Bar Admissions

AG No. 75 (2012 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Ronald Marc Levin

Attorney for Petitioner: James N. Gaither
Attorney for Respondent: Ronald Levin

No. 41 David E. Fuster v. State of Maryland

DNA Appeal

Attorney for Appellant: Bradford C. Peabody
Attorney for Appellee: Robert Taylor, Jr.

No. 60  Troy Sherman Nash v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying defense counsel's mistrial motion and request for supplemental instruction and by failing to conduct any voir dire of the jurors in response to a jury note stating that one of the jurors had changed her vote from not guilty to guilty “because she want[ed] to go home and no[t] return!” except to recess for the weekend? 2) Does recessing for the day constitute a “respon[se]” as contemplated by Rule 4-326(d) and case law to a jury note? 3) Under this Court's holding in Johnson v. State, 423 Md. 137 (2011), which presumes prejudice from juror misconduct and imposes on the trial judge a duty to sua sponte voir dire the jurors, does the above behavior constitute juror misconduct? 4) May MD Pattern Jury Instruction 2:01, which instructs jurors to “not surrender your honest belief as to the weight or effect of the evidence only because of the opinion of your fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of reaching a verdict,” only be given in a deadlock situation or is it also appropriate in the situation above?

Attorney for Petitioner: Katherine P. Rasin
Attorney for Respondent: Cathleen C. Brockmeyer

No. 66  Francina Spivery-Jones v. In the Matter of the Receivership Estate of Trans Healthcare, Inc., et al.

Issues - Corporations & Associations - 1) Should CSA have applied the collateral order doctrine to Petitioner's appeal of the lower court order when all of the receivership estate's assets will be distributed and/or dissipated by the time a final judgment is entered and resolution of Petitioner's substantive arguments will conclusively determine the propriety of the receivership? 2) Did CSA wrongly deny Petitioner's appeal rights granted pursuant to Courts & Jud. Proc. Art. § 12-303(3)(iv) from a trial court order which converted the receivership from a statutory to an equitable receivership?

Attorney for Petitioner: Isaac R. Ruiz-Carus
Attorney for Respondent: Glenn E. Bushel

No. 105  Ben C. Clyburn, et al. v. Quinton Richmond, et al.

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the circuit court err in entering an injunction directing officials of the District Court to conduct initial appearances in a manner inconsistent with the existing rules promulgated by this Court? 2) Did the circuit court err in granting an application for supplemental relief based on a prior declaratory judgment without first issuing a show cause order, as required by the statute governing such applications? 3) Did the circuit court err in ordering officials of the District Court to appoint counsel for all arrestees at initial appearances and prohibiting those court officials from conducting initial appearances for arrestees who were not provided with counsel?

Attorney for Petitioner: Julia Doyle Bernhardt
Attorneys for Respondent: Michael Schatzow and Mitchell Y. Mirviss

AG No. 84 (2012 Term)  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Lee Elliott Landau

Attorney for Petitioner: Marianne J. Lee
Attorney for Respondent: Lee Elliott Landau

No. 63 NIHC, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury

Issues - Taxation - 1) Did CSA err in changing the question presented on appeal in order to address a question and a Tax Court decision not properly before the court? 2) Did CSA err in affirming the Tax Court's decision on grounds other than those set forth by the Tax Court? 3) Did CSA err in affirming the Tax Court's ruling that MD's requirement for separate corporate tax returns does not prevent an assessment based on the income Petitioner reported as MD modified income on its MD tax returns?

Attorney for Petitioner: Harry D. Shapiro
Attorney for Respondent: Brian L. Oliner