House hearing spotlights bill to limit automatic charging of youths as adults, citing racial disparities and cost

A Maryland House Judiciary Committee hearing on Feb. 26 focused on House Bill 14-33, a measure that would limit the automatic charging of children as adults for many offenses and start more cases in the juvenile court system.

Sponsor Delegate Mary L. Tolles told the committee the measure is a “narrowly tailored approach” intended to “move the needle” on a system that she said currently costs more, takes longer and produces worse public-safety outcomes when youth are started in adult court. Tolles listed the offences that would still start in adult court if the bill passes — including first- and second-degree murder, certain sexual offenses and carjacking — and said the bill would leave in place the existing waiver process that allows prosecutors to ask a juvenile court judge to send a case to adult court.

The bill drew a coalition of supporters that included the Department of Juvenile Services (DJS), advocates and former federal juvenile-justice officials. Kara Annenson, director of legislation, policy and reform at the Department of Juvenile Services, told the committee that “DJS supports HB 14-33 because it promotes efficiency, fairness and better public safety outcomes for Maryland's communities,” and observed the current practice strains detention and delays treatment. Annenson said the state spends roughly $17 million annually to accommodate youth charged as adults in juvenile detention facilities and noted that judges already send many such cases back to juvenile court.

Advocates emphasized trauma and racial-disparity evidence. Emily Virgen, director of advocacy and government relations at Human Rights for Kids, described research showing high rates of adverse childhood experiences among youth prosecuted as adults and said the current process delays access to treatment. She told the committee that children charged as adults often wait longer to receive juvenile services and that “this legislation would simply start cases in the system where they already end up and allow children to begin receiving treatment much sooner.” Several witnesses cited data in testimony and state analyses noting a majority of cases started in adult court are later transferred or dismissed and that Black youth are disproportionately affected.

Retired judges and national juvenile-justice experts urged the panel to consider research showing higher recidivism among youth processed in adult systems. Liz Ryan, a former administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, said multiple large studies found higher reoffending rates for youth with adult-court involvement, adding that juvenile courts “provide developmentally appropriate interventions that reduce reoffending.”

The Office of the Public Defender and other defense and advocacy groups supported the bill and pressed for broader language. Crystal Williams of the Public Defender’s Office outlined litigation and system studies showing many young people charged as adults are returned to juvenile court, and argued that starting cases in juvenile court would shorten the time before services and reduce costs. Williams and other defenders said the existing waiver hearing can take roughly 27 days on average if a case starts in juvenile court, compared with substantially longer waits when cases start in adult court.

Prosecutors and some local officials urged caution. Scott Schellenberger, Baltimore County State’s Attorney, and other prosecutors said there are serious cases — including violent crimes involving planned killings — where the state needs to preserve the ability to begin adult prosecutions. Prosecutors warned the committee that taking some charges out of initial adult jurisdiction could create delays and additional litigation in high‑risk cases and asked the committee to ensure any change preserves tools to protect public safety.

Capacity and implementation questions surfaced repeatedly. Several witnesses, including local superintendents and detention officials, noted differences among counties in where children are housed while awaiting hearings and said the state must address bed capacity and the logistics of moving youth from adult jails to juvenile facilities. Supporters of HB 14-33 countered that the problems cited reflect policy choices and existing statutory discretion, and that statutory change would allow fewer children to experience prolonged stays in adult facilities.

Committee members questioned witnesses about the balance between public safety and rehabilitation, how the waiver process functions in practice, racial and socioeconomic drivers of charging decisions, and the fiscal estimates that proponents say would free approximately $17 million annually. No committee vote was recorded at the hearing.

Supporters asked the committee for a favorable report; some prosecutors and local officials urged caution or asked for amendments to clarify implementation and maintain prosecutors’ tools for the most serious cases.