The Arizona Superior Courtin Pima County

Annual ReportFiscal Year 2003

Hon. John S. LeonardoPresiding JudgeSuperior Court in Pima County110 West CongressTucson, AZ 85701

Dear Judge Leonardo:

It is with pleasure that I transmit officially to you this report of the court’s work duringfiscal year 2002-2003. While no summary report such as this could capture all of the fine workdone by the judges and employees of the Superior Court, this compilation provides an excel-lent overview of the court’s achievements in that year.

As you well know, July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003, was a year of financial hardshipfor the court, with the state budget cuts dominating our administrative focus. However, as thisreport demonstrates, the court was still able to accomplish much. The accomplishments arethose of a great group of people, from judges down through entry-level employees It is thehard work of all those individuals in very stressful times that has assured the success of thiscourt in serving the public, the community and the state judiciary.

Sincerely yours,

K. Kent Batty

Arizona Superior CourtPima County

110 West Congress, 9th FloorTucson, AZ 85701

K. Kent BattyCourt Administrator

Lisa R. RoyalDeputy Court Administrator

Telephone (520) 740-3768

FAX (520) 740-8367

Tab

le o

f C

onte

nts The Court 1

The BenchCourt JurisdictionCourt Administration

Organizational Chart ~ Administration 3

Financial Overview 4AppropriationsExpenditure AreasRevenues

Statistical Overview 7Court Wide CaseloadsCriminal CaseloadsCivil CaseloadsFamily Law CaseloadsProbate Caseloads

Adult Probation 10Chief Probation OfficerFY 2003 ChallengesServices

FY 2003 Highlights 12Statewide CommitteesABC-TVJudicial HonorsPerformance AppraisalsFacility ImprovementsDeath PenaltyCourts Are UsSpeaker’s BureauCourt CalendarsCalendar ServicesHuman ResourcesConciliation CourtPretrial ServicesJury CommissionerYoung Lawyers

The C

ourt

In 2001, the court’s leaderscommitted to a planning processaimed at identifying the key ar-eas where the court needed toimprove and the goals necessaryto motivate such improvement.The process produced the abovemission/purpose statement,which included those core valuesthat form the essence of whatthis court stands for:

IntegrityFundamental fairness in allthat we doIndependent, principled de-cision-making by the judi-ciaryProfessionalism and respect,courtesy and compassion to-ward the public and towardeach member of the court or-ganizationResponsiveness to the needsof the public including mak-ing the court’s processes andfacilities accessible to all resi-dents of Pima CountyCommitment to improve-ment; openness to change;flexibilityHard work in a cooperativeand rewarding environment.

These values and the missionstatement established a founda-tion for court leadership’s think-ing about the court’s most criti-cal functions: fair and timely dis-position of cases; case manage-ment; records management; jurymanagement; public educationand information; pre- and post-trial supervision of defendants;and court and staff administra-tion. The process culminated inthe development of four goalsthat clearly identified a betterfuture for the court as well asmaximizing service to the resi-dents of Pima County:

Renewing the commitmentto the criminal case process-ing system.Developing policies and pro-cedures to make better use ofjurors’ time.Clarifying the roles and re-sponsibilities of bench pre-siding judges and presidingcommissioner.Enhancing the working rela-tionship with the Office ofthe Clerk of the SuperiorCourt.

A committee of judges andadministrators developed actionitems in order to achieve thesegoals. During FY 2003, imple-mentation teams continued theirwork to bring these goals to frui-tion. The court’s leadership rec-ognizes that strategic planningmust be a continual process,rather than just a one-time effort.Consequently, that process willbe reinvigorated for FY 2004.

The BenchThe Arizona Superior Court

in Pima County is the secondlargest superior court in the state.The bench comprises 28 full-timejudges who are nominated for of-fice by the Pima County Com-mission on Trial Court Appoint-ments and appointed by the gov-ernor. Each judge stands for re-tention in office during a generalelection and serves a four-yearterm if retained. The court alsohas three full-time judges pro-tempore, 16 full-time commis-sioners and one part-time com-missioner who are appointed bythe presiding judge of the courtthrough a local merit selectionprocess.

Mission Statement

It is our purpose to provide the timely, fair andefficient administration of justice under law,

in a manner that instills and sustains the public’sconfidence in the judicial system.

Hon. John LeonardoPresiding Judge

1

Judges are assigned on a ro-tating basis to one of five benchesor departments: criminal, civil,probate, family law and juvenile.A presiding judge leads eachbench. Generally, judges main-tain their bench assignments fortwo to five years. In FY 2003,Hon. Michael Cruikshank wasappointed presiding judge for thecriminal bench and Hon. CharlesSabalos assumed the responsibil-ity of civil bench presiding judge.They joined Hon. NanetteWarner, family law bench presid-ing judge; Hon. Clark Munger,probate bench presiding judgeand Hon. Hector Campoy, juve-nile bench presiding judge.

Hon. Barbara Sattler was ap-pointed as a judge pro-temporein September 2002 and assignedto the juvenile court bench. Priorto her appointment, Judge Sattlerwas a magistrate for five years atTucson City Court.

Court JurisdictionThe court’s jurisdiction ex-

tends to almost any type of case,except small claims, minor of-fenses and violations of citycodes and ordinances. The supe-rior court has jurisdiction over:

Criminal felony and somemisdemeanor cases;Civil cases involving sums ofmoney in excess of $10,000;Forcible entry and detainercases;Dissolutions of marriage,adoptions and other family-related matters;Probate matters; andAppeals from limited juris-diction courts throughoutPima Country.

The juvenile court, as estab-lished under state law, isseparately administratedby its presiding judge.The presiding judge ofsuperior court desig-nates the presiding judgeof juvenile court, andassigns its judges andcommissioners. It hasjurisdiction over delin-quent and incorrigibleyouth in Pima County,as well as matters involv-ing dependent childrenwho are the victims ofabuse, neglect or aban-donment. The juvenilecourt is located at 2225East Ajo Way and isstaffed by over 500 em-

ployees. Rik Schmidt was ap-pointed Director of JuvenileCourt Services in January 2003,succeeding interim director Rich-ard Wood.

