No. 13 - September Term 2013
James Allen Kulbicki v. State of Maryland
Oral Arguments held October 3, 2013 at 10:00am. [Oral Arguments]
Issues – Criminal Law - 1) Does a conviction obtained through the use of scientific evidence that is later demonstrated to be unreliable, misleading, and inadmissible violate a defendant's guarantee of due process? 2) Does the use of perjured expert testimony by a State expert violate a defendant's due process rights when the perjured testimony involves the expert's qualifications and background? 3) Does the failure of defense counsel to investigate or challenge the State's scientific evidence and failure to object to the scope of the State's closing arguments constitute ineffective assistance of counsel? 4) Did CSA err in stating that the State is chargeable with the “knowing use of perjured testimony” where the falsity is unknown at the time of the testimony?
12-17-2015: Order of the Court of Appeals on Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States
10-05-2015: Order of the Supreme Court of the United States in No. 14-848, Maryland v. Kulbicki
08-27-2014: Opinion of the Court of Appeals
09-26-2012: Opinion of the Court of Special Appeals
No. 105 - September Term 2013
Ben C. Clyburn, et al. v. Quinton Richmond, et al.
Oral Arguments held Friday, March 7, 2014 at 10:00am. [Oral Arguments]
Additional oral arguments scheduled for Tuesday, May 6, 2014 at 10:00am per order dated March 11, 2014 (below). [Oral Arguments]
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the circuit court err in entering an injunction directing officials of the District Court to conduct initial appearances in a manner inconsistent with the existing rules promulgated by this Court? 2) Did the circuit court err in granting an application for supplemental relief based on a prior declaratory judgment without first issuing a show cause order, as required by the statute governing such applications? 3) Did the circuit court err in ordering officials of the District Court to appoint counsel for all arrestees at initial appearances and prohibiting those court officials from conducting initial appearances for arrestees who were not provided with counsel?
05-27-2014: Rules Order Adopting the 183rd Report
05-02-2014: Supplemental Reply Brief of Appellants
04-30-2014: Supplemental Brief of Appellee Paul B. DeWolfe, Jr.
04-30-2014: Supplemental Brief of Appellees
04-16-2014: Supplemental Brief of Appellants
03-05-2014: Response to Motion to Dismiss and Reply Brief of Appellants
03-04-2014: Brief of Appellees
03-04-2014: Brief For Appellee Paul B. DeWolfe, Jr.
02-18-2014: Brief of Appellants
02-18-2014: Record Extract, part 1 of 3
02-18-2014: Record Extract, part 2 of 3
02-18-2014: Record Extract, part 3 of 3
01-23-2014: Order granting Petition for Writ of Certiorari
01-17-2014: Plaintiffs' Response to District Court Defendants' Motion for Stay
01-17-2014: Answer to a Petition for Writ of Certiorari
01-14-2014: Temporary Stay Order
01-14-2014: Petition for Writ of Certiorari
01-14-2014: Motion for Stay Pending Further Review
No. 34 - September Term 2011
Paul B. DeWolfe, in his official capacity as the Public Defender for the State of Maryland, et al. v. Quinton Richmond, et al.
Oral Arguments heard Tuesday, November 8, 2011 at 10:00am. [Oral Arguments]
Reargued Friday, January 4, 2013 at 10:00am. [Oral Arguments]
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) Do indigent defendants have a right to counsel at initial bail hearings: (a) before District Court Commissioners under MD's Public Defender Act? (b) under the Sixth Amendment & Art. 21 of the Declaration of Rights? (c) under MD or federal guarantees of due process? (d) when commissioners impose bail "preset" by the District Court in absentia? (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by granting the class declaratory relief in accord with its findings that defendants are violating the class's statutory & constitutional rights? (3) Did the trial court err in issuing the declaration without in any way addressing remedy & how this undisputed funding shortfall might be practicably addressed?
