IN THE COURT OP APPEALS OP MARYLAND IN RE: CERTIPICATION OP NEEDS POR ADDITIONAL...

IN THE COURT OP APPEALS OP MARYLAND

IN RE: CERTIPICATION OP NEEDS POR ADDITIONAL

JDDGESHIPS POR PISCAL 1992

V

TO: The President of the Senate The Speaker of the House of Delegates

FROM: Robert C. Murphy, Chief Judge

DATE: November 23, 1990 Fs i— %*J i__ i if

i .., c. ...

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter Certifying Need for Additional Judgeships

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit B-l

Exhibit B-2

Exhibit B-3

Exhibit C

Comments of Chief Judge Sweeney, District Court of Maryland

Statistical Analysis, Administrative Office of the Courts

Comments of Circuit Administrative Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit

Comments of Circuit Administrative Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit

Comments of circuit Administrative Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit

Draft Bill Providing for Additional Judges in the Circuit Courts

s ROBERT C. MURPHY

| CHIEF JuDOE

I COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

I COURTS OR APPEAL BUILDING

| ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND ZWOI s f

November 23, 1990

Honorable Thomas V. "Mike" Miller President of the Senate State House Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Honorable R. Clayton Mitchell Speaker of the House State House Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Re: Judgeship Needs for Fiscal Year 1992

Gentlemen:

?ni,«CC•SI?J??-W±th Procedunres established more than ten years ago,

I am submitting my annual certification of need for additional ûdgeships for Fiscal Year 1992. After careful and delTbertte s?Sdy J^-*.- ?e- :Lnforination available to me, I certify that three additional Dudgeships should be created during the 1991 Session o? the General Assembly. This includes one circuit court judge each for Montgomery, Prince George's, and Washington Counties chief Judge Sweeney has advised me that no additional judgeships a?e rî^ln othe District court ^ Fiscal Year 1992. (A copy o? SibifAO SWeeney,S letter is contained in the Appendix labelled

I certify the need for these judgeships with full realization of

afJectfT^ £°th t0 tht State and to the Pîtical subdivlsionf ?£ SSJ?7 î" f6?11681- Nevertheless, as administrative head of the State's judicial system, it is incumbent upon me to convey mv

If?ectfv/°nHth^ ^^ g0?iti0ns are reîred to maintaTn^the

ofth^cftêns""^^^1113"^1011 0f JUStiCe f0r the benefit

As in the past, the Administrative Office of the Courts has prepared a statistical analysis of the workload and performance of our circuit courts. By applying a workload measure to case filings

Honorable Thomas V. Miller, Jr. Honorable R. Clayton Mitchell Page 2 November 23, 1990

projected through Fiscal Year 1992 and by considering other statistical data, preliminary determinations are developed as to where additional judgeships may be needed. (A copy of this analysis is contained in the Appendix labelled Exhibit B.)

The preliminary analysis is distributed to the eight circuit administrative judges who are encouraged to submit their own views as to the need for additional judges (Exhibits B-l through B-3). These views are shared in some instances with other circuit judges bar associations, and legislators, as well as local government officials. Our certification is prepared after a thorough review of the statistical analysis and the responses of the administrative judges.

As of July 1, 1990, there were 237 judicial positions authorized in Maryland which are allocated in the following manner:

Court of Appeals Court of Special Appeals Circuit Courts District Court

7 judges 13 judges

120 judges 97 judges

Each of these court levels undertakes to maximize the use of its limited resources to manage rapidly escalating caseloads. Some of the actions taken by these courts include the temporary recall of retired judges; the assignment of active judges from other jurisdictions throughout the State; and various other administrative efforts aimed at managing caseload, particularly in the preliminary phases of litigation. All of these efforts are resourceful m attempting to control the courts' workload; however, from time to time, it becomes necessary to increase the number of permanent judgeships.

Within the circuit courts, I seek three additional judgeships: one in the Fourth Judicial Circuit for Washington County; one in the Sixth Judicial Circuit for Montgomery County; and one in the Seventh Judicial Circuit for Prince George's County.

In Fiscal 1990, the circuit courts throughout the State reported over 228,986 total case filings (excluding juvenile causes filed in Montgomery County which is within the jurisdiction of the District Court). This represents an increase of 15,221 filings over the previous fiscal year and more than 39,000 case filings over the past five years. Civil and juvenile filings continued an upward trend while criminal filings decreased slightly (1.5 percent) for the first time since 1982. Fiscal Year 1990 also marked the fourth time in the last five years that there has been an increase in case terminations.


Over the past several years, surges in the number of requests for Dury trial prayers emanating from the District Court have resulted in the steady increase in overall criminal filings. However, the decrease m criminal filings exhibited in the past year may be attributed directly to the pilot projects in Baltimore City and Montgomery County which provide "immediate" jury trials upon request at the circuit courts, it is anticipated that jury trial prayers will continue to decrease as this program is expanded to Baltimore County. More significantly, however, the volume of indictments and criminal informations have risen by 54.6 percent since 1986 and now comprise an increasingly greater portion of the total criminal filings in the circuit courts.

With respect to the civil caseload, filings have increased by 11 percent over last year and 21 percent since 1986. Several factors that have contributed substantially to this climb in the civil caseload include an increasing volume of litigation involving the family, i.e. divorce, child support, paternity, and a burgeoning volume of asbestos cases before the circuit courts. In the civil area, funds were made available several years ago by the General Assembly to support the use of former judges in the pretrial settlement of cases in the circuit courts in order to make the civil caseload more manageable. Former judges, once recalled possess all the powers of active judges under the Maryland Constitution and state statutes. To date, six of eight judicial circuits have implemented pretrial settlement programs within their jurisdictions.

With respect to the individual circuits, no additional judges will be sought in Fiscal 1992 in the First, Second, Third, Fifth, or Eighth Judicial Circuit. Although certain counties within these circuits have exhibited an increased burden of judicial workloads m recent years, I have decided to refrain from requesting additional judges within these jurisdictions. This may mean greater use of retired judges in some circumstances or even the use of active judges from other circuit courts around the State. I will continue to review the need for additional judicial resources within these circuits in the next budget period.

In the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Circuit Administrative Judge Fred C. Wright III (Exhibit B-l) has indicated a need for an additional judge for Washington County. Since Fiscal Year 1986, total case filings have increased by over 35 percent, while during the same period the pending caseload has increased by over 74 percent. The present caseload situation is compounded further by 273 asbestos cases and the anticipation of a protracted trial schedule which will have a detrimental effect upon the rest of the civil trial calendar. An examination of the civil pending caseload over the


last two years more than illustrates this concern. In Fiscal Year 1989, pending civil cases increased by 9.6 percent, while in Fiscal Year 1990, the civil backlog increased by 36.9 percent.

In the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Circuit Administrative Judge John J. Mitchell has indicated the need for one additional judge in Montgomery County. It is projected that Montgomery County will become the most populous political subdivision in Maryland by 1991 with an expected population of 774,600 residents. The litigation practice within Montgomery County has much to do with the great extent of judicial workload. Due to this "local legal culture," the Circuit Court for Montgomery County experiences extensive pleadings, motions, and trial activities. This is illustrated clearly by the average time of filing to disposition in civil cases of 226 days which ranks fourth statewide. Judge Mitchell has provided a detailed analysis (Exhibit B-2) which addresses the need for an additional judgeship.

In the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Circuit Administrative Judge Ernest A. Loveless, Jr. has indicated the need for an additional judge in Prince George's County (Exhibit B-3). Total case filings have increased by 19.6 percent since Fiscal Year 1986. During thatsame period, the civil caseload expanded by over 22 percent with the volume of pending civil cases increasing by almost 20 percent since the beginning of Fiscal Year 1990. According to the projections provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts Prince George's County indicates a projected need of 2.3 additional judges; however, recognizing the need to conserve on limited resources, I am requesting only one additional judge at this time.

In conclusion, I believe the requests in this certification to be modest, and based upon conservative workload projections. I have attached to this letter draft legislation providing for the additional judgeships. Should you require further information, I shall be glad to see that it is made available to you, either now or at the legislative hearings.

Robert C. Murphy (/ /^\~ Chief Judge v )

RCM:fb Enc. cc: Hon. William Donald Schaefer, Governor

i


Hon. Laurence Levitan, Chairman, Senate Budget and Taxation Committee

Hon. Walter M. Baker, Chairman, Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee

Hon. Charles J. Ryan, Chairman, House Appropriations Committee Hon. Kenneth H. Masters, Acting Chairman, House Judiciary

Committee Hon. Louis L. Goldstein, State Comptroller Hon. Alan M. Wilner, Chief Judge, Court of Special Appeals Hon. Raymond G. Thieme, Jr., Chairman, Conference of Circuit

Judges Hon. Robert F. Sweeney, chief Judge, District Court Hon. John P. Corderman, Chairman, Executive Committee of the

Maryland Judicial Conference Charles L. Benton, Secretary, Department of Budget and

Fiscal Planning Circuit Administrative Judges Daryl C. Plevy, Esq., Executive Assistant, Office of the

Governor Stephen E. Harris, Esq., state Public Defender Andrew L. Sonner, Esq., State's Attorney for Montgomery County Alexander Williams, Jr., Esq., State's Attorney for Prince

George's County M. Kenneth Long, Jr., Esq., State's Attorney for Washington

County Vivian Jenkins, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Prince George's

County Bettie A. Skelton, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Montgomery

County Dennis J. Weaver, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Washington

County USeorge B. Riggin, Jr., Esq., State Court Administrator F. Carvel Payne, Esq., Director, Dept. of Legislative

Reference Alfred C. Boyle, Budget Analyst, Dept. of Budget and Fiscal

Planning James L. Stoops, Administrative Analyst, Dept. of Fiscal

Services

EXHIBIT A

BOBEBT F. SWEENEY ChmlJuagt

DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND

November 9, 1990 Court* of AooMf BuNding Annapoln Mwytano 21401

Phor*: 974-2412

The Honorable Robert C. Murphy- Chief Judge, Court of Appeals County Courts Building, Fifth Floor 401 Bosley Avenue Towson, Maryland 212 04

Dear Judge Murphy:

Over the period of the past several months I have discussed with each of the Court's twelve administrative judges the possible need for additional judgeships in their districts.

I was immediately advised by ten of the judges that they could perceive no such need. In the remaining two districts, Baltimore County and Montgomery County, Administrative Judge John H. Garmer and Administrative Judge Thomas A. Lohm expressed an interest in having new judgeships created. On reflection, however, and further review of the state of their dockets, both judges have concluded that a substantial part of their problem arises from the vacancies now existing in their districts. In anticipation that those vacancies will be filled in the very near future, each of them has now advised me that they cannot support a request for new judgeships in the coming budget.

Therefore, please be advised that it is my recommendation that we seek no additional judgeships for the District Court for fiscal year 1991.

Sincerely,

Robert F. SweeA©^

RFS:bja

cc: The Honorable John H. Garmer The Honorable Thomas A. Lohm

EXHIBIT B

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE NEED FOR

ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIPS IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS

Fiscal 1992

Administrative Office of the Courts Courts of Appeal Building

Post Office Box 431 Annapolis, Maryland 21404

301/974-2141

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE NEED FOR

ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIPS IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS

Fiscal 1992

I. INTRODUCTION

Chief Judge Robert C Murphy began an annual procedure of formally

certifying to the General Assembly the need for additional judges in

Maryland on January 4, 1979. This process, which has become known as the

certification process (or judicial allocation plan), was suggested by the

Legislative Policy Committee prior to the 1979 session of the

legislature. Since its implementation, it has allowed the Judiciary the

opportunity to present annually the need for judgeships based on a review

of a comprehensive set of workload factors which affect the daily

movement of cases through the State's judicial system.

