The Potential After-Effects of DeWolfe’s Implementation – Expanding Maryland v. King to Begin Testing All Arrestee DNA
By Michael Wein
There’s less than two weeks before the Maryland General Assembly adjourns sine die on April 7th. This poses an upcoming deadline for passing legislation complying with the Maryland Court of Appeals’ DeWolfe decision that criminal Defendants have a Constitutional right to representation in their initial bail determinations. The three main proposals are on the table, though a mixture of them is also possible. These proposals are (1) to have comprehensive and supposedly objective Preliminary bail determinations delegated to administrative Pretrial Services employees (that will effectively scrap the current system of review by a neutral magistrate, and thereby no Constitutional violations since no Counsel will be permitted), (2) an expansive and supposedly more expensive representation schema in place that will have full time defense attorneys representing defendants, and additional costs for judges, Court commissioners, courthouse security, etc., and (3) permitted some criminal defendants to affirmatively waive their right to Counsel for an initial appearance in order to get a pre-trial appearance before a Court Commissioner and release. (In the past day, after this was written but before being posted, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee favored by a 7-4 vote, Option 1, the Pretrial services approach.) Read More…
Maryland Certiorari Grants, March 2014
The Court of Appeals today granted certiorari in six cases. The text from the Court’s website is below:
Anne Arundel County, Maryland, et al. v. Steve Bell, et al.– Case No. 29, September Term, 2014
Issues – Zoning and Planning – 1) Whether the prima facie aggrievement standard established in Bryniarski v. Montgomery County Bd. of Appeals, 247 Md. 137 (1967), should be expanded beyond challenges to administrative land use decisions to include challenges to legislative comprehensive zoning enactments? 2) Whether the “almost prima facie” standard as established in Ray v. Mayor of Baltimore, 430 Md. 74 (2013), should be expanded beyond challenges to administrative land use decisions to include challenges to legislative comprehensive zoning enactments? 3) Whether noise from a predicted increase in traffic constitutes “special damages”?
Falls Garden Condominium Association, Inc. v. Falls Homeowners Association, Inc.– Case No. 30, September Term, 2014
Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Whether it was error to enforce the Letter of Intent given the parties never intended to be bound by the Letter of Intent and the Letter of Intent does not contain all material terms? 2) Did the lower court err in failing to hold a full plenary hearing on the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement since the existence of a binding and enforceable agreement was contested and there were contradicting proffers regarding a material issue, i.e. whether the parties intended to be bound by the Letter of Intent?
Carol Jane Gray, et al. v. Howard County Board of Elections, et al.– Case No. 107, September Term, 2013
Issues – Election Law – 1) Was the Board of Elections’ determination that the referendum summary was not “fair and accurate” is arbitrary, capricious and illegal as a matter of law? 2) Is the referendum summary as presented “fair and accurate” as required by EL § 6-201(c)(2)(i)?
Metro Maintenance Systems South, Inc. v. Thomas Milburn, et al.– Case No. 31, September Term, 2014
Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in its decision that the lower court’s remand order was not a “final judgment” as defined by CJP § 12-301? 2) Did the lower court act arbitrarily and capriciously in remanding a final administrative decision to the processes of an administrative agency without conducting any record review and without any finding of fraud, mistake, inadvertence, cognizable defect, intervening factors or subsequent events? 3) Did CSA properly decide Anne Arundel County v. Rode, 214 Md.App. 702 (2013), and properly apply that ruling to the procedural circumstances in this case?
In the Matter of Carol Jane Gray, et al.– Case No. 106, September Term, 2013
Issue – Election Law – Within the context of the decision-making required by EL § 6-208(a)(2), was the Board of Elections’ determination that the referendum summary was not “fair and accurate” arbitrary, capricious and illegal as a matter of law?
State of Maryland v. Charles William Callahan – Case No. 28, September Term, 2014
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that the lower court violated the doctrine of the separation of powers in finding respondent in violation of his probation based upon his failure to comply with a lawful order of his probation agent where the order was a requirement of his mandatory parole release conditions? 2) Did CSA correctly hold that the lower court erred in revoking Callahan’s probation?
Four Reasons to End Calls for Justice Ginsburg’s Retirement
By Steve Klepper (Twitter: @MDAppeal)
[Updated, 6:21 p.m., March 17, 2014. See comment below for details.]
One gift that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg received for her 81st birthday was yet another editorial – this time by Erwin Chemerinsky– calling for her retirement. As soon as chatter dies down, we can expect a new round of editorials criticizing Justice Thomas’ silence at oral argument, followed by another round of calls for Justice Ginsburg to retire. (Maybe I should have saved my “Time Is a Flat Circle” reference for this post.)