Court AdministrationUnder the direction of the

presiding judge, the court admin-istrator is responsible for the non-judicial operations of the court.To that end, courtadministration’s departments in-clude: financial services, humanresources, training and educa-tion, facilities management andinformation and technology ser-vices. Also reporting to the courtadministrator are adult proba-tion, calendar services, court in-terpreters, the court reporters’pool, jury services, the countylaw library and pretrial services.

Judges Cruikshank and Sabalos

2

Presiding

Judge

Court Management

Team

Deputy Court Administrator

Associate

Presiding Judge

Clerk of the

Superior Court

Pretrial Services

Court Interpreters

Jury Commissioner

Law Library

Adult Probation

Conciliation Court

Calendar Services

ITSD Department ————– Research &

Statistics

Human Resources

Financial Management

Facilities Management

Court Administrator

Court Reporters

Community Relations

Education & Training

Clinical Liaison

Family Law Bench

Civil Bench

Criminal Bench

Juvenile Bench

Probate Bench

Organizational C

hart ~ A

dministration

3

Fin

anci

al O

verv

iew Appropriations

The court’s budget for FY2003 totaled nearly $35.3million, supported with fundsreceived from Pima County, thestate of Arizona, and specialrevenue funds. The specialrevenue funds included fees forprobation, conciliation court,law library, and drug court. Thecourt also benefits from grants,which in FY 2003 amounted toless than 1 percent of totalfunding. The charts to the rightillustrate the level of fundingreceived from each of theseprimary funding sources in FY2002 and FY 2003.

As can be seen, the state’sshare of the court’s overallfunding declined by 3 percentbetween FY 2002 and FY 2003.This reflects the continuation ofa trend that began during FY2001. In fact, the state’s share ofoverall court funding hasdeclined by over 6 percent sinceFY 2000. In FY 2003, theprimary recipient of these cutswas the court’s adult probationdepartment with cuts in statefunding totaling $1,029,891 or6.8 percent of their aggregatefunding during this period.Managing the impact of thisfunding reduction required thecourt to take dramatic steps inorder to maintain the minimallevel of probation servicesmandated by statute. These stepsincluded the implementation ofa hiring freeze, not only in theadult probation department but

throughout the superior court.By the end of FY 2003, the courthad approximately 50 vacantpositions. In addition, the courtinitiated measures that called forsevere restrictions on capitalpurchases, travel, training, and

other expenditures. Adultprobation activities, such asdispatch, electronic monitoring,and satellite office security werecurtailed or entirely eliminated.The court also discontinuedprobation services it had

Sources of Funding ~ FY 2002

Special

Revenue Funds

9%

State

Funding & Grants

27%

ntyPima Cou

64%64%

Sources of Funding ~ FY 2003

Special

Revenue Funds

10%

State

Funding & Grants

24%

nty

66%

4

provided for many years to thejustice and juvenile courts. Inaddition, one-time cost savingmeasures initiated in otherdepartments of the superiorcourt provided approximately$400,000 that was madeavailable to support adultprobation activities.

Despite austerity measures,in order to meet minimummandated probation servicelevels, the court was compelledto expend contingency fundswithin its probation fee fund thathad been built up over a periodof seven years. Consequently,meeting these service levels inthe future will continue torequire a higher level ofexpenditure than can besustained by current andprojected probation fee revenues.To put this into perspective,expenditures in this fund have

increased 9.1 percent since FY2002 and 61.9 percent since FY2001. It is anticipated that thiscontingency fund balance will beentirely depleted by early FY2005, unless prior levels of statefunding are restored.

The table below illustrateschanges that occurred in eachprimary funding source duringFY 2003 as compared to FY2002. In the case of county, state,and grant funding, the amountsare actual appropriationsreceived from each source. In thecase of special revenue funds, theamounts reflect actualexpenditures rather than anappropriation as these funds aremanaged in an enterprisefashion. In other words,expenditure levels in specialrevenue funds are limited to totalrevenues that are collected forthese purposes.

In FY 2003, appropriationsfrom Pima County increased by$684,385, amounting to a 3percent increase over FY 2002.This increase comprisedprimarily funds for theannualization of salaryincreases approved during FY2002 and for offsettingsignificant increases in employeebenefit costs. In FY 2003, court-wide state funding declined by$1,014,938 or 10.6 percent. Thisloss was offset by the previouslydiscussed austerity measurescombined with an increase in feeexpenditures totaling $292,229,which amounted to an increaseof 9.1 percent. Grants receivedby the court declined by $29,930or 24.26 percent. This reductionis attributed to the unavailabilityof funding at the state andfederal level.

ecruoSgnidnuF 2002YF 3002YF egnahC

ytnuoCamiP 392,484,22 876,861,32 0.3+

gnidnuFetatS 349,735,9 500,325,8 6.01-

sdnuFeuneveRlaicepS 036,712,3 958,905,3 1.9+

stnarG 663,321 634,39 62.42-

latoT 232,363,53$ 879,492,53$ 20.0-

5

Changes in Funding, by Source

42%

6%1%

6% 1%

32%

4% 1%

%

5%

RevenuesOther than intergovern-

mental cost recovery activities,all court revenues are collectedon behalf of the court by theClerk of the Court. Theserevenues consist primarily offiling fees, fees for services, fines,penalties, surcharges, sanctionsand forfeitures. The table to theright illustrates the primaryrevenues collected on behalf ofthe Superior Court during FY2003.

It should be noted that, withthe exception of special revenuefunds such as the law library,conciliation court, adultprobation, and drug court feefunds, the court does not retain

Expenditure AreasIn FY 2003, superior court

expenditures totaled nearly$35.3 million. Functionally,these expenditures can be brokenout as seen above.

these monies. Of particularinterest during FY 2003, was theinstitution of the courtautomation and technology feefund. It is envisioned that this

fund will provide necessaryfunding that will allow the courtto provide for future techno-logical improvements.

