[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6334991,"mediaKeyId","2292478-e00cd9b99f9e87fb2a15db682dcc3226","parentId",2292478,"title","Senate Bill 655 would create AI evidence clinic pilot to help Maryland judges authenticate digital evidence","audioSeconds",1721,"startMs",274000,"endMs",1995000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2292478-e00cd9b99f9e87fb2a15db682dcc3226&start=274&end=1995","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2292478-e00cd9b99f9e87fb2a15db682dcc3226/thumbnail_274000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6334991/Maryland/Senate-Bill-655-would-create-AI-evidence-clinic-pilot-to-help-Maryland-judges-authenticate-digital-evidence","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6334991-d698829c24a4fb456f2aa3dcefa2098a/orig.mp4?Expires=1776587170&Signature=ojf5c0GkOBbeba69TT~o2dUCsSuJwNvPRSvCf4o~DcpkrJUWjjAr1k4jYfD7UOLfrnU1RDOqPfaWWULJDI3OHKSUe~rn8OZNp5o0UVHi2f~DMckbvfMmvBTIGxvr5wHWHegY54sW94-Mg2ugJwggGUkKald3bLRAf8KTKUAlEHNQuiE2lLvJly9hlDfZQUu8qt87639yAlU7YgKpBpybWRTgCF3yO9zfriamjvBY91bV6~E8Ra1OepldIPivjW7OUOXAhwTD~cDSMoAxA9scK~KZDaR5zj4Fp-zUMp7POZB5Co9yHu4lsMw2c3rpFRG~6EELlEgIEYdsNujZm3uHZQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","MGA - JPR","date","2025-02-11T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 655 would create a pilot “AI evidence clinic” within the Administrative Office of the Courts to provide expert analysis about whether images, audio or video used in civil cases have been altered by artificial intelligence, its sponsor told the Judicial Proceedings Committee on Feb. 11.

Senator (first reference) Senator Hester, sponsor of Senate Bill 655, told the committee the program would create a fund and a competitive pilot grama to allow Maryland colleges and universities to leverage AI expertise to assist courts, prioritizing civil cases where parties lack counsel or access to expert testimony.

The proposal aims to address a growing problem: witnesses and litigants increasingly present synthetic or manipulated electronic media that jurors and judges may not reliably distinguish from authentic evidence. “The use of AI to enhance, alter or fabricate information poses a serious risk…particularly in the courtroom where truth and accuracy are paramount,” Senator Hester said.

Why it matters

Supporters said the clinic could narrow a gap in access to justice by creating a pool of trained technical experts that courts could appoint in disputed-evidence cases without the parties bearing full expert fees. Chief Justice Fader testified the judiciary helped shape the bill and called the pilot “an innovative effort” to make scientific assessment available to judges and unrepresented litigants when authenticity is genuinely disputed.

What the bill would do

The measure would authorize a pilot program administered by the Administrative Office of the Courts, fund a competitive selection for an institute (or institutes) of higher education in Maryland, and permit those institutions to train faculty and students to evaluate whether an image, audio clip or video has likely been generated or altered by AI. The text, as discussed in the committee, would replace a broad “request for proposals” approach with a more specific scope-of-work selection and change some mandatory procurement or indemnity “shall” provisions to discretionary “may” language so the judiciary can negotiate appropriate contract terms.

Committee discussion

Committee members asked whether the pilot would be merely a list of experts or a hands‑on training clinic. Chief Justice Fader described the model as a practical, faculty-supervised clinic similar to law-school clinical programs: faculty and trained students would learn methods, use tools, and provide court‑appointed analysis. Senator Wesson and others pressed about whether the program would be limited to Maryland institutions; witnesses said the competitive pilot intends to prioritize Maryland higher‑education partners.

Liability and procurement questions

Committee members also raised procurement and indemnity questions. Witnesses explained the amendment changing “shall” to “may” was meant to give the Administrative Office of the Courts authority to negotiate reasonable hold‑harmless or liability protections if a vendor requests them — not to require uncapped state indemnification.

What happens next

The committee took testimony from the Chief Justice and outside experts and concluded the hearing on the bill. No formal vote was recorded in the transcript. Sponsors said they would offer clarifying amendments to codify competitive selection, scope-of-work procurement, and appropriate discretion on contract terms.

