinely hold court in Las Cruces.  The one trial
courtroom in Santa Fe was shared by a senior and a district judge. 
Despite having assigned courtrooms, many of the judges in the
District of New Mexico customarily hold trials and conduct nontrial
proceedings in courtrooms located in cities other than where they are
sitting.  Therefore, in the chief judge's opinion, the judges are
sharing courtrooms. 


   COURTROOM USAGE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2

Because the judges customarily hold trials and nontrial proceedings
in the three separate locations, we examined courtroom usage from two
perspectives--districtwide and each of the three locations
separately.  We found that the eight courtrooms in the District of
New Mexico were used by the eight judges from the district and four
visiting judges from other districts 44 percent of the total federal
workdays in 1995.  As illustrated in figure IV.1, the courtrooms were
used 19 percent of the days for trials and 25 percent for nontrial
proceedings.  The courtrooms were not used 56 percent of the
workdays.  Further, on most of the nontrial days, courtrooms were
used for 2 hours or less.  If, as suggested by the District Clerk, we
excluded the small courtroom in Albuquerque from our analyses, the
overall courtroom usage rate would increase to 51 percent. 

   Figure IV.1:  Overall Usage of
   Eight District Courtrooms in
   New Mexico in 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of U.S.  District Court records. 

The following discusses overall courtroom usage and usage by district
and senior judges at each of three locations.  Our analysis of
district and senior judges reflects their usage of all courtrooms
where they tried cases and held hearings, not just their usage of
courtrooms located where they were assigned.  This approach was taken
because the judges routinely hold court throughout the district. 


      ALBUQUERQUE COURTROOM USAGE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.1

During 1995, the five courtrooms in Albuquerque were used for trials
and nontrial proceedings 44 percent of the workdays.  Trials were
conducted on 20 percent of the workdays and nontrial proceedings on
24 percent of the days.  On most of the nontrial days, courtrooms
were used for 2 hours or less.  If we excluded the small courtroom
from our analyses, the Albuquerque courtroom usage rate would
increase to 55 percent. 

We did a frequency analysis of the courtroom usage in Albuquerque to
determine how often all five courtrooms were used on the same day. 
Our analysis found that all courtrooms were used on 7 of the 250
workdays in 1995.  In other words, on 243 days there was at least one
courtroom vacant in Albuquerque. 

We also examined how district and senior judges used the five
courtrooms in Albuquerque.  The district judges used the courtrooms
in Albuquerque considerably more often than the senior judges used
the courtrooms.  The district judges used the courtrooms a total of
474 days, or 47 percent of the workdays (20 percent for trials and 27
percent for nontrial purposes); the senior judges used the courtroom
53 days, or 21 percent of the workdays (13 percent for trials and 8
percent for nontrial purposes). 


      LAS CRUCES COURTROOM USAGE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.2

Although there is only one senior judge sitting in Las Cruces, two
trial courtrooms are located there.  According to the Chief Judge and
the District Clerk, one-half of the district's criminal caseload
originates from the Las Cruces area, and they anticipate that this
caseload will grow.  Therefore, a second courtroom is needed for the
judges who regularly travel from Albuquerque or Santa Fe to hear
cases in Las Cruces. 

Our analysis showed that the two courtrooms were used for trials and
nontrial activities 43 percent of the workdays in 1995.  Trial days
accounted for 18 percent of the days, and nontrial proceedings
accounted for 25 percent.  On most of the nontrial days, courtrooms
were used for 2 hours or less.  We also found that both courtrooms in
Las Cruces were used on 54 of the 250 workdays in 1995; or, stated
another way, a courtroom was vacant in Las Cruces on 196 days that
year. 

Unlike Albuquerque, we found that the senior judges recorded more
courtroom usage in Las Cruces than the district judges.  Our analysis
showed that the senior judges used the courtroom a total of 113 days,
or 45 percent of the workdays; the district judges' used the
courtroom 101 days, or 40 percent of the days. 


      SANTA FE COURTROOM USAGE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.3

As previously stated, a senior judge and a district judge share one
trial courtroom in Santa Fe.  In addition to these two judges, we
were told that a judge from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals who
sits in Santa Fe also uses this courtroom when he hears cases for the
district.  We discussed this sharing situation with the district
judge and two clerks involved in scheduling cases for trials and
other hearings.  These court officials told us that sometimes the
competing demands on the courtroom caused scheduling conflicts that
resulted in a few hearings being rescheduled or the district judge
being required to conduct hearings in chambers.  The district judge
told us that on a few occasions she had to travel to Albuquerque to
find a courtroom in which to conduct a hearing. 

