• Home

• Who We Are

• Calendar

• Prayer

• Study

• Action

• 85th Anniversary Highlights

• Sundial Newsletters

• Contact Us

• Links

TASK FORCE ON COURTS

A History by Lois Davis, 1983

The Rochester Area Council of Churches responded by calling area meetings of clergy to hear from police, city government, community leaders and persons against whom criminal charges had been placed. Two actions resulted from these discussion:

1. A clergy Task Force on Police-Community relations obtained promotion of a Black police Sergeant to Lieutenant in charge of Community Services.
2. A court observer program was established to provide citizen presence in the courts. Church Women United provided staff and office facilities, and took responsibility for organizing the Task Force on Courts. The Steering Committee was composed of representatives of 20 community agencies and religious bodies.

When the Rochester Area Council of Churches reorganized into Genesee Ecumenical Ministries, they invited community groups to submit proposals to them to be considered as a program priority. The Task Force took a leadership role in a criminal justice council that wrote and submitted a proposal. GEM Commission was founded.

While all these new groups were being formed, people were being trained in court procedure and criminal justice processes. Trained observers were sitting in courtrooms and taking notes on what happened there.

After a year of observing, a report to the community was issued, documenting 1,344 City Court cases that had been followed from arraignment to disposition. The report also raised a lot of questions. Since this was the first report of its kind in this area, a report prepared by non-legal observers, it drew a lot of defensive comment from the legal community–comments like “naive” and “uninformed”. However, it provided a mirror through which persons in the criminal justice system could examine themselves and could begin to address some of the questions raised.

What has the Task Force on Courts accomplished in 13 years of existence? [This text was first written in 1983. We have now 41 years of existence]

One of the first things that the Task Force recognized was the need to know about and understand the court process. We began early to hold workshops for Task Force volunteers, as well as for interested persons in the community. Through these workshops, we have trained more than 2,000 people. In addition, we have provided programs for hundreds of church groups, school classes, civic and community groups. We have written newspaper and magazine articles, appeared on radio and television, have issued a number of reports on criminal and family court and have published a monthly newsletter.

Our original mandate was to look for racism in the court system. We did not find overt racism but rather an institutional racism that results in a disproportional number of Black people appearing as defendants and filling the jail. Our first report raised questions about this. A study in 1979-80 confirmed that institutional racism still exists. It is so deeply rooted in our economic and social structure that it must be attacked at many levels before it will disappear from the criminal law system.

The Task Force noted the confusion that was present, particularly in City Court. People would often get to the wrong courtroom and be bench warranted in the courtroom they were supposed to attend. There was no information source conveniently available; dockets were posted in an inappropriate manner. One student who visited the court for the first time said, “I came expecting to see Perry Mason, but I found Barnum and Bailey instead.” The Task Force recommended several things to alleviate confusion:

1. That the pages of the docket be thumb-tacked separately to the bulletin board so that people could read them without handling them;
2. That announcements be made in each courtroom at the beginning of the session as to what kinds of cases would be heard, and who should be there;
3. That appointment slips be given to defendants so that they would have a written reminder of when to return to court; and
4. That an information desk be placed in the corridor and staffed at least through the early hours of the court sessions.

For many years, there was no bench outside of City Court where people might sit while awaiting the start of a court session. Our requests to the city fell on deaf ears. The Court Clerk also recognized the need for a bench. He and one of the volunteers finally took the matters into their own hands and carried a bench from the plaza area. That bench remains in the corridor today. [A few years later the courts were renovated and seating was installed.]

Because persons held in the lockup before court seemed to come into court without knowing what the process would be, the Task Force made a poster describing the arraignment procedure in English and Spanish and posted it in the detention area.

Observers found the language used by judges and other court personnel to be legalistic and difficult to understand, especially for many people appearing in court. When this was called to their attention, most judges began to make clearer explanations and to take care that everything was understood. Most court personnel now use understandable language when addressing defendants, victims and their families.

Another issue that came to Task Force attention was that of the Public Defender. Most indigent defendants felt that they were not getting adequate representation and sometimes refused to accept Public Defender services. The Task Force joined in a coalition of the community groups to call for an impartial investigation of the Public Defender’s Office. When the report of that investigation pointed up the short comings of the office and made recommendations for change, the coalition pressed the county legislature to institute those changes. The result has been a public defender system that defendants are willing and eager to have represent them. Much of the information used to provide the need for this change came from reports by Task Force Observers.

