State
of the Judiciary
February
1, 2005

Governor
Ehrlich, Lieutenant Governor Steele, President Miller, Speaker Busch, ladies
and gentlemen of the 2005 General Assembly, Attorney General Curran, Treasurer
Kopp, distinguished guests, my fellow Marylanders all.
For
the seventh time now, I have been invited to report to you on the state
of the Maryland Judiciary. I am pleased to accept, for I do not often or
willingly, miss any opportunity to extol the good work being done by, and
in, the Judiciary. My “executive summary” is that, while there have been,
and continue to be, significant challenges, the Maryland system is sound
and, moreover, poised, even anxious, to continue to deliver the high quality
service to which an ever increasing number of citizens have come to expect.
Everyone in the Maryland Judiciary, its judges, administrators, clerks,
support staff, are working hard, collaboratively and cohesively, to achieve
the goal of full and fair justice, consistent with constitutional and legislative
mandates.
I am
also gratified to have this open line of communication between our branches.
Perhaps its use in this way will open and, hopefully, facilitate, other,
equally effective, opportunities.
It
is not by accident, but by design that ours is a government of three independent
and co-equal branches, checking and balancing each other’s power and authority.
Such an arrangement places a premium on cooperation and collaboration –
only when all work together can that natural tension be directed to achieving
the greater good. The genesis of many of the initiatives I will mention
today can be traced to a spirit of cooperation, acted upon, and collaboration
and, indeed, they would not have been possible, otherwise.
Before
I begin, please allow me to introduce an extraordinary group of men and
women, my colleagues on the Court of Appeals. In order of seniority, they
are: Judge Irma S. Raker, Montgomery County; Judge Alan M. Wilner, Baltimore
County; Judge Dale R. Cathell, Worcester County; Judge Glenn T. Harrell,
Jr., Prince George’s County; and Judge Lynne A. Battaglia, Howard County;
Judge Clayton Greene, Jr., Anne Arundel County. Their counsel, collectively
and individually, is invaluable. Moreover, each of us comes from a different
appellate circuit and each has accepted and discharges significant responsibilities
related to the administration of those circuits.
In
addition to my Court of Appeals colleagues, I rely on the Judiciary’s leadership
team, recently named “the Judicial Cabinet.” That team, you may recall,
consists of the presiding officers of the four courts that make up the
Maryland Judiciary, and the State Court Administrator. This year, in addition
to Chief Judge Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., of Baltimore County, Chief Judge
of the Court of Special Appeals, and Frank Broccolina, State Court Administrator,
both of whom you have met at prior State of the Judiciary addresses, there
are two newcomers: Judge William Missouri and Chief Judge Ben Clyburn.
Although new to the Cabinet, I believe both, by virtue of appearances before
Legislative Committees, are known to many of you.
Judge
Missouri of Prince George’s County, the Circuit Administrative Judge for
the Seventh Judicial Circuit, a judge for nearly 20 years, one of them
as an administrative judge on the District Court, is the newly elected
- by his peers - chair of the Conference of Circuit Judges. In addition,
Judge Missouri chairs the Judicial Conference’s Legislative Committee,
a responsibility he has discharged since 2001. He succeeds Judge Danny
Long from Somerset County and the Circuit Administrative Judge for the
First Judicial Circuit, who held that position for the last two years.
Judge Long is here to receive your, and my, thanks for a job well done.
James
Vaughan, Chief Judge of the District Court of Maryland since 2001, reached
mandatory retirement age on December 29, 2004. During his tenure, Judge
Vaughan brought a unique brand of leadership to the District Court – selfless,
dedicated, example-based, effective, implemented with humor and with vision.
Since this is the first opportunity I have had to commend his accomplishments
to you and ask that you recognize them, I invited him to be here today.
Please join me in acknowledging his significant contributions to the Judiciary.
Judge
Clyburn is Judge Vaughan’s successor. A veteran of the District Court of
Maryland, sitting in Baltimore City, he brings more than 10 years experience,
eight of them as Judge-in-Charge of the Eastside Court. In addition, Judge
Clyburn was instrumental in the development of the First-Time Offenders
Diversion Program and the Early Resolution program. He already has been
baptized by fire; he has participated in budget hearings, both in the Senate
and the House.
I have
in the past identified the Judiciary’s guiding principles, fuller access
to justice; improved case expedition and timeliness; equality, fairness
and integrity in the judicial process; branch independence and accountability;
these principles guide, and will guide, all that we do, or have done, programmatically,
and all of our initiatives. In the same connection, I have spoken of the
importance of the public’s trust and confidence in our system of justice.
This combination is appropriate, even natural, for the anticipated result
of compliance with the guiding principles will be measured in terms of
the public’s trust and confidence. That, in turn, simply recognizes the
wisdom of the observation of United States Supreme Court Justice Thurgood
Marshall: “We must never forget that the only real source of power that
we as judges can tap is the respect of the people.”
