Top judge holds court
Bell: Known for his brilliant legal mind and his eloquence, the state's
top jurist found himself at the center of a controversy over the city
court system.
_____________________________________________________
HIS credentials are impressive. First, he went from Harvard Law
School to Piper & Marbury. Then he worked his way up through the
judicial ranks from District Court to Baltimore Circuit Court to the
Court of Special Appeals. Then, in 1996, he became the state's top
judicial officer when he was named Chief Judge of the Court of
Appeals of Maryland after sitting on the state's highest court for
about five years.
Meet Robert M. Bell, a civil rights pioneer who in 1960, when he
was just 16 years old, struck a blow at segregation by walking into a
Baltimore restaurant and asking to be served. Bell's conviction for
trespassing sparked a legal battle that went all the way to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Bell's friends say he has a brilliant legal mind and a silver tongue. But,
recently the state's top judge has found himself in much the same fix
as Albert Belle, the Orioles' mercurial slugger, who draws boos from
some fans no matter what he does.
Bell and Chief District Judge Martha Rasin drew heat after they
resisted a push to have a full-time district judge assigned to the city's
Central Booking and Intake Center. Baltimore Mayor Martin
O'Malley maintains that the judge is a necessary "reform" that will
prevent clogging in the courts.
Bell says the plan needed study by the Criminal Justice Coordinating
Council, which forged an agreement that could put a judge in place
by July 1. Bell says the process worked just as it should have, and he
doesn't understand why he was cast as an "ogre." Reforms? Actually,
none was made, Bell says. The Circuit Court's problems were being
addressed, and the District Court was working fine. Bell shared his
views during an interview with Perspective Editor Mike Adams.
Baltimore's court system has been stung by disclosures that cases
were bungled, defendants in murder cases walked free because they
didn't get speedy trials, and the mandatory sentence law was not
being enforced for gun crimes. Have these problems been fixed?
A number of those problems are not really judicial issues. We are a
part of the criminal justice system, we're not the head of it; we don't
control every aspect of it.
Let me go back to 1998 when there were revelations about the
dismissal of cases for the lack of a speedy trial, and there was an
issue about how backlogged the system was. And there was a
problem.
In my Jan. 26, 1999, State of the Judiciary Address, I spoke about
the backlog and the the speedy trial situation in Baltimore City. I
outlined what was going to be done to correct that situation. Judge
[David B.] Mitchell, chief of the criminal docket, had a very definite
plan to change the culture that created the postponement problem. It
had to do with re-instituting the move list, it had to do with putting
into play four retired judges who would work on the oldest cases
first to reduce the backlog. It had to do with centralizing the
arraignment process because one of the problems was that we had
decentralized it. Every court was doing arraignments, as opposed to
one or two, which had been the way it was done in the past. We got
a handle on that situation very quickly. I thought it was necessary that
there be cooperation and coordination among the various members
and aspects of the criminal justice system. That gave rise to the
reinstitution of that coordinating council which has been in place since
February or March of last year.
The backlog situation is well in check. The postponements were
dramatically down. The cases in the system had been reduced
tremendously. We were able to dispose of more cases in 1999 that
had been filed by the prosecutor. That was the first time that had
been done since 1995 or 1996.
Is there room for improvement? Of course. But we're trying to do
justice and not just dispose of cases arbitrarily just to get rid of them.
We've got to make sure that the process is not just fair, but it
appears to be fair as well.
Charging is not a judicial function, that is a prosecutorial function.
You will not find any case where a judge has refused to impose a
mandatory sentence that has been properly requested and notice
given of. If a judge doesn't do that, that judge is subject to having
that decision reversed.
On Wednesday, a jury acquitted three men whose murder case
came to symbolize all that's wrong with the city Circuit Court. The
case was dismissed last year when a judge ruled that three years of
postponements had denied the defendants a right to a speedy trial
under state law. Then the decision was reversed, and they were
retried, but one witness recanted, one died and evidence got lost.
What would you say to the family of the victim, Shawn L. Suggs?
First, my heart goes out to the family of Mr. Suggs. I am impressed
with the reaction of Mr. Suggs' father; it is a very healty one, indeed.
To him, I reiterate that the Circuit Court has done much already to
ensure that cases proceed to trial more quickly, that the requirements
of the rule and statute governing the speedy trial of cases are met.
Having said that, we must be careful not to condemn the entire
criminal justice system, or characterize its health, on the basis of the
outcome of one case.
Cases like this case occur every so often, unfortunately, and when
they do, they provide wake-up calls, a point of assessment, requiring
us to rethink our approach. That is exactly what happened in this
case. The result in this case at the trial level, whether right or wrong,
focused our attention on whether there was a need for a different
approach, and perhaps additional resources, to be devoted to the
resolution of criminal cases in the city courts.
It appears that Mayor O'Malley has been successful in his campaign
to get a full-time judge in central booking. Will that help the situation
in Circuit Court ?
I can only tell you what I've been told and what I've read. And the
theory is that you get rid of "minor cases," however you define those,
and that then frees up judges to try the more serious cases and give
more time and attention. I don't know what the impact will be at the
circuit level.
I do know that the issue of whether the judge ought to be there is an
issue that was determined by a process that we have always favored,
that we've always asked to be followed. Well, that process is the
coordinating council process.
From its inception, a Circuit Court judge has been assigned to
[Central Booking]. In March of 1999, we agreed to put a District
Court judge there two days. Now, they handled some very limited
matters at Central Booking. There were some pleas, but not a whole
lot of them. But during that year, that [District Court judge's]
presence expanded to four days. ... The judge was not there eight
hours a day, of course, because there was not a caseload to keep
the judge there. ...
The first reason a [District Court judge] was put in Central Booking
was to reduce bed days [incarceration time]. Reducing bed days
saves the corrections system money. ... [O'Malley's plan] does not
relate to reducing bed days as much as disposing of cases. There's
been a shift, and that's all the more reason why you have to think
about what you're doing.
Speed is fine, but that's not all there is to a process. There has to be
due process. ... We cannot be perceived as being a part of any other
part of the system other than the judiciary. And the judiciary is an
independent branch of government. Our purpose is to ensure that the
process is fair, that the people receive what the Constitution
promises. So to the extent that anybody says we are obstructionists,
it's because we have a constitutional imperative to do what we do.
We cannot just jump on the bandwagon or do what is politically
expedient.
If this expedited process is to work efficiently, it almost certainly
means that many defendants will have to plead guilty in return for
plea bargains. Do you see that as a potential threat to the due
process you want to protect?
Judges have a responsibility to ensure that what they do or the
decisions they make don't shock their own consciences. I'm satisfied
that our judges will accept only those agreements that they feel
comport with ... and they're going to do it in such a way to ensure
that the person is not being pressured, that the person is acting
voluntarily, and that's what the Constitution provides for.
Is there a chance that people might be enticed, rather than pressured,
into taking a plea bargain? It might make sense for them to plead
guilty in exchange for a slap on the wrist for something they didn't do
rather than fighting the charge.
That's a danger. But that's what the process of qualifying that person
is all about, making sure that the person's plea is freely and
voluntarily given. That's the purpose of making sure that there is
some statement that justifies the plea itself. You can't just say, "I
plead guilty." There must be some dialogue between the judge and
this person, or the lawyer and this person, which demonstrates to the
judge that this person is acting freely and voluntarily without being
coerced. In addition, you must have a factual basis for the plea. Only
if those things coalesce will the judge accept the plea. ... I know our
judges won't feel pressured into making a deal simply because, at the
end of the day, you're going to end up with X amount of people
released.
The public perception is that there was foot-dragging concerning the
decision to put a District Court judge in Central Booking five days a
week. True?
I cannot and will not, nor will [Judge Rasin] or any other judge, have
someone put on the table an outline, and say, "we ought to do thus
and so," and then we will just accept that without looking into it,
without investigating it, without thinking about it, without looking at
it
in its fuller context and its impact on what we do, how we do it and
why we do it. That's what we were doing.
I don't think anybody can legitimately accuse the judiciary of being
uncooperative. We are extremely cooperative. ... But we will not
accept blindly an idea, called "reform" or called anything else, until
we are satisfied that it does, in fact, fit within the construct which
is
our justice system, and it is something we can legitimately do and still
fulfill the obligations placed upon us by the Constitution.
Yes, the process worked, because what happened was, the point
that was made was, send this idea through the coordinating council.
That's what I told Mayor O'Malley from the very beginning, that's
what Judge Rasin said to him and that's what has happened. When
the issue was presented to the coordinating council, a subcommitte
was set up to look at this idea, and despite the fact that we never
really received any detailed plans, that subcommitte was able to look
at what was intended and come up with something that makes some
sense.
When somebody says, "I've got a plan, accept it," that's not
cooperation. That's called mandating something. And the judiciary
cannot be mandated to do things when it has not been demonstrated
to be the appropriate thing to do consistent with our mission.
When Mayor O'Malley presented his proposal that included stick
figures, was the problem that it lacked details?
That was the issue. I understand what the concept is, but how does it
work was really the key piece of it. So, we were looking for
something more than a concept; we were looking for a plan.
What was your reaction to the stick figures?
I'm not going to get into that. I'm not going to get into that. I'm really
not going to get into that. You will recall I never commented on it one
way or another, and I'm not going to start commenting on it now.
You say the judiciary was always willing to cooperate, and you made
that known. Yet, on Feb. 11 O'Malley asked state legislators to
withhold money for the city courts because they were "dysfunctional"
and the system was clogged, it just didn't work. What was your
reaction to that? Did you have any idea that was coming?
No. In fact, I was there that day, having been called to report on the
progress we'd made on the backlog, the trial delay issue. ... And we
did that, and those reports showed tremendous progress. In fact,
that's what I reported to them, and I pointed out some of the
progress that was made.
So, we were very happy with the progress that had been made. And
then to hear that was a little bit disconcerting, particularly because
this concept had been presented to the council for discussion two
days before. And at that point, a subcommittee had already been
appointed. So, it was never our decision not to consider the concept.
I was a little bit disappointed that [O'Malley's call to withhold money
from the city courts] happened within that time frame without there
having been an opportunity for the process to work. What I got was
the impression that cooperation is not what was being asked for; it
was something else. We were supposed to blindly adopt something.
What was there to adopt if the mayor did not have a plan, just a
concept?
That's my point. We were supposed to go on board without knowing
how this concept would work, or even having the details of how it
would work. ... I guess when you get right down to it, this last
episode demonstrates the danger of politicizing an issue.
Nobody wants the process to work less than efficiently, but the
people who can make it work are those people who are on the
ground, who work with it every day, and if they are allowed to
address their own problems without the glare of the media or without
having politicians looking over their shoulders, I think we would see a
lot more progress being made. We won't hear about it, but we don't
need to hear about it. If progress is being made and the system is
more efficient, I think we're all better off.
Does the move to expedite cases at Central Booking have more to
do with the zero tolerance policing that Mayor O'Malley favors than
addressing an existing problem? The police will be making more
arrests, and those cases will need to be moved through the court
quickly.
I can't say that. I don't know ... nor is that really important to me.
The truth of the matter is that the judiciary has got to respond to
whatever the executive does in terms of creating the cases. The
philosophy that underlies it is not something that I feel equipped at
this point to talk about.
Is the system dysfunctional?
The fact that somebody can talk about dysfunctional systems doesn't
do very much to change the system. It is what you do once you sit
down and focus in on it that makes the difference.
I haven't seen any figures showing a dysfunctional system yet. I
haven't seen the figures that show the clogged system. I can
appreciate that there is a way to improve the processing of cases, but
I am not prepared to admit that we have a dysfunctional system. I
have never been prepared to admit that we have a dysfunctional
system, particularly since we've been able to put together, at the
Circuit Court level, where the real focus was, we were able to put
together a course of action that resulted in dramatic decreases in
those problem areas.
I have heard a lot of people say "dysfunction." I've heard a lot of
folks talk about clogged, but I haven't seen any cases or any
demonstration, by those folks who say it's dysfunctional, why it's
dysfunctional.
But you conceded earlier that there were problems in the Circuit
Court.
Oh, sure, I have no trouble with that. In fact, we can always improve
the system. Every case that's in your system does not make it a
backlog. There are a certain number of cases that you must have;
that's your inventory. And only at some level do you meet the
clogged level. We have been reducing the cases awaiting trial. We
have reduced the postponements, we've got a a handle on our
caseload. Now that's at the circuit level. The district level is now
what's being focused on as being clogged, being dysfunctional, I
assume.
I don't have any statistics showing that the District Court is not
disposing of their cases in a reasonably timely fashion. We've had
some problems with traffic cases years ago, but that's been dealt
with. But I hear "dysfunction" and I hear "clogged," but I have not
seen the statistics that show me where the dysfunction is and where
the clogging is.
How did the problem in Circuit Court arise?
Mismanagement. ... We had slipped into a situation where
postponements were being granted almost for any cause. ... When I
was on the Circuit Court, we had a move list. Instead of granting a
postponement in cases that were older, you put the case on the move
list so it could move to the courts right away. But in order to be
effective, you had to have a move list that was manageable, 10 or 15
cases. We'd gotten to the point where the move list had huge
numbers. It really did not mean anything.
Originally published on Mar 19 2000