The History of Family Relations on the Maryland Appellate Courts
On February 8, 2024, Governor Wes Moore appointed the Honorable Stephen Kehoe to fill the vacancy that his older brother, the Honorable Christopher Kehoe, created when he took senior status in August of last year. This judicial family affair led me to wonder whether there were other familial relationships amongst the judges on the appellate courts.
After Google and Wikipedia proved only marginally helpful, I decided to consult the real expert of Maryland judicial history—Chief Justice Joseph M. Getty. Unlike the supposed all-knowing internet, Chief Justice Getty did not disappoint. He offered three examples of blood relatives that have served on the Court as well as two additional pairs of judges who were related by marriage. Those judges are discussed below, with my thanks to Chief Justice Getty for his kind assistance.
Read More…Robert Badinter: Homage to a Visionary Advocate Across the Atlantic
Robert Badinter, a French lawyer, politician, and author, widely known across the Atlantic for his powerful advocacy and activism against the death penalty, died last week in France. Here in the United States, his death has largely gone unnoticed outside of the capital defense community. Still, there are few, if any, in France who do not recognize his name and mourn the loss of his voice. As the homages have poured in over the last several days, I wanted to share my thoughts as a French native and attorney about the legacy of a man whose accomplishments in the fields of human rights and civil liberties demonstrate the full potential of the art of advocacy.
Read More…Case Update: Muldrow v. State.
On December 6, 2023, the Appellate Court of Maryland held that a trial court: 1) must voir dire the jury regarding bias against sexual orientation where it is likely to be an issue in the case; and 2) that a trial court must consider whether expert testimony is admissible under Daubert even where the testimony involves a “widely accepted” methodology. See Albert M. Muldrow, Jr. v. Maryland, _____ Md. App. ____, No. 1898, Sept. Term, 2021 (filed Dec. 6, 2023) (Getty, J.).
Read More…Meet the Applicants for the Appellate Court (First Appellate Judicial Circuit)
Seven applicants have applied for the Appellate Court vacancy that will be created by the retirement of Judge Christopher B. Kehoe. The First Appellate Judicial Circuit includes Caroline, Cecil, Dorchester, Kent, Queen Anne’s, Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico and Worcester Counties.
The applicants are:
Read More…Recent Changes at Maryland’s Federal Courts
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland recently announced changes in leadership. By federal statute, selection of the chief judge of the circuit and district courts is based on seniority and age. In each court, the most senior active judge under the age of 65 years may serve as chief judge for a period of seven years.[1]
Read More…Special Appellate Panel: Fonts
By Chris Mincher, John Grimm, and Joe Dudek
Three weeks ago, the Maryland Supreme Court dropped a brief-writing bombshell by announcing that, for the first time in 26 years, it is revising the list of approved fonts. The change was prompted by this letter from Joe Dudek, but also follows multiple instances of font commentary here on the Maryland Appellate Blog: Chris Mincher took a walk through the Court’s typography requirements, including fonts, way back in 2014, and former Blog editor John Grimm offered his take on the Court’s font choices more recently in 2020.
To mark this milestone, we’ve invited Joe (specially assigned) and John (recalled) to join Chris for a special edition of our “Appellate Panel” digital roundtable discussions.
Read More…August 2023 Maryland Certiorari Grants
On August 11, 2023, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted a number of Petitions involving issues related to constitutional law, public safety, and public utilities. The issues presented are as follows:
Corey Cunningham, on behalf of Kodi Gaines, a minor v. Baltimore County, Maryland, et al. – Case No. 9, September Term, 2023
Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Did ACM err in holding that the law enforcement officer was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to petitioner’s innocent bystander’s substantive due process claim? 2) Does a party waive appellate rights in a second appeal following remand on an issue the trial court did not address in the proceedings prior to the first appeal?
In the Matter of Mark McCloy – Case No. 10, September Term, 2023
Issues – Public Safety – 1) Did ACM err in affirming the Maryland State Police’s (“MSP”) denial of petitioner’s application to purchase a regulated firearm? 2) Did ACM err in finding that the relevant Md. statute to be considered for equivalence is the statue in effect at the time of the application, not the statute in effect at the time of the out-of-state conviction? 3) Did ACM err in adopting a “substantial evidence” test that fails to provide clear criteria for determining the equivalence of out-of-state offenses and affords unreasonable deference to the agency’s changing statutory interpretations? 4) Did ACM err in finding that a “reasonable mind” could accept the MSP’s conclusion, given that MSP’s conclusion has abruptly and inexplicably changed absent any changes to the relevant facts or law?
In the Matter of the Petition of the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel – Case No. 11, September Term, 2023
Issues – Public Utilities – 1) Should the Public Service Commission’s interpretation of the Merger Order be given the usual deference afforded Commission evidentiary findings, rather than reviewed in the light of the parties’ reasonable understanding of the Merger Order at the time it was issued? 2) Does an increase of $7.8 million in corporate costs post-merger comply with the Merger Order’s plain language, intent, and purpose that the merger produce “tangible financial benefits” in the form of a “reduction in distribution rates” for customers?