Three different steps are involved in the Chief Judge's Certifi-

cation Program. The starting point and the subject of this report is a

statistical analysis prepared by the Administrative Office of the Courts.

Several variables are considered at this Interval: actual and projected

filings; the number of pending cases per judge; the number of dispo-

sitions per judge; the ratio of attorneys to judges; the time required

for the filing of criminal, civil, and juvenile cases through disposition

and the population per judge for each jurisdiction in Maryland. By

reviewing these factors and applying caseload projections, preliminary

indications can be made as to whether and where additional judges may be

needed. It is important to emphasize that these indicators are only

preliminary at this juncture and they are only meant to act as a guide in

determining the need for additional judicial positions.

The second phase of the certification process involves the local

trial courts. It is at this stage of development, after reviewing the

statistical analysis prepared by the Administrative Office of the Courts

and assessing local factors, that each circuit administrative judge

responds to the need for additional judgeships. This response is given

after various informed sources have been consulted. For example, the

circuit administrative judge will seek the views of the administrative

judge from the county in ascertaining the need for additional judicial

resources. The circuit administrative judge will also solicit opinions

from members of the bench and bar from that county, State and local

legislators, and other individuals involved with providing local support.

Based on a thorough review of the local situation, and other factors

which may justify the need for increasing judgeships, the circuit

administrative judge is asked to address the following points:

A. Is there agreement or disagreement with the statistical

analysis prepared by the Administrative Office of the Courts?

B. If there is disagreement with the analysis suggesting the need

for additional judges, what factors (such as the availability

of inter- or intra-circuit assignments or the use of District

Court or retired judges, the lack of physical facilities or

the lack of fiscal support, improved administrative

procedures, etc.) support this view?

C. If there is disagreement with the analysis against additional

judges, what factors (such as the unavailability of inter- or

intra-circuit assignment, District Court judges, or retired

judges, the availability of physical facilities and local

fiscal support, complexity of cases, case delay, demographic

or economic factors, etc.) support this view? Are all case-

flow management procedures being utilized in order to minimize

the need for more judges?

D. If there is agreement with the formula recommendations, are

there physical facilities and anticipated local financial

support for any recommended additional judgeships? Does the

local delegation of State legislators support this need? What

is the position of the local bar and others who might be

called upon to support the request for an additional judge-

ship?

The final phase of the certification plan occurs when the Chief

Judge of the Court of Appeals reviews the responses from administrative

judges, as well as the preliminary statistical analysis. Before making a

final decision, he may also discuss the request further with the admin-

istrative judge or other informed sources. Final certification is then

forwarded to the legislative leadership based on a distillation of all

the information available to the Chief Judge.

II. METHODOLOGY FOR STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

In order to statistically review the need for judgeships, a variety

of factors are considered. The first step is to assess the need of each

jurisdiction by reviewing factors that influence workload and performance

of the courts. The second step is to assess the specific needs of a

jurisdiction by applying a particular formula. (See footnote "c" on

Table 8.) If the relative needs analysis and the formula approach both

indicate a need for an additional judgeship, it is likely that a solid

statistical need exists for a judgeship in that jurisdiction.

Reviewing the time required to terminate cases (performance

measure) is one method of ascertaining how the circuit courts are coping

with increases in caseload. Table 3 illustrates the average number of

days between filing and disposition for all cases terminated over the

past four fiscal years (1987-1990). Civil cases consume the most time

from date of filing to final disposition. The average time for these

cases in Fiscal 1990 is approximately 211 days. Criminal filings are the

next highest, averaging 120 days (Fiscal 1990) followed by Juvenile

filings which averaged 70 days (Fiscal 1990).

Workload measures are compared in Table 5. These include filings

per judge, pending cases per judge, dispositions per judge, population

per judge, and attorney/judge ratio. Detailed population figures are

found in Table 4. All variables are ranked in Table 6. A distinction is

made between predictive factors and performance factors. Predictive

factors generally indicate those elements which may affect the amount of

business or workload of the courts in the foreseeable future, while

performance factors tend to illustrate the ability of the courts to

handle the workload. Comparison of these factors (Table 7), provides

substantial insight into the relative needs of the jurisdictions in

Maryland in terms of volume and their ability to cope with workload de-

mands .

After reviewing the method for determining relative needs, a more

specific analysis of each area of the State is then considered. Projec-

tions are developed for Fiscal 1991 and Fiscal 1992 and then applied to a

scale to predict numerically the need for judicial positions. A filing

standard is then developed based upon termination rates.

The results of the filings standard analysis are shown in Table 8.

The first column represents the total 1992 projected filings for civil,

criminal, and juvenile cases in each circuit court. The second column

represents existing authorized judgeships. The third column illustrates

number of available full- and part-time masters, both juvenile and

domestic relations, and the number of retired judges who are recalled in

some jurisdictions for settlement conferences in civil cases. The fourth

column combines the second and third columns thereby showing the number

of judicial officers. The fifth column indicates the projected number of

total case filings per judicial officer. The sixth column shows the

estimate of judge needs by applying the appropriate filing standard to

the projected adjusted caseload, and the last column represents a

preliminary estimate of needed judicial manpower. A surplus of judicial

officers is shown by a number in parentheses, while a shortage is shown

by a number without parentheses.

III. GENERAL TRENDS VITHIN THE CIRCUIT COURTS

A total of 220,350 circuit court filings were reported in Fiscal

1990, compared to 213,765 cases filed in Fiscal 1989 (excluding juvenile

matters filed in Montgomery County). This represents a difference of

nearly 6,585 additional filings or an increase of approximately 3.1

percent in total filings. Increases were reported in civil filings, 8,1

percent; while criminal filings decreased by 4.4 percent and juvenile

filings decreased by 0.03 percent. (See Table 1.) Since Fiscal 1984,

total filings have increased 36.8 percent or 59,312 additional filings

(Table 2). For the first time since FY 1982, criminal filings have

decreased and can be attributed to a judicially-devised plan designed to

reduce prayers for jury trials emanating from the District Court in

Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Montgomery County, and Harford County.

Each of these jurisdictions are in various stages of providing immediate

jury trials in the circuit courts on the same day they are requested in

the District Court. Prayers for jury trials decreased by 12.0 percent

and represents the first such decline since FY 1982. Despite this

decrease in prayers for jury trials, these cases still represent

47.1 percent of the criminal caseload of the circuit courts and repre-

sents the single most important problem affecting the administration of

the circuit courts throughout the State.

Jury Tr al Prayers Pre- and Post Chapter 608 of the Acts of 1981

Pr«- ch.eoe 1 Post-Chaoter 608

FY 81 FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90

Baltimora City* 5,925 2,034 3,209 4.128 5.948 7.407 8.698 8.714 7,905 4,048** Anne Arundel County 503 381 392 459 720 922 1,066 1,343 2.037 1,811*** Baltimore County 1.312 1.050 1,424 1.513 2.245 3,363 4.348 4.683 5,499 5,763*** Hontgomery County 636 489 1.223 1,924 2.631 2.511 3.560 3.955 3.709 2.185*** Prince George's Co. 952 895 1.583 2.755 4.043 4,348 4.003 3,111 2.937 3.266*** All Other Counties 2,962 1,399 1,930 2.414 3,593 4,733 6.569 7,978 9.339 10.568***

Total 12.290 6.248 9.761 13,193 19,180 23,284 28,244 29.784 31.426 27,641

*Based on nunber of defendants provided by the Criminal Assignment Office of the Circuit Court for Baltimore Ctty.

"Projected based on 10 months of data. •"Projected based on 11 months of data.

Since the certification process began in January of 1979, 30 cir-

cuit court judgeships and 11 District Court judgeships have been

created. During the 1979 session of the General Assembly, seven circuit

court judges were approved -- two in Anne Arundel, one each in Baltimore

City, Charles, Montgomery, Prince George's, and Worcester Counties

(Chapter 480, Acts of 1979). In 1980, while the circuit judgeship bills

were not enacted (SB 674 and HB 997), one District Court judge was

authorized in Howard County (Chapter 266, Acts of 1980). The following

year, 1981, the General Assembly approved six circuit court judges under

the certification process -- two in Baltimore County, one each in

Harford, Howard, Montgomery, and Washington Counties (Chapters 532 and

634 of the Acts of 1981). In 1982, one circuit court judge was approved

in Prince George's County (Chapter 132 of the Acts of 1982). During the

1983 session, one judge was approved for the District Court in

Montgomery County (Chapter 141 of the Acts of 1983); two circuit court

judgeship requests in Frederick County and Baltimore City were not

approved.

In 1984, the General Assembly created five new judicial positions:

two District Court judgeships, one each in Prince George's County and

Baltimore City (Chapter 107 of the Acts of 1984); and three additional

judgeships in the circuit courts, one each in Baltimore, Frederick, and

Prince George's Counties (Chapter 191 of the Acts of 1984). During the

1985 session of the General Assembly, two circuit court judgeships were

authorized, one each for Montgomery and Prince George's Counties (Chap-

ter 21 of the Acts of 1985). In Fiscal 1986, no additional judgeships

were requested or authorized for the circuit courts. One additional

Mi

judge in Fiscal 1987 was approved for the District Court in Montgomery

County (Chapter 208 of the Acts of 1987).

During the 1988 session of the General Assembly, five additional

judgeships were created in the circuit courts and two additional judge-

ships in the District Court (Chapter 473 of the Acts of 1988). This law

allocated one additional circuit court judge to each of Baltimore City

and Baltimore, Charles, Prince George's and Wicomico Counties. Two

District Court judges were also provided, one each in Charles and Prince

George's Counties. In Fiscal 1989, four judicial positions were ap-

proved: one each in the Circuit Court for Carroll and St. Mary's

Counties and one each in the District Court for Anne Arundel and Howard

Counties (Chapter 500 of the Acts of 1989). In 1990, the General

Assembly approved the creation of six judgeships: one each in the

Circuit Courts for Baltimore City and Baltimore, Prince George's and

Montgomery Counties; and one each in the District Court for Harford and

Wicomico Counties. Since the certification program began over 11 years

ago, more than 85 percent of the Judiciary's requests for judgeships

have been approved by the General Assembly.

IV. CIRCUIT-BY-CIRCUIT ANALYSIS

First Circuit

The four counties in the southern portion of the Eastern Shore of

Maryland -- Dorchester, Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester Counties --

form the First Judicial Circuit. The population of the circuit as of

July 1, 1991, is estimated at 167,400, an increase of nearly 22,000 over

the last decade.

The First Judicial Circuit has experienced a steady increase in

workload over the past five years; however, there is a slight decrease

projected for Fiscal 1990 (0.3 percent or 28 cases). During Fiscal

1986, there were 7,552 total filings reported in the First Circuit

compared to the estimated Fiscal 1990 level of 8,808 filings, an overall

increase of 1,256 or 16.6 percent. Although civil and juvenile filings

have fluctuated slightly over the last five years, criminal filings have

exhibited a consistent upward trend resulting in a general increase in

overall filings, due in part to the Eastern Correctional Institution in

Somerset County.

A steady influx of domestic, C.I.N.A. and delinquency filings, and

jury trial prayers have contributed to the overall increase in judicial

workload in the First Circuit. In three of the circuit's four counties,

jury trial prayers have constituted more than 50 percent of all criminal

filings over the last several years. Within the civil category, a

majority of the filings has been comprised of divorce and paternity

cases, while delinquency cases dominate the juvenile filings.

