Editorial - Montgomery Judges Fail to Reveal Reductions in Criminals' Sentences

IN ALMOST every state, a guilty defendant's criminal sentence is basically final, except for appeals, parole or executive clemency. Not so in Maryland: A quirky state rule gives trial courts nearly unlimited power to revisit sentences and reduce -- but not increase -- them, even long after a jury verdict. Judges honor many defense motions for "reconsideration" each year. Supporters of the practice say it encourages rehabilitation and good behavior in prison; opponents note that the results can be horrific when felons leave prison early and return to their old ways. As Post reporters Dan LeDuc and Lori Montgomery showed in a 2001 series, one beneficiary of reconsideration went on to commit murder after his release in 1999; another kidnapped and raped a woman that same year. The Post series triggered calls for change, but reform failed in the General Assembly, thwarted by the defense bar and its champion, House of Delegates Judiciary committee chairman Joseph F. Vallario Jr. (D-Prince George's).

The issue isn't going away, however. Lindsay M. Harvey, 25, of Gaithersburg died in April, allegedly shot to death by 26-year-old Shawn M. Henderson, whose 12-year sentence for stabbing three people was reduced by a judge to 10 years in 2004. The judge's action, combined with good-behavior credits, put him back on the street in 2006 -- after only six years. This, despite the fact that he had been denied parole. The Gazette recently reported that Montgomery County judges reduced the sentences of 13 murderers and seven rapists between 2005 and 2007, along with the sentences of nearly 500 other criminals.

Perhaps these reconsiderations were justified, but it's hard to see how the public can make an informed assessment, since the judges who issued these reduced sentences have ignored their obligation to report them. A 2002 law required the Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy to issue an annual summary of judge-ordered sentence reductions. In carrying out this mandate, the commission sends a yearly questionnaire to all circuit judges. But, according to the commission's 2007 annual report, reconsiderations "have been underreported . . . preventing a complete analysis of their

impact."

Nowhere is the judiciary's failure to disclose more shocking than in Montgomery County, where, according to the Gazette, judges did not report a single one of their 509 sentence reductions between 2005 and 2007. Judge Ann S. Harrington, the chief administrative judge, told the Gazette that this was probably just an oversight and that she would remind the judges. We certainly hope she is right about the causes of this failure and is

serious about fixing it. Whether Montgomery judges were stonewalling or simply made hundreds of honest mistakes, their non-disclosure can only raise doubts about their exercise of the reconsideration authority

itself.