Five Courtrooms for Seven Judges: Capacity, Peaks, and the Jury Assembly Trade-off
A county is planning a courthouse expansion for seven judges but currently has five courtrooms, each available 220 court days per year for seven hours. The planning team projects 4,200 new filings annually, an average of 2.0 hearings per filing, and 35 minutes per hearing. They use an 80% practical utilization target. In addition, about 40 jury trials per year each occupy a courtroom for six full days. Hearings concentrate heavily on Tuesdays and Thursdays, when 60% of hearing time occurs. One existing courtroom is only 60 m² and cannot seat a 12-person jury, counsel, and a public gallery; it is currently used for short motion calls. The county has a vacant 140 m² jury assembly room that could be converted, but that would eliminate the only large public waiting area. The sheriff requires a separate in-custody route, and the courts want space for two jury deliberation rooms and a remote witness room. The county asks whether five courtrooms can meet demand and whether to convert the assembly room.
1. Calculate annual courtroom-hours demanded and compare with practical capacity. What does the result imply about adding a courtroom?
Read the worked answer
Hearing demand is 4,200 filings × 2.0 hearings × 35 minutes ÷ 60 = 4,900 courtroom-hours. Jury trials add 40 × 6 days × 7 hours = 1,680 hours. Total demand is 6,580 hours. Practical capacity is 5 courtrooms × 220 days × 7 hours × 0.80 = 6,160 hours. The average annual deficit is 420 hours, or about 6.8%. At 5% filing growth, hearing demand becomes 5,145 hours, total demand 6,825 hours, and the deficit 665 hours-about 10.8%.
The average understates the real problem. If 60% of hearing time falls on Tuesdays and Thursdays, peak hearing demand is 2,940 hours over roughly 88 peak days, or 33.4 hours per peak day. Peak capacity at the same 80% target is 5 × 7 × 0.80 = 28 hours per day, a deficit of 5.4 hours every peak day. Jury trial blocks make it worse because they consume whole days and cannot be split. Five courtrooms cannot reliably meet demand at the stated target; a sixth courtroom or equivalent extended-hour capacity is justified, but the decision should not be based only on the annual average.
2. Recommend a facility strategy covering conversion, scheduling, jury assembly, and support space.
Read the worked answer
The 140 m² assembly room is attractive because it is already public space, but converting it removes the only large waiting area and can worsen queuing, security screening, and jury management. A better sequence is: first, confirm whether extended hours or staggered calendars can recover the 420-hour average deficit; second, plan a sixth courtroom if capital funding allows. If conversion is the only funded option, do not make the 60 m² room a jury trial courtroom-it cannot meet the functional requirement. Convert the assembly room only with a replacement jury assembly strategy, such as using a secured multipurpose room on non-jury days or a leased nearby space, and preserve a separate public waiting area.
Support space should follow the trial courtrooms: two jury deliberation rooms near the trial courtrooms, a remote witness room with secure and public-side access, and an in-custody route that does not cross public corridors. The 60 m² room is better used for short motion calls, mediation, or a remote witness/interpretation room. The recommendation should state the service level: six trial-capable courtrooms, two deliberation rooms, one remote witness room, and a jury assembly capacity that matches the largest jury panel. If the county cannot fund all of it, phase the sixth courtroom and deliberation rooms before expanding public gallery space.