DOCSLIB.ORG

NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFEREI'jce SERVICE National Institute of Justice • United States Department of Justice • Washington, D.C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFEREI'jce SERVICE National Institute of Justice • United States Department of Justice • Washington, D.C If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. U.S. Deportment of Justice Office of Justice Programs NatJonallnstitute of Justice -NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFEREI'JCE SERVICE National Institute of Justice • United States Department of Justice • Washington, D.C. 20531 This microfiche was produced from documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical .condition of the documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on the following frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. Microfilming procedures used to create this fiche comply with the standards. set forth in 41 CFR 101-11.504. ,. Points of view oropinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MARYLAND JUDICIARY 1988-1989 { Zzqlt ANNUAL REPORT' OF THE MARYLAND JUDICIARY 1988-1989 Administrative Office of the Courts Courts of Appeal Building Post Office Box 431 Annapolis, Maryland 21404 3011974·2141 122917 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by ~~ary-1and Administrative Office -e-f the Ge-Bul-'l'r=4t=:-!s::;------- to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the copyright owner. COVER: Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine, Baltimore, Maryland Report prepared by the Administrative Office of the Courts Michael V. 0 'Mallev Peter 1 Lally - Faye Gaskin Norma P. Gainer Contents Letter of Transmittal .............................................. v Introduction ..................................................... vii Judicial Revenues and Expenditures ................................. 1 The Maryland Courts ............................................. 7 The Court of Appeals ......................................... 11 The Court of Special Appeals .................................. 21 The Circuit Courts ........................................... 33 The Di~trict Court .... , ....-. 73 Judicial Administration ........................................... 89 Administrative Office of the Courts ............................. 91 Judicial Education and Information Services ...................... 92 Judiciallnformation Systems ................................... 93 Judicial Special Projects. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 94 Judicial Research and Planning Services ......................... 94 Judicial Administrative Services ................................ 94 Judicial Personnel Services .................................... 95 Sentenchig Guidelines ........................................ 95 Liaison with the Legislative and Executive Branches ............... 96 Circuit Court Administration .................................. 96 District Court of Maryland .................................... 96 Assignment of Judges ......................................... 98 Court-Related Units .............................................. 99 Board of Law Examiners ...................................... 101 Rules Committee ............................................ 103 State Law Library ............. , .............................. 105 Attorney Grievance Commission ............................... 106 . Clients' Security Trust Fund ................................... 107 Judicial Conferences ............................................. 109 The Maryland Judicial Conference .............................. 111 Conference of Circuit Judges .................................. 112 Administrative Judges Committee of the District Court ............ 113 Appointment, Discipline, and Removal of Judges ...................... 115 Judicial Nominating Commissions .............................. 117 Removal and Discipline of Judges .............................. 121 The Commission on Judicial Disabilities ......................... 121 1989 Legislation Affecting the Courts ............................... 123 Listing of Tables and Definitions ................................... 127 Listing of Tables ............................................. 129 Definitions .................................................. 131 iii Letter of Transmittal ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS COURTS OF APPEAL BUILDING ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401 974·2141 STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR DEPUTY STATE COURT ADM1NISTRA'J"OR JAMES H. NORRIS. JR. ROBERT w. McKEEVER September 15, 1989 This is the thirteenth Annual Repon of the Maryland Judiciary which includes the thirty-fourth Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, as required by § 13-101 (d)(9) of the Courts Article. The report covers Fiscal Year 1989, beginning July 1, 1988 and ending June 30, 1989. The report provides the most accurate data on the operations and functions of the courts of Maryland, providing not only statistical information on each court but an overview of the judicial system in Maryland. It is hoped that this will provide a ready source of information for an understanding of the structure and operations of