The Court of Special Appeals celebrates being 50 years young
By Michael Wein
As highlighted in a media release on the Maryland Judiciary web site, Maryland’s intermediate appellate court, the Court of Special Appeals, is having a fiftieth anniversary celebration today. This is meant to coincide, exactly, with the first day, January 6, 1967, that the original five Court of Special Appeals judges were sworn to the newly created constitutional position (including the first Chief Judge of that Court, Robert C. Murphy, who went on to be Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals 5 years later, and after whom the appellate courts’ building is now named). Read More…
Goodbye Chris, Hello Brandon
By Steve Klepper (Twitter: @MDAppeal)
We have some exciting but bittersweet news. Longtime blog manager Chris Mincher has departed, but for the best of reasons. He has taken a new job as Deputy Legal Counsel in the Governor’s Office of Legal Counsel. Chris has taken the laboring oar countless times over the past three years. We offer him the sincerest thanks for his hard work, discerning editorial eye, good humor, and font expertise.
Fortunately, Brandon Moore has agreed to take over the role of blog manager. Brandon is an obvious choice. He served three federal clerkships, with Fourth Circuit Judge Andre M. Davis and U.S. District Judges Theodore D. Chuang and George L. Russell, III. During law school, Brandon served as the Managing Editor of the Maryland Law Review and interned for then-Chief Judge Robert M. Bell on the Court of Appeals of Maryland. He is now an associate with Gallagher, Evelius & Jones in Baltimore. I’ve had the pleasure of knowing Brandon for five years and am thrilled that he will be joining the blog.
Fourth Circuit invalidates police department’s social-networking policy as an impermissible prior restraint on speech
On December 15, in Liverman v. City of Petersburg, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an interesting opinion dealing with public-employee speech in the digital age. In a unanimous opinion written by Judge Wilkinson (and joined by Judge Traxler and USDJ Hendricks), the Court sided resoundingly with two Petersburg (Virginia) police officers disciplined for having violated the social-networking policy of their Department by criticizing it in posted Facebook comments.
Fourth Circuit Proves Infertile Ground for Heller Expansion
By Stuart Berman
Guest contributor
In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller[1], the Supreme Court revolutionized Second Amendment jurisprudence by holding unconstitutional the District of Columbia’s ban on possession of handguns in the home, as well as its requirement that all firearms in the home be stored in a manner that rendered them inoperable for immediate self‑defense. When the Court subsequently held in McDonald v. City of Chicago[2] that the Second Amendment applied to state and local governments, some observers predicted a string of decisions invalidating firearms prohibitions. Because the five states in the Fourth Circuit are home to a large population of firearms owners, and several of those states have loosened gun restrictions and even permitted “open carry” of weapons, firearms advocates had reason to hope the Fourth Circuit might to take the lead in reading Heller expansively. As a recent decision demonstrates, however, those hopes have not been fulfilled.
Fourth Circuit asks only if arbitrators did their job – not if they did it well
The Fourth Circuit recently reminded us that “[t]he scope of judicial review of an arbitration award ‘is among the narrowest known at law.’” UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Padussis, slip op. at 6, No. 15-2148 (4th Cir. Nov. 22, 2016) (citation omitted). When reviewing arbitrators’ decisions, reviewing courts ask only “whether the arbitrators did the job they were told to do – not whether they did it well, or correctly, or reasonably, but simply whether they did it.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted). A disgruntled UBS Financial Services likely wanted to borrow a phrase from Johnny Paycheck and tell the arbitrators to “take this job and shove it,” but its attempt to obtain relief from the arbitration decision fell on deaf judicial ears.[1]
December 2016 Maryland certiorari grants include life without parole, rule against perpetuities
The Court of Appeals of Maryland today posted nine certiorari grants. The full list, with questions presented, appears after the jump.
Md. High Court: No Post-Conviction DNA Test Requests After Alford Pleas
By John Grimm
The Court of Appeals recently held that defendants who plead guilty or enter an Alford plea are not eligible to request post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to Criminal Procedure § 8-201. Section 8-201 allows anyone convicted of a crime of violence to request DNA testing of evidence in their case, and § 8-201(d)(1) requires the court to order the requested testing if two conditions are satisfied:
(i) a reasonable probability exists that the DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence relevant to a claim of wrongful conviction or sentencing; and
(ii) the requested DNA test employs a method of testing generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
Md. Code Ann., Crim. Pro. § 8-201(d)(1). If the results of the DNA test are favorable to the petitioner, the court must open or reopen a post-conviction proceeding, or order a new trial. Id. § 8-201(i)(2).
Maryland Court of Appeals adds one case to its docket, subtracts another
By Steve Klepper (Twitter: @MDAppeal)
Keeping up regular updates to a blog isn’t easy, but the Maryland Court of Appeals is making things easier for us by issuing certiorari grants on a rolling basis. The Court’s monthly conference was yesterday. After the six grants earlier this month, there was only one cert-worthy case left. Read More…
COSA Dissent Watch: Battered-Spouse Syndrome and Murder-For-Hire
The case: Porter v. State, Sept. Term 2013, No. 1916 (Oct. 25, 2016)
The questions: Does Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. (“CJP”) § 10-916 permit a defendant implicated in a murder-for-hire scheme to introduce evidence of battered-spouse syndrome? Did the evidence in the case establish that the defendant had a subjective belief of an apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm?
Maryland Appellate Blog 