Officials Roll Out New Standards for Del. Problem-Solving Courts
The Delaware judiciary announced Thursday that the state's problem-solving courts will prioritize high-risk defendants and focus on long-term recovery, as leaders adopt a set of best practices for programs across the state.
September 21, 2018 at 02:25 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
The Delaware judiciary announced Thursday that the state's problem-solving courts will prioritize high-risk defendants and focus on long-term recovery, as leaders adopt a set of best practices for programs across the state.
The new standards, unveiled in a 70-page report by the Criminal Justice Council of the Judiciary, established minimum requirements for all of Delaware's drug, DUI, mental health and veterans courts, which aim to provide specialized treatment and reduce the risk of recidivism among certain populations of offenders.
According to the report, the problem-solving courts would target high-risk or high-need defendants, who meet the diagnostic criteria for mental health disorder, substance use disorder or are at a substantial risk of reoffending.
Programs will be structured in phases predicated on achieving “realistic and defined behavioral objectives,” and graduation requirements would emphasize the “long-term recovery” of participants. In order to graduate, defendants would need to craft an aftercare plan, maintain at least 90 days of sobriety and either find employment or enroll in an educational program.
A prior history of drugs or violence would not automatically bar eligibility for the problem-solving courts, unless a defendant's criminal record suggests they cannot be managed safely, the report said.
Officials announced the new requirements Thursday afternoon at the Delaware State Bar Association offices in Wilmington, in an event that featured Supreme Court Chief Justice Leo E. Strine Jr., Superior Court President Judge Jan R. Jurden, Superior Court Judge William C. Carpenter and Statewide Problem-Solving Courts Administrator Brenda A.M. Wise.
The announcement came amid a years-long review of Delaware's problem-solving courts, which have expanded since the first statewide program went into effect in 1997. Last year, the CJCJ released a series of recommendations to bring the courts under one “umbrella,” in order to eliminate some of the deficiencies that had cropped up in the two decades since they were first enacted.
Thursday's report was the first to memorialize some of those recommendations into a uniform policy, though future updates would be published “as new best practices and research are identified,” the report said. Individual problem-solving courts would still have the flexibility to make their own guideline consistent with the blanket policies outlined in the document.
Under the new requirements, the problem-solving courts will provide access to a “continuum of medical and behavioral health care,” and the courts will partner with treatment providers to determine treatment needs as determined by a “validated assessment instrument.”
High-risk participants with substance use disorder will receive six to 10 hours of counseling per week during the first phase of treatment and approximately 200 hours of services and contact with the problem-solving court team over a nine-to-12-month period. Those defendants will be drug tested at least twice a week at random times, including at nights and on weekends and holidays.
The courts will also encourage pro-social behaviors and work to identify ancillary services in the community, including job skills training, family therapy, mental health treatment, trauma treatment and/or housing assistance.
Jail sanctions of three to five days will be available in the programs, but are to be used “judiciously and sparingly,” the report said. In such cases, defendants would be provided access to counsel and may request a hearing.
Termination for a program will result in a sentence for the underlying offense that brought them to the problem-solving court.
The report also outlined administrative and training requirements for problem-solving court staff. The team for each court will include one judge, a prosecutor, defense attorney, coordinator, a law enforcement officer, a treatment provider and other ancillary service providers. The veterans treatment courts will also include a veterans justice outreach specialist, a representative from the local VA hospital and center and a peer mentor coordinator.
Judges on the courts will have the final say in decisions affecting a participant's case. They will preside over the problem-solving courts for minimum two-year terms, and should participate in training regarding legal and constitutional issues every three years, the report said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllZoom Faces Intellectual Property Suit Over AI-Based Augmented Video Conferencing
3 minute readEtsy App Infringes on Storage, Retrieval Patents, New Suit Claims
Law Firm Sued for $35 Million Over Alleged Role in Acquisition Deal Collapse
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250