Why Maryland Should Allow 28 Days for Post-Trial Motions
What attracts many lawyers to appellate practice—besides an unusual appetite for legal writing and a general distaste for contentious discovery—is the confidence that fire drills and surprises rarely occur. Appellate briefing deadlines and oral arguments are normally set months in advance, and extensions are liberally granted. Appellate lawyers often seem to be nicer (albeit nerdier) people. And everyone on appeal is bound by the trial-court record. No juries and no witnesses. Just the lawyers and a panel of judges applying the law to the settled facts on record.
This dynamic of unharried research and rules-driven deliberation often yields superior legal analysis, not because appellate lawyers are smarter than other litigators but because they usually have the time to reflect on an issue and get it right. They also know that opposing counsel and reviewing judges will have time to carefully consider whatever they write and say. Any missteps or misrepresentations will most likely be noticed and exposed.
Read More…Rules or Rulings: When Can an Agency Decide?
Regulatory agencies are often presented with the big issues of the day in different ways. A matter of policy — and controversy — may arise when an agency is requested to make a new regulation or rule, asked to award grants or funding, tasked with overseeing government projects, or resolving administrative complaints. Modern advocates see numerous potential paths to the desired outcome and employ multi-pronged strategies to try to get there.
Obviously, to those advocates, and the stakeholders and public affected, the policy that eventually results matters a lot. To the agencies — and the administrative lawyers who deal with them — how they consider the policy, and what procedures are used, also matter a lot. What power an agency has to pick the posture, forum, and mechanisms in which to consider disputed issues recently generated a split Appellate Court decision in In the Matter of Maryland Office of People’s Counsel, et al., that establishes some limitations on that discretion.
Read More…Denial of Right to Public Trial or De Minimis Violation?
In March 2024, the Supreme Court of Maryland (SCM) granted the State’s petition for certiorari in State v. Scarboro, ACM No. 1646 (Sept. Term 2022), SCM No. 4 (Sept. Term 2024), an unreported decision by Chief Judge Wells. The State’s petition presented the following question: when an appellant claims a Sixth Amendment violation of the right to a public trial based on the trial court’s ostensible denial of courtroom access, does the burden lie with appellant to establish preliminarily that the courtroom closure is significant enough (i.e. not “de minimis”) that it implicates the constitutional right and requires analysis under the four-part test articulated in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984)?
It is the first time in over 30 years that the Supreme Court will hear a case involving the right to a public trial, since its 1992 decision in Watters v. State, 328 Md. 38 (1992). In Watters, the SCM found a violation of the right to a public trial after a deputy sheriff, citing an overcrowded courtroom, prevented the public, the press, and members of the defendant’s family, from entering the courtroom for an entire morning during which voir dire and jury selection occurred. The SCM held that this was not a de minimis violation.
Read More…Whren, Whren, Go Away…: Could the Days of the “Pretextual Traffic Stop” Be Numbered?
By Tia L. Holmes[*]
The “pretextual traffic stop”[1] issue appears to be on the minds of more and more lawyers and judges these days. The issue stems from a policing practice that was approved by the United States Supreme Court in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996).[2] For decades, critics have expressed concern that Whren distorted or largely ignored the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that preceded it, gutted Fourth Amendment protections for drivers and passengers, and authorized racial profiling[3] on America’s roadways.[4] These days, it is common to find briefs, scholarly works, and dissenting opinions decrying the policing practice. Even during an oral argument, it is difficult to avoid a discussion about pretextual traffic stops when the circumstances of a traffic stop are at issue.
Last year, I authored a post discussing Judge Dan Friedman’s concurrence in Snyder v. State, 2023 WL 1497289 (Feb. 3, 2023), in which he expressed his view that “Whren was wrong when it was decided in 1996 and remains both wrong and dangerous today.” My dedication to this issue has revealed that Judge Friedman is not alone. He joins dissenting judges throughout the country who also are concerned about Whren’s ongoing effects.[5] But judges have not only dissented. At least two states have declared pretextual traffic stops unconstitutional and departed from Whren on state constitutional grounds.[6] So, what does this mean for Maryland?
