September, but if a defendant requests a speedy trial, he is willing to try him within a week. Judge Doyle said that it is working well in his district and that the criminal docket is in good shape. He said that this situation, however, was at the expense of the civil docket which has been neglected. He thought that there should be a differential between the types of criminal cases which are expedited. Judge Reynolds agreed that there was a need to give precedence to civil cases that needed expedition over "minor" criminal cases. Judge Steckler thought that Rule 50(b) was working extremely well in his district. He said that a definite date for trial is given at arraignment and that most criminal cases are disposed of upon a change of plea. He said that Judge Holder automatically enters a plea of not guilty at the arraignment and that the defendant has to have a hearing in order to change the plea to guilty. Judge Beamer said that there had been problems in Hammond due to the three grand juries sitting in 1972 and 1973 which increased greatly the number of prosecutions. This problem was compounded for a time by a judgeship vacancy. This vacancy has now been filled. He said that South Bend and Fort Wayne divisions continue to be in good shape. Judge Robson said that Rule 50(b) in his district is working well but that the judges had one major problem, a limited criminal bar. He said that there were about twelve attorneys in Chicago who represent defendants in over 25 percent of the criminal cases. One attorney will not be free to go to trial for seven months since he is booked solid in the state and federal courts. Judge Robson thought that perhaps knowledgeable clients asked this attorney to represent them so that their trials might be delayed. He said that this problem also exists in Los Angeles and New York. The discussion revealed that the operation of the rule is seriously impaired when there are multiple defendants and one or two want to proceed to trial immediately and the others have to wait for their attorney to be freed from other commitments. Judge Beamer thought that this was sometimes used as a ploy to obtain a severance and that it could be avoided if a good record was made showing that some of the defendants could not go to trial.

Judge Robson moved that the district chief judges recommend to the Judicial Conference of the United States that attention be given to the problem presented to a district judge when one or more defendants in a multidefendant prosecu tion request a continuance for an extended period of time because of the engagement of counsel in other matters, and the other defendant or defendants request an immediate trial. Judge Doyle seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. The judges also agreed to refer the suggestion of giving precedence to important civil litigation over "minor" criminal cases to the appropriate committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

Item 8-Need for Uniform Rules Concerning Disciplinary Proceedings and Admission to Practice.

Judge Steckler said that there were many problems in this area. He said that they often use law professors in the Southern District of Indiana to investigate and present disbarment proceedings. They felt that the law professors were more detached from the court than the United States Attorney. It was the opinion of the judges in his district that there should be a hearing for each separate jurisdiction which wants to disbar an attorney, even if the attorney has been disbarred by another court. Carl Imlay explained that the House Judiciary Committee was presently considering HR 10804. This bill would allow the district judge to call upon the FBI to conduct an investigation of an attorney and to have the United States Attorney bring disbarment proceedings in the district court. The bill was drafted and approved by the Judicial Conference prior to its submission to the House. Judges Reynolds, Doyle, and Beamer did not think that there was a problem of discipline because counsel was automatically disbarred from the federal court if he was disbarred by the state.

Judge Steckler moved that the district chief judges go on record as recommending that a set of uniform rules for admissions and disciplinary proceedings be formulated by a committee made up of members of the Bar Association of the Seventh Federal Circuit and federal judges appointed by the Chief Judge of the Circuit.

APPENDIXES
APPENDIX 1

STATEMENT BY HON. RALPH H. METCALFE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman: I want to commend you for conducting these hearings on S. 754, H.R. 207 and other related bills concerning speedy trials. There are presently several related bills on this subject before this Committee. Whichever of these bills is reported out, it is essential to the future of our criminal justice system that long and unnecessary trial delays in criminal cases be eliminated.

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution states, inter alia, that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial . . ." The problem arises when one attempts to define the time frame within which this right is respected and beyond which it is violated.

The Supreme Court has indicated when the right to a speedy trial has been violated. However, it should not be necessary to adjudicate every case, as though the Supreme Court were some great timekeeper. The Congress must establish parameters within which U.S. attorneys are to operate which clearly define the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a right to a speedy trial.

In Klopfer v. North Carolina, Chief Justice Warren writing for the Court, stated "We hold here that the right to a speedy trial is as fundamental as any of the rights secured by the Sixth Amendment. That right has its roots at the very foundation of our English law heritage." Warren continues "The history of the right to a speedy trial and its reception in this country clearly establish that it is one of the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution."

