judgeships. We have been unable, because of the criminal cases, to reach any civil case except where it has been perfunctory, in the past year.

There has been some speculation that with the advent of the salutary magistrates program, which will become effective in this district as a pilot program on May 1st, some relief will be provided. We will have one full-time magistrate and two part-time magistrates. There is no doubt but that the program will help; however, I believe that the full-time magistrate's time will be taken up in large part in the handling of preliminary hearings, which are not part of our present burden.

We will certainly appreciate early favorable consideration of the pending bill.

Thanking you and your committee for the sincere interest in the judiciary, Very sincerely,

I am

FRED KUNZEL, Chief Judge.

Senator TYDINGS. The bill recommended by the judicial conference, S. 952, does much more than treat the particularly acute problems of the three districts I have just mentioned.

The judicial conference proposal would affect 41 of the 93 Federal district courts. It would create 67 new judgeships, one temporary judgeship, and make permanent four temporary judgeships. This is, indeed, a very sizable request. It exceeds even the grant of 63 new district judgeships by the act of May 19, 1961, which was passed after a 7-year hiatus in the creation of new judgeships. And, it should be noted, the present request follows just 3 years after the Congress created in 1966, 35 new district judgeships.

For some time this subcommittee has been attempting to develop ways of helping the Federal courts deal effectively with their caseloads. The Federal Magistrates Act was drafted in this subcommittee after extensive hearings and provides the Federal courts with professional judicial officers well qualified to assist the district courts. The magistrates should be particularly helpful in relieving the courts of their minor criminal cases and in screening the torrent of postconviction petitions which annually flood the Federal courts. The Magstrates Act had not been enacted at the time the conference acted on what has become S. 952, but five districts have now been selected for magistrates and the entire system must be in operation by October 1971.

This subcommittee also reported the Federal Judicial Center Act which gives the judiciary a research and development arm which began operating in earnest during this fiscal year and is seeking ways to computerize dockets, develop crash programs, and other devices to expedite criminal trials, reorganize court calendars and develop screening devices for postconviction remedy litigation. The Center has already given valuable assistance to three heavily burdened courtsthe southern district of New York, the eastern district of New York, and the eastern district of Pennsylvania. The midyear report of the Center describes its work, and it shall be made a part of the record at this point.

(The midyear report referred to follows:)

FIRST MIDYEAR REPORT OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER TO THE

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

The Federal Judicial Center was created by Act of December 20, 1967, 81 Stat. 664. The Board of Directors is composed of The Chief Justice, Chairman, and the Administrator of the United States Courts, both ex officio; and, elected by the

Judicial Conference, Judges James Carter and Wade McCree of the Courts of Appeals and Judges Edward Devitt, William McRae and Harold Tyler of the District Court. Mr. Justice Clark is Director; Hugh Nugent, Director of Education and Training; William Eldridge, Director of Research; Maurice Geiger, Director of Innovation; Miss Alice O'Donnell, Professional Assistant, and their respective supporting personnel: Mrs. Marilyn Waller, Miss Caterina Capobianco, Miss Betty Baker, Mrs. Bonnie Sherman, and Mr. Jeffrey Walsh, Law Clerk. The Center occupies The Dolley Madison House, an historic site, located at 1520 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. Please address all mail to this address, using the zip number.

BUDGET

The Center received $40,000 in appropriations for fiscal year 1968 which was received after the beginning of fiscal year 1969 and was, therefore, expended for equipment and supplies, with the balance of approximately $34,000 being contracted to The Institute of Judicial Administration for three programs, i.e. (1) a screening program for the Courts of Appeals; (2) preparation of cards for data processing the criminal docket of the Eastern District of New York; and (3) a Bench Book for United States District Judges. The first two of these projects have been completed and the third is in its final stage, under the supervision of District Judges Robert E. Maxwell, John V. Dooling and Hubert L. Will, with the Institute of Judicial Administration performing the staff work.

An appropriation of $300,000 was received for the fiscal year 1969; $875,000 has been requested for the fiscal year 1970.

INITIAL OPERATION

The Board, at its first meeting March 2, 1968, projected an overall plan of operation based upon questionnaires and inquiries to the judges and Judicial Conference Committees. It was implemented prior to receipt of its appropriation by Mr. Justice Clark, as Director, and his secretary, Miss O'Donnell, as Professional Assistant, both of whom were on the payroll of Retired Justices of the Supreme Court. Advisory Committees of the Center, heretofore reported to you, were appointed, held organizational meetings and assisted in the search for staff personnel and the planning of program profiles. The Center, at the request of Chief Judge Murrah of your Committee on Trial Practice and Techniques, assisted with two of the three seminars for newly appointed United States District Judges previously authorized by you and conducted the third one itself at The Dolley Madison House, October 25, 1968. The Center also enlisted the support on its automation programs from IBM, Mitre and Auerbach. These activities were reported to you at your last meeting.

