|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||
2002 FINAL STATELEGISLATIVE PROGRAM MIDDLE RANGE ISSUE ISSUE: ELIMINATION OF TRIAL DE NOVO APPEALS SUMMARY: Legislation to eliminate trials de novo in criminal appeals was submitted in 1993 with the support of the Schaefer Administration and leaders of the Judiciary. The bill was defeated and was not resubmitted in 1994. In 1995 efforts to make appeals of domestic violence protective proceedings and violation of probation cases to be made on the record from District Court also were unsuccessful. No trial de novo bills were introduced in 1996, but proposals to eliminate the practice in cases involving enforcement of local housing codes and minor crimes surfaced in 1997. Both measures died in Committee. No trial de novo bills were filed in 1998, but proponents tried again in 1999, only to fail once more. A modest approach to the issue was made in 2000 with a bill to eliminate de novo appeals in local code enforcement cases, but this effort failed as well. Proponents of ending de novo appeals made no effort to file any bills in 2001. The present appeals procedure in criminal cases allows a defendant who is dissatisfied with the verdict in District Court to automatically get a new trial in Circuit Court. Advocates of abolishing this privilege believe the system demeans the District Court because defendants know the outcome can be reversed at the next level. Additionally, critics of trial de novo appeals argue that the provision is an anachronism, dating back to an era when trial magistrates, some of whom were not even lawyers, presided in the lower courts. The advocates of ending automatic appeals contend that the method is used by criminal defense attorneys to pressure prosecutors into agreeing to reduced sentences or even to drop cases that are costly or time-consuming. Trial de novo foes feel that the present system is expensive, inefficient and redundant. Supporters of keeping the present criminal appeals procedure believe that the caseloads in circuit courts are reduced by the right to an appeal because most defendants are satisfied with their treatment in District Court and do not even get to the next level. Elimination of de novo appeals would encourage defendants to take their only chance in Circuit Court where they would be able to try their cases before a jury. Indeed, this argument was supported by the Maryland Department of Fiscal Services summary on the bill that estimated an additional 2500 jury trials per year, which would be a terrible burden for many already overburdened Circuit Courts. There also may be difficulties in the District Courts because the need to protect the record of the proceedings would require much more care than is exercised presently. Relatively routine cases that take a minimal amount of time to handle would become more complicated because the safety valve provided by Circuit Court de novo appeals would be eliminated. Trial de novo supporters are convinced that the present system is functioning well, providing adequate rights for criminal defendants in a relatively efficient manner. MSBA 2002 POSITION: Request the Section of Litigation, the Section of Criminal Law and Practice, and the Section of Judicial Administration to review the MSBA's long-standing position of opposing legislation that would eliminate trial de novo appeals. SAMPLE LEGISLATION:
|
||||||||||
