STATE OF THE JUDICIARY
ADDRESS BY CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT M. BELL
BEFORE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND
JANUARY 29, 1997
Governor Glendening; President Miller; Speaker Taylor; Ladies
and Gentlemen of the General Assembly:
This is my first appearance before this distinguished body as
Chief Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals, having been so
designated by Governor Glendening just more than three (3) months
ago. Thus, it is my first opportunity to address you concerning
my assessment of the State of the Judiciary. I am honored by your
invitation to appear and for the opportunity to share some thoughts
with you.
My esteemed predecessors have addressed this body on thirteen
(13) occasions - my immediate predecessor, Robert Charles Murphy,
gave twelve (12) State of the Judiciary addresses, while his
predecessor, the illustrious Hall Hammond gave one, the first.
While this address, in this sense, therefore, is not historic,
there is another sense in which it is. This is the first time in
almost a quarter of a century that the leadership of the Judiciary
has been in new and different hands, although the tradition begun
in 1972, having a Chief Judge Murphy, has continued. In addition
to myself at the Court of Appeals, there are new chief judges of
the Court of Special Appeals and of the District Court of Maryland.
Replacing an extraordinary chief judge and indefatigable worker
(whom you will meet shortly), and at the same time upholding the
Murphy tradition is another tireless worker, soon to be dubbed the
latest phenom, Chief Judge Joseph F. Murphy. Like his predecessor,
he also does double duty, chairing the Court of Appeals' Rules
Committee. For the entirety of its existence until September 16,
1996, the leadership of the District Court was entrusted to a "very
special person," who has been described accurately as "an
enlightened, forceful, ever-present, no-nonsense leader - an
inspiration to us all," Chief Judge Robert F. Sweeney. Fully
capable of filling Judge Sweeney's shoes and, indeed, ably doing
so, is an extraordinarily gifted judge, Martha Rasin. You can
also see that this is the most diverse leadership that the Maryland
Judiciary has had in the history of this State.
The Constitution of Maryland places the ultimate authority and
responsibility for the direction and management of the Maryland
State courts in the hands of the Chief Judge of the Court of
Appeals. This responsibility is awesome, but not unsettling. This
is particularly true when the Chief Judge enjoys the good fortune
to have excellent lieutenants with whom to share the
responsibility. The team of Bell, Murphy, and Rasin will lead the
Maryland Judiciary into the twenty-first century, facing
anticipated, but unprecedented challenges. I am pleased, and
Maryland is blessed, to have this team in place. I look forward to
working with them, Governor Glendening, and you, to meet the
challenges to the Maryland Judiciary.
Before proceeding further, let me introduce my esteemed
colleagues, the Judges of the Court of Appeals. In transcending
order of seniority, they are: the Honorable John C. Eldridge of
Anne Arundel County; the Honorable Lawrence F. Rodowsky of
Baltimore City; the Honorable Howard S. Chasanow of Prince Georges
County; the Honorable Irma S. Raker of Montgomery County; and the
Honorable Alan M. Wilner of Baltimore County, both a Murphy
replacement and a Murphy predecessor. The Honorable Robert L.
Karwacki of Queen Anne's County is not with us because of a long
standing commitment. These judges are, and will continue to be,
real assets to me; their support, advice, and, frankly, their help,
have been, and I believe will continue to be, invaluable.
My message on the State of the Maryland Judiciary is a mixed
one. I prefer to start with the plus side of the ledger.
The next few years and on into the next century and millennium
present a challenge. Cognizant of that fact, Governor Glendening
has appointed outstanding men and women at each level of court,
thus buttressing my ability to guarantee that the Judiciary is in
good and competent hands. I have used the first three months of my
tenure to take a comprehensive look at our judicial system, its
personnel, its dockets, etc., to make certain of its condition. I
can, and do, report to you that, while not perfect, it is in
excellent functional condition.
Just last year, my predecessor provided an excellent and
comprehensive overview of the structure, as well as a brief
catalogue of the function, of the various courts comprising the
Maryland Judiciary and the adjunct agencies that serve it.
Therefore, in the words of today's youth, I will not "go there."
I will, instead, focus on the people who give the Judiciary life,
without whom it could not function.
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.
Supported by a cadre of over 3,500 hardworking, knowledgeable,
and dedicated employees at both the State and local level, they
people the courts where thousands of Maryland's citizens each year
bring their disputes for a civilized resolution. In many of these
courts are played out daily human dramas that reflect the very
worst of society, that portray the under - seamy, if you will,--
side of life. Thus, our judges regularly see and are forced to
deal with a myriad of situations foreign to their life experiences
and which are productive of stress and frustration. Those
situations include an explosion of drug related crimes and
violence, the disintegration of families, the abandonment of
children, and the break down or total absence of regard for society
or its people by certain of our citizens, including an ever
increasing number of our young people. The latter situation has
spawned an ever increasing need for, and emphasis on, court
security and an understandable concern on the part of judges for
personal safety.
As an aside, the Judiciary has recently instituted what we
refer to as a "Judicial Ride-Along" program. It is designed to
enable all of you, as legislators and as citizens, to see first
hand what goes on in courts and how they are operating. I promise
you that what you see is not likely to resemble what you see on
television, even when what is shown is a real, but high profile
case. I strongly urge you to take advantage of this opportunity, at
your convenience, and pay us a visit.
When I was appointed, in 1975, to the District Court of
Maryland, the total caseload of the State's trial courts - the
District and circuit courts - approached one million cases,
(994,478 to be precise). At that time, the total number of judges
authorized was 160, 80 District Court judges and 80 circuit court
judges. We viewed, and said so, that caseload as incredibly high,
given the complement of trial judges we had available to cope with
the work. Of course, this was before the asbestos dockets, tobacco
litigation, or mass toxic torts.
Last year, the District Court alone had filings of
approximately 2,000,000 cases (1,952,387 to be exact). One
category of cases, particularly vexing and frustrating for our
judges, but extremely important not only to those affected but to
society as well, domestic violence cases, have increased 70
percent in just the last three years. Almost 270,000 cases
(268,399 exactly) were filed in the circuit courts last year. And,
like the District Court, though not so dramatically, domestic
violence cases in the circuit courts also experienced substantial
increases. Together, therefore, the combined caseload for these
two trial court levels totaled 2,220,786, an increase of more than
120 percent in the 20 years since I became a judge. By contrast,
the complement of trial judges had grown to only 234, an increase
of less than 50 percent.
I am extremely proud of the performance of the Maryland
Judiciary. I also am confident that it will continue to meet
successfully every new and difficult challenge with the same
dedication that has enabled it to cope with caseloads that have
more than doubled in volume since 1975, are today more complicated,
and involve greater numbers of issues. Efficiency - obtaining
maximum results from our resources, getting the best from our
active judges and making maximal use of our cadre of retired judges
- and innovation - finding new and better ways of handling dockets
and caseloads - are key reasons which explain the Judiciary's
ability to continue to play a large and increasingly critical role
in the daily lives of our citizens despite its relatively small
numbers. An overriding reason for the Judiciary's success is
attributable to the caliber of the people who have sought, and been
appointed to, judicial office during this period. Not only are
they persons of extraordinary ability, but they have demonstrated,
over time, an unwavering commitment to the law, the people of this
State, whom they serve, and to their oath. In that spirit, they
have never sought to shirk their responsibilities, however
burdensome; rather, they have proposed, cooperated with, or
willingly implemented, ideas or programs that promised to make the
processing and disposal of cases more efficient.
The Maryland Judiciary has been lucky, its judges have been
willing to take on more and more responsibility, work longer hours,
and cope with more stress, without commensurate remuneration, and
with little or no complaint. Those qualities and the critical
importance of the Judiciary to an ordered society, and, perhaps, to
avoid continuing to rely on luck, prompted the Judicial
Compensation Commission to recommend salary increases ranging from
7.23 To 10.09 Percent. That Commission was created by this
distinguished body in 1980 for the purpose of "study[ing] and
mak[ing] recommendations with respect to all aspects of judicial
compensation, to the end that the judicial compensation structure
shall be adequate to assure that highly qualified persons will be
attracted to the bench and will continue to serve there without
unreasonable economic hardship." I urge favorable consideration
of those recommendations.