the courts of Maryland. We, in the Administrative Office of the Courts, are indebted to the clerks of the appellate courts, the circuit courts of the counties and Baltimore City and of the District Court of Maryland for their invaluable assistance in providing the statistics on which most of this report is based. My thanks to them and all those whose talents contributed to the preparation of this publication. James H. Norris, Jr. State Court Administrator TTY 'OR DEAl": ANN ... ,.OLIS AREA ,.874-;a.08 WASHINGTON AREA "US, 040110 v Introduction RO!5ERT C. MURPHY CHIC!" ,JUDGE COURT OT A.PPEALS OF" MARYLAND COURTS 0,. APPEo\t. BUILDING ANHAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21"'01 September 15, 1989 As in each of the years since the Annual Report of the Maryland Judiciary was fIrst published, the number of cases fIled in our courts increased over that of the prior year. As a result of a recent change in the monetary amount necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of the United States District Court in diversity of citizenship cases, state court dockets will be impacted by a number of these cases formerly filed in the federal court system. Fortunately, in its 1989 Session, the General Assembly of Maryland granted our request for four additional judgeships: two each in the District Court and in the circuit courts. The Annual Report sets forth a detailed portrait of the functions, responsibilities and accomplishments of the judicial branch of our state government. It is designed in a form well calculated to permit the public and departments of government to quickly grasp the magnitude of judicial branch operations. As always, the excellence of judicial branch operations is due to the judges and supporting staff who strive so mightily, despite an ever-increasing workload, to fairly and efficiently discharge their public mission. Robert C. Murphy Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of Maryland vii - .' .. ' - .'" -_. 3 Judicial Revenues and Expenditures State and local costs to support the operations of the judicial branch of government were approximately $148,699,902 in Fiscal 1989. The judicial branch consists of the Court of Appeals; the Court of Special Appeals; the circuit courts; the District Court of JUdicial Personnel Maryland; the clerks' offices and headquarters of the Court of Appeals 7 several courts; the Administrative Office of the Courts; Court of Special Appeals 13 the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Circuit Court 114 Procedure of the Court of Appeals; the State Board District Court 93 of Law Examiners; the Maryland State Law Library; Nonjudicial Personnel and the Commission on Judicial Disabilities. There Court of Appeals 29 were 227 judicial positions as of June 30, 1989, and Court of Special Appeals 57 District Court 1,110 3,169 nonjudicial positions in the judicial branch. Administrative Office of the Courts 136 The state-funded judiciary budget operates on a Court-Related Offices program budget and expended $81,861,664 in the State Board of Law Examiners 5 twelve-month period ending June 30, 1989. The two Standing Committee on Rules appellate courts and the clerks' offices are funded by of Practice and Procedure 3 two programs. Another program pays the salaries and State Law Library 15 official travel costs for the circuit court judges. The State Reporter 2 largest program is the state-funded District Court Circuit Courts 2 which expended $51,735,118, but brought in general Circuit Courts-Local Funding 744.4 revenue of $52,062,040 in Fiscal 1989. The Maryland Circuit Courts-Allocated Positions 1,065.5 Judicial Conference contains funds for continuing Total 3,395.9* judicial education and Conference activities. Remain­ ing programs provide funds for the Administrative *Includes allocated and contractual positions. Office of the Courts, the MarylandStMe Law Library, Baltimore Skyline 4 Annual Repon of the Maryland Judiciary JUDICIAL BUDGET O.8o,~ ---HUMAN RESOURCES 7.2% "'--PUBLIC SAFETY 5.5% State funded portion ofjudicial expenditures (shown as solid area) as a percentage of total state expenditures in Fiscal 1989 Actual Actual Actual Program
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. _________ ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ALFREDO JUAREZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Colorado --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PHILIP L. TORREY Counsel of Record CRIMMIGRATION CLINIC HARVARD IMMIGRATION AND CLINICAL PROGRAM HARVARD LAW SCHOOL 6 Everett Street, Suite 3105 Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 495-0638 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Padilla v. Kentucky, this Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel requires counsel to provide correct legal advice to noncitizen-defendants about the immigration con- sequences of a prospective guilty plea. 559 U.S. 356, 368–69 (2010). If federal law is “succinct, clear, and explicit” about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, then defense counsel’s duty to explain those consequences is equally clear. Id. at 368. In con- trast, defense counsel need
    [Show full text]
  • Settlement Agreement and Release
