September 2016 Certiorari Grants
One day after its first oral arguments of the new term, the Court of Appeals of Maryland on Friday dropped an unexpected bundle of certiorari grants — the second set to be released in as many weeks. In two of the cases, the primary question presented is whether the odor of marijuana gives a police officer probable cause to search a vehicle; as we briefly noted here, depending on how the Court resolves that issue, there could be a lot of remandin’ happening with these later on down the line. Check out all the grants after the jump.
[Blog editor-in-chief Steve Klepper was not involved in the review, editing, or posting of this piece.]
“A Case About Nothing”: Ireton v. Chambers
If the iconic 1990s television comedy series “Seinfeld” was a show about nothing, then a recent decision of the Court of Special Appeals was – in the words of Judge Kevin Arthur – “a case about nothing.” Ireton v. Chambers, No. 1038, Sept. Term 2105, slip op. at 1 (July 28, 2016). But while the case might have been “about nothing,” the litigants disagreed about nearly everything, including what exactly the court was reviewing, what standard of review the court should employ, and how a statute granting qualified immunity to municipal officials should be interpreted.
Anthony Kennedy’s 80th Birthday and Trump’s Legacy
By Steve Klepper (Twitter: @MDAppeal)
Anthony Kennedy turns 80 today. In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, I’ve seen numerous posts from longtime Republicans to the effect of “I have no party anymore.” That thought may have popped into the head of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Read More…
Sorting through the “Nuts and Bolts of Maryland Appellate Practice”
On Wednesday night, I had the pleasure of attending the MSBA appellate advocacy program “Nuts and Bolts of Maryland Appellate Practice,” hosted by the Frederick County Bar Association. Headlining the panel were Court of Appeals Judge Lynne Battaglia, Court of Special Appeals Judge Kathryn Graeff, the Clerk of the Court of Special Appeals, Gregory Hilton, and practitioner Thomas Lynch of Miles & Stockbridge. Attached are the handouts from each speaker. Highlights after the jump.
February 2016 Maryland Certiorari Grants
For those staying on top of the prosecutions of the police officers implicated in the death of Freddie Gray — which Michael Wein has been covering for the Blog — last week was a big development, as the Maryland Court of Appeals postponed their trials to consider (assuming the issue is even properly appealed at all) whether defendant William Porter can be compelled to testify in those trials if his testimony won’t be used in his own upcoming retrial. As the story has been reported pretty much everywhere, we won’t recount all the details here; instead, we’ll note that, the day after the Court’s decisions, it released a bunch of other certiorari grants spanning some noteworthy issues. Check them out after the jump.
A Quick Correction on State v. Adnan Syed
By Steve Klepper
You may have seen a piece in the New York Times that quoted me on the State v. Adnan Syed case. The quotations, which the reporter read back to me on the phone, were correct. But a paraphrase that preceded those direct quotations conveys an incorrect impression of what I was saying. That paraphrase has now been repeated many times on Twitter and attributed to me as a direct quote.
Because the New York Times article identified me as the editor-in-chief of the Maryland Appellate Blog, I have spoken with the editorial board, which has agreed to allow me to post my letter to the reporter. A link to the letter is here.
Appellate Documents of Officers Charged in Freddie Gray Death Published Online
By Michael Wein
In the past two weeks, some of the officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray have sought appellate and injunctive relief. Before officer Caesar Goodson was to go on trial last week, fellow officer William Porter, a potential witness in that case, challenged the trial court’s decision to — despite his own pending retrial after a hung jury — admit his testimony from that trial with use and derivative-use immunity in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972). See also United States v. Oliver North, 910 F.2d 843 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (requiring full Kastigar hearing on use of non-immunized testimony and possible taint thereof). On January 12, Porter, proposing an expedited appellate schedule, had his request granted by the Court of Special Appeals, with abbreviated briefing and oral arguments in March.
Head out to Arizona for some appellate fun in the sun!
By Steve Klepper (Twitter: @MDAppeal)
It finally happened… winter temperatures are upon us after a warm El Niño December. I’d like to invite all of the blog’s readers to attend the DRI Appellate Advocacy program in Scottsdale, Arizona this February 10–12 in Scottsdale, Arizona. Registration information is at this link, and you can download the brochure here.
Faculty will include three U.S. Court of Appeals judges and two state supreme court justices. The program will be repeating my favorite event from last time – a moot court, followed by a simulated post-argument conference among the panel.
There’s no better time to visit Arizona than the dead of winter,[*] and this great program is a perfect opportunity to get out there. I hope to see you there!
[*] Good weather not guaranteed. El Niño works in mysterious ways.
The Love Song of J. Anthony Kennedy
By Steve Klepper (Twitter: @MDAppeal)
Last year for the holidays we here are the Maryland Appellate Blog brought you pictures of the adorable Sonia Soto-minor. This year’s silliness is The Love Song of J. Anthony Kennedy, a poem in the latest issue of The Green Bag. You can click here for the poem. Read More…
No “sandbagging” allowed – the purpose behind the preservation rule
No “sandbagging” allowed. That was a message conveyed by the Court of Appeals recently in Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105 (2015). The Court explained that the purpose behind the preservation rule – i.e.¸ the rule that provides that appellate courts will review only those issues that were raised and preserved in the trial court – is to avoid unfairness and to prevent “sandbagging.” Id. at 126. If a litigant wants an appellate court to review and correct what that litigant sees as an erroneous ruling made by the trial court, the litigant must have given the trial judge a fair chance to make the correct ruling and to fix any mistakes that he or she made. In other words, the trial judge shouldn’t be “sandbagged.” And as one of the cases cited by the Peterson Court demonstrates, the concern for fairness applies also to opposing counsel. Robinson v. State, 410 Md. 91, 104 (2009); see also e.g. In re Kaleb K, 390 Md. 502, 513 (2006) (holding that petitioner’s argument was not preserved and that allowing petitioner to raise on appeal a new argument, which had not been raised and argued in the circuit court, “would result in ‘sandbagging’ the State and the trial . . . court, which is the precise result that Rule 8-131(a) was designed to avoid”).[1]
Maryland Appellate Blog 