The courtroom in Santa Fe was used for trials and nontrial
proceedings on 48 percent of the total workdays.  The courtroom was
used 13 percent of the total workdays for trials and 35 percent of
the total workdays for nontrial activities.  On most of the nontrial
days, the courtroom was used for 2 hours or less.  Our analysis of
courtroom usage in Santa Fe also showed that the courtroom was used
by district judges for trial and nontrial activities a total of 74
days, or 30 percent of the 250 workdays.  Senior judges used the
courtroom 40 days, or 16 percent of the workdays. 


   COURTROOM SHARING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3

The Chief Judge and several other court officials told us that
although the district has assigned courtrooms, the judges are now
sharing courtrooms because they travel between locations so
frequently to conduct trials and other hearings.  Their opinion is
bolstered by the fact that we identified five instances when four
judges recorded courtroom activities in two different locations in a
single day.  The Chief Judge also said he believes that courtroom
sharing will become more widespread in the future because the
judiciary will continue to grow, but its budgets are likely to
tighten.  He added that as budgets tighten, court administrators and
judges will be forced to choose between people or space. 

According to the Chief Judge, courtroom sharing will increase in the
District of New Mexico after the courthouse now under construction in
Albuquerque is completed.  In the new courthouse, he said he
envisions that courtrooms will not be assigned because the 15 judges'
chambers will be located on different floors from the 10 courtrooms. 
Initially, there will be as many courtrooms as there are judges, but
on the basis of the judiciary's 10-year projection, 15 judges (5
district, 4 seniors, and 6 magistrate judges) are expected to share
the 10 trial-sized courtrooms. 

The district judge who shares a courtroom in Santa Fe told us that
although sharing may be a good concept, it makes case scheduling more
complex and difficult.  She stated that courtroom sharing would
probably work best if senior judges, especially those who do not
carry criminal caseloads, shared courtrooms. 


DISTRICT COURTROOM USE IN SAN
DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
=========================================================== Appendix V


   BACKGROUND
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1

The U.S.  District Court, Southern District of California, was
authorized eight judgeships in 1995 but still had two vacancies in
August 1996.  In 1995, six district judges and five senior judges
tried cases and conducted hearings in the district.  The district
averaged 63 trial days per judgeship, which was slightly below the
national average. 

The District Clerk's office occupies space in the Edward J.  Schwartz
Federal Building located in San Diego.  The district judges and their
staffs are located in the adjacent Edward J.  Schwartz Courthouse,
where all trials were completed in the district's 12 trial courtrooms
during 1995.  Because of the anticipation of additional judges and
the growing space needs for the court, the judiciary asked GSA to
construct four additional trial courtrooms in the Edward J.  Schwartz
Courthouse.  These courtrooms became operational in early 1996. 
Additionally, the judiciary plans to construct a new courthouse annex
that will include additional trial courtrooms.  The new courthouse
annex is listed in the judiciary's 5 year courthouse construction
plan and is slated to receive $18.2 million in site funding in fiscal
year 1998, $5.2 million in design funding in fiscal year 2000, and
$91.  2 million for construction in fiscal year 2001. 


   OVERALL COURTROOM USAGE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2

In 1995, the six district judges and five senior judges sitting in
San Diego each had an assigned courtroom that they used for
conducting trials and nontrial proceedings.  The twelfth courtroom
was used primarily for trials and related activities by a magistrate
judge and seven visiting judges from other districts.  This courtroom
was previously assigned to another senior judge, but because of
illness he recorded court time on only 1 day in 1995. 

Our analysis in San Diego showed that the 12 courtrooms were used 59
percent of the workdays in 1995 and not used 41 percent of the days. 
On 25 percent of the workdays the courtrooms were used for trials,
and on 34 percent of the workdays they were used for nontrial
activities.  On most of the nontrial days, courtrooms were used for 2
hours or less.  Included in the nontrial activities were
miscellaneous activities, such as hearings conducted by magistrate
judges, grand jury proceedings, training, and meetings.  Figure V.1
shows overall usage for trial and nontrial activities and nonusage of
the 12 courtrooms in San Diego during 1995. 

   Figure V.1:  Overall Usage of
   12 District Courtrooms in San
   Diego, CA, in 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of U.S.  District Court records. 

We did a frequency analysis of courtroom usage to determine how often
all 12 courtrooms were used on the same day.  This analysis showed
that all the courtrooms were used on only 1 day in 1995.  In fact, on
97 percent, or 242, of the 250 workdays in 1995, there were at least
2 courtrooms reported as vacant. 


