Over the past three years, the Yolo Superior Court, the district attorney, the public defender and our justice partners in general have taken great strides in clearing out the felony and misdemeanor backlog.

Our system in Yolo has become so functional and efficient that a felony case filed in this court in January can be brought to trial as soon as April. Efficient processing of criminal cases benefits everyone: defendants, victims, witnesses and the government agencies that are part of the criminal justice system. Inefficient processing of cases and delays in moving cases through the system benefit no one.

The number of case filings in Yolo Superior Court has increased 26 percent over the past five years and the disposition rate for all case filings Ñ the rate of cases resolved compared to the number of new cases filed Ñ has increased from a paltry 55 percent in 2005 to a healthy 84 percent in 2009.

In fact, in 2009, felony cases in the Yolo Superior Court were resolved at a remarkable 99 percent disposition rate, misdemeanors at an 82 percent rate and infraction cases at an 83 percent rate. The backlog of older cases has diminished so they are now at a historic low level.

Yolo Superior Court judges presided over 121 criminal jury trials Ñ 28 misdemeanor trials and 93 felony trials Ñ in 2009, an increase of 113 percent over the number of trials in 2004.

This progress may soon be swept away.

Regrettably, due to budget challenges, the Yolo County Board of Supervisors is contemplating cutting back the number of deputies assigned to the District AttorneyÕs Office and the Public DefenderÕs Office.

That would be a step backward.

The court relies on deputies in these offices to move cases toward disposition. It is our sense that these deputies are already overworked, and often stressed, with their current huge caseloads. We already see deputies who havenÕt had time to attend to each case as efficiently as they could. To reduce the number of deputy district attorneys and public defenders naturally would result in an increase in caseload of those who remain.

The likelihood of unmanageable caseloads will have several results: 1) cases will get continued because counsel are just not ready to move forward, impacting the court, defendants, victims and witnesses; 2) attorneys may have to proceed to hearing or trial when they are not fully prepared, resulting in potential due process and appellate issues; and 3) calendars of courts will be impacted by continual delays Ñ cases that should be resolved in one or two hearings may require four or five hearings, an inefficient use of limited judicial resources.

When resources diminish, the reality is that many cases will get delayed. Delay simply means more appearances in court over a longer period of time, which is self-defeating as it creates even more pressure on human resources. With adequate staffing, even a serious case could be resolved after two or three appearances. With inadequate staffing, delays might result in six, seven or more appearances prior to resolution.

How does that help the system? In fact, all it does is further impact the system and create a downward spiral of delays.

For example, cases may be compromised because witnesses forget details of the events or move on and victims will experience unnecessary trauma due to the lengthier case resolution. Additionally, delays result in increased costs to the sheriff, who has to house in-custody defendants in the county jail pending resolution and trial.

And there is yet another concern. People charged with committing a crime have a constitutional right to have their cases heard within legal and statutory deadlines. They also have the right to court-appointed counsel if they cannot afford to hire their own counsel.

To prevent unmanageable continuance rates, the court may have little choice but to appoint private counsel to keep the case moving forward within constitutional constraints. Costs of these private attorneys are costs that must be borne by the county Ñ and that could be expensive.

Through collaboration, efficiencies and hard work, the Yolo Superior Court and justice partners have managed to dramatically increase the disposition rate of cases. This is especially remarkable as the severity/gravity of cases has increased.

Any reductions in staffing for the district attorney and public defender will greatly reduce our ability to efficiently move cases to resolution. Furthermore, defendants, victims and witnesses will suffer hardships because of delays Ñ reducing the publicÕs trust and confidence in their judicial system.

We urge the Board of Supervisors to stay the course to adequately fund the offices of district attorney and public defender. The journey up is long and difficult, but the fall down can be swift. Progress is difficult to attain, and easy to dismantle.

Ñ David Rosenberg is presiding judge of the Yolo Superior Court and Jim Perry is the courtÕs executive officer.