October 2, 2011 9:35 PM

Budget cuts are slowing down U.S. courts

By
Jim Axelrod
(CBS News) 

State legislatures looking to cut budgets are increasingly targeting the courts, which have been forced to lay off thousands of staff workers.

CBS News correspondent Jim Axelrod reports that with state courts handling more than 40 million cases a year, the result is often gridlock.

Engineer Doug Reed wants to start his own management consulting business, and, uncertain of his cash flow, he filed to lower alimony payments to his ex-wife. That was in July, 2010.

"I was hoping to have it finalized by the fall," Reed said.

Now 14 months and counting, his case is languishing in the overburdened Massachusetts court system. The earliest Reed expects to be seen now is Dec. 5.

Since 2009, 14 percent of the trial court budget has been cut in the state, resulting in the loss of almost 800 employees. While criminal cases still have priority, the same does not hold true for everyday civil matters like business disputes, divorces and custody cases.

At least 34 states cut their court budgets this year. New York laid off 367 workers in may. Alabama will cut its budget by 10 percent. In California, the Superior Court of san francisco will let go 15 percent of its staff and shutter 14 courtrooms.

With fewer staffers, judges can barely keep up.

"They're doing work through lunch. They're coming in early. They're staying late. They're using vacation days to write cases," said Mary Manzi, a recently retired probate and family court judge.

In her home state of Massachusetts, 42,000 people use the trial courts everyday.

"I've had legislators say to me that not that many people percentage wise use the courts, and that's some sort of justification. But it's almost like saying not everyone uses an emergency room every year. You need to have the emergency room there, ya know?" Manzi said.

What frustrates people like Doug Reed most is that, instead of focusing on his fledgling business, he's unable to move forward until a judge hears his case.

© 2011 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.
Add a Comment See all 16 Comments
by tsigili October 5, 2011 9:03 AM EDT
If the courts slow down any more, it will take ten years to actually bring someone to trial.
Reply to this comment
by rockcutr October 5, 2011 7:30 AM EDT
It is impossible for me and anyone else of common sence to feel pity for the judicial system. Especially the judges and lawyers. The entire process is designed to be a bottle neck to discourage any fairness to the people. As long as the legal chickens continue there raping and pillaging of the citizens for adherance to the made up laws .......dishonor shall continue. Change would mean these individuals actually have hearts and are not alien droids of a souless nature.
Reply to this comment
by barbaracjohnson74 October 4, 2011 1:49 AM EDT
If the judges followed the law when determining their ruling on motions and on pretrial, trial, and posttrial matters, the amount of paperwork now overburdening the courts in Massachusetts would be cut at least in half -- if not more. People file Motions to Vacate, Motions for Reconsideration, interlocutory appeals, final appeals, Rule 27.1 docs seeking FARs (Further Appellate Review), Complaints for Contempt. The list is quite lengthy. I'll not burden the readers with it now. Massachusetts has soooooo many incompetent judges, the budgetary deficit makes very little difference to the administration of justice. The erosion of due process, including its cornerstone of fundamental fairness, and equal protection were eroding for many reasons while the Commonwealth's coffers were full. That they are less full now is inconsequential. Some of the excess baggage -- or incompetent baggage -- is having to go bye-bye. That's the silver lining for the gloomy skies. Barbara, barbjohnson74@gmail.com, 978-961-0079
Reply to this comment
by cwedge411 October 4, 2011 3:54 PM EDT
Barbara, you couldn't be any more right. These judges are CREATING more work than need be then crying poor mouth that there is more case load. Can we say "JOB SECURITY and growth"? The amount of corruption is ASTOUNDING, by cutting their payroll, they will make it up in "COURT COSTS" Wait just a MINUTE? Why is now everything Government Funded costing us Money again?? Isn't that what taxes are for? Now we have to pay to use stuff again that our Tax dollar are supposed to be paying for ALREADY.