    Case 1:06-cv-02773-CCB Document 682-1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 1 of 20 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release is made this 27th day of April 2021, by and between The Coalition for Equity and Excellence in Maryland Higher Education (the "Coalition") and David Burton, Rashaan Simon, Muriel Thompson, Anthony Robinson, Dr. Chris Heidelberg, Damein Montgomery, Kelly Thompson, and Jomari Smith (hereinafter "Plaintiffs"), and the State of Maryland (the "State"), Maryland Higher Education Commission ("MHEC"), MHEC Chairman Andrew R. Smarick, and Secretary of Higher Education James D. Fielder, Jr., (hereinafter "Defendants"), (collectively the "Parties"). RECITALS WHEREAS, in 2006, the Coalition and several individual plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland ("District Court"), Coalition for Equity and Excellence in Maryland Higher Education, et al. v. Maryland Higher Education Commission, et al., Civil No. CCB-06-2773 (the "Lawsuit"); and WHEREAS, the District Court issued a Memorandum and Opinion on October 7, 2013, and a Remedial Order on November 8, 2017. WHEREAS, in 2021, the Maryland General Assembly passed emergency legislation, Historically Black Colleges and Universities - Funding, S.B. 1 (Md. 2021) (the "Legislation"), to settle the Lawsuit, and on March 24, 2021, the Governor of Maryland signed the Legislation into law; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Legislation is attached to this Settlement Agreement and Release as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, Defendants deny any and all liability for the claims asserted by Plaintiffs; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and for other good and valuable consideration as is more fully described below, Plaintiffs and Defendants agree as follows: AGREEMENT A.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions
    Maryland Law Review Volume 38 | Issue 2 Article 7 Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions, 38 Md. L. Rev. 242 (1978) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol38/iss2/7 This Casenotes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SURVEY OF MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS THE INHERENT POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - STATE DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS AND TAXATION v. CLARK Maryland courts have frequently claimed an inherent power to review and correct arbitrary, illegal, capricious, or unreasonable administrative decisions.' Recently, however, in State Department of Assessments and Taxation v. Clark,2 the Maryland Court of Appeals restricted the scope of this power by finding that a circuit court did not have jurisdiction to determine whether administrative authority to reduce a real property assessment pursuant to article 81, section 67 of the Maryland Code was exercised in an arbitrary fashion.3 The Court of Appeals held that the circuit courts' jurisdiction is limited to questions concerning the constitutionality of the administrator's actions. 4 Clark implicitly recognized that circuit courts 1. E.g., Zion Evangelical Luth. Church v. State Highway Admin., 276 Md.
    [Show full text]
  • Narrator One
    THE MARYLAND COURT SYSTEM Host: WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE VARIOUS COURTS IN MARYLAND? THIS VIDEO WILL HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THE LEVELS OF THE MARYLAND STATE COURTS AND WHAT THOSE COURTS DO. THIS VIDEO IS DIVIDED INTO THREE PARTS. IN PART ONE, YOU WILL LEARN ABOUT THE MARYLAND TRIAL COURTS. IN PART TWO, YOU WILL LEARN ABOUT THE MARYLAND APPELLATE COURTS. AND IN PART THREE, YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT SEVERAL OTHER JUDICIAL BODIES IN OUR STATE. THERE ARE FOUR LEVELS OR TYPES OF COURTS IN THE MARYLAND COURT SYSTEM: TWO TRIAL COURTS AND TWO APPELLATE COURTS. TRIAL COURTS CONSIDER EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN A CASE AND MAKE JUDGMENTS BASED ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW. APPELLATE COURTS REVIEW THE TRIAL COURT’S ACTIONS AND DECISIONS, AND DECIDE WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY FOLLOWED THE LAW. WHEN REVIEWING JURY TRIALS, THE APPELLATE COURT MAY HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE JURY’S DECISION WAS PROPER, GIVEN THE FACTS PRESENTED AND THE APPLICABLE LAW. WE WILL TALK MORE ABOUT THE WORK OF APPELLATE COURTS A LITTLE LATER IN THIS VIDEO. THE DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND HAS 34 COURT LOCATIONS AROUND THE STATE. THE DISTRICT COURT HEARS THE MOST CASES OF ANY OF THE COURTS IN MARYLAND. MOST MARYLANDERS WHO HAVE HAD TO GO TO COURT IN MARYLAND HAVE BEEN TO DISTRICT COURT. THE DISTRICT COURT HEARS SOME CRIMINAL MATTERS INCLUDING TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS… MISDEMEANORS, OR CRIMES WITH LOWER PENALTIES… AND SOME LIMITED FELONIES, OR MORE SERIOUS CRIMES… THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO HEARS CIVIL, OR NON-CRIMINAL MATTERS. THESE ARE CIVIL CASES WITH CLAIMS OF $30,000 OR LESS… DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES… LANDLORD/TENANT MATTERS… AND REPLEVIN – CASES WHERE SOMEONE IS SEEKING THE RETURN OF GOODS THEY CLAIM WERE WRONGFULLY TAKEN OR HELD – AND SMALL CLAIMS MATTERS – CASES INVOLVING A CLAIM FOR $5000 OR LESS.
    [Show full text]
  • The Maryland ADR Commission's Practical Action Plan
    Join the Resolution The Maryland ADR Commission’s Practical Action Plan The Honorable Robert M. Bell Chief Judge, Maryland Court of Appeals Chair, ADR Commission • December 1999 To get involved: • Call the ADR Commission at 410-321-2398. • Visit our website at www.courts.state.md.us/adr.html and/or e-mail us at [email protected] • Write to us at Maryland ADR Commission 113 Towsontown Blvd., Suite C, Towson, MD 21286-5352 or send comments by fax to 410-321-2399. • Identify other individuals or groups around the state that might be interested and help us reach them. Join the Resolution The Maryland ADR Commission’s Practical Action Plan The Honorable Robert M. Bell Chief Judge, Maryland Court of Appeals Chair, ADR Commission December 1999 Dear Fellow Marylanders: On behalf of the Maryland Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Com- mission, I am pleased to present this Practical Action Plan. This docu- ment reflects over a year and a half of work by hundreds of individuals who served as members of the ADR Commission, its six working com- mittees, its four regional advisory boards and its national advisory board. Together, we are committed to turning our “culture of conflict” into a “culture of conflict resolution” as we progress into the new millennium. As Chief Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals and as chair of the ADR Commnis- sion, I recognize that it is essential for the court to take the lead in promoting the use of ADR where appropriate. As you will read within, the ADR Commission was formed and operates under the court’s leadership, but its scope is not limited to improving the courts and increasing litigant satisfaction.
    [Show full text]
  • A Joint Bench Bar Conference
    The Maryland Judiciary and The Maryland State Bar Association, Inc. Present A JOINT BENCH BAR CONFERENCE DRAFT PROGRAM Clarion Resort Fontainebleau Hotel June 15-18, 2016 Ocean City, Maryland 1 | Page ~Notice of Meeting~ Notice is hereby given of the Annual Business Meeting of the Maryland State Bar Association to be held at the Clarion Resort Fontainebleau Hotel Crystal Ballroom on Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. DAILY ACTIVITIES WEDNESDAY – SATURDAY Discount Tickets Available Various Ocean City Locations FAMILY DAYS AT CABANA JOLLY ROGER AMUSEMENT PARK HOSPITALITY SUITES 30th Street and Coastal Highway Conveniently located poolside at the Clarion Hotel. Pier Location –401 South Atlantic Ave. Check the hotel message board for times. 10:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. Splash Mountain Water Park Back by Popular Demand $23.00 - all day! __________ THE WELLNESS SPOT Sponsored by: 10:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. Lawyer Assistance Program Amusement Rides and Maryland State Bar Association Miniature Golf $16.00 – all day! Stop by the Exhibit Hall and __________ have your Blood Pressure and Bone Density checked and *10:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. much more! Open during Speed World regular Exhibit Hall hours. Unlimited rides for *2 hours $32.00 Tickets will be available at the MSBA CHILD CARE SERVICES Registration Desk at the Clarion. Dial-A-Nanny - Pat Bennett - 410.641.2977. This information is provided as a service to our members; however the Maryland State Bar Association makes no recommendation of any service. 2 | Page Need CLE Credits? MSBA CLE: Raising the Bar for Education Please stop by the MSBA CLE booth to receive a Uniform Certificate of Attendance prior to attending any MSBA educational program.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legacy of Justice in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County
    Their Story: The Legacy of Justice in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County The Honorable Sheila R. Tillerson Adams Administrative Judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County Honorable Albert W. Northrop Born in Illinois, the Honorable Albert W. Northrop is the son of an U.S. Air Force chaplain. As a result, he and his family moved every few years. Judge Northrop attended University of Maryland at Munich Campus, in Munich, Germany. Shortly after, Judge Northrop transferred to University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland where he received his bachelor’s of arts degree in June 1969. Following, he returned to the University of Maryland School of Law and received his law degree in 1974. One year later, in 1975, he was admitted to the Maryland Bar. He entered private practice of law in February 1975. Judge Northrop was appointed to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County in June 2006. Judge Northrop served as an Associate Judge of District Court of Maryland, District 5, Prince George’s County from January 2003 to June 2006. Judge Northrop was sworn in as a Judge of the Orphans Court for Prince George’s County in August 1986. During his time as Judge of Orphans Court, Judge Northrop co-authored, “Decedents’ Estates in Maryland” published by Mitchie Law Book Publishing. In October 2017, Judge Northrop retired from the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. Honorable C. Philip Nichols, Jr. A fifth generation Prince Georgian, C. Philip Nichols, Jr. graduated from Georgetown University in 1969 and received his law degree from University of Baltimore School of Law in 1973.