Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Decision (3)
- Maryland (3)
- Supreme court (3)
- Maryland law (2)
- Sixth Amendment (2)
-
- Administrative law (1)
- Attack (1)
- Bail hearings (1)
- Case (1)
- Collateral (1)
- Confession (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Conviction (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Cross-examination (1)
- Curfew law (1)
- Curtail (1)
- Developments (1)
- Due Process (1)
- Dying declaration (1)
- Equal Protection Law (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Federal (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Hearsay (1)
- Hillard v. State (1)
- Hortonville (1)
- Involuntariness test (1)
- Juvenile law (1)
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Recent Development: Peterson V. State: Limitations On Defense Cross-Examination Are Permitted When The Testimony Lacks A Factual Foundation, Is Overly Prejudicial, Or Has Not Been Adequately Preserved, Meghan E. Ellis
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated when the defense was precluded from cross-examining a witness about hallucinations and his potential sentence prior to entering into a plea agreement. Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105, 153-54, 118 A.3d 925, 952-53 (2015). The court found that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of a witness’s expectation of benefit with respect to pending charges, and failed to show sufficient factual foundation for a cross-examination regarding the expectation. Id. at 138-39, 118 A.3d at 944. In addition, the court found that, although not …
Recent Development: Williams V. State: A Confession Is Voluntary Unless The Defendant Unambiguously Invokes His Constitutional Right To Remain Silent Or The Confession Is Obtained Through Coercion Or Inducement, Pascale Cadelien
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that “I don’t want to say nothing. I don’t know,” is an ambiguous invocation of the right to remain silent. Williams v. State, 445 Md. 452, 455, 128 A.3d 30, 32 (2015). The court reasoned that the defendant’s addition of “I don’t know” to his initial assertion “I don’t want to say nothing” created uncertainty about whether he intended to invoke his right to remain silent. Id. at 477, A.3d at 44. This allowed a reasonable officer to interpret his statement as an “ambiguous request to remain silent.” Id. Furthermore, the officers’ implication …
Recent Development: Hailes V. State: The State May Appeal A Trial Court's Ruling Excluding A Dying Declaration; The Length Of Time Between A Declarant's Statement And Death Is Irrelevant In A Dying Declaration Analysis; The Confrontation Clause Is Inapplicable To Dying Declarations, Lauren A. Panfile
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the State may appeal a trial court’s suppression of a victim’s dying declaration based on the legislative intent of Section 12-302(c)(4)(i) of the Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Procedure Article (“section 12-302(c)(4)(i)”). Hailes v. State, 442 Md. 488, 497-98, 113 A.3d 608, 613-14 (2015). The court further held that a victim’s statement, made while on life support, was a dying declaration regardless of the fact that the victim died two years after making the statement. Id. at 506, 113 A.3d at 618. Finally, the court held that the Confrontation Clause of the …
Comment: In The Street Tonight: An Equal Protection Analysis Of Baltimore City's Juvenile Curfew, Andrew Middleman
Comment: In The Street Tonight: An Equal Protection Analysis Of Baltimore City's Juvenile Curfew, Andrew Middleman
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The sun is setting on a late-August evening in Baltimore. Children are playing in the gym at an elementary school in Berea, a small neighborhood in East Baltimore. Ulysses Cofield is watching the clock. Cofield keeps the Fort Worth Elementary School gym open late so the neighborhood kids have a place to blow off steam at the end of the day. At 8:30 p.m., he tells a pair of ten-year-olds they must leave so they can be home within the next thirty minutes. Cofield closes the gym for the evening, then scans the block for lingering children; he wants to …
Charm City Televised & Dehumanized: How Cctv Bail Reviews Violate Due Process, Edie Fortuna Cimino, Zina Makar, Natalie Novak
Charm City Televised & Dehumanized: How Cctv Bail Reviews Violate Due Process, Edie Fortuna Cimino, Zina Makar, Natalie Novak
University of Baltimore Law Forum
On May 28, 2013, Torrey Johnson5 struggles to raise both his hands, handcuffed and seated shoulder-to-shoulder between two other defendants in the first row of the closed circuit television (“CCTV” or “videoconference”) bail review hearing room within the Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center (“Centeral Booking”). There are two more rows of defendants behind Mr. Johnson, all in yellow jumpsuits, being watched by correctional officers. Separated by a three-foot wall, Mr. Johnson’s public defender sits out of sight from the video camera’s field of view, about ten feet away from her client. The judge quickly reads through Mr. Johnson’s rights. …
Recent Development: Motor Vehicle Admin. V. Deering: A Driver Whose License Is Suspended Under The "Implied Consent, Administrative Per Se Law" Is Not Entitled To Consult With An Attorney Before Deciding Whether To Take A Breath Test, Patrick Toohey
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held the implied consent, administrative per se law (“administrative per se law”) does not require that a suspected drunk driver be given the opportunity to consult an attorney before deciding whether to take a breath test. Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Deering, 438 Md. 611, 637, 92 A.3d 495, 511 (2014). The court found that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution does not establish a pre-test right to counsel for a suspected drunk driver in an administrative proceeding.
Recent Developments: Unconstitutional Sex-Based Mortality Tables, Robert J. Farley
Recent Developments: Unconstitutional Sex-Based Mortality Tables, Robert J. Farley
University of Baltimore Law Forum
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court Decisions: Search And Seizure Protections Weakened, Peter H. Meyers
Supreme Court Decisions: Search And Seizure Protections Weakened, Peter H. Meyers
University of Baltimore Law Forum
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court Decisions: Federal Collateral Attack Of State Convictions Sharply Curtailed, Charles J. Iseman
Supreme Court Decisions: Federal Collateral Attack Of State Convictions Sharply Curtailed, Charles J. Iseman
University of Baltimore Law Forum
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court Decisions: Administrative Law And Striking Teachers: The Hortonville Case, Michael Fedock
Supreme Court Decisions: Administrative Law And Striking Teachers: The Hortonville Case, Michael Fedock
University of Baltimore Law Forum
No abstract provided.