Much of the credit for the caliber of the Judiciary is due, in
truth, to Robert Charles Murphy, on whose watch these changes have
occurred. He set the tone for the Judiciary, accepting nothing
less than the very best from all of us. For that reason, he sought
to make do through the use of innovative ideas designed to make the
system work more efficiently before seeking additional judgeships;
it was to the alternative that may have demanded a little more of
those of us already on board that he looked first, believing,
perhaps, that the more efficient the system, the better it serves
the citizenry. We owe him an enormous debt of gratitude.
I do not mean to suggest that we have always made do without
requesting necessary new judgeships, only that we try to make such
requests as a last, rather than first, resort and, then, only after
a detailed study assessing judicial manpower needs. Indeed, the
drill has been, continued by me this year, that each year, in
accordance with a policy initiated by the General Assembly, the
Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals formally certifies the number
of new judges, other than Orphans' Court judges, that are necessary
properly to operate the State's courts. The certification is the
end result of the application of a comprehensive set of criteria
balanced against a pragmatic realization that caseloads increase at
a faster pace than judges can be supplied. This year, we are
seeking six (6) additional judgeships, four (4) circuit - one each
for Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County, Montgomery County, and
Prince George's County - and two District - one each for Baltimore
and Prince George's Counties.
Speaking of innovation and efficiency, by Chapter 561 of the
Acts of 1995, the General Assembly created the Commission on the
Future of Maryland Courts "to examine the Maryland court system as
it now exists and to determine whether changes should be made to
ensure that, in the succeeding decades, the courts can fulfill
their mission of administering justice wisely, fairly, and
efficiently." Chaired by a most outstanding Maryland lawyer, Mr.
James Cromwell, the Commission is composed of a cross section of
equally outstanding Marylanders, well-informed individuals from all
three branches of government and from the private sector,
knowledgeable in the ways and workings of the Judiciary, including
distinguished members of the Bar and of this body, a judge who now
sits on the Court of Appeals, and the very able and astute State
Court Administrator, George B. Riggin, Jr.
As you well know, it now has made its final report. That
report is comprehensive, articulate, and well reasoned. Besides
echoing my sentiments with respect to the high quality of the
Maryland Judiciary and the men and women who people it, judicial
and nonjudicial alike, it also contains recommendations that, if
implemented, will have consequences for the court system that, at
the very least, can only be described as significant. Not
unexpectedly, the report has advocates and detractors. Before
reviewing just a few of the more significant or frequently
discussed recommendations, it must be said that, given the
thoroughness of the process, whatever your inclination, the report
deserves your careful study and serious consideration.
The Commission recommended: (1) consolidation of the existing
circuit courts along the model of the District Court, but
preserving local autonomy, where appropriate, to be fully funded by
the State, and having a Chief Judge as its administrative head.
Perhaps the most controversial and, ultimately, the most costly, it
would create a major change in the current court structure. Thus,
its implementation, as with several other recommendations, must be
accomplished, if at all, by way of an amendment to our
Constitution; (2) establishment of a Statewide personnel system
for clerical and other nonjudicial and nonprofessional personnel
designed to equalize the pay and other benefits of persons doing
the same work. Although its objectives cannot reasonably be
questioned, the devil is in the detail. Having recently wrestled
with major personnel reforms, you certainly are fully familiar with
the many difficult issues associated with such efforts; (3)
abolition of the Orphans' Courts and transfer of their jurisdiction
to the circuit courts. The choice this recommendation presents is
between eliminating an unnecessary bureaucracy and retaining an
institution with roots to colonial times, which is perceived to
serve the public well; (4) abolition of contested circuit court
judicial elections in favor of retention elections, an issue by no
means new to this body; (5) develop and implement a system of
judicial evaluations, designed to improve each judge's performance
and provide information relevant to the decision whether, or not,
to retain the judge. This recommendation goes hand in hand with the
prior one; (6) abolition of the contested election of circuit court
clerks and (7) abolition of the contested election of the Registers
of Wills. Adoption of these recommendations, like the one relating
to the election of judges, requires a Constitutional amendment and
a phase-in period; (8) decriminalization of nonincarcerable traffic
offenses and conducting their trial administratively. These are the
so-called "rules of the road" cases such as running a stop-sign or
exceeding the speed limit, which do not rise to the same level as
an alcohol related driving offense or other more serious crime.
