RE:
One Victim's Odyssey in a Maryland District Court:
Coming to Grips with the Front-End after Coming to Grips with the Back-End

TO:
Parris Glendening, Governor - f410-974-3275
Robert M. Bell, Chief Judge, Maryland Court of Appeals - f410-347-3908
Martha Rasin, Chief Judge, District Court of Maryland - f410-974-5026
Patricia Jessamy, State's Attorney for Baltimore City - f410-539-5215
Thomas Frazier, Baltimore City Police Commissioner - f410-396-2023
Stephen E. Harris, Chief Public Defender - f410-333-8496
Roberta Roper, Stephanie Roper Foundation - f301-952-2319
Kurt Schmoke, Mayor of Baltimore City - f410-576-9425
Stuart O. Simms, Secretary of Public Safety - f410-339-4243
William W. Sondervan, Commissioner of Correction - f410-764-4373
LaMont Flanagan, Commissioner, Pretrial Services - f410-209-4250
Dwight Sullivan, American Civil Liberties Union - f410-366-7838
Delegate Peter Franchot - f410-841-3850
Delegate Howard Rawlings - f410-841-3416

Lonnie P. Ferguson, Clerk of District Court
- fax number not available and would not be disclosed after description of contents - copy to go out by U.S. Postal Service to 5800 Wabash Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21215 tomorrow or the day after pending photocopy, envelope and stamps

I. ... Introduction and Background
II. ... The crime and its aftermath
III. ...The phone call chronology
IV. ... Victim realities
.....A. When a victim is not aware of being a victim
.....B. What was working in my favor
.....C. What was not working in my favor
.....D. Doubts and Disbeliefs
.....E. Significant Elements from a Victim/Witness broint of View
V. ... Improvements That Can Be Easily and Favorably Implemented
.....A. In the forms that go out to victims and witnesses
.....B. In the handling by the State's Attorney's office
.....C. Miscellaneous District Court Matters gleaned from prior experiences:
VI. ... Conclusions and Bottom Line

Introduction and Background: While I have been accustomed to working with the Division of Correction and the Department of Public Safety over the years, I now find - as a new homeowner in Baltimore City experiencing an assortment of relatively minor crimes - that the "entry level" or "front end" of the system is hopelessly fragmented, more often than not counterproductive and/or manifesting competing objectives. In short: my confusion and consternation with regard to the instant fact situation as well as a means of solving problems appears to be due in large part to a deficit (if not lack of) a coherent coordination if not chain of command. For this reason, the memorandum form of this mailing and the distribution list is designed to be as comprehensive as is possible - those persons receiving this mailing are invited to share same and the responsibility therefor elsewhere in their department(s), division(s), and/or whatever their respective territory(ies) may be.

Even after numerous calls over a several day period, equipped with a venue, case number and defendant name (copy attached), to this day I am uncertain what the event was that precipitated my being named as a victim in this matter. Only by conjecture (I was eventually given the date of the offense and its capsulization as "Malicious Destruction" several phone calls into my pursuit) have I concluded the matter must have related to the destruction of my wooden back gate into a state of splinters and rubble.

The cost of the lumber to substitute for the gate was said to be $22 by an ex-resident of the Division of Correction, and the labor to repair same was compensated with several days' free food and shelter plus a pair of all-day mass transportation passes.

Damages beyond those already noted consisted of the "liberation" of my two dogs in the absence of the gate such that they migrated to Seton Hill Park, risking accident in traffic, and exposing themselves to dog worm diseases which I have been told on competent authority haven't yet been charted in the veterinary literature.

Telephone Chronology (all phone numbers are 410 area code unless otherwise noted.) All calls were made between 9 am and 5 pm on a weekday during the last week of December, 1998.

974-7177 -- Listed at bottom of all court documents issued by all District Courts in the State of Maryland - "for questions concerning this document" - Result: no source of information on the court or case or anything else - pertains to whole state - "we can't be responsible for everything"

554-5673 -- North Avenue Constable, a good guess if not the real McCoy - from the One Book and Yellow Pages - result: number not in service (also true of all listings for Central Booking and BCDC and for the District Court and Court of Appeals)

396-5380 -- downtown homicide unit - useful in the past - attempting in the instant case to seek apparent "insider" information (i.e., the phone number of the State's Attorney for the North Avenue District Courthouse)

878-8176 -- given by homicide unit - 18 rings, no answer, two days

411 -- tried on the theory that somebody anywhere should know where the State's Attorney handling North Avenue is - maybe Bell Atlantic has an idea

764-8720 -- number obtained directly from Bell Atlantic via 411 at cost of 75 cents plus tax but the recording at the other end said that the number had been changed

878-8161 -- forwarding number from the number above - it did connect and for the first time the date and charge were ascertained BUT this wasn't North Avenue but Wabash - Wabash is different

554-5788 -- number given by Wabash for North - discovered charge and date of charge - Then I started to wonder: Is he incarcerated? That isn't on our screen - At that point, I then experienced hang up (or some other sudden discontinuance of connection).

