Forster v. Hargadon

²⁹⁹ WILNER, J. Before us is a petition by Nancy S. Forster, the Public Defender of Maryland, for a writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus, or other appropriate relief, in which she asks that we vacate a directive and order issued by Edward R.K. Hargadon, a judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, that Ms. Forster believes are both substantively unlawful and constitute an impermissible local rule. With the petition was a motion to stay the directive and order pending our decision on the petition, which we granted. The order, which is set out below, imposes certain procedural requirements on parties who file exceptions to the report of a master in juvenile cases and permits the court to dismiss the exceptions if those requirements are not met. The directive directs the court clerk to enter the order in each exceptions case, so that the order and its requirements will be case-specific.

We shall dismiss the petition and revoke the stay. BACKGROUND Maryland Rule 2-541 authorizes the judges of a Circuit Court to appoint one or more standing masters and to refer cases to those masters. The role of the master, as set forth in Rule 2-541, is to conduct a hearing in the matter and make a report to the court that includes the master’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, recommendations, and a proposed order or judgment. Rule 2-541 is a rule that applies generally to masters.

Maryland Rule 11-111, which generally tracks provisions in Maryland Code, § 3-807 of the Cts. & Jud. Proc. Article (CJP), provides greater specificity with respect to the procedures governing exceptions taken to a master’s report in Juvenile cases. 1 With an exception not relevant here, Rule ll-llla.2. authorizes a Juvenile Court master to hear any case or matter ³⁰⁰ assigned by the court. Proceedings before a master are recorded.

CJP § 3-807(b)(2); Rule ll-110a. In keeping with the limited role of the master, both the Rule and the statute specify that the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the master do not constitute final orders or final action by the court. Rule ll-llla.2. and CJP § 3-807(d)(l). Within ten days after the conclusion of a disposition hearing, the master must transmit to the judge the entire file in the case, together with a written report of the master’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

A copy of the report is served on each party to the proceeding. Both CJP § 3-807(c)(l) and Rule 11-lllc. permit any party to file exceptions to any or all of the master’s proposed findings, conclusions, recommendations, or order. Rule 11-lllc. specifies, however, that “[ejxceptions shall be in writing, filed with the clerk within five days after the master’s report is served upon the party, and shall specify those items to which the party excepts, and whether the hearing is to be de novo or on the record.” (Emphasis added). Those requirements are also set forth, in generally similar language, in the statute.

See CJP § 3-807(c)(l) and (2). Both the Rule and the statute permit an excepting party, other than the State in a delinquency case, to elect a hearing de novo or. one on the record made before the master. Rule 11-111 c. and CJP § 3-807(c)(2). 2 Both the Rule and the statute make clear that, whether the hearing is de novo or on the record, “the hearing shall be limited to those matters to which exceptions have been taken.” (Emphasis added). See Rule 11-lllc. and CJP § 3-807(c)(4).

As noted, all of those requirements—that exceptions specify whether the hearing before the court is to be de novo or on the record, that, in either event, they specify the issues to which the aggrieved party excepts, and that the hearing, ³⁰¹ whether de novo or on the record, is limited to those matters to which exceptions have been taken—are imposed by State law and are Statewide in application, The Circuit Court for Baltimore City is the largest and busiest of the State’s 24 Circuit Courts. In FY 2006, it had over 63,500 total filings, including more than 24,500 criminal cases, 17,400 civil cases, 11,700 family cases, and 9,700 juvenile cases. Included in the juvenile filings were over 7,100 delinquency cases. The court’s 9,700 juvenile filings were almost double the number in the next largest courts, and the 7,100 delinquency filings also far exceeded the number in any other county.

During FY 2006, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City conducted more than 83,000 juvenile hearings, which represents more than 50% of the total number of juvenile hearings held throughout the State. Maryland Rules 16-101 and 16-202 charge the Administrative Judge of each Circuit Court -with overall responsibility for the management of the court. Rule 16—101d.2.(ii), for example, makes the Administrative Judge responsible for the “supervision and expeditious disposition of cases filed in the court and the control of the trial calendar and other calendars.” Rule 16-202a. requires the Administrative Judge to supervise the assignment of actions for trial “to achieve the efficient use of available judicial personnel and to bring pending actions to trial and dispose of them as expeditiously as feasible.” Rule 16-101d.3. permits the Administrative Judge to delegate to other judges any of those administrative responsibilities, duties, and functions. In order to manage the court’s heavy docket, the Administrative Judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, acting pursuant to those and other Rules and the court’s case management plan adopted pursuant to Rule 16-202b., created divisions of the court, designated judges to head those divisions, and delegated some administrative responsibilities to those judges.