Ending

Supporters told the committee they view the pilot as a narrowly tailored, time‑limited effort to protect courts and litigants from manipulated evidence while preserving judicial discretion over when to appoint experts. Opponents were not recorded in the transcript; technical and procurement details were left for follow-up and drafting refinements.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JPR Committee Session, 2/11/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 655 would create a pilot “AI evidence clinic” in the Administrative Office of the Courts so Maryland judges can call on trained technical experts to determine whether images, audio or video introduced in civil matters have been altered by artificial intelligence.","taxTitle","Judicial Proceedings Committee, SENATE, SENATE, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15095,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6334982,"Registers of Wills urge permanent COLA: bill would set maximum at grade 26, step 20",1086,2788000,3874000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2292478-e00cd9b99f9e87fb2a15db682dcc3226&start=2788&end=3874","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2292478-e00cd9b99f9e87fb2a15db682dcc3226/thumbnail_2788000.jpg","/articles/6334982/Maryland/Registers-of-Wills-urge-permanent-COLA-bill-would-set-maximum-at-grade-26-step-20","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6334982-ff0ad4e761e036a200626ab243f4d1e8/orig.mp4?Expires=1776587171&Signature=NLtTS~eApmwv2mOv26G-80a6kQQU7P3ScZ7GH1C3QZoT1LQMIG3uShWaY20TZjU~VC2caSEIpZZN-aH09GN8GIWxmTOCkJm1~dXxiwsccIkcmi~SGQw4jCJapQKPYVO2USZvoS~C2IbGo72XlfvK96KZtBwB~RHsC~CNu7OpTIrm1SFhrHZS3qaOamV8D8pMlwK9je-aTCSTP4WTuMhkMrjaIMYwPf~ugsKNecfdTFVKoA3eFti0gAs7cyf6mOvqbroYW70H2XI52wewx7luHM5Sp1dblRirqvE4NvxedcLSPU6dXBMC9OL7CXbDVOPz7oBjsHVEFrkzGnIPYtzUPA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Supporters of Senate Bill 628 told the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee that the bill would codify a permanent salary ceiling for Maryland Registers of Wills so the office holders do not need to return to the legislature every four years to seek cost‑of‑living adjustments.

Joe Griffin, Registrar of Wills (first reference) from Montgomery County, and other county registers explained the current two‑step process described in testimony: the Maryland Code (Estates & Trusts, as cited by sponsors) establishes a statutory maximum; the Board of Public Works sets individual salaries within that statutory maximum. Historically, registers appear before the General Assembly every four years to request that the statutory maximum move to a new grade/step reflecting four years of state employee COLAs.

The bill as introduced would keep the registers’ maximum at grade 26, step 20 going forward so the Board of Public Works can set each register’s salary within that maximum without repeated statutory increases. Testimony emphasized the request is intended to preserve parity with state employee bargaining scales and not to create automatic, uncapped raises.

Funding and fiscal context

Witnesses told the committee registers’ operations are funded primarily from a mix of fees and a portion of Maryland inheritance tax receipts. Byron McFarland of the Maryland Registers of Wills Association said inheritance‑tax revenues are growing (his testimony cited an approximate 12% increase year‑over‑year), and that registers’ offices return unspent funds to the general fund. County registers also described local arrangements: Stipulations included Montgomery and other counties reviewing their budgets and saying county governments would accept one‑time courthouse renovation costs and recurring obligations tied to new staffing.

Questions from senators

Senators queried whether the bill would remove legislative oversight of register pay and whether the Board of Public Works would simply exercise discretion. Witnesses responded that the Board already determines individual salaries within the statutory maximum and that the bill would remove the need for a legislative ceiling increase every four years while preserving the Board’s role in setting actual pay by county and workload.

Ending

Committee members requested additional data showing per‑county salary tiers and how the statutory ceiling maps to current pay bands. Proponents said they would provide additional county‑level information upon request; no vote was recorded in the transcript.","Senate Bill 628 would lock in the statutory maximum salary for Maryland Registers of Wills at grade 26, step 20 so the Board of Public Works can set individual salaries within that range without the registers returning to the General Assembly every four years for an updated ceiling.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6334987,"Judiciary requests one new St. Mary's County judgeship; officials cite spike in jury trials and family‑law hearings",743,2011000,2754000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2292478-e00cd9b99f9e87fb2a15db682dcc3226&start=2011&end=2754","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2292478-e00cd9b99f9e87fb2a15db682dcc3226/thumbnail_2011000.jpg","/articles/6334987/Maryland/Judiciary-requests-one-new-St-Marys-County-judgeship-officials-cite-spike-in-jury-trials-and-familylaw-hearings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6334987-45ff6ea6ef30fe9f9e5952ff592ce748/orig.mp4?Expires=1776587171&Signature=CLt4D5Wk~dNanOo9n6mBPLjh7MyfgFSmuPLJ8N0NE8qZI~AIE~qIEvypmyviHEis5Du-HIP2p6RfOkvu3WbBpYMc1Z4iYq1S-ATk-xnsgU-Pf3LAQc5BtowQRGShZfJ2hadoi1KTInSN1dk02f4BB0uV16hw2LzdYmBHw0tWR1uyBJcLQObS~OzmtHK8A4jnQCruDukdeaHusu1oOfkxRRQlRgF5FYtkyyJ0mrL8PFHpH9blGVZ3Ev0d6KdcC11o3I7AQa2DOdcGe7cEXfW9f2WoSG1~70JkXSvnSSsf5laqgDkzLEOVPMYgYlaS6fBTFw-1~lIBfl2Yfxpb1qa1Hw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Maryland Judiciary asked the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on Feb. 11 to authorize one additional judgeship for the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County, citing workload increases that the agency’s three‑year filings model does not capture.

Chief Justice Fader told members the judiciary traditionally requests judgeships only after the National Center for State Courts methodology certifies a need. The methodology, the Chief Justice said, uses a three‑year average of filings and case processing times; the current model certified a need for four judgeships statewide but the judiciary decided not to request those due to space and fiscal limits. St. Mary’s County, however, cleared the judiciary’s unusually high internal bar because its local workload changed in ways not reflected in the filing‑based model.

St. Mary’s County Administrative Judge Edward Stanelones (first reference) described dramatic local effects: criminal jury trials held in the county rose 261% from calendar year 2019 to 2024, he said, which the filings‑based model does not measure because it counts initial filings, not what happens to cases after filing. Family‑law merits hearings held in St. Mary’s also increased by about 62% over the same period, contributing to long waits for hearing dates.

Judge Stanelones said criminal jury trials now occupy three to four weeks per month of courtroom time, and family‑law litigants face eight to ten month waits for one‑day merits hearings. The court has used recalled senior judges, mediation panels and volunteers to reduce the backlog, but judges reported regular late nights and use of senior judges cannot substitute for a permanent judicial addition, he said.

Committee members asked about senior judge capacity and the effect of a pending bill to raise judicial retirement age; Chief Justice Fader said raising the retirement age could reduce the pool of senior judges available to be recalled and could increase future pressure to request more permanent judgeships.

County fiscal readiness

Senators also asked whether St. Mary’s County government supports the space and recurring costs of another courtroom. Judge Stanelones said county government indicated willingness to pick up one‑time renovation costs and the county had agreed to cover recurring costs, using savings from temporary unfilled court positions as one way to offset county obligations.

Ending

Committee members did not vote on the request during the hearing; Chief Justice Fader said the judiciary is accelerating work to update the judgeship model and the St. Mary’s request met the judiciary’s high internal standard for a non‑model request.","Chief Justice Fader and the St. Mary's County administrative judge asked the Judicial Proceedings Committee to authorize a single new judgeship for the Circuit Court for St. Mary's County, citing a 261% increase in criminal jury trials and longer family‑law merits calendars that the state's workload model does not capture.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate Bill 655 would create AI evidence clinic pilot to help Maryland judges authenticate digital evidence

Registers of Wills urge permanent COLA: bill would set maximum at grade 26, step 20

Judiciary requests one new St. Mary's County judgeship; officials cite spike in jury trials and family‑law hearings