4-3 Reversal Over Violation of Right to Counsel, both under the Sixth Amendment and Articles 21 and 24
Clark v. State (No. 25. September Term 2022, opinion by Honorable Shirley M. Watts), decided on the last day of the term, is unusual and remarkable. This 132-page, 4-3 opinion is really a 4-4-3-3 decision which includes a majority opinion by Justice Watts, joined by Justices Hotten, Biran, and Eaves, a concurring opinion by Justice Biran joined by the same Justices as the majority (Justices Watts, Hotten, and Eaves), a first dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Fader joined by Justices Gould and Booth, and a second dissenting opinion by Justice Gould, joined by Chief Justice Fader and Justice Booth. The majority opinion is remarkable because it holds that defense counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s improper order prohibiting a testifying defendant from communicating with counsel during an overnight recess resulted in the actual denial of the Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel and the right to counsel under Article 21 and 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
Of particular note is Justice Biran’s concurring opinion regarding the Maryland Declaration of Rights. He writes: “[t]he right to counsel is arguably the most important right enshrined in the Maryland’s Constitution. I expect that, when the Supreme Court eventually decides whether the Sixth Amendment provides the same amount of protection as Article 21 and Article 24 do in this context, it will answer in the affirmative. But if I am wrong about that, then I will be proud that Maryland provides a more robust right to counsel in this context under Article 21 and Article 24.” There is indeed a lot to be proud about in the majority and concurring opinions.
Read More…Sex Offense Trials: The Path Forward for CJP § 10-923
This summer, the Maryland Supreme Court decided Woodlin v. State, No. 22, Sept. Term, 2022 (July 26, 2023) (opinion by Eaves, J.), the first opinion interpreting Maryland’s Repeat Sexual Predator Prevention Act of 2018, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) § 10-923.
Read More…2023 and the Summer of Daubert
The summer of 2023 brought us more than sunshine and cookouts. Each month this summer, the Supreme Court of Maryland handed down a major decision on Rule 5-702 and the Daubert/Rochkind standard for admissibility of expert testimony. June gave us Abruquah v. State, No. 10 (June 20, 2023). July gave us Oglesby v. Baltimore School Associates, No. 26 (July 26, 2023), and August 31, the last day of the 2022 term, brought us Katz, Abosch, Windesheim, Gershman& Freedman, P.A. v. Parkway Neuroscience and Spine Institute, LLC, No. 30 (Aug. 31, 2023). These opinions join the prior term’s lone high-court decision on the same issue, State v. Matthews, 479 Md. 278 (2022), giving us a total of four post-Rochkind Supreme Court precedents reviewing trial-court applications of the Daubert/Rochkind standard. See Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020). The 296 combined pages of opinions, concurrences, and dissents from this summer’s trilogy will be cited for decades to come in cases applying Rule 5-702. Each case addressed whether the expert’s challenged opinion had a sufficient factual basis under subsection (3) of Rule 5-702, which includes the inquiry into whether there exists an impermissible analytical gap between the expert’s methodology and conclusion.
Read More…Making the New Appeals Courthouse the “Supremiest”
By: Chris Mincher
It’s been two years since the Board of Public Works approved the contract to design the new Courts of Appeal building — but, given that it had a 10-year term, there still should be plenty of time for Fentress Architects to make innovative adjustments to its design. After all, a lot has changed since 2021, not the least of which is that the building now houses a “Supreme” Court. Of course everything legal that the Judiciary does is well-considered, but is it giving the same attention to making sure its new home is also “supreme”? If not, I have some ideas:
- Self-service checkout. Whether it’s in a brief or in oral argument opening remarks, a lot of unnecessary time can be spent recounting a case’s procedural background or explaining what the party’s request is. What a slog! In today’s world, convenience is king, and anyone who has walked into a recently updated McDonald’s knows there’s a better way: touch screen ordering, with helpful pictures.
Imagine similar time-saving “posture kiosks” awaiting litigants in the appeals building lobby. What court did your case start in? Just touch the corresponding photo! Case dismissed, or lose the verdict — press the frowning judge or the disapproving jury. For those looking for habeas relief, select the open jail cell. Add to cart, swipe your card to pay the filing fee, and submit, and the clerk will call your number when your argument is ready.
- Hologram projectors. Honestly, given how good the technology is already, we’re probably not too far away from arguing in front of a partially remote-but-hologram judicial panel like Anakin Skywalker at a Jedi Council meeting. If it’s possible that a headliner at Coachella can be Tupac Shakur, there’s no reason a Courts of Appeal building tour guide can’t be Thurgood Marshall.
- Special effects. Oyez, oyez, oyawn. To attract these newer generations growing up with limitless options for how to spend their time, the court needs to embrace what I call “appellatainment.” That means generating excitement from the get-go. No more judges quietly shuffling awkwardly into their seats while the crowd silently stands and waits — each judge should burst into the courtroom to a pumping individually selected theme song, accompanied by lasers and a fog machine, and the clerk yelling out “LLLLLLET’S GET READY TO ARGGGGGUUUUE!”
