Court starts quick hearings to speed up case appeals

Friday, March 21, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.

Cornell says not long ago the high court took 3 1/2 years to decide one of his clients' appeals. And if the fast-track method unveiled Thursday brings quicker decisions, he figures everybody gains.

"This court is in a crisis," Cornell said. "They have to do what they can to reduce the backlog of cases. I'm very sympathetic to the court."

The court's backlog has surpassed 2,200 cases. In 1996 alone, the backlog of unfinished cases climbed by 600.

The court last September voted to establish a fast-track method of handling some criminal cases.

One justice will review each case, hold a public conference with lawyers when necessary and recommend to the other four justices whether the defendant should receive an appeal hearing before the entire court.

Because many appeals filed by prisoners are found frivolous, the court hopes to reject many cases quickly and cut into its backlog.

Forty-five criminal cases are undergoing fast-track review. Thursday was the first time a justice held public conferences with inmates' attorneys.

Sitting at a small table in the Supreme Court, Justice Bob Rose asked lawyers why their clients should be granted full-fledged appeals. The attorneys sat on the other side of the table.

Unlike the usual oral argument hearings before all five justices, no lawyers made flamboyant speeches. They simply chatted with Rose.

Within 90 minutes, Rose heard five fast-track cases and told the attorneys they can expect decisions within a week to 10 days.

Rose noted that all five cases were decided in district courts since September.

"That means they will be getting decisions (from the Supreme Court) after three or four months," he said. "That is really moving."

While the atmosphere is informal, Rose said the lawyers have ample opportunity to make their points.

"It is an informal proceeding to explain the issues raised in the case," Rose said. "The defendant has a chance, but in the vast majority of these cases, there really is no merit to their arguments."

Cornell sought a new trial for his client, Mark Baeta, on the grounds he didn't get proper representation from his initial attorney.

Baeta got a life sentence for a sex crime but had been told by his attorney that he probably would receive a five-year sentence, Cornell said.

Rose said he was troubled because Baeta's initial attorney wasn't aware of Baeta's prior criminal record.