TOTAL CASES FILED, TERMINATED AND PENDING FISCAL 1990

Pending Pendine Beginning of End of the Year Filed Terminated the Year

Dorchester 1,392 1,792 1,683 1,501 Somerset 663 1,334 1,216 781 Wicomico 1,420 3,663 3,314 1,769 Worcester 1,127 2,158 1,830 1,455

10

Second Circuit

Caroline, Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne's, and Talbot Counties, located

in the upper region of the Eastern Shore, collectively make up the

Second Judicial Circuit. A population of 183,200, an increase of more

than 31,000 since 1980, is projected for July 1, 1991. The greatest

increase in population continues to be projected in Cecil and Queen

Anne's Counties, 14,990 and 9,410 additional inhabitants, respectively.

Overall, filings in the Second Circuit have increased an average

of 10 percent annually over the last five years with a 16.6 percent

increase projected for Fiscal Year 1990. The most significant increases

have occurred in Cecil and Queen Anne's Counties, increasing by

58.7 percent and 73.9 percent since Fiscal 1986, respectively. Categor-

ically, criminal filings have increased the most significantly, more

than 120 percent over the last five years. Those increases may be

attributable in part to the significant increase in population over the

last decade. Cecil County ranks fifth in filings per judge and ninth in

dispositions per judge while Queen Anne's County ranks eleventh and

eighth, respectively.


Pendine Pendine Beginning of End of the Year Filed Terminated the Year

Caroline 418 1,283 1,186 515 Cecil 1,877 3,817 3,031 2,663 Kent 327 883 746 464 Queen Anne's 479 1,654 1,585 548 Talbot 671 1,601 1,621 651

11

Third Circuit

The Third Judicial Circuit is comprised of Baltimore and Harford

Counties. Each county has experienced an influx of more than 32,000

people since 1980. The July 1, 1991, projected population for Baltimore

County is 689,100 and 179,500 for Harford County.

The Third Circuit has reported an almost 19 percent increase in

total filings over the last five years. The greatest increase has

occurred in criminal filings, 39.4 percent since Fiscal 1986. Requests

for jury trial prayers have greatly contributed to the increase in

criminal filings. Over the last five years, jury trial prayers have

increased by 71.4 percent in Baltimore County, from 3,363 in Fiscal 1986

to 5,763 in Fiscal 1990. In Barford County, jury trial prayers in-

creased by more than 120 percent since Fiscal 1986. The following chart

provides a comparative breakdown of jury trial prayers in the Third

Circuit.

FY 81 FT 62 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90

BaltJirore County 1.312 1.050 1.4Z4 1.513 2.245 3.363 4,348 4,683 5,499 5,763

Harford County 373 198 300 413 659 762 1,202 1,533 1,699 1,741

Baltimore County, with its fifteen judges, ranks eighth in filings

per judge and fourth in dispositions per judge. Harford County has four

judges and ranks twelfth in filings and thirteenth in disposition rate.

12


Pending Beginning of the Year Filed Terminated

Pending End of the Year

Baltimore Harford

24,485 6,193

27,274 24,318 6,439 5,321

27,441 7,311

Fourth Circuit

The far western corner of Maryland houses the Fourth Judicial

Circuit which is comprised of Allegany, Garrett, and Washington Counties.

The estimated July 1, 1991 population for that circuit is 218,800, a

slight decrease of less than 1.0 percent from the last decade. Washing-

ton County was the only county in the circuit to experience an increase

(7,280 additional people) with a projected population of 120,600.

Civil and juvenile filings have increased steadily over the last

five years, while criminal filings have almost doubled. The increase in

criminal filings can be attributed to a steady increase in indict-

ment/information filings and jury trial prayers. Washington County ranks

seventh in filings per judge.




Allegany Garrett Washington

1,651 351

2,754

2,296 1,862 1,063 946 5,473 4,437

2,085 468

3,790

Fifth Circuit

Anne Arundel, Carroll, and Howard Counties form the Fifth Judicial

Circuit. The judicial seats in the circuit include sixteen judges: nine

13

in Anne Arundel County, three in Carroll County, and four in Howard

County. With a projected population of 757,700 by July 1, 1991, the

circuit has the second highest rate of grovth. With the exception of

Anne Arundel County, which has experienced fluctuating judicial activity,

overall filings have increased at a steady rate over the last five years.

With respect to other factors affecting judicial activity, Anne

Arundel County ranks third in filings per judge (2,047) and second in

pending cases per judge (2,718); it also reported the second longest

disposition rate for juvenile cases and the fourth lengthiest time in

disposing of civil cases. Howard County ranks first (243 days) in terms

of the longest disposition rate of civil cases, while Carroll County

reported the eighth longest disposition time for criminal cases with

148 days.




Anne Arundel 23,602 Carroll 2,627 Howard 4,519

19,960 18,956 4,563 3,955 7,152 6,388

24,606 3,235 5,283

Sixth Circuit

The Sixth Circuit is comprised of Montgomery and Frederick Counties.

The circuit's close proximity to Washington, D.C. may have contributed to

it being the fastest growing area with a projected population of 927,300,

an increase of more than 230,000 additional people. Montgomery County

ranks first in population per judge (57,877), as well as first in attor-

neys per judge (322).

14

There has been a 45.8 percent increase in overall filings over the

last five years with 20,837 total filings reported in Fiscal 1986 com-

pared to 30,389 in Fiscal 1990, an increase of 9,552 filings. The most

significant increase has been realized in civil case filings, increasing

by 57.7 percent since Fiscal 1986. Contributing to the increase in civil

cases has been an increased filing of motor tort and contract cases.

Other workload factors indicate that Montgomery County is sixth in

the number of filings per judge (1,830) and third in pending cases per

judge (2,636). Montgomery County posted the fifth longest time in

disposing of both civil and criminal cases, 226 days and 150 days,

respectively.


Pending Pending Beginning of End of the Year Filed Terminated the Year

Frederick 3,239 4,787 4,437 3,589 Montgomery 28,034 29,129 18,120 39,043

Seventh Circuit

The Seventh Judicial Circuit is comprised of Calvert, Charles,

Prince George's, and St. Mary's Counties. There are 24 judges assigned

to adjudicate the second busiest circuit in terms of total filings. The

Seventh Circuit is also the most populous with a projected population by

July 1, 1991, of 946,500. With respect to population growth, Calvert

County is the fastest growing jurisdiction in the state.

Since Fiscal 1986, filings have increased by nearly 25 percent. All

of the counties have experienced a steady increase in filings with

Calvert County almost doubling in workload, while St. Mary's County more

iii

15

than doubled within the last five years. Civil, criminal, and juvenile

filings have all increased. With the exception of Fiscal 1988 and 1989,

jury trial prayers in Prince George's County have increased and contrib-

uted to the overall increase in criminal filings.

Hotor Vehicle Jury Trial Prayers

Criminal Jury Trial Prayers

FY 81 FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90

178 242 669 1.438 1.794 2,040 1.767 1.501 1.253 1.089

774 653 914 1.317 2.249 2.308 2.236 1.610 1.534 2.177

952 895 1.583 2.755 4.043 4.348 4.003 3.111 2.787 3,266

Prince George's County ranks second in both the number of filings

per judge (2,131) and the number of dispositions per judge (2,038).

Prince George's County also reported the second longest time from filing

to disposition of civil cases with 237 days. Calvert County ranks first

in both categories, 2,840 filings per judge and 2,229 dispositions per

judge. Although Calvert County records the highest number of filings per

judge, the disposition rate of civil cases is 177 days (13th in rank);

criminal cases is 102 days (23rd), and juvenile cases are disposed of

within 65 days of their filing (10th).

TOTAL CASES PILED, TERMINATED AND PENDING FISCAL 1990

Pending Beginning of the Year Filed Ter- nated


Calvert Charles Prince George's St. Mary's

Eighth Circuit

930 2,933

28,899 2,021

2,913 4,741 38,931 3,222

2,206 3,884

34,718 2,926

1,637 3,790

33,112 2,317

16

The Eighth Judicial Circuit is comprised of only Baltimore City.

Baltimore City's 25 judges are charged with the responsibility of

handling the largest workload in the state in terms of filings. It is

the second most populous political subdivision with a projected

population of 738,000 by July 1, 1991. However, that figure represents a

decrease of 45,800 since 1980.

For the second consecutive year, Baltimore City has reported a

decrease in overall filings. That decrease can be attributed to the

decrease in criminal filings since Fiscal 1988 which resulted from a

decline in jury trial prayers. The following table provides a compara-

tive breakdown of jury trial prayers in Baltimore City.

FY 81 FV 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY FY 89 FY 90

5.925 Z.034 3,209 4,128 5,948 7,407 8,698 8,714 7,905 4,048 Jury Trial Prayers a

Based on the mmber of defendants provided by the Criminal Assignment Office of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

Although Baltimore City has docketed approximately 5,419 asbestos

cases, total civil filings have remained relatively constant due in part

to the reduction in "other law" filings. Juvenile filings have also

remained somewhat consistent over the last five years.

With respect to other workload considerations, Baltimore City ranks

fourth in filings per judge (2,038) and fifth in dispositions per judge

(1,714). Baltimore City also recorded the sixth longest time from filing

to disposition of a civil case with 216 days.

17


f-J

Baltimore



102,158 52,858 45,815 109,201

(11/02/90)

mmmmamupmmf^

TABLE 1

STATEWIDE CIRCUIT COURT FILINGS BY CASE TYPE

FISCAL YEARS 1979 THROUGH 1990

FY 79 FY 80 FY 81 c FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 . Filings

FY 90 Fili ngs Fillngs Filings Fili ngs Fili ngs Filings Filings Fili ngs FiIings Filings Fili ngs

Case (% of (% of <% of (.% of <% of a of <% of (% of C% of (X of (% of (% of Type Change) Change) Change) Change) Change) Change) Change) Change? Change) Change) Change) Change)

Civil" 81,064 (+ 8.5%)

86,295 (+ 6.5%)

75,336 (-12.7X)

81,633 (+ 8.4%)

91,255 (+11.8%)

97,674 {+ 7.0%)

102,030 (+ 4.50%)

106,716 (+ 4.59%)

106,193 <- 0.5%)

112,645 (+ 6.1%)

116,009 (+ 3.1%)

125,389 <+ 8.1%)

Criminal 38,516 (+ 7.80%)

39,007 (+ 1.27%)

46,061 (+18.08%)

30,575 (-33.62%)

33,862 (+10.75%)

36,738 (+ 8.49%)

42,547 (+15.80%)

48,660 (+14.36%)

55,247 (+13.5%)

57,923 (+ 4.8%)

61,330 (+ 5.9%)

58,635 (- 4.4%)

Juvenile 23,487 (+ 4.51%)

24,117 (+ 2.68%)

22,961 (- 4./V%)

26,481 (+15.33%)

26,518 (+ 0.13%)

26,626 (+ 0.40%)

27,387 (+ 2.90%)

30,834 (+12.58%)

32,439 (+ 5.2%)

32,806 (+ 1.1%)

36,336 (+10.8%)

36,326 (- 0.03%)

Total 143,067 (+ 7.63%)

149,419 (+ 4.43%)

144,358 <- 3.38%)

138,689 (- 3.93%)

151,635 (+ 6.92%)

161,038 (+ 6.20%)

171,964 (+ 6.78%)

186,210 (+ 8.28%)

193,879 (+4.1%)

203,374 (+ 4.9%)

213,765 <+ 5.1%)

220,350 (+ 3.1%)

Beginning in Fiscal 1985, "Law" and "Equity" were combined into one category and named "Civil."

Excludes juvenile causes in Montgomery County District Court.

During Fiscal 1981 and Fiscal 1982, reopened cases were counted when a hearing was held. In all other fiscal years, reopened cases are recorded at the time of the filing of the petition.

For Fiscal Year 1990, filings are based on an extrapolation of data for the first 11 months of the fiscal year.

Beginning in Fiscal 1982, Baltimore City changed its criminal counting procedures from individual charges to cases which are defined as charges arising out of a single incident.

TABLE 2

PROJECTIONS OF CIRCUIT COURT FILINGS FOR EACH JURISDICTION IN MARYLAND THROUGH 1992

Actual Prelected8

Fl 90

Proje

FY 91

ctedb

Circuit/ Jurisdiction FY 84 FY 85 FT 86 FY 87 FT 88 FY 89 FY 92

First Circuit 6,398 6.366 7.552 7.670 7.930 8.836 8.808 9.272 9.670

Dorchester Somerset Wlcomlco Worcester

1.305 800

2.583 1,710

1.480 759

2.245 1.882

1.837 940

2.644 2.131

1.865 1.021 2.604 2.180

1.726 1.108 2.994 2.102

1.800 1.314 3.621 2.101

1.739 1.316 3.676 2.077

1.768 1,441 3.821 2.242

1.775 1.549 4.050 2.296

Second Circuit 5.369 5.625 5.891 6.259 6.939 7.840 9.141 8.928 9,467

Caroline Cecil Kent Queen Anne's Talbot

687 2.356

388 991 947

897 2.484

372 939 933

977 2.376

551 944

1.043

1.016 2,549

668 951

1.075

1,180 2.897

643 1.045 1.174

1.238 3.194

661 1,306 1,441

1.308 3.771

838 1.642 1.582

1,436 3,493

877 1.515 1.607

1.534 3.653 949

1,615 1.716

Third Circuit 22.931 25.144 28.487 29,792 31.968 33,334 33.683 34,995 36.011

Baltimore Harford

18.352 4,579

20,176 4.968

23,137 5,350

24.325 5.467

25,509 6,459

26,371 6,963

27.245 6.438

28,396 6.599

29,422 6,589

Fourth Circuit 5,378 5,947 6,645 6,679 7,463 8.097 8.795 9,052 9,560


1.544 701

3.133

1.702 718

3.527

1.935 684

4.026

1.828 747

4.104

Z.052 906

4,505

2.226 949

4.922

2.248 1.071 5.476

2.402 1.081 5.569

2.519 1.146 5.895

Fifth Circuit 23.727 26,037 26.681 25.329 25,611 26.808 29.510 29.090 29.938

Anne Arundel Carrol 1 Howard

16.501 3.434 3.792

18.250 3.543 4.244

18.257 3.603 4.821

16.723 3.757 4.849

15.717 4,049 5,845

16.565 4,247 5.996

18,424 4.406 6,678

17,185 4,545 7,360

17.180 4,716 8.042

Sixth Circuit 18.465 19.651 20,837 22.265 25,328 30.860 30.389 33,341 35.652

Frederick Montgomery

2.574 15.891

2.718 16.933

3.163 17.674

3.388 18.877

3.805 21.523

4.159 26.701

4.776 25,613

4,639 28.702

4.905 30.747

Seventh Circuit 35.561 36.066 39.422 43,583 45.077 46.932 49.077 48.450 49.465


1.317 3.010 29.653 1.581

1,467 3.195

29,916 1,488

1.585 3.804

32.542 1,491

1.536 4.710 34,525 2.812

1.695 4,733

35.314 3.335

1.793 4,825 36.533 3.781

2,840 4,708 38.360 3.169

1.953 4,766 38.469 3.262

2.039 4,774 39.473 3.179

Elqhth Circuit 43.209 47,128 50,695 52.302 53,058 51,058 50,947 54,548 55.742

Baltimore City 43.209 47,128 50,695 52,302 53.058 51.058 50.947 54,548 55,742

Statewide 161.038 171.964 166.210 193.879 203.374 213.765 220.350 227.676 235.505

For Fiscal Year 1990. filings are based on an extrapolation of data for the first 11 months of the fiscal year.

For Fiscal Years 1991 and 1992, projections are based on a linear regression method of forecasting utilizing data from Fiscal Year 1984 through Fiscal Year 1990. In seme Instances, data may be deleted because It may skew projections.

Excludes juvenile cases heard In Montgomery County.

TABLE 3

FILING TO DISPOSITION OF CASES TERMINATED IN FISCAL 1987. 1988. 1989, and 1990

Average in tovs - FUlna to D soosltlon

All Criminal Cases Excluding 360

Cases Days*

Over

'87 '88 '89 '90 '87 '88 '89 '90

First Circuit

Dorchester Somerset Wlcomtco Worcester

135 129 100 113

99 159 94

130

110 162 100 116

175 139

86 125

121 128 97

112

98 132 94

124

no 114 99

113

162 127 85

122

Second Circuit


169 163 173 158 237

176 183 232 156 189

133 145 165 131 174

139 157 170 136 177

160 146 125 134 186

170 150 113 134 174

133 145 165 131 174

133 148 159 133 163

Third Circuit

Baltimore Harford

138 212

158 209

132 215

172 196

125 166

105 147

69 148

102 144

Fourth Circuit

Al1egany Garrett Washlngton

182 124 156

195 116 139

164 127 144

172 127 146

165 124 146

173 107 129

145 123 138

149 127 136

Fifth Circuit


181 237 156

178 240 190

187 198 163

199 195 154

149 161 135

150 199 138

149 176 131

143 148 131

Sixth Circuit


134 226

191 234

174 246

175 231

128 178

155 175

149 168

160 150

Seventh Circuit

Calvert Charles Prince George's St. Hary's

95 154 119 134

104 152 127 233

98 150 141 198

105 150 145 157

95 141 111 127

98 146 114 149

98 145 125 160

102 143 126 138

Elohth Circuit

Baltimore City 97 109 118 129 81 90 91 105

Statewide 132 152 155 155 112 120 121 120

"This column excludes older cases to give what the average time would be eliminating

the reader an Indication of those cases which perhaps

should have been reported as terminated to the State InformatlwT system. Approximately 90 to 95 percent of the cases are disposed within this time period.

Note - The figures used for Fiscal 1990 are as of March 1990.

TABLE 3 (contd.)

FILING TO 0ISPOSITI0H OF CASES TERMINATED IN FISCAL 1987. 1988. 1989. and 1990

'87

Ayeraqe In Days - FtHnq to Olsposlttoo

AH CtYtl Cases

89 90 3L

ExclucHng Cases Over 721 Days*

89 30

First Circuit

Dorchester Somerset Wlccmico Worcester

222 163 228 211

236 174 258 187

208 189 223 203

273 158 190 196

Second Circuit


202 247 214 223 227

209 195 238 221 253

206 236 209 233 248

228 218 238 192 254

Third Circuit

Baltimore Harford

326 322

332 N/A

344 560

342 356

Fourth Circuit


294 208 238

N/A 189 230

324 171 251

395 175 196

Fifth Circuit

Anne Arundel Carroll Howard

399 346 364

308 286 509

299 257 333

427 247 309

Sixth Circuit

Frederick Moeitgoroery

224 369

258 355

231 402

294 437

Seventh Circuit


253 241 338 205

257 229 325 266

312 215 327 241

235 224 344 275

ClqW Circuit

Baltimore City 375 375 368 352

Statewide 333 354 338 341

148 172 144 181 98 109 117 102 179 185 173 147 177 163 169 151

179 143 141 181 163

165 156 179 182 171

165 170 136 176 198

154 159 157 166 189

213 186

207 187

202 200

204 199

216 187 182

282 167 175

199 164 169

234 161 152

228 187 262

203 180 256

204 194 246

227 189 243

184 242

185 258

187 233

196 226

191 193 216 177 192 181 177 171 206 217 216 237 173 186 165 171

243 216 220 216

214 213 208 211

*Thls colunn excludes older cases to give the reader an Indication of what the average time would be eliminating those cases which perhaps should have been reported as terminated to the State Information system. Approximately 90 to 95 percent of the cases are disposed within this time period.

Notes: (1) The figures used for Fiscal 1990 are as of March 1990.

TABLE 3 (contd.)

FILING TO DISPOSITION OF CASES TERMINATED IN FISCAL 1987. 1968, 1989. and 1990

Average In Days - Filing to Disposition

All Juvenile Cases

'87 '88 89 90 87

Excluding Cases Over ?71 Days 'SB 89 90

First Circuit

Dorchester Somerset Wlcomlco Worcester

37 35 53 73

31 17 39 76

33 24 35 58

46 98 41 65

Second Circuit


55 75 37 55 81

82 61 57 55 65

47 57 44 42 48

71 69 61 63 96

Third Circuit

Baltimore Harford

59 78

143 60

57 57

62 55

Fourth Circuit


79 38 50

65 50 41

49 49 51

57 36 49

Fifth Circuit


87 91 83

92 92 79

91 64 72

104 66 71

Sixth Circuit


81 171

86 145

91 160

103 153

Seventh Circuit


154 66 75 95

111 76 76 98

157 71 84 94

76 78 80 85

Etqhth Circuit

Baltimore City 119 102 85 88

Statewide 101 111 84 86

37 31 33 46 19 12 24 21 35 37 35 39 58 56 58 54

50 72 47 71 56 56 57 53 37 43 44 61 47 51 42 60 60 57 48 78

48 46 51 54 59 38 54 55

67 57 48 57 38 50 49 36 43 40 49 45

80 84 84 93 82 78 58 64 72 65 57 64

70 78 77 86 106 108 112 104

81 94 93 65 65 68 71 71 71 72 76 73 82 94 73 85

65

66

65

67

64

67

69

70

*Th1s column excludes older cases to give the reader an indication of what the average time would be eliminating those cases which perhaps should have been reported as terminated to the State Information system. Approximately 90 to 95 percent of the cases are disposed within this time period.

Note - The figures used for Fiscal 1990 are as of March 1990.

