what we now call
Court leadership worked for many years
to understand the impact of settlement
conferences on the court and all the parties. In that effort, feedback was solicited
from prosecutors, defense attorneys, judicial officers and staff to improve processes.
By listening to these groups it was discovered that it is more important in many
cases that the date of the settlement conference be firm and within a few days of the
request, rather than being set on a specific
judge’s calendar at a much later date. This
revelation inspired the court to devise a
process by which staff accepted reservations for a given date within 48 hours of
the request, but the judicial assignment
wouldn’t occur until the day of the conference, and it would be dependent on who
was available at that time. This has permitted settlement conferences to receive earlier dates and thus resolve cases sooner—
which is always the bottom line to produce
fair resolution of criminal cases as early in
the process as possible to reduce an almost
overwhelming criminal case caseload.
This has been especially helpful in the
first and second quarters of FY 2014 (July
2013 through December 2013) as
increased trial demand has made it even
more challenging to schedule these events.
But lawyers who believe a specific judge
should do a settlement conference in a
given case still have the ability to make
those arrangements. It is interesting that
prosecutors and defense counsel typically
have no problem among themselves in
requesting a specific judge to do a settle-
ment conference and any sentencing grow-
ing out of any plea.
Summary and Analysis
1. There are two ways to order a criminal
settlement conference in our court
today: ( 1) call the division you want
to do it and get a date and time; or
( 2) call the new settlement on demand
administrator to get a time and date
from any criminal division available
on the date you request.
2. The new settlement on demand pro-
gram is an addition to a comprehensive
criminal settlement conference policy
first instituted in Superior Court for
Maricopa County in 1996. It permits
busy and over-extended lawyers to set
a conference within 48 hours of their
request on the date they have decided
on. They may also request a specific
time. In FY 2013, 95 percent of these
requests were granted and so far in
FY2014 (beginning July 1, 2013) 90
percent, and the court continues to
work on a process to accommodate
all such requests. Attorneys utilizing
settlement on
demand can still
agree that a
particular judge
do the sentencing
if the conference
results in a plea
on that day or
later.
3. The new plea
on demand program provides a
judicial officer
each day to take
pleas in criminal
cases, while
counsel still
retain the ability
to request a certain judge do the
sentencing.
4. There is a 56 percent settlement rate of
criminal cases going to settlement conferences whether on demand or otherwise. Interestingly this is identical to
the rate of settlement after conferences
in probate cases ( 56 percent) 17 in our
court and a little higher than the settlement conference rate of success in
civil cases, which is 45 percent18. Both
the probate and civil settlement conferences are usually conducted by practicing attorneys on a pro bono basis or
retired judicial officers. In FY 2013
only 2. 4 percent of criminal cases were
disposed of by trial.
5. Of the 3,000 or so criminal cases filed
each month in our Court (criminal
filing in FY 2013) total 30,288) 19
approximately 1,500 will settle by plea
or dismissal without the need of a set-
tlement conference and before a case is
sent to a trial division. Of the remain-
ing 1,500 cases 90 percent will resolve
by plea within one year, while only 17
percent of the remaining cases out of
the 3,000 or so filed in a particular
month go to a settlement conference.
It is our belief, as well as that of prose-
cutors and defense counsel, backed
now by empirical data, that criminal
settlement conferences are essential to
an early disposition of criminal cases.
6. It is an essential component of the
court’s criminal settlement policy that
such conferences be held as early as
possible in processing of criminal cases.
While it is unknown whether most cases
would settle anyway without a settle-
ment conference, we do know that
successful conferences provide disposi-
tion of criminal cases many weeks and
months before they actually would do
so in the normal course of things. This
is a huge plus for a court inundated
by criminal filings, freeing up precious
court time for judicial officers staff
and administrators. The policy of the
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to
have plea offers available at early dispo-
sition hearings such as RCC is a crucial
ingredient, as well as the continuing
policy of offering new pleas where the
RCC best offer is rejected by defen-
dants. That office’s further policy of
permitting restaffed deviation requests
Criminal Settlement Conferences on Demand
THIS HAS PERMITTED SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCES TO RECEIVE EARLIER
DATES AND THUS RESOLVE CASES
SOONER—WHICH IS ALWAYS THE
BOTTOM LINE TO PRODUCE FAIR
RESOLUTION OF CRIMINAL CASES.