Although District Court judges would be relieved of that caseload,
again, the devil is in the detail; (9) mandatory alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) in all but a few selected cases. For many
years, courts have turned to ADR in various forms as a means to
sustain court productivity and avoid undue delay in resolving
cases; (10) abolition of trial de novo criminal appeals; (11)
requiring all contested juvenile cases to be tried by a judge
rather than a master; (12) establishment of a family division
within the circuit court in all counties in which it is feasible,
given the number of judges.
These recommendations, and perhaps some I have not mentioned,
have generated a great deal of discussion among the judges and
other affected persons and groups. Some, most notably the proposal
to consolidate the circuit courts and those calling for the
abolition of certain contested elections, have sparked real
controversy. Some have been the subject of similar reports to this
body. Proposals to consolidate the circuit courts were mentioned
in each of Chief Judge Murphy's first three State of the Judiciary
addresses and in Chief Judge Hammond's. Abolition of de novo
criminal appeals from the District Court was mentioned in three of
the first four addresses, as was the call for the removal of
circuit court judges from the electoral process. In 1972, Chief
Judge Hammond alluded to the transfer of the Orphans' Court's
jurisdiction to the circuit courts, while, in 1977, Chief Judge
Murphy spoke at length about the "family court division" of the
circuit court and transferring "minor traffic offenses" from the
District Court to a new bureaucracy. All deserve, I reiterate,
critical analysis.
Unlike in some quarters, the Judiciary has taken no firm
position. Although I have begun the process of evaluating all of
the recommendations in light of my new position, it is not yet
complete. Input from my colleagues at all levels of the court, but
especially from those most affected by particular proposals, is
critical. Some, most notably on the issue of circuit court
consolidation, I have already received; however, input on others of
the recommendations, as well as from other sources, especially with
respect to those issues as to which there are many divergent points
of view, has not. Indeed, it is my intention to solicit the views
of the State and local bar associations. The Commission has itself
recognized that those recommendations that seem noncontroversial
may present troublesome issues when the details are filled in.
This report does not purport to fill in the details. The
Judiciary will, I promise, formulate a position on each relevant
issue in sufficient time to have input and meaningful participation
in any debate that might precede the introduction of legislation.
That said, I recognize, as the Commission report points out,
that the success of its plan depends on a concerted effort by the
Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government. I
also am aware that whether there will be such an effort depends, in
turn, upon a threshold determination, whether the recommendations
are, in fact, necessary to assure the proper and efficient
operation of the courts into the 21st century. Because, whatever
the outcome of the debate, the impact will be felt well into the
21st century, it is critical that all branches of government give
due consideration to that issue. I assure you that the Judiciary
will and that it will share the results of its study with you
timely and candidly.
I stated that I come before you today with a mixed message.
Many observers of the courts would likely dispute my glowing
assessment of the Maryland Judiciary. Despite our best efforts to
date, the public's perceptions, and particularly its
misperceptions, of how well the courts perform, have deteriorated
over time. There is, in other words a gap between the reality of
the situation and its perception.