PRESENT OPERATIONS

Upon receipt of its appropriation for fiscal year 1969, the Center began recruiting its staff and mobilizing its programs. The latter includes the planning and conducting of (1) continuing education institutes for judges, clerks, probation officers, referees and magistrates; (2) computerizing the dockets in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and completely reorganizing the Clerk's Office in the Eastern District of Louisiana and programing a data processing experiment covering the offices of the Judges, Clerk, Probation Officers, Referees, Marshal, United States Attorney and Court of Appeals (Fifth Circuit); (3) developing crash programs in criminal cases (Eastern District of New York) and encouraging the use of omnibus hearing techniques in the districts along the Mexican border, the Eastern District of Louisiana and the 18 metropolitan districts handling the majority of the serious criminal cases; (4) assisting districts in the reorganization of their calendars (New York Eastern and Southern, Eastern of Pennsylvania, Northern of California, District of Columbia); developing a screening process for the Courts of Appeals; (5) research study on the impact of automobile accident claims upon federal and state courts [for the Department of Transportation]; (6) developing post conviction remedy programs-both § 2255 and § 2263-§ 2264 and assisting in the creation of statewide data banks on habeas corpus-post conviction remedy litigation; (7) implementing the new Jury Act by use of automation; (8) researching and teaching the efficient selection and utilization of jurors' time; (9) developing an experiment in an automated probation report through the use of data processing; (10) research in the use of case-aids in parole and probation

surveillance; (11) improving psychiatric and other facilities in the detention and rehabilitation of prisoners; and finally (12) organizing three types of publications to disseminate knowledge and techniques to the personnel of the judicial branch, viz: The Third Branch, The Federal Judicial Center Report and specialty books, manuals and manuscripts such as The Judges' Bench Book, The Manual on Complex and Multidistrict Litigation, etc. A further detail of these operations is as follows:

As to the District Courts

1. Three seminars for newly appointed judges, of eight days each, were cosponsored by the Center at Denver, Berkeley and Washington. The latter was conducted at The Dolley Madison House, the home of the Center, in Washington, from October 25 through November 1. The courses offered included jurisdictional problems, the fundamentals of trial practice, techniques and effective disposition procedures, discovery, pre-trial, settlements, selection of juries and their instruction, criminal litigation, including arraignment, omnibus hearing, expedition, jury management, sentences, post conviction remedies, etc. The format followed the Arden House Socratic methodology. Eighty-four newly appointed District Judges were students and 18 judges of longer tenure acted as faculty. The tenure of the student judges ran from two weeks to two years; that of the faculty from five to 36 years. The Center has now assumed the full responsibility for these seminars as well as those for the more experienced judges, which are now being planned.

2. The first Metropolitan Court Conference of the Chief Judges and Executive Committees of eight Districts was held at the Center on January 10 and 11, 1969. There were 24 judges in attendance from the Districts, i.e., the Southern District of New York, the Eastern and Western of Pennsylvania, Northern of Illinois, the District of Columbia, Eastern of Louisiana, and the Northern and Central of California. Topics covered by the Conference included comparison of filings and dispositions, backlogs, state prisoner applications, counsel for indigents, central vs. individual calendaring, data processing, new jury Act, omnibus hearing in criminal cases, Federal Magistrate Act, etc. The Friday night three hour session was devoted to a report by the Mitre Corporation on their computer analysis of filings, dispositions and backlogs in the eight Districts. 3. Delay in the criminal calendar of the Eastern District of New York was the longest in the country, over 20 months from indictment to trial. On March 31, 1968, 614 cases were pending. A preferred disposition program was inaugurated and this backlog was reduced to 232 cases by January 31, 1969, approximately 23 cases per sitting judge in the District. The delay by April 1, we anticipate, will be less than six months, the shortest of any metropolitan court. The civil docket is now being expedited and by summer will be current.

4. The Southern District of New York has the heaviest civil case load in the United States, i.e. 11,604 cases on December 31, 1968. The computer study that you authorized has been most helpful. Through it we have determined that 61.7 per cent of the calendar is personal injury litigation, largely maritime. Forty per cent of these cases are controlled by six law firms. Admiralty cases occupy 17.4 per cent of the court's business and six law firms control 49 per cent of these cases. Overall, about 55.3 per cent of the docket is maritime and ten law firms control about 75 per cent of these cases. The computer study also shows that less than 20 per cent of the total case load is carried on the active calendar, the remainder being dormant. This has permitted inordinate time lags on the note of issue-as high as 21 months-which indicates lack of diligence by lawyers in answering and making discovery. This condition is the primary cause of the docket congestion. Our computer study shows that some 90 per cent of the total filings are settled without trial. If issue and discovery were had at an earlier ⚫ date, settlement would be advanced and processing eliminated in all but 10 per cent of the cases. Under present procedures, processing is required in 90 per cent of the cases.

The Court is taking steps to correct this situation. Beginning on October 1, 1968, a new procedure has been used—a civil jury pool. All jury cases are sent to the pool before being assigned for trial. Pool judges screen them for settlements, etc. In the three months of October, November and December, 546 cases were disposed of against only 284 being terminated during the same period in 1967. This one technique doubles the disposition rate.