SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2013
Thursday, March 6, 2014:
AG No. 75 (2012 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Ronald Marc Levin
Attorney for Petitioner: James N. Gaither
Attorney for Respondent: Ronald Levin
No. 41 David E. Fuster v. State of Maryland
Attorney for Appellant: Bradford C. Peabody
Attorney for Appellee: Robert Taylor, Jr.
No. 60 Troy Sherman Nash v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying defense counsel's mistrial motion and request for supplemental instruction and by failing to conduct any voir dire of the jurors in response to a jury note stating that one of the jurors had changed her vote from not guilty to guilty “because she want[ed] to go home and no[t] return!” except to recess for the weekend? 2) Does recessing for the day constitute a “respon[se]” as contemplated by Rule 4-326(d) and case law to a jury note? 3) Under this Court's holding in Johnson v. State, 423 Md. 137 (2011), which presumes prejudice from juror misconduct and imposes on the trial judge a duty to sua sponte voir dire the jurors, does the above behavior constitute juror misconduct? 4) May MD Pattern Jury Instruction 2:01, which instructs jurors to “not surrender your honest belief as to the weight or effect of the evidence only because of the opinion of your fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of reaching a verdict,” only be given in a deadlock situation or is it also appropriate in the situation above?
Attorney for Petitioner: Katherine P. Rasin
Attorney for Respondent: Cathleen C. Brockmeyer
No. 66 Francina Spivery-Jones v. In the Matter of the Receivership Estate of Trans Healthcare, Inc., et al.
Issues - Corporations & Associations - 1) Should CSA have applied the collateral order doctrine to Petitioner's appeal of the lower court order when all of the receivership estate's assets will be distributed and/or dissipated by the time a final judgment is entered and resolution of Petitioner's substantive arguments will conclusively determine the propriety of the receivership? 2) Did CSA wrongly deny Petitioner's appeal rights granted pursuant to Courts & Jud. Proc. Art. § 12-303(3)(iv) from a trial court order which converted the receivership from a statutory to an equitable receivership?
Attorney for Petitioner: Isaac R. Ruiz-Carus
Attorney for Respondent: Glenn E. Bushel
No. 105 Ben C. Clyburn, et al. v. Quinton Richmond, et al.
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?
Attorney for Petitioner: Julia Doyle Bernhardt
Attorneys for Respondent: Michael Schatzow and Mitchell Y. Mirviss
AG No. 84 (2012 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Lee Elliott Landau
Attorney for Petitioner: Marianne J. Lee
Attorney for Respondent: Lee Elliott Landau
No. 63 NIHC, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury
Issues - Taxation - 1) Did CSA err in changing the question presented on appeal in order to address a question and a Tax Court decision not properly before the court? 2) Did CSA err in affirming the Tax Court's decision on grounds other than those set forth by the Tax Court? 3) Did CSA err in affirming the Tax Court's ruling that MD's requirement for separate corporate tax returns does not prevent an assessment based on the income Petitioner reported as MD modified income on its MD tax returns?
Attorney for Petitioner: Harry D. Shapiro
Attorney for Respondent: Brian L. Oliner
AG No. 77 (2012 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sudha Narasimhan
Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Irwin R. Kramer
No. 64 Rainford G. Bartlett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
Issue - Commercial Law - In a small claims collection action, did the trial court err when it admitted hearsay evidence and testimony from a witness who did not have personal knowledge of the matters about which he testified given that the legislative history of Rule 3-306 provides that a debt buyer must prove its case with evidence that would pass muster under the business records exception to the hearsay rule?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Max F. Brauer and E. David Hoskins
Attorney for Respondent: Ava E. Lias-Booker
No. 76 James Townsend v. Midland Funding, LLC
Issue – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – Did the trial court err by allowing a debt buyer to prove its case against a debtor by submitting unauthenticated documents and an affidavit of an individual not employed by the original creditor given that Rule 3-306 provides that a debt buyer must prove its case with evidence that would pass muster under the business records exception to the hearsay rule?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Max F. Brauer and E. David Hoskins
Arguing for Respondent: James P. Ulwick
No. 62 George Kusi v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Did CSA err in applying a “clearly erroneous” standard of review to requests for an interpreter? 2) Was it an abuse of discretion to refuse Petitioner's requests for an interpreter at his jury trial?
Attorney for Petitioner: Bradford C. Peabody
Attorney for Respondent: Michelle W. Cole
No. 75 Mary Zook v. Susan Pesce
Issue – Estates And Trusts – Does the testamentary exception to the attorney client privilege exist in Maryland?
Attorney for Petitioner: Michael Wein
Attorney for Respondent: Brent Walthall
No. 67 Fraternal Order of Police, Montgomery County Lodge No. #35, et al. v. Montgomery County, Maryland, et al.
Issue - Local Government - May the County Council unilaterally change the terms of a pre-existing negotiated collective bargaining agreement?
Attorney for Petitioner: WIlliam J. Chen, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Edward P. Lattner
On the day of argument, counsel are instructed to register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.
After March 11, 2014 the Court will recess until April 3, 2014.
BESSIE M. DECKER