July 2022 Maryland Certiorari Grants

The Maryland Court of Appeals today granted review in two criminal appeals.

Steven G. Carver v. State of Maryland – Case No. 14, September Term, 2022
(Unreported COSA Opinion by Judge Shaw)

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, when evaluating newly discovered evidence in an actual-innocence proceeding, must a court consider the new evidence and the evidence admitted at trial collectively with evidence that was available to the defense but not offered at trial, and/or offered but excluded, where the available evidence was made relevant and admissible by the newly discovered evidence? 2) Where Joseph Kopera was the sole firearms expert at trial, is the contrary opinion of a non-fraudulent firearms expert, obtained after the revelation of Kopera’s fraud, newly discovered evidence? 3) Did the lower courts err by failing to consider the cumulative impact of separate but related categories of newly discovered evidence as required by Faulkner v. State, 468 Md. 418 (2020)? 4) Did the lower court err by denying the petition for writ of actual innocence?

Tyrie Washington v. State of Maryland – Case No. 15, September Term, 2022
(Unreported COSA Opinion by Chief Judge Wells)

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In light of the legitimate reasons why young Black men may be afraid of interacting with the police, what weight, if any, should “unprovoked” flight from the police be given in the reasonable suspicion analysis? 2) Does flight from the Baltimore police by a young Black man in Baltimore City give police reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop? 3) Did CSA err by holding that the stop of Petitioner did not violate Petitioner’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, despite recognizing the “problematic implications” of relying on flight from the police in the reasonable suspicion analysis? 4) Did CSA err by holding that the stop of Petitioner did not violate Petitioner’s rights under Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and, if so, does a violation of Article 26 require the exclusion of the illegally seized evidence? 5) Did the courts below properly apply binding precedent – Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000), and Sizer v. State, 456 Md. 350, 367 (2017) – to conclude that the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment in stopping Petitioner because the totality of the circumstances, including his unprovoked, headlong flight from the detectives in a high-crime area, raised sufficient reasonable suspicion to conduct at Terry stop? 6) Are the concerns raised by Amici Curiae regarding the application of the “high-crime area” and “unprovoked flight” factors being used as “proxies for race,” which were not developed in the lower courts, not presented by the record in this case? 7) Should Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights remain co-extensive with the Fourth Amendment and without an exclusionary rule? 8) Should the detectives’ observations of a “bulge” in Petitioner’s waistband and that Petitioner was “manipulating something at his front as he’s running” be imputed to the arresting officer and considered in the reasonable suspicion analysis under the collective knowledge doctrine?

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: