Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted Appellant Jody Miles of first-degree felony murder and related offenses, including robbery with a deadly weapon and use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. Miles was sentenced to death. The Court of Appeals affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentence. Miles subsequently filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that he was entitled to a new sentencing hearing on the ground that the jury should have been instructed that a death sentence cannot be imposed unless every juror is persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. The circuit court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to a new sentencing hearing as Maryland's capital sentencing procedure did not violate the Sixth Amendment.

After a jury trial, Ronald Cox was convicted of multiple offenses related to a murder. The court of special appeals affirmed his convictions. The Court of Appeals granted Cox's petition for certiorari and affirmed, holding (1) the court of special appeals did not err in upholding the admission of hearsay testimony of a fellow inmate as (a) because the out-of-court statements were made voluntarily and were unprompted in casual conversation, they were not made with the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony, and thus the statements were not testimonial and the Confrontation Clause did not bar their exclusion, and (b) the testimony was sufficiently attenuated from the taint of an earlier illegal search and arrest under the attenuation analysis set forth in Miles v. State, and (2) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find that Cox was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

After a jury trial, William Langley was convicted of first-degree murder, use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, and wearing or carrying a handgun. The court of special appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether the admission into evidence of a recording of a 911 call violated Langley's confrontation rights where the call was placed after the offense had been completed and the alleged perpetrator had left the scene and where the caller indicated that she was aware that the police had been notified and were in the process of responding. Upon applying the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Michigan v. Bryant to the facts of the case, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statements in the 911 tape were non-testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes, and thus, Langley's right to confrontation was not infringed by the admission of the statements.

Armardo Atkins was convicted of second degree assault in circuit court. On appeal, Atkins argued that the trial judge abused her discretion by instructing the jury that the State was not required to shoulder its burden of persuasion by the use of certain categories of demonstrative evidence. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the instruction that the State need not use certain investigative and scientific techniques violated Atkins's constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial because it resulted in a non-neutral commentary on the evidence, or lack thereof, invaded the province of the jury, and relieved the State of its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded for a new trial.

After responding to a domestic altercation between Mark Furda and his wife, police officers seized Furda's collection of weapons and transported Furda to the hospital for a mental health evaluation. Furda was later transferred to a behavioral health facility. Upon release, Furda requested the return of his firearms, which the trial court judge denied. Furda asked the judge to reconsider but purchased a new gun before the judge responded. When filling out the application to purchase the firearm, Furda certified, under penalty of perjury, that he had not been committed to a mental institution. Furda was later convicted of prejury and false information in a firearm application. The court of special appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Furda's motion for the return of his weapons but affirmed Furda's convictions. On review, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) in the State's required application to purchase a firearm, a question asking whether the applicant has ever been adjudicated mentally defective or has been committed to a mental institution was not impermissibly ambiguous; and (2) Furda knowingly and willfully answered that question falsely.

After a jury trial, Kendall Northam was convicted of second degree murder and first degree assault. During the proceedings, Northam, who was represented by an assistant public defender, filed a pro se motion for change of venue that included a request for a court-appointed attorney. The motion was denied. On appeal, the court of special appeals held that Northam was entitled to a new trial on the ground that the circuit court had failed to comply with the requirements of Md. R. Crim. P. 4-215(e) by failing to permit Northam to explain the reasons for his request to discharge defense counsel. The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and reversed, holding that Northam waived his right to appellate review of the claim on the ground that he was not permitted to explain the reasons for requesting permission to discharge defense counsel.

After a jury trial, petitioner Ricky Savoy was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, and carrying a handgun. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the trial court's instruction to the jury on the standard of proof violated due process by reducing the state's burden of proof to below the constitutionally-required standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Petitioner made no objection to the instruction at trial and argued to the court of special appeals that the erroneous instruction was a structural error that is per se reversible, even in the absence of a contemporaneous objection. He argued, alternatively, that the intermediate appellate court should reverse the judgments on the basis of plain error, as permitted by Maryland Rule 4-325(e). The intermediate appellate court affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) that the intermediate appellate court erred when it held that the reasonable doubt instructions did not constitute structural error or violate petitioner's fundamental right to a fair trial; and (2) this case was appropriate for the exercise of plain error review.

Petitioner Raymond Lupfer was convicted of second-degree murder, first-degree assault, and use of a handgun in a crime of violence. During the trial, the prosecution elicited testimony regarding the fact that Lupfer remained silent after he was arrested and advised of his Miranda rights. Petitioner appealed. The intermediate appellate court affirmed, explaining that a defendant's post-arrest, post-Miranda silence is permissible where the silence is introduced for the limited purpose of rebutting an impression created by the defendant that defendant cooperated fully with the police. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that because Lupfer did not open the door sufficiently under the open door doctrine with his statements at trial regarding his pre-arrest actions and intentions, the state was not entitled to elicit testimony regarding his post-arrest, post-Miranda silence. The Court concluded that when the prosecution elicits such evidence to rebut an implication that the defendant merely intended, at some undetermined point in the future, to cooperate with police, the probative value of such evidence is dwarfed by the danger of unfair prejudice.