Safety of Packed Court a Concern

DURHAM, NC -- Herald-Sun, February 27, 2006

Safety of packed court a concern
By John Stevenson

When Durham lawyer Kerry Sutton repeatedly dialed the county fire marshal in recent weeks to report courthouse overcrowding, a prank was the last thing on her mind. Sutton said she had no ulterior motive and was genuinely concerned about fire hazards and potential violence. In her mind, the danger signs lit up as brightly as Times Square on New Year's Eve.

With 300 or more people attempting to cram into a courtroom designed to hold no more than 125, the specter of disaster was by no means far-fetched, according to Sutton. "Don't court employees have a right to a safe workplace?" she asked in an interview. Sutton said she was concerned for her own safety as well as that of staff members, noting that deputies have quelled courthouse fights several times lately. "The state is playing with fire by not funding the court system the way it should," she added.

The calls to the fire marshal come as court officials are lobbying the Legislature for another Durham judge. The county now has six district-level judges, but officials say a seventh is needed to deal with burgeoning dockets that often contain 400 or more cases in criminal court and a like number in traffic court -- not to mention dozens more in courts dealing with child support, family issues, juveniles and domestic violence.

"I'm doing the best I can," said Sutton. "Does it help the people lobbying for money and resources? Probably. But is that my agenda? No." So far, the Durham court system has not been fined for fire-code violations, but the authority to do so exists.

Court officials share Sutton's concern and are scratching their heads over the situation. On some days, they alleviate overcrowding by splitting the criminal docket between two courtrooms, rather than attempting to squeeze everybody into one room. But judges and others describe the docket-splitting effort as a Band-Aid approach that does nothing to improve efficiency. They say that when two courtrooms are used, a single judge must scurry back and forth between them, giving neither the full attention it deserves.

Additional options are now on the table. They include possible queuing stations to control the flow of people into courtrooms. Visitors would line up between ropes, as they do at airport check-in counters. Limiting courtroom access to criminal defendants also has been discussed. Spouses, children and friends of defendants would have to wait outside once occupancy capacities were reached. However, objections are being raised by those concerned about open courts. "The Constitution requires that courts shall be open," veteran lawyer Bill Thomas said last week. "It is the responsibility of the county and state to provide enough resources to run our courts in a dignified and efficient manner. The current state of things is a disgrace and a disservice to justice in our county."

In addition, dividing the district-level criminal docket into morning and afternoon sessions has been considered, but largely rejected for security reasons. Numerous handcuffed jail inmates are dealt with during the afternoons, and court officials don't want them mixing and mingling with a crowd of others.

One major effort to relieve overcrowding was made several years ago, when a high-volume traffic court was transferred from the fourth to the second floor of the Judicial Building. Family and juvenile courts were moved across Parrish Street to a former bank building. But officials say there is no more room to expand. "People seem to think there is something we could be doing differently to relieve the problem," said Trial Court Administrator Kathy Shuart. "We are not proud. If anyone has an idea, we'd like to hear it." District Attorney Mike Nifong is similarly baffled. "There is no easy solution," he said. "I really don't have one."

County Manager Mike Ruffin said Friday that his staff has conducted recent head counts in various courtrooms at 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., finding that overcrowding occurred mainly in the early part of each day. As a result, he has suggested that people whose names begin with the letters A though L should report to court in the mornings, while the remainder report in the afternoons. According to Ruffin, that might solve the problem until a new courthouse opens in about 2011. "Clearly, we're making a good-faith effort to address the situation," said Ruffin. "We have a duty to comply with the law. The remedy doesn't leap off the page at you, but I think we'll find one. There is no doubt we are exceeding capacity at times. It's not every day and at every hour of the day, but it happens. We've got to prevent it."

Neighboring Wake County has experienced similar court overcrowding in recent months, even though it has 15 district judges compared to Durham's six, and 19 district courtrooms compared to nine for Durham. But Wake's caseload is much higher. It handled 23,365 District Court non-traffic criminal filings between July 1 and Dec. 31 of last year. The corresponding number of filings for Durham was 7,973. Wake County currently is conducting extensive renovations to provide additional courtroom space. It also uses a queuing system like that being considered in Durham, and it has a relatively new "disposition desk" in a second-floor lobby. Manned by an assistant district attorney and a magistrate, the desk can resolve some low-level traffic cases on the spot, meaning defendants never have to enter a courtroom. Wake County General Services Director Dave Goodwin, who heads a special court Space Committee, said Friday that he empathized with his counterparts in Durham.

"It's an extraordinarily difficult situation to be in," he said. "Everyone wants answers right now, and the answers aren't always there. We were doing almost daily shuffling for awhile in Wake County. We would just literally move people off the floor, tell them they had to leave. It was very frustrating. The citizens deserve better."