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 ^udgeships 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 r^i^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 P^itical subdivlsionf ?£ SSJ?7 ^i" 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 re^ired to maintaTn^the
ofth^cft^ens""^^^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.
Honorable Thomas V. Miller, Jr. Honorable R. Clayton Mitchell Page 3 November 23, 1990
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
Honorable Thomas V. Miller, Jr. Honorable R. Clayton Mitchell Page 4 November 23, 1990
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
Honorable Thomas V. Miller, Jr. Honorable R. Clayton Mitchell Page 5 November 23, 1990
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.
TOTAL CASES FILED, TERMINATED AND PENDING FISCAL 1990
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
TOTAL CASES FILED, TERMINATED AND PENDING FISCAL 1990
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.
TOTAL CASES FILED, TERMINATED AND PENDING FISCAL 1990
Pending Beginning of the Year Filed Terminated
Pending End of the Year
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.
TOTAL CASES FILED, TERMINATED AND PENDING FISCAL 1990
Pending Beginning of the Year Filed Terminated
Pending End of the Year
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.
TOTAL CASES FILED, TERMINATED AND PENDING FISCAL 1990
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
Pending End of the Year
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
TOTAL CASES FILED, TERMINATED AND PENDING FISCAL 1990
f-J
Baltimore
Pending Beginning of the Year Filed Terminated
Pending End of the Year
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
Allegany Garrett Washington
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
Calvert Charles Prince George's St. Mary's
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
Caroline Cecil Kent Queen Anne's Talbot
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
Anne Arundel Carrol 1 Howard
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
Frederick Montgomery
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
Caroline Cecil Kent Queen Anne's Talbot
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
Allegany Garrett Washington
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
Calvert Charles Prince George's St. Mary's
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
Caroline Cecil Kent Queen Anne's Talbot
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
Allegany Garrett Washington
79 38 50
65 50 41
49 49 51
57 36 49
Fifth Circuit
Anne Arundel Carroll Howard
87 91 83
92 92 79
91 64 72
104 66 71
Sixth Circuit
Frederick Montgomery
81 171
86 145
91 160
103 153
Seventh Circuit
Calvert Charles Prince George's St. Mary's
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
Caroline Cecil Kent Queen Anne's Talbot
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
Anne Arundel Carroll Howard
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
Frederick Montgomery
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
Calvert Charles Prince George's St. Mary's
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
Caroline Cecil Kent Queen Anne's Talbot
Third Circuit
Baltimore Harford
Fourth Circuit
Allegany Garrett Washington
Fifth Circuit
Anne Arundel Carrol 1 Howard
Sixth Circuit
Frederick Montgomery
Seventh Circuit
Calvert Charles Prince George's St. Mary's
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 assign- ing 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.
Page 2 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, partic- ularly 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 expan- sion of the offices of the Clerk of Court.
Page 3 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 judge- ship.
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.
Page 2 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
CIRCUIT COURT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY
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
CIRCUIT COURT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY
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
CIRCUIT COURT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY
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*9ardin2u^Ure ^dicial workloads. For example, alSos? ll oU^Lf Chlld ^^f1 Enfo^ement 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 lo^er 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
Top Related