DOCSLIB.ORG

National Criminal Justice Reference Service Washington, D.C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Criminal Justice Reference Service Washington, D.C If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. I'" ~ '/ ~ ~.' I ~, <,:- ~: I ~~ l~ l I ~c '1 ~ 1 .,c" i .'< l..; t ~;: I i. '\ , 1 ~ ~ ~, ~ ., J ] f ~ t':. " ',-" I Ii UcS. m:.Pi~RTM[ffr OF JUSTiCE lAW ENfORCEMn~T ASSISTANCE ADr:lIN!ST~AT!m\l NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFERENCE SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20531 -~~-----~------~.----------------------------------.......:.I v ~ I ',i j ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS COURTS OF APPEAL BUILDING ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401 STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR WILLIAM H. ADKINS, II DEPUTY STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR ROBERT W. MCKEEVER To The Honorable, The Chief Judge of The Court of Appeals of Maryland: Pursuant to Maryland Code (1974, 1976 Cum. Supp.), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 13-101(d)(9), I respectfully submit the Twenty- first Annual Report of this office, covering the " period from July 1, 1975 through June 30, 1976. ~~¥~~ William H. Adkins, II ...",,,<::! ,. -, State Court Administrator ' ....."It\' , ...,'1 1 ~-'~ '<'~'~ t ;. r ~ ..... ~ (- I \ '. I '''~r 'I ".~ i 1 .. J . 1 '''I . I "'~ " i \ ~ ""~ .""" ( I -"~ ; ( TABLE OF CONTENTS , /'" ~ r ", ~~""'~ j 1 ,. AN OVERVIEW OF THE COURTS ........................... 7 I ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS ............... 20 II JUDICIAL CONFERENCES AND JUDICIAL EDUCATION ..... , ......................... 50 f~' " t. III THE COURT OF APPEALS ................................ 62 THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS ....................... 69 il. " IV ~~, iL , V THE CIRCUIT COURTS ................................... 77 VI THE DISTRICT COURT .................................. 115 l' H r ~"; , APPENDIX ............................................. 127 tW' ~,., " 'f I ii~~;·"..,;.,~ ,,.. .. ,,..., ," ", ~ '. ~ :<! AN OVERVIEW OF THE COURTS ?T' j, ,. f-' .,,-...J, ~-_, r , 1 '-"1 ;if" 1'-"·-'. ~.-, '" l\'( iiil. r STATE OF THE JUDICIARY I,V :. ·L"~I On June 10, 1976, at the ll1vitation of the Maryland State Bar Association, ,'~ 1, i Chief Judge Robert C. Murphy delivered a report on the State of the Judiciary. -. , II) OJbO c: -g ., QJ 0 -. This report provides an informative overview of the Judicial Branch of govern- >. U c: 'iii <II a: e ~E'" > § QJ 's If ...: 'C g ment, its accomplishments, its goals and its problems. It also suggests vari- " U i ,f' it'i I ous ideas and projects for improvements in the Judicial Branch. til 1'" ,l c: ~ 0 :.a 1----,- 'iii <II Therefore, it is appropriate to introduce the Annual Report of the Admin- c: til I- .!1 o ,~ E a E 0 'iii U 'u istrative Office of the Courts with the 1976 address Jf Chief Judge Robert C. :g -. Murphy on the State of the Judiciary. ~.'- ...l Vl ...:'" ...l (Il b~ r- 0- - ~ ~ < 0- Il) '" < (Il '0 til ...: '0'" Ii; " C~ - ~ 0- C QJ Cl ~ REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE JUDICIARY TO <II ~ 0.. ...l ro .~ < Q).~ ...: ...: bOg t:5 ~g 'Bill (Il 'B~ 0.. ..... tIl 0.. ..... <11 .... <11 .... c: THE MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION BY a QJ QJ ~ >< 0.. .c ,~ '" f.- a :E!&j or:: u'" U Ol :J !;:: ROBERT C. MURPHY, CHIEF JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS a a:J 'J U QJ OF MARYLAND U § II) .~ 'iii' QJ t '" ~ tJ 0 ~ >- ~ (3'" C2 0" 'g -, June 10, 1976 b'" QJ Ii; u "~ til -5 15 ~ C .... ;t 0 E ." II '0...: (' .... ~ ., II) L "II ~ .. '"~ ~ !J' '0 QJ ti ~ " .. It is a very special pleasure for me to be invited here this '"c: C2 'g <II !"S::E -. '" ..... 's Ii; .. .c ' :. II, ~, ,~ morning--not rmly because the company is so thoroughly enjoy­ 1-c8 0 <II .11) o uur}) >< ~ e ~ (Il U OJ <II c it or:: C ., II able- - but more importantly because of the opportunity affords Vi ;. I., <II t:51l <: II ...l - ,~ c: 13 ~ me to speak with you about the common responsibility we share ~o=""Q.l 'g ~UCItl_ -. o ~ <lJ IU ~ ru ., UUU:>I!O'f.