Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
Search 591,341 Cases and Articles on TJV!
Maryland State Categories

Broadway v State of Maryland

Case No. 393 (MD Ct. App., Dec. 5, 2011)

This case deals with Maryland Rule 4-267, which governs the rights of witnesses who are arrested based on a body attachment. The appellant, Roslyn Broadway, was arrested and jailed pursuant to a body attachment order issued by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. She contends in this appeal, inter alia, that the body attachment order should never have been signed, and that after it was signed she was treated unjustly. For reasons set forth below, we agree with those contentions.


On May 29, 2010, Devon Dorsey was fatally shot. Roslyn Broadway (date of birth: 8/21/91) was a witness to the shooting. Shawn Jones, Bobby Williams, and Darius White were charged in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City with Dorsey’s murder. The defendants were indicted individually for the murder (and related crimes), but the cases were later consolidated for trial.

The trial in the murder cases was initially set for November 1, 2010, but then continued until March 15, 2011. With the consent of the prosecutor and defense attorneys, a new trial was set for May 2, 2011, but since that date the cases have been continued three times and are now set for trial on December 26, 2011.



Judge(s): James P. Salmon
Jurisdiction: Maryland Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Judge(s)
Deborah Eyler
Michele Hotten
James Salmon



With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.


Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
rule shall be verified and shall contain the following: 23rd body attachment order. three days later, on march 17, 2011, ms. broadway appeared, followed. she needed to have counsel. and if the reason for holding her was would have allowed ms. broadway to appeal the order at any point prior to service. 3 advised them that the "118 documents in their possession were privileged, that the documents attachment, contrary to the dictates of maryland rule 4-267(e), was not verified; 2)the reported appellant's motion (made at the april 6, 2011 hearing) to dismiss the body attachment. used in making formal oath to accounts, petitions, pleadings, and other papers."); pacific 8 broadway v. state march 17, 2011 hearing is not preserved for appellate review because it was neither raised the case of st. joseph's v. cardiac surgery, 392 md. 75 (2006), is instructive. the were charged in the circuit court for baltimore city with dorsey's murder. the defendants fact that prior to the march 17th hearing, no issue was "conclusively determined." jackson as of april 6, 2011. the issue is not moot because appellant is still subject to supervision by v. find any - that supports the conclusion that appellant intended not to appear in court. filed: december 5, 2011 at the hearing, the prosecutor, in substance, reiterated what she had said in the ascertaining that the prerequisites for the issuance of a body attachment under thereafter, defense counsel said that he believed that the court had the power to suffered as a result of being unrepresented on that date. what the court of appeals said in at a person's address is plainly not proper service. been unwilling to speak with me over the phone or meet with me in my office, which reads as follows: cases may be appealed pursuant to md. rule 2-602(b), or when the requirements of the ("cardiac surgery") against mid atlantic cardiovascular associates pa. cardiac surgery "[a] sworn statement of the truth of the facts stated in an instrument" or "[a] statement under represent her at the earlier hearing. the court then asked defense counsel "what about [ms. our conclusion that the circuit court's discovery order is not appealable under meanwhile, on february 23, 2011, the prosecutor in the murder cases filed an timely under rule 8-202(a) (providing that, generally, a notice of appeal shall be filed within "in maryland, the right to seek appellate review is statutory; the legislature read, in material part, as follows: is a material witness, she is over 18 years of age, and her testimony is a finding that she was in contempt, there are procedures that needed to be sister, but had only lived at that address for seven days. prior to moving to the ashland counsel under the public defender act or under the maryland declaration of rights or under on appeal. see county council v. offen, 334 md. 499, 508-11 (1994) (holding that this court appeal under the statute and that a ruling denying relief under the provision the collateral order doctrine, however, does not end the question of 1, 2010. under such circumstances, there is nothing in the record showing that a body competition in connection with the defendant's cardiac surgery practices. id. at 80. both ms. broadway argues that she had a right to counsel at the march 17, 2011 detention (a) the state's application for a body attachment was not verified and did not prosecutor said she would submit, but added, "the state would say that if your honor is b. timeliness of appeal 14, 2011. no exception to the final judgment requirement set forth in any statute or rule even when summonsed to do so, the state believes that the only way to secure the court: take your hands off your hips please, i find that to be a salmon, james p. rule 5c (providing in pertinent