SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2024
Thursday, November 7, 2024:
Bar Admissions
AG No. 23 (2023 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gary Pisner
Attorney for Petitioner: Katherine Getty
Attorney for Respondent: Gary Pisner
No. 19 Stephen Zimmerman v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Procedure – Whether further appellate review lies in either the Supreme Court of Maryland or the Appellate Court of Maryland from a circuit court’s order revoking probation when the circuit court’s order was entered in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over a decision of the District Court of Maryland.
Attorney for Petitioner: Steven M. Klepper
Attorney for Respondent: Philip M. Donoho
Friday, November 8, 2024:
No. 12 Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Jamie Wallace
Issues – Natural Resources – 1) Did ACM err when it held that the Maryland Recreational Use Statute, Md. Code, Natural Resources § 5-1101, et seq., (“MRUS”) does not apply to paths in public parks, even where a local government has made the path available for recreational use? 2) Did ACM err when it held that Haley v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 211 Md. 269 (1956), applies to any path that may serve as a “public connector” between parts of the City, so that any such path in a public park is not subject to MRUS protections?
Attorney for Petitioner: Matthew Bradford
Attorney for Respondent: Curtis Cannon
No. 13 Christopher Nguyen v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – Petition: 1) Does Maryland common law impose on police officers a general “duty to protect,” a breach of which is enforceable in a criminal prosecution for reckless endangerment or other crimes of omission, and if so, is the duty triggered when one suspect assaults another suspect in an officer’s presence? 2) If Petitioner had a “duty to protect”, was the testimony of other officers that they would have separated or stood between the two suspects legally sufficient to prove that Petitioner, by taking neither action, grossly departed from the standard of conduct that a reasonable, similarly situated police officer would have observed?
Conditional Cross-Petition: 3) If the “special relationship” requirement extends to criminal cases involving a police officer-defendant accused of committing reckless endangerment by omission, did the ACM err in concluding that no “special relationship” existed between Petitioner and one of the suspects?
Attorney for Petitioner/Cross-Respondent: Todd W. Hesel
Attorney for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner: Karinna M. Rossi
On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.
After November 8, 2024, the Court will recess until December 5, 2024.
GREGORY HILTON
CLERK