   COURTROOM USAGE BY DISTRICT
   JUDGES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3

We were told that the district judges use their courtrooms nearly
every day.  As a rule, the judges hear motions and other short
matters on Mondays, and on the remaining days they hold trials and
conduct longer hearings.  Our analysis found that the six district
judges used their assigned courtrooms, on average, 71 percent of the
workdays and had no reported use 29 percent of the days.  District
judges used their courtrooms for trials slightly more often than for
nontrial activities--trials consumed 37 percent of the workdays, and
nontrial activities represented 34 percent of the days.  On most
nontrial days, courtrooms were used for 2 hours or less.  The
district judges' courtroom usage ranged from 143 days, or 57 percent,
to 198 days, or 79 percent.  Figure V.2 illustrates the district
judges' average use of their courtrooms for trial and nontrial
purposes. 

   Figure V.2:  Use of Six
   Courtrooms by District Judges
   in San Diego, CA, in 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of U.S.  District Court records. 


   COURTROOM USAGE BY SENIOR
   JUDGES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4

The five senior judges also had assigned courtrooms that they used
for conducting trials and nontrial activities.  The senior judges
used their courtrooms considerably less than the district judges,
averaging 43 percent of the workdays.  The courtrooms were used 17
percent of the workdays for trials and 26 percent of the days for
nontrial activities.  Only one senior judge, who recorded 156 days of
usage, exceeded 50-percent usage.  The minimum usage was 59 days, or
24 percent.  Figure V.3 shows the senior judges' average usage of
their courtrooms for trials and nontrial purposes. 

   Figure V.3:  Use of Five
   Courtrooms by Senior Judges in
   San Diego, CA, in 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of U.S.  District Court records. 


   COURTROOM SHARING
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5

We were told by the Chief Judge and other court officials that
courtroom sharing by district judges would be very difficult because
of their heavy caseloads.  The Chief Judge said that sharing may
decrease the efficiency of the judiciary because the availability of
a courtroom is a key factor in getting cases to settle, along with an
available judge and a firm trial date.  The absence of one or more of
these factors, according to the Chief Judge, could hamper the
settlement of cases and increase case backlogs.  She also stated that
sharing could have consequences further down the judicial process,
affecting marshals, jail staff, juries, and other people involved. 
This is because sharing might necessitate longer days in court, thus
requiring longer or additional shifts for these personnel. 
Ultimately, she said, the cost savings from having fewer courtrooms
than judges may be more than offset by other costs imposed on the
system. 

The court officials with whom we met did say that courtroom sharing
could be possible among the senior judges.  In fact, the Chief Judge
said there are plans for three senior judges to share a courtroom
when a senior judges' suite is constructed in the current courthouse. 
She added that if necessary, these judges would also use other
available assigned courtrooms.  Also, she stated that the district
will be in a sharing mode when the vacant judgeships are filled and
new judgeships are assigned, as they will then have more district
judges than courtrooms. 


DISTRICT COURTROOM USE IN
WASHINGTON, D.C. 
========================================================== Appendix VI


   BACKGROUND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:1

The U.S.  District Court for the District of Columbia is located in
Washington, D.C.  The district was authorized 15 judgeships but had 3
vacancies at the time of our review.  At the start of 1995, the
district had 15 district judges and 7 senior judges.  In July and
August 1995, two of the district judges took senior status.  Also, in
August 1995, one of the senior judges died.  Thus, by mid-August, the
court had 13 district judges and 8 senior judges.  The district
averaged 80 trial days per judgeship in 1995, which was equal to the
national average. 

The district holds court in one location, the United States
Courthouse in Washington, D.C.  This building contains 19 trial
courtrooms plus 1 larger ceremonial courtroom.  Because the district
had more judges than trial courtrooms, up to three district judges
did not have their own assigned courtrooms during 1995.  Instead,
these judges used courtrooms assigned to other judges when they were
available.  Construction of a new courthouse annex is planned in
Washington, D.C.  The judiciary's 5 year courthouse construction plan
calls for this project to receive $5.7 million in design funding in
fiscal year 1998 and $98.2 million in construction funding in fiscal
year 1999. 


   OVERALL COURTROOM USAGE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:2

In 1995, a total of 22 district and senior judges used the district's
19 trial courtrooms.  These courtrooms were used for trials and
nontrial activities on 61 percent of the workdays.  The courtrooms
were used 27 percent of the workdays for trials, 34 percent for
nontrial activities, and they were not used 39 percent of the days. 
On most of the nontrial days, courtrooms were used for 2 hours or
less.  Figure VI.1 illustrates overall usage of the 19 trial
courtrooms in Washington, D.C., during 1995. 

