1. Did the court below err by denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss based on a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial? 2. Did the court below err by excluding evidence crucial to Appellant’s defense under the Maryland rape shield statute? 3. Is the evidence legally insufficient to sustain Appellant’s convictions?

Tagged with: baltimore city criminal procedure evidence Sept. Term 2013 speedy trial rights sufficiency of the evidence Woodward

Convicted of a murder conspiracy and other crimes, appellant claims violations of statutory and constitutional speedy trial rights as well as evidentiary rules governing hearsay.

Tagged with: criminal procedure evidence hearsay Reed Sept. Term 2012 speedy trial rights Wicomico County

Though the delay in this matter was protracted, the reasons for it were generally reasonable. Appellant did assert his right to a speedy trial, but did not demonstrate the most significant type of prejudice, viz., impairment of his defense.

Tagged with: baltimore city criminal procedure Sept. Term 2013 speedy trial rights Zarnoch

I. Was defendant's constitutional right to speedy trial violated? II. Were appellant’s confrontation rights violated by admission of laboratory results on blood alcohol concentration without testimony of persons who drew his blood and the analyst(s) who analyzed it?

Tagged with: Baltimore County confrontation clause criminal procedure drunk-driving Sept. Term 2013 speedy trial rights Woodward