A few quick thoughts: Read More…
New SCOTUSblog-type Listing of Pending Cases Available on Court of Appeals Website
By Michael Wein
A new “all in one” feature has appeared on the Maryland Court of Appeals website, providing a chronological listing of all “Pending cases.” This feature would appear to give the immediate ability and transparent reminder (for anyone interested) to know which cases have been pending the longest at the Court of Appeals. There are also links to (1) the date of the grant of certiorari, (2) the date and link to oral arguments, (3) if a recent decision was issued, and (4) the main Questions Presented. Read More…
Time Is a Flat Circle: More Briefing Ordered in Public Defender Cases
By Steve Klepper (Twitter: @MDAppeal)
Today’s order from the Court of Appeals in Clyburn v. Richmond makes me think of the already-famous line in True Detective: “You’ll do this again. Time is a flat circle.” The Court of Appeals again adhered to its holding that a right exists to counsel at initial appearances, and it ordered another round of briefing and argument. Read More…
Chief Justice Roberts, Civil Litigator at Heart
By Steve Klepper (Twitter: @MDAppeal)
Across the political spectrum of legal blogs, the Supreme Court’s decision in Kaley v. United States has drawn strong criticism, and Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent has drawn strong praise. A sampling of the commentaries appear at the end of this post.
Writing for the 6-to-3 majority, Justice Kagan summarized the Court’s holding as follows:
A federal statute, 21 U. S. C. §853(e), authorizes a court to freeze an indicted defendant’s assets prior to trial if they would be subject to forfeiture upon conviction. In United States v. Monsanto, 491 U. S. 600, 615 (1989), we approved the constitutionality of such an order so long as it is “based on a finding of probable cause to believe that the property will ultimately be proved forfeitable.” And we held that standard to apply even when a defendant seeks to use the disputed property to pay for a lawyer.
In this case, two indicted defendants wishing to hire an attorney challenged a pre-trial restraint on their property. The trial court convened a hearing to consider the seizure’s legality under Monsanto. The question presented is whether criminal defendants are constitutionally entitled at such a hearing to contest a grand jury’s prior determination of probable cause to believe they committed the crimes charged. We hold that they have no right to relitigate that finding.
Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, responded: Read More…
Court of Appeals Addresses Appellate Preservation of Sentencing Challenges
In Bryant v. State, No. 37, September Term 2013 (Feb. 3, 2014), the Court of Appeals re-affirmed the importance of preserving issues for appellate review, holding that the defendant had waived his challenge to the imposition of his sentence. The Court also concluded that – even if the issue had been preserved – the defendant’s sentence had been properly imposed. Read More…
Event: 50th Anniversary Commemoration Brady v. Maryland
Another invite for a great upcoming event appeared in our inbox:
“There is an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land. Only judges can put a stop to it.” These two sentences were written by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of United States v. Olsen. Brady v. Maryland was issued by the Supreme Court of the United States on May 13, 1963. It has, during the course of the past fifty years, been cited (as of February 18) 82,597 times. Under “The Brady Rule,” prosecutors are required to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession to the defense. “Brady material” or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favorable to the accused – evidence that goes towards negating a defendant’s guilt, that would reduce a defendant’s potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness. Read More…
The Elite Federal Bar in Baltimore, 1818 to 1834
by Steven M. Klepper (Twitter: @MDAppeal)
[On the anniversary (plus one day) of William Wirt’s argument before the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland, I am reprinting below an article that has previously appeared in The Federal Lawyer and Maryland Litigator. I would like to dedicate this re-print to my late cousin, Kevin Rooney, who passed away last June. When this article appeared in The Federal Lawyer in 2011, Kevin—who attended seminary in Baltimore before deciding to become a lawyer—emailed me regarding our Wirt connection. When Kevin served as Assistant Attorney General for Administration, he chose Wirt’s portrait to hang in his office at the U.S. Department of Justice. Kevin, however, found the happy balance between career and family that eluded Wirt.]
[The article is Copyrighted 2011, Steven M. Klepper.]
As the federal bar took shape in the early decades of the nineteenth century, Baltimore, Maryland, was home to a disproportionate share of that bar’s elite members. G. Edward White, in his volume of the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court, observed that the “period from 1815 to 1835 was one of the highwater marks in the history of the Supreme Court bar.”[1] Of the six pre-eminent attorneys whom Professor White profiled, three—Luther Martin, William Pinkney, and William Wirt—centered their trial practices in Baltimore. After the deaths of Martin and Pinkney in the early 1820s, future Chief Justice Roger Taney, himself an accomplished advocate before the Marshall Court, moved his practice to Baltimore. In a time when United States Attorney General was a part-time job, Pinkney, Wirt, and Taney all served in that role while maintaining private practices in Baltimore. Read More…
Maryland Appellate Blog 