Judiciary defends new St. Mary’s judgeship request and urges guardrails for appointed‑attorney reporting

The Supreme Court of Maryland and the administrative office of the courts told the Public Safety, Transportation, and Environment Subcommittee that the judiciary is monitoring increases in case-processing times in some circuits and defended a certified request to add a circuit court judgeship in St. Mary’s County.

Chief Justice Matthew Fader and other senior judges said statewide performance metrics generally meet judicial standards but flagged increases in juvenile‑delinquency filings and longer processing times for several circuit‑court case types. The judiciary reported that sample data show longer average processing times for juvenile delinquency and child‑in‑need‑of‑assistance cases, and indicated some delays stem from external resource constraints such as limited public defender and child‑services capacity.

Why St. Mary’s was singled out

The administrative judge for St. Mary’s County, Joseph Stanelonis, said contested criminal jury trials and family‑law merits hearings have risen sharply since 2019 and are not fully reflected in the court‑workload model the judiciary uses to certify judgeship needs. Stanelonis told the subcommittee: “We now have 3 to 4 weeks per month scheduled for criminal jury trial…This is not a luxury request. This is a request for a lifeboat. We're drowning.” The judiciary said the case mix — including a reported 261% increase in contested jury trials in calendar 2024 versus 2019 — produces substantial courtroom time demands beyond filings counted by the certification model.

Problem‑solving courts and outcomes

The judiciary described its network of 68 problem‑solving courts (PSCs) across 23 of 24 jurisdictions, noting that drug courts are the most common PSC and accounted for roughly two‑thirds of PSC funding in fiscal 2024. The judiciary provided outcome summaries showing drug courts had 297 successful completions versus 351 administrative discharges and 157 unsuccessful completions in fiscal 2024; mental‑health courts reported higher success rates. State court administrators said PSCs use nationally recognized screening tools and training to improve participant selection and outcomes.

Appointed‑attorney program and reporting

DLS recommended reducing the judiciary’s appropriation for the appointed‑attorney program and required more detailed reporting on costs and utilization, including outcomes at initial appearances. Chief Judge John Morrissey agreed to some reductions but cautioned that the requested initial‑appearance outcome dataset covers tens of thousands of cases and would be costly and of limited utility for program evaluation. He offered to work with DLS to design a more programmatically useful report that focuses on scheduling methodology and program operations rather than raw initial‑appearance outcomes.

Private home detention monitoring

The judiciary described steps taken after earlier problems with federal ARPA funds and vendor invoicing for private home‑detention monitoring. The committee was told that courts have set a 60‑day invoice submission requirement for private monitoring vendors, that the program operates more smoothly than during the prior shortfall, and that a legislative work group will consider regulatory and operational improvements. The judiciary emphasized that some removals from monitoring reflect benign case‑end events rather than noncompliance and said its case management system currently lacks a uniform “reason‑for‑removal” flag, complicating aggregated reporting.

Recommendations and next steps

DLS recommended several budget bill language changes and follow‑up reports, including requests for annual court performance measures, PSC funding/performance reports, an updated judgeship‑needs report for fiscal 2027, and quarterly reporting on the private home‑detention monitoring program. The judiciary accepted many of the reporting recommendations and said it will work with the committee and DLS to refine requested data products while asking to retain flexibility to allocate certain cuts across its internal programs.

Ending

The judiciary asked the subcommittee for targeted, data‑driven responses to localized workload pressures such as St. Mary’s County and for continued collaboration on implementing reporting improvements and funding alignments for PSCs and the appointed‑attorney program.