Bar Admissions

AG No. 2 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Christopher W. Poverman

Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Christopher W. Poverman

AG No. 14 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Michael Craig Worsham

Attorneys for Petitioner: James N. Gaither and Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Michael Craig Worsham

No. 16  Traimne Martinez Allen v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Did the lower court err in reading MD Code, Public Safety Art., § 2-510, so broadly as to conclude that crime scene DNA of other suspects – one of whom had a conviction for a crime very similar to the events for which Petitioner stood trial – was not admissible at trial, and was Petitioner denied his constitutional right to present a defense?

Attorney for Petitioner: Nancy S. Forster
Attorney for Respondent: Brenda Gruss

No. 17  Howard Bay Diggs v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does MD Code, Public Safety Art., §2-510, which provides that “a DNA database match may be used to establish probable cause to charge and arrest an individual” but “the database match would be inadmissible at a trial of that individual…,” prohibit the introduction at trial by a criminal defendant of evidence of DNA matches to alternative suspects; and if so, does §2-510 deny a criminal defendant his/her constitutional right to present a defense? 2) Did the trial court err in excluding evidence offered by Petitioner of DNA database matches to other suspects on evidence collected at the crime scene?

Attorney for Petitioner: Peter F. Rose
Attorney for Respondent: Brenda Gruss

AG No. 99 (2013 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Talieb Nilaja Wills

Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Talieb Nilaja Wills

AG No. 28 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Michael Francis Barnett

Attorney for Petitioner: James N. Gaither
Attorney for Respondent: Michael Francis Barnett

No. 18  Gineene Williams, etc., et al. v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center, et al.

Issue – Torts – Does MD’s involuntary admission immunity statute, Health General § 10-618, apply to health care providers who evaluate an individual and decide to discharge the patient from psychiatric care?

Attorney for Petitioner: Michael J. Winkelman
Attorneys for Respondent: John R. Penhallegon and Curtis H. Booth

AG No. 17 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Patrick Guy Samuel Marie Merkle

Attorney for Petitioner: JaCina N. Stanton
Attorney for Respondent: Patrick Guy Samuel Marie Merkle

No. 13 Jerrod M. Peterson v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in ruling that the attorney-client privilege prevented the co-conspirator’s attorney from testifying about the co-conspirator’s proffer session with a prosecutor and a county homicide detective? 2) Was Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment Right of Confrontation violated when the trial court limited his cross-examination of multiple State witnesses? 3) Did the trial court commit reversible error by limiting Petitioner’s cross-examination of multiple State witnesses? 4) Are Petitioner’s claims regarding cross-examination of witnesses properly before this Court for review?

Attorney for Petitioner: Andrew F. Levy
Attorney for Respondent: Sarah Page Pritzlaff

No. 14  Kevin E. Jones v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Was the evidence sufficient to convict Petitioner of second degree assault of the intent to frighten modality where the State failed to prove that Petitioner was aware of the existence of the victim?

Attorney for Petitioner: Brian L. Zavin
Attorney for Respondent: Jessica V. Carter

AG No. 61 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Michael C. Hodes

Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Andrew J. Graham

AG No. 63 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gayton J. Thomas, Jr.

Attorney for Petitioner: James N. Gaither
Attorney for Respondent: Gayton J. Thomas, Jr.

No. 15 State of Maryland v. Kenneth Martin Stachowski, Jr.

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a court may not order restitution as part of a plea agreement on a charge as a condition of a probation in another matter before the court, creating uncertainty in conflict with this Court’s holdings in Walczak and Lee? 2) Did CSA err in vacating only the negotiated and accepted restitution condition required of Petitioner, which was part of the plea agreement, rather than rescinding the entire plea agreement, thus allowing Petitioner the full benefit of his bargain with the State without assuming any of his negotiated burden?

Attorney for Petitioner: Brian S. Kleinbord
Attorney for Respondent: Celia Anderson Davis

No. 102 (2013 T.)  Steven M. Johnson v. State of Maryland

DNA Appeal

Attorney for Appellant: Ben Miller
Attorney for Appellee: Robert Taylor, Jr.