Abruquah v. State debates abuse of discretion under Rule 5-702.
The Supreme Court of Maryland’s recent 4-3 decision in Abruquah v. State takes a strict view of the admissibility of firearms identification testimony under Rule 5-702. (Sept. 2022 Term, Case No. 10) (decided June 20, 2023). The decision raises complex questions about whether defendants can retroactively challenge criminal convictions that were supported by such testimony. But I will leave that issue to others. Here, I want to focus on the Justices’ vigorous debate over the abuse-of-discretion standard under Rule 5-702.
Read More…In Zadnik v. Ambinder, the Appellate Court revisits the Dead Man’s Statute and Choice of Law Issues.
In Zadnik v. Ambinder, ___ Md. App. ___ (2023), the Appellate Court recently reviewed whether a trial court should have recognized a common law marriage from Pennsylvania, so to give the plaintiff standing to bring a wrongful death lawsuit in Maryland. The opinion offers key lessons for appellate and trial practitioners, in choice of law, the dead man’s statute, and preservation.
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
For Murphy’s Memorial, His Five Most-Cited Court of Appeals Cases
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court of Maryland will hold a special session to host a memorial service for one of its former members, the Hon. Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., who died in July of last year. There will be speeches by Erin Murphy and Richard Karceski, followed by a response by Justice Eaves — but no number of presenters can adequately convey just how many lives and careers Judge Murphy helped shape in the state’s legal profession. (I among them: Judge Murphy helped recruit me to my first job practicing law as an associate at Silverman Thompson Slutkin White, and he was always available to impart his wisdom on whatever tricky legal and appellate questions I encountered.) His widespread influence will long be felt.
Judge Murphy’s opinions endure across Maryland jurisprudence. In conjunction with today’s event, here are Judge Murphy’s five most-cited Court of Appeals cases — at least, according to an informal survey on LexisNexis — a brief sample of his expertise on evidence, adherence to procedure, and versatility in advancing the law in numerous practice areas.
Read More…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 