3002YF~seuneveRyramirP

noitutitseR 259.014,1$

seeFgniliFliviC 333,128$

dnuFyrarbiLwaL 922,991$

dnuFsnoitaleRcitsemoD 284,427$

seeFnoitaborP 397,782,1$

seniFlanimirC 904,654$

truoCgurD 764,201$

noitcelloClaiciduJdnuFtnemecnahnE

956,246$

truoCroirepuSdnuFnoitamotuA

581,721$

noitcnuF erutidnepxE tnecreP

noitaborPtludA 012,332,51$ 24

secivreSlaiciduJ 026,506,11 23

secivreSlairterP 062,479,1 6

noitamrofnIsecivreSygolonhceT

970,469,1 6

secivreSevitartsinimdA 164,695,1 5

truoCnoitailicnoC 298,143,1 4

secivreSradnelaC 354,136 2

yrarbiLwaL 797,293 1

renoissimmoCyruJ 492,482 1

secivreSreterpretnI 110,172 1

Program Expenditures ~ FY 2003

6

Statistical OverviewIn FY 2003, 21,694 new

cases were filed in the court,compared to 20,993 in FY 2002.This represents an increase of3.4 percent over the precedingyear. Case dispositions declined.16 percent from 21,093 to21,059 and pending cases rose by2.4 percent, from 28,284 to28,953.

Family law cases made up 35percent of the filings, 33 percentof the dispositions and 15percent of the pending cases.Civil cases accounted for 32percent of the filings, 33 percentof the dispositions and 15percent of the pending cases.Criminal cases made up 23percent of the filings, 25 percentof the dispositions and 11percent of the pending cases.Probate cases made up 10percent of the filings, 9 percent

of the dispositions and 59percent of the pending cases, dueto their natures.

Criminal CaseloadAs depicted in the table

below, there were 4,208 felonyfilings in FY 2003, an increaseof 3.5 percent over FY 2002.Theft, burglary, robbery anddrug filings continued to outrankall other charges filed. Criminalcase dispositions decreased 1

percent over FY 2002, while thenumber of pending criminalcases decreased 8 percent. Ofthose felony cases disposed, 75percent were closed by plea, 9percent were closed by trial andthe remaining 16 percent weredismissed. There were 323 jurytrials commenced in FY 2003compared to 493 in FY 2002,representing a decrease of 34.5percent.

Overview of FY 2003 Criminal Caseload

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Fili ggs Disp s tit ons Pendidiningng

FY 2002 FY 2003

Comparison of Court Filings, Dispositions and Pending CasesFY 2002 & 2003

Statistical Overview

3002YF seinoleF&sronaemedsiM

deifissalcnUslaeppAytiC/PJ

latoT

20/1/7gnidneP 506,3 73 08 227,3

deliFsesaCweN 802,4 484 492 689,4

daolesaClatoT 318,7 125 473 807,8

:snoitisopsiD

decnemmoCslairTyruJ 323 323

decnemmoCslairTtruoC 29 29

ytliuGfosaelP 614,3 614,3

devomeR/slassimsiD 896 934 05 781,1

desreveR/demriffA 642 642

snoitisopsiDlatoT 925,4 934 692 462,5

30/03/6gnidneP 482,3 28 87 444,3

7

Civil CaseloadAs shown in the table below,

there were 6,934 new civil casefilings in FY 2003. Thisrepresents an increase of 12percent over FY 2002. Case

dispositions increased 11 percentand cases pending at end of yearincreased 1 percent. Case filingsdecreased in all categories withthe exception of Tort-MotorVehicle and Unclassified Civil,

which increased 4 percent and 66percent respectively. Civil trialscommenced in FY 2003decreased 17 percent over FY2002 bringing the trial rate incivil cases to 2.16 percent.

Overview of FY 2003 Civil Caseload

20/1/7gnidneP 112,1 117 581 970,1 29 64 409 822,4

deliFsesaCweN 616,1 325 39 715,1 531 85 299,2 439,6

daolesaClatoT 738,2 432,1 872 695,2 722 401 698,3 261,11

:snoitisopsiD

tuOderrefsnarT 22 66 3 14 0 52 28 932

deretnEtnemgduJ 741,1 615 29 879 771 04 887,1 837,4

snoitisopsiDrehtO 594 551 55 156 91 31 735 139,1

forebmuNlatoTsnoitisopsiD

466,1 737 051 076,1 691 87 704,2 209,6

30/03/6gnidneP 361,1 794 821 629 13 62 984,1 062,4

FY

200

3

Tor

t-M

otor

Veh

icle

Tor

t-N

on-M

otor

Veh

icle

Med

ical

Mal

prac

tice

Con

trac

ts

Em

inen

tD

omai

n

Low

er C

ourt

App

eals

Non

-Cla

ssif

ied

Tot

als

8

Overview of FY 2003 Family Law Caseload

Family Law CaseloadThe table below is an

overview of the family lawcaseload. There were 7,537family law case filings in FY

2003, a decrease of 2 percentover FY 2002. Case dispositionsdecreased 9 percent whilepending cases increased 13percent. Family law trials

commenced in FY 2003increased 2 percent over FY2002. Approximately 4.4 percentof the cases went to trial.

Overview of FY 2003 Probate Caseload

Probate CaseloadAs depicted in the table

below, 2,237 probate cases were

filed in the court in FY 2003, adecrease of 4 percent over lastfiscal year. Dispositions of

probate cases have increased by2 percent and pending cases haveincreased 2 percent.

3002YFtsurT&etatsEnoitartsinimdA

&spihsnaidrauGspihsrotavresnoC

tludAsnoitpodA

latoT

20/1/7gnidneP 982,6 522,01 09 406,61

deliFsnoititePlaitinI 831,1 980,1 01 732,2

daolesaClatoT 724,7 413,11 001 148,81

:snoitisopsiD

snoitisopsiDlatoT 829 319 0 148,1

30/03/6gnidneP 994,6 104,01 001 000,71

3002YF noitulossiD noitarapeS tnemlunnA ytinretaPrehtO

citsemoDlatoT

20/1/7gnidneP 131,2 33 12 348 637 467,3

deliFsesaCweN 736,4 38 56 280,1 076,1 735,7

daolesaClatoT 867,6 611 68 529,1 604,2 103,11

:snoitisopsiD

tuOderrefsnarT 01 0 0 2 51 72

detnarGseerceD 240,3 84 52 511,3

snoitisopsiDrehtO 673,1 52 73 093,1 280,1 019,3

forebmuNlatoTsnoitisopsiD

824,4 37 26 293,1 790,1 250,7

30/03/6gnidneP 043,2 34 42 335 903,1 942,4

9

Adu

lt P

roba

tion

Chief Probation OfficerDavid F. Sanders was ap-

pointed as chief probation officerand began his em-ployment with thecourt’s adult proba-tion department inJanuary 2003. Mr.Sanders began his ca-reer as a probation of-ficer at the municipalcourt in Kansas City,Missouri, in 1971.He served in the fed-eral probation servicefrom 1976 until his appointmenthere. Assignments were in theU.S. District Court, Western Dis-trict of Missouri as a probationofficer, senior officer and super-visor. He came to his new postat the court from the U.S. Dis-trict Court, District of Nevada inLas Vegas, where he was chiefprobation officer since July 1992.

Mr. Sanders’ predecessor,Don Stiles, retired as chief pro-bation officer at the end of July2002. Also leaving adult proba-tion was executive director DianeMcGinnis, who accepted theposition of director of juvenilecourt services in Pinal County.

FY 2003 ChallengesThe department receives a

significant share of its fundingfrom the state. Consequently theloss of state funds presented sig-nificant challenges. At fiscal yearend the department had 48 va-cancies and, through reorganiza-tion, the management structure

had been trimmed by approxi-mately 43 percent.

As a result of budget cuts andpersonnel vacancies,the department dis-banded its home con-finement/electronicmonitoring programin May 2003. Thiswas an important pro-gram, used primarilyas an intermediatesanction in responseto noncompliant con-duct by probationers.

Funding constraints also causedthe downsizing of thedepartment’s communicationscenter and a changeover toNextel phone/radios rather thantraditional radios, which werescheduled for upgrading.

ServicesOne of the primary respon-

sibilities of the probation depart-ment is supervision of defen-dants sentenced to probation. Asshown in the chart below, the de-partment provided services to7,335 probationers in FY 2003,a decrease of 2.5 percent over FY2002. This decrease is consistent

with local and national trendsdepicting a slight reduction incrime. Of those defendantsplaced on probation, approxi-mately 70 percent were placed on“standard” probation while 30percent were assigned to special-ized caseloads.

Consistent with the decreasein probationers, there was also a3 percent decrease in pre-sen-tence reports prepared for thecourt. Assessment center staffcontinued to produce such re-ports on incarcerated defendantson an accelerated timeline, withan average preparation time of24 days. This resulted in a sav-ings to taxpayers of over$234,800 in daily costs for bedsin the jail.

As a condition of probation,the majority of probationers per-formed supervised communityservice as a form of restitutionand a part of their rehabilitation.The department referred proba-tioners to over 150 pre-approvedwork sites, including non-profitagencies, the government, andcommunity based organizations.This year, 223,649 hours werecompleted, which gave back to

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Presentence Reportrts Supervision

FY 2002 FY 2003

3,531 3,418 7,525 7,335

Probation Department Workload

10

Chief Sanders

the community $1,151,792 infree labor (calculated using mini-mum wage).

As depicted in the table to theright, 29 percent of the defen-dants sentenced to probation thisyear were convicted of crimes in-volving illegal goods or drugs.

Under the direction of theHon. Patricia Escher, the Sub-stance Abuse Intervention Pro-gram was established in FY2003. The program encom-passed all of the defendants sen-tenced to drug court, as well asPropositions 200/302 defen-dants sentenced to standard pro-bation. The goal of probationofficers who supervised thispopulation is to help them de-velop a drug-free, law-abiding,productive life by connectingthem with appropriate substanceabuse treatment and other coun-seling, and referring them tocommunity, educational and vo-cational services.

The department recognized

the key role education plays inthe recidivism rate of adult of-fenders and provided a broadspectrum of in-house educationprogramming for probationers,juveniles adjudicated to AdultProbation, defendants’ families,and other adult at-risk membersof the community. The LEARN(Literacy, Education and Re-source Network) program pro-vided instruction in literacy,GED (General Education Di-ploma), improved English profi-ciency and enhanced knowledgein parenting, cognitive and otherlife skills areas. The departmentprovided education services to

Persons on Probation By Type of Crime

884 adults and juveniles this year.A total of 94 adults passed theirGED examinations, 12 were in-ducted into the National AdultEducation Honor Society, 22graduates were awarded PimaCommunity College scholar-ships, and 84 graduated from thecognitive skills program.

The department continues toprovide specialized services totarget specific probationer popu-lations, such as those who driveunder the influence of alcohol,have engaged in domestic vio-lence, have special learningneeds, and/or who suffer frommental illness.

Risk management and pub-lic safety are high priorities forthe department. Operation Spot-light is a neighborhood safety/gun reduction initiative; the Ab-sconder Team brings fugitives tojustice; the Sex Offender Super-vision Program uses surveillanceand treatment to guard againstrecidivism. The DNA collectionproject resulted in the collectionand storage of samples fromthousands of probationers, asrequired by law for investigatorypurposes.

epyTemirCnorebmuN

noitaborPtnecreP

sgurD/sdooGlagellI 149 92

).cte,yrebbor,tluassa(nosreP 758 82

emirCytreporP 897 62

ciffarT&ecaePcilbuP 415 71

The Drug Court Team administers theSubstance Abuse Intervention Program

11

FY

200

3 H

ighl

ight

s Statewide CommitteesMembers of the court’s

bench and staff are very activestatewide on a variety of com-mittees. During FY 2003, 43judges and members of the courtstaff served on 58 committeesacross the state of Arizona.Those committees dealt with allaspects of the court system in-cluding administration, training,criminal law, family law and ju-venile legal issues.