Not included in Figure VI.1 is the use of the district's ceremonial
courtroom.  This courtroom was not assigned to a particular judge,
but rather was used by judges primarily for naturalization
ceremonies, attorney admission ceremonies, and for trials and related
activities that required additional seating and space.  During 1995,
the ceremonial courtroom was used on 80 days, or 32 percent of the
total workdays.  On 44 days, the courtroom was used for trial and
related activities.  The remaining 36 days were for miscellaneous
uses by court and other personnel, such as educational institutions'
mock trials, school tours, other training events, and meetings. 

   Figure VI.1:  Overall Usage of
   19 District Courtrooms in
   Washington, D.C., in 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of U.S.  District Court records. 

We also did a frequency analysis to determine how often all 19 trial
courtrooms were used on the same day.  This analysis showed that all
of the courtrooms were never used on the same workday in 1995.  In
fact, on over 95 percent of the workdays, or 239 days, there were at
least three courtrooms reported as vacant. 


   COURTROOM USAGE BY DISTRICT
   JUDGES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:3

In 1995, the district had 13 district judges for the entire year and
2 others who took senior status during the summer of that year.  In
determining district judge use of the courtrooms, we prorated the
courtroom use of the two judges who took senior status during the
year based on their time in district judge status. 

Figure VI.2 shows that district judges' average use of the courtrooms
was about 74 percent of the workdays in 1995.  Thirty-three percent
of the days the courtrooms were used for trials, 41 percent of the
days they were used for nontrial activities, and 26 percent of the
days the courtrooms were not used.  On most of the nontrial days,
courtrooms were used for 2 hours or less.  The number of days that
district judges used a courtroom during 1995 ranged from 80 days, or
32 percent, to 205 days, or 82 percent of the workdays. 

   Figure VI.2:  Use of Courtrooms
   by District Judges in
   Washington, D.C., in 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of U.S.  District Court records. 


   COURTROOM USAGE BY SENIOR
   JUDGES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:4

In 1995, the district had six senior judges for the entire year, two
district judges who took senior status during the year, and one
senior judge who died.  Thus, the district ended the year with eight
senior judges.  In determining the senior judges' use of the
courtrooms, we prorated the usage time of the two judges who took
senior status during the year based on the number of days they were
in senior status and included all of the courtroom time of the senior
judge who died during the year. 

Figure VI.3 shows that senior judges' average use of the courtrooms
was about 38 percent-- considerably less than district judges'
average use.  Nontrial activities accounted for the most usage at 22
percent of the workdays; whereas trial usage was only 16 percent and
the courtrooms were not used 62 percent of the workdays.  The number
of days that senior judges used a courtroom ranged from 40 days, or
16 percent, to 128 days, or 51 percent of workdays in 1995. 

   Figure VI.3:  Use of Courtrooms
   by Senior Judges in Washington,
   D.C., in 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of U.S.  District Court records. 


   COURTROOM SHARING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:5

The Chief Judge, two district judges who had tried cases without
assigned courtrooms, and other court officials told us that courtroom
sharing is possible, as evidenced by their actual experiences.  The
Chief Judge stated that sharing had been implemented out of necessity
when the number of judges exceeded available trial courtrooms. 
However, the judges said that they preferred that each judge have a
courtroom to ensure more efficient and effective case management. 
The Chief Judge said that he was concerned that sharing on a larger
scale might adversely affect the flexibility that the judges have in
individually managing their cases and setting case schedules. 

The judges stated that in addition to the availability of a judge and
maintaining firm trial dates, the availability of a courtroom has
been another key element in achieving case settlements and closures
rather than proceeding with actual trials.  None of the judges that
we spoke with could recall any instance when a judge without an
assigned courtroom had not been able to find an available courtroom
when needed.  Courtroom sharing, they noted, had caused some
inconveniences, such as having to move trial exhibits and
participants' materials from one courtroom to another or having
delays because jurors or participants had gone to the wrong
courtroom.  They also indicated that the proximity of their chambers
to an unassigned courtroom could be a problem because they were not
always able to quickly return to chambers to handle other business
during short court recesses. 

One judge noted that the successful implementation of courtroom
sharing had been due in part to the large number of trial courtrooms
in the courthouse.  Sharing, he said, in smaller courthouses might be
more difficult.  Further, the judges interviewed said that sharing is
more feasible among senior judges, particularly those who carry
smaller caseloads. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VII
COMMENTS FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS
========================================================== Appendix VI



(See figure in printed edition.)

