SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2020
Thursday, September 10, 2020:
AG No. 20 (2019 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. John T. Riely
Attorneys for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein and Lydia Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: David G. Mulquin
No. 73 (2019 T.) Eric Wise v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in affirming the admission of a statement by a witness with memory loss as a prior inconsistent statement, in conflict with Corbett v. State, 130 Md.App. 408, cert. denied, 359 Md. 31 (2000)? 2) Did CSA err in expanding the circumstances under which hearsay is admissible under Rule 5-802.1(a) to include statements containing a “material” inconsistency with the witness’s testimony?
Attorney for Petitioner: Joseph M. Kaufman
Attorney for Respondent: Jer Welter
No. 62 (2019 T.) Saint Luke Institute, Inc. v. Andre Jones
Issues – Health General – 1) Does Petitioner have standing to raise the constitutional right of privacy on behalf of a mental health patient? 2) If Petitioner has the requisite standing, must the court first determine whether the constitutional right of privacy of the person whose records are sought has been superseded prior to any release of mental health records or can the court immediately proceed to the question of release without first finding that the right of privacy has been superseded? 3) If the constitutional right of privacy is required to be ruled upon by the court to determine if it has been superseded, then what are the standards to be applied by the court when a private party litigant rather than a state agency is making the request? 4) If the determination is made that records may be released, does the party requesting the release of mental health records have the burden of identifying to the court the nature of the information being sought for release from the mental health records prior to the court undertaking its in camera review?
Attorney for Petitioner: Ellis J. Koch
Attorneys for Respondent: Jonathan Ruckdeschel and Jerry Kristal
Friday, September 11, 2020:
Misc No. 15 (2019 T.) In the Matter of the Application of Antonette Yvonne Jefferson for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
Arguing for Petitioner: Antonette Yvonne Jefferson
No. 68 (2019 T.) Anne Arundel County, Maryland and Rodney Price v. Michael H. Reeves
Issues – Torts – 1) As a matter of first impression does Md. Code § 11-110 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article limit the amount of damages recoverable for negligently causing the death of a pet? 2) Did CSA err in finding sufficient evidence of gross negligence?
Attorney for Petitioner: Philip E. Culpepper
Attorney for Respondent: Cary J. Hansel
Monday, September 14, 2020:
No. 64 (2019 T.) State of Maryland v. Darrayl John Wilson
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Regardless whether a collusive marriage confers spousal testimonial privilege, is evidence that the defendant-spouse arranged to marry in order to suppress the witness-spouse’s testimony under the cloak of privilege sufficient to satisfy the “corrupt means” element of the obstruction of justice and witness tampering statutes? 2) As a matter of first impression in Maryland, is a party to a collusive marriage precluded from invoking the spousal testimonial privilege? 3) If Respondent’s convictions are affirmed, does his conviction and sentence for witness tampering merge into his conviction and sentence for obstruction of justice, where both convictions are predicated upon one act – marrying his longtime girlfriend and the mother of his two children?
Attorney for Petitioner: Brenda Gruss
Attorney for Respondent: Joseph B. Tetrault
No. 69 (2019 T.) Montgomery County, Maryland v. Anthony G. Cochran and Andrew Bowen
Issues – Workers’ Compensation – 1) Did CSA err in holding that, when calculating a claimant’s hearing loss under Md. Code § 9-650(b)(3) of the Labor & Employment Article, the decibels deducted from the total average hearing loss should be calculated by counting the number of years between the date the claimant turned 50 and the date the claimant retired? 2) Did CSA err in reversing a factual finding of the Workers’ Compensation Commission as to whether Respondent Bowen suffered a “disablement” given that 1) the Commission’s factual finding is “presumed to be correct”; 2) the issue of whether the claimant suffered a disablement was not raised at the Commission hearing; and 3) there was no evidence put on by Petitioner before the trial court to disturb the Commission’s finding?
Attorney for Petitioner: Wendy B. Karpel
Attorney for Respondent: Kenneth Berman
No. 75 (2019 T.) Lawrence Ervin Montague v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – Is artistic expression, in the form of rap lyrics, that does not have a nexus to the alleged crime relevant as substantive evidence of guilt?
Attorney for Petitioner: Ryan T. Travers
Attorney for Respondent: Peter T. Naugle
Tuesday, September 15, 2020:
Misc No. 4 In the Matter of K.E.
Attorney for Petitioner: Steven Klepper
Attorney for Respondent: Joseph Dudek
No. 74 (2019 T.) State of Maryland v. Kennard Carter
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does the Maryland Transit Administration’s (“MTA”) practice of fare inspection on the Light Rail comply with the Fourth Amendment? 2) If fare inspection does not comply with the Fourth Amendment, did the discovery of an open warrant for Respondent’s arrest nevertheless attenuate the violation under Utah v. Strieff, 136 S.Ct. 2056 (2016), where any unconstitutionality of the MTA’s fare inspection practice was not previously established?
Attorney for Petitioner: Jer Welter
Attorney for Respondent: Renee McDonald Hutchins
No. 70 (2019 T.) Remonia B. Chaplin, et al. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation
Issues – Torts – 1) Does the exception to the board certification requirement in the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act, Md. Code § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B)(2)(B) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, which excuses board-certification at § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B) for an attesting health care provider who has “taught medicine in the defendant’s specialty or a related field of health care,” require the attesting health care provider to have “taught medicine” to students who are “in the defendant’s specialty?” 2) Does the board certification requirement at § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B) apply when the defendant is not a natural person? 3) Does a claim for absence of informed consent when made in the same proceeding with a claim for malpractice require compliance with the certificate requirements in the Act, including the board-certification provisions (and its exceptions) at § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B) and (2)(B)?
Attorney for Petitioner: Stephen Snyder
Attorney for Respondent: Elliott D. Petty
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON
Pursuant to the June 3, 2020 Amended Administrative Order on the Progressive Resumption of Full Function of Judiciary Operations Previously Restricted Due to the COVID-19 Emergency and the June 18, 2018 Administrative order on the Implementation of Remote Electronic Participation in Judicial Proceedings, the Court will hear oral arguments in these cases by videoconferencing.