What does the future of justice look like to you? While we all have grand hopes and expectations of what justice should be, justice can be as simple as accessibility to a courtroom. In California, accessing the justice system is evolving–now it is as simple as turning on your electronic device. Instigated by the pandemic, courtrooms across the state experienced serious congestion and began holding virtual case proceedings to address this issue of judicial access. This change addresses one of the most pressing (and annoying) issues in the California justice system: backlog! Backlog is a serious impediment to justice in California. Virtual court technology addresses inequalities within the courtroom that impact Californians. However, all change comes with dissent. Fears of automation have instigated court reporters to challenge this expansion.
Accurately gauging the numerical impact of backlog requires examining court clearance rates. The clearance rate equals the number of outgoing cases as a percentage of the number of incoming cases. A clearance rate of 100% indicates that the court has been keeping up with the number of cases coming in. Rates below 100% indicate that the court is failing to address incoming cases, hence a backlog. Backlog poses a series of issues regarding the efficacy of administrative justice.
THE IMPACT
During the pandemic, California Superior Courts reached a historic rate of backlog. The Judicial Council of California reported that before the pandemic, court clearance rates were around 86%. From March to August 2020, clearance rates dropped to 73%, while backlog increased significantly. This slowdown primarily affected felony and traffic misdemeanor cases. However, in 2024, the court is still experiencing a severe backlog in areas that some would argue require immediate attention. In the 2023 fiscal year, domestic violence case clearance rates were about 52%, a significant drop from 75% in fiscal year 2020. The goal is for courts to reach 100% clearance rates, and the inability to do so poses threats to the justice system.
A backlog is not just a bureaucratic strain or a build-up of paperwork. The effects impact communities across California that are experiencing delayed justice. In January of 2024, the San Francisco District Attorney’s office dismissed hundreds of criminal cases due to a massive backlog, creating a barrier to speedy trials. The majority of these cases had been awaiting trial since the pandemic. While dismissed criminals get to walk away from the impact of their choices, plaintiffs and victims will never get to receive the justice they rightfully deserve.
The devastating effects of backlog on justice can be seen in the case of Richard Lilya, hailing from Riverside, CA. Lilya was run over by an alleged drunk driver, leaving him with severe injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder. Battling with this experience, Richard awaited his day to receive justice. Nearly three years after Lilya was struck, the court dismissed his case. The court cited the defendant’s right to a speedy trial, which became significantly delayed due to the pandemic. Lilya spoke with CBS News, stating that “The criminal has the right to have this dismissed because they have the right to a speedy trial — because of COVID…What about me? Why wait three years to tell me, ‘Sorry it’s not important enough. We don’t have the time.” Richard is one of the thousands of Californians who are denied remedial justice due to backlog. Instances like these underscore the profound rifts within our legal system, exposing its flaws and deficiencies to the public eye. The ramification of the backlog extends far beyond mere case dismissals and hindered justice. They also entail heightened costs for litigants, from legal fees to court expenses, creating financial burdens. Is it realistic for Californians to anticipate fair and equitable justice when thousands of cases perish without swift resolution within the justice system?
A POTENTIAL SOLUTION
Demolishing and reconstructing the California judicial system seems unlikely in this lifetime, but smaller-scale solutions do exist. Technological applications such as Zoom have bridged physical distances and brought greater accessibility to the courtroom. Offering virtual court proceedings could help solve the problem of backlog in the court system, while simultaneously addressing the pressing inequalities Californians face in receiving justice.
Senator Tom Umberg (D-34) has been working to codify the right to remote appearances in specific civil court proceedings. According to a source inside Umberg’s office, the Senator was motivated to push forward this legislation because of his experience as one of the few practicing attorneys in the State Senate. The insider elaborated that the Senator witnessed impressive advancements in access to justice during his time as a practicing lawyer before and during the pandemic. To address the challenges he saw, he drafted and successfully passed SB 241, the “2021 California Court Efficiency Act”. This initial bill extended upon existing legislation that allowed court proceedings to occur via phone and with discretionary approval from the court. SB 241 authorized remote appearances by parties, permitting courts to utilize remote technology for all hearings, conferences, proceedings, and civil trials, with provisions for witnesses to testify remotely in specified situations
Virtual court proceedings can improve backlog by maintaining efficiency and flexibility, reducing courtroom congestion, and improving case management processes, therefore addressing the array of disparities in accessing justice. Those who lack the resources to afford a lawyer or legal assistance have to face an accumulation of financial decisions that impact their ability to receive justice. Those who can take days off from work and get themselves to court have a certain financial flexibility that not everyone has access to. The National Public Defense Workload Study of 2023 found that in Los Angeles, nearly 80% of people accused of crimes rely on public defenders, posing a significant strain on available resources. When considering the instrumental variables in receiving justice, it is clear that improving efficiency is vital to upholding justice. Embedding options for virtual court proceedings will improve this antiquated and delayed judicial system. Senator Umberg also recently introduced SB 92, which extends the statutory authorization for another year.
Despite the impressive support Umberg’s bill has received, opposition exists and poses important challenges to the passage. The fiercest opposition comes from court reporters and public defenders. Fear of automation and advanced technologies have propelled court reporters to advocate against these bills as a means to protect their livelihoods. Public defenders, on the other hand, argue that virtual court hearings do not allow physical cues and nuances to project through the screen. Those in opposition also worry that connectivity issues may impact the hearings themselves.
While these concerns are valid, there is currently a pressing impairment in our justice system that begins at the outset, notably with accessibility. From the initial steps of reaching the courtroom to securing legal representation, financial barriers loom large, hindering paths to justice. Implementing remote appearances offers a solution by alleviating the financial burdens of accessing justice. Moreover, backlog exacerbates this issue by contributing to case dismissals and impeding court clearance rates, ultimately resulting in significant delays in the administration of justice. The future of justice is a blurred vision if we do not work to address the inequalities in access to justice. Implementing and utilizing technology poses greater potential than relying on outdated judicial codes.
Featured Image Source: Somnath Bhatt/ The Atlantic
Comments are closed.