Search results

The Judicial Council meets this Friday, May 21. The livestream will be posted at 9:30 a.m.

The Judicial Council at its November 29–30 meeting approved changes to rules of court that govern appointed counsel in death penalty appeals and habeas corpus proceedings.

Settlement agreements involving judicial officers, including those involving sexual harassment or discrimination, must be disclosed if public funds were spent in payment of the settlement.

The Judicial Council at its January 12 business meeting will consider recommendations on how it divides annual state funding for the judicial branch among each of the state’s 58 trial courts.

At its meeting this week, the Judicial Council heard from the Pretrial Detention Reform Workgroup, approved legislative priorities, received an update on court innovation grants, and more.

California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye on Wednesday named nine members to the Judicial Council’s Advisory Committee on Audits and Financial Accountability for the Judicial Branch.

At its July 27-28 business meeting, the Judicial Council approved changes to the way it determines how the state’s 58 trial courts are funded.

At its March 15 business meeting, the Judicial Council approved recommendations for updating guidelines for video remote interpreting (VRI) and voted to have its staff coordinate a new VRI program for the judicial branch.

The Judicial Council at its January 14–15 business meeting heard from Supreme Court Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar on how California courts have increased access for court users with limited English skills.

Emergency meeting of court and branch leaders from around the state will focus on measures to ensure California courts can meet stringent health directives while also providing due process and access to justice.

At its Jan. 17 meeting, the Judicial Council will receive a final report on a three-year grant for 39 collaborative courts and pretrial programs that tracked retention, recidivism, and failure to appear rates for participating defendants.

The formula forms the basis of the Judicial Needs Assessment, which estimates California needs an additional 173 judges.