TABLE 4

MARYLAND POPULATION CHANGE BETWEEN 1970 AW 1980 CENSUS AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS THROUGH JULY 1. 1991

Actual Pooulatlon Actual Annual Rate of Chanoe

Pouulation Pro.iecttons Projected Circuit/ Jurisdiction ADHI 1. 197C ADHI 1. 1980 Julv 1. 1980* Julv 1. 1991b

Annual Rate of Chance

First Circuit 1Z7,007 145.240 1.44 145.700 167,400 1.64

Dorchester Somerset W1 cant co Worcester

29.405 18.924 54.236 24.442

30.623 19.188 64.540 30,889

0.41 0.14 1.9 2.64

30.650 19.200 64,800 31.050

30.300 20.200 75.700 41,200

-0.13 0.57 1.85 3.60

Second Circuit 131.322 151.380 1.53 151.890 183.200 2.27


19.781 53.291 16,146 18.422 23,682

23.143 60,430 16.695 25,508 25.604

1.7 1.34 0.34 3.85 0.81

23.230 60,610 16.710 25,690 25,650

26.300 75,600 17.300 35.100 28.900

1.45 2.72 0.39 4.03 1.39

Third Circuit 735.787 801,545 0.89 803,190 868.600 0.90

Baltimore Harford

620.409 115.378

655,615 145,930

0.57 2.65

656,500 146,690

689.100 179,500

0.55 2.46

Fourth Circuit 209.349 221,132 0.56 220,400 218,800 -0.08

Al legany Garrett Washington

84.044 21.476

103.829

80.548 27.498

113.086

-0.42 2.34 0.89

80,460 26.620

113.320

71,800 26.400

120.600

-1.18 -0.09 0.71

Fifth Circuit 429.442 585.703 3.64 589.610 757.700 3.14


298.042 69,006 62.394

370.775 96.356

118.572

2.44 4.0 9.0

372,590 97,040

119,980

441,400 130.000 186.300

2.03 3.74 6.08

Sixth Circuit 607.736 693.845 1.42 695.460 927.300 3.67


84.927 522.809

114,792 579.053

3.52 1.08

115.000 580.460

152.700 774.600

3.61 3.68

Seventh Circuit 777,467 832,355 0.71 833,740 946.500 1.49


20.682 47,676

661,719 47,388

34,638 72,751

665,071 59,895

6.75 5.26 0.05 2.64

34.990 73,380

665.160 60.210

54.800 106,800 707,900 77,000

6.23 5.01 0.71 3.07

Elohth Circuit 905.787 786.775 -1.31 783,800 738.000 -0.64

Baltimore City 905,787 786.775 -1.31 783,800 738,000 -0.64

STATEWIDE 3,923,897 4,217,975 0.75 4,223,790 4,807,500 1.52

SOURCES: Maryland Vital Statistics Annual Report, 1980. and Maryland Pooul Mental Hygiene.

»tton Reoort July 1, 1987 and Projections to 1992. Deoartment of Health and Center for Health Statistics.

aThe July 1. 1980 population estimate was prepared by the Center for Health Statistics by adding to the 1980 census population (April 1. 1980) l/40th the change between the 1970 and 1980 censuses for each political subdivision. The subdivisions were then sunned to obtain the total state population.

Change in population from one year to the next Is dependent upon two factors — natural increase and net migration. Natural Increase is the excess of births over deaths. Net migration Is the difference between the nunfcer of people moving into an area and the number moving out. For further information. see source docunents above.

TABLE 5

COMPARATIVE WORKLOAD MEASURES PER CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE* (Fiscal Year 1990)

Jurisdiction (Number of Judges)

(1) Filings Per

Judae

<2> b Pending Cases Per Judae

M c Dispositions

Per Judae

(4) Population^

Per Judge

(5) Attorney/Judge

Ratio

First Circuit (Rank) (Rank) (Rank) (Rank J

Dorchester (1) Somerset (1) Wicomtco (3) Worcester (2)

1,739 ( 9) 1.316 (18) 1.225 (20) 1,039 (23)

1,374 ( 8) 784 (17) 591 (19) 554 (20)

1.672 ( 6) 1.204 18) 1.042 20)

906 (23)

30.300 (17) 20,000 23) 24,867 21) 20.050 (22)

31 13 43 41

(19) (24) (13) (16)

Second Circuit

Caroline (1) Cecil (2) Kent (1) Queen Anne's (1) Talbot (1)

1.308 (19) 1.886 ( 5)

838 (24) 1.642 (11) 1.582 (15)

463 (22) 1.163 (11)

417 (24 483 (21 601 (18)

1.243 (17) 1,485 9)

752 24) 1.612 8) 1.635 7)

26,000 (20) 37,000 (12) 17,300 (24) 34,100 (15) 28,600 (18)

29 39 40 56

114

20) 18) 17) 12) 6)

Third Circuit

Baltimore (15) Harford (4)

1.816 ( 8) 1.610 (12)

1.887 ( 4) 1.694 ( 6)

1.744 ( 4) 1,329 (13)

49.050 ( 4) 43.975 ( 7)

165 71

( 4) ( 8)

Fourth Circuit

Allegany (2) Garrett (1) Washington (3)

1.124 (21) 1.071 (22) 1.825 ( 7)

1,025 (15) 454 (23)

1,200 (10)

909 (22) 951 (21)

1.436 (11)

36.350 (13) 26.500 (19) 39.933 (10)

43 (14) 26 (23) 43 (15)

Fifth Circuit

Anne Arundel (9) Carroll (3) Howard (4)

2.047 ( 3) 1,469 (17) 1.670 (10)

2,718 ( 2) 943 (16)

1.280 ( 9)

1.937 ( 3) 1.310 15) 1,328 14)

48.300 ( 5) 42,167 { 8) 44,775 ( 6)

123 ( 5) 66 ( 9)

190 ( 3)

Sixth Circuit

Frederick f (3) Montgomery (14)

1.592 (13) 1.830 ( 6)

1.131 (12) 2,636 ( 3)

1.458 (10) 1,112 (19)

49.600 57,877

( 3) ( 1)

65 322

(10) ( 1)

Seventh Circuit

Calvert (1) Charles (3) Prince George's (18) St. Mary's (2)

2.840 ( 1) 1.569 (16) 2.131 ( 2) 1.585 (14)

1.541 ( 7) 1.028 (14) 1.724 ( 5) 1.045 (13)

2.229 ( 1) 1.288 (16) 2.038 ( 2) 1.424 (12)

52.700 34,467 41,359 37,650

( 2) (14) ( 9) (11)

60 (11) 27 (22) 85 ( 7) 29 (21)

Elqhth Circuit

Baltimore City (25) 2,038 ( 4) 3,860 ( 1) 1.714 ( 5) 30.883 (16) 214 ( 2)

State (120) 1,836 2,132 1,578 40.895 143

The number of Judges used In developing the rankings in this chart is based on the nuttber authorized In Fiscal 1991 (120 statewide).

The pending cases reflect those active cases which were pending as of May 31. 1990.

The disposition statistics used were based on an extrapolation of data using the first eleven months of Fiscal 1990 as a base.

Population estimate for July 1. 1990. Issued by the Maryland Center for Health Statistics.

Attorney statistics obtained from the Adtilnlstrator of the Clients' Security Trust Fund of the Bar of Maryland as of Hay 12. 1990. Out-of-state attorneys are not included In these ratios.

fr Excludes Juvenile cases In Montgomery County District Court.

TABLE 6

COMPARED RANKING OF VARIOUS FACTORS AFFECTING JUOGESHIP ALLOCATION

Ranking of Performance Factors (Inverted Ranking Used to Show Longest Times)

FtHtws

Ranking of Predictive Factors

Pending Popu- lation Cases Attorneys

Time/ Civil

Time/ Criminal

me/ Juvenile

First Circuit

Dorchester Somerset Wlcomico Worcester

Second Circuit


Third Circuit

Baltimore Harford

Fourth Circuit


Fifth Circuit


Sixth Circuit


Seventh Circuit


Eighth Circuit

Baltimore City

9 18 20 23

19 5

24 11 15

8 12

21 22 7

3 17 10

13 6

1 16 2

14

17 23 21 22

20 12 24 15 18

13 19 10

2 14 9

11

16

8 17 19 20

22 11 24 21 18

15 23 10

2 16 9

12 3

7 14 5

13

19 24 13 16

20 18 17 12 6

14 23 15

10 1

11 22 7

21

181 (12) 102 (24} 147 (23) 151 (22)

154 (20) 159 (18) 157 (19) 166 (16) 189 (10)

204 ( 7) 199 ( 8)

234 ( 3) 161 (17) 152 (21)

227 ( 4) 189 (11) 243 ( 1)

196 ( 9) 226 ( 5)

177 (13) IH (14) 237 ( 2) 171 (15)

162 ( 2) 127 (17) 85 (24) 122 (20)

133 (14) 148 ( 7) 159 ( 4) 133 (15) 163 ( 1)

102 (22) 144 ( 9)

149 ( 6) 127 (18) 136 (13)

143 (10) 148 ( 8) 131 (16)

160 ( 3) 150 ( 5)

102 (23) 143 (11) 126 (19) 138 (12)

216 ( 6) 105 (21)

46 (20) 21 (24) 39 (22) 54 (17)

71 ( 7) 53 (19) 61 (13) 60 (14) 78 ( 5)

54 (18) 55 (16)

57 (15) 36 (23) 45 (21)

93 ( 2) 64 (11) 64 (12)

86 ( 3) 104 ( 1)

65 (10) 71 ( 8) 73 ( 6) 85 ( 4)

( 9)

Lower nunber indicates greater need for judgeshlp. (So, for example, a mmber one ranking of a predictive factor would indicate a higher amount of volune whereas a number one ranking of a performance factor would Indicate a slower ability to handle twrkload.)

TABLE 7

COLLECTIVE RANKING OF JURISDICTIONS BY BOTH PREDICTIVE AND PERFORMANCE FACTORS**

(FISCAL 1990)

Sumary of Predictive Factors bv Jurlsdlctton*

Sumary of Perfonwnce Factors bv Jurisdiction*

1. Anne Arundel County

Z. Hontgonery County

3. Calvert County

4. Baltimore City

5. Prince George's County

6. Baltimore County

7. Howard County

8. Harford County

9. Washington County

10. Cecil County

11. Frederick County

12. Dorchester County

13. St. Mary's County

14. Carroll County

15. Queen Anne's County

16. Talbot County

17. Charles County

18. Allegany County

19. Wlcontlco County

20. Somerset County

21. Caroline County

22. Worcester County

23. Garrett County

24. Kent County

( 5.75) 1. Montgomery County ( 3.7 )

( 6.5 ) 2. Frederick County ( 5.0 )

( 7.5 ) 3. Amte Arundel County ( 5.3 )

( 8.0 ) 4. Talbot County ( 5.3 )

( 8.0 ) 5. Allegany County ( 8.0 )

(10.0 ) 6. Prince George's County ( 9.0 )

(14.25) 7. Howard County ( 9.7 )

(15.75) 8. Carroll County (10.0 )

(16.5 ) 9. St. Mary's County (10.3 )

(16.75) 10. Harford County (11.0 )

(19-0 ) 11. Charles County (11.0 )

(19.75) 12. Dorchester County (11.3 )

(25.0 ) 13. Baltimore City (12.0 )

(25.0 ) 14. Kent County (12.0 )

(25.5 ) 15. Caroline County (13.7 )

(26.25) 16. Cecil County (14.7 )

(28.0 ) 17. Queen Anne's County (15.0 )

(30.0 ) 18. Calvert County (15.3 )

(33.0 ) 19. Baltimore County (15.7 )

(33.75) 20. Washington County (18.3 )

(35.25) 21. Garrett County (19.3 )

(36.75) 22. Worcester County (19.7 )

(38.5 ) 23. Somerset County (21.7 )

(40.25) 24. Wlcomlco County (23-0 )

Collective ranking determined by assigning a weight of three to filings per Judge, a weight of one to population per judge, a weight of two to pending cases per judge, and a weight of one to attorney/judge ratio.

Collective ranking determined by assigning an equal weight (of one) to the filing to disposition times of criminal, civil, and Juvenile cases. (Inverted ranking to show longest times.)

*Lower nunber Indicates greater need for judgeship so, for example, a number one ranking of a predictive factor would indicate a higher amount of volune whereas a nunber one ranking of a performance factor would indicate a slower ability to handle workload. If a jurisdiction is listed near the top of both lists, then this shows that a relatively strong need exists for a judge based on the variables considered.