545-8135 -- Central Booking, the logical place to look if he was incarcerated - the Central Booking number already existed in my records due to earlier activities - the computer screen does not indicate present status, she said - two other numbers were given in referral:

545-8121 -- Central Records - result: "call cannot be connected as dialed" - twice

545-8123 -- Central Records - 18 rings, no answer, over two days

889-8550 -- ACLU - Dwight Sullivan - known to me with regard to certain State prison matters prior to the instant matter - the number was already in my records - left message

225-0697 -- call back (my number the next day) from Dwight Sullivan of ACLU - he referred me to the State's Attorney Victim and Witness Unit, advising me not to proceed with preparation of a written (this) document just yet

411 -- asking (at 75 cents plus tax) the State's Attorney Victim/Witness Unit

396-1897 -- (number given by Bell Atlantic) - proved not to be the District Court but the Circuit Court (the Circuit Victims number didn't know the number for the North Avenue Unit but did yield the name of the person allegedly in charge of it)

554-5788 -- North Avenue State's Attorney number previously tried - no answer, no answering machine

396-1211 -- acquired by several experiences in recent memory, this number is the one Central (Police) District gives and continues to give out at the time an officer takes a report and a case number is assigned - no answer, 18 rings, no answering machine - twice, an hour apart

-------- -- gave up

Factors in my Favor: I had been to the North Avenue District Court location before on sundry matters. I knew the difference between District and Circuit courts -- I knew the difference between North Avenue and Wabash as well as the difference between Glen Burnie and Mondawmin. I had been exposed to like documents where I really did know what the offense was and had an inkling about who the defendant was. I had a touch tone phone with unlimited service readily accessible. I can speak, read and write Standard English at college level. I had an eighteen year history working in and around the Division of Correction and the Department of Public Safety so thus I had a familiarity with "criminal" processing. I had two (ex-)offenders at hand who had "done it" and "been through it" occupying space in my house more or less serving as consultants with regard to matters such as these (one of them also was the one who fixed the fence partly in exchange for free food).

In the instant case: I had serious doubts whether an event had ever happened. I knew for certain that I had never heard of and had no record of the defendant named. I became concerned that the person in question was incarcerated without evidentiary or legal grounds and would remain so until and unless I personally appeared in court at 8:30a on February 1st to speak on his behalf. After all, at this writing, and to this day, I have not been able to determine whether the "perpetrator" was incarcerated pending a February 1 trial date. I hear tell on very competent, experienced authority that if a victim doesn't show up three times in a row, the case will be dismissed regardless of the existence of other "facts".

Factors Not in my Favor: I had no idea what the letter from the court related to. I had never heard of any defendant by that name (and I know a lot of defendants). The date of the letter referred to the Winter Solstice on December 20 but no crime against me that I could remember and didn't relate to the date of incident in any event.

Doubts and Disbeliefs: I considered the possibility that someone had keypunched "victim", when the person named as the defendant might have instead named me "character witness" without my knowledge or consent. After about 8-10 calls, my persistence wearing thin, it occurred to me that State's Attorneys may have the tendency to offer "time served" plea agreements, aka "Gentlemen's Agreements", when victims and/or other witnesses do not appear for District Court trials perhaps to ward off the invocation of "jury trial" transfers "Downtown" thereby obviating the possibility of postponement or of tedious, tenuous voir dires at the other end. On the other hand, the use of the "Gentlemen's" nol pros appears that it might be a tool to sanction police officer (albeit dubious) indiscretions and/or omissions while at the same time dampening any defendant's desire to challenge same. Then I began to mull over instances well into the past where the police write-up, the charging document, the witnesses cited, the facts vs. evidence were fatal to the prosecution even within hours of arrest and incarceration, yet the person charged never discovers the disparities but by the time of the nol pros doesn't care anymore. Furthermore, it is a widely held impression in the larger Baltimore City community that members of the Baltimore City Police routinely "sweep", "clean out" and/or "solve" endemic situations knowing full well the courts, the State's Attorneys and the Public Defenders shall not attend to the specifics for at least four weeks and perhaps six. Thus, and realistically, a City Police officer, by his writing and filing routine charge papers, is in a position to cause a de facto term of incarceration of at least thirty days for a given individual, the resulting total term open-ended but influenced heavily on the State's Attorney's willingness to plea, nol pros, or continue pending victim/witness availability, and pressures from the Circuit Courts as to jury trials and other availability. "Bargains", of course, can depend on the bargaining power(s) inherent in the evidence and fact-finding to begin with, which in turn is inherent upon the preparation and competence of the available defense attorney. All of these elements in turn have a strong bearing on the confidence of the eventual verdict. These "confidences", in turn and over time, tend to accrue - and may tend to explain the vertical nature of the systemic frailties from Police Department to District Court, to Circuit Court, over horizontally to the prison and parole system, and back again in a cyclic progression.