Making the New Appeals Courthouse the “Supremiest”
By: Chris Mincher
It’s been two years since the Board of Public Works approved the contract to design the new Courts of Appeal building — but, given that it had a 10-year term, there still should be plenty of time for Fentress Architects to make innovative adjustments to its design. After all, a lot has changed since 2021, not the least of which is that the building now houses a “Supreme” Court. Of course everything legal that the Judiciary does is well-considered, but is it giving the same attention to making sure its new home is also “supreme”? If not, I have some ideas:
- Self-service checkout. Whether it’s in a brief or in oral argument opening remarks, a lot of unnecessary time can be spent recounting a case’s procedural background or explaining what the party’s request is. What a slog! In today’s world, convenience is king, and anyone who has walked into a recently updated McDonald’s knows there’s a better way: touch screen ordering, with helpful pictures.
Imagine similar time-saving “posture kiosks” awaiting litigants in the appeals building lobby. What court did your case start in? Just touch the corresponding photo! Case dismissed, or lose the verdict — press the frowning judge or the disapproving jury. For those looking for habeas relief, select the open jail cell. Add to cart, swipe your card to pay the filing fee, and submit, and the clerk will call your number when your argument is ready.
- Hologram projectors. Honestly, given how good the technology is already, we’re probably not too far away from arguing in front of a partially remote-but-hologram judicial panel like Anakin Skywalker at a Jedi Council meeting. If it’s possible that a headliner at Coachella can be Tupac Shakur, there’s no reason a Courts of Appeal building tour guide can’t be Thurgood Marshall.
- Special effects. Oyez, oyez, oyawn. To attract these newer generations growing up with limitless options for how to spend their time, the court needs to embrace what I call “appellatainment.” That means generating excitement from the get-go. No more judges quietly shuffling awkwardly into their seats while the crowd silently stands and waits — each judge should burst into the courtroom to a pumping individually selected theme song, accompanied by lasers and a fog machine, and the clerk yelling out “LLLLLLET’S GET READY TO ARGGGGGUUUUE!”
- Enhanced video. Last time I checked, the Supreme Court oral arguments webcast isn’t broadcast by any outlet, not even one of those B-list streaming services like Crackle. Part of that might be a substantial underinvestment in cinematography. Sure, there are a couple stationary cameras, but that doesn’t fully capture the thrill and riveting action of a fiery hot bench. Given that governmental success these days seems to be measured in viewership, the best way for the appellate courts to secure those coveted “sky high ratings” could be a Skycam. Given the recent runaway Netflix success of “Suits,” could the next big hit be “Robes”?
- Audience accommodations. Admit it: There’s something a little disappointing about rows and rows of empty seats for oral arguments. I refuse to believe that people have lost that much interest in the process of meticulously hashing out and deciding the state’s most important and complex legal questions. Rather, people’s expectations as spectators have changed — it’s not just about the quality of the product at the bench, but about the total fan experience.
This means taking a cue from recent movie theater upgrades so oral arguments can be taken in with the comfort of stadium-style seating, fully reclined in lounge chairs, while enjoying snacks and a craft beer from the lobby concessions. (“I’ll take a Re-butter-al Popcorn and an Amicus Ale, please!”) And in June and September while it’s still warm, how about “Family Fun Friday” arguments when you can sit in a special section where the clerk randomly throws a pitcher of water on you? Oh, and if there’s going to be stadium-style seating, accommodating those in the nosebleeds will obviously require installing in the courtroom a massive humongonormous Jumbotron.
- Decision-day ceremonies. Yes, there are a lot of ways the new Courts of Appeal building can take advantage of modern technology, but that doesn’t mean it should ignore tradition, either. Sure, announcing opinions from the bench might be more of a federal custom, but we could top that here in Maryland with a rooftop decree deck. After an email to the entire state bar notifying it that an opinion is final, the authoring judge slowly emerges on the proclaiming platform to the fanfare of trumpets, presents the ruling — I think we can all agree this should probably be on a scroll — and solemnly recites it to the exhilarated throngs of attorneys assembled on the plaza below.
July 2023 Maryland Certiorari Grants
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted certiorari in one case, which asks the Court to reconsider its decision in Stewart v. State, 399 Md. 146 (2007), in light of recent case law concerning voir dire.
The question presented is below.
Read More…Representation and Colorblindness in Maryland’s Appellate Courts
Among the most high-profile decisions issued by the United States Supreme Court last month was the conservative majority’s long-anticipated 6-3 opinion ending race-conscious admissions in virtually all public and private colleges. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harv. Coll., 143 S. Ct. 2141 (June 29, 2023). It did so on the grounds that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause mandates colorblindness when admitting or rejecting potential students. Drawing on Justice Harlan’s lone dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1898), the majority opinion (and concurrences) repeatedly emphasized that, although much of American society attributes meaning to racial identity and diversity, seventy years of Supreme Court jurisprudence has established—as a bedrock principle—a colorblind Constitution.
Read More…
Maryland Appellate Blog 