The
Judiciary’s legislative package emphasizes this year access and expedition
and timeliness.
Permeating
the guiding principles and critical to public trust and confidence – indeed,
implicit in both – is a highly talented, motivated and committed Judiciary,
performing in a consistent manner. In my first State of the Judiciary address,
I said of the Maryland Judiciary:
“Maryland
is blessed with, and fortunate to have, some of this nation's most respected,
competent and hardworking judges. Men and women of the highest character,
they bring integrity, dedication, understanding, and humanity to a calling
that, speaking charitably, is difficult, often thankless, and too often
frustrating. Day-in and day-out these extraordinary men and women cope
with and dispose of huge and ever increasing caseloads, often characterized
by complex and multifaceted issues with, if not unfailing enthusiasm, dedication
and remarkable stamina and with a real and full commitment to the fair
and even - without bias or prejudice - dispensing of justice consistent
with the laws that this body has seen fit to enact. Upon becoming a judge,
having elected to serve a public calling and to forego any opportunities
for much greater personal financial gain, these men and women are required
to set aside personal preferences and act only in the public interest.
Moreover, from that time forward, their actions, their decisions, and,
indeed, the results of their deliberations have an awesome impact on the
basic fabric of our society. Chief Justice John Marshall, one of the greatest
of the chief justices of the United States Supreme Court, observed, more
than 160 years ago, that "[t]he judicial department comes home in its effects
to every man's fireside; it passes on his property, his reputation, his
life, his all." That is as true today as it was then. Consequently, unlike
many other public employees, they, like Caesar's wife, must always be above
reproach.”
This has
not changed. Indeed, our judges are working even harder and under ever
more difficult conditions; despite the implementation of innovative management
reforms and creative programs, the volume and complexity of caseloads,
stress and responsibilities continue to increase. I am confident, in short,
that we have the best Judiciary money can’t buy.
That
this is so is not entirely obvious to all, including many of you, I know.
But that, in and of itself, is proof of the quality of our judiciary: consider,
the Maryland system handles nearly two and a half million cases each year
with quiet efficiency and skill with a minimum of controversy, which, by
the way, is what captures attention.
Some
things affecting our judges have changed. Exclusive of any COLA, Maryland
judges have received only two pay increases in the last 10 years. The real
pay of Maryland judges has decreased over the years. Our regional rankings
have declined, and significantly so. Moreover, there has not been an increase
in the overall number of judgeships since 1998. Given the economic condition
of the State, we have not requested additional judgeships since 2002, although
there has been a demonstrated and certified need each year. This year that
need has been certified at 33. Our caseloads have been managed, with considerable
and increasing difficulty, through the use of innovative case processing
measures and the use of retired judges, some working without pay.
Recognizing
the quality of the Maryland Judiciary and its critical importance to an
ordered society, the Judicial Compensation Commission, created by this
distinguished body in 1980, consistent with its charge, has recommended
salary increases, to be phased in over four years. I urge favorable consideration
of those recommendations. Maryland judges deserve pay that is fair, equitable,
and competitive and sufficient to permit them, as the Compensation Commission
legislation requires, to “serve without unreasonable economic hardship."
I would
be remiss if I did not thank Governor Ehrlich for his support; for the
second year he has included in his budget the funding for the first phase
of judicial pay raises.
Believing
the hard work of our judges has earned them the addition of full time,
permanent assistance, no more may, or should, be asked of our retired judges,
the Judiciary is requesting, as a part of its legislative package, 13 new
judgeships and associated staff support, seven in the Circuit Court - one
each in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Montgomery, Washington and Worcester Counties
and two in Baltimore City; and six in the District Court - in Baltimore
City, Anne Arundel, Calvert, to be shared by Calvert and St. Mary’s, Worcester
and Prince George’s Counties, the latter receiving two. As indicated, we
have certified a need for 33 additional judges.
Our
legislative package also contains a bill pertaining to the termination
of parental rights statute. We are proposing for the third time the Permanency
for Families and Children Act, to reorganize the TPR statute.
The
Circuit Courts Real Property Record Improvement Fund, which partially supports
the operation of our Clerk offices and funds the rollout and maintenance
of our electronic imaging system for land records, soon will sunset. We
are seeking to extend its life until 2011.
The
bill creating a District Court theft offense, passed last session, did
not permit issuance of a citation. That oversight we ask you to correct
this session. This bill, and one proposing creation of a new crime – Offensive
Contact – deal with the serious issue of increased Circuit Court caseloads
due to jury trial prayers.
