In Reversing Kulbicki v. State, How Did the U.S. Supreme Court Review the Record?

By Michael Wein

Last week, as noted by Blog Editor-in-Chief Steve Klepper, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a short four-page summary reversal of the Maryland Court of Appeals’ decision in Kulbicki v. State. The reversal followed three relists for the case at the end of the last term, a circumstance I covered in a post in June. Both posts noted a likelihood of some written decision being issued, either a summary reversal or an opinion regarding denial of certiorari.

However, just from review of the online Supreme Court public docket entries, one may notice something that doesn’t quite fit with a typical summary reversal opinion. As Steve noted, although he had long predicted per curium reversal, he also “expected the Supreme Court at least to order up the state record.”

As Kulbicki was a state post-conviction case with a complex and convoluted procedural history, I didn’t think the Supreme Court would summarily reverse it (which, after the certiorari petition was left undecided, I thought was likely) without first reviewing the record. Nevertheless, in the three months during the Court’s summer recess, no “call for record” was ever issued, and I therefore entertained other possibilities for the three relists.

So why (and quite probably how) was this done? Was the record even checked? Although the Maryland appellate courts do not have online docket entries, based on the Baltimore County dockets, the Kulbicki case file has remained in Annapolis.

As can be seen in a standard SCOTUSBLOG relist watch by John Elwood last year, a call for record is a regular occurrence in multiple-relist situations, particularly in “state on top” habeas cases when the state is seeking certiorari. So does the lack of a “call for record” in Kulbicki mean that the record was not reviewed? Not necessarily, though I think an easy conceptual solution arose in the case.

In federal cases, there is an electronic record, and when it is requested by the Supreme Court transmittal takes a few days at most. However, state cases that don’t have electronic records may take a few weeks or even months to transmit – particularly for post-conviction matters that may have filings going back decades. Here, a different circumstance may have played a role in why a “call for record” was not issued. The simplest explanation (and I don’t have any insider information that this was actually done) would be that one morning at about 10 a.m. when traffic died down, a Supreme Court law clerk was tasked with driving the 30 to 40 minutes from Washington (along an almost straight shot on Route 50) to the Courts of Appeal Building in Annapolis and reviewed the record. That would be far less time-consuming for everyone concerned than the typical procedure for reviewing records from states that are more distant than Maryland.

Advertisements

5 responses to “In Reversing Kulbicki v. State, How Did the U.S. Supreme Court Review the Record?”

  1. Mary says :

    Wouldn’t the COA clerk expect the viewer to fill out a request to inspect form?

  2. Michael Wein says :

    As to Mary’s question/comment, it’s public record, and while the statewide District Court seems to have an inspection form, I’m not sure the other Maryland courts do. The record for the Court of Appeals is on the 4th Floor in Annapolis, and there’s only a small table space typically it is reviewed in the Clerk’s office. By then, the Record is usually neatly put into top-bound 2 hole binders. Usually if copies are requested, it is done by the Clerk’s office (costing 50 cents per page) and as I recall when reviewing a case file on a related case or for potential amici purposes, there’s not a requirement to “sign in.”

    As to the Ronald’s comment..we try our very best to not have any typos, even of the Latin variety; however, even with editing, things occasionally slip through. Curium is actually a radioactive element in English, so the Latin spelling may have been inadvertently switched to the English noun spelling at some point.

  3. NPP Valok says :

    RE:In Reversing Kulbicki v. State, How Did the U.S. Supreme Court Review the Record? | Maryland Appellate Blog I do not see your logic
    Валок лапа Quivogne

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: