Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Right to counsel (2)
- Abuse of discretion (1)
- Alternative sentencing (1)
- Criminal due process (1)
- Criminal justice (1)
-
- Due process (1)
- Indigent criminal defendants (1)
- Indigent defendents (1)
- Judicial bias (1)
- Maryland Constitution (1)
- Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct (1)
- Prior bad acts (1)
- Prior inconsistent statements (1)
- Restorative justice (1)
- Rules of evidence (1)
- Speedy trial violation (1)
- Unfair prejudice (1)
- Witness impeachment (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief Of Appellant, Mark Andrew Matthews V. State Of Maryland, No. 327, Paul Dewolfe, Renée M. Hutchins, Jesse M. Lachman
Brief Of Appellant, Mark Andrew Matthews V. State Of Maryland, No. 327, Paul Dewolfe, Renée M. Hutchins, Jesse M. Lachman
Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Appellant, John Hill V. State Of Maryland, No. 2740, Paul Dewolfe, Renée M. Hutchins, Silva Georgian
Brief Of Appellant, John Hill V. State Of Maryland, No. 2740, Paul Dewolfe, Renée M. Hutchins, Silva Georgian
Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Amici Curiae On Behalf Of Appellants, Paul Dewolfe, Jr., Et Al. V. Quinton Richmond, Et Al., 2011 No. 34, A.J. Bellido De Luna, Michael Pinard
Brief Of Amici Curiae On Behalf Of Appellants, Paul Dewolfe, Jr., Et Al. V. Quinton Richmond, Et Al., 2011 No. 34, A.J. Bellido De Luna, Michael Pinard
Court Briefs
In this case the appellants sought to overturn a decision by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City that held criminal defendants have a right to representation by an attorney at an initial bail hearing. Due to their concern about the quality of justice given to criminal defendants in the state’s criminal justice process, law professors at both the University of Baltimore and the University of Maryland filed an amicus brief with the Maryland Court of Appeals in support of the appellees.
The amici presented one issue: Did a Court of Appeals decision in 2001 holding that the Maryland Public Defender …
Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, Robert Calvin Brown, Iii V. State Of Maryland, No. 08-118, Brenda Bratton Blom
Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, Robert Calvin Brown, Iii V. State Of Maryland, No. 08-118, Brenda Bratton Blom
Court Briefs
Amici brief filed by the University of Maryland School of Law’s Clinical Program and members of the Baltimore legal community including legal educators, lawyers, student attorneys, service providers, government administrators, community based organizations, and nationally recognized individuals from community justice initiatives and organizations on Respondent’s behalf. The individuals and organizations represented in the brief have all collaborated together to build and support what are colloquially known as “problem solving dockets”: courts that are specialized, alternative sentencing dockets that offer diversionary programs to qualified offenders. The dockets are run out of Maryland’s district and circuit courts, but not separate, freestanding judicial …
Brief Of Amicus Curiae In Support Of Appellants, Quinton Richmond, Et Al., V. The District Court Of Maryland, Et Al., No. 08-54, Brenda Bratton Blom, Robert Rubinson, Phillip J. Closius
Brief Of Amicus Curiae In Support Of Appellants, Quinton Richmond, Et Al., V. The District Court Of Maryland, Et Al., No. 08-54, Brenda Bratton Blom, Robert Rubinson, Phillip J. Closius
Court Briefs
Amici curiae brief filed by 78 faculty members from the University of Maryland School of Law and the University of Baltimore School of Law, on behalf of Appellants Quinton Richmond, et al. Amicus members felt the need to comment on the application and implications of the statutory right to counsel under Maryland law for indigent criminal defendants. The issue before the Court of Appeals was whether the Court’s previous holding in McCarter v. State, 363 Md. 705 (2001), that the plain language of the Maryland Public Defender Act created a right to counsel during all stages of a criminal …