The
Judiciary is concerned about the impact of contentious judicial races on
public trust and confidence in the Judiciary and its independence. Although
no bills on the subject are being proposed by the Judiciary - the Conference
of Circuit Judges undoubtedly will support some of the measures addressing
contested elections already, or soon to be, introduced - we are pursuing
the creation of a judicial campaign conduct advisory group to promote civil
campaign conduct. George Beall and Steve Sachs, both former United States
Attorneys, have signed on as co-chairs and Sherrilyn Ifill, a University
of Maryland law professor and member of the National Ad Hoc Advisory Committee
on Judicial Campaign Conduct, has agreed to be the group’s reporter.
The
budget submission also reflects our guiding principles. In that regard,
we are committed to the problem solving approach, that is modification
of our traditional role in order to provide an effective justice system
response to common societal problems. We are responding, where appropriate,
by shifting the focus from an adversarial one to one of problem solving.
The value, and, in fact, the goal, of this approach is that the issues
underlying the behavior that brings offenders to court is addressed.
We
are seeking to expand drug treatment court programs for adults and juveniles
throughout the State. Since the establishment of the Drug Treatment Court
Commission in 2001, the six drug treatment courts operating in Maryland
have been joined by 12 others treating adults, juveniles, or CINA’s. The
number of jurisdictions have increased from three, Anne Arundel County,
Baltimore City, Harford County, to nineteen, now including Baltimore, Calvert,
Caroline, Cecil, Charles, Dorchester, Frederick, Howard, Montgomery, Prince
George’s, Queen Anne’s, Somerset, St. Mary’s, Talbot, Wicomico, and Worcester.
A DUI/Drug
Court pilot began in October 2004. A collaboration between the Drug Treatment
Court Commission, the District Court Drug Courts, State’s Attorney’s Office,
Office of the Public Offender, Department of Parole and Probation, Health
Department, private treatment providers, and community organizations, the
pilot sites are in Anne Arundel, Harford and Howard Counties.
Both
Harford County and Baltimore City have established mental health diversion
programs that seek to reduce the recidivism rate of offenders who commit
crimes due to mental illness and substance abuse issues.
Last
session, at the urging of Delegate Norman Conway, legislation was enacted
to create the Truancy Reduction Pilot Program, in which the court, using
a problem solving approach, is charged with helping to curb truancy in
Wicomico County. Migration to other Counties, initially most likely those
in the First Circuit, is contemplated and will occur if funded.
I want
to give you a few updates. In 2002, I reported on the creation of the Racial
and Ethnic Bias Commission, chaired by Judge Cathell. It presented its
final report to the Court of Appeals last June. That report contained 19
recommendations based on feedback received from the series of public hearings
held across the State and questionnaires sent to 10,000 randomly selected
litigants. The report is an excellent piece of work, perceptive and incisive
and worthy of implementation. Just as he did in shepherding the work of
the Commission, I am sure that Judge Cathell will see that it is implemented.
Also
in 2002, I reported on the start-up of the Business and Technology Program,
an initiative inspired and urged by you and implemented with your input.
The capabilities of the judges in that program are being expanded, as is
the program’s value. Maryland has joined with Ohio and California to form
the Advanced Science and Technology Adjudication Resource (ASTAR) program,
a consortium that initially will train 45 resource jurists. In addition
to advanced science and technology adjudication skills, those judges will
be prepared to adjudicate cases that arise from the challenging advances
in the life sciences, genetics, biomedicine, biotechnology, and the neurosciences
as well as assist others in doing so. The idea is that those judges will
not only be able to handle cases involving their specialized expertise,
but will be a resource for other judges who do not have that expertise.
Public
trust and confidence in the Judiciary is only enhanced when the public
has faith in the legal profession. We addressed the issue by the formation
of the Professionalism Task Force, chaired by Judge Battaglia. After a
year of town hall meetings, at which lawyers reflected on and discussed
the state of professionalism among attorneys, the Task Force issued its
recommendations. One of them, the most notable, the creation of a Professionalism
Commission, was adopted by the Court. Again chaired by Judge Battaglia,
it is hard at work on the implementation of the recommendations.
Soon,
the Judiciary will launch two additional pilot programs, this time in the
area of technology. This Spring, Prince George’s County District Court
will begin utilizing Internet technology to test an electronic filing system
for high volume landlord/tenant litigants. And a collaborative effort between
the Court and the State Police seeks to bring E-ticketing to the state.
There,
you have some of what we have been doing and what lies ahead for the Judiciary.
Whether we can accomplish what we have undertaken depends, in part, on
the continuing collaboration of our three branches of government. In that
regard, acknowledging and endorsing the separation of powers, I also endorse
and again commend to you what former United States Chief Justice Charles
Evans Hughes said to Congress on its 150th anniversary: “[I]n the great
enterprise of making democracy workable we are all partners.” With your
help, we can achieve the greater good.
Thank
you for your support of the Judiciary. I wish for each of you a most successful
and productive session. |