Issues on Reargument- Criminal Law - Are Petitioners entitled, under the recently amended Public Defender Act (2012 Md. Laws ch. 504-05), to relief on the basis of the right to counsel provided in either or both the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution and Art. 21 of the Md. Declaration of Rights and/or either or both the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution and Art.24 of the Md. Declaration of Rights.
No. 68 - September Term 2011
Alonzo J. King v. State of Maryland
Oral Arguments heard Monday, January 9, 2011 at 10:00am. [Oral Arguments]
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) Did the trial court err by denying appellant's motion to suppress DNA evidence obtained through a warrantless search conducted without any individualized suspicion of wrongdoing? (2) Did the court below improperly shift the burden of proof to the defense to demonstrate that a search or seizure made without individualized suspicion is unreasonable?
(Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender)
(Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland)
06-03-13: Opinion of the United States Supreme Court overturning the Court of Appeals
Question Presented to the United States Supreme Court: Does the Fourth Amendment allow the States to collect and analyze DNA
from people arrested and charged with serious crimes?
A petition for a writ of certiorari was granted by the United States Supreme Court, November 9, 2012.
Oral arguments heard by the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday, February 26, 2013. [Transcript] [Link to Oral Arguments Audio]
U.S. Supreme Court No. 12-207 Docket Entries
07-30-12: In Chambers Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on the State's application for a stay of the Court of Appeals' judgment pending the Supreme Court's disposition of its petition for a writ of certiorari
Application 12A48 Docket Entries: Application by the State of Maryland for a stay of the judgment and mandate pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari
- Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia and American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland in Support of Appellant
No. 100 - September Term 2012
Gregory Hall, et al. v. Prince George's County Central Democratic Committee, et al.
Oral Arguments heard Friday, January 4, 2012. [Oral Arguments]
Issues – State Government - 1) As a matter of first impression, under Art. III, § 13(a)(1) of the MD Constitution where a central committee submits a name to the Governor within 30 days of a vacancy of office in the House of Delegates, does the Governor have a mandatory duty to appoint the person whose name is submitted to him within 15 days? 2) As a matter of first impression, what is the final day for the Governor to perform his duty to appoint under Art III, § 13(a)(1) of the MD Constitution where the 15th day following submission of the name falls on a legal holiday? 3) As a matter of first impression, does the central committee have any authority to rescind the name it submitted to the Governor under MD Constitution Art. III, § 13(a)(1) more than 30 days after the event that created the vacancy in the House of Delegates. 4) Should a writ of mandamus issue to the Governor to appoint the central committee's nominee if he fails to do so after 15 days? 5) Did the trial court err in considering on summary judgment an affidavit that was based upon "information and belief"? 6) Does Art. XV, § 2 of the MD Constitution permit the expulsion of a duly-elected legislator who received a final disposition of probation before judgment? 7) Where charges against an elected official resulted in a final disposition of probation before judgment in another county, did the lower court have the power to revoke this disposition and disqualify that official from completing her term in office?
12-06-12: Petition for writ of certiorari filed.
12-06-12: Order staying the Judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County
12-10-12: Governor Martin O'Malley's Motion to Lift Stay
12-11-12: Second petition filed titled: Tiffay T. Alston v. Speaker Michael E. Busch, et al.