part that "[w]henever under these rules a pleading or other broadway's] contemptuous behavior before the court [on march 17th]." the following the discovery disclosure order had all the attributes of finality recognized by eyler, deborah, s, moreover, the collateral order doctrine is here inapplicable for several reasons, including the state or political subdivision thereof." md. rule 4-102(g). ms. broadway was never agree with the state that rule 8-131(a) prevents us from deciding the right to counsel issue. (retired specially assigned) agree with those contentions. application for a body attachment. the prosecutor also said that she had spoken with ms. ms. broadway make any statement that indicated that she harbored such a thought. order denying a criminal defendant the statutory right to seek commitment to a court in the exercise of original, special, limited, statutory jurisdiction, unless ms. broadway's presence is by way of a body attachment. mr. (sic) broadway answered in a rude or inappropriate manner. incarcerated, that they have counsel or that they at least be advised of their or similar order, is not a party to the underlying litigation in the trial court, or [defense counsel]: well, your honor avenue address, ms. broadway had lived with her sister for one and one-half years at 837 administrative or investigatory proceeding, maryland law permits the 388 md. 214, 224 (2005) ("a salient feature of [the general appeals] statute[] interlocutory with regard to st. joseph. st. joseph is not a party to the unfair september term, 2011 bit aggressive. ms. broadway failed to appear at the designated meeting location. ms. robinson also advised that her investigation showed that ms. broadway was in the argument is devoid of merit. it is clear that as of february 23rd, the order was not a final mandate we shall issue shall require the vacation of the body attachment, there is no chance exchange then occurred: assistant public defender learned of her plight. he immediately filed a petition for a writ of presence would be needed in court on the [november 1, 2010] trial date. ms. summons was served on appellant in open court. the court then released ms. broadway on the state further argues that the judge correctly concluded on march 17, 2011, that city circuit court judge should not have been issued because 1)the application for the body with this rule, the court may order the issuance of a body attachment of a eleventh grade at patterson senior high school, and lived at 2731 ashland avenue with her peace officer shall execute a body attachment by taking the witness into under rule 4-267, likewise, "does not include any provision regarding facts as to what transpired at the april 6, 2011 hearing. him that she had been threatened over this court proceeding. det. ross set up judgment under md. code (2006 repl. vol.), section 12-301 of the courts and judicial guide the trial court or to avoid the expense and delay of another appeal. notwithstanding the fact that the criminal case in which the body attachment order was issued the court: okay. november 1, 2010. ms. broadway did not appear on either date. out that rule 4-267(a) required that ms. broadway should have been taken before a district in st. joseph's position to refuse compliance with the court's order, and be [a] party may appeal from a final judgment entered in a civil or criminal case could give the court that she would appear for trial. in response, ms. broadway, although habeas corpus. five days later, on april 6, 2011, the circuit court judge who had signed the a witness to appear as a witness at a criminal trial, see md. rule 1-202(z) (defining (emphasis added.) appellant's liberty is material. see gerstein v. pugh, 420 u.s. 103, 114 (1975) ("even the same day that the state filed its application, a baltimore city circuit court judge declaration of rights and the maryland public defender act, which is codified in md. code5 additional questions asked of defense counsel regarding what rule he relied upon, defense hearing under the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution, the maryland joseph's motion by arguing that the medical review committee privilege did not apply to any to be paid by the mayor and city also, the april 6, 2011 order "has all the attributes of finality recognized by . . . [the court to ms. broadway's work but was unable to get in contact with her. on august counsel. broadway in an attempt to make contact with her. the letter on january 12 [defense counsel]: and, moreover, if you against that person has been commenced in the court from which the summons is issued and "responses" appellant made to the court's questions at that hearing. but the state does not witness and require the witness to post a bond in an amount fixed by the court which weren't. she was unrepresented by counsel and yet if the court made enter an order dismissing the body 21 [defense counsel]: well your honor, if your honor held her in contempt sides sought discovery against st. joseph's medical center, inc. (st. joseph), a non-party. apologies if the if the court believes i'm engaging in any aggressive behavior the circuit court's pretrial monitoring program. presumably, if appellant does not comply our review of the record does not reveal a single question that ms. broadway1 a new trial was set for may 2, 2011, but since that date the cases have been continued three the application for a body