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…
Three New Court of Special Appeals Judges Named
Huge news here at the Maryland Appellate Blog! One of our editors, Kevin Arthur, is among three judges named today to the Court of Special Appeals. Kevin is also one of my law partners, and I couldn’t be happier for him. Below are the three appointees’ bios from the Governor’s press release:
Governor O’Malley announced the appointment of three judges to the Court of Special Appeals.
Judge Michael Wilson Reed has served on the Circuit Court for Baltimore City since 2011. Prior to his appointment to the Circuit Court bench, Judge Reed practiced as a litigator for over twenty years in both the public and private sectors. His public service included five years as an Assistant Attorney General at the Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene and eleven years as an Assistant State’s Attorney for Baltimore City. Judge Reed is the President-Elect of the Bar Association of Baltimore City. He earned a law degree from George Washington University’s National Law Center and an undergraduate degree from College of the Holy Cross.
Andrea Margaretta Leahy-Fucheck has been a partner with the firm of Leahy & DeSmet, LLC since 2006. Previously, she served as Chief Legal Counsel to Governor Parris Glendening, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, Associate County Attorney for Prince George’s County, and Of Counsel at Whiteford Taylor Preston LLP. Ms. Leahy-Fucheck also served as a member of the State Ethics Commission and was twice named as one of the Daily Record’s Top 100 Women. She earned a law degree from American University’s Washington College of Law and a bachelor of arts from Catholic University.
Kevin Francis Arthur is a principal with Kramon & Graham PA, where he has spent his entire legal career. Mr. Arthur has represented clients in state and federal courts throughout the United States, in regulatory proceedings before state and federal agencies, and in arbitration cases, including cases before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. He has also served on bar committees examining best practices in civil pattern jury instructions and appellate advocacy, and he is the current chair of the Maryland State Bar Association’s Committee on Laws. Mr. Arthur earned a law degree from the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law and an undergraduate degree from the University of Maryland, College Park.
Maryland Certiorari Grants, February 2014
The Court of Appeals of Maryland granted certiorari in three cases on Friday. The cases, with questions presented, are below.
Granted February 21, 2014
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1300 and David A. McClure v. William T. Lovelace, Jr.– Case No. 25, September Term, 2014
Issue – Labor & Employment – Is an internal union remedy “inadequate” under Md. common law if it does not allow for the monetary damages that the plaintiff seeks in court?
Joseph F. Cunningham, et al. v. Matthew Feinberg– Case No. 27, September Term, 2014
Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Does application of the Md. choice of law principle of lex loci contractus preclude a claim under the Md. Wage Payment and Collection Law (MD. Code Ann. Lab. & Empl. § 3-501 et seq. (“MWPCL”))? 2) Does proper application of lex loci contractus preclude respondent’s MWPCL claim?
Dennis J. Kelly, Jr. v. George W. Duvall, Jr., et al.– Case No. 26, September Term, 2014
Issues – Estates & Trusts – 1) Did the lower court err in construing the Will in a manner inconsistent with Md. Code Ann. Estates & Trusts § 4-401 and finding that it imposed survivorship as a condition precedent to inheritance under the Will? 2) Did the lower court err in construing the Will as demonstrating the Testatrix’s contrary intent sufficient to overcome the presumption that § 4-403 (2013) (the “anti-lapse” statute) applies?
State Seeks Reversal of DeWolfe II: What Do You Think?
Yesterday, the State filed its opening brief in Ben C. Clyburn et al. v. Quinton Richmond et al., No. 105, Sept. Term 2013. Clyburn v. Richmond addresses the injunction entered by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to implement DeWolfe II, which found a state constitutional right to counsel at initial appearances. The State has asked the Court of Appeals to reverse DeWolfe II. The State’s summary of that argument (from pages 27 through 29 of the brief) is pasted below. We’d love for our readers to start a conversation on both the substance and the form of that argument. Click here or go down to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this post. Read More…
Maryland Appellate Blog 