12-11-12: Delegate Tiffany T. Alson's Response in opposition to motion to lift stay
12-12-12: Answer of Respondent Prince George's County Democratic Committee to Plaintiff Gregory Hall's petition for writ of certiorari
12-12-12: Response of Respondent Prince George's County Democratice Committee to Governor Martin O'Malley's motion to lift stay
12-13-12: Order of Court of Appeals granting Writ of Certiorari
12-20-12: Brief of Appellant Gregory Hall
12-20-12: Brief of Appellant Tiffany T. Alston
12-27-12: Brief of Appellee Prince George's County Democratic Central Committee
12-27-12: Brief of Appellees Governor Martin O'Malley and Speaker Michael E. Busch
01-02-13: Reply Brief of Appellant Gregory Hall
01-02-13: Tiffany T. Alston's Reply Brief
01-04-13: Order filed
04-08-13: Opinion filed
No 6 - September Term 2010
Norman Bruce Derr v. State of Maryland
Oral Arguments heard September 2, 2010. [Oral Arguments]
Oral Arguments on Remand from the United States Supreme Court held Friday, January 4, 2012. [Oral Arguments]
Issues - Criminal Law - Whether appellant's federal and state constitutional rights of confrontation were violated when the state was permitted to introduce: (1) the opinion by a serology examiner through the testimony of an expert who did not participate either directly or in a supervisory capacity in the serological testing without calling the serology examiner as a witness or showing that the examiner was unavailable and that appellant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the examiner? (2) the results of DNA testing of biological evidence through the testimony of an expert who did not participate either directly or in a supervisory capacity in the DNA testing without calling the DNA analyst who performed the testing as a witness or showing that the analyst was unavailable and appellant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the analyst?
William G. McLain
David A. Clark School of Law, University of the District of Columbia
(Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland)
06-29-12: U.S. Supreme Court order disposing of the case (The judgment is vacated and the case remanded back to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in the light of Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. _____ (2012).
Williams v. Illinois (The U.S. Supreme Court Opinion referenced in the summary disposition.)
A petition for a writ of certiorari was granted by the United States Supreme Court, 06-29-12.
U.S. Supreme Court Petition No. 11-694 Docket Entries
- Howard University School of Law Criminal Justice Clinic and Civil Rights Clinic on behalf of Appellant
- American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland in Support of Appellant
Misc. Nos. 2, 3, & 5 - September Term 2012
2012 Legislative Districting of the State
Oral Arguments heard Wednesday November 7, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. [Misc 2. Oral Arguments][Misc. 3 Oral Arguments][Misc 5. Oral Arguments]
No. 87 - September Term 2008
Stop Slots MD 2008, et al. v. State Board of Elections
Oral Arguments heard Monday, September 15, 2008. [Oral Arguments]
No. 88 - September Term 2008
IAFF 1715, et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Cumberland, et al.
Oral Arguments heard Monday, September 15, 2008. [Oral Arguments]
No. 61 - September Term 2008
Jane Doe, et al. v. Montgomery County Board of Elections
Oral Arguments heard Monday, September 8, 2008. [Oral Arguments]
Issues - Constitutional Law - (1) Did the trial court err in ruling that a voter challenge to the certification of a referendum petition that failed to carry the required number of signatures, which challenge was filed within ten days of the certification, is nonetheless partially time-barred? (2) Did the trial court err in holding that the Board is required to include inactive voters in calculating the total number of registered voters in Montgomery County?
09-09-08: Per Curiam Order
Reply Brief of Respondent/Cross-Petitioner
Brief of Respondent/Cross-Petitioner
Brief of Appellants/Cross-Appellees
Reply Brief of Appellants/Cross-Appellees
No. 121 - September Term 2007
Michael D. Smigiel, Sr., et al. v. Peter V. R. Franchot, et al.
Oral arguments heard Tuesday, March 11, 2008. [Oral Arguments]
Issue - Constitutional Law - May lawmakers delegate decisions to voters by passing statutes which are contingent upon popular approval of duplicitious constiutional amendments?
No. 122 - September Term 2007
State Board of Elections v. Clifford E. Snyder, Jr.***State Board of Elections v. Richard D. Boltuck
Oral arguments heard Friday, February 8th. [Oral Arguments]
No. 14 - September Term 2007
Maryland v. Maouloud Baby
Oral arguments heard Tuesday, October 2. [Oral Arguments]
Issue - Criminal Law - If a woman during sexual intercourse withdraws consent but is forced to continue against her will is she a victim of rape?