attachment states that the prosecutor left a "summons" at4 in situations where the aggrieved appellant, challenging a trial court discovery his knowledge and belief"); black's law dictionary 1561 (6th ed. 1990) (defining joseph's case, the order as to ms. broadway was final because she would have no standing case is moot under this standard. there is no longer a controversy between in the trial court, this might, at least arguably, be an appropriate case to decide a moot issue. moreover, by the time the criminal judgments become final, she would no longer be under application failed to set forth facts that would support the conclusion that "it may become where there is no underlying action in the trial court but may be an underlying proceeding pursuant to maryland rule 2-403(a)4. the circuit court's order she contends in this appeal, inter alia, that the body attachment order should never have been (b) by order of court. upon application filed by a party in accordance (5) the reason for requiring a bond or incarceration to ensure the other documents listed in the privilege log that the circuit court held were discoverable. id. she had been treated by the prosecutor and thought that it was not fair that she had been the court: well where's that rule? she did not understand why her presence in court was needed. court commissioner as soon as possible after she was taken into custody after the order for inclined to grant a bail (sic) that she's able to [meet], that she be under the supervision of 18, 2010, the detective spoke with ms. broadway and notified her that her has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and 2) all issues raised are moot. release imposed on the witness. moreover, the state's brief fails to explain how the appellant's "demeanor" (the record may 26, 2011 hearing. therefore, bail will be no bail. and perhaps the bail this court"). . . . the court: how's that? hearing that resulted in her being incarcerated, she has already been released from jail and circumstances that led up to it. the state argues that the issue of whether the trial judge erred in failing to dismiss the but, when an issue is both moot and not raised in the trial court, it should not be considered broadway's actions in evading the state's prior attempts to secure her presence third, contrary to rule 4-267(b), ms. broadway was not immediately taken before a will be reviewed at some point when ms. broadway understands exactly that see md. rule 4-102(c). an "offense" is defined as "a violation of the criminal laws of the (emphasis added.) in a particular case that right of appeal is expressly denied by law. 300, 312-15 (2011) (except for certain statutory exceptions or when non-final orders in civil detention is warranted." collateral order doctrine have been met, to be appealable, an order must be final.). no. 393 seems to be of the understanding, although i'd ask the court to address her, 13 valerie robinson - albeit not on the record. that the issue is important and will likely recur in other cases. and, had the issue been argued (1) the name and present address of the witness; who have been incarcerated for thirty or forty years and they don't show the given the evidence presented today, as well as the defendant[,] her demeanor, broadway did not call back nor did she appear in my office. home on two occasions, with no response at the door. the detective then went and failed to comply, or that she would have refused to comply with a properly within three days of her arrest, at which time the court will decide whether continuing although the discovery order was interlocutory with regard to the underlying "subpoena" as "a written order or writ directed to a person and requiring attendance at a moreover, ms. broadway had no obligation to either talk to detectives, meet with the id. 89-91(emphasis added). unrepresented at that hearing. 1. did the circuit court err in issuing a body attachment for a witness, the state argues: id. when a subpoena duces tecum was served on st. joseph in that case, st. joseph v. state, 358 md. 259, 266-67 (2000). thus broadway's appeal, filed on april 6, 2011, was to resolve right now." of february 23, 2011 - the date the circuit court signed the order for a body attachment. this is pending or where the witness is taken into custody to post bond. a witness threat to fail to appear. the court is not confident that she will appear at the a "summons" is "a writ notifying the person named in the summons that (1) an action3 pretrial release may be accompanied by burdensome conditions that effect a significant with the terms of supervision, the court could detain her again. such a restriction on proceeding in which st. joseph is a party is the "motion for a protective order" existing controversy between the parties, so that there is no longer any proffered that broadway could provide at trial, as well as evidence of the trial in the murder cases was initially set for november 1, 2010, but then 14 were to appear in my office on october 7, 2010 and to appear for trial on 30 days after entry of an order being appealed). for baltimore city with directions to signed, and that after it was signed she was treated unjustly. for reasons set forth below, we the court: - - ms. broadway. and, it also appears to the court, 2. does a witness in a criminal case have a right to counsel at a hearing to the state's motion to dismiss appeal joseph as a final judgment. under the circumstances here, and unlike the law right to counsel to comply with the dictates of maryland rule 4-267. despite that argument, the court did not ms. roslyn broadway is an identifying witness in this case. on several the court: why? under pre-trial supervision vacated; disobey a lawfully issued subpoena. of whether the circuit court should have dismissed the body attachment) is moot. even if we i. produced over twenty thousand pages of documents. but it also produced a privilege log, body attachment order convened a hearing to review ms. broadway's status. ms. broadway a terrible abuse of process. 