- ~ II) -. for the effective administration of justice in our State. Ordinar­ QJ '"~ II) (Il U) '"' ~ QJ U) .§ '0 ~ Q) !i f.- tIlC- ti "~ < bO ily I make it a practice never to take more than twice my alloted ~ al >,COc C2 'g .... g ~ - '0 '" Ii; e~c~~ -. E 0 .... f.- a :B"'O uU><ctJ-.ro""::1 n:! time; but so great is my respect for this Association, and for its E til 0.. U ::J~U 15 ~ L- a QJ :5.... ... ., til"'>. U::; '0 members, that I have carefully timed myself to stay within the C u~~8~ QJ 7ti~t 1 bOa:: <II bO z c e=~~E~ .;! l'l. E C QJ '-- UuOJOU 'B '"< i time limitation imposed upon me by your President. As a con­ 0 -, J: :g .;! 1;; ~ §.;! ~ <II U ::!. :i! =~~ ~ ~r <II or::aU)~~ 8.><5 N ~ sequence, I can do little more than focus briefly on a few matters Vi .... a ;::OJ;:E 'iii' 0.. ii: ...: t:; ~~ ~ ~t -g of importance to our profession, and touch on several problems ~E Ii; 00 -. 15"' c'" ::!. which I believe to be of prime interest to the Bench and Bar. ::- - u -;n tJ t C2 c ~ Ii; ~ ~ 15 :ii N ~ 9 I , {It._.a i Exclusive of Orphans' Court judges, we now have a This is but an initial step. The broader mission is, kif. ~. "e. l 1 ~ r ~ of course, total unification of the circuit courts into one total of 187 judges in Maryland, all lawyers, all full time 1~; ; judicial officers; they man a total of approximately 150 I ,. \d trial court of general jurisdiction, funded and administered courtrooms throughout our State, and entertain, col­ '.. ~ entirely by the State, and placed under the operational '1 11 ! r' direction of a single chief judge. Support for this ultimate lectively, well in excess of million cases a year. As t:t I "~ I you know, our State court system is structured into four .0 'C objective is enthusiastic and widespread, some of it coming distinct levels; three of which - - the Court of Appeals, r from the governing bodies of the political subdivisions who I. ,. the Court of Special Appeals and the District Court -- are {~ \.~.' . , find the expense of operating these courts an increasingly completely unified; that is, they are c0111pletely State­ , ~, difficult local burden to shoulder. It is worth noting in this funded, State-operated and centrally managed. The all connection that as the workloads of these locally funded I ~' l J important remaining level -- the trial courts of general 1 courts continue to increase -- and we are proj ecting in­ jurisdiction -- meaning of course the Circuit Courts of 'l creases of 2% in law filings, 1 fifo in equity filings, 32% in I the counties and the six Courts comprising the Supreme j, I criminal filings, and 35% in juvenile filings, comparing l Bench of Baltimore City -- are anything but unified; on \ . I ." fiscal 1976 with fiscal 1975 -- management problems are ~ the contrary, they are locally funded, subject to local ,I , becoming increasingly unmanageable and problems of " influences, not managed on a centralized basis, and are 'j physical facilities increasingly difficult to resolve. The 1 , , ~l i ~ . '" essentially an agglomeration of twenty-nine local county .; vigorous support of the members of this Association for courts, each operating in semi -autonomous fashion, each ~t circuit court unification is in my judgment absolutely vital, ,t, for without It the proposal will likely die and with it any with its own elected clerk and other operating personnel f, I over whom the court has no direct control. Other than !or I if chance of significant judicial reform in this State for many Jf the salaries of the judges, which are paid by the State, l years to come. the personnel of these courts are paid by the local poUtical '. subdivision in which they are located. And because of this I:t ,Ii Jt"""- Turning now to another Court whose creation was one of local funding pattern, the adequacy of the courthouses and J1. , this Association's most prized achievernents, the District "r of court facilities, and the prOVision made for all other Court of Maryland will celebrate its fifth birthday on July 5th Ijt ,f " judicial branch resources, varies widely among the " of this Bicentennial year. I cannot recall any other major counties, and between the counties and Baltimore City, ~i il, , governmental reform that