Among the members of thebench serving on statewide com-mittees were: Judges EdgarAcuña, Deborah Bernini, TedBorek, Christopher Browning,Hector Campoy, Patricia Escher,Charles Harrington, JanKearney, Virginia Kelly, KennethLee, John Leonardo, LeslieMiller, Michael Miller, ClarkMunger, Charles Sabalos,Stephen Villarreal, and NanetteWarner; and CommissionersKaren Adam, Suzanna Cuneo,Sharon Douglas, Margaret Max-well, Karen Nygaard, andStephen Rubin.

ABC News Program State vABC News all but completed

the filming of two trials at thecourt as a part of its State v. se-ries. The show’s producers ap-proached the court in the fall of2002 about the filming and even-tual broadcasting of severalcriminal trials held in Tucson.

ABC’s goal in producing theprogram is to give the public abalanced and complete view ofthe trial process. The program isto serve as an educational tool forthe viewer, allowing them to ob-serve all aspects of the case in-cluding lawyer-client meetings,attorney preparation and thecomplete trial from openingstatements through jury delibera-tions.

The program’s producerslooked for cases that were notnecessarily high profile or easyfor a jury to deliberate, but thosethat the viewers could relate to.Once a case was identified, theproducers had to obtain permis-sion from everyone involved, in-cluding the defendant, counsel,

jurors and the judge. ABC wouldhave been required to abandonthe project if at any point in theprocess, any party decided to optout of the agreement.

Preparing the courtroom forfilming was an arduous task. Ittook producers more than twodays to setup cameras and micro-phones in the courtroom andjury deliberation room in a man-ner that was unobtrusive.

Filming initially started withthe jury selection in State v.Wendy Sue Anderson, assignedto Judge Kenneth Lee. That trialended abruptly in a mistrial dur-ing opening statements. In spiteof the time devoted to setup andABC having a full filming crewonsite, they recognized that mis-trials are part of the process andreturned when the trial was re-scheduled a few months later.Anderson, charged with man-slaughter, aggravated assault andcriminal damage, was foundguilty after seven days of testi-mony and deliberations.

ABC also filmed State v.Joshua Sanora, assigned to JudgeMichael Alfred. Sanora wascharged with attempted first-de-gree murder and aggravated as-

A look inside ABC’s temporary control room

A remote control camera is set up

12

sault. The trial resulted in guiltyverdicts after four days of testi-mony and deliberations. Bothcases were scheduled for sentenc-ing in November of 2003 andwill be broadcast in the summerof 2004.

Judicial HonorsPima County Juvenile Court

Commissioner Stephen M.Rubin was elected to the positionof secretary of the NationalCouncil of Juvenile and FamilyCourt Judges–the first Arizonajudge to serve as an officer of thisnational organization. Foundedin 1937 by a group of judges, theNCJFCJ exists to bring aware-ness and sensitivity to children’sissues. It provides training andtechnical assistance to judges,court administrators and relatedprofessionals who work for thecare of children and families.The election was held in July2002 at the council’s conferencein Boston, Mass. “I am honoredand humbled,” he said. “I haveenjoyed my work with the coun-cil and look forward to contin-ued work toward improving thechild welfare system in Arizonaand throughout the country.”

The Arizona Family SupportCouncil presented its “JudicialOfficer of the Year” award toCommissioner Karen Adam.The Council is an independentorganization of child supportprofessionals dedicated to pro-viding educational training toother child support professionalsstatewide. The council citedCommissioner Adam’s relentlessdedication to understandingArizona’s child support laws inan effort to provide fair and con-sistent rulings. Further, she was

acknowledged for striving tokeep the best interests of the chil-dren at the forefront of her rul-ings and her ability to work in acollaborative manner with attor-neys, litigants and the Office ofthe Attorney General - ChildSupport Division.

The Arizona Bar Associa-tion honored Hon. MichaelMiller, Div. 25, with its Memberof the Year award in June 2003.This award is given to an attor-ney who has made extraordinarycontributions to the programsand activities of the state bar inthe prior year. Judge Miller re-ceived the award for his service

as chair of the Ethical Rules Re-view Group. Through the effortsof this group, which includedhundreds of hours of work overa two-year period, extensivechanges were made to the codeof professional conduct for law-yers in Arizona. Judge Miller hasa Ph.D. in psychology and priorto his appointment to the benchspent 17 years in private practice,mainly in the areas of product li-ability, commercial and admin-istrative health care law.

The Court was honored bythe Volunteer Lawyers Program(VLP) as one of three recipientsof the 2002 Streich Lang Award.Also receiving the 2002 StreichLang Award were the ArizonaFoundation for Legal Servicesand Education and the PimaCounty Bar Association. TheStreich Lang Award was namedfor Quarles & Brady StreichLang, in 1997, after the law firmdonated funds to the VLP. There-after, the award has been givento a group or groups that havecome together in order to providefinancial support to the VLP.

Each of the three recipientsof the 2002 Streich Lang Awardprovided financial support to the

Judge Miller

13

Commissioner Rubin

Commissioner Adam

VLP Advocates Project, whichrecruits and trains students fromthe James E. Rogers College ofLaw at the University of Arizonawho, under the supervision of anattorney, review the pleadings ofpro per (self-represented) litigantsat family law default judgmenthearings. The review by the stu-dents is designed to ensure thatthe pro per litigants have accu-rately calculated their child sup-port prior to seeking the approvalof a judicial officer.

