Unit 5 Court Briefs
CASE 1 – ARREST,
SEARCH AND SEIZURE - TERRY
STOP (a
traffic stop that finds other criminal evidence, evidence must be
visible to the officer - cannot be in trunk for instance, or if an
occupant of the vehicle indicates criminal evidence is in the car) – INFORMATION
PROVIDED TO A POLICE OFFICER IN PERSON BY AN
INFORMANT, PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN TO THE OFFICER, CONCERNING THE IDENTITY
AND
WHEREABOUTS OF A PERPETRATOR OF A CRIME WITNESSED BY THE INFORMANT WAS
ENOUGH
TO GIVE THE POLICE OFFICER A REASONABLE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION
SUFFICIENT TO
ALLOW THE OFFICER TO DETAIN THE PERSON IDENTIFIED BY THE INFORMANT EVEN
THOUGH,
AT THE TIME OF THE SUPPRESSION HEARING, THE POLICE OFFICER STILL DID
NOT KNOW
THE IDENTITY OF THE INFORMANT.
What is the issue
here?_____________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Facts: On
September 21, 2002, a
stranger approached off-duty Police Officer Anthony Knox in a 7-Eleven
store in
Bladensburg, Maryland. The “extremely
nervous” man
told Officer Knox that he had just witnessed a high speed car chase and
that
the driver of one of the vehicles displayed a handgun out the car
window. The
informant said that one of the cars involved in the chase was in the
7-Eleven
parking lot. He also pointed to Elohim Cross (appellant), who was
speaking on a
pay phone, as the person who had displayed the weapon and drove the
vehicle.
Officer
Knox informed the Bladensburg
Police Department of the tip, and Officers Russell Chick, Shawn Morder,
and
Corporal Charles Cowling reported to the scene. After observing
appellant for
several minutes while he spoke on the phone, the three officers
approached him
as he was about to enter his car. An officer ordered appellant to “put
his hands on his head and walk away from the vehicle”;
the officer then performed “a Terry
stop patdown” as
appellant was being handcuffed. While doing this, Officer Chick
explained to
the appellant that he was “being
detained while we investigated the
report of a firearm.” The patdown
resulted in the discovery of no
weapons.
Officer
Morder and Corporal Cowling
then searched the interior of appellant’s vehicle
while appellant was asked
some “background
questions” by
Officer Chick. During the search, Officer Morder observed a handgun
through a
space in the “partially
opened” glove
compartment. Corporal Cowling took a key to the glove compartment from
appellant. In the glove compartment he found a handgun. The officer
next found
narcotics and money. The police then searched the trunk of appellant’s
vehicle, where they found more drugs along with drug paraphernalia. The
drugs
field tested positive for cocaine.
Appellant’s
counsel moved to suppress the gun and drugs found in the glove
compartment, as
well as the evidence obtained from the trunk. The motions judge denied
Cross’s
motion to suppress.
Appellant
ultimately was convicted of
second-degree assault. He appealed the motion judge’s
denial of the motions to suppress the gun and drugs and paraphernalia,
arguing
that the warrantless search of the glove compartment violated his
Fourth
Amendment rights.
Find out what the
court actually decided, Look for the word "Held" and the bold type
1. Make sure you know what is meant by a “Terry
Stop”
2.
Who is the plaintiff, who is the defendant?
3.
If you were the judge what would you decide, in favor the plaintiff or
the
defendant?
4.
Would any of the cases
in the worksheets apply a precedent?
Case
2 -
CRIMINAL LAW - CAPITAL SENTENCING
PROCEEDING - ILLEGAL SENTENCE - MOTION TO CORRECT - USE OF STATISTICAL
SURVEY
Facts: In
1992, Petitioner was convicted of, among other
crimes, first-degree murder and sentenced to death. In a Motion to
Correct an
Illegal Sentence filed in 2004 under Maryland Rule 4-345(a), which gave
rise to
the instant case, he argued that his death sentence was imposed in a
racially-biased manner. Petitioner is African-American and the victim
of his
crimes was Caucasian. Petitioner alleged that the death penalty was
sought more
frequently in such situations statewide and in Baltimore County where
the
crimes were committed than in other racial combinations of accused and
victim.
He also claimed the sentence was geographically-biased. Petitioner
asserted
that the State's Attorney for Baltimore County, who elected to pursue
the death
penalty and whose office prosecuted the case against him, sought such
punishment in eligible cases more frequently than state's attorneys for
other
Maryland jurisdictions.
What is the issue
here?_____________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To support
the alleged constitutional errors under the
federal Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the
Eighth
Amendment (and their Maryland constitutional analogues), Petitioner
relied
principally on an assertedly empirical, government-sponsored
statistical study
of Maryland's implementation between 1978 and 1999 of its death penalty
statute, released publicly in early 2003 and published formally in
2004. The
Circuit Court for Harford County denied the Motion to Correct an
Illegal
Sentence, without holding an evidentiary hearing.
1.
what is the racial issue cited in this appeal?
2.
Who is the plaintiff, who is the defendant?
3.
If you were the judge what would you decide, in favor the plaintiff or
the
defendant?
4.
Would any of the cases
in the worksheets apply a precedent?
1. Facts: Mary
S., Jessica W., Billy W.,
and George B. are the children of Tammy B. The father of Mary S.,
Jessica W.,
and Billy W. is deceased and the father of George B. is Michael B.,
Tammy B.’s
husband, from whom she is now separated. All four children resided with
both
Tammy B. and Michael B. prior to the parents’ separation.
The family first came to
the attention of the Baltimore County Department of Social Services
(DSS) when
Mary S., then eight years old, alleged that she had been sexually
abused by
Michael B., who was later charged and convicted. All of the children
remained
in Tammy B.’s
care and during the next two years DSS investigated four additional
allegations
of abuse and neglect, including allegations that Mary S. had sexually
abused
Billy W.
On February
7, 2002, DSS removed all
four children from Tammy B.’s care,
placed them under emergency shelter
care, and subsequently filed a petition in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore
County requesting judicial approval of shelter care for the children.
The court
ordered DSS custody of the children, and shelter care for them, pending
an
adjudicatory hearing. Thereafter, during the adjudicatory hearing, all
four
children were declared to be children in need of assistance (CINA) and
committed to the care and custody of DSS for placement in foster care.
The court
also established permanency plans of reunification with Tammy B.
What is the issue
here?_____________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Initially,
DSS placed Billy W. and
George B. together in a foster home; however, both boys were removed
due to
allegations that Billy W. had sexually abused a younger child in the
home.
After a brief stay in another home, Billy W. was committed to a
residential
treatment center, from June 2002 until November 2003, when DSS
transferred him
to a therapeutic foster home. During that same time George B. was moved
to
another foster home where he has remained.
Mary S. and
Jessica W. were placed
together in a foster home; after six weeks both were moved to a
therapeutic
foster home. In August 2002, Mary S. was admitted to Sheppard Pratt
Hospital
for suicidal behavior, where she was diagnosed with “aggressive
disorder recurrent with psychosis”
and
“possible
dissociative disorder.” Mary S.
stayed at Sheppard Pratt for six
weeks, was discharged and moved to transitional housing, and then to
the Villa
Maria Residential Treatment Center for six months, before returning to
the
original therapeutic foster home in May 2003. Jessica W. has remained
in the
original therapeutic foster home the entire time.
On June 23,
2003, DSS recommended, and
the court ordered, a change in the permanency plan for George B. from
reunification to a concurrent plan of reunification with Tammy B. and
adoption.
The court also increased Billy W., Jessica W., and Mary S.’s
visitation with Tammy B. to include one additional hour of unsupervised
visitation and maintained the same plans of reunification with Tammy B.
for the
three children. Tammy B. did not object to the maintenance of the
permanency
plans for Billy W., Jessica W. or Mary S., but contested the change in
the
permanency plan for George B. and noted an appeal to the Court of
Special
Appeals, which affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court. While that
appeal
was pending in the Court of Special Appeals, the Circuit Court held
another six
month review hearing on November 10, 2003.
During the
review hearing, DSS filed a
report addressing the status of each child and Tammy B.’s
efforts to comply with various service agreements, to which Tammy B.
objected
on hearsay grounds, which was overruled by the court. In addition, DSS
produced
its only witness, the foster care worker, Ms. Kristy Caceres, who
testified
about the current status of each child and the interactions among Tammy
B. and
the children. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court
continued the
commitment of all four children to the care and custody of DSS, and the
permanency plans for Billy W., Jessica W., and Mary S., as
reunification with
Tammy B. The court also ordered that Tammy B.’s
visitation with
Billy W. and Jessica W. would remain two hours supervised per week and
one hour
unsupervised per week. As to Mary S., the parties agreed and the court
acquiesced in the decision that Tammy B. would be permitted one hour
supervised
visitation per week with Mary S. and that the unsupervised visitation
would be
suspended. Tammy B.’s
visitation with George B. continued to be three hours of visitation
with George
B., but the supervised visitation was reduced to one and a half hours
per week.
In addition, the court ordered that the permanency plan for George B.
should
remain a concurrent plan of reunification with Tammy B. and adoption.
Both Tammy
B. and Michael B. noted
separate appeals to the Court of Special Appeals concerning all of the
children
with respect to the admissibility of hearsay testimony during the
hearing, and
from the court’s
order regarding George B. In an unreported opinion, the intermediate
appellate
court addressed the substantive issues raised by the parties and
affirmed the
judgments of the Circuit Court.
Find out
what the court
actually decided, Look for the word "Held" and the bold type
1.
Find out what is meant by an interlocutory order?
2.
Who is the plaintiff, who is the defendant?
3.
If you were the judge what would you decide, in favor the plaintiff or
the
defendant?
4.
Would any of the cases
in the worksheets apply a precedent?