- Enhanced video. Last time I checked, the Supreme Court oral arguments webcast isn’t broadcast by any outlet, not even one of those B-list streaming services like Crackle. Part of that might be a substantial underinvestment in cinematography. Sure, there are a couple stationary cameras, but that doesn’t fully capture the thrill and riveting action of a fiery hot bench. Given that governmental success these days seems to be measured in viewership, the best way for the appellate courts to secure those coveted “sky high ratings” could be a Skycam. Given the recent runaway Netflix success of “Suits,” could the next big hit be “Robes”?
- Audience accommodations. Admit it: There’s something a little disappointing about rows and rows of empty seats for oral arguments. I refuse to believe that people have lost that much interest in the process of meticulously hashing out and deciding the state’s most important and complex legal questions. Rather, people’s expectations as spectators have changed — it’s not just about the quality of the product at the bench, but about the total fan experience.
This means taking a cue from recent movie theater upgrades so oral arguments can be taken in with the comfort of stadium-style seating, fully reclined in lounge chairs, while enjoying snacks and a craft beer from the lobby concessions. (“I’ll take a Re-butter-al Popcorn and an Amicus Ale, please!”) And in June and September while it’s still warm, how about “Family Fun Friday” arguments when you can sit in a special section where the clerk randomly throws a pitcher of water on you? Oh, and if there’s going to be stadium-style seating, accommodating those in the nosebleeds will obviously require installing in the courtroom a massive humongonormous Jumbotron.
- Decision-day ceremonies. Yes, there are a lot of ways the new Courts of Appeal building can take advantage of modern technology, but that doesn’t mean it should ignore tradition, either. Sure, announcing opinions from the bench might be more of a federal custom, but we could top that here in Maryland with a rooftop decree deck. After an email to the entire state bar notifying it that an opinion is final, the authoring judge slowly emerges on the proclaiming platform to the fanfare of trumpets, presents the ruling — I think we can all agree this should probably be on a scroll — and solemnly recites it to the exhilarated throngs of attorneys assembled on the plaza below.
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…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…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…The Practical and Historical Rationales for the “Supreme Court of Maryland” with “Justices”
By Michael Wein[*]
The title “Supreme Court” today seems like a natural and organic name to call the highest appellate court in a State. An historical refresher of the name helps explain why Maryland did not originally call its High Court the “Supreme Court of Maryland.” That is, until the recent Constitutional Amendment was approved by Maryland voters and officially adopted on December 14, 2022.
When the United States was founded, Colonial appellate courts previously existed, tracing to at least the 1600s, well before the United States Supreme Court. The “United States Supreme Court,” as a title, was developed as part of the United States Constitution drafted in 1787 and Congress’ 1789 Judiciary Act. The first “Session” with Supreme Court Justices later began in 1790. See Dallas Reports of Cases Ruled and Adjudged in the Several Courts of United States and of Pennsylvania, Vol. II, 1798, Pg. 399.
Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts colonies were the first American colonies with defined appellate courts, though functioned a bit differently than today. For example, when Maryland was ready to join the United States proper, as the 7th Admittee to the Union, the Maryland colony changed the Court’s name, as well, from the “Provincial” Court to the “Court of Appeals of Maryland,” as part of Maryland’s 1776 Constitution. Maryland’s original appellate courts were titled as the “Provincial” appellate court and arguably began with a law passed in 1637 or 1638, though weren’t established before about 1642, with further changes enacted in the 1660s and 1690s. See, e.g., Wilson v. Simms, 380 Md. 206, 220 (2004) (J. Battaglia, discussing Maryland’s appellate court history, which included the then-nascent province of Maryland establishing a system of oversight with a mixture of executive and judicial functions, including appellate jurisdiction, which mirrored the Common Law system of England); see also The Maryland Court of Appeals-A Bibliography of Its History, 1987 (Compiled by Michael S. Miller, Director, Maryland State Law Library); The Court of Appeals of Maryland, A History, Bond, Carroll T. (Chief Judge of the Court), Baltimore, (1928), pg. 1.
Read More…Much Ado About Something: Freedom from Targeted Searches and Seizures Based on the Alleged Odor of Cannabis
By Michele D. Hall,[*]
Guest Contributor
In the last moments of the General Assembly’s 2023 legislative session, the House passed HB1071, which prohibits police from stopping or searching a person or vehicle based solely on (1) the odor of cannabis, (2) possession or suspicion of possession of cannabis, or (3) currency in proximity to cannabis without other indicia of distribution. HB1071 fundamentally changes the status quo. Currently, police routinely rely on the alleged odor of cannabis to search vehicles. The bill was a priority of the Legislative Black Caucus because marijuana laws are disproportionately enforced in communities of color.
Despite this fundamental change, Monday’s post “The Smell and the Fury: HB1071 and the Future of the Smell of Marijuana as Probable Cause” suggests that HB1071 is not significant because its substantive outcome was inevitable. The author argues that once marijuana is legal on July 1, “I think the Court would likely hold that the smell of marijuana, without more, is no longer probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime. In other words, with or without HB1071, it is likely that vehicle searches based solely on the smell of marijuana are a thing of the past.”
It is not lost upon me that the quote from which the author draws the article’s title is: “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,” from William Shakespeare’s Macbeth. For the author the noise around the change brought by HB1071is nothing more than sound and fury, which ultimately signifies nothing because the Supreme Court of Maryland would have reached this same result eventually.
Read More…
Maryland Appellate Blog 