Performance Appraisals Get aFace Lift

Employee performance ap-praisals were given considerableattention by court administrationduring FY 2003. The court con-tracted with human resourcesconsultant Terry Curry, professorand director of the School ofLabor and Industrial Relations atMichigan State University, in FY2002 to provide performancemanagement training to supervi-

sors and managers.Committees were estab-

lished to develop the appraisalform and formal training wasconducted with all court employ-ees prior to commencing the per-formance appraisal process.

Management has taken a sig-nificantly different approach inhow performance appraisals areconducted in the court. Whereassupervisors used to meet withemployees at the end of the yearand discuss their performance,the new process is much more in-teractive. The employee and su-pervisor meet at the beginning ofthe rating period and work to-gether to identify the employee’sprimary job responsibilities andgoals for the year. Halfwaythrough the rating period theemployee and supervisor meetagain to discuss the employee’sprogress and make any adjust-ments to goals and responsibili-ties as may be required.

The third and final meeting

is the formal appraisal that oc-curs at the end of the rating pe-riod. The supervisor assesses theemployee’s ability to perform hisor her primary functions, work-ing skills such as communicationand decision-making, andwhether the goals for the yearwere met. As a last step the su-pervisor and employee identifyprimary job responsibilities andgoals for the next rating period.It is anticipated that by makingthis process more interactive, itwill prove to be more valuableand meaningful for employeesand managers within the organi-zation.

Facilities ImprovementsFY 2003 brought a continu-

ation of long-awaited buildingimprovements to the courthouse.Construction on the third floorto build three new courtroomsand judges’ chambers began, aswell as numerous offices andworkspace for support staff.

The construction of a newhearing room in the county ad-ministration building for theboard of supervisors made wayfor the construction of a newjury assembly room on the firstMark Rosenbaum and Rafaela deLoera conduct performance appraisal training for

superior court employees

New sign above the West entrance

14

floor. Finished in late August2003, the assembly room, com-plete with televisions, computers,working tables, and a lounge, hasbeen well received by jurors. Of-fice space for the jury commis-sioner was created in the firstfloor space once occupied by theClerk of the Court’s legal recordsunit. Space for the legal recordsunit was created on the secondfloor for the purpose of storageof court files and trial evidence.

Construction of new hearingrooms for commissioners andsecured hallways to their cham-bers and staff offices was alsocompleted on the second floor ofthe court building.

When the courthouse wasoriginally built in 1974 the mostpopular carpet and upholsterycolors were a vibrant orange, yel-low and avocado. Althoughunique, their appeal lost favorover the years and the furnishingsthemselves became quite worn.This led to a long awaited refur-bishing project in the courtroomson floors 4, 5 and 6 that nearedcompletion at fiscal year end.

Legislation ImpactsDeath Penalty Cases

In June 2002 the UnitedStates Supreme Court ruled inRing v. Arizona that sentencinga defendant to death would be aresponsibility of the jury in Ari-zona. Until that ruling, a judgedecided if evidence was suffi-cient to prove that an aggravat-ing circumstance was significantenough to merit a death sen-tence.

Defendant Ring was con-victed by a jury of felony mur-der occurring in the course ofarmed robbery. Under Arizonalaw, Ring could be sentenced todeath by a judge following an ag-gravation/mitigation hearing. Inthat hearing, the judge deter-mined the existence or nonexist-ence of “aggravating circum-stances” and any “mitigating cir-cumstances.” At the sentencinghearing, the judge found two ag-gravating factors, as well as onemitigating factor and imposedthe death penalty. On appeal,Ring argued that Arizona’s capi-tal sentencing scheme violated

the Sixth Amendment’s jury trialguarantee by entrusting to ajudge, rather than a jury, the find-ing of fact that could result in theimposition of the maximum pen-alty. The U.S. Supreme Courtagreed.

In September 2002 then-Gov. Jane Dee Hull signed emer-gency legislation that gave Ari-zona juries full authority to sen-tence a murderer to death. If ajury decides against the deathpenalty, then a judge determinesone of two life sentences to im-pose; natural life or life with thepossibility of release in 25 to 35years.

Ironically, Arizona institutedjudge sentencing in death penaltycases to avoid problems with theU.S. Supreme Court. In 1972, thecourt struck down Arizona’sdeath penalty statute on theground that juries had “unfet-tered discretion” in choosingwho would receive the death sen-tence. The practice, which Ari-zona had followed since territo-rial days, was to allow the jurythat found a defendant guilty of

A third floor courtroom during the construction process

Renovations to a sixth floorcourtroom

15

a charge of first-degree murderto decide whether to impose lifein prison or death. But the jurywas given no guidance as to howto make that decision.

In response to the U.S. Su-preme Court’s 1972 decision,most states left death sentencingin the hands of juries, but en-acted a list of aggravating andmitigating circumstances forthem to consider when decidingthe sentence. Arizona likewiseenacted such a list, but to avoideven the hint of juror discretion,removed juries entirely from thesentencing phase. The SupremeCourt approved the judge-sen-tencing system in a 1990 casecalled Walton v. Arizona.

But in 2000, the court de-cided Apprendi v. New Jersey. Ina nutshell, Apprendi said that ju-ries, not judges, must find anyfacts that increase a sentence be-yond the statutory maximum. InArizona, the statutory maximumsentence for first-degree murderwas life—unless the judge foundadditional facts (aggravators)that made the offender eligiblefor the death penalty. Apprendiand Walton were in conflict, and,

in the Ring decision, the courtsided with Apprendi. Jurorsmust now find aggravators anddecide only the death sentence.The death sentence decisionmust be unanimous.

As a consequence of theRing decision, the Arizona Su-preme Court agreed to individu-ally review the sentences of eightPima County death row inmatesto see whether juries should re-sentence them. In FY 2003, sixof the inmates were returned tothe court on remand. The in-mates had appealed their deathsentences, which had been im-posed by judges before the Ringdecision was announced.

In a typical case, once a juryhas rendered a guilty verdict, thesame jury then will hear the ag-gravating and mitigating factorsand decide on a life or death sen-tence. In the case of the re-sentencings it was not possible to

reconvene the jury that found thedefendant guilty. Consequently,new jurors were empanelled forthis process.

