|
Is there any objection?
In absence of objection, the Chair will
regard the modifications as having been
made. State the other modification.
DELEGATE MUDD: It does not deal
with matter here now, but I would like to
do it. It is a matter of style and drafting.
On page 7, line 7, section 5.22, change the
word "justice" to "judge".
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any objec-
tion? In the absence of objection, in section
5.22, page 7, page 7, change the word "jus-
tice" to "judge".
You may proceed, Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Again ladies and gentlemen of the Com-
mittee of the Whole may I direct your at-
tention to section 5.01 through 5.11 dealing
with court structure.
Here the Committee on the Judicial
Branch accepted its first challenge, that is,
accepted the responsibility of upgrading the
courts of limited jurisdiction in the State
of Maryland. It is generally recognized,
and I believe there is no dissent in the
State, that to improve administration of
justice in our great State the first re-
sponsibility is to improve it at the level
dealing with the greatest number of people.
Our supporting memorandum has ample
facts and figures to convince you, we hope,
that at this level of our present court sys-
tem there is chaos, to say the least.
May I call your attention to a release
in the press over the weekend in which an
apparently part-time judge in Baltimore
County actually cried for help with re-
spect to his court calendar and court fa-
cility in that great section of our State.
For those of you who may not have seen
the comment in the press the facts were,
as I recall, that this part-time judge whose
calendar began at 8:00 p.m. found himself
faced with something over 150 cases on the
calendar that day. The courtroom was
crowded and the reporter noted that ac-
cording to the mandate of the fire marshal
only less than 50 people were allowed in
the room at the same time. To accommo-
date his calendar on that date the enforce-
ment officers who were required to be there
to testify exceeded the number of people
who were allowed in the room at one time.
To me that is typical of the situation
which exists in some parts of the State in
|
trying to administer justice through the
present system of courts of limited juris-
diction.
Our proposal very simply adopts the so-
called four-tier court structure. I am not
able to say that such a four-tier system is
now enjoyed by a majority of the states of
this Union. On the contrary, the exact
court structure recommended by your Com-
mittee is in use in very few states. Our
Committee considered at some length the
possibilities of a three-tier court structure.
That would be two appellate courts plus
one trial court of general jurisdiction.
It was our considered view, after much
research and thought, that the most feasible
and practical manner of adopting into a
unified uniform court structure the chaotic
condition now existing in Maryland in the
courts of limited jurisdiction was by adopt-
ing in the unified court system the fourth
tier, namely the district court, to take over
the jurisdiction of the trial magistrates
and people's courts and by whatever other
name the courts of limited jurisdiction are
now operating in the State of Maryland.
Basic to our recommendation is that
courts at all levels shall be peopled by
judges, full-time judges who are lawyers.
We think that without that requirement
the situation cannot be improved to meet
the expanding case loads and mounting liti-
gation now rising and increasing from day
to day in our complex society.
We acknowledge that the proposed court
structure does not include in the plan the
existing orphans' court system. As some of
you may know, there has been a movement
and recommendation in the State for years
that the probate courts in Maryland identi-
fied by the name of orphans' court be done
away with. It has been accomplished in
one jurisdiction, namely Montgomery
County.
Adoption of this Committee Recommen-
dation of a four-tier court system would
necessitate the legislature delegating or
prescribing the jurisdiction now employed
by the orphans' court to probably the su-
perior court, although it could, as we un-
derstand it, prescribe concurrent jurisdic-
tion in probate matters as well as juvenile
matters in the district court and the su-
perior court. It is the view of the majority
of this Committee that the provisions for
functional division is the only flexibility,
together with that reserved to the legisla-
ture to prescribe jurisdiction which is
needed to accommodate the judicial needs
of this State for the foreseeable future.
|
