SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2022
Monday, October 3, 2022:
Bar Admissions
AG No. 40 (2021 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Terence Taniform
Attorney for Petitioner: Jessica Boltz McCully
Attorney for Respondent: William C. Brennan, Jr.
No. 14 Steven G. Carver v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, when evaluating newly discovered evidence in an actual-innocence proceeding, must a court consider the new evidence and the evidence admitted at trial collectively with evidence that was available to the defense but not offered at trial, and/or offered but excluded, where the available evidence was made relevant and admissible by the newly discovered evidence? 2) Where Joseph Kopera was the sole firearms expert at trial, is the contrary opinion of a non-fraudulent firearms expert, obtained after the revelation of Kopera’s fraud, newly discovered evidence? 3) Did the lower courts err by failing to consider the cumulative impact of separate but related categories of newly discovered evidence as required by Faulkner v. State, 468 Md. 418 (2020)? 4) Did the lower court err by denying the petition for writ of actual innocence?
Attorney for Petitioner: Eva Shell
Attorney for Respondent: Carrie J. Williams
Nos. 12 & 13 Montgomery Park, LLC v. Maryland Department of General Services
Judge Harrell will sit in place of Chief Judge Fader.
Issues – State Finance & Procurement – 1) Is it arbitrary or capricious for a procurement officer to cancel the proposed award of a procurement contract without making independent “written findings” required by Maryland law to support that decision, and instead relying on someone else’s findings that were not supported by the administrative record? 2) Did Petitioner have standing to challenge the unlawful award of a sole source contract to a different applicant?
Attorney for Petitioner: Christopher Olsen
Attorney for Respondent: Patrick D. Sheridan
Tuesday, October 4, 2022:
AG No. 47 (2020 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Edward Allen Malone
Attorney for Petitioner: Jessica Boltz McCully
Attorney for Respondent: Craig S. Brodsky
No. 10 Kobina Ebo Abruquah v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – Is firearm identification methodology sufficiently reliable to allow an examiner to identify a specific firearm as the source of a questioned bullet or casing, or should the examiner be permitted to testify, at most, that a firearm cannot be excluded as the source of the questioned projectile?
Attorney for Appellant: J. Bradford McCullough
Attorney for Appellee: Andrew J. DiMiceli
No. 8 Terrance Belton v. State of Maryland
Judge Getty will sit in place of Chief Judge Fader.
Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, does a criminal defendant’s right to a fair and impartial judge and the appearance of a fair and impartial judge extend to appellate proceedings? 2) Does dicta in CSA’s reported opinion violate Petitioner’s right to fair and impartial judges and the appearance of fair and impartial judges? 3) Did CSA err in denying Petitioner’s Motion to Recall and Reconsider Reported Opinion where the opinion denies Petitioner’s right to fair and impartial judges and the appearance of fair and impartial judges? 4) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court’s erroneous exclusion of Petitioner’s testimony regarding the victim’s statement, “This is my block,” which was critical to Petitioner’s self-defense and defense-of-others defenses, constituted harmless error?
Attorney for Petitioner: Kathrine P. Rasin
Attorney for Respondent: Daniel J. Jawor
Friday, October 7, 2022:
No. 21 In Re: Petition for Emergency Remedy by the Maryland State Board of Elections
Judge Adkins will sit in place of Judge Gould.
Issues – Election Law – 1) Did the trial court correctly rule that the remedy sought under Md. Code § 8-103(b)(1) of the Election Law (“E.L.”)article comports with the principle of separation of powers because the remedy, an adjustment to the electoral calendar, is a function routinely entrusted to the judicial branch? 2) Did the trial court correctly rule that the incoming volume of mail-in ballots and inadequate time frame in which to process them constitute “emergency circumstances” that “interfere with the electoral process” as those terms are used in E.L. § 8-103(b)(1)?
Attorney for Petitioner: Charles Hartman
Attorney for Respondent: Daniel Kobrin
After October 7, 2022, the Court will recess until November 3, 2022. On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk's Office no later than 9:30 a.m., unless otherwise notified.
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON
CLERK