WHAT A JOKE this country is becomming, 75% of all our money goes to something to do with the government!
by Goofer-Buddy October 3, 2011 11:58 AM EDT
Soon our civil society will be reduced to fat pensioners and armed vigilantes.
Reply to this comment
by Excalibrationist October 3, 2011 9:42 AM EDT
"Budget cuts are slowing down U.S. courts"

This CAN'T be true!
I mean to say, there is no recession because Bidon said so in '09, and every other Dem says our national economy is "just wonderful", and the national unemployment figure is under 10%, and the Democrat-controlled Senate has passed only one of twelve of the Republican-controlled House job-producing bills:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/08/a-quick-comparison-of-the-house-and-senate-on-jobs/ on jobs":

Why, I'm simply all aghast!!!
Reply to this comment
by pclemsc October 3, 2011 6:35 AM EDT
If the courts are experiencing budget cuts and laying off people, why aren't they using the money paid to them by the child support collection agencies in each state to offset some of those cuts? Those bribes to each state's family courts amount to millions, if not MULTI-millions of dollars. But no record of the transactions can be found after the money leaves the collection agency. Some think that the money is being funneled into slush funds, or private, secret, retirement funds for the judges.
Reply to this comment
by Hadenoughuc October 3, 2011 6:35 AM EDT
again they lay off the actual workers ,instead of the upper management fat that does nothing for there big paychecks.they always lay off the wrong people.
Reply to this comment
by tmittelstaed October 3, 2011 3:07 AM EDT
"...Engineer Doug Reed wants to start his own management consulting business, and, uncertain of his cash flow, he filed to lower alimony payments to his ex-wife. That was in July, 2010..."

Doug Reed had his day in court when he got divorced, the taxpayers paid for him to straighten things out at that time. The court system is not designed for people to keep coming back every year or so to refile changes on done deals just because they decided they don't want to honor their prior commitments.
Reply to this comment
by Smail_Buzzby October 3, 2011 9:17 AM EDT
Alimony is hardly a 'prior commitment' and it is based upon your earnings WHEN IT IS GRANTED. Not to mention it should probably not exist at all and is routinely taken advantage of by women.
If this guy lost his job and is looking to start a new life he is most likely being held back by supporting his ex, who is probably living with some other guy, but won't marry because she is on the gravy train.
This was a lousy example and if this is all the CBS could find then they should not have posted this story.
But the court system was not designed to bleed men forever - it was designed to see that crimes are punished and that things are settled fairly. Our court system is a complete and utter failure for many reasons.
by NinthSt78 October 2, 2011 11:43 PM EDT
Some things such as "the principle of the thing" and "specific action" are not for sale.
Reply to this comment
by jamesluna99k October 2, 2011 10:26 PM EDT
There is a huge amount of bribery in San Diego and around the country in America, perhaps even more than in the courts of any other country in the world. Nearly all bribes are given to the judges by lawyers; this is considered the safe way to bribe a judge. Bribery is rarely spoken about, just understood. People pay huge amounts of money to law firms with connections, the lawyers walk around with a certain amount of cash in their jacket, and they pass it to the judges in their quiet moments together. It is mostly all cash of course. Sometimes the bribery is blatantly obvious, because of the other crimes that lawyers and judges commit in broad daylight together. In the courtrooms you can see the judges being extremely friendly to their rich lawyer friends who pay big bribes.
In America, government-appointed lawyers are the means by which hundreds of thousands of poor people are railroaded into prison. It is the job of the victim's lawyer to "sell the deal" that the judge has decided will happen. This is Star Chamber justice.
Though a social explosion is lurking beneath the surface - with judges starting to get murdered, and people lighting courthouses ablaze.
A 1996 San Diego Superior Court corruption case in which three judges and a lawyer were convicted of taking bribes or influence peddling. Since neither county nor state would prosecute, federal prosecutors had to do the job under the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) statute. Former San Diego Judge Michael Greer admitted taking $75,000 in bribes in exchange for having given a lawyer preferential treatment. Greer was placed on suspension after pleading guilty. Judges G. Dennis Adams, James A. Malkus and attorney Patrick R. Frega were convicted under the RICO statute. But in June of this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned racketeering charges against Adams and Malkus, claiming the jury had been given inaccurate instructions. All of these men have remained free since 1996 as they appeal their cases.
Reply to this comment
by pclemsc October 3, 2011 6:29 AM EDT
It is NOT just lawyers bribing judges. Under federal law, each state must have in place a "cooperative agreement" or "inter-agency agreement", under which the child support collection agency of each state pays the courts for hearing child support cases. The payoffs are in the MILLIONS of dollars, which insures that custody and support decisions support the predetermined policy of sole maternal custody, and a Communistic "TRANSFER OF WEALTH" from fathers to mothers.
by sejsw October 4, 2011 10:33 PM EDT
In my state, lawyers have made offhand comments about buying judges tickets to sports events to swing cases in their favor. D'ya think a $400+/ hr lawyer who has access to a client's retainer can "motivate" a $75/hr judge?
See all 16 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook