If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. I'" ~ '/ ~ ~.' I ~, <,:- ~: I ~~ l~ l I ~c '1 ~ 1 .,c" i .'< l..; t ~;: I i. '\ , 1 ~ ~ ~, ~ ., J ] f ~ t':. " ',-" I Ii UcS. m:.Pi~RTM[ffr OF JUSTiCE lAW ENfORCEMn~T ASSISTANCE ADr:lIN!ST~AT!m\l NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFERENCE SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20531 -~~-----~------~.----------------------------------.......:.I v ~ I ',i j ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS COURTS OF APPEAL BUILDING ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401 STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR WILLIAM H. ADKINS, II DEPUTY STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR ROBERT W. MCKEEVER To The Honorable, The Chief Judge of The Court of Appeals of Maryland: Pursuant to Maryland Code (1974, 1976 Cum. Supp.), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 13-101(d)(9), I respectfully submit the Twenty- first Annual Report of this office, covering the " period from July 1, 1975 through June 30, 1976. ~~¥~~ William H. Adkins, II ...",,,<::! ,. -, State Court Administrator ' ....."It\' , ...,'1 1 ~-'~ '<'~'~ t ;. r ~ ..... ~ (- I \ '. I '''~r 'I ".~ i 1 .. J . 1 '''I . I "'~ " i \ ~ ""~ .""" ( I -"~ ; ( TABLE OF CONTENTS , /'" ~ r ", ~~""'~ j 1 ,. AN OVERVIEW OF THE COURTS ........................... 7 I ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS ............... 20 II JUDICIAL CONFERENCES AND JUDICIAL EDUCATION ..... , ......................... 50 f~' " t. III THE COURT OF APPEALS ................................ 62 THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS ....................... 69 il. " IV ~~, iL , V THE CIRCUIT COURTS ................................... 77 VI THE DISTRICT COURT .................................. 115 l' H r ~"; , APPENDIX ............................................. 127 tW' ~,., " 'f I ii~~;·"..,;.,~ ,,.. .. ,,..., ," ", ~ '. ~ :<! AN OVERVIEW OF THE COURTS ?T' j, ,. f-' .,,-...J, ~-_, r , 1 '-"1 ;if" 1'-"·-'. ~.-, '" l\'( iiil. r STATE OF THE JUDICIARY I,V :. ·L"~I On June 10, 1976, at the ll1vitation of the Maryland State Bar Association, ,'~ 1, i Chief Judge Robert C. Murphy delivered a report on the State of the Judiciary. -. , II) OJbO c: -g ., QJ 0 -. This report provides an informative overview of the Judicial Branch of govern- >. U c: 'iii <II a: e ~E'" > § QJ 's If ...: 'C g ment, its accomplishments, its goals and its problems. It also suggests vari- " U i ,f' it'i I ous ideas and projects for improvements in the Judicial Branch. til 1'" ,l c: ~ 0 :.a 1----,- 'iii <II Therefore, it is appropriate to introduce the Annual Report of the Admin- c: til I- .!1 o ,~ E a E 0 'iii U 'u istrative Office of the Courts with the 1976 address Jf Chief Judge Robert C. :g -. Murphy on the State of the Judiciary. ~.'- ...l Vl ...:'" ...l (Il b~ r- 0- - ~ ~ < 0- Il) '" < (Il '0 til ...: '0'" Ii; " C~ - ~ 0- C QJ Cl ~ REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE JUDICIARY TO <II ~ 0.. ...l ro .~ < Q).~ ...: ...: bOg t:5 ~g 'Bill (Il 'B~ 0.. ..... tIl 0.. ..... <11 .... <11 .... c: THE MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION BY a QJ QJ ~ >< 0.. .c ,~ '" f.- a :E!&j or:: u'" U Ol :J !;:: ROBERT C. MURPHY, CHIEF JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS a a:J 'J U QJ OF MARYLAND U § II) .~ 'iii' QJ t '" ~ tJ 0 ~ >- ~ (3'" C2 0" 'g -, June 10, 1976 b'" QJ Ii; u "~ til -5 15 ~ C .... ;t 0 E ." II '0...: (' .... ~ ., II) L "II ~ .. '"~ ~ !J' '0 QJ ti ~ " .. It is a very special pleasure for me to be invited here this '"c: C2 'g <II !"S::E -. '" ..... 's Ii; .. .c ' :. II, ~, ,~ morning--not rmly because the company is so thoroughly enjoy­ 1-c8 0 <II .11) o uur}) >< ~ e ~ (Il U OJ <II c it or:: C ., II able- - but more importantly because of the opportunity affords Vi ;. I., <II t:51l <: II ...l - ,~ c: 13 ~ me to speak with you about the common responsibility we share ~o=""Q.l 'g ~UCItl_ -. o ~ <lJ IU ~ ru ., UUU:>I!O'f.- ~ II) -. for the effective administration of justice in our State. Ordinar­ QJ '"~ II) (Il U) '"' ~ QJ U) .§ '0 ~ Q) !i f.- tIlC- ti "~ < bO ily I make it a practice never to take more than twice my alloted ~ al >,COc C2 'g .... g ~ - '0 '" Ii; e~c~~ -. E 0 .... f.- a :B"'O uU><ctJ-.ro""::1 n:! time; but so great is my respect for this Association, and for its E til 0.. U ::J~U 15 ~ L- a QJ :5.... ... ., til"'>. U::; '0 members, that I have carefully timed myself to stay within the C u~~8~ QJ 7ti~t 1 bOa:: <II bO z c e=~~E~ .;! l'l. E C QJ '-- UuOJOU 'B '"< i time limitation imposed upon me by your President. As a con­ 0 -, J: :g .;! 1;; ~ §.;! ~ <II U ::!. :i! =~~ ~ ~r <II or::aU)~~ 8.><5 N ~ sequence, I can do little more than focus briefly on a few matters Vi .... a ;::OJ;:E 'iii' 0.. ii: ...: t:; ~~ ~ ~t -g of importance to our profession, and touch on several problems ~E Ii; 00 -. 