Certainly, public dissatisfaction with the courts and the way
they administer justice is not new. In 1906, one of America's
noted legal scholars, Roscoe Pound, delivered his celebrated
address on "The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction With the
Administration of Justice," universally considered one of the most
influential legal papers ever written. Pound believed that his
address would at least promote, if not usher in, an era of great
judicial reform. Having presented a lengthy, but careful, analysis
of the causes of public dissatisfaction, he concluded his address
with the observation, ". . . We may look forward to a near future
when our courts will be swift and certain agents of justice, whose
decisions will be acquiesced in and respected by all." If Pound
were alive today, he no doubt would be shocked, if not greatly
saddened and disappointed, that this era of judicial preeminence
has yet to be realized.
In point of fact, over the last ten years, surveys in a number
of states have uniformly reported that only 22 to 48% of the public
have a high degree of confidence in the judicial system, or rate
the court system as doing a good or excellent job. More recent
surveys reflect that confidence in the courts is linked to
confidence in public institutions generally. This is consistent
with what we have all observed recently, that the public has become
more critical of government in general, while at the same time
expecting more of governmental services.
And lack of confidence - being skeptical of the courts'
ability to deliver equal treatment - is particularly strong among
people of color: in a recent California survey, for example, 70% of
African-American respondents reported a lack of confidence in the
courts compared with 53% of the general population, which rated the
courts as only fair or poor. The point to be derived from this
data has neither a racial nor ethnic agenda, rather it simply
illustrates that our courts face a crisis of confidence that
crosses racial, ethnic and economic lines.
While, as I have indicated, the court system is not the only
public institution to suffer a crisis of confidence, it suffers
perhaps more because its effectiveness is directly dependent on
public trust, confidence and respect. As Alexander Hamilton noted
in the Federalist Papers, the Judicial branch of government is the
weakest and least dangerous branch of government because it has
neither the power of the purse, nor the power of the sword. The
Judicial branch, Hamilton observed further, has merely its own good
judgment. More recently, the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood
Marshall declared, along the same lines, "we must never forget
that the only real source of power that we as judges can tap is the
respect of the people."
How do courts inspire public trust and confidence? The answer
is, I think, through their actions - good and prompt performance
and sensitivity - and effective public communication. Certainly,
trust and confidence must be commanded and earned, it cannot simply
be demanded. With this in mind, the Maryland Judiciary is
committed to closing the gap between perception and reality; we
cannot and will not permit misperceptions of our courts to go
unanswered. This will require a commitment to greater public
outreach, a willingness to go beyond the courthouse walls to
restore the public's faith and trust in the Judiciary as a viable
institution of justice, accessible and affordable, color-blind, and
fair. It is a commitment we must make, not only because it is
right to do so, but also because, with the public's respect, the
courts' effectiveness will be enhanced.
As I have already indicated, the courts have done a good job.
There is, however, as there always is, room for improvement.
Avoidable trial delays or unexplained time lapses between judicial
rulings and mysterious court procedures must be avoided. Where
delay is unavoidable, the reasons must be better communicated.
On the issue of better communication, the courts have not
informed the public of their structure, functions, and programs or
educated the community about the law very well. My intention and
vision is for the Maryland Judiciary to increase its focus on
public outreach to inform the public better as to how best they can
negotiate what is to some a mysterious and sometimes tricky path to
justice. Through both written and electronic Judiciary outreach
programs, we intend to make our courts, and especially their
procedures, more understandable and user friendly. As we speak,
the Public Awareness Committee of the Judicial Conference, under
the able leadership of Judge Angeletti, is in the process of
designing programs and initiatives to that end. Moreover, so
important is the demystification of the courts that the only
restrictions on a judge's public outreach are those imposed by the
Code of Judicial Conduct and the judge's court schedule. In other
words, judicial involvement in the community is encouraged.
