September 2023 Maryland Certiorari Grants
On September 22, 2023, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted a number of Petitions involving issues related to criminal procedure, contract interpretation, choice of law, and statutory interpretation. The issues presented are as follows:
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…2023 and the Summer of Daubert
The summer of 2023 brought us more than sunshine and cookouts. Each month this summer, the Supreme Court of Maryland handed down a major decision on Rule 5-702 and the Daubert/Rochkind standard for admissibility of expert testimony. June gave us Abruquah v. State, No. 10 (June 20, 2023). July gave us Oglesby v. Baltimore School Associates, No. 26 (July 26, 2023), and August 31, the last day of the 2022 term, brought us Katz, Abosch, Windesheim, Gershman& Freedman, P.A. v. Parkway Neuroscience and Spine Institute, LLC, No. 30 (Aug. 31, 2023). These opinions join the prior term’s lone high-court decision on the same issue, State v. Matthews, 479 Md. 278 (2022), giving us a total of four post-Rochkind Supreme Court precedents reviewing trial-court applications of the Daubert/Rochkind standard. See Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020). The 296 combined pages of opinions, concurrences, and dissents from this summer’s trilogy will be cited for decades to come in cases applying Rule 5-702. Each case addressed whether the expert’s challenged opinion had a sufficient factual basis under subsection (3) of Rule 5-702, which includes the inquiry into whether there exists an impermissible analytical gap between the expert’s methodology and conclusion.
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…After Six Months of Being Civil
In January, after 16 years with the Maryland Attorney General’s Criminal Appeals Division, I joined the appellate practice at Goodell, DeVries. After six months, I am reflecting on the biggest differences between civil and criminal practice.
The biggest shock for me has been the relative dearth of civil case law. In my first month at Goodell, I vainly searched for cases on nuanced points of civil litigation, terrified that my legal research skills had suddenly abandoned me. Eventually, I realized that searching was not the problem. The cases I wanted just don’t exist.
Read More…Zadeh v. State: Timeliness, Motion to Suppress, and Voluntariness
In Zadeh v. State (No. 11, Sept. Term 2022, Opinion by Hon. Andrea M. Leahy), the Appellate Court of Maryland (ACM) remanded the case – yet again – because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the voluntariness of Zadeh’s statement to police. Before reaching the merits, the ACM addressed the important question of the time requirement for filing motions to suppress on remand.
Brief Summary of Facts and First Reversal: On August 4, 2014, Takoma Park Police responded to a call reporting that a woman, Larlane Pannell-Brown, was screaming at her house. When the police arrived, they found her husband, face down, bleeding from trauma to his head. However, police were unconvinced by Ms. Pannell-Brown’s screams once they discovered that she was having an affair with Hussain Ali Zadeh, a man 20 years her junior. In the first trial, Zadeh was jointly tried with Pannell-Brown, and both were convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 30 years in prison. However, the Supreme Court of Maryland reversed Zadeh’s conviction because he was unfairly prejudiced by non-mutually admissible evidence at the joint trial. State v. Zadeh, 468 Md. 124, 163-64 (2020).
Read More…
Maryland Appellate Blog 