See p.  25. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

See p.  25. 

and pp.  17-19,
respectively.
Modified text.  See
p.  17 and GAO
comment 1. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

pp.  17-19, respectively.
Modified text.  See
pp.  17-18 and GAO comment 2. 

pp.  17-19, respectively,
See GAO comment 3. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

respectively,
Modified text.
See p.  16
and GAO comment 4. 

p.  7
and GAO comment 5. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

See GAO comment 6. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

See GAO comment 7. 

Modified text.  See
pp.  4, 16, and 22;
See GAO comment 8. 



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)

Modified text.  See
p.  12 and GAO comment 9. 

See GAO comment 10. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

See GAO comment 11. 

Modified text.
See p.  14
and GAO comment 12. 



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)

Modified text.  See
pp.  9 and 41; see
GAO comment 16. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

See GAO comment 17. 



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



   GAO COMMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:6

1.  AOUSC observed that the judiciary had undertaken a comprehensive
plan to improve space management and indicated that our report should
recognize those actions.  Although our objectives were to evaluate
courtroom usage rather than assess the judiciary's space management
program, we have noted the judiciary's space management activity in
the report. 

2.  AOUSC noted that the judiciary has recently adopted a policy
change that includes consideration by judicial councils of the
feasibility of courtroom sharing for senior and visiting judges.  We
have included that information in the report.  However, AOUSC
acknowledges that the policy reaffirms the practice of providing one
courtroom for each active judge.  Accordingly, we believe the
additional analyses we recommend are still necessary to fully
evaluate the need for courtrooms. 

3.  AOUSC noted that the Judicial Conference has adopted criteria for
judicial council's to consider in establishing or closing nonresident
facilities, that is facilities that do not have permanently assigned
judges.  We did not include detailed information about this
initiative in our report because the use of nonresident facilities
was outside the scope of our review. 

4.  AOUSC cited a survey report that indicated that states also have
policies of providing one trial courtroom for each judge and
suggested that we include this information in our report.  Although
state court activities were outside the scope of our review, we did
discuss courtroom usage issues with a representative of the National
Center for State Courts, who was unaware of any completed research on
the issue at the time of our meeting.  As a result, we had not
included information about state courts in our draft report. 
However, we have added information to the report concerning the
September 1996 study referred to by AOUSC. 

5.  AOUSC stated that the cost estimates used to provide background
information about the significance of the issue of courtroom use were
misleading given that other factors--such as congressional restraint
or availability of senior judges--would influence actual costs in the
future and recommended that the discussion of cost be deleted.  It
was not our objective to project future courtroom costs in this
report.  However, we believed that some information about possible
costs was important to provide an understanding of the significance
of the assignment and construction of courtrooms.  We recognized that
costs vary by location and selected the estimate for Washington,
D.C., because it is used by GSA as a benchmark and because it was
representative of the lower part of the overall range of costs; thus,
it was intentionally conservative.  AOUSC also stated that our use of
the judiciary's "Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts" to estimate
the number of judgeships needed in the future as a basis for an
overall estimate of potential costs was misleading because it is
unlikely that Congress would authorize the number of judgeships
called for in that plan.  Although we recognize that many factors
will have an effect on the actual costs of building courtrooms in the
future, the judiciary's estimates of the need for judges was the best
available estimate at the time of our study. 

6.  AOUSC cited the RAND study of courtroom utilization, in
particular its observations about the complexity and importance of
any research on courtroom usage.  We discuss the RAND study on pages
19-21 of our report and agree with its observations that many factors
and trade-offs must be analyzed to fully evaluate courtroom
utilization.  The need for a comprehensive study of this sort is the
principal basis for our recommendation. 

7.  AOUSC noted that until the study it commissioned (the Leekley and
Rule study discussed on page 18 of our report), there was no research
available on the impact of changing the ratio of courtrooms to
judges, and it suggested that we further emphasize the importance of
this study in our report.  We agree that research on this issue has
been limited.  However, our and others' assessments of the Leekley
and Rule study indicated that it has limited value in meeting its
objective of determining the ratio of courtrooms to judges.  We
believe we have provided sufficient information about the study for
readers to understand its contribution to debate on this issue. 

