Sweeping recommendations by a state commission could change the way justice is meted out in rural New York.
If implemented, the changes could mean the end of some courts in small, rural towns of Delaware, Otsego, Chenango and Schoharie counties.
The Special Commission on the Future of the New York Courts is recommending the consolidation of local justice courts, better security and other improvements to court facilities, minimum requirements to become a justice, more training for justices and increased funding for courts.
"It is our hope that this study paves the way for significant reform and improvement of these historic courts, by moving us beyond the old debate between those who urge that the justice courts be abolished and those who argue that they should be left alone," said commission Chairman Carey R. Dunne, a New York City attorney, when the recommendations were released last month.
The Commission, which has no statutory power, is urging the state Legislature to act. The Commission is also recommending that each of the state's counties set up a panel that would consider how these changes could be implemented on a local level.
Some of those who work locally in the criminal justice system are not as enthusiastic about certain aspects of the plan. Others said it could meet stiff resistance.
"I think I understand where they are coming from," Otsego County District Attorney John Muehl said last week. "There's always room for change in the system."
But Muehl said consolidation of courts has its downsides, and the recommendations also risk reducing the pool of potential justices to serve on local courts.
The recommendations include a requirement that judges be at least 25 years old and have a minimum of a two-year college degree.
They also include giving defendants in misdemeanor criminal cases the right to "opt-out" of appearing before a non-attorney justice in order to have his or her case heard before an attorney judge.
This could prove to be unmanageable in rural counties with few attorney judges, Muehl said.
Reaction from local justices was mixed.
"If it works, mess with it," said Harpersfield Town Justice Charles Brower, summing up his opinion of state intervention.
"It's a much more realistic report than a lot of the judges were expecting," said town of Otego Justice James Wolff.
The commission began its study in April 2007. It was the most extensive review of the justice court system in the state's history and included visits to 100 of the state's 1,250 town and village justice courts, according to the state Office of Court Administration officials.
The justice court system in New York state dates to colonial times. These courts, which are presided over by elected judges, are locally administered and, to a large extent, locally funded. Part-time justices typically make only a few thousand dollars a year.
Unlike the judges in county and state courts, town and village justices do not have to be attorneys. And the majority of them aren't, according to the commission's report. Neither Brower nor Wolff are attorneys.
Justice courts in towns and villages handle traffic tickets, violations and misdemeanors, small-claims cases and felony arraignments, and preliminary hearings. In some small towns, court is held in town garages, fire halls and even the homes of justices.
Calls for reform by some in state government are nothing new.
"They've been talking about that for years," Brower said.
The report lays out the criticism of the local justice courts: Concern over the independence of justices from local government and law enforcement, judicial error and abuse, lack of supervision, primitive conditions and that 70 percent of the justices are non-attorneys.
Rural justice courts have also been fodder for The New York Times over the years, including in 2006 with its "Broken Bench" series of articles, which was cited in the commission's report as evidence of the concern over the status of local justice courts.
Brower said the New York Times articles have been biased.
"I don't think they really understand how it really works," Brower said.
Wolff also said the articles have not been fair and have regurgitated some of the same stories of judicial misconduct.
"A lot of the incidents were a long time ago," Wolff said.
But Wolff said the commission's report was not an indictment of local justice courts and didn't include the same calls for abolishment of local courts or their reorganization into district courts.
"Overall, this thing makes some sense, but the decision needs to be a local one," he said.
The commission does cite positive aspects of the courts: the availability of justices at all hours of the day, the accountability of justices to local interests and the democratic process of electing justices.
However, Muehl said that although the commission is not in total agreement with district courts, the changes it is suggesting could amount to what is essentially a district court system.
"They refuse to call a spade a spade," Muehl said.
Instead of consolidation, the Office of Court Administration could assist justices by offering them more training and funding, Muehl said.
"There is an advantage to the community to have (a justice court) one in each town," Muehl said. "For the most part, (justices) are conscientious and hard-working."
Community members with court business would not have to drive across the county, he said.
"I could see the education requirements getting implemented. I don't see the rest of it getting implemented," Muehl said.
Delaware County Sheriff Thomas Mills agreed with one finding in the report: Sheriff's deputies are often carting defendants held in the county jails all over the county for court appearances.
"It is probably one of our major expenses that we do incur," Mills said. "There are times when we have three, four, five cars out taking prisoners to court."
But Mills said it is important to maintain the local courts if possible.
"Some of our local judges are very well-respected," he said.
Mills said he would also be concerned about the start-up costs associated with any consolidation system.
In some areas of the state, neighboring communities, such as Sidney, Bainbridge and Unadilla, are each in a different county. It might be wasteful to have a consolidation based solely on a county breakdown, Mills said.
Otsego County Public Defender Richard Rothermel said it may come down to local public support.
"For that, you've got to have people who are willing to give up their local town justice positions," Rothermel said. "We've found that at times they can be very territorial."
Rothermel said that in his case, consolidation might be an idea that is worth exploring because it might cut down on travel and time, which in turn could save the county money. There can be four courts each night that require the presence of a public defender, he said.
Rothermel said the concerns about the conduct of justices and the efficiencies of the courts have some merit.
"Things are sometimes as bad as they are represented," Rothermel said. "There are some good arguments for district courts and there are some good arguments the other way."
However, Rothermel said, change at the local level could be tough to implement. He compared court consolidation to two churches whose congregations decide to merge but disagree over what that merger would eventually look like.
Brower said that given the state's financial crisis, he doesn't see it happening anytime soon.
"Right now, I think you are going to run into an economy problem," Brower said.
The state may not be able to afford the changes the commission would like to see, he said, and "I think it's going to be put on hold."
Print this story
E-mail this story
