Adnan Syed entitled to new trial, Court of Special Appeals affirms. What’s next?
By Steve Klepper (Twitter: @MDAppeal)[*]
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland has issued its decision in Adnan Syed v. State of Maryland. The opinion, affirming that Syed is entitled to a new trial, is available here.
So what’s next? Read More…
Judicial Impartiality Can Be Difficult to Maintain
Many litigators have experienced those situations where a judge becomes interested in the case and asks a witness a follow-up question. It goes with the territory, right? So what about when a judge reopens your case instead of outright dismissing it? The Court of Special Appeals has an answer—the judge needs to be cautious when doing so or risk crossing the line of impartiality. See Payton v. State, CSA No. 2115, Sept. Term, 2016 (February 1, 2018).
March 2018 Maryland Certiorari Grants
Yesterday, the Court of Appeals granted six writs of certiorari – all for the September 2018 Term – including Frederick and Carroll Counties’ separate challenges to state regulation of stormwater runoff collection, the impact of technical difficulties in a correctional officer’s termination hearing, and whether a medical prescription is inadmissible hearsay when offered as a defense to the possession of controlled dangerous substances offense. Read More…
It’s OK; the trial judge knew what defense counsel meant – Watts v. State
A Maryland appellate court will ordinarily entertain a challenge concerning a jury instruction only if counsel objected promptly after the trial judge instructed the jury, clearly stating the grounds for the objection. Requiring counsel to make a prompt and clear objection gives the trial judge an opportunity to consider the objection and make any changes he or she deems necessary. But what happens when trial counsel makes an imprecise objection, which is followed by a quick discussion that indicates that the trial judge understands the objection and the point trial counsel is trying to make? That was the situation facing the Court of Appeals in Watts v. State, No. 17, Sept. Term 2017 (February 20, 2018). Read More…
Fourth Circuit resolves nuts-and-bolts questions of removal jurisdiction
By Steve Klepper (Twitter: @MDAppeal)
Practice in the Fourth Circuit means that you often rely on persuasive authority on questions where, in other Circuits, you might expect to find on-point precedent. By local rule, the Fourth Circuit only issues reported opinions in cases where it hears oral argument. It hears oral argument at one of the lowest rates in the country. And, even when it does hear argument, it might still issue unreported opinions in cases that outsiders might think worthy of publication.
I was pleasantly surprised, therefore, to see the Fourth Circuit issue the first precedential appellate opinion in the country on an issue that I frequently encounter.[*] Read More…
Supreme Court Circuit Split Watch – Fourth Circuit’s Decision in Kumar v. Sudan, on Proper Service of Foreign States in the U.S.
By Michael Wein
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals three weeks ago issued a reported opinion in Kumar et al. v. Sudan, addressing how and where a foreign country may be served under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3), which allows, in pertinent part, service by mail “requiring a signed receipt[] to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign state.” This case traces to the U.S.S. Cole bombing in 2000, when 17 Navy sailors lost their lives in a terrorism act against the servicemen and women docked in Yemen. While al Qaeda claimed responsibility as the source of the bombing, Sudan’s material support for the terrorist organization, was a focus of civil suits holding the country responsible in the tragedy. As Sudan similarly did in the face of civil suits filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia, (tracing to the 1998 Embassy Bombings in Tanzania and Kenya also by al Qaeda), Sudan felt that the proper response was apparently to not respond at all.[i] Read More…
Wallace-Bey v. State – not everything she said he said was hearsay.
Five months ago, I wrote about Porter v. State, 455 Md. 220 (2017), where a deeply divided Court of Appeals, in a 4-3 decision, held that a battered spouse may rely on the imperfect self-defense to stave off a first-degree murder charge, even in the absence of a contemporaneous threat to the defendant/battered spouse. In the view of the majority, the threat of inevitable harm can constitute a threat of imminent harm. But to the dissent, only a contemporaneous threat from the decedent can constitute a threat of imminent harm for purposes of either self-defense or imperfect self-defense.
Two months after the Porter opinion was rendered, the Court of Special Appeals decided Wallace-Bey v. State, 234 Md. App. 501 (2017), which was the first post-Porter reported appellate decision in Maryland to address battered spouse syndrome and imperfect self-defense. The Court, however, was not called on to assess the imminence of the threat to the defendant. Instead, the Court was faced with what it described as “the absurd position that the prosecution persuaded the trial court to adopt,” id. at 544, i.e., that any word emanating from the decedent’s mouth in the moments leading to when the defendant shot him to death – as well as any other words he uttered during the parties’ tortured and often violent relationship – constituted inadmissible hearsay. According to an exhaustive and biting opinion from Judge Kevin Arthur – an opinion which also serves as a comprehensive primer on the law of hearsay – the circuit court’s rulings were clearly wrong and just as clearly not harmless error. Judge Arthur’s opinion serves as a cautionary tale to trial lawyers – be careful espousing overly aggressive, and ultimately erroneous, legal positions, because what you might end up “winning” is reversible error. Or be careful what ruling you ask for, because you might just get it and might just have to live with the repercussions.
Editor’s note: The testimony of the Wallace-Bey trial, as detailed in the opinion by the Court of Special Appeals, contains graphic content that is now quoted or summarized below.
February 2018 Maryland Certiorari Grants
The Court of Appeals of Maryland added eight cases to its merits docket today. Expert standards have been a hot topic as of late, and today’s list includes expert issues in both civil and criminal cases. There are some nuts-and-bolts issues, like authentication rules and discovery sanctions. Not surprisingly, in light of a dissent by Judge Berger, the grants include the Kennedy Krieger Institute’s challenge to a negligence claim arising out of a lead paint study.
(We’ve been endeavoring to include links to any relevant Court of Special Appeals opinions, but it will take a little extra time because the “Search Site” feature on the judiciary’s website is still a bit wonky after last month’s launch of the redesigned site.) Read More…
Fourth Circuit adds to its line of cases on untimely criminal appeals.
Last week, I posted about United States v. Oliver, in which the Fourth Circuit held that the Court has the inherent authority to dismiss an untimely criminal appeal sua sponte. As that post was about to go live, the Fourth Circuit added to its limited jurisprudence in this area in United States v. Hyman, holding that the Government did not forfeit its objection to an untimely criminal appeal by waiting to file a motion to dismiss until after the defendant filed his opening brief. Read More…
Fourth Circuit holds that it can dismiss an untimely criminal appeal sua sponte, but should do so only in very limited circumstances.
In United States v. Oliver, the Fourth Circuit recently held that the Court has the inherent authority to dismiss an untimely criminal appeal sua sponte. As a general rule, the Court said, it will not use that authority; instead, it will rely on the government to raise an objection based on untimeliness. In rare cases, however, an untimely appeal can implicate judicial interests to such an extent that not intervening would harm the court as an institution. Only in such circumstances will the Fourth Circuit exercise its authority to dismiss a criminal appeal where the government has forfeited or waived its objection. Read More…
Maryland Appellate Blog 