Utah Court Rules – Published for Comment
The Supreme Court and Judicial Council invite comments about amending these rules. To view the proposed amendment, click on the rule number.
To submit a comment or view the comments of others, click on “Continue Reading.” To submit a comment, scroll down to the “Leave a Reply” section, and type your comment in the “Comment” field. Type your name and email address in the designated fields and click “Post Comment.”
Comments cannot be acknowledged, but all will be considered. Comments are saved to a buffer for review before publication.
Posted: July 5, 2007
CJA 04-0403. Signature stamp use. Amend. Permits a judge’s signature stamp to be used on orders prepared by the court.
CJA 04-0405. Juror and witness fees and expenses. Amend. Authorizes alternative process to certify attendance of a juror or witness.
CJA 04-0409. Council approval of Problem Solving Courts. New. Establishes Council enforcement of minimum requirements and reporting for drug courts and other problem solving courts.
I think it would be giving clerks too much power to let them use a Judge’s name stamp on transportation orders, pleas in abeyance, and bench warrants, unless the bench warrants are civil. We should have learned from years ago when a clerk was having a sort of correspondence affair with a dangerous prisoner. She could have ordered him into Court, without the Judge’s knowledge, in order to aid in his escape. The Judges also need to be accountable for plea deals that they approve, and should sign them. I would never, as a clerk, assume the responsibility of using a Judge’s name stamp on such important documents.
RE: CJA 04-0409 passed on from Judge Samuel McVey re “post-plea” versus “pre-plea”…..
>>> “Judge Samuel McVey” 8/6/2007 9:48 AM >>>
My only question is whether the phrase “post-plea model” is defined somewhere. I believe no one comes to probation drug court until they have already entered a plea on at least one of their charges, because they have to be on probation for admission to the court and they can’t be on probation unless they have already entered a plea. So I wonder whether a referrence to a “post-plea model “is even necessary. Further, it imples there is some written out model somewhere we must follow. In any event, it appears unneccesary and I suggest submitting comments recommending deleting that particular paragraph .