an impression of a confidential communication, which, although false, lends color to the belief that certain lawyers have "pull with the judge."

The question of decorum lies with the judges. A space should be cleared before the bench and on both sides, marked off with a railing, and no one should be allowed within the inclosure except attorneys in good standing. Everyone should be compelled to sit while the court is in session, and if every seat is taken, no additional persons should be admitted. Any talking during a hearing should be immediately suppressed. Several years ago Judge Selzer had the witness-chair moved away from the bench so that its occupant could not give the appearance of talking for the judge's ears only. On account of the poor acoustics and confusion in the court-room the chair is again next to the bench. It should be moved away, and if order is maintained, a witness can make himself heard clearly enough.

SEPARATE SESSIONS RECOMMENDED

Separate sessions dealing with different groups of cases should be established, as, for example, one for misdemeanors and ordinance violations criminal in nature; one for felony examinations; one for women offenders; and one for violations of ordinances only quasi-criminal in their nature. Possibly the last mentioned might be held in the City Hall in order that otherwise law-abiding citizens may await their turn and have their cases heard in an atmosphere less suggestive of crime and degradation. During the trial of a sexual offense the court-room should be cleared of everyone not concerned in the particular case. It may also be possible to hold different sessions in the morning than in the afternoon. At present there is a rough division of cases, Room 1 being used for "city cases" (ordinance violations) and Room 2 for "State cases" (misdemeanor and felony examinations).1

SHIFTING CASES FROM ONE JUDGE TO ANOTHER

One of the assistant clerks has discretion to decide whether the list in one room is congested so that cases should be transferred from one session to the other. Since a lawyer may get along better with a certain judge than another, or the disposition of a judge may be known to be strict or lax in certain classes of cases, this discretion often exposes the

1 In 1920 these cases were divided as follows: felony examinations, 3,064; State misdemeanors, 11,843; ordinance violations, 11,181. Since 1912 felony examinations increased 204 per cent.; misdemeanors, 167 per cent.; ordinance violations, 376 per cent.

clerks in charge to great pressure to transfer cases from Room 2 to Room 1, and vice versa. It is impossible to ascertain how many cases are shifted upon solicitation,' but the atmosphere is charged occasionally with rumors that certain cases are "thrown" before particular judge.

Table 10 may be significant as showing the tendency to shift cases. During the winter of 1921 Judge Stevens sat in Room 2, and in January startled the community by his severity in handling cases of State liquor law violations which came up properly in Room 2. Judge Howells, sitting in Room 1, acquired a reputation for being only moderately severe in handling such cases, so that it was regarded as more advantageous to be tried by Judge Howells than Judge Stevens. Judge Sawicki sat for Judge Howells during one week in January.

TABLE 10.-SHIFTING OF CASES IN MUNICIPAL COURT, JANUARY, 1921

It so happened that Judge Stevens became more moderate after January 31, due perhaps to the rather unfavorable reception of his spectacular procedure, and Judge Howells grew stricter, perhaps unconsciously influenced by Judge Stevens' severity, so that the shifted defendants did not profit greatly. Table 11 shows these dispositions.

TABLE 11.-ORIGINAL DISPOSITIONS OF CASES IN MUNICIPAL COURT, JANUARY, 1921

SCANT ATTENTION TO INDIVIDUAL CASES

With the cases organized into different lists for different sessions, it may be possible to avoid some of the waste time now involved in waiting for cases to be reached. The principal advantage, however, would be to enable the judges to give more attention to individual cases. Unless a case is of public importance, has news value, or has interested influential people, it is apt to be disposed of before one can say the proverbial "Jack Robinson." This results practically in depriving of his day in court the poor or ignorant petty offender, and plays directly into the hands of the defendant with "wire-pulling" friends. Table 12 gives the number of dispositions in the criminal branch compared with the number in the civil branch of the Municipal Court, showing the amazing discrepancy between the time devoted to deciding questions involving, on the whole, petty property rights, compared with those involving individual liberty.

TABLE 12.-COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES PER JUDGE, MUNICIPAL COURT, 1919

In the hurly-burly of the day's work the judge cannot examine closely into statements and excuses of lawyers, police prosecutors, and police officers, and this affords opportunities either to escape the law by "putting it over" the judge or hastily to punish the innocent.

BAD EFFECTS OF MANY CONTINUANCES

Most serious of all is the practice of continuing or passing cases. Rule 3, of the Municipal Court,' criminal branch, relating to con

1 "Motions for a second continuance must be in writing, setting forth the facts and reasons therefor (unless dispensed with by the court).

tinuances, has become atrophied. It is the object of every police court lawyer to get his case continued as many times as is necessary to disgust the witnesses for the State,-who have been wasting their time in a most disagreeable place,—and to cause the prosecuting police officer to lose interest in the case in the face of more pressing matters.

Table 13, based upon a study of every tenth case in the criminal branch for a period of two years, gives the average time between arrest and disposition. It is to be noticed that it takes the least time to find a defendant guilty, a longer time to discharge him, and the longest time to "noll" or dismiss his case. This table is based on all cases, including those ill-advised offenders who allow their cases to be heard on the same day as the arrest, so that the intervals are shorter than they would be if the table were confined to continued cases.

TABLE 13.—AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS BETWEEN ARREST AND SENTENCE, MUNICIPAL COURT CASES, 1919-20, CLASSIFIED BY DISPOSITION AND BY TYPE OF CASE1

A study of cases of violation of the State liquor law (Table 14), brought before the court in January, 1921, shows that cases which were disposed of in the same month received severer fines, contained a smaller per

1 The number of these cases is not equal in the aggregate to the total number of cases, because the data of time interval are not available in every case. The term "sentence" means the final disposition of the case, whether or not found guilty, except in those cases in which action, such as mitigation, was taken by the court after sentence: in the latter case the term "sentence" is used in its literal significance.

centage of "nolles" and discharges, and a much greater number of workhouse commitments than the cases which were "passed" into succeeding months.

TABLE 14.-CASES OF LIQUOR LAW VIOLATION ARRAIGNED IN JANUARY, 19211

Cases in which continuances are of most advantage to the defendant are those in which the witnesses are disinterested bystanders, as in automobile accident cases resulting in charges of manslaughter or driving while intoxicated. "Continuances kill accident cases," says a police officer posted in the court-room. "The witnesses won't come down and swelter, or else they move in the meantime. The regular lawyer's game is to tire out the witnesses." 2

Such continuances not only enable the guilty to escape, but play into the hands of unscrupulous lawyers who desire to use the criminal court to exact payment of a civil claim for damages, whether well founded

1 Exclusive of cases appealed.

A typical case is No. 67557, manslaughter charge, the complaint all eging reckless driving while drunk. The notes in the police records and statements secured tend to establish clearly that the defendant was going at an excessive rate of speed and was intoxicated. The two police officers whose testimony would have been most positive as to the intoxication were not called, and the case was continued after at least one of the important witnesses had testified. The entries are:

"July 22, continued to July 29, continued to August 26, continued to September 16, continued to September 30, discharged by Judge