8.  AOUSC stated that court scheduling data were offered to our staff
during this work but were not considered.  We acknowledge that some
judges in some locations maintained data on how their courtrooms were
scheduled (as opposed to used), and they discussed those data with
us.  However, the statement that the data were not considered is
incorrect.  We did consider whether such data could be used in our
methodology but concluded that it could not be used for several
reasons, including (1) such data were not available for all judges in
all locations; and (2) even if such data had been available,
translating them into estimates of courtroom usage was
methodologically difficult because, for example, scheduling multiple
events at the same time was a common practice.  We acknowledge in the
report that other factors, such as latent use and scheduling, should
be considered in any comprehensive study of courtroom usage, and we
have revised our report to clarify that such data exist in some
locations. 

9.  AOUSC noted that courtrooms are either necessary or the best
venue for certain pre-trial activities and suggested that our report
acknowledge this.  The draft report stated that nontrial (including
pre-trial) activities could potentially be held in some cases (and
our work showed that they sometimes were) in hearing rooms,
conference rooms, or chambers.  However, we have added language to
the report to make explicit that in some cases trial courtrooms may
be the best venue for such activities. 

10.  AOUSC observed that security issues might arise if conference
rooms were used instead of courtrooms in criminal cases and that in
some cases appropriate space must be provided for press and the
public who have a right to attend many proceedings.  We agree that
security is an important issue and that many other factors need to be
considered in determining the number of courtrooms that are needed. 
We believe our recommendation for a comprehensive study of courtroom
usage should include all of these relevant factors. 

11.  AOUSC expressed concern that if varied sizes of courtrooms are
built to reduce costs rather than one standard sized courtroom for
each judge, other costs will be incurred because of complications of
coordinated scheduling or possible delays in proceedings if a
courtroom of appropriate size is not available.  We agree that
consideration should be given to other costs that could arise from
alternatives to the standard-sized-courtroom-for-each-judge practice. 
Our recommendation specifically includes consideration of a wide
range of factors.  We note, however, that judges we met with during
this review told us that hearing rooms were used for some nontrial
activities or even criminal case functions when security was
provided.  Additional information as contemplated in our
recommendation is necessary to assess the likelihood that such
additional costs would occur. 

12.  AOUSC noted that videoconferencing is not a substitute for a
fully equipped courtroom, and suggested we eliminate consideration of
such alternatives from our discussion.  We did not suggest that
videoconferencing be used when a full-sized courtroom is needed. 
However, enhanced technology such as videoconferencing may be
effective for certain proceedings, and thus reduce the need for as
many full-sized courtrooms or other space.  FJC, in its comments on
the draft of this report, said that some federal courts are using
two-way videoconferencing for some civil proceedings and that federal
judges have used the telephone for hearing motions and other matters
for more than 20 years.  We believe that this technology could be one
tool to help the judiciary use its limited resources effectively. 

13.  AOUSC pointed out that money is saved when a case is settled
before trial and that such savings should be considered in evaluating
the need for courtrooms.  We agree that savings are derived when
cases settle before trial, and the role courtrooms play in achieving
them should be part of the judiciary's consideration of how many and
what types of courtrooms are needed.  Currently, the judiciary does
not make this type of comparison. 

14.  AOUSC stated that our audit team should conduct the promised
exit conferences with each chief judge whose court was studied, and
the judges' views should be included in our report.  Our staff did
meet with the chief judges or their designees at all locations
visited to obtain their views on the importance of an available
courtroom and on courtroom sharing.  We summarized those views in our
report.  We also shared and discussed the data we developed at each
location with the judges and other court officials with one
exception, Denver.  In Denver, we collected data on courtroom usage
that are presented in a separate letter on courtroom usage in
locations additional to those discussed in this report, and we issued
that data in response to another congressional request
(GAO/GGD-97-59R).  In that case, court officials were unable to
schedule an exit conference at the time we completed our detailed
field work (in February 1997), although we did provide the court with
a copy of our analysis and findings.  Since then we have made
numerous requests to arrange an exit conference.  We discussed this
problem with AOUSC officials during our exit conference with them on
March 21, 1997, and those officials told us that the chief judge and
district clerk were probably too busy with the Oklahoma City bombing
trial to return our calls. 

AOUSC officials also said that several judges stated that the audit
team's members' minds were made up before they entered the court and
they were not interested in hearing how to get the complete picture. 
AOUSC also noted that our audit team did not follow up on a
suggestion to interview a particular judge who had significant
experience with courtroom sharing in state court.  AOUSC did not
provide any specific information that would permit us to comment
further on those observations.  However, our work was conducted in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards include rigorous processes, procedures, and internal
controls to ensure objective analysis and reporting of our findings. 
The reviews inherent in those processes have provided no evidence
that the work was not conducted in accordance with our standards.  We
acknowledge that we were unable to talk to every judge or other
official suggested to us in the course of our review, but we note
that we did meet with a number of judges and others who had
experience or views on courtroom sharing, both positive and negative. 