had such immediate and beneficial depending usually upon the subdivision's degree of effects as did the creation of this Court. Almost overnight In. ~ affluence, or the strength of its commitment to maintaining II if (. the District Court erased the image of injustice that had an adequate judicial system within its borders. prevailed for so many decades at the primary judicial level 1'1, t" • in many parts of our State. And it is with particular pride Strong efforts to unify the trial courts of general juris­ r t ~. that I point to the fact that throughout these past five forma­ ; f.1 d, diction are now well under way. The Governor's Task Force t' tive years the District Court has been singularly free of even on Circuit Court unification, so ably headed by State Treasurer allegations of bias, political partisanship, or other William S. James, has already proposed the 8,doption of a I tj :,j' improprieties. constitutional amendment to consolidate the six courts which ., ~1. 2. " comprise the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City into one circuit In the last fiscal year, the District Court processed court, with but one elected clerk. The enormous advantages 1, 004, 000 cases -- of which 280, 000 were contested. In that would flow from this reform -- already 100 years over­ addition, the judges of the District Court, in an average year, due -- were put squarely before the legislature at its just will sit on the various circuit courts for approximately 600 concluded session and I think well understood by that body.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. _________ ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ALFREDO JUAREZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Colorado --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PHILIP L. TORREY Counsel of Record CRIMMIGRATION CLINIC HARVARD IMMIGRATION AND CLINICAL PROGRAM HARVARD LAW SCHOOL 6 Everett Street, Suite 3105 Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 495-0638 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Padilla v. Kentucky, this Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel requires counsel to provide correct legal advice to noncitizen-defendants about the immigration con- sequences of a prospective guilty plea. 559 U.S. 356, 368–69 (2010). If federal law is “succinct, clear, and explicit” about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, then defense counsel’s duty to explain those consequences is equally clear. Id. at 368. In con- trast, defense counsel need
    [Show full text]
  • Politics 1-6 Commentary 6-7 FORUM Duly Noted 8
    CONTENTS Politics 1-6 Commentary 6-7 FORUM Duly Noted 8 JULY 15, 1974 Vol. X, No. 14 50 CENTS POLITICS: REPORTS islation, but the implementation now under way of the new law's rules is still a controversial topic. COLORADO Daniels, a Denver businessman and part-owner of the Utah Stars basket­ Furthermore, there is some danger ball team, has drawn the bulk of his that the burning issue of the upcoming In only six states this year, incum­ support from state and Denver party Denver congressional race may spill bent governors will face or have faced leaders. Competition between the two over into state politics. A bitter fight serious primary challenges. GOP aspirants perhaps peaked in is expected between U.S. Rep. Patricia In South Dakota and Texas, respec­ Denver June 1 when delegates to the Schroeder (D) and State Rep. Frank tively, Democratic incumbents annihi­ state assembly were chosen. Daniels Southworth. Southworth, president of lated more liberal challengers with sur­ needed a strong showing from his the Denver Board of Education, is an prising ease. In Florida, Gov. Reubin Denver supporters but failed to get outspoken opponent of school busing Askew (D) is expected to have the it. In the pre-meeting acrimony, Den­ and is expected to make it his major same success, but in Oklahoma, the ver GOP Chairman James Aspinal, a issue. The publicity given busing could politi~allife expectancy of Gov. David Daniels backer, denied Denver GOP conceivably complicate the state guber­ Hall (D), embattled by investigations Secretary Mary Hofstra, a Vanderhoof natorial race as well.