TABLE 8

PROJECTED NUMBER OF ESTIMATED NEED FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS

No. of Masters Adjusted Average Projected Judicial Projected and Other Number No. of Filings Per Officers Addtl. Filings

199Za No. of JudlclaK

Officers" Judicial Judicial Officer ^ i:

fe' Judoes Officers 1992 StandartT

First Circuit" Dorchester 1,775 1 0 1.0 1.775 1.5 0.5 Somerset 1.549 1 0 1.0 1.549 1.3 0.3 W leant co 4.050 3 0 3.0 1,350 3.4 0.4 Worcester 2.29G 2 0 2.0 1,148 1.9 (0.1) Circuit Total 9.670 7 0 7.0 1.361 8.1 1.1

Second Circuit Caroline 1,534 1 0 1.0 1,534 1.3 0.3 Cecil 3,653 2 0 2.0 1,827 3.0 1.0 Kent 949 1 0 1.0 949 0.8 (0.2) Queen Anne's 1.615 1 0 1.0 1,615 1.3 0.3 Talbot 1.716 1 0 1.0 1,716 1.4 0.4 Circuit-Total 9.467 6 0 6.0 1.578 7.8 1.8

Third Circuit Baltimore 29.422 15 3.0 18.0 1.565 19.6 1.6 Harford 6.604 4 0.6 4.6 1.436 5.5 0.9 Circuit Total 36.026 19 3.6 22.6 1.540 25.1 2.5

Fourth Circuit Allegany 2.519 2 0 2.0 1.260 2.1 0.1 Garrett 1.146 1 0 1.0 1.146 1.0 0.0 Washington 5.895 3 0 3.0 1.965 4.9 1.9 Circuit Total 9.560 6 0 6.0 1.593 8.0 2.0

Fifth Circuit Anne Arundel 17.180 9 3.0 12.0 1.432 11.5 (0.5) Carroll 4.716 3 1.0 4.0 1.179 3.9 (0.1) Howard 8.042 4 2.0 6.0 1,340 6.7 0.7 Circuit Total 29.938 16 6.0 22.0 1.361 22.1 0.1

Sixth Circuit Frederick 4.905 3 0 3.0 1.635 4.1 1.1 Montgomery 30,897 14 5.4 19.4 1.593 20.6 1.2 Circuit Total 35,802 17 5.4 22.4 1,598 24.7 2.3

Seventh Circuit Calvert 2,039 1 0 1.0 2,039 1.7 0.7 Charles 4.774 3 0 3.0 1.591 3.9 0.9 Prince George's 39.473 18 6.0 24.0 1.645 26.3 2.3 St. Mary's 3.179 2 0 2.0 1.590 2.6 0.6 Circuit Total 49.465 24 6.0 30.0 1.649 34.5 4.5

Eighth Circuit Baltimore City 55,742 25 12.6 37.6 1.483 37.2 (0.4)

Circuit courts In both Harford and Montgomery Counties hear matters that would ordinarily be heard by the Orphans' Court. Accordingly, case filings weret added to projections In each jurisdiction. Approximately 15 case filings were added to Harford County's projection and 150 case filings to Montgomery County's projection for Fiscal 1992.

Part-time Juvenile masters In some Jurisdictions are calculated as a percentage of a judicial officer because of the mmber of filings handled yearly by these individuals. Judgeshlp count for Baltimore City includes one District Court judge who Is assigned to the Circuit Court of Baltimore City on an annual basis for about 8-1/2 months. This amounts to about 0.7 of additional Judicial assistance yearly. Also Included in the nunfcer of other judicial officers are retired fudges who are recalled in some jurisdictions for settlement conferences In civil cases on a fixed two-day-a-week" schedule. Full-time and part-time domestic masters are included in this column but not masters who are compensated on a fee basis.

This column does not reflect the use of retired judges recalled to service because of unfilled judicial vacancies and Illnesses of active judges to sit on the trial of cases for designated periods of time. In Fiscal 1990, a total of 412.3 judge days (excluding settlement conferences) were provided by retired circuit court Judges.

(continued)

Table 8 footnote (continued)

Although efforts have been made to estabDsh a weighted caseload statistical system. It has not been practicable to do so effectively. Obviously, In terms of time and conjlexlty, some cases are many times

than others. While each circuit court tends to have equal shares of these more difficult have In^acted only certain circuit courts In very substantial rnmbers; e.g.. asbestos Baltimore City (5.419 pending cases) and Baltimore County (approximately 2.036 pending

trial of these cases takes in the extreme sometimes 8-1Z weeks. The same rationale Is death penalty cases. Account Is individually taken of these cases In the final

more demanding cases. seme litigation In cases). The applicable In determination of the nunfcer of judges to be requested.

Increases In the minber of projected filings is due In large part to the Influx of criminal cases transferred to the circuit courts from the District Court where the defendant is entitled to and demands a jury trial. Less than 2 percent of these cases (total filings of 27.641 estimated in Fiscal 1990) actually results In jury trials; most are disposed of by plea negotiation between the prosecution and defense rather than by actual trial.

The scale utilized for this column In Fiscal 1992 Is as follows: 1200 filings cers and 1500 filings - 9 or more Judicial officers.

1 to 8 judicial offl-

A need for additional Judgeships Is shown by a mmber without parentheses, whereas, a surplus In judgeshlps is shown by a mmber Jn. parentheses.

In the First Circuit, Dorchester and Wlcomlco Counties share one judge equally; thus, making the actual allocation of judges 1.5 in Dorchester County and 2.5 In Wlcomlco County.

fc

EXHIBIT B-l

FRED CWRIGHT m COURTHOUSE ASSOCIATE JUDGE HACERSTOWN. MD 2,740

FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT TELEPHONE CyjV 791-3111 OF MARYLAND

Septembet 28, 1990

The Honorable Robert C. Murphy Chief Judge Court of Appeals of Maryland Courts of Appeal Building 361 Rowe Boulevard Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Chief Judge Murphy:

With reference to the memorandum of September 7, I am requesting your certification of need to the 1991 session of the General Assembly for an additional judge for the Circuit Court for Washington County.

Statistical Justification

In 1988 and 1989, the Statistical Needs Analysis for New Judgeships in the Circuit Courts projected a need for an additional 1.5 judgeships in the Circuit Court for Washington County. In this year's analysis (1990), the projected need in Washington County has increased to 1.9 additional judgeships.

Our internal estimates of the number of filings to be anticipated in FY-1992 projects a somewhat greater need of 2.4 additional judgeships by that year. Historically, the statistical projections of filings for Washington County have been under- estimated within the formula used by the Administrative Office of the Courts (see Attachment I).

Table 7 of the Statistical Needs Analysis for Fiscal Year 1992 shows that Washington County has risen to a ranking of 9th in the State in terms of Predictive Factors.

Moreover, Table 8 of the Needs Analysis projects that Wash- ington County will rank 2nd in the State in both the number of filings per judicial officer and in the number of additional judges needed in FY-1992.

Hon. Robert C. Murphy September 28, 1990

A review of Table 5 comparing workload measures in those jurisdictions with 3 judges (Carroll, Charles, Frederick, Washington, and Wicomico counties) reveals that, within this grouping, Washington County ranks 1st in filings per judge, dispositions per judge, and pending cases per judge.

Filings Dispositions Pending Cases County per Judge per Judge per Judge

Carroll 1,469 (4) 1,310 (3) 943 (4) Charles 1,569 (3) 1,288 (4) 1,028 (3) Frederick 1,592 (2) 1,458 (2) 1,131 (2) Washington 1,825 (1)* 1,479 (1)* 1,270 (1)* Wicomico 1,225 (5) 1,042 (5) 591 (5)

* Complete FY-1990 totals used for Washington County.

Impact of Asbestos Cases

The statistical estimates of future case filings in the Circuit Court for Washington County must be further interpreted in light of the complexities of the 273 asbestos cases now docketed in this jurisdiction. We will begin our first jury trial of consolidated asbestos cases on October 15th, anticipating a proceeding of five weeks duration. Given our three-judge bench, this trial (and those like it in the future) will encumber one- third of the Court's resources (judicial manpower, staff, space, and equipment). The disruptive effect of this litigation, particularly on the remaining civil case docket, cannot be overstated.

Support of Washington County Commissioners

The support of the local Board of County Commissioners finds expression in their action. During the past month, the County Commissioners and a number of their administrative Departments have moved to new quarters in a separate building, vacated the entire second floor of the Court House Annex. Their move has made some 7,200 square feet of space available for occupancy by the Circuit Court. The renovation of this space is scheduled in accordance with a detailed construction and renovation phasing plan, a copy of which is attached (see Attachment II). The projected completion date of this project is November 1991 and will provide a fourth (jury) Courtroom, Judge's Chambers, jury deliberation room, offices for clerical support staff, and expansion of the offices of the Clerk of Court.

Hon. Robert C. Murphy September 28, 1990

Support of the local Bar Association and Legislators

By forthcoming resolution of the Washington County Bar Asso- ciation, the local attorneys likewise encourage certification of need for an additional judge,

I have also conferred with Delegate D. Bruce Poole (unopposed). Delegate Peter G. Callas (unopposed and Chairman of the Washington County Delegation), and both Senator Patricia Cushwa and Delegate Donald R. Munson - one of which will be elected in November to the Senate of Maryland. All have assured me of their active support for legislation creating the judgeship.

During the five year period between FY-1985 and FY-1990, case filings in the Circuit Court for Washington County have increased by 55% and our pending caseload total has doubled in spite of our systematic and energetic efforts to maximize our disposition rate (see Attachment III). Without a fourth judge we will be unable to provide the service to the citizens of Washing- ton County they deserve and have been accustomed to expect.

We therefore respectfully request one additional judge for Washington County. There is no apparent need in Allegany or Garrett counties.

Very truly yours.

Fired C. Wright, III Administrative Judge Fourth Judicial Circuit

FCW/ech

i

Attachment I

CIRCUIT COURT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY

CASELOAD PROJECTION ERROR RATE

FISCAL YEAR PROJECTED

FILINGS* ACTUAL FILINGS ERROR

ERROR RATE

FY-1985 2,968 3 , 527 + 559 18.8% low

FY-1986 3,283 4,026 + 743 22.6% low

FY-1987 3,603 4,104 + 501 13.9% low

FY-1988 3,668 4,505 + 837 22.8% low

FY-1989 4,380 4,922 + 542 12.4% low

FY-1990 5,133 5,473 + 340 6.2% low

FY-1991 5,569 5,980**

FY-1992 5,895 6,534**

* AOC Projections.

** Court Administrator's projections, 9.27% average annual growth.

For FY-1992, the Court Administrator's projections of filings per judicial officer indicate a potential need for 2.4 additional judges in Washington County.

jad

9/25/90

Attachment II

MEMORANDUM

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

DATE:

The Honorable Fred C. Wright, III The Honorable John P. Corderman The Honorable Daniel W. Moylan

John A. Davies, Jr.

Construction and Renovation Phasing Plan

August 14, 1990

The following is a composite of the "Washington County Court House Construction Phasing Plan" drafted by Mr. Jack Burrey and the time schedule suggested for the implementation of each phase.

PHASE I

A.

B.

C. D. E.

G. H.

Late August and early September. 1990:

Vacate 2nd floor Court House Annex of all personnel and furnishings

Mid-September to early November, 1990 (six weeks).

Remove asbestos from 2nd floor Court House Annex

November, 1990 through January 1991.

(Construction and renovation of 2nd floor Court House Annex)

Start new underground electric service at back alley. Finish new service and remove existing power pole. Begin work on 2nd floor Court House Annex and 3rd floor mechanical, electric, plumbing, etc. (November, 1990). Begin work on new elevator shaft and security vestibule at alley. Begin work on new structure for "bridge" bearing. Begin work on 1st floor vestibule for Court House Annex.

Note: Some audible noise from construction work on the 2nd floor, Court House Annex, will probably affect Court Room * 3.

August 14, 1990

PHASE II

A.

Late January - February, 1991.

Complete new Law Library, 2nd floor Court House Annex, install shelves, move books and furnishings.

February through June. 1991.

Begin construction of Court Room = 4, new elevator, holding cells, and lobby. Provide new beam and modify structure of Court Room = 4. Upgrade stairways 1 and 2 and basement to meet codes. Finish and occupy Court Room = 4 and upper level of Main Court House.

F. Finish and occupy new "bridge" facilities.

Note: During February through June, 1991, there will be some temporary loss of the availability of the holding cells near Court Room * 1.

PHASE III.

B.

C. D. E.

A.

B.

D. E.

G. H.

jad

Vacate 3rd floor, Court House Annex, of all personnel and furnishings. Move Judges' Chambers (Judge Corderman and Judge Moylan) to temporary location in County Commissioners meeting room on 2nd floor. Move Judges' secretaries to old County Clerk's offices (Room 209). Move Court Administrator and Assignment Clerk to old Purchasing Department (Room 201) and move Court Reporters to old Sheriff's Office (Room 009). Move Clerk's Office to new space on 2nd floor.

July and August, 1991 (six weeks).

Remove asbestos from 3rd floor, Court House Annex.

September, October, and November, 1991.

Begin all 3rd floor Court House Annex work, including Court Room * 3 renovations. Upgrade stairway 3 to meet code. Complete all 3rd floor Court House Annex work, excluding Court Room s 3. Furnish and occupy new and renovated Judges' Chambers on 3rd floor Court House Annex. Finish Court Room = 3. Close out project for final completion.

Attachment IH-A


TOTAL CASELOAD GROWTH

YEAR

FY-85 :

FY-86 :

FY-87 :

FY-88

FY-89 :

FY-90 :

FILED TERMINATED AT END OF YEAR

3,527 3,316 1,834 (+12.58%) (+11.39%) (+0.94%)

4,026 3,546 2,185 (+14.15%) (+6.94%) (+19.14%)

4,104 3,567 2,592 (+1.99%) (+0.59%) (+18.63%)

4,505 4,233 2,660 (+9.77%) (+18.67%) (+2.62%)

4,922 4,486 2,940 (+9.26%) (+5.98%) (+10.53%)

5,473 4,437 3 , 807

(+11.19%) (-1.09%) (+29.49%)

Average annual growth in filings = 9.27%

5,473 x 9.27% growth = 5,980 projected filings for FY-91,

5,980 x 9.27% growth = 6,534 projected filings for FY-92,

jad 09/25/90

Attachment III-B


FILINGS BY CASE CATEGORY

YEAR CRIMINAL

CASES CIVIL CASES

DOMESTIC RELATIONS

CASES JUVENILE

CASES TOTAL CASES

FY-85 : 483 JTP= 13 0

1,609 849 586 3,527

FY-86 589 JTP= 19 5

1,673 1,062 702 4,026

FY-87 : 853 1,567 JTP= 3 60

1,052 632 4,104

FY-88 1,132 JTP= 515

1,694 1,069 610 4,505

FY-89 1,355 JTP= 773

1,615 1, 130 822 4,922

FY-90 : 1,576 2,108 JTP= 8 62

1, 070 719 5,473

NOTE: JTP = Jury Trial Prayers from District Court.

jad 09/25/90

Attachment III-c


TERMINATIONS BY CASE CATEGORY

YEAR CRIMINAL

CASES CIVIL CASES

DOMESTIC RELATIONS

CASES

FY-85 • JTP=

453 89

1,525 773

FY-86 JTP=

448 130

1,413 1,013

FY-87 JTP=

694 271

1,311 936

JUVENILE CASES

TOTAL CASES

565 3,316

672 3,546

626 3,567

FY-88 : 1,055 1,564 JTP= 4 65

1,021 593 4,233

FY-89 1,156 JTP= 62 8

1,481 1,083 766 4,486

FY-90 1,310 JTP= 720

1,525 951 651 4,437

NOTE: JTP = Jury Trial Prayers from District Court.

jad 09/25/90

FRED CWRIGHT ffl ASSOCIATE JUDGE

FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF MARYLAND

COURT HOUSE HACER5TOWN. MD 21740

TELEPHONE (301) 791-3IU

October 31, 1990

Chief Judge Robert c. Murphy Courts of Appeal Bldg. 361 Rowe Blvd. Annapolis, MD 21401

Dear Bob:

Enclosed is a resolution of support from the Washington County Bar Association to supplement our case.

Best regards,

^ Fred C. Wright, III Administrative Judge

FCW/ech

Enclosure

cc: Frank Broccolina

BAR ASSOCIATION

OF WASHINGTON COUNTY. MARYLAND

P 0 BOX 212 HAGE8STOWN. MARVIANO J1740

Minutes of a special meeting of the Washington County Bar Association

A special meeting of the Wasnington County Bar Association was neld on the twenty-sixth day of October, 1990.

Upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, it was RBSOLVHD oy unanimous vote of the Washington County Bar Association, that there is a strong and present need for a fourth (4tn) Circuit Court Judge in Washington County, Maryland.

There being no furtner business, the meeting, upon motion, was adjourned.

Secretary j

I

OFFICE OF

THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 100 WEST WASHINGTON STREET HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND 21740 Teiephona/MARCOM: (301) 791-3090 TDD/HMnng ImpaifBd: (301) 791-3383

RONALD L BOWERS Prtsidant

LINDA C IRVIN Vice PnsiOtnl

R LEE DOWNEY RICHARD E ROULETTE JOHN S SHANK

The Court House SERVING WASHINGTON COUNTY SINCE 1873

November 2, 1990

The Honorable Robert C. Murphy Chief Judge Courts of Appeal Building 361 Rowe Boulevard Annapolis, MD 21401

Dear Chief Judge Murphy:

The Board of County Commissioners supports the creation of a fourth Circuit Court Judgeship for Washington County. The Commissioners are presently undertaking renovations to the Court House and Court House Annex which will provide suitable accommodations for this position and supporting staff.

Sincerely,

Ronald L. Bower

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND

RLB:jb

4. * ' SIXTH JUDICIAL CIR.CUIT

OF MARYL-AN'D

It'DIClAL CEMTER.

50 COURTHOL'SE SCXUARE

R.OCKV1LLE. MARYLAND 20650

EXHIBIT B-2

JOHN j. MITCHELL CHIEF IL'DCE

October 1, 1990

The Honorable Robert C. Murphy Chief Judge Court of Appeals Courts of Appeal Rowe Boulevard Annapolis, Maryland 21401

of Maryland Building

Re: Statistical Needs Analysis for New Judgeships in the Circuit Courts - 1991 Session (Fiscal 1992)

Dear Judge Murphy:

This report should hopefully suffice as a response to your statistical needs analysis for additional circuit court judgeships in fiscal 1992 for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Maryland.

We are seeking approval for judgeships in both Montgomery and Frederick Counties with full comprehension of costs to the state and local governments. Moreover we realize your genuine concern with the state currently projecting a very substantial deficit, the state-wide takeover of the Clerks' budgets and further, asking the Legislature for additional monies on behalf of the judiciary as well as the Clerks, but we cannot defer this request as our substantial caseloads will not let us do so,

There is one point, however, we would like to expound upon in relation to your analysis, and that concerns Table 8. In Table 8 or footnote (c) itself, we find no written justification relating to the increase of filings (from 1400 to 1500) per judicial officer utilized for this scale for courts with nine or more judicial officers. If the past years' scales were used, Montgomery County would show a need for 2.02 additional judges, totally dissimilar to your analysis of .6 additional judges needed. The former mathematical equation

October 1, 1990 Page Two The Hon. Robert C. Murphy

previously used in this scale and the equation used in past years would greatly enhance the opportunity for additional Dudgeships this fiscal year and obviously assist the Sixth Judicial Circuit, as well as your position, in obtaining additional support for our courts from the Legislature.

Another area of great concern in this table is your authorized number of judges projecting 14, and 5.4 other judicial officers for the next fiscal year. In reality, as you have said in the past, we will lose .5 of a judicial officer (Judge Fisher) when the Governor appoints the fourteenth judge to our circuit. Therefore, we believe the need for .6 of an additional judge is an erroneous figure and the total need under your new equation of 1500 filings per judge should reflect Montgomery County in need of 1.1 additional judges.

Table 8 also utilizes a computation of "adjusted number of judicial officers". This scale adds masters and other judicial officers to judge work-years and gives a total number of adjusted judicial officers. Montgomery County shows an additional 5.4 work-years for Masters and other judicial officers. The circuit courts having masters and other judicial officers are being penalized for having these individuals as they are prospectively accountable for a full judicial standard (in Montgomery County the ratio of 1500 filings per nine or more judicial officers is applied). Our domestic relations masters handle only domestic civil cases which consume 8.3% of the total caseload. While Montgomery County's domestic civil caseload is projected to be approximately 2,500 cases in the next fiscal year, you are projecting that our masters as "other judicial officers" are responsible for 6,750 cases. If you subtracted the 2,500 projected divorce filings from the total case filing projection of 29,994 and used your same calculations, as is done in counties without masters and other judicial officers, we would show a need of 3.93 judges.

Further, with the ruling of Stach v. Stach. the court is now forced to utilize two judicial officers i.e., one master and one judge, to have the responsibility for one domestic case.

Montgomery County has experienced a 24.4% reduction in criminal filings from fiscal 1989 to 1990. However, the total criminal judge related activity (in-court and in-chambers) has only decreased 4.1%. Therefore the criminal workload is not decreasing at the same ratio as criminal case filings. We also exhibit an increase in civil judge related activity of 4.8% (see attachment A). This increase in civil activity is a

as

October 1, 1990 Page Three The Hon. Robert C. Murphy

significant factor in direct relation to workload factors a* civil trials take up to 50% more judicial time than criminal trials. The 3udges m Montgomery County are diligently working to decrease filing to disposition times in both criminal and civil cases (see attachment B). We have utilized temporary judges, retired judges, implemented a differentiated case management case tracking system, and nonetheless have been unable to maintain or preserve stability.

In the Comparative Workload Measures Per Circuit Court Judge, Table 5 ranks Montgomery County first in population per judge at 57,877 individuals per judge. The average population state-wide, per judge is 40,895. Taking the population in Montgomery County and correlating that with the state average per judge, Montgomery County would show a need of 4.5 additional judges. A recent survey conducted by the National Center for State Courts relative to assessing needs for judicial manpower revealed that population factors in determining need for additional judgeships has risen to the second most widely used variable nationally. Respectively, it is understood that growth in population directly corresponds to increase m filings. Since there are a specific number of cases for which a judge is accountable, and the population continues to show a steady increase with the number of cases increasing beyond the reasonable ability of the present judges to service these cases, the present level of service to the public then declines. As history has demonstrated, with population growth and past workloads in civil filings in Montgomery County, we predict that these increases will continue for several years (see attachment C).

There is a somewhat more intangible factor, of which you are aware, that affects the need for an additional judge in Montgomery County. That factor involves the "legal culture" or litigation history of the area. It is demonstratedly true that the pleadings, pre-trial motions, and trials of cases in this area tend to be more extensive than those in many, if not most, other areas of the state. Thus, a single case filing in Montgomery County will often require greater utilization of judicial resources than a single case filing elsewhere. We are not critical of the lawyers and litigants who have created this situation, nor of the judges who daily work with it, for the result is often, though not always, a very high quality of litigation and enhanced confidence in the results.