Significant Elements from a Victim/Witness Point of View: 1) Having to show up at North Avenue alone and by cab and by 8:30 in the morning even if the matter will not come up for a (probable five minute hearing) hours later. 2) Unavailable bus routes and bus routes one would prefer not to partake of. 3) No other feedback whether I showed up at all and no call in advance on any substantive aspect (such as whether I was planning to show up). 4) Shouldn't the victim be informed of the charges lodged on his or her behalf? 5) No notification that the suspect(s) were detained and/or charged and/or released on bail (how much bail would be nice, too) 6) The form received was itself highly laconic: What is the function of the various codes, such as at top by heading: What is meant by "tracking number" and what is its use? 7) The date of the form letter was December 22nd but it was not mailed or received for another week.

Easily Implemented Suggestions for the Future:

1. Touch Tone switching of incoming phone calls. Telephone network modeled after the existing Sundial, Internal Revenue Service or the Comptroller's model and capability. Case Numbers could be designed and issued for touch tone phone entry. Voice mailboxes and dialing menus might approximate (for example) the MTA phone system.

   • Recorded paragraphs available on the phone system might:

   • explain the difference between District and Circuit courts.

   • explain the function of a judge, a State's attorney, a defense attorney, a clerk and so on and so forth.

   • detail the offense with which a defendant is charged.

   • give instructions on how to get to the Court - by public transportation and by car, with perhaps a note about available parking and cost.

   • provide options for fax, TTY, etc.

   If MTA can do this with the bus system, the Sunpaper can do this with Sundial, and such systems are available and in wide use by any number of corporations, the District Courts can do this with their own.

2. Additional data to be provided on the "Notice of Hearing" form or with the "Notice of Hearing" or other form:

   • State's Attorney (handling case) Contact Phone Number
     
   • Clerk of Court Contact Number
     
   • District Court Contact Number

   • Date/Day of Alleged Offense

   • Those charges that are pending

   • Those charges filed both by description and statute reference

   • Some indication of disposition so far:
     ? released on recognizance
     ? bail set and/or paid (?how much bail)
     ? remaining under detention pending events

3. A simple map (cross streets, etc.) indicating where the courthouse is located, a description of available parking, recitation of applicable bus and other mass transit such as light rail and so forth.

4. (??) A statement to the effect that the area is secure, is patrolled regularly and (??) measures such as monitored video surveillance are taken to ensure safety.

The State's Attorney office should be immediately responsive especially in the event the (sole?) victim claims nothing happened and an event of the type never occurred to the person's knowledge. Advice to "tell it to the judge" 31-38 days later is not sufficient. Feedback that the computer screen does not indicate whether the defendant is or is not incarcerated is also not sufficient.

It would also be helpful for the "victim" to be able to contact the pertinent Public Defender with such information except for the fact that defendants don't get PDs or can even contact one until the Preliminary Hearing (typically 6 weeks after arrest) or entry of appearance in Circuit Court.

To this day, I do not know whether the defendant is age 15, 25, 35 or 45. It would make a tremendous difference to know whether this was a teenage prank or whether it might have been something on the order of a "hate crime" (highly unlikely). Of course, there is no notion what a "motive" might have been -- to my knowledge there was no further destruction or theft of any item. (Prior to this, my dogs have only gotten out of the fence when police officers leave the front gate open while looking into crimes such as burglary elsewhere in the neighborhood or when attempts were made to take the garbage out.)

Note: The State's Attorney office should not hang up on a victim even if the victim is hysterical and/or illogical and/or angry or indignant.

Miscellaneous District Court Suggested Improvements gleaned from prior experiences:
...With regard to paying up traffic fines and/or posting bail:

• Using computers to verify credit and having the ability to accept major credit cards.

• Being able to signal Central Booking's or the BCDC computer without requiring an elderly parent making a second trip and parking fee to Madison Street with three (3) copies of a stamped form (e.g., the defendant could even be released the same business day even if the bail were paid after 3:00 pm the same day).

• Is it possible that the MVA could be a more efficient if not suitable mechanism to handle these traffic fine payments? Might it be possible for a traffic defendant NOT to take two (2) days off work but perhaps only one (1) day or even one-half («) day?

The problems with the court system in general perhaps lie less in the staff or staffing than the forms, the phone system, the public and "customer" relations, and apparently, the administration and coordination of the police, clerks' offices, judicial branch and Bar -- that is to say: the problems are now widely recognized as systemic -- no single effort at any of one of these levels, in isolation, is likely to yield improvement.

I hope, by this letter, I might have shed some light.

Sincerely,

Nancy Moran

nm
attachment