    [Show full text]
  • United States V. Mandel: the Mail Fraud and En Banc Procedural Issues
    Maryland Law Review Volume 40 | Issue 4 Article 5 United States v. Mandel: the Mail Fraud and en Banc Procedural Issues Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Civil Procedure Commons Recommended Citation United States v. Mandel: the Mail Fraud and en Banc Procedural Issues, 40 Md. L. Rev. 550 (1981) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol40/iss4/5 This Casenotes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Note UNITED STATES v. MANDEL: THE MAIL FRAUD AND EN BANC PROCEDURAL ISSUES INTRODUCTION When Governor Marvin Mandel and his five codefendants were convicted of mail fraud1 and racketeering,2 Maryland politics seemed hopelessly corrupt. In a space of five years Marylanders had seen one of their United States senators, their former governor, and then their sitting governor haled into federal court on criminal charges.3 Yet United States v.Mandel 4 is disturbing, not merely because it suggests that Marylanders again were victimized by one of their top 1. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 provides in pertinent part: Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises . for the purpose of executing
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Secretaries & Executive Directors
    History of MACo 5 Executive Secretaries & Executive Directors Robert Lovelace: June 1960 - November 1961 Bill Ratchford: November 1961 - October 1962 Thomas Kelly: October 1962 - January 1964 Bill Ratchford: January 1964 - November 1968 Joe Murnane: November 1968 - May 1978 Wallace “Wally” Hutton: October 1978 - July 1981 Althea “Tee” O'Connor: September 1981 - August 1985 Raquel Sanudo: June 1985 - June 1991 David Bliden: July 1991 - Present Since the first Executive Director was hired in 1960, the men and women who have held that position have come from varied career backgrounds. The responsibilities of the position have changed and duties have been expanded and diversified. Similarly, the MACo staff has grown, from the charter staff of Executive Secretary Lovelace and a stenographer, to the seven staff members who serve the organization today. Each Executive Director has not only redefined the position, but, along with his or her staff, has helped to shape and develop MACo itself. Robert Lovelace As discussed in the previous chapter, Robert Lovelace, a former city manager, began his duties with the Association upon the establishment of the Symons Hall office beginning June 1, 1960. Per the agreement with the University of Maryland, he joined their staff as a lecturer in American Government. As the first Executive Secretary, as it was then called, Lovelace set the pace and provided a basic structure for those that would come after him. As is the case today, in 1960 the SACCOM Board was made up of county officials for whom Association service was only one aspect of their responsibilities; Lovelace was the first person involved with the organization that could focus wholly on its development.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016
    A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 Published by: Maryland State Board of Elections Linda H. Lamone, Administrator Project Coordinator: Jared DeMarinis, Director Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance Published: October 2016 Table of Contents Preface 5 The Electoral College – Introduction 7 Meeting of February 4, 1789 19 Meeting of December 5, 1792 22 Meeting of December 7, 1796 24 Meeting of December 3, 1800 27 Meeting of December 5, 1804 30 Meeting of December 7, 1808 31 Meeting of December 2, 1812 33 Meeting of December 4, 1816 35 Meeting of December 6, 1820 36 Meeting of December 1, 1824 39 Meeting of December 3, 1828 41 Meeting