SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2025
Friday, December 5, 2025:
Bar Admissions
AG No. 37 (2024 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Spencer M. Hecht
Attorney for Petitioner: Jessica M. Hall
Attorney for Respondent: Michael L. Rowan
No. 25 Brian S. Spicuzza v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – From the petition for writ of certiorari: 1) Does Maryland allow impeachment with prior inconsistent statements, or other “direct” attacks on a witness’s veracity, to be rebutted with evidence of the witness’s truthful character? 2) Should the petitioner’s character witnesses have been permitted to testify to his truthfulness under Md. Rules 5-608(a)(2)? 3) Does the opening-the-door doctrine apply to the otherwise-improper “why-would-they-lie” question? 4) Does an appellate court violate N. River Ins. Co. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 343 Md. 34 (1996), when it exercises discretion in the first instance to affirm a trial court’s evidentiary ruling? From the conditional cross-petition for writ of certiorari: 1) Did ACM incorrectly conclude that Petitioner’s continuing objection during one witness’s testimony to “all of her testimony that was subject to the 404(b) hearing with respect to sex” preserve his arguments concerning the testimony of a different witness and topics other than sex? 2) Did ACM wrongly conclude that the two different witnesses’ testimony concerning Petitioner’s uncharged conduct was not admissible as common scheme evidence?
Attorney for Petitioner/Cross-Respondent: John N. Sharifi
Attorney for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner: Karinna M. Rossi
No. 28 Fort Detrick/Walter Reed Army Medical Housing, LLC v. Robert Wynn
Issue – Constitutional Law – Does the Enclave Clause of the United States Constitution pre-empt County licensure regulations applicable to: (a) the petitioner’s entire apartment complex; or (b) if not, units rented to civilians?
Attorney for Petitioner: John E. McCann, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Jonathan P. Riedel
Monday, December 8, 2025:
No. 13 Anthony Maurice Tarpley v. State of Maryland
DNA Appeal.
Attorney for Appellant: Nancy S. Forster
Attorney for Appellee: Cristin Treaster
No. 29 Adam James Jun v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – Did the trial court erroneously allow a lay witness, instead of a properly qualified expert, to testify about the nature and evidentiary significance of IP addresses and business records from the social media application “Kik”?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Todd W. Hesel and Eric P. Bacaj
Attorney for Respondent: Jillian R. Chieppor
After December 8, 2025, the Court will recess until January 5, 2026.
On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 8:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.
GREGORY HILTON
CLERK