U.S. District Court Judge Paul W. Grimm

It’s one thing to hear lawyers talk about the “CSI effect,” where jurors expect to see prosecutors present the high-tech evidence that regularly cracks cases on television.

It’s another thing to hear one of the foremost authorities on evidence and discovery say it.

“It’s more powerful than a great opening statement or a tear-inducing closing,” U.S. District Court Judge Paul W. Grimm told a packed seminar during the Maryland State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting in Ocean City.

The Criminal Law and Practice Section’s panel mixed a discussion of the newest technologies with references to Popeye, Mr. Peabody and several utterances of the phrase “if you are of a certain age.”

Those of a certain age could recall where prosecutors needed someone on the witness stand to identify the suspect as the person who committed the crime.

Now, “cell phones are the new, best way to solve crimes,” said Baltimore County State’s Attorney Scott Shellenberger. The first three questions investigators ask a suspect is for his name, if he has a cellphone and if he always has his cellphone on him, he added.

Shellenberger described a case where four people were convicted in connection with a murder based on a suspect’s cellphone address book and recent calls. Surveillance cameras helped corroborate the defendants were at the scene of a crime.

In another case, Baltimore County prosecutors were able to obtain a murder conviction by mapping the victim’s and defendant’s cellphone “pings” to cell phone towers to prove they were in the same location at the same time.

“Technology not only solved the crime, it proved the crime,” he said.

Read the rest of this entry »

Kannon K. Shanmugam, Alonzo Jay King Jr.’s lawyer, was reviewing the amicus briefs filed to the Supreme Court in support of Maryland’s DNA collection law when he started counting. Forty-nine states had filed briefs.

Shanmugam was encouraged.

“Someone held out!” he recalled to laughter during a panel session at the Maryland State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting. “Then I realized it was Maryland.”

Shanmugam was gracious in defeat Thursday as he provided the lawyers and judges in Ocean City with his perspective on Maryland v. King, which reinstated the state law permitting police to collect DNA samples from people arrested on charges of committing or attempting to commit a violent crime.

“I think this is a case we will look back on in 10 or 15 years and say, That was the case from this term that had the largest impact,” said Shanmugam, a partner at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington.

As Shanmugam was doing research for his case, he discovered the Supreme Court had never decided on the constitutionality of fingerprinting, let alone DNA testing. (He also found that since the Maryland law’s adoption, there were 20 cases where a suspect was arrested and not convicted but DNA led to the prosecution of another crime.)

Both sides agreed there was a search in the case: Shanmugam’s strategy was to argue to that DNA is different from a fingerprint when it comes to a search.

“DNA testing is not used for identification, it’s simply to show that someone committed a crime,” he said, an argument championed by Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissent.

Shanmugam called the oral argument “fascinating.”

“It felt like one of those relatively few cases where the decision is in doubt during the argument,” he said.

(Also in attendance at oral arguments and Thursday’s panel were Court of Appeals Judges Glenn T. Harrell Jr. and Mary Ellen Barbera, with the latter introducing herself to Shanmugam after the discussion ended.)

The majority, Shanmugam said, placed weight on the fact King had been arrested previously, meaning King had “lost some some expectation of privacy.”

The narrowness of the reasoning was deliberate, Shanmugam added.

“The court is mindful of the fact one of the major issues it will deal with [in the future] is the Fourth Amendment and emerging technologies, particularly used by law enforcement,” he said.

That’s why Justice Samuel A. Alito called the Maryland v. King “one of the most important criminal procedure cases in the last 10 years,” Shanmugam said.

“I’m now the guy who lost the most important criminal procedure case in the last 10 years,” he added with a smile.

Welcome to Monday — and Tax Day 2013. Here’s hoping for many happy returns as you take these news items into account.

– Two Maryland Court of Appeals judges watched as the U.S. Supreme Court considered their DNA-case opinions.

– Delays in justice reportedly afflict New York courts.

– A lawyer became a hero in a dispute between Chicago and apartment tenants.

– A Minnesota Supreme Court justice — and former Purple People Eater — has written a children’s book.