15"' c'" ::!. which I believe to be of prime interest to the Bench and Bar. ::- - u -;n tJ t C2 c ~ Ii; ~ ~ 15 :ii N ~ 9 I , {It._.a i Exclusive of Orphans' Court judges, we now have a This is but an initial step. The broader mission is, kif. ~. "e. l 1 ~ r ~ of course, total unification of the circuit courts into one total of 187 judges in Maryland, all lawyers, all full time 1~; ; judicial officers; they man a total of approximately 150 I ,. \d trial court of general jurisdiction, funded and administered courtrooms throughout our State, and entertain, col­ '.. ~ entirely by the State, and placed under the operational '1 11 ! r' direction of a single chief judge. Support for this ultimate lectively, well in excess of million cases a year. As t:t I "~ I you know, our State court system is structured into four .0 'C objective is enthusiastic and widespread, some of it coming distinct levels; three of which - - the Court of Appeals, r from the governing bodies of the political subdivisions who I. ,. the Court of Special Appeals and the District Court -- are {~ \.~.' . , find the expense of operating these courts an increasingly completely unified; that is, they are c0111pletely State­ , ~, difficult local burden to shoulder. It is worth noting in this funded, State-operated and centrally managed. The all connection that as the workloads of these locally funded I ~' l J important remaining level -- the trial courts of general 1 courts continue to increase -- and we are proj ecting in­ jurisdiction -- meaning of course the Circuit Courts of 'l creases of 2% in law filings, 1 fifo in equity filings, 32% in I the counties and the six Courts comprising the Supreme j, I criminal filings, and 35% in juvenile filings, comparing l Bench of Baltimore City -- are anything but unified; on \ . I ." fiscal 1976 with fiscal 1975 -- management problems are ~ the contrary, they are locally funded, subject to local ,I , becoming increasingly unmanageable and problems of " influences, not managed on a centralized basis, and are 'j physical facilities increasingly difficult to resolve. The 1 , , ~l i ~ . '" essentially an agglomeration of twenty-nine local county .; vigorous support of the members of this Association for courts, each operating in semi -autonomous fashion, each ~t circuit court unification is in my judgment absolutely vital, ,t, for without It the proposal will likely die and with it any with its own elected clerk and other operating personnel f, I over whom the court has no direct control. Other than !or I if chance of significant judicial reform in this State for many Jf the salaries of the judges, which are paid by the State, l years to come. the personnel of these courts are paid by the local poUtical '. subdivision in which they are located. And because of this I:t ,Ii Jt"""- Turning now to another Court whose creation was one of local funding pattern, the adequacy of the courthouses and J1. , this Association's most prized achievernents, the District "r of court facilities, and the prOVision made for all other Court of Maryland will celebrate its fifth birthday on July 5th Ijt ,f " judicial branch resources, varies widely among the " of this Bicentennial year. I cannot recall any other major counties, and between the counties and Baltimore City, ~i il, , governmental reform that had such immediate and beneficial depending usually upon the subdivision's degree of effects as did the creation of this Court. Almost overnight In. ~ affluence, or the strength of its commitment to maintaining II if (. the District Court erased the image of injustice that had an adequate judicial system within its borders. prevailed for so many decades at the primary judicial level 1'1, t" • in many parts of our State. And it is with particular pride Strong efforts to unify the trial courts of general juris­ r t ~. that I point to the fact that throughout these past five forma­ ; f.1 d, diction are now well under way. The Governor's Task Force t' tive years the District Court has been singularly free of even on Circuit Court unification, so ably headed by State Treasurer allegations of bias, political partisanship, or other William S. James, has already proposed the 8,doption of a I tj :,j' improprieties. constitutional amendment to consolidate the six courts which ., ~1. 2. " comprise the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City into one circuit In the last fiscal year, the District Court processed court, with but one elected clerk. The enormous advantages 1, 004, 000 cases -- of which 280, 000 were contested. In that would flow from this reform -- already 100 years over­ addition, the judges of the District Court, in an average year, due -- were put squarely before the legislature at its just will sit on the various circuit courts for approximately 600 concluded session and I think well understood by that body.