![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/legaldatadesign\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1164\/2022\/04\/JUDGESPAPERROCKSCISSORS-257x300.gif\")
<\/p>\nMaryland\u2019s public court record system, Case Search, almost always excludes the names of judges and magistrates while including the names of other legal actors to a case. [3]<\/a> This practice thwarts judicial accountability by preventing the public from seeing patterns of bias in judicial decision-making. [4]<\/a> The director of Court Watch PG keenly captures this problem best in stating \u201cinjustice happens in empty courtrooms\u201d or, pertinent to HB 271, in incomplete court records<\/em>. [5]<\/a><\/p>\n To circumvent this problem, grassroots organizations have developed other methods to track judicial data, such as Open Justice \u2013 a philanthropic organization that scrapes data from Case Search and puts it into a more accessible interface for the public. [6]<\/a> However, since every county in Maryland differs in what information they input on Case Search, tracking the names of judges\u00a0\u00a0 assigned to cases is mostly only possible through county-by-county Maryland Public Information Act (\u201cMPIA\u201d) requests or data scraping county court dockets. [7]<\/a><\/p>\n Another approach led by Court Watch PG involves \u201cCourt Watchers\u201d attending bail and criminal hearings primarily to find out who the presiding judge is so they can record their name into their database to analyze and expose patterns of bias. [8]<\/a> In the Covid-world where virtual hearings have overwhelmed county dockets, public video<\/em> access to zoom hearings has not been allowed, which means Court Watchers can call in, but cannot see which judge presides over a given case.[9]<\/a> To solve this, Court Watchers call the court clerk\u2019s office every day to ask which judge is assigned to each of the cases they are tracking. [10]<\/a> Once the judge\u2019s name is obtained, it is then shared among Court Watch\u2019s group chat. [11]<\/a> With this information, Court Watchers report that they have learned to predict the outcome of cases based on which judge is assigned. [12]<\/a><\/p>\n Herein lies a major issue: the outcome of a case should never be dependent upon which judicial \u201cstraw\u201d you pull that day in court. [13]<\/a> After sitting through thousands of bail hearings, Court Watch PG director said that the decision to release or not release someone from jail was just as much about the judge\u2019s perspective as it was about the crime. [14]<\/a> \u00a0The cost of getting an unchecked judge is too high. [15]<\/a> While the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland found in 2021 that there was no justifiable basis to unilaterally shield judges\u2019 names from the public record, their unreported opinion applies only to the litigants involved. [16]<\/a><\/p>\n This bill would allow organizations like Open Justice and Court Watch PG to shift their focus from collecting data to interpreting data for patterns of bias in judicial decisions. Passing HB 0271 requires minimal efforts by court clerks but would initiate the potential for legal reform in Maryland, including determining which judges are on the \u201cnice list\u201d and which are on the \u201cnaughty list.\u201d<\/p>\n Update:<\/span> Bill 271 did not<\/em> pass.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Footnotes<\/span><\/p>\n [1]<\/a> H.B. 0271, 2022 Leg., 444th<\/sup> Sess. (Md. 2022).<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Agenda for Change, Initiative Seven: Judicial Accountability and Transparency<\/em>, Court Watch Montgomery (last visited Jan. 24, 2022), https:\/\/courtwatchmontgomery.org\/agenda-for-change\/#init7<\/a>, (making matters worse,\u00a0 Maryland has some of the longest judicial terms in the nation).<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> See <\/em>Steve Lash, Judiciary Must Surrender Key to Judges Names in Case Search, Appeals Court Says<\/em>, The Daily Record (July 2, 2021), https:\/\/thedailyrecord.com\/2021\/07\/02\/judiciary-must-surrender-key-to-judges-names-in-case-search-appeals-court-says\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> See <\/em>Katie Mettler, Once Jailed, These Women Now Hold Courts Accountable \u2013With Help from Students, Retirees, and Fiona Apple, <\/em>Wash. Post (Apr. 9, 2021, 6:00 a.m.), https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/local\/public-safety\/courtwatch-prince-georges\/2021\/04\/08\/dc63e064-2e96-11eb-bae0-50bb17126614_story.html.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n [6]<\/a> See generally<\/em> Open Justice Baltimore, https:\/\/openjusticebaltimore.org\/#projects<\/a> (last visited Feb. 6, 2022). Open Justice is a grassroots organization that tries to hold judges accountable through time-consuming methods such as PIA requests or data scraping court dockets county by county. See also <\/em>Interview with Zach Zwagil and Dan Staples, Open Justice (Oct. 29, 2021).<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> See <\/em>Committee Testimony: Judiciary Committee on HB0271, held at 2022 Leg., 444th<\/sup> Session (Md., Feb. 2, 2022), https:\/\/mgaleg.maryland.gov\/mgawebsite\/Committees\/Media\/false?cmte=jud&ys [8]<\/a> Court Watch PG, \u201cOur Goals\u201d<\/em> (last visited: Jan. 23, 2022), https:\/\/courtwatchpg.com\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> See <\/em>Mettler, supra,<\/em> note 4.<\/p>\n [10]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n [11]<\/a> Id. <\/em><\/p>\n [12]<\/a> Id. <\/em><\/p>\n [13]<\/a> See <\/em>Shelley Orman, Maryland Judicial System Under Scrutiny Amid Rising Violence<\/em>, Fox 45 News (July 31, 2021), https:\/\/foxbaltimore.com\/news\/local\/maryland-judicial-system-under-scrutiny-amid-rising-violence<\/a>.<\/p>\n [14]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n [15]<\/a> See <\/em>Kendall Green, \u2018I will kill anybody that associates themselves with you\u2019 Deadly threat turned promise<\/em>, 2WMAR Baltimore (June 23, 2021, 3:45 AM), https:\/\/www.wmar2news.com\/news\/local-news\/i-will-kill-anybody-that-associates-themselves-with-you-deadly-threat-turned-promise<\/a>. A Howard County judge denied a protective order with multiple allegations of strangulation and the defendant murdered the plaintiff\u2019s son, daughter in-law, and 10-year-old grandchild months later. Without judicial accountability in our court data system, judges can blanketly deny hearing cases without even leaving a discernible signature to know which judge made the decision. See also State of Maryland v. Tyrese McKinnon<\/em>, Case. No. 0E00691026 (Md. 2020) on Gasping for Justice (last visited Mar. 5, 2022), https:\/\/www.gaspingforjustice.org\/uploads\/1\/3\/2\/5\/132507461\/form_denial_for_bond_review_motions__2_.pdf<\/a> (showing a motion to modify bond was blanketly denied without providing the defendant with a hearing. This denial doesn\u2019t state individualized reasons why the motion was denied, and the signature provided by the judge who decided the matter was indiscernible).<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/legaldatadesign\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1164\/2022\/04\/MHNWVF3JEFENVFWCSSYE5HLIUE-300x212.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n
\n=2022RS&clip=JUD_2_2_2022_meeting_1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmgahouse.maryland.gov%2Fmga%2Fplay%2Faef27329-4a75-450b-afd6-55824aed3f08%2F%3Fcatalog%2F03e481c7-8a42-4438-a7da-93ff74bdaa4c%26playfrom%3D3844005. See also <\/em>Case Search, Maryland Judiciary Case Search: Frequently Asked Questions<\/em> 2 (last visited Mar. 5, 2022), https:\/\/casesearch.courts.state.md.us\/
\ncasesearch\/inquiry-faq.jsp (stating \u201c[t]he amount of historical data may vary by jurisdiction based on when an automated case management system was deployed in that jurisdiction and how the system has evolved.\u201d).<\/p>\n