(Photo: Melissa Golden for The Wall Street Journal)

Dels. Benjamin Kramer, left and Kathleen Dumais, both Montgomery County Democrats, get into a heated exchange about the dog-liability bill on the House floor Monday night. (Maximilian Franz/The Daily Record)

Del. Benjamin Kramer, whose opposition to legislation imposing near-strict liability on dog owners led to the measure’s death in the House, said he wants the General Assembly to have a one-day special session to pass legislation to relieve landlords of their strict liability for injuries caused by their tenants’ pit bulls.

Kramer, a Montgomery County Democrat,  said he has not consulted yet with either Gov. Martin O’Malley, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr., D-Prince George’s and Calvert, or House Speaker Michael E. Busch, D-Anne Arundel, on a special session. However, Kramer said he plans to send a formal request to the governor soon after meeting with fellow legislators.

Landlords, fearing strict liability, have forced tenants to choose between staying in their rental abodes or getting rid of their pets, Kramer said.

“We have an obligation and a responsibility to protect the family pets of our residents,” he said. Tenants “should not be put into that position. That’s what we have to stop.”

He added that providing relief to landlords from strict liability remains the unfinished business of the 2013 General Assembly session, which ended Monday.

O’Malley spokeswoman Raquel Guillory said “the governor would likely have  a conversation with legislative leaders and the delegate” before committing to a special session.

Maryland’s top court imposed strict liability on landlords in its April 2012 Tracey v. Solesky decision, which also held pit bull owners strictly liable for injuries their dogs cause.

The Senate-passed legislation that died in the House as the General Assembly adjourned would have held dog owners, regardless of breed, liable for injuries their pets cause to children under age 13. Owners could escape liability only if the child had trespassed or provoked the dog. For people 13 and older, owners would have to rebut the presumption of liability by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that they had no reason to suspect their dog had a vicious propensity.

Kramer opposed the Senate bill, saying on the House floor Monday that the measure would unfairly make a dog owner liable whenever “little Fifi” nipped at a child. On Wednesday, Kramer said the Senate and House should reconvene to pass legislation on which he said both chambers agree: that landlords should not be held strictly liable.

The General Assembly’s pit bull task force met Thursday for the first time since this summer.

While no concrete decisions were made and only six of the 10 members of the task force attended, the group discussed how to determine whether a dog is at fault in the case of an attack.

As a recap: The task force is supposed to discuss legislation in response to an Court of Appeals decision earlier this year that ruled pit bulls are “inherently dangerous” and landlords and owners are liable in the case of an attack.

In a special session this summer, the General Assembly tried, but failed, to pass legislation dealing with the issue. Both the Senate and House of Delegates agreed that landlords should not be liable in attacks. While the Senate passed a bill making all dog owners liable in the case of a dog bite, the House of Delegates wanted narrower legislation that would limit liability only when a dog is running around “at large.”

In Thursday’s hour-and-a-half meeting, the group discussed the complexities of determining whether a dog bite is intentional and if a dog is at fault if he/she is provoked by a human.

“Is there any state in which it is allowed for a dog to be cross-examined?” Sen. Brian E. Frosh, D-Montgomery, questioned during the work session.

Del. Benjamin F. Kramer, D-Montgomery,  said other states have had animal psychologists testify in court.

“We have to look at this from an animal’s perspective,” Kramer said. “From an animal’s perspective, this was provocation.”

Frosh, however, questioned Kramer.

“Do we really want to go down that road?” Frosh said.

Read the rest of this entry »

I did not vote in The Daily Record’s recent poll on whom you think Gov. Martin O’Malley should name as the next Court of Appeals chief judge when Robert M. Bell retires July 6, his 70th birthday.

I could tell you the reason I did not vote is because my journalistic integrity does not allow me to play favorites, even anonymously, when it comes to the institutions and people I cover.

That would be only half right. The other reason is I am not very good at predicting high-court appointees.

It all started in the summer of 1990 when Justice William J. Brennan Jr. announced his retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court. The choice for his successor seemed obvious to me.

The then-U.S. solicitor general had stepped down from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., to take the job under then-President George H.W. Bush. Certainly, this man would be Bush’s choice for the Supreme Court.

