Memorandum

To:	Cliff Head
From:	William L. Martin, III
Subject:	Information Request
Date:	January 21, 1998

Thank you for your memorandum of January 20, 1998 regarding Application # A98D0179 . McGee v. The State. When Pam refused to get the information or a copy of the order in the application you requested, she was following the procedure set out for the applications clerk. I think you are aware of the history regarding applications and the failure of the applicant to provide a stamped file copy of the order. This is a matter which was discussed thoroughly by the Court en Banc and it is the procedure set out by the Court.

In fact, the proper procedure for requesting information for Central Staff should come to either Gail or me and then directed to the person in the clerk's office who can retrieve that information.

I have no problem if you and Mary Jo and Sheila are able to work this out without going through me, however, problems and/or misunderstandings which arose with you and Pam yesterday are the result of not following the procedure and going through Gail or me.

I appreciate your recognizing my autonomy in running the clerk's office, however, I try to run the clerk's office as the Court directs as opposed to "how I see fit".

The problem with getting information ex parte in applications, as opposed to direct appeals, is that the information application and the time frame regarding it are often jurisdictional. The Court's concern, and my concern, is that if the clerk's office rehabilitates an application then maybe we haven't been fair to the other side.

The Court's procedure in these matters which has been working relatively well for two years is to send out the ten-day order requesting the stamped file copy of the document needed, and interfering of the applicant to provide that document may result in the dismissal of the application. The proper procedure for the applicant at that point of time is to file a motion for reconsideration stating why the applicant could not honor or did not file the appropriate document along with the application. At that point the Court can decide if the reasons set forth in the motion for reconsideration is worth reinstating the case.

This way we have met our requirement to dispose the application within 30 days but on reconsideration we can correct any manifested injustice that may result due to an applicant.

Please do not think that Pam was being rude or unresponsive to your request. She is merely following the directions given to her by Gail and me in caring out what we think is the Court's policy in this area.

I shall be happy to discuss this matter with you and/or Judge Smith at your convenience.

Thank you.