of December 5, 1832 43 Meeting of December 7, 1836 46 Meeting of December 2, 1840 49 Meeting of December 4, 1844 52 Meeting of December 6, 1848 53 Meeting of December 1, 1852 55 Meeting of December 3, 1856 57 Meeting of December 5, 1860 60 Meeting of December 7, 1864 62 Meeting of December 2, 1868 65 Meeting of December 4, 1872 66 Meeting of December 6, 1876 68 Meeting of December 1, 1880 70 Meeting of December 3, 1884 71 Page | 2 Meeting of January 14, 1889 74 Meeting of January 9, 1893 75 Meeting of January 11, 1897 77 Meeting of January 14, 1901 79 Meeting of January 9, 1905 80 Meeting of January 11, 1909 83 Meeting of January 13, 1913 85 Meeting of January 8, 1917 87 Meeting of January 10, 1921 88 Meeting of January 12, 1925 90 Meeting of January 2, 1929 91 Meeting of January 4, 1933 93 Meeting of December 14, 1936
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Byrne Edsall Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt4d5nd2zb No online items Inventory of the Thomas Byrne Edsall papers Finding aid prepared by Aparna Mukherjee Hoover Institution Library and Archives © 2015 434 Galvez Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6003 [email protected] URL: http://www.hoover.org/library-and-archives Inventory of the Thomas Byrne 88024 1 Edsall papers Title: Thomas Byrne Edsall papers Date (inclusive): 1965-2014 Collection Number: 88024 Contributing Institution: Hoover Institution Library and Archives Language of Material: English Physical Description: 259 manuscript boxes, 8 oversize boxes.(113.0 Linear Feet) Abstract: Writings, correspondence, notes, memoranda, poll data, statistics, printed matter, and photographs relating to American politics during the presidential administration of Ronald Reagan, especially with regard to campaign contributions and effects on income distribution; and to the gubernatorial administration of Michael Dukakis in Massachusetts, especially with regard to state economic policy, and the campaign of Michael Dukakis as the Democratic candidate for president of the United States in 1988; and to social conditions in the United States. Creator: Edsall, Thomas Byrne Hoover Institution Library & Archives Access The collection is open for research; materials must be requested at least two business days in advance of intended use. Publication Rights For copyright status, please contact the Hoover Institution Library & Archives. Acquisition Information Acquired by the Hoover
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions
    Maryland Law Review Volume 38 | Issue 2 Article 7 Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions, 38 Md. L. Rev. 242 (1978) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol38/iss2/7 This Casenotes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SURVEY OF MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS THE INHERENT POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - STATE DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS AND TAXATION v. CLARK Maryland courts have frequently claimed an inherent power to review and correct arbitrary, illegal, capricious, or unreasonable administrative decisions.' Recently, however, in State Department of Assessments and Taxation v. Clark,2 the Maryland Court of Appeals restricted the scope of this power by finding that a circuit court did not have jurisdiction to determine whether administrative authority to reduce a real property assessment pursuant to article 81, section 67 of the Maryland Code was exercised in an arbitrary fashion.3 The Court of Appeals held that the circuit courts' jurisdiction is limited to questions concerning the constitutionality of the administrator's actions. 4 Clark implicitly recognized that circuit courts 1. E.g., Zion Evangelical Luth. Church v. State Highway Admin., 276 Md.
    [Show full text]
  • 1973 NGA Annual Meeting
    Proceedings OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE 1973 SIXTY-FIFTH ANNUAL MEETING DEL WEBB'S SAHARA TAHOE. LAKE TAHOE, NEVADA JUNE 3-61973 THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE IRON WORKS PIKE LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY 40511 Published by THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE IRON WORKS PIKE LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY 40511 CONTENTS Executive Committee Rosters . vi Other Committees of the Conference vii Governors and Guest Speakers in Attendance ix Program of the Annual Meeting . xi Monday Session, June 4 Welcoming Remarks-Governor Mike O'Callaghan 2 Address of the Chairman-Governor Marvin Mandel 2 Adoption of Rules of Procedure 4 "Meet the Governors" . 5 David S. Broder Lawrence E. Spivak Elie Abel James J. Kilpatrick Tuesday Session, June 5 "Developing Energy Policy: State, Regional and National" 46 Remarks of Frank Ikard . 46 Remarks of S. David Freeman 52 Remarks of Governor Tom McCall, Chairman, Western Governors' Conference 58 Remarks of Governor Thomas J. Meskill, Chairman, New England Governors' Conference . 59 Remarks of Governor Robert D. Ray, Chairman, Midwestern Governors' Conference 61 Remarks of Governor Milton J. Shapp, Vice-Chairman, Mid-Atlantic Governors' Conference . 61 Remarks of Governor George C. Wallace, Chairman, Southern Governors' Conference 63 Statement by the Committee on Natural Resources and Environmental Management, presented by Governor Stanley K. Hathaway 65 Discussion by the Governors . 67 "Education Finance: Challenge to the States" 81 Remarks of John E. Coons . 81 Remarks of Governor Wendell R. Anderson 85 Remarks of Governor Tom McCall 87 Remarks of Governor William G. Milliken 88 iii Remarks of Governor Calvin L. Rampton 89 Discussion by the Governors . 91 "New Directions in Welfare and Social Services" 97 Remarks by Frank Carlucci 97 Discussion by the Governors .
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Historical Magazine, 1980, Volume 75, Issue No. 4
    Maryland •listorical Magazine ublished Quarterly by The Museum and Library of Maryland History The Maryland Historical Society Winter 1980 THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY OFFICERS J. Fife Symington, Jr., Chairman* Robert G. Merrick, Sr., Honorary Chairman* Leonard C. Crewe, Jr., Vice Chairman* Frank H. Weller, Jr., President* J. Dorsey Brown, III, Vice President* Stuart S. Janney, III, Secretary* Mrs. Charles W. Cole, Jr., Vice President* John G. Evans, Treasurer* E. Phillips Hathaway, Vice President* J. Frederick Motz, Counsel* William C. Whitridge, Vice President* Samuel Hopkins, Past President* 'The officers listed above constitute the Society's Executive Committee. BOARD OF TRUSTEES H. Furlong Baldwin Richard R. Kline Frederick Co. Mrs. Emory J. Barber St. Mary's Co. Mrs. Frederick W. Lafferty Gary Black, Jr. John S. Lalley James R. Herbert Boone {Honorary) Charles D. Lyon Washington Co. Thomas W. Burdette Calvert C. McCabe, Jr. Philip Carroll Howard Co. Robert G. Merrick, Jr. Mrs. James Frederick Colwill Michael Middleton Charles Co. Owen Daly, II J. Jefferson Miller, II Donald L. DeVries W. Griffin Morrel Emory Dobson Caroline Co. Richard P. Moran Montgomery Co. Deborah B. English Thomas S. Nichols Charles O. Fisher Carroll Co. Addison V. Pinkney Mrs. Jacob France {Honorary) J. Hurst Purnell, Jr. Kent Co. Louis L. Goldstein Culvert Co. George M. Radcliffe Anne L. Gormer Allegany Co. Adrian P. Reed Queen Anne's Co. Kingdon Gould, Jr. Howard Co. Richard C. Riggs, Jr. William Grant Garrett Co. David Rogers Wicomico Co. Benjamin H. Griswold, III Terry M. Rubenstein R. Patrick Hayman Somerset Co. John D. Schapiro Louis G. Hecht Jacques T.
    [Show full text]
  • "'68: the Fire Last Time," Part 4
    "'68: The Fire Last Time," Part 4 Sunni Khalid - Narrator This week marks the 40th anniversary of the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil unrest that erupted in 125 cities and towns across the nation, including Baltimore. The unrest in Baltimore lasted a little longer than three days but during that time, the violence spread over a thousand city blocks. It took the police, National Guard and federal troops and the tireless efforts of community leaders to end the violence. In that week, six people died, 700 were wounded and more than a thousand businesses were destroyed. In Part Four of our series, "'68: The Fire Last Time," WYPR looks at the aftermath of the upheaval. WYPR's Sunni Khalid picks up the story on Thursday, April 11th, 1968. Fires were still smoldering when Mayor Tommy D'Alesandro learned that Governor Spiro Agnew planned a tongue-lashing for Baltimore's black leaders. "I got advance notice of his speech from one of the TV stations, and I called him. I said, Governor, can you not make the statement or re-do the statement ... not call for a declaration of war with the black community?' Smoke is still present in the city. Let's just have a cooling off period.' But he said, 'Tommy, I'll tell you, that's how I feel and I am going to say it and I'm going to stick by my statement.' Agnew had invited about a hundred of Baltimore's black leaders to a meeting at his Baltimore office.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legacy of Justice in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County
    Their Story: The Legacy of Justice in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County The Honorable Sheila R. Tillerson Adams Administrative Judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County Honorable Albert W. Northrop Born in Illinois, the Honorable Albert W. Northrop is the son of an U.S. Air Force chaplain. As a result, he and his family moved every few years. Judge Northrop attended University of Maryland at Munich Campus, in Munich, Germany. Shortly after, Judge Northrop transferred to University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland where he received his bachelor’s of arts degree in June 1969. Following, he returned to the University of Maryland School of Law and received his law degree in 1974. One year later, in 1975, he was admitted to the Maryland Bar. He entered private practice of law in February 1975. Judge Northrop was appointed to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County in June 2006. Judge Northrop served as an Associate Judge of District Court of Maryland, District 5, Prince George’s County from January 2003 to June 2006. Judge Northrop was sworn in as a Judge of the Orphans Court for Prince George’s County in August 1986. During his time as Judge of Orphans Court, Judge Northrop co-authored, “Decedents’ Estates in Maryland” published by Mitchie Law Book Publishing. In October 2017, Judge Northrop retired from the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. Honorable C. Philip Nichols, Jr. A fifth generation Prince Georgian, C. Philip Nichols, Jr. graduated from Georgetown University in 1969 and received his law degree from University of Baltimore School of Law in 1973.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal and Local Jurisdiction in the District of Columbia
    Notes Federal and Local Jurisdiction in the District of Columbia The 1982 trial of John Hinckley for the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan brought to the public's attention a unique fea- ture of the criminal justice system in the District of Columbia. Although federal and state charges never are joined together for trial, federal and D.C. Code charges may be joined in one indictment under section 11- 502(3) of the D.C. Code,' and tried before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.' In the Hinckley case, the federal prosecutor used section 11-502(3) to join three federal and ten D.C. Code charges. This joinder required the district court to determine whether to use both federal and D.C. Code evidentiary standards during the trial, or only one standard. The court ruled that only federal standards would be used,' and therefore placed the 1. Under D.C. CODE ANN. § 11-502(3) (1981), the United States District Court has jurisdiction over "[any offense under any law applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia which offense is joined in the same information or indictment with any Federal offense." A similar but more limited jurisdictional statute is found at D.C. CODE ANN. § 23-311(b) (1981): Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information as provided in subsection (a) [offenses charged are of similar character or based on same transaction] even though one or more is in violation of the laws of the United States and another is in violation of the laws applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia and may be prosecuted as pro- vided in Section 11-502(3).
    [Show full text]