But Bush passed on Kenneth W. Starr and selected a lesser-known 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge and former New Hampshire attorney general named David H. Souter.

I figured I’d quit while I was behind.

While all of us here at The Daily Record celebrated the Top 100 Women across the state Monday, another woman on the other side of the country reached a milestone for women in the courts.

Jacqueline H. Nguyen of Los Angeles was confirmed as a judge on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday. The appointment makes her the first Asian Pacific American woman judge on a federal appellate court.

Nguyen came to the United States in 1975 after fleeing Vietnam and studied during breaks while helping her parents at their donut shop in Hollywood, according to the Los Angeles Times.

She went to UCLA School of Law, was appointed to the Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2002 and was chosen by President Barack Obama as a federal judge for the Central District of California in 2009.

The Ninth Circuit Court, where Nguyen was appointed, has jurisdiction over the federal district courts in Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

The seven judges on Maryland’s top court were ready to hear Timothy S. Gordon explain to them why he should not be disbarred for misuse of escrow funds.

But in an unusual move, Gordon announced to the Court of Appeals that “I wish at this time to consent to the relief sought [by Bar Counsel] and that I be disbarred.”

Attorneys who consent to having their law licenses pulled generally do so much earlier in the Attorney Grievance Commission‘s disciplinary process, thus saving them the burden of paying Bar Counsel’s court and investigative costs.

The Court of Appeals, in its Monday order disbarring Gordon, also ordered him to pay Bar Counsel’s costs of $1,200.

“I was as surprised as anybody else,” Court of Appeals Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. said Tuesday of Gordon’s Sept. 7 announcement in open court. “This was unusual in that the denouement did not occur until the day of oral argument.”

Gordon, who was a Hagerstown solo practitioner, could not be reached for comment.

Court of Appeals Judge Joseph F. Murphy Jr. was in perhaps the last place a person would want to be when the earthquake hit yesterday — in surgery to remove a blockage in a carotid artery.

Fortunately,  the tremors did not sway the hands of his surgeon, Murphy said by telephone from his hospital bed this morning. Murphy said he expects to be released this afternoon from St. Joseph Medical Center in Towson.

“They discovered it during an annual physical,” Murphy said of the blockage. “My carotid artery had narrowed to the point it had to be cleaned out but fortunately all went well.”

Murphy, 67, said he will be on the bench Wednesday, when the Court of Appeals begins its 2011-2012 term. However, Murphy — as he announced earlier this year — will retire from the bench Sept. 30 to join the law firm Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White LLC in Baltimore, where his daughter Erin is an associate.

At Thursday’s “Are you smarter than a law clerk?” session at the MSBA conference in Ocean City, Court of Appeals Judge Lynne A. Battaglia’s law clerks proved that they are pretty darn smart.

They answered all but one question correctly. Even the one they got wrong they originally got right; they just waffled in the end and answered “yes” instead of “it depends.”

Playing the role of Vanna White, Battaglia (pronounced the Italian way, with no hard “g” sound as she informed the crowd) showed off towels and mugs stamped “Smarter Than A Law Clerk.” Panelist James Archibald of Venable LLP in Baltimore provided the prizes.

Lunch was provided by panelist Paul Mark Sandler, name partner of the Baltimore firm Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler. Hilariously grouchy comments provided by the third panelist, retired Baltimore County Circuit Judge John Fader II, who said every time he attends the MSBA conference he sees people who don’t need to be there and then returns to the courtroom and sees all of the attorneys who should have gone.

The session often felt like comedy hour, with audience members yelling out to Battaglia, “What would the Court of Appeals say?” She demurred, saying, “You know I never give out advisory opinions.”

Sandler playfully tangled with Battaglia over her decision in Griffin v. State this year that left the tech-loving Sandler disappointed.

He also got into it with Fader over a British murder case from the 1800s that led to attorneys being allowed to hear confessions from their clients and then turn around and cross-examine other suspects on the stand to lead jurors to believe that the other suspect was the murderer. Fader said he didn’t like that ruling and that it shouldn’t be the law.

“Everybody’s wrong,” Fader said, “except for the people who believe the way I do.”