A powerful House committee chairman and Maryland's bail-bond industry have been waging a behind-the-scenes campaign to kill a bill seeking to ease Baltimore's clogged criminal court system.

The measure would require public defenders to represent indigent defendants at bail hearings, instead of leaving them to navigate the process alone.

Judges, attorneys and other legal experts say the legislation would help prevent those charged with minor crimes from spending long stretches in jail awaiting trial. No one turned out to oppose the bill at General Assembly hearings in Annapolis.

But some members of the House Judiciary Committee are being asked by their chairman, Del. Joseph F. Vallario Jr., to oppose the measure when it comes up for a vote this week. And a lobbyist for the Maryland Bail Bond Association has quietly been urging legislators to defeat the bill.

Vallario, an attorney who does criminal defense work, opposes the bill because he fears defendants will retain the public defender after the bail hearing, at state expense, rather than paying for their own lawyer.

"Plus, I don't think it will do any good," the Prince George's Democrat said, adding that the interests of the bail-bond industry was not a factor for him.

A committee chairman can exert tremendous sway over the fate of a bill, in part because he can decide whether other measures before the committee will ever come to a vote.

But it is the effort by bail bondsmen that has most piqued sponsors and supporters of the public defender bill. They assert the industry opposes the bill because bond companies stand to lose millions of dollars in lost fees if more defendants are represented by lawyers who are able to get them released on their own recognizance or on lower bail.

"This is a substantive piece of legislation that would protect the indigent," said Del. Sharon M. Grosfeld, a Montgomery County Democrat. "The bail bonds people have no business getting involved."

Douglas L. Colbert, a University of Maryland law professor who has been a driving force behind the measure, said bail-bond dealers could lose "a huge amount if this goes through, possibly in the tens or even hundreds of millions" of dollars.

He said a 1998 University of Maryland study showed that defendants who had lawyers at their bail hearing were 2 1/2 times as likely to be released on their own recognizance. Those who did have to post bail paid, on average, $1,000 less than those without lawyers.

Ira C. Cooke, the Maryland Bail Bond Association lobbyist, never appeared at a hearing on the bill, but confirmed he has been actively working against it. He said the industry opposed the measure because, "We believe there are better ways the Public Defender's money could be used."

When asked whether the industry's financial stake in the bill was a factor, Cooke declined comment.

Last year, a similar bill sank in committee largely because it lacked support from Maryland's Public Defender Stephen E. Harris. This year, Harris is backing the legislation because it would require the state to provide money to hire enough public defenders to carry it out.

Others supporting the bill include the Maryland Judicial Conference, the Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys' Association, the Maryland State Attorneys Association, the State Police and several bar associations.

Backers of the measure are now scrambling to shore up support.

Del. Kenneth C. Montague Jr., the bill's sponsor, was granted a postponement of a planned vote on the measure earlier this week after he and other supporters learned of the opposition.

"We had not heard any logical arguments against this bill," said Albert Winchester III, who has been lobbying for the measure on behalf of the state bar association. "Now I'm not taking any member's vote for granted."

Colbert, the University of Maryland law professor, made a special trip from Baltimore to Annapolis yesterday to campaign as well.

"This is all a big surprise," he said. "We thought we had received support from every important player in the system."

While there is still a sizable group on the Judiciary Committee supporting the measure, there were several who said yesterday they are uncertain.

"I really haven't decided," said Del. Donald E. Murphy, a Baltimore County Republican. "A lot depends on the dialogue in the voting session."

Del. Dana Lee Dembrow, a Montgomery Democrat, said: "You already have the judges and the pretrial release office who are supposed to be doing this. Do we need another government group doing this job?"

Supporters say yes and point to the Baltimore court system where the Circuit Court dockets are so clogged that murder and other serious criminal cases have been dismissed. Numerous agencies have stepped in to aid the courts, viewing the breakdown as a threat to public safety.

Advocates of the bill say lawyers at the bail review hearings would help weed out minor or weak cases from the criminal justice system.

About 60 percent of all criminal cases in Baltimore are not prosecuted because of insufficient evidence or lack of witness cooperation.

They also say plea bargain negotiations could begin earlier in the process and defendants charged with minor crimes could be handled more swiftly.

Sun staff writers Thomas W. Waldron and Caitlin Francke contributed to this article.

Pub Date: 3/18/99