When the Task Force began observing in 1970-71, about half the cases coming through the court [Traffic Court was separate then] were Public Intoxication cases. It was obvious that the arrest-court-jail-revolving door was not doing anything to help the defendants or the community. We joined a campaign to change the law so that Public Intoxication would no longer be a violation, but would be a concern of medical and mental health. We also advocated programs that would deal with the problems of alcoholism. There are still arrests for public intoxication, under the name of Trespass or Disorderly Conduct, but the proportion bas been greatly reduced since the establishment of services such as Entry to Care and Monroe County Alcohol Outreach.

One problem we have worked on all through our history has been the scheduling of cases. For years, everyone was required to be in court at 9:30 a.m., even though it was obvious that many cases would not be heard until afternoon. It is only within the past few years that judges have begun to schedule arraignments at 9:30, adjourned cases at 11:00, hearings and trials at 1:30 or later. There is still much waiting required of complainants, defendants and witnesses, but improvements in scheduling have greatly reduced the waiting time, and thereby have reduced the dissatisfaction and discomfort of the waiting public.

In observing County Court, Task Force became concerned about the composition of juries. They were made up primarily of middle-aged or older men who were employed by the large businesses or industries in the area. There were virtually no minorities, no young people, and very few women. A study of the system led to the discovery that names were selected at random from voter registration lists, that applications had to be filled out at the commissioner’s office during working hours, that women could be exempted simply because they were women, and that the same people were called again and again. We also found that hundreds of person hours were spent by jury pool members awaiting a call to a courtroom. The Task Force recommended the use of additional lists that might include more minority persons and young people; that applications be sent in the mail; that volunteers be allowed to apply; that a larger pool be maintained so that a greater number of people could serve; and that a telephone alert system be initiated to reduce the waiting time of jurors. We also advocated higher pay for jurors, and worked to change the exemption of women through the state legislature.

All these changes have been instituted. Juries still have few minority persons on them, but the numbers are growing. There are many women serving now, and more young people. The county has saved thousands of dollars through the Jury Alert System, and people are more willing to serve when they know they will not have to spend time waiting in a jury room.

Observers saw many young people coming through Criminal Court. They wondered what was happening to youth in Family Court, and how many of the young people they were seeing had records in Family Court. We began to negotiate with Family Court judges and personnel for permission to observe there. It took a year to convince them of the value of having observers there, but now our role is accepted and considered helpful.

Our first Report on Family Court raised questions about charging a child with acting-out behavior when the problems often lay with the family as a whole; about the role of law guardians in getting petitions dismissed on a technicality when the youth was obviously in need of help; about the ineffectiveness of truancy petitions; about the length of time it took to complete a case; about the fractured trial process; and about the amount of time the Court spent negotiating support cases.

Since the Family Court had always been closed to the public, these problems were known to court personnel and to clients of the Court, but they were not known to many persons outside of the Court. Public attention to these matters brought action by the courts and the community to look for solutions. There is greater public awareness of the needs of Family Court and efforts continue to be made for improvement of its effectiveness. The Task Force convened a group of agency and court people who initiated the Juvenile Mediation Program that diverts certain juvenile cases from the Court.

Task Force Observers have provided a different perspective on the courts. For this reason, they have been invited to serve on committees formerly composed largely of lawyers and judges. We have served on committees to study Family Court; to screen candidates for Public Defender, District Attorney, and Judges; to study legal services to the poor and services to youth; and to look at the problem of child abuse.

Task Force Observers have joined with other advocacy groups and community service providers to study probation, alternatives to incarceration, medical services in the jail, pre-trail release and diversion, mediation and arbitration, PINS diversion and community service sentencing.

Other communities across the country have heard about our program and have requested information. Copies of our reports, our Guidebook, and other materials have been sent to almost every state in the Union, including Hawaii. We have also gone to a number of communities in New York State to help them initiate court observer programs in their areas. We have worked with the Fund for Modern Courts and other court observer groups to change state legislation, and participated in a Fund study of County Courts. We were invited to attend a conference in Colorado which featured volunteer court programs across the country.

The Task Force on Courts has accomplished much and will continue to work toward its goal of a system of criminal justice that is beneficial to victims, offenders and the community.