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…June 2023 Maryland Certiorari Grants
On June 16, 2023, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review in three cases (all civil appeals). Those cases, with questions presented, are below.
Read More…The Right to Fair and Impartial Judges on Appeal: Belton
By: Isabelle Raquin
Last week, the Supreme Court of Maryland issued the much-anticipated decision concerning appellate impartiality in Belton v. State, No. 8, September Term 2022.
Who knew that, when this case was appealed to the Appellate Court of Maryland on a single, straightforward question regarding hearsay and self-defense, and submitted on briefs, it would turn into a matter of first impression in the Supreme Court implicating the right to fair and impartial judges on appeal?
Read More…Must See Appellate Panels at MSBA Legal Summit 2023
By: Meaghan Murphy
If you’re attending the MSBA Annual Summit this week in Ocean City, we hope you’ll stop by three panels sponsored or co-sponsored by the MSBA Section of Litigation’s Appellate Practice Committee.
Thursday, June 8, at 1:30 p.m.
You’ve Filed an Appeal – Now What???
(Room 209, co-sponsored with the Litigation Section)
The Hon. Gregory E. Wells (Chief Judge, Appellate Court of Maryland) will offer a behind-the-scenes view of the appellate process, joined by members of the ADR Court Staff and experienced appellate practitioners, including:
- Crystal Curry
- Andrew Fontanella
- Kathryn (Katie) Huff
- Faten Gharib
- and the Maryland Appellate Blog’s own Steven M. Klepper
Daubert “Fit” and the “Appropriateness” of Expert Testimony Under Rule 5-702(2)
With Maryland’s formal adoption of the Daubert standard for admissibility of expert testimony in all civil and criminal cases, the meaning of Maryland Rule 5-702 should now mirror the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 702. But the textual structure and ordering of the two rules still differs. The federal rule was revised in 2000 to better reflect the holdings of the Daubert trilogy. The Maryland rule was modeled after FRE 702 as it existed in 1995.
Despite their different structure and ordering, the two rules, which are presented in full at the bottom of this post, share three core requirements for expert testimony:
- Qualifications: both rules require that the witness be “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”
- Helpfulness: Both rules require that the testimony will either “help” (FRE 702(a)) or “assist” (Md. R. 5-702) “the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.”
- Sufficient Factual Basis: The rules require that the testimony rest upon either “a sufficient factual basis” (Md. R. 5-702(3)) or “sufficient facts or data” (FRE 702(b)). Incorporating the Daubert trilogy, the federal rule then spells out that the testimony must be “the product of reliable principles and methods” (FRE 702(c)) that were “reliably applied” to “the facts of the case.” (FRE 702(d)). Maryland has long imposed the same requirement through case law. See Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1, 22 (2020).
Suing State-Court Judges: An Anti-Primer
By Joseph Dudek
Because suing judges is often ill-advised, the doctrines governing those lawsuits are often ill-considered. In resolving a lawsuit against a prosecutor, the Supreme Court largely missed that the lawsuit was really against judges. However, Justice Thomas didn’t miss it and state-court practitioners should take lessons from what Justice Thomas’s dissent says about federal jurisdiction and procedure.
Read More…Boundless at the Trial Level, Toothless on Appeal: Maryland’s Law on Sentencing.
A few weeks ago, our Editor-in-Chief, Steve Klepper, wrote a piece entitled “Mental Illness and Maryland’s Toothless Review of Criminal Sentences” regarding the unreported decision, Robbins v. State. In Robbins (Nazarian, J.), the Court lamented, in dicta, about the lack of meaningful appellate review of a classic “over-sentence” for a defendant who suffered from severe mental health issues. In contrast, on March 8, 2023, the Appellate Court of Maryland chose to report Robson v. State, ACM-REG-0764-2022) (Moylan, J.) a decision affirming the trial court’s sentence that was substantially above the State’s recommendation, and without any of the regrets expressed in Robbins. Robson precisely makes Mr. Klepper’s point: a sentencing judge has boundless discretion and the appellate court’s review is toothless. Robson also suggests that changes in the status quo is unlikely without legislative action or new caselaw emanating from the Supreme Court of Maryland.
Read More…Kenneth Ravenell seeks Rehearing En Banc
On May 9, 2023, Kenneth Ravenell filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc of the panel majority’s holding that Mr. Ravenell was not entitled to a jury determination on the applicability of the statute of limitations after Mr. Ravenell raised the defense at trial.
By way of background, Mr. Ravenell was acquitted of six of the seven charges against him, the sole count of conviction was for conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). At trial, Mr. Ravenell moved for judgment of acquittal arguing, inter alia, that the government had not proven that the money laundering conspiracy lasted into the applicable statute of limitations period, past July 2, 2014. The district court denied the motion for acquittal, finding that the government had shown evidence of acts associated with the conspiracy past July 2, 2014, and that there was no evidence of withdrawal from the conspiracy on Mr. Ravenell’s behalf. At the end of the defense case, Mr. Ravenell renewed his motion which the court again denied.
Read More…
Maryland Appellate Blog 