Read More…When a Woman’s Questions About Her Right to Choose Is Proof of Intent to Kill at Birth
In Akers v. State (September Term 2022, No. 0925) (unreported), Moira Akers searched the Internet for information about aborting her pregnancy. Akers’ pregnancy was in the first trimester, and she was within her rights to investigate her options to end it. She chose to continue the pregnancy. Still, her cell phone kept a digital record of her search history. Following the death of her newborn—which she maintained was stillborn during a home birth—the police seized her phone and reviewed her search history. At her trial for the first-degree murder of her infant, the prosecutor offered Akers’ search history as proof of her intent to kill the newborn infant. Akers objected, arguing that her questions about her right to lawfully terminate the pregnancy did not generate an inference of an intent to kill a newborn child at birth. In a case of first impression, the Appellate Court of Maryland (ACM) held that Akers’ Internet searches for abortion information made it more likely that she intended to kill her newborn child. The ACM cautioned that its holding “should be read narrowly, and in strict accordance with the specific facts of this case.” Still, the ACM’s decision implicates important questions about a woman’s reproductive rights in the context of a criminal case after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Read More…Questions Remain About Self-Defense Jury Questions
There are very few dissents in the Appellate Court of Maryland: By my slapdash and amateurish count — which will have some built-in double-counting and so isn’t precisely accurate — out of 899 opinions of the court in 2023, there were only 7 dissents, meaning the panels disagree roughly 0.8 percent of the time. When one issue resurfaces in dissents twice within the same year, it’s worth taking note.
Byrd v. State, No. 1787, Sept. Term 2021 (App. Ct. Md. Jan. 23, 2023), last January contained some conflicting ink in regards to the “some evidence” standard to get a jury instruction relating to “imperfect self-defense,” an issue that was also in play recently in Hollins v. State, No. 2023, Sept. Term 2022 (App. Ct. Md. Dec. 14, 2023), albeit in regards to the alleged violent propensity of a witness. The case stems from a parking-lot fight between McDonald’s coworkers Isiah Hollins and Alexander Alvarenga that resulted in Mr. Hollins stabbing Mr. Alvarenga in the head six or seven times.
Read More…Denial of a Detail and Implied Fabrication under § CJP 10-923: A Matter of First Impression
In Green v. State (No. 0854, September Term 2022), the Appellate Court of Maryland (ACM) decided, as a matter of first impression, whether the defendant’s denial of just one of the elements of the offense amounts to an implied allegation of fabrication necessary for the admission of a prior sexually assaultive act under Cts. & Jud. Procs. (CJP) § 10-923. The ACM also applied the Maryland Supreme Court’s recent decision in Woodlin v. State, 484 Md. 253 (2023), to decide whether the probative value of Green’s prior sexually assaultive behavior was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Read More…Maryland Certiorari Statistics, 2021 and 2022 Terms
For several years, I’ve tracked the Supreme Court of Maryland’s petition docket. The judiciary’s annual statistical reports give the overall grant rate for civil and criminal certiorari petitions. Because unrepresented (pro se) parties file the majority of petitions each year, however, the overall statistics are not terribly helpful for lawyers in advising their clients regarding the odds of certiorari.
Below are the statistics for the Court’s 2021 Term (petitions docketed 3/1/2021 to 2/28/2022) and 2022 Term (3/1/2022 to 2/28/2023),[*] alongside the statistics for the 2020 Term (petitions filed 3/1/2020 to 2/28/2021) for comparison.
Read More…4-3 Reversal Over Violation of Right to Counsel, both under the Sixth Amendment and Articles 21 and 24
Clark v. State (No. 25. September Term 2022, opinion by Honorable Shirley M. Watts), decided on the last day of the term, is unusual and remarkable. This 132-page, 4-3 opinion is really a 4-4-3-3 decision which includes a majority opinion by Justice Watts, joined by Justices Hotten, Biran, and Eaves, a concurring opinion by Justice Biran joined by the same Justices as the majority (Justices Watts, Hotten, and Eaves), a first dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Fader joined by Justices Gould and Booth, and a second dissenting opinion by Justice Gould, joined by Chief Justice Fader and Justice Booth. The majority opinion is remarkable because it holds that defense counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s improper order prohibiting a testifying defendant from communicating with counsel during an overnight recess resulted in the actual denial of the Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel and the right to counsel under Article 21 and 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
Of particular note is Justice Biran’s concurring opinion regarding the Maryland Declaration of Rights. He writes: “[t]he right to counsel is arguably the most important right enshrined in the Maryland’s Constitution. I expect that, when the Supreme Court eventually decides whether the Sixth Amendment provides the same amount of protection as Article 21 and Article 24 do in this context, it will answer in the affirmative. But if I am wrong about that, then I will be proud that Maryland provides a more robust right to counsel in this context under Article 21 and Article 24.” There is indeed a lot to be proud about in the majority and concurring opinions.
Read More…Sex Offense Trials: The Path Forward for CJP § 10-923
This summer, the Maryland Supreme Court decided Woodlin v. State, No. 22, Sept. Term, 2022 (July 26, 2023) (opinion by Eaves, J.), the first opinion interpreting Maryland’s Repeat Sexual Predator Prevention Act of 2018, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) § 10-923.
Read More…
Maryland Appellate Blog 