Frederick County is encountering the same dilemma with significant case filings rising over the past five fiscal years

October 1, 1990 Page Four The Hon. Robert C. Murphy

since the third judge was added to their 1985. Their predicament is further comp illness of Judge Smith over the past two attachment D). Frederick has witnessed in filings, totaling 62.8% over the past Notwithstanding the increase of 217.3% i hearings, as well as juvenile hearings i trials have decreased 34.5% over the pas (see attachment E). This decrease could lack of full judicial staff and with the filings the judicial process resulted in hearings. Thus, the court has been unab caseload as it had in the past.

complement in January, licated with the fiscal years (see

a substantial increase five fiscal years,

n civil and criminal ncreasing 47.6%, total t three fiscal years be attributable to the continual increase in more continuances and le to adjudicate the

The statistical needs analysis for Frederick County in fiscal 1991 displayed the need for .06 of an additional judge. This year's report displays a need of 1.1 additional judges. Due to the result of growth, a steady increase in case filings and Montgomery County judges inability to aid Frederick judges with their perplexing situation, Frederick County undoubtedly is headed for a debilitating backlog of cases in upcoming years if an additional judge is not recommended.

I have discussed our position concerning the need for an additional judge in Montgomery County with the Legislative Delegation, County Council, and Montgomery County Bar Association and I have their unabridged support. We are confident that the new County Executive will support us in this endeavor.

Montgomery County has courtroom and chambers space available to immediately accomodate the additional judge requested. Frederick County currently has three circuit court courtrooms and three District Court courtrooms of which two of the latter are used full-time. Judge Dwyer has communicated with the current Board of County Commissioners and they are aware of the space problems and are responsive to expansion.

We analysis recommendation support Circuit.

understand that you regard the statistical needs as only the beginning point for making a

of need. We, therefore, earnestly implore your in seeking additional judges for the Sixth Judicial

Very truly yours,

John J/ Mitchell

JJM/phq attachments

/**

^^

f % f f

^\

MONTGOMERY COUNTY JUDGE ACTIVITY "In Chambers and In Court" Civil

Activity Criminal Activity

Total Activity

Events 100000

80000

60000

40000

20000 FY86 FY87 FY88

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

FY89 FY90

ATTACHMENT "A*

mm*t^mmmm*k --~------

rr^r

^L^^riv^ XV S=3*Jl=$, ^^ ^ 'S==^^r

>^ &>

^ ^ \

^

1

FILING TO DISPOSITION OF CASES TERMINATED MONTGOMERY COUNTY

CRIMINAL CIVIL

DAYS TO TERMINATED 300/

250

200

150

100

300

250

200

150

100

FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90

ATTACHMENT "B"

^ffifcr^W-r'' r* *-*'^M >,-«<%•#•*

^L^ /?/

3^ >g==^ ^ >^^yJ 1^

>^^

ir VJ>

f t ,{<• Gs?

K ^ ^

^ r

MONTGOMERY COUNTY JUDGES / FILINGS / POPULATION FISCAL 1987, 1989, PROJ. 1991 JUDGES CASE POPULATION

\THOUSANDS FILINGS * 10 * A -, .

80000

60000

40000

20000

FY87 FY89 FY91

80000

60000

40000

20000

ATTACHMENT "C

.m^*^&

TrC Urt ill I

^^r'

^? H

f f ^ H ! r r

FREDERICK COUNTY CASELOAD FISCAL 1986 THRU 1990

Juvenile Criminal Civil Total Activity Activity Activity Activity

CASES 5000 e

4000

3000

2000

1000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90

ATTACHMENT "D"

j^a

^ % \ | nil ly Hi) n>

>:e?'

1 ^ J VV-H / lM

*

FREDERICK COUNTY TRIALS AND HEARINGS FISCAL 1986 THRU 1990

JURY TRIALS

COURT TRIALS

TOTAL JUVENILE COURT TRIALS HEARINGS HEARINGS

CASES 3000

2000

1000

FY86 FY87 FY88

3000

2000

1000

FY89 FY90

ATTACHMENT "E"

immmm

&e*etdi{ ^nbicmi djirruit of Jlar^lan^ EXHIBIT B-3

ERNEST A. LOVELESS, JR. CHIEF JUDGE

CIHCUIT AOMINISTRATtVC JUO<SE

COURT HOUSE

UPPER MARLBORO, MARYLAND 20772

September 25, 1990 1301! 952 -4093

Honorable Robert C. Murphy Chief Judge Courts of Appeal County Courts Building Towson, Maryland 21204

Dear Judge Murphy:

The Statistical Needs Analysis for New Judgeships as compxled by the Administrative Office of the Courts is rX•^ 0f.the need for two additional judges in Prince ^wXCOUnty x2.Fis2al 1992- This coincides with our local Se:,!Si?,1^5*9ardin2uÛre ^dicial workloads. For example, alSos? ll oU^Lf Chlld ^^f1 Enfoêment has estimated that Jvf! • CaS!S are currently eligible for modification reviews- N^Sbe^1!^!.^ reSUlting faring., are to be completed belore '

Our operational experience has also shown that, due to the increasing percentage of the caseload involving drug-related charges, ««? ?-e m0re comP1!x and take loêr to try. Furthermore, until 1 resolution is reached as to whether or not the asbestos cases will be transferred to Baltimore, the impact of these 680 potential cases must be considered. >-= *L.xax L.«ises

While it is gratifying to note that the Prince George's Bench has the second highest number of dispositions per judge in the state, it is disturbing that the criminal workload has forced the civil time from filing to disposition to lengthen. The first statistic shows that the Bench is being unusually productive, while the second illustrates the need for additional judicial resources despite the productivity of the existing Bench.

Lastly, it gives me great pleasure to certify that the new Marbury Wing of the Courthouse will be ready to occupy within a year and, therefore, ample space will be available for two additional nudges. Regarding County support, I have every reason to believe that the Prince George's County Government will be in accord with our request.

Sincerely,

EAL/jt

otoRafj.

THE PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY GOVERNMENT OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE HU

Parris N. Glendening County Executive

The Honorable Robert C. Murphy Chief Judge Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Building Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Judge Murphy:

The Prince George's County Circuit Court has the highest need m the State of Maryland for additional judgeships according to data which was provided to us. As a result of significant increases in priority cases, which must be tried within a given period of time, the civil docket has been forced into an unprecedented two-year wait for a jury trial. On the criminal side, as a result of the increasing percentage of the caseload involving drug related charges and serious felonies, cases are much more complex and take longer to try.

Since we realize that some County-funded positions will be required to support this additional judgeship, you have our commitment and assistance towards this support. Prince George's County, like other area jurisdictions, is faced with shortfalls m revenue. it is imperative, therefore, that we are provided the maximum amount of lead time to move through our budgetary process. We will be pleased to work with our legislators to finalize the appropriate budget process in order to have a new Judge in place during FY 92.

Thank you for your continued assistance to us. If we may be of any assistance, please let us know.

- y. Sincerely,

JoAnn T. Bell Parris N. Glendening Chairman, County Council County Executive

14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Upper Marlboro. Maryland 20772 (301) 952-4131

TDD (301) 925-5167

Prince George's County Bar Association, Inc. Marl borough Professional Park

14330 Old Marlborough Pike Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772

(301)952-1442 FAX: (301) 952-1429

Officers

Richard H. Sothoron. Jr. President

Robert H Silberman PresuJent-Eiect

Patrice E. Lewis Secretary

Michael P. Whalen Treasurer

C. Philip Nichols. Jr. Immediate Past President

Directors

Roben C Bonsib Cathenne A. Bouchard John A. Buchanan Samuel J. DeBlasts. 11 Gerard F. Devlin Thomas H. Hailer Robert W Heffron. Jr Cheryl L. Hepfer G R Hovey Johnson Deborah A. Johnston Walter E. Laake. Jr. Diane O. Leasure Kenneth A. Lechter Jacob S. Levin Enk H. Nyce Midgett S. Parker. Jr. Valerie L. Siegel David M. Simpson Steven R. Smith William B Spellbnng. Jr. Timothy J. Sullivan Elvira M. White

Arnold L. Yochelson Parliamentarian

Norma L. Coffren Executive Director

October 30, 1990

The Hon. Ernest A. Loveless, Jr. Chief Judge, Seventh Judicial circuit Court House Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772

Re: Support by the Prince George's County Bar Association for Additional Circuit Court Judgeships

Dear Judge Loveless:

As you are aware, the Prince George's County Bar Association has indeed enjoyed a close working rela- tionship with the bench for many years. Our 12 00 plus members have worked closely with the Court to establish innovative programs aimed at increasing the efficient operation of the Court and its ever- increasing caseload. Notwithstanding the on-going cooperation between the bar and the bench, the afore- said caseload has reached such voluminous proportions that our Circuit Court Judges are pressed to their absolute maximum abilities.

One need only visit our assignment desk to note that the sheer volume of newly initiated felony cases (particularly drug violations and related crimes of violence) has greatly surpassed the civil docket. This statistical reality alone has caused civil cases to wait in the wings for some two years before a trial date takes effect.

Additionally, such other litigation as asbestos complaints, child support matters, and Stach cases continue to increase in great numbers, once again demanding time from an already overworked bench.

Honorable Ernest A. Loveless, Jr. October 30, 1990 Page 2

For these reasons outlined herein, I deem it essential, on behalf of my colleagues at the bar, that additional judgeships be created for the Circuit Court for Prince George's County to address these demanding concerns.

Certainly if you need further input concerning the bar's support for additional judgeships, kindly contact me at your earliest convenience. As always, I remain respectfully,

Sincerely,

lei. .Tc/e Richard H. Sothoron, President

RHS/smp

. - V EXHIBIT C

(ib) AS ACT concerning

BILL ORDER

Judgeships - Circuit Court

III Jit P^Pose ^.altenng the number of circuit court judgeships in the 4th Judicial Circuit (Washington County), the 6th Judicial Circuit (Montgomery County), and the 7th Judicial Circuit (Prince George's County)

o o u

c o

(Mrr)y ty repealing and re-enacting, with amendments, or

(an) By adding to or

(r) ty repealing

Article

Section

Courts and Judicial Proceedings

1-503

Annotated Code of Maryland

(19 84Replacement Volume and 19 90 Supplement)

-Circle as appropriate

((edy- July 1 effective date

(eed) - emergency effective date

(aed) - abnormal effective date:

(sev) - severability clause

(sii) - salary increase not to affect incumbent

Office

4

S 1-503

(a) In each county in the first seven judicial circuits there shall be the number of resident judges of the circuit court set forth below, including the judge or judges provided for by the Constitution:

(1 (2 (3 (4 (5 (6 (7 (8 (9 (10 (11 (12 (13 (14 (15 (16 (17 (18 (19 (20 (21 (22 (23

Al legany 2 Anne Arundel 9 Baltimore County 15 Calvert 1 Carol ine 1 Carroll 3 Charles 3 Cecil 2 Dorchester 1 Frederick 3 Garrett 1 Har f ord 4 Howard 4 Kent 1 Montgomery [ 14 ] Prince George' s [ is ] Queen Anne * s 1 St. Mary's 2 Somerset 1 Talbot 1 Washington [ 3 ] Wicomico 3 Worcester 2

15 19

(b) In Baltimore City there shall of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

be 25 resident judges

IN THE COURT OP APPEALS OP MARYLAND IN RE: CERTIPICATION OP NEEDS POR ADDITIONAL...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE COURT OP APPEALS OP MARYLAND IN RE: CERTIPICATION OP NEEDS POR ADDITIONAL...