Welcome to our weekly column in which a topic of interest, piece of news, relevant opinion, or general request for feedback is presented. We’ll offer the topic du jour and accompanying question, and you have the opportunity to respond with your thoughts.
Simply fill out the form below. A collection of each week’s responses will appear in the following week’s column. To view responses on our previous topics click here.
Publisher reserves the right to edit responses for clarity and publish online and/or in our print publications.
Please let us know your thoughts!
This week’s Feedback Friday topic is:
Courtroom Transparency
During the Covid-19 pandemic, daily business and workflow for a variety of industries transitioned from in-person communication to virtual (online Zoom meetings, Teams chats, etc.) for health and safety reasons. Many district and circuit courts used virtual sessions to hear and decide cases, some of which were accessible to the public for viewing. In the time since the pandemic, some government watchdog groups have advocated for complete remote public access to court proceedings, citing a need for transparency to ensure the letter of the law is followed by all involved parties (prosecution, defense, judges).
Led by the volunteer organization Courtwatch PG, advocates in Maryland have spent the past two legislative sessions lobbying state legislators for a bill that would mandate all courtrooms give the public virtual access to most court proceedings. The proposed bill has died in committee each time. Sen. William C. Smith Jr. (D-Montgomery) who called the most recent vote that killed the bill said there are concerns about how the law could impact court proceedings.
But a new 20-page report, conducted by Howard University law students, aims to change legislators’ minds. From six months of observing Prince George’s County bail review hearings, the students cite nine examples of the court either dismissing defendants’ mental health and medical needs, holding juveniles in adult jail, or setting unaffordable bonds. The report does not name judges, lawyers, or defendants, nor does it refer to any case numbers. The Maryland Judiciary is reviewing the report.
Courtroom transparency advocates say they’ll try again next year to pass legislation.
Do you believe legal and courtroom transparency is satisfactory as is or would you like to see more? Why or why not?
Please share your thoughts by filling out this form. Today’s responses—and all future Feedback Friday responses—will be published in our Monday newsletters after the weekend. AND, several responses from recent topics will appear in our upcoming print magazines!
