MD rules committee approves changes on discovery in criminal cases

ANNAPOLIS — Maryland’s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure voted to approve multiple changes to the state’s rules on Thursday, including amending the rules for discovery in criminal cases.

The Rules Committee also approved changes to when a state court administrator or custodian can file certain complaints on “frivolous” requests to inspect a judicial record.

The changes must first be approved by the Maryland Supreme Court before taking effect.

The Rules Committee on Thursday approved an amendment to Maryland Rule 4-262 that specifies that the court may order a party that has failed to comply with the discovery rules “to permit the discovery of the matters not previously disclosed, strike the testimony to which the undisclosed matter relates, grant a reasonable continuance, prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the matter not disclosed, grant a mistrial, or enter any other order appropriate under the circumstances.”

The Rules Committee also approved an amendment to Maryland Rule 4-263 that says the state’s attorney must provide to the defense in-custody witness testimony, including any benefits an in-custody witness has received; the substance, time and place of any statement made by a suspect or defendant to the in-custody witness; and other cases where the in-custody witness testified.

Further, the Rules Committee approved the addition of a new Maryland Rule 4-268, which requires the court to conduct a hearing prior to admitting the testimony of an in-custody witness to determine whether the state’s attorney “has disclosed all material and information related to the in-custody witness as required by law.”

The changes are meant to address any unfairness unrepresented individuals face during the discovery process, according to the Rules Committee.

The Rules Committee also proposed changes that would allow a state court administrator or custodian to file a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief when they are alleging that a request for inspection of a judicial record or pattern of requests is “frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.”

In such a case, the state court administrator or custodian has the burden of demonstrating that the request or pattern of requests is indeed frivolous, vexatious or in bad faith.

Chief Judge John P. Morrissey of the District Court of Maryland said during Thursday’s Rules Committee meeting that there’s been an increasing number of “mischievous” individuals “coming into the system inappropriately” for any given reason.

The state court administrator requested the amendments to address what the state court administrator describes as “increasing instances of frivolous and repetitious requests for judicial records.”

If the court finds the state court administrator or custodian has met the burden of proof, the court then enters an order granting appropriate relief. Otherwise, the court shall dismiss the complaint, according to the proposed rule change.