With your support, the Judiciary is engaged in a massive
Statewide computer project to automate the circuit courts and
provide better services to court users. The new circuit court case
management system will have the capability for lawyers and the
public to access court information remotely and, eventually, file
pleadings that way. Through extensive computer networking, the
system will also provide judges with better information about the
criminal records of defendants who appear before them, thus,
making it more likely that proper sentences will be imposed upon a
finding of guilt. It will also insure that the courts continue to
absorb caseload increases, reduce trial delay, and enhance the
services offered to court litigants. I might add that, unlike many
of the failed automation projects you often read about in the news,
the Judiciary case management automation project has been a
complete success and is being migrated to jurisdictions throughout
the State. I attribute this accomplishment to the hard work of the
Administrative Office of the Courts, in partnership with the
circuit court clerks' offices. Your continued support and funding
of the project is critical.
We must also make the courts more accessible to those who
cannot afford lawyers or lengthy proceedings, yet who need better
court access. Aware that less than 20% of Maryland's low income
population was being served by existing legal services for critical
legal problems, most particularly, domestic and family law issues,
with your support, the Judiciary has responded. We allocated funds
to ten jurisdictions to enhance family-related services which
support mediation, parenting seminars, the dissemination of legal
information, lawyer referral, and automation. Last year, for the
first time, the Judiciary requested and received funds to hire
contractual court masters to reduce the time required to resolve
domestic and family-related disputes in 15 counties, in which local
funding was unavailable. Because of the importance and success of
this initiative, we are seeking additional funds in our Fiscal 1998
Budget to increase this program. And we are working cooperatively
with the Maryland State Bar Association to develop sources of
funding to replace that cut from the Legal Services Corporation's
budget.
The Judiciary has formed a partnership with the Women's Law
Center to establish and maintain a legal forms help line. It is a
Statewide, toll-free telephone service staffed by experienced
family law practitioners to assist litigants using simplified court
forms. This is the only such Statewide service in the Nation and
it has been recognized by the American Bar Association and the
National Association of Court Management.
We have formed a partnership with the University of Maryland
Law School to provide legal assistance to income eligible litigants
using the services of supervised law school students at the
courthouses in Anne Arundel County and Baltimore City. The use of
students is unique to Maryland and has attracted considerable
interest from many other states.
A partnership has also been formed between the Judiciary and
the House of Ruth and the Women's Law Center to establish a pilot
project in Baltimore City to provide both legal and service-related
assistance to domestic violence litigants on site at the circuit
court and the District Court.
Insuring equal access to indigent criminal defendants may have
Constitutional implications, particularly as it relates to adequate
representation and speedy trial. Last year, the State Judiciary
reverted a portion of its FY 1996 Budget to support the Office of
the Public Defender when, due to high caseload volume, it was
unable to provide, in a number of cases, the representation
statutorily or Constitutionally mandated. This was done in the
interest of the system, for, in truth, the Public Defender, like
the State's Attorney, is an integral part of the criminal justice
system. It is not true, as many onlookers who are critical of
State funding for the Public Defender would suggest, that such
support is somehow being "soft on crime." But providing adequate
representation for indigent defendants is guaranteed under both the
federal constitution and our own. In addition, this body has
implemented those guarantees by enacting the Public Defender Act.
The effect of insufficiently funding the Public Defender,
therefore, serves no purpose other than to delay trial, a result
which, ironically, usually benefits the defendant, rather than the
victim.
In his 1975 State of the Judiciary Address, my predecessor
commented, "We of the Judiciary are, of course, ever cognizant of
the fact that we are servants of the people, even as we judge them;
that courts exist, not for the convenience of judges, nor to
provide a livelihood for lawyers, but solely for the administration
of justice for all the people of Maryland, be they litigants,
victims of crimes, advocates of freedom, or parents concerned with
the State and country their children will inherit. We continue to
be devout believers in the doctrine of separation of powers - of
governmental checks and balances, in practice as well as in theory.
We believe that each of the three coordinate branches of
government, to successfully accomplish its function, must work in
harmony with the others, if the good government envisaged by the
Constitutional creation of three branches - the Legislative, the
Executive and the Judicial - is to be achieved."
Believing that accurately and fully describes the role of the
courts and the way the government should work, I thank you and the
Governor for your continuing support of the Judiciary and I look
forward to carrying on that cooperative spirit. And, once again,
I thank you for the privilege of appearing before you.