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal and Local Jurisdiction in the District of Columbia
    Notes Federal and Local Jurisdiction in the District of Columbia The 1982 trial of John Hinckley for the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan brought to the public's attention a unique fea- ture of the criminal justice system in the District of Columbia. Although federal and state charges never are joined together for trial, federal and D.C. Code charges may be joined in one indictment under section 11- 502(3) of the D.C. Code,' and tried before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.' In the Hinckley case, the federal prosecutor used section 11-502(3) to join three federal and ten D.C. Code charges. This joinder required the district court to determine whether to use both federal and D.C. Code evidentiary standards during the trial, or only one standard. The court ruled that only federal standards would be used,' and therefore placed the 1. Under D.C. CODE ANN. § 11-502(3) (1981), the United States District Court has jurisdiction over "[any offense under any law applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia which offense is joined in the same information or indictment with any Federal offense." A similar but more limited jurisdictional statute is found at D.C. CODE ANN. § 23-311(b) (1981): Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information as provided in subsection (a) [offenses charged are of similar character or based on same transaction] even though one or more is in violation of the laws of the United States and another is in violation of the laws applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia and may be prosecuted as pro- vided in Section 11-502(3).
    [Show full text]
  • Summons and Complaint Circuit Court Virginia Sample
    Summons And Complaint Circuit Court Virginia Sample Ethan still dibbing defiantly while undescendable Jameson curse that metage. Mathias remains secularistic after Hagen overwriting anticipatively or courts any yammer. Panzer and cosher Clare unburden his falx intoning emits untidily. Responding to contest Divorce let Law poverty-help Center. If the plaintiff fails to pit the summons and complaint on a. Motion for complaint if you sent a claim, property damage is software accessed through physical custody sample complaint and summons circuit court virginia have been received a summons which you and. For special interrogatories in the system and circuit in which you can sign. In order for reading to cramp a posture in Virginia either tree or your in must break a. What you might be added to a sample complaint form to do not believe those addresses are sample response to answer to keep your papers initiating papers. Where they I file a Conciliation Court claim If and case involves bad checks the superior should be filed in middle District seven of separate county retain the checks were. Docket no response explaining what each defense attorney in virginia and circuit court summons. Juhtumeid on child custody order vacating default by name search, which together can search online, subpoena relates and circuit and summons complaint court payments online electronic system provides helpful information. Service failure the summons and complaint on a corporation is governed by Fed R Civ P 4h. Clerks under penalty for summons and complaint circuit court virginia sample from abuse claims? Rule 35 The Summons Va R Sup Ct 35 Casetext.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 2015 What’S Maryland Got to Do with It? Fourth Circuit Cases in the SCOTUS 2014–15 Term Marisa A