15.  AOUSC observed that obtaining the views of other court users
such as U.S.  attorneys would have provided additional information
about courtroom sharing.  Our objective for this review was to obtain
information about how often and for what purposes courtrooms have
been used in selected locations and examine steps the judiciary has
taken to assess space and courtroom usage issues.  Accordingly, the
views of other possible participants in courtroom activities were
outside the scope of our review.  However, we agree that the views of
such participants could be important in a comprehensive assessment of
courtroom usage as we recommend. 

16.  AOUSC stated that the data collected should not be used to
project courtroom usage for other time periods, even in the courts
that were studied.  AOUSC offered some additional data concerning
districtwide trial rates as evidence that our data may not be
representative.  We agree that our data cannot be used to project
usage for the courts generally or for the locations or districts we
visited, and we have added language to our discussion of methodology
to clarify that point.  For a variety of reasons, we do not believe
that the trial rate data provided by AOUSC is a definitive indicator
of courtroom usage.  For example, because some trials can take a few
hours to complete while others take months, the relationship between
the number of trials and courtroom usage is uncertain. 

17.  AOUSC stated that the courtrooms that were not usable should not
have been included in our data, and in particular we should have
deleted three specific courtrooms in Miami from our analysis because
they were not assigned to a full-time judge.  Our analysis included
only the courtrooms assigned to or used for trials or other legal
proceedings by active and senior district judges and by visiting
judges.  Thus, we did not include unused or unusable courtrooms, and
we adjusted our data where appropriate to take into consideration
courtrooms that were temporarily out of service.  The three
unassigned courtrooms in Miami were included in our analyses because
they were used for trials and other proceedings by visiting judges
from other locations. 

18.  AOUSC stated that vacant judgeships should not have been counted
in the courtroom usage data we reported.  We did not do so.  Our
analysis included information on the usage of district trial
courtrooms at each location by the judges who used those courtrooms. 
We provided information on judicial vacancies as background to inform
the reader that some courts had fewer judges than they were
authorized. 

19.  AOUSC observed that our analysis contained "distortions" because
of our inclusion of courtroom usage in districts where judges
routinely heard cases in courtrooms located in different cities many
miles apart, such as New Mexico and Miami (where judges hear cases in
Key West).  We do not agree that the data we reported for New Mexico
or Miami were distorted.  We recognized that these situations were
different from the other locations we reviewed.  In the case of New
Mexico, we presented courtroom usage data from two
perspectives--districtwide and for each of the three locations we
visited.  (Another location--Roswell--was not included because there
was no district judge sitting there, and district judges did not use
that courtroom in 1995.) AOUSC officials told us that they believed
that when judges were holding court in other locations, we should not
have considered their assigned courtroom available for use.  However,
Miami court officials told us that when Miami district judges visited
other locations in the district, their assigned courtrooms were
available for use by other judges.  Thus, we included in our analyses
the use of the Miami courtrooms by any judge. 

20.  AOUSC stated that 250 days is an unrealistic number of days to
use as the number of days court could be held.  In particular, AOUSC
stated that there are days when all judges in a district are required
to be in districtwide meetings.  We recognize that there are reasons,
such as districtwide meetings or other factors such as illness or
vacations, that may result in judges not being available to use a
courtroom.  In fact, AOUSC could consider such factors when deciding
how many full-sized courtrooms are needed.  We focused our work on
how often and for what purposes courtrooms were used, not the reasons
why judges did not use them.  In the absence of any other estimate of
available days, the number of federal workdays in 1995--250--seemed
like a reasonable starting point for such an analysis. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VIII
COMMENTS FROM THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL
CENTER
========================================================== Appendix VI

Modified text.
See pp.  22-23. 

See p.  26. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

See pp.  17-18. 

Modified text.
See pp.  8-9, 32, and 41. 

Modified text.  See
p.  7 and app.  VII,
GAO comment 5. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

21, respectively.
See GAO comment 1. 

p.  11 and app.  VII,
GAO comment 4. 

See p.  12. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

Modified text.  See
p.  12.
Now on p.  22. 

Now on p.  12. 

Modified text.
See p.  14 and
app.  VII, GAO comment 12. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

See app.  VII, GAO comment 2;
and app.  VIII, GAO comment 4. 



(See figure in printed edition.)