Justice James Wilson in his lecture on the law-"Of the Nature of Crimes and the Necessity and Proportion of Punishments" states that "These observations show, that those accused of crimes should be speedily tried; and that those convicted of them should be speedily punished. But with regard to this, as with regard to almost every other subject, there is an extreme on one hand as well as on the other; and the extremes on each hand should be avoided with equal care." It is up to the Congress to define more clearly the point beyond which these would be an extreme and as such would constitute a violation of the spirit of the speedy trial provision of the Sixth Amendment.

The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, in its report issued last year, stated that "Delays in the adjudication and disposition of cases must be greatly reduced and the period between arrest and trial must be reduced to the shortest possible time." The Report indicates that "many courts in large cities have experienced delays of 300 to 1,000 days from arrest to trial and final disposition." Further, the "LEAA National Jail Census in 1970 revealed that 52 percent of the jail inmates were awaiting trial." Although this legislation would amend the United States Federal Code and be applicable to those charged pursuant to an alleged violation of Federal statutes, legislation on the national level could serve as a prototype for inferior units of government. Further, its adoption would be mandated by the Congress for the granting of Federal funds to local units of government. This would be perfectly consistent with the philosophy underlying the legislation which established the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. It would also be an effective way of implementing the recommendations of the National Advisory Commission that "Each state should enact legislation, and each criminal justice jurisdiction should develop policies and procedures to expedite criminal trials and thus minimize pretrial detention."

The Federal Judicial Center, in a memorandum dated December 4, 1972, indicated that the FY 1972, 50.3% of all criminal cases pending in 18 metropolitan districts, were pending for over six months.

Defendants suffer grave harm when justice is delayed for months on end. These defendants often must await these delays in a jail cell, unable to make bail.

The only equitable solution, which would be fair to the accused, to the overburdened court system and to the public at large, is a series of equitable, federally enforced standards guaranteeing speedy trials in all possible cases and minimizing delays.

Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., in his opening remarks, made on April 17, 1973, to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights stated that "Delay is built into the criminal justice system because the major legal requirements mandating speed, the Sixth Amendment, has been too leniently construed by the Courts."

The Report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the "Speedy Trial Act of 1974", Report No. 93-1021, clearly indicates what the Congress must do as a result of the lenient construction of the speedy trial provision of the Sixth Amendment to which Senator Ervin refers. The Judiciary Committee Report states that ". . . no effective statutory or constitutional incentive currently requires judges, defense attorneys and prosecutors to come to grips with their own inefficiency." Therefore, "until speedy trial is mandated upon the system from the outside . . . many participants in the criminal justice process will not-and probably cannot-discipline themselves to discover the real causes for delay and to take effective steps to end delay."

S. 754 provides that in the seventh year after enactment all Federal criminal trials will be subject to a 30 day time limit between arrest and indictment and a 60 day time limit between indictment and trial. Failure to meet those time limits would result in dismissal of the case.

I agree with the principles of S. 754, and think it is perfectly consistent with the spirit and objectives of H.R. 207 which I introduced on January 3, 1973. However, I disagree with two provisions of S. 754. The phase-in period for the effective implementation of this legislation is too long. And, secondly, the sanction provision for failure to comply should be dismissal with prejudice.

The phase-in period of seven years before the 30 days from arrest to indictment, and the 60 days from indictment to trial provisions of this legislation come into force with the sanction of dismissal without prejudice is too long. If we concede, as the Senate has. that there is a need for a legislative definition of the Sixth Amendment provision as to what constitutes a "speedy trial", and if the Senate agrees that a 90 day period from arrest to trial constitutes compliance with this Constitutional provision, then I do not see how we can justify a seven year delay in the recognition of that right in practice. We simply cannot place a constitutional right in abeyance until such time as the Federal Court System is in a position to comply with legislative intent.

I do not think that we are placing an excessive burden on the Court system by legislatively mandating speedier compliance with the provisions of this legislation. That is if the Congress also provides the means for the implementation of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I woud also like to strongly endorse the provisions contained in Title II, the Pretrial Services Agencies. This section is essential to provide the supportive services essential during the pretrial period.

I would like to point out that my former colleague from Illinois. Abner J. Mikva, had introduced this legislation while a Member of the House. I commend him for his leadership in this area and for his efforts to achieve, by statute, the implementation of the speedy trial provision of the Sixth Amendment.

STATEMENT OF HON. LOU FREY, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, as a sponsor of the Speedy Trial Act, H.R. 4807, I appreciate having the opportunity to discuss the "speedy trial crisis" which plagues our criminal justice system.

Despite the Sixth Amendment speedy trial guarantees of the Constitution, it is a tragic fact of life that the process of justice for criminal defendants is being seriously delayed in courthouses across the nation.