SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2018
Thursday, November 29, 2018:
Bar Admissions
No. 24 State of Maryland v. Adnan Syed
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that defense counsel pursuing an alibi strategy without speaking to one specific potential witness violates the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel? 2) Did CSA draw itself into conflict with Curtis v. State, 284 Md. 132 (1978), when it found that Respondent waived his ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on trial counsel’s failure to challenge cell-tower location data, where the claim implicated the fundamental right to effective counsel and was therefore subject to the statutory requirement of knowing and intelligent waiver?
Attorney for Petitioner: Thiruvendran Vignarajah
Attorneys for Respondent: C. Justin Brown and Catherine E. Stetson
No. 30 Commissioner of Labor and Industry v. The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company
Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Did Petitioner correctly determine that Respondent’s failure to follow the shoring-tower manufacturer’s instructions to use gooser braces in assembling a shoring tower supporting a concrete slab, which resulted in serious injury and death, constituted a recognized hazard within the meaning of § 5-104(a) of the Labor & Employment Article (“L&E”)? 2) Did Petitioner correctly determine that Respondent’s use of an undersized spacer beam in the upper support system of a shoring tower constituted a recognized hazard within the meaning of L&E § 5-104(a)?
Attorney for Petitioner: Catherine H. Bellinger
Attorney for Respondent: Ronald W. Taylor
No. 33 State of Maryland v. Patrick Joseph Thomas a/k/a Patrick Joseph Patrick
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, may a seller of heroin be convicted of a murder-related offense where the buyer of the heroin dies after ingesting it? 2) Did CSA assume facts not in evidence and otherwise usurp the role of the fact-finder when it held that, as a matter of law, the State presented insufficient evidence of gross negligence and causation to sustain Respondent’s manslaughter conviction?
Attorney for Petitioner: Carrie Williams
Attorney for Respondent: Marc A. DeSimone, Jr.
Friday, November 30, 2018:
No. 32 In re: G.R.
Issue – Criminal Procedure – Where a robbery victim whose house keys are stolen takes the reasonable and prudent action of replacing the locks that corresponded to the stolen keys, are the costs associated with replacing those compromised locks a “direct result” of the robbery for the purposes of ordering restitution?
Attorney for Petitioner: Ryan R. Dietrich
Attorney for Respondent: Jeffrey M. Ross
No. 27 Celso Monterroso Romero v. Josefa Perez
Issues – Family Law – 1) Did CSA err in finding no error and upholding the trial court’s denial of Special Immigrant Juvenile (“SIJ”) status, even though the trial court stated that it was applying the incorrect “clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof regarding a neglect finding in an SIJ case? 2) Did CSA err in finding that the trial court had committed no error in its findings that there was insufficient evidence to prove neglect, and therefore no neglect under the law, in the context of an SIJ case?
Attorney for Petitioner: Lara Wilkinson
Amicus Curiae arguing on behalf of Respondent: Kelly A. Powers
No. 35 Joan Floyd, et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
Issue – Zoning & Planning – Did Petitioners sufficiently plead taxpayer standing to allow their challenge to the enactment of new comprehensive zoning maps to be adjudicated and did the trial court err when it granted the motion to dismiss for lack of taxpayer standing?
Attorney for Appellant: J. Carroll Holzer
Attorney for Appellee: Andre M. Davis
On the day of argument, counsel are instructed to register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.
After November 30, the Court will recess until January 3, 2019.
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON
(ACTING CLERK)