The Juvenile Division of the court consists of three judges, including a Judge-in-Charge, and ten masters. The masters conduct most of the hearings. Under the court’s ³⁰² case management system, the juvenile docket is distributed evenly among eight of the masters, each of whom handle approximately 2,700 cases a year. A ninth master conducts emergency arraignments and shelter care hearings, and the tenth presides over an overflow trial court.

In FY 2006, the juvenile masters in Baltimore City conducted over 28,000 hearings in delinquency cases. Judge Hargadon was designated as the Judge-in-Charge of the Juvenile Division and, as such, was charged, among other responsibilities, with “establish[ing] policies and procedures for the day-to-day operation of the juvenile court subject to the approval of the administrative judge” and “provid[ing] administrative guidance to the deputy clerk, helping with day-to-day procedural issues.” In addition to those administrative duties, the Judge-in-Charge also provides back-up assistance to the presiding juvenile court judges, who conduct hearings of all kind, including both de novo and on-the-record hearings on exceptions to reports from masters. In FY 2006, the judges conducted over 11,000 hearings in delinquency cases. In the furtherance of his administrative duties as Judge-in-Charge of the Juvenile Division and in further implementation of Maryland Rule 11-111 and CJP § 3-807, Judge Hargadon, after conferring with one or more of his colleagues on the court, representatives from the State’s Attorney’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office, the Legal Aid Bureau, and the Department of Social Services, and other interested persons and groups, developed a form order that, on November 11, 2006, he directed the clerk to enter routinely in each case in which exceptions had been noted to a master’s report.

That order, which the Public Defender asks this Court to vacate, provides as follows: “An Exception having been filed from a Recommendation of a Master in the above-captioned matter, it is, pursuant to Maryland Rule 11-111 and Md.Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-807, ORDERED that: 1. The Court may, upon motion of a party or sua sponte, dismiss the exception if the exception does not state with specificity: ³⁰³ a. The items to which the party takes exception; and b.

Whether the exception hearing is to be heard on the record or de novo. 2. If the party filing an exception requests a hearing on the record, and unless the presiding judge or the Judge-in-Charge orders otherwise: a. That party shall, no later than 10 days from the date of this ORDER, file a memorandum which: i. Specifies any finding of fact and conclusion of law to which that party is taking exception; and ii.

Specifies the reason(s) as to why the Master’s recommended finding of fact(s) or conclusion(s) of law is in error; and b. Any other party to the hearing shall file a responsive memorandum no later than 10 days after the filing of the excepting party’s memorandum; 3. Pursuant to Md.Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-807(e) and Maryland Rule 11—111(c), if the party filing an exception requests a hearing de novo: a.

Any evidence presented shall be limited to the specific issues raised in the exception; and b. The Court may rely upon the evidence recorded before the master for any matters to which an exception was not raised. 4. In addition to the delivery of copies of the exception and the memorandum to all parties, the party filing an exception or memorandum shall deliver a copy of the exception and the memorandum to the presiding judge, or if a judge has not been designated, to the Judge-in-Charge. 5. A transcript of the proceedings before the master need not be prepared prior to the hearing on the exception unless the Court so orders. 6.

Any issue not specifically set forth in the exception and the accompanying memorandum is waived unless the Court finds there was good cause for not specifying the issue.” ³⁰⁴ Although, as noted, Judge Hargadon conferred with a number of interested persons and groups, including one or more of his judicial colleagues, in developing the order, it does not appear that the order was ever formally or officially adopted or blessed by the Circuit Court as such, or even by a majority of its members. By reason of his instruction to the Deputy Clerk, however, a copy of the order, once signed by either Judge Hargadon or another judge in the Juvenile Division, is entered routinely in every exceptions case. In her petition, the Public Defender complains that the order is “unnecessary, burdensome, illegal, and unconstitutional” and that the directive that it be filed in every case “constitutes an illegal circuit or local rule in violation of Maryland Rule 1-102” and “violates a juvenile’s constitutional due process right to have judicial review of a master’s findings.” More specifically, the Public Defender objects (1) to the requirement that the excepting party file a memorandum within ten days that specifies the finding or conclusion of the master to which the party excepts, which she contends is a “burdensome requirement” that may delay a hearing on the exceptions, (2) to the provision that any additional evidence to be offered at a de novo hearing will be limited to that relevant to the issues raised in the exceptions, which she contends “effectively eliminates de novo exceptions as an option for the party,” and (3) to the prospect of dismissal of the exceptions as a sanction for non-compliance, which she concludes is unauthorized. DISCUSSION In the 231-year history of this Court, following the adoption of our first Constitution in 1776, we have had only three occasions to opine in any significant detail on the authority of the Court to issue writs of mandamus or prohibition and the standards for determining when, assuming the authority, such writs might appropriately be issued—all within