    THE Defense Line A Publication From The Maryland Defense Counsel, Inc. Spring 2015 What’s Maryland Got to Do With It? Fourth Circuit Cases in the SCOTUS 2014–15 Term Marisa A. Trasatti & Jhanelle A. Graham Also Featured To Appeal or Not Appeal • For Men of That Calling • When The Shoes Don’t Fit Health Care Provider Who? • Uber Serious Implications • 2015 Legislative Update • Case Spotlights Promoting Justice. Providing Solutions. President’s Message Dear MDC Members y year as MDC President is quickly coming to I am proud of the efforts made by our substantive Man end and I wanted to take this opportunity law committees to expand their rolls and participa- to thank the other Officers, President tion, and we welcome the addition of a Elect Nikki Nesbitt, Secretary Chris new subcommittee, lead paint, chaired Boucher and Treasurer Marisa Trasatti; by Susan Smith and Lisa Morgan. I immediate Past President, Toyja Kelly; hope that all who practice in the lead the entire Board; and our Executive paint arena contact Susan and Lisa and Director, Kathleen Shemer for all the join the committee and share ideas and hard work and commitment through- practice notes that will help each of you out this year to coordinate our efforts in your practice. This is also a good in Annapolis to support the defense time to remind all of our members and communities interest, and in put- committee chairs to think about what ting together amazing programs such they can do to expand their committee’s as our annual Trial Academy. I wish activities and recommend that if you Kathleen Shemer a Happy Twenty Michael L.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of the Courts of the DC Circuit
    The Evolution of the Courts of the D.C. Circuit (For almost 200 years, the judicial system of the District of Columbia dealt with a commixture of federal and local concerns born of its unique character as the capital of all the states, yet not a state. Faced with the needs of a growing population and an increasingly complex federal government, Congress repeatedly reorganized the District of Columbia courts, reallocating jurisdiction for federal and local matters between the various courts, sometimes unifying the courts, sometimes dividing them. The federal courts that constitute today’s District of Columbia Circuit emerged in their current role in 1971.) The Early Years Congress established the District of Columbia in 1791. However, the District’s judiciary was not created until ten years later, three months after Congress and the President, John Adams, set up shop in Washington. During the intervening decade the courts of Maryland and Virginia continued to be used in the portion carved out of each state. After establishing a framework for the federal judiciary for the rest of the nation, Congress enacted the Judiciary Act of February 27, 1801, creating a Circuit Court to meet the needs of the District of Columbia. The Court’s jurisdiction was broad, encompassing not only most of the authority of a federal circuit court, including its appellate jurisdiction, but also that of a state trial court. The act divided the District into two counties, Alexandria and Washington. The three judges were required to hold four sessions a year in each county. When it acted as a state court, it applied the law and procedures of Virginia and Maryland, depending on which side of the river it sat.
    [Show full text]
  • New Role of State Supreme Courts As Engines of Court Reform
    NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 81 NOVEMBER 2006 NUMBER 5 BRENNAN LECTURE THE NEW ROLE OF STATE SUPREME COURTS AS ENGINES OF COURT REFORM RANDALL T. SHEPARD, CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIANA* In this speech delivered for the annual Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. Lecture on State Courts and Social Justice, the Honorable Randall T. Shepard examines the growing role of state supreme courts in remaking the American system of justice. The vast size of the state court system, the flexibility of state rulemaking authority, and recent changes in the way state courts are financed have placed these high courts at the forefront of efforts to administerand reform their states' court systems. Chief Justice Shepard explores three major areas of court reform led by state supreme courts. First, state high courts have reformed the American jury by making it more inclusive and representative, and by improving its decisionmaking capabilities. Second, these courts have implemented new initiatives to ensure equal access to justice by providing legal assistance to low-income individuals in civil cases, creating pro bono programs, and assisting pro se litigants. Third, state supreme courts have fostered equal opportunity by addressing bias and disparate treatment within the court system, and by working to ensure that the legal profes- sion itself is open to all people. Finally, Chief Justice Shepard describes a range of other ways in which state supreme courts have been remaking their states' court systems, from creating specialized courts to training judges in the sciences. In a profession that is fond of traditionand slow to change, many of these reforms could only proceed with leadership from state high courts.
    [Show full text]