In non-Ring cases in early2003, one jury sentenced a de-fendant to life, while a secondjury re-sentenced the co-defen-dant to death. The death sen-tence, however, was vacated be-cause of trial error.

Courts Are Us ProgramMarks 10th Year

For ten years the youth em-ployment program known asCourts Are Us has marked theofficial start of the summer sea-son for the court. The programwas started in 1993 by retiredJudge Norman Fenton in thewake of the Rodney King inci-dent in Los Angeles. The result-ing riots and the images of thoseevents reported to the world bythe media led Judge Fenton to

Courts Are Us participants are awarded certificates of completion by Judge HectorCampoy and Magistrate Margarita Bernal

A Courts Are Us mock trial begins

16

conclude that it was imperativeto educate young people in ourcommunity about the innerworkings of the courts and thelegal system.

Early on, a partnership wasestablished with Tucson YouthDevelopment to provide jobs forup to 30 teens. In addition to jobsat superior court, Courts Are Usparticipants have worked at theoffice of the Clerk of the Court,the Pima County ConsolidatedJustice Courts, Tucson CityCourt, the Pima CountyAttorney’s Office and the PimaCounty Legal Defender’s Office.

Funding for the program,which paid participating students$5.15 per hour for 30 hours ofwork each week, was providedthrough grants and other fund-ing sources obtained throughPima County government. Dur-ing the summer of 2002, 29 stu-dents participated in the pro-gram. Each student was assigned

a supervisor who monitoredtheir work, as well as providedtraining and instruction in thebasic skills necessary for the stu-dents to perform the tasks towhich they were assigned. Thestudents were also paired with alawyer in the community whoserved as a mentor and taughtstudents about the inner-work-ings of the legal system.

In addition to on-the-jobtraining, an educational compo-nent was added in FY 2003. Stu-dents were provided an overviewof the court system and morespecific information about theoperations of the clerk’s office,adult probation, court interpret-ers, court reporters, pretrial ser-vices operations, the role of thejury commissioner and how thecourt maintains its calendar ofcases. The education programwrapped up with a mock trial,which afforded students the op-portunity to play the roles of

judge, bailiff, prosecutor, defenseattorney, clerk, court reporterand juror in a simulated trial.

Speaker’s BureauThe judiciary plays an inte-

gral role in society. Therefore,the judges at superior court, aspart of its effort to reach out tothe community, developed aspeaker’s bureau in hopes ofmaking the judicial system moreunderstandable and accessible.Under the supervision of thecourt’s Community RelationsCommittee, the speaker’s bureaumaintains a panel of judges avail-able to speak on a wide varietyof issues and topics to classes atlocal schools and before commu-nity organizations and groups inorder to provide them with a bet-ter understanding of the judi-ciary. Members of the bench areprepared to address several top-ics including: judicial ethics,Arizona’s court system, the juve-nile justice system, Arizona juryreforms, career opportunities inthe courts and new legislation re-garding the death penalty.

Judge Frank Dawley explains the process to the Courts Are Us mock trial jury.

Courts Are Us participantslearn about court reporting

17

Court Calendars Go On-LineDuring FY 2003, the court’s

information and technology ser-vices division (ITSD) developedseveral online daily court calen-dars as well as a variety of reportsthat serve the attorneys in thelegal community. Electronic de-livery provides criminal justiceagencies with increased access toinformation. The searchable re-ports are available from anyInternet-enabled computer.ITSD estimated that this projectwould save the printing of almost2,000 pages a day, which equals10,000 per week, or 500,000pages (yes, a half million pages)per year! The annual savings inpaper and supplies is estimatedto exceed $7,000.

Calendar ServicesPlanning continued during

FY 2003 for implementation ofa dual computer monitor systemfor calendar services. Develop-ment of the approach to limit theamount of paper flowingthrough calendar services beganduring FY 2002 with an experi-ment involving a pair of com-puter stations. The experimentdemonstrated that the use of twomonitors--one displaying imagedcase file information and theother displaying calendar recordsavailable for updating new courtdates--eliminated the need forprinted case file information.

Installation of the dualmonitors at each calendar ser-vices workstation was scheduledto begin in FY 2004.

Human ResourcesThe Human Resources (HR)

Unit of the superior courthandled day-to-day personnelmatters, and inquiries from staffand the public regarding payroll,benefits, recruitment and selec-tion, classification and compen-sation, and employee relations.The superior court began FY2003 with 651 employees andended the fiscal year with 612employees. The decline was a re-sult of a hiring freeze imposedby the court, due to budget cuts.

In October 2002, the humanresources director reorganizedthe unit under a supervisor thatwas responsible for the day-to-day operations, including the su-pervision of five staff members.The reorganization proved nec-essary, after the consolidation ofthe adult probation and superiorcourt HR units, to provide moredirect supervision to staff andensure that all of the critical ar-eas of human resources weremet. In that reorganization spe-cific job descriptions were devel-oped and implemented for each

staff member. The benefit de-rived for the reorganization wasa clear understanding of indi-vidual responsibilities and duties,as well as consistent and timelyoversight of the daily operations.

Due to the financial cut-backs, the recruitments and thenumber of applications pro-cessed were down. For FY 2003,HR processed 13 recruitments,hired 18 new employees, andprocessed 1,120 applications/re-sumes. A nationwide recruit-ment was conducted for the chiefprobation officer vacancy andthe position was filled in Janu-ary 2003.

HR filled 58 requests fromjudicial staff for bailiff coverage,and 21 requests for outside tem-porary agencies.

Conciliation CourtDuring FY 2003, Family

Center of the Conciliation Court(FCCC) opened over 1,535 casefiles, provided direct clinical ser-vices to families, and also pro-vided parental dispute resolutionservices to the court. This repre-

Linda Mullard and Bonnie Berlowe handle some of the criminal calendaring

18

sented an increase of 6 percentover the previous fiscal year fil-ings. During the same period,FCCC lost a full-time mediatorposition due to statewide budgetreductions.

