Chapter I
Role of Judiciary and Connecticut Overview
Separation of powers is a cornerstone of the government structure at both state and national levels in the United States. Each state and the national government has a legislature to establish policy by enacting the laws; an executive branch to implement the laws; and a judicial branch to adjudicate disputes over interpretation of the laws.
The involvement of the Connecticut legislature in appointing and reappointing judges, and how it goes about the task, directly touches on some core concepts of our governmental system.
The legislative branches at the state and national levels are composed of many people representing specific geographic areas, elected directly by voters from those specific areas. The legislator's job is to represent his or her constituents in making public policy. The executive branches at the state and national level are headed by one person who is elected directly by the entire electorate. That person's job is to implement and enforce the laws as well as make public policy proposals.
The judicial branch operates primarily through the actions of individual judges. Unlike the executive and legislative branches, no one common way developed or exists now in the United States to select judges, the public officials of the judicial branch. At the federal level, after much debate during the formation of the U.S. Constitution, judges are nominated by the president and confirmed with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, serving for life "during good behavior." In a majority of states, though, judges serve for specific terms of office, and participate in some kind of direct election (either for a first appointment or reappointment). Connecticut's procedure of gubernatorial nomination and legislative appointment is a minority model (although Connecticut elects the state's 130 probate judges every four years). The variety of selection systems is discussed in Chapter IV.
The job of a judge is to apply the law established by the legislature, as well as common law, to individual cases in dispute, ranging from whether someone is guilty of a crime or has breached a contract. Judges make decisions that take away a person's liberty, impact a person's financial standing, decide with whom a child should grow up, and even take away someone's life. A judge may also be called upon to interpret the constitution, and make determinations of law where there is no clear statutory or judicial precedent.
The idea of judicial independence is that a judge should not be influenced by anything other than legal principles, including public opinion, in making those decisions. As noted in an American Bar Association Committee report:
Independence makes a system of impartial justice possible by enabling judges to protect and enforce the rights of the people and by allowing judges, without fear of reprisal, to strike down actions of the legislative and executive branches that exceed their designated powers. Independence is not for the personal benefit of the judges, but for the protection of the people.1
Judicial independence does not mean a judge works unchecked, though. Judicial accountability is exercised along many different avenues. A judge's decisions are subject to the appeals structure established by statute and court rule. Judicial misconduct can be addressed, often by independent bodies, and judges can be removed from office. And in most states, judges serve for terms, and thus must seek reappointment or reelection .
Connecticut Judicial Branch Overview
Connecticut has a three level court system. The Superior Court is the trial court of general jurisdiction that handles all legal issues (except for probate matters, which are handled by elected probate judges). There is also an Appellate Court (created in 1982), which is a mid-level appeals court. Finally, the Supreme Court is the highest court; it reviews decisions of the lower courts for errors of law.
The Superior Court is divided geographically into 13 judicial districts (referred to as JD courts), 22 geographical areas (referred to as GA courts), and 14 juvenile districts. The judicial district locations handle major criminal cases, civil matters, and family cases not involving juveniles. The GA courts handle other civil and criminal matters. Cases involving juveniles are handled at juvenile district locations.
As of September 1, 2000, there are 159 Superior Court judgeships with 152 filled and seven vacancies. No vacancies exist at the higher courts, where there are nine Appellate Court judges and seven Supreme Court judges. They are all appointed for eight-year terms. In addition, there are 13 senior judges and 79 state referees. Senior judges are judges who decide to retire at age 65 from active judgeship, but work on a limited, per diem basis. All judges must retire at age 70, but they can continue to work as state referees also on a limited, per diem basis.
Administration. The chief justice of the Supreme Court is the head of the judicial branch, and appoints a chief court administrator responsible for administrative operations of the branch. For each judicial district there is an administrative judge, an assistant administrative judge, and a presiding judge. They each have roles in judge assignment, coverage, and daily operations. There are also five chief administrative judges responsible for policy matters and advising the chief court administrator in specific subject areas - juvenile, family support and dissolution, civil (in two parts) and criminal.
Assignments. The courts with larger caseloads have more judges assigned to them. Beginning each September, judges are assigned on a yearly basis by the chief court administrator. All new judges are first assigned to GA courts, typically for at least a year. The GA courts are high volume courts where a judge can be exposed to many different types of cases in a short period of time. At a GA court designated for criminal matters, for example, persons who have just been arrested come for arraignment (where pleas are entered and bail set), and periodic pre-trial matters are handled.
After their first year, judges are asked to fill out a form indicating their top three choices by type of court and by location. The judicial branch tries to assign judges in line with their preferences, according to a judicial official, especially for the judges with more seniority. Some judges may be in the same type of court for several years, while other judges prefer to move around more.
Training. Each new judge comes to the job with certain experiences and background that will be of varied use as a judge. Many new judges have considerable courtroom experience, with some having been more heavily involved in criminal cases and others having exclusively civil litigation experience.
Since 1986, new judges go to an orientation training program when they first become judges, now two weeks long. New judges are also assigned mentors, other judges who are available to the new judges for any guidance. There are also annual continuing education programs for judges.
Evaluation. Since 1984, the judicial branch has run a judicial evaluation program in which reports are periodically produced for individual judges. It was an outgrowth of a 1983 project sponsored by the National Center for State Courts in which Connecticut was one of six participating states. The main objective of the program is the "development and improvement of individual judges and the bench as a whole." Per statute, the judicial branch is to provide the evaluation reports to the Judicial Selection Commission, the Office of the Governor, and the Judiciary Committee to assist the reappointment and elevation process.
The tools by which evaluation information is obtained are questionnaires filled out by attorneys and jurors in certain specified circumstances. Questionnaires are given to attorneys after each major proceeding lasting over one hour. The areas of inquiry relate to demeanor, judicial management, and legal ability. The branch reports the overall rate of return from 1991 to the present is 58 percent for attorneys.
Questionnaires are also given to jurors who have entered the deliberation stage of a trial or who have participated in at least two days of trial. The focus of the juror surveys is on demeanor and judicial management. (See Appendix A for copies of the attorney and juror surveys.)
When the questionnaires are returned to the judicial branch, the data are entered into a automated database. Under program guidelines, no report will be run unless a minimum of 25 attorney questionnaires have been returned for an individual judge. According to judicial staff, this is to ensure the anonymity of the attorneys and the statistical significance of the data provided. After the questionnaire data are entered in the database, the questionnaires are shredded; the judges never see them. The aggregated evaluation reports are issued every two and a half years. When a report is produced, the deputy chief court administrator meets with the specific judge to review the report results. A self-assessment form is sent to the judge along with the report prior to the meeting.
The reports are summarized for ease of use by the Judicial Selection Commission and the Judiciary Committee. A sample report including the summary may be found in Appendix B. As the report shows, the results are summarized into four areas: Comportment; Legal Ability; Management Skills; and Attitude. The individual judge's results are compared to the results from all judges combined. The summary also shows the number of responses included in the report, along with the years the respondents have been in practice.
1 Standards on State Judicial Selection, Report of the Commission on State Judicial Selection Standards, American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Judicial Independence, August 2000, p. 6.