SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2022
Monday, December 5, 2022:
AG No. 37 (2021 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission v. Richard Louis Sloane
Attorney for Petitioner: Brittany L. Strickland
Attorney for Respondent: Richard Louis Sloane
No. 19 Kevron D. Walker v. State of Maryland
Issues – Public Safety – 1) Do the destruction and expungement provisions of the Maryland DNA Collection Act, Md. Code § 2-511 of the Public Safety (“P.S.”) apply to DNA samples collected from a person pursuant to a search warrant after the person is arrested and charged, or do those provisions apply only to so-called “arrestee” samples, as the Act has been interpreted in regulations promulgated by the Department of State Police? 2) Did the lower courts err in concluding that P.S. § 2-511 does not contain an exclusionary rule for violations of the destruction and expungement provisions of the Act? 3) Assuming, arguendo, that the destruction and expungement provisions in P.S. § 2-511 apply only to arrestee samples, was the trial court’s finding of fact, that the DNA sample at issue here was not an arrestee sample, clearly erroneous; or, in the alternative, if the record is unclear as to whether the DNA sample was an arrestee sample, should the case be remanded for an evidentiary hearing, pursuant to Md. Rules 8-604, so that the court can receive evidence and make findings of fact as to whether the DNA sample was an arrestee sample or was collected from Petitioner pursuant to a search warrant for his DNA? 4) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress DNA evidence?
Attorney for Petitioner: Thomas E. Robins
Attorney for Respondent: Jer Welter
No. 17 Jennifer Rowe v. Maryland Commission on Human Rights
Issue – State Government – Does CSA have jurisdiction over appeals from circuit courts of petitions for judicial review of Maryland Commission on Civil Rights no-probable-cause findings in public accommodations discrimination cases?
Attorney for Petitioner: Hayley Hahn
Attorney for Respondent: Justin E. Fine
Tuesday, December 6, 2022:
AG No. 2 Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sherwood R. Wescott
Attorney for Petitioner: Erin Risch
Attorney for Respondent: Sherwood R. Wescott
Misc. No. 2 William Samuel Blake v. State of Maryland
Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals
Questions: 1) Did the post-conviction court err by holding that trial counsel had not rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to compel discoverable impeachment evidence regarding a State's witness [Officer Laronde]? 2) In the alternative, did the post-conviction court err by ruling that the State had not violated its Brady obligations by failing to disclose impeachment evidence regarding a State's witness?
Attorney for Appellant: Amy Brennan
Attorney for Appellee: Carrie J. Williams
No. 18 State of Maryland v. Keith Krikstan
Judge Battaglia will sit in place of Chief Judge Fader.
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Was the evidence sufficient to find that Respondent engaged in an act inside of school hours that “involved” sexual exploitation, where he specifically opted to substitute in the class of a certain student and while in the classroom expressed jealousy about that student’s attraction to someone else, given that he was engaging in a sexually exploitative relationship by way of electronic communications with this same student outside of school? 2) Was the evidence sufficient to find that Respondent’s acts and statements in class constituted grooming the student, and does such grooming “involve” sexual exploitation where a sexually exploitative relationship is conducted outside of school?
Attorney for Petitioner: Zoe Gillen White
Attorney for Respondent: Michael T. Tores
After December 6, 2022, the Court will recess until January 5, 2023. On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk's Office no later than 9:30 a.m., unless otherwise notified.
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON