SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2021
Thursday, September 9, 2021:
Misc. No. 20 (2020 T.) In the Matter of the Application of A.D. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
Attorney for Applicant: Lawrence Lamson
AG No. 31 (2020 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Joseph Ignatius Cassilly
Attorney for Petitioner: Erin A. Risch
Attorneys for Respondent: Michael P. May and Joseph Ignatius Cassilly
Misc. No. 1 Paul Moore v. RealPage Utility Management, Inc.
Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Question: Does Md. Code Ann., Public Utilities § 7-304 prohibit the use of energy allocation equipment and procedures, which have not been approved by the Public Service Commission, to bill energy charges to tenants of properties built prior to 1978?
Attorney for Appellant: Benjamin H. Carney
Attorney for Appellee: David M. Gettings
Monday, September 13, 2021:
AG No. 9 (2020 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Dawn R. Jackson
Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Irwin R. Kramer
No. 3 Michael O'Sullivan v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In an oath-against-oath perjury case, is the State relieved of its burden of production under the two-witness rule by introducing circumstantial evidence? 2) Was there sufficient evidence that Petitioner/Cross-Respondent committed perjury and misconduct in office? 3) Should the two-witness rule, which provides for a heightened burden of production that is only applicable to the misdemeanor offense of perjury, be prospectively abrogated in favor of the standard burden of production in a criminal case, which requires the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and trusts in the ability of the fact-finder to weigh evidence?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Kristin C. Tracy and Thomas M. Donnelly
Attorney for Respondent: Peter R. Naugle
No. 5 State of Maryland v. Rony Galicia
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When a statement against penal interest inculpates a third party, but not the defendant, does the trial court abuse its discretion when it does not allow the defendant to elicit evidence about the statement? 2) Is expert testimony required to explain to a fact-finder that a “gap” in the “location history” records for a Google account could have been caused by the account holder turning off the “location history” service?
Attorney for Petitioner: Andrew J. DiMiceli
Attorney for Respondent: Isabelle Raquin
Tuesday, September 14, 2021:
AG No. 69 (2019 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Thereen Dian Daley
Attorney for Petitioner: Erin A. Risch
Attorney for Respondent: Rickey Nelson Jones
No. 4 Eric Antonio Alarcon-Ozoria v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does the State’s obligation to exercise due diligence in identifying and disclosing relevant materials in criminal litigation extend to phone call recordings collected and preserved by the State’s jail facilities? 2) In a criminal case, does a recording of a defendant’s own statement that is not disclosed until the morning of trial constitute an unfair surprise to the defense, such that it requires relief?
Attorney for Petitioner: Elizabeth Ertle
Attorney for Respondent: Conor M. McCarthy
No. 1 Anna Velicky v. The CopyCat Building LLC
Issues – Real Property – 1) Must a landlord have a rental license to evict a tenant under Md. Code §8-402 of the Real Property Article when local law requires a license to operate the premises as a landlord? 2) Did the trial court err by determining that an appeal from a tenant holding over action should be heard de novo instead of on-the-record when the 2-month value of rent for the premises exceeded the threshold for on-the-record appeals under Md. Rule 7-102(b)?
Attorney for Petitioner: Douglas Edward Nivens II
Attorney for Respondent: Herbert Burgunder III
No. 2 Christopher Walke v. The CopyCat Building LLC
Issue – Real Property – Is an unlicensed landlord leasing rental properties in a jurisdiction requiring licensure allowed to judicially enforce its unlicensed activities in Maryland courts?
Attorney for Petitioner: Lee H. Ogburn
Attorney for Respondent: Herbert Burgunder III
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON
CLERK
Pursuant to the August 6, 2021 Third Amended Administrative Order Expanding Statewide Judiciary Operations in light of the COVID-19 Emergency and the June 18, 2018 Administrative order on the Implementation of Remote Electronic Participation in Judicial Proceedings, and the August 18, 2021 Fifth Administrative Order on Remote Oral Arguments, the Court will hear oral arguments in these cases by videoconferencing.