   GAO COMMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:7

A number of FJC's comments were essentially the same as those
provided by AOUSC.  To avoid redundancy, we do not comment if the
matter was addressed in our response to AOUSC's comments. 

1.  FJC observed that many parties--not just judges--influence
courtroom use.  We agree that judges do not have total control over
the process and that numerous factors can and do influence it. 
However, as discussed in our report, the judiciary has not analyzed
how these factors affect courtroom usage, compiled data on how often
and for what purposes courtrooms are actually used, or developed
criteria based on such analyses for determining how many and what
types of courtrooms are needed to effectively administer justice. 
Without these basic data and criteria, the judiciary is not in a good
position to fully assess how other factors, such as national and
local changes in prosecution policy, influence judges' control and
courtroom usage. 

2.  FJC points out that courtrooms not in use on a specific day may
not be available for other needs such as a longer trial.  We
recognize that when some courtrooms are available on a particular
day, they may not always be suitable for meeting all court needs.  On
the other hand, as mentioned in the report, on most nontrial days,
courtrooms were used for 2 hours or less.  Therefore, opportunities
may exist to use courtrooms that become available unexpectedly to
more efficiently manage those activities that take up shorter blocks
of time.  Further analyses could include exploring how
different-sized blocks of unused courtroom time could efficiently
accommodate different types of court activities.  We agree with FJC
that the judiciary currently lacks data to adequately analyze this
possible use.  Our data on unused days offer useful insights that
could be a starting point for a thorough examination of courtroom
usage patterns and, relatedly, courtroom needs. 

3.  FJC noted that the use of courtrooms by other parties, such as
magistrate judges, further complicates analysis of courtroom usage. 
We agree this could add to the complexity of the analysis.  However,
our methodology centered on trying to determine how each district
courtroom was used.  In general, we found that magistrate judges at
the locations we visited typically conducted proceedings in their own
courtrooms or chambers.  In the few instances where magistrate judges
used a district courtroom, we verified this type of use with court
personnel and recorded it as district courtroom use. 

Essentially, we recorded magistrate judges' trial and nontrial
activities conducted in district courtrooms using the same criteria
that we used for district judges. 

4.  FJC pointed out that not all senior judges carry reduced
workloads and thus this factor cannot be assumed to reduce the need
for courtrooms.  We recognize that senior judges can carry full
caseloads and agree this should be taken into account as part of any
attempt to change how they are assigned courtrooms.  However, our
data clearly show that on average, senior judges used their
courtrooms significantly less frequently than active judges. 
Further, as mentioned in the report, judges we talked to said that if
changes are to occur related to assigning courtrooms, senior judges
are the most likely candidates for courtroom sharing.  Also,
according to AOUSC's comments, the Judicial Conference recently
adopted a policy change related to courtroom use that included an
effort to explore courtroom sharing among senior judges. 

5.  FJC said it was unclear whether our observation that the
judiciary does not have data to substantiate the extent to which
latent use affects courtroom use implied that the judiciary's
standard statistical data system should be revamped to include such
information, which FJC said would be impractical and undesirable.  We
did not intend to imply that the judiciary's lack of data in this
regard should be remedied by changing the reporting system.  We
believe there could be alternative methodologies for gathering data
on latent use and other factors so that the impact of these factors
can be assessed.  We believe that the methodology for capturing this
information should be left to the discretion of the judiciary or the
study group doing the research. 

6.  FJC expressed concern that we avoid the implication that
courtroom use policy should be based solely on quantifiable measures. 
It is not our intent to limit the judiciary's flexibility in
determining how best to develop courtroom usage data, consider other
factors, or fully explore this issue.  It seems reasonable that
qualitative and quantitative measures would both be used in
developing the evidence needed to determine the number, type, and
location of needed courtrooms. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IX
COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
========================================================== Appendix VI



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix X

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Gerald Stankosky, Assistant Director, Government Business Operations
Issues
John F.  Mortin, Assignment Manager
William J.  Dowdal, Senior Evaluator
David E.  Sausville, Senior Evaluator
Martin H.  de Alteriis, Senior Social Science Analyst

DALLAS FIELD OFFICE, DALLAS, TEXAS

Sherrill H.  Johnson, Assistant Director, Government Business
Operations Issues
James G.  Cooksey, Evaluator-in-charge
J.  Paul Rodriguez, Senior Evaluator
Patricia Sari-Spear, Senior Evaluator
Dorothy M.  Tejada, Evaluator
David W.  Bennett, Evaluator

*** End of document. ***