In addition to providing itstraditional family court services,FCCC continued its role as con-tract services administrator forthe Judicial Supervision Pro-gram. During FY 2003 FCCCoversaw the negotiation of a newcontract for the mandated parentinformation program, which re-duced the price of the course todivorcing parents.

FCCC continued its commit-ment to community and profes-sional education during the pastyear. Some highlights includedpresentations by staff at the As-sociation of Family and Concili-ation Courts Southwest RegionalSymposia in November 2002 inTucson, ongoing presentationsin conjunction with the PimaCounty Bar Association of the“Considering Divorce?” pro-gram and presentations for theagency’s Diversity Forum pro-gram.

FCCC began a court andgrant-funded research project ondomestic violence in the media-tion population in collaborationwith the University of ArizonaDepartment of Psychology.With the assistance of a Univer-sity of Arizona doctoral intern,a mediation client satisfactionsurvey was designed and admin-istered. Results of the surveydemonstrated high levels of par-ent satisfaction with FCCC’s me-diation program.

Pretrial Services Turns 30Pretrial Services staff is re-

sponsible for interviewing defen-dants arrested in Pima Countyto determine their suitability forrelease from jail prior to trial.Staff have the authority to re-lease defendants charged withcertain misdemeanor offenses.

The origins of Pretrial Ser-vices stretch back to 1972 in thewake of the passage of the Fed-eral Bail Reform Act of 1966.The statute provided criteria foruse by judges when consideringthe eligibility of defendants forpretrial release. Prior to the pas-

sage of this Act, most defendantswere released from jail by post-ing bond.

During FY 2003, the countymisdemeanor arrests screenedfor pre-release eligibility totaled12,584. By charge, 5,442defendants were eligible for pre-release consideration. Pretrialservices staff identified 3,562 ofthese defendants who weredeemed suitable for pre-release,thus eliminating theirunnecessary incarceration. Forthe defendants pre-released, 79percent appeared at theirscheduled court hearing. For theremainder of the defendants,those ineligible or identified asnot suitable for pre-release, staffprepared written reports to thecourt regarding conditions ofrelease.

Staff also developedinformation for felony initialcourt appearances. Arresteddefendants were taken to jail,where staff members conducteda criminal history check,interviewed the defendant todetermine community ties,assessed their risk to thecommunity and determined thelikelihood that they wouldappear at all scheduled courthearings. During FY 2003, therewere 8,144 defendants arrestedfor felony charged offenses.Staff members provided theinitial appearance court withinformation and recommen-dations on 99 percent (8,108) ofthose defendants.

Ford Nicholson talks with Conciliation Court participants

19

For those felony defendantsnot released at initial appearancecourt, staff conducted furtherinvestigations to determine, ifwith additional information, adefendant would be suitable fornon-financial release. Either atthe initiation of staff or inresponse to a defense attorney’sfiling of motion to modifyconditions of release, anadditional 1,453 new reportswere submitted to the court forreconsideration of releaseconditions.

The court released 2,725defendants into the custody ofPretrial Services. Servicesprovided included advising thedefendant of upcoming courtdates, making referrals tocommunity social servicesagencies, conducting drug andalcohol testing, transportingdefendants to court hearings,and addressing any other issuesthat may arise during the pretrialperiod. Of the cases closed lastfiscal year, 82 percent wereclosed successfully.

Jury CommissionerThe Jury Commissioner’s

Office summons and qualifies

prospective jurors for the Supe-rior Court, Pima County Con-solidated Justice Courts andcounty and state grand juries. Bycontract, the Jury Comm-issioner’s Office also qualifiesprospective jurors for service atTucson City Court.

The Jury Commissioner’sOffice also maintains and up-dates the Pima County MasterJury List, which contains morethan 676,000 names of registeredPima County voters and personslicensed by the Motor VehicleDivision of the Arizona Depart-ment of Transportation.

Jury service in Pima Countylasts for one day or for the dura-tion of one trial. During FY2003, 114,240 jury summonsesand qualification questionnaireswere mailed to prospective trialjurors. Of those, 88,400 sum-monses were for service in supe-rior court and justice court and25,840 persons were summonedfor Tucson City Court. Of the ju-rors reporting for service in thesuperior and justice courts, ap-proximately 94 percent weredrawn for jury panels.

Young LawyersVolunteer Their Services

As part of the collaborationbetween the superior court,Southern Arizona Legal Aid andthe University of Arizona Col-lege of Law, 16 second-year lawstudents served as interns withthe court this year, providing as-sistance to persons representingthemselves (pro pers) in default di-

vorce proceedings.The law students were re-

sponsible for reviewing paper-work prepared by the pro pers tomake certain that child supportpayments were calculated cor-rectly, ensure that all fees werepaid and that the parties in thedivorce action attended the par-ent education classes throughConciliation Court as required.Once the paperwork had beenreviewed it was presented to thecommissioner presiding over thehearing. Commissioner Dardis,who coordinated the programthis year, commented that theprogram saves time for everyoneinvolved and also provides valu-able experience to the law stu-dents. The program gives the stu-dents an opportunity to think ontheir feet and work with real cli-ents. In addition, the studentslearn about the importance ofvolunteering and the significantrole it plays in this profession.

20

Linda Gorman, with Pretrial Services,talks with a Tucson Police officer

Potential jurors check inat the new jury assembly room

Acknow

ledgements

This report represents the achievements of employees working for Arizona Superior Court in PimaCounty. We extend special thanks to the following individuals for contributing to this annual report:Kathy Brauer, Suzy Bushman, Andy Dowdle, Kim Holloway, Laura Pate, Doug Kooi, Fred Mitchell,Mike Stafford, and David Sanders

Co-Editor ~ David Ricker

Co-Editor ~ Lisa Royal

Co-Editor ~ Susan Foster

Layout Editor ~ JoAnne Pope

K. Kent BattyCourt Administrator

21