Criminal Law:

NORMAN BRUCE DERR v. STATE OF MARYLAND
(Plurality) Court of Appeals, Filed August 22, 2013
http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2013/6a10.pdf
Confrontation-Clause: Interpreting Williams v. Illinois to mean that a statement must be “formalized” in order to be “testimonial,” (and thus subject to the Confrontation Clause) i.e. (“Affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or statements made in formalized dialogue or a confession”).

Other notes:
– Rule 4-263 “does not require the State to engage in extensive research projects on behalf of criminal defendants that could potentially produce useful evidence.”
– Rule 4-263 does not give a defendant the right to search CODIS for potentially helpful information
– Jury instruction defining “reasonable degree of scientific certainty” was unnecessary in light of standard instructions
– 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause is still to be read in pari materia with Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

History:
– This case was decided previously by the COA, but then vacated by the Supreme Court to be reconsidered in light of their plurality opinion in Williams v. Illinois. In a “walk this way” moment, the COA not only reconsidered in light of Williams, they split similarly.
– In Williams, the USSC issued an opinion with 2 concurrences and a dissent:
* Alito wrote the opinion with Roberts, Kennedy, and Breyer joining
* Breyer wrote a separate concurrence, but joined the plurality opinion
* Thomas wrote a concurrence
* Kagan wrote a dissent with Scalia, Ginsburg, and Sotoayor joining
– The Court of Appeals issued an opinion with 2 concurrences and a dissent:
* Greene wrote the opinion with Battaglia joining
* Adkins concurred with Harrell joining (13 loci matches are fine, but we must “remain vigilant” against less-than-13-loci matches)
* McDonald concurred with the Harvard Law Review (rejecting Justice Thomas’s analysis, but “[h]aving said all that, I do not have an alternative unified theory to offer.” He does, however, “look forward to the next episode in the Supreme Court’s application of the Confrontation Clause to forensic lab reports.”)
* Eldridge dissented with Bell joining (“the failure of the Supreme Court to render an opinion in Williams v. Illinois would clearly justify basing our decision on Article 21 of the Declaration of Rights and not reaching the Sixth Amendment issue.” Clearly.)

JOSE F. LOPEZ v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Filed August 20, 2013
http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2013/61a12.pdf
Post-Conviction: Neither the 10-year filing limit for post-convictions nor the common-law doctrine of laches apply to convictions prior to 1995.

TOMMY WHACK, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Filed August 21, 2013
http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2013/86a12.pdf
Closing Argument- DNA: Because DNA “stand[s] alone as a potentially confusing topic,” potentially misleading statement by prosecutor in closing argument required reversal despite trial-court’s curative admonition that the jury’s recollection of evidence controls.

Short version:
You can say “he killed her,” but you can’t say “his DNA was there,” because DNA is confusing.

Related Cases:
KEVIN P. CLARK v. MAYOR MARTIN O’MALLEY
Court of Appeals, Filed August 23, 2013
http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2013/93a09.pdf
Former Baltimore police commissioner Kevin Clark… doesn’t get to be reinstated.

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. SHERRIE T. HOWELL
Court of Appeals, Filed August 21, 2013
http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2013/7a10ag.pdf
Turns out you shouldn’t use legal mail to smuggle contraband to prisoners.