Posted: November 26, 2024
Code of Judicial Administration – Comment Period Closed January 10, 2025
CJA 4-202.08. Fees for records, information, and services. Amend. The proposed amendments: 1) set the fee waiver limit for government entities at $10.00 per transaction to ensure consistent application across the state; 2) set the fee for access to audio records of court proceedings via the FTR Cloud at $10.00 per transaction; 3) allow the State Court Administrator and Clerks of Court to waive the one free copy limit; and 4) identify individuals and entities that qualify for bulk data fee waivers.
CJA 4-403. Electronic signature and signature stamp use. Amend. The proposed amendments grant district, juvenile, and justice courts the discretion to authorize clerks to electronically sign or stamp additional document types without judicial review by issuing a standing order signed by the presiding judge of the district, or for justice courts, a local standing order pre-approved by the presiding justice court judge of the district. The amendments also specify when such authorization must be documented in writing in the case.
Please consider adding:
4-403(1)(1M) Orders for criminal histories pursuant to URCrP 16(a)(5)(C).
Subsection (5)(C) is a procedural nod to the fact that the subscription agreements to both the Federal and State government record repositories that allows Law Enforcement agencies to participate have a clause prohibiting further dissemination of records without a Judicial Order. This is basic criminal discovery, completely consistent with the intention of the 2021 revisions of Rule 16. Making this change could greatly reduce the motion practice that the Courts must currently deal with to realize compliance with this rule.
To the extent that there are concerns about safeguards, the requirement for a Motion from the defense places ethical responsibility on the attorney for the defendant, and prevents ‘automatic’ or ‘bulk’ requests consistent with the other types of permissible orders in -403(1).
1. Certified Copies as Evidence: Certified copies are presented as evidence in the prosecution of a majority of cases, especially where enhanced charges are involved. In many cases, the certified copy of conviction is the primary piece of evidence necessary for a successful prosecution. The vast majority of DV cases and many SV cases will fall into this category. We know of no other entity that charges a fee for evidence.
2. District Attorney’s Role in Prosecution: All criminal violations outside of the purview of municipal attorneys are prosecuted by the District Attorney which include all felony violations (UCA 10-3-928). The District Attorney is mandated to prosecute on behalf of the State of Utah, so in this context, we are the State. The State of Utah charging the State of Utah these fees seems counterproductive as it relates to our statutory role as prosecutors.
3. UCA 78A-2-301(1)(ff): This subsection states “The filing fees under this section may not be charged to the state, the state’s agencies, or political subdivisions filing or defending any action. In judgments awarded in favor of the state, its agencies, or political subdivisions, except the Office of Recovery Services, the court shall order the filing fees and collection costs to be paid by the judgment debtor. The sums collected under this Subsection (1)(ff) shall be applied to the fees after credit to the judgment, order, fine, tax, lien, or other penalty and costs permitted by law.” This subsection can be read one of two ways: a) It precludes the charging of all the fees set out in subsection (1), or b) It expressly precludes the charging of filing fees only and makes no other statement regarding other fees. Neither reading suggests the fee for certified copies or other requested documents cannot be waived.
4. Fiscal Impact: While it would be very difficult to know the exact fiscal impact to our office, very conservative estimates are $75,000–$100,000 annually. As the Salt Lake County budget process runs on a calendar year (January to December) and was just concluded, we would not have the budget to cover this expense.
5. Efficiency Issues: In December 2017, Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence) was amended to allow for the self-authentication of electronic evidence (UCR 902). This rule change recognized the proliferation of technological advances in digital evidence (~90% of criminal cases) in the criminal justice arena and the need to address its use in the adjudication of court matters. The Advisory Committee who recommended the rule change pointed to the fact that evidence of the type described in 902(14), which encompasses certified copies of conviction, were rarely the subject of a legitimate authenticity dispute and promised to save time and resources, and promote greater certainty. If the Utah District Court were to implement what this rule change has now allowed for a number of years, the monetary savings in both staff time and material costs would be significant and reduce the need to charge fees for the production of these types of records.
Clarification on what is considered a “transaction” in section (3)(D) and (10)(A)(i) is necessary. For example, if a request asks for an audio record for 2 separate hearings in the same matter, is that 1 transaction or 2 transactions? This provision will have a significant impact on our office, a governmental entity that is required to prepare most, if not all, of the orders in a matter.
What payment options are available to a governmental entity that requests numerous records, either audio or certified records? And if an account can be set up, will a charge to that account be considered as payment “at the time the record is provided” and would that account be available for both juvenile and district court requests?
A self authentication provision to eliminate the need for certified copies of convictions would be efficient and cost effective.