|
the present Constitution in this regard that
there be a superior court judge in every
county and that requirement continues.
Under the proposed committee recom-
mendation, the legislature creates the dis-
tricts in which the district courts shall
operate. We were encouraged to believe that
the legislature in its wisdom will provide a
district court for every county where the
legislature can be persuaded that the need
exists.
On the contrary, in the areas where the
need does not seem to require such a court
in every county, we are confident that the
legislature can group these counties in a
district that can serve a useful and efficient
function in the administration of justice
for those areas.
We do by way of digression remind you
again, as I did before, that the committee
recommendation does require in effect a
district court facility in every county be-
cause of the requirement that there be a
district court clerk in every county.
In other words, as the Committee con-
ceives it there will be the office of a dis-
trict court in every county with a clerk
present at all times.
Therefore, within those recommendations,
perpetuating as we propose the Court of
Appeals as it is, and the court of special
appeals under its new name which we rec-
ommend be the intermediate court of ap-
peals, and with the superior court with a
judge in every county and district court to
be arranged, and with the manpower pro-
vided by the legislature, we are confident
that within this court structure and the
jurisdiction to be prescribed by the legis-
lature operating in functional divisions as
the Court of Appeals may provide by rule
that the State of Maryland will have in
our humble view an improved and more
efficient judicial system.
I would be glad to answer any questions
I can.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any ques-
tions of the committee chairman for pur-
poses of clarification of the Committee Rec-
ommendation with respect to court struc-
ture, section 5.01 to 5.11?
Delegate Chabot?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Delegate Mudd,
in view of the stress which you and the
Committee Report have put on the flexi-
bility that is available by the use of sepa-
rate parts or separate divisions in the su-
|
perior court, could you explain or perhaps
if I missed it, could you explain again what
the need is for having a separate fourth
tier? It would seem that any functions of
this fourth tier could also be handled by
the flexible separate parts or divisions.
DELEGATE MUDD: We gave some con-
sideration to that thought in connection
with a three-tier rather than a four-tier
structure, Delegate Chabot.
Probably the compelling reason was that
with tthe maze of courts of limited juris-
diction we have too many, and with the
limited manpower at the superior or circuit
court level, that to absorb into a fourth
tier, namely the district level, all of the
courts of limited jurisdiction now operating
in the State, in many instances with part-
time nonlawyer judges, made the fourth
tier almost a must to accommodate the
transfer of all of that judicial activity into
a unified uniform integrated court system.
There was this further view: that the
courts of limited jurisdiction in Maryland
now have varying jurisdictions, several
jurisdictions in some instances being no
more than a hundred to $300, in others
$3,000.
Hopefully the legislature would prescribe
jurisdiction for the district court probably
at the top figure enjoyed by any peoples' ,
court. To that extent it would relieve the
case load and constantly increasing case
load at the superior or circuit court level.
Does that answer your question?
DELEGATE CHABOT: I must confess
it does not really, because it would seem,
unless there is something in it that I missed,
that the same people whom you would call
district court judges would handle this
complex case load, which is now handled by
the varying courts of limited jurisdiction in
the State and could just as well be sepa-
rated off and handled far more flexibly as
separate parts of the circuit court which I
suppose could be divided by amount of
money in issue as well as by specialized
type of case in issue into separate divi-
sions.
DELEGATE MUDD: I think what you
are suggesting is that we did not adopt
the so-called three-tier system. But the
compelling reason for the fourth tier, as I
have attempted to explain, but apparently
not too well is that it appeared to us to be
too much to try to absorb in the existing
third tier we have, the circuit court. It
would probably require doubling judicial
manpower at this level and increasing the
|