2 a body attachment was served. he then argued that the district court commissioner was impracticable to secure the witness' attendance by subpoena. the sheriff or trial court, but the court may decide such an issue if necessary or desirable to school bus, 286 md. 324, 327, 407 a.2s 749 (1979). because the appellant "was a non-party to the underlying action, as to whom unless compelled by order of court"); accord kardy v. shook, 237 md. 524, 541 (1965) 17 was not appealable under the collateral order doctrine. see id. at 382-95. as point to any response that ms. broadway made - and our review of the record has failed to "application for warrant for material witness" in each of the criminal files. in its application, court that ms. broadway had no adult convictions and "no failure[s] to appear on record." on march 17th and april 6th, it is clear that the circuit court did not err in convictions. affect or remedy what has already taken place. citing attorney gen. v., a.a. body attachment is moot because appellant was released on her own personal recognizance any chance of posting bond. the state contends that the issue as to whether appellant was entitled to counsel at the terminated the call. further attempts to contact ms. broadway in reference to that she understands that she has to come to court. she does not want to, but behavior in this courtroom? rule 4-267(e) were met as to broadway's status as a material witness. the (2) in a civil action, failure to answer the complaint may result in entry of judgment against her own recognizance, but placed her under the supervision of the court's pretrial services appoint an attorney to represent ms. broadway at the march 17, 2011 hearing pursuant to (4) the materiality of the expected testimony of the witness; id. at 561. effective remedy which the court can provide. it is undisputed that the present and decided by the appellate court whether or not raised in and decided by the had improperly come into the custody of the parties and st. joseph demanded the immediate [b]ased on the court's inquiry and the testimony presented at the proceedings asked counsel whether the court had an obligation to appoint counsel. defense counsel never on january 7, 2011 and january 12, 2011, letters were mailed to ms. in this appeal, ms. broadway raises two issues, which we have reordered: viz of the documents listed in st. joseph's privilege log, including the 118 documents that had of another appeal by ms. broadway regarding this matter. under these circumstances we been exchanged by the parties during discovery. st. joseph wrote to each of the parties and (emphasis added.) the state argues, in the alternative, that this appeal should be dismissed because it circuit court were discussing ms. broadway's right to counsel if (hypothetically) the court rule 4-212(b) & (c) (2011). a subpoena is the form of process that can be used to compel the court: where's that rule? where's that rule? "summons" is a writ directed to a defendant, not to a witness, such as appellant. see id.; md. nature and materiality of the information and testimony the prosecutor the court ruled as follows: before this court heard argument, the court of appeals issued a writ of certiorari. appellant's presence at trial is misleading. the state did not even attempt to serve her with nothing that we say will bind the parties to any future course of action or will will refuse to be interviewed by either the prosecution or the defense"); united states v. that's being totally disrespectful and very contemptuous. come on, represent[6] prosecutor, or obey a "summons" to appear at the state's attorney's office. see kines v. 382 (2007), quoting, inter alia, state v. manck, 385 md. 581, 596 (2005); state who has been arrested for an offense or charged with an offense in a charging document." matter and, unless waived under rule 2-322, over a person may be raised in that person and, in a criminal action, failure to attend may result in issuance of a warrant for she said that she would come to court for trial ("don't worry, i'll be there"), also stated that appealable. see md. code ann., crim. pro. art., 7-102 (2011). the court 15 the court next asked the prosecutor what disposition she recommended. the restricted delivery - show to whom, date, address or delivery." simply leaving a subpoena about the case, to no avail. during the week of august 9, 2010, ms. broadway can provide for, or preclude, the right of appeal." fuller v. state, 397 md. 372, this case deals with maryland rule 4-267, which governs the rights of witnesses who (explaining that the ability of the defense to question a state's witness was subject to given that ms. broadway has failed to appear for one trial date, has opinion by salmon, j. some finding of contempt, then that needs to be vacated in and of itself. to file an appeal after the judgments in the underlying criminal cases become final. under rule 4-267 is entitled to counsel "will recur but will usually evade review." it is true of which the moving party believes the witness has knowledge," and (b) there legitimate attempt to properly serve her with a subpoena for the trial scheduled for november determine whether she should be detained pending trial? parties in that case to return them to the hospital." id. cardiac surgery responded to st. disallow the use of these documents at the trial of the unfair competition case and order the restraint of liberty."). a subpoena for the trial scheduled for march 15, 2011; moreover, the state never made any ms. broadway never said that she thought that the proceedings "were a joke" nor did2 this is not a joke.[2] wanted ms. broadway to appear at trial, it should have issued a subpoena (see n.1 supra). authority and supervisory power of this court to ensure that before someone is maryland rule 4-267 reads, in pertinent part, as follows: consolidated for trial. see department of social services v. stein, 328 md. 1, 13 (1992). does "not appear [that appellant has] a right to appeal in this case." in support of that ms. broadway's home on september 3, 2010, requiring her to appear for trial on november (2009) (recognizing that court's ability to entertain an appeal must be case no. 0393, sept. term, 2011 st. joseph's case arose out of a civil lawsuit filed by cardiac surgery associates, pa believed the court's order for a body attachment should be vacated. ms. broadway's attorney believed that ms. broadway was in criminal contempt of court. but in further response to regard defense counsel was wrong because rule 4-213 applies only to "defendants" in 4 on may 29, 2010, devon dorsey was fatally shot. roslyn broadway (date of birth: headnote: witnesses- the body attachment issued in the subject case by a baltimore butterworth, 669 f.2d 6, 9 (1st cir. 1981) (explaining that "a witness may of his own free [defense counsel]: well your honor, and that's why i . . . [addressed] the the court: just pull some lawyer off the street and say hey represent witness is material in a criminal proceeding, and (2) it may become roslyn broadway broadway. a number where she could be reached but indicated she would call back. ms. disrespectful is not supported by the record. witness is required; was represented at the hearing by a public defender, who argued that the body attachment [defense counsel]: your honor, um i abused its discretion under rule 8-131(a) by deciding an important issue of first impression arrested or charged with a violation of the criminal laws in this case. be served by a sheriff of any county or by a person who is not a party and who here, ms. broadway had not even been served with the body attachment until march obligated to appoint counsel to represent her at the march 17th hearing. and, because the filed, in the tort suit, a motion for protective order asserting that the medical review at the april 6, 2011 hearing, defense counsel set forth, in detail, the reasons he counsel segued to a discussion of rule 4-267, dealing with body attachments. he pointed proceedings article ("cjp"), and therefore was not appealable. see harris v. state, 420 md. custody and forthwith before a judicial officer in the county where the action [defense counsel]: your honor, if she was your honor, certainly my custody as a material witness to be held without bond pending a hearing to be scheduled with the drug referral provision addressed in fuller, the circuit court's order attachment issued in this case; costs [defense counsel]: well your honor, if she was trial court. ordinarily, the appellate court will not decide any other issue 9 protective order, in part, and denied it in part. id. st. joseph noted an appeal to this court for all the above reasons, we hold that the trial judge erred in failing to grant answered that question. instead, defense counsel said "i don't think that's an issue we need office on january 20, but did not speak with me. ms. broadway did not leave case remanded to the circuit court was asked to meet with me in my office. ms. broadway did not respond to arrested and kept in jail for three days. the court asked ms. broadway what assurances she made no claim at that point that his client should have been appointed an attorney to 8/21/91) was a witness to the shooting. shawn jones, bobby williams, and darius white "only when absolutely necessary."). cjp section 12-301 provides, insofar as here relevant: jailed pursuant to a body attachment order issued by the circuit court for baltimore city. [defense counsel]: because the procedures weren't followed. if she was times and are now set for trial on december 26, 2011. been provided in the underlying suit. the circuit court granted st. joseph's motion for a named or to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service ballentine's law dictionary (2010) (defining "verification" in pertinent part as legislatively granted). in fuller, the court of appeals addressed whether an occasions, efforts have been made to contact ms. broadway to speak with her necessary for the case. * * * proceeding in which confinement under a judicial commitment of an individual in a public the court: where is that rule? 1, 2010. ms. broadway had no duty to obey a summons left at her address. if the state 12 jj. the court; what does that have to do with her contemptuous case by a circuit court" and therefore section 12-301 does not apply. we reject this mercy hospital and mrs. jackson over consent to a blood transfusion. [defense counsel]: your honor, i think the court it's within the inherent (3) a summary of the information or testimony of which the moving the maryland public defender act provides, in pertinent part, that [i]ndigent5 oath by a party who pleads that his pleading is true of his own knowledge or to the best of issued has a right to an immediate appeal of the validity of the body attachment order, argument. that identified certain documents that it refused to produce, because, according to st. joseph, state of maryland mortgage & inv. group, ltd. v. wienecke, 50 md. app. 128, 130 (1981) (quoting former md. served, valid subpoena? appeals-a witness in a criminal trial against whom an order for body attachment has been attendance of the witness. argument the state maintains: [defense counsel]: which didn't occur. 10 then i think there's a different set of proceedings that needed to be followed, 11 [defense counsel]: well that person's arrest." md. rule 1-202(aa). as the maryland rules makes clear, a should be dismissed because it was illegally issued in the first place due to the state's failure continued until march 15, 2011. with the consent of the prosecutor and defense attorneys, 267(b). ms. broadway had never disobeyed a subpoena for her to appear in court, nor had appellant to pretrial supervision was likewise appealable. similar to the situation in the st. issued an order for body attachment stating that ms. broadway "be arrested and taken into second, when the circuit court issued the order for a body attachment on february 23, were to assume, arguendo, that ms. broadway had a right to counsel at the march 17th the court: find that rule for me and find the rule. (a) generally. the issues of jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject committee privilege protected the 118 documents. id. st. joseph requested the court "to detaining her, and placing her under the supervision of a state agency where broadway and that ms. broadway now reviewing the application, at no time had ms. broadway given any indication that she would defendants or parties shall be provided representation under [the act] in: . . . other which means that the application must be supported by an oath or affidavit. see unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the st. joseph, a non-party in the underlying suit, then the april 6, 2011 order that subjected order directing that appellant be in several respects the requirements of rule 4-267 were not met in the subject case. in the court of special appeals defense counsel never argued in the circuit court that ms. broadway had a right to we also agree with the state that the right to counsel issue (as opposed to the issue contempt and disrespect for the court as she did. st. joseph later learned that 118 documents that were listed in the privilege log had ms. broadway did, however, have a second-degree assault case pending in the district court. as can be seen, up to that point in the colloquy just quoted, defense counsel and the brought ms. broadway here and how from ms. broadway's perspective it was that she has to. i believe that she understands that, but i'd ask the court to ms. broadway argues that even if the question presented is moot, this court should 6 v. green, 367 md. 61, 77 (2001). accord arrington v. state, 411 md. 524, 558 section (a) of this rule or for a body attachment under section (b) of this therefore we can provide her with no effective remedy to ameliorate the damages she has not resulted in a final judgment. was no evidence that the witness was personally served with a valid subpoena the answer to the questions as well as her prior actions, she is definitely a[1] the state requested that ms. broadway be arrested and taken into custody as a material the state argues that appellant's appeal was not timely noted, because, although ms. fourth, there were insufficient facts set forth in the application to show that it "may valerie robinson, a representative of the court's pretrial services division, told the required, pursuant to rule 4-213, to advise ms. broadway of her right to counsel. in this this woman. you know the one, the one that's acting out in court, the one being held in criminal contempt then she needed to have counsel. she was to decide the validity of the state's arguments, it is necessary to recount some additional paper is required to be `verified,' this means that an affidavit must be made thereto")). on december 17, 2010, ms. broadway called det. ross and advised an appointment to meet with ms. broadway on monday, december 20, 2010. right to an attorney 5 in some other jurisdictions, maryland law does not require a person or entity for the person named or as permitted by rule 2-121(a)(3). a subpoena may on march 14, 2011, ms. broadway was arrested and jailed based on the february ii. return of the documents" to it. id. at 81. when the documents were not returned, st. joseph a. mootness impracticable to secure the witness' attendance at trial by subpoena." who is unable to post the prescribed bond shall be committed to jail. within a question is moot if, at the time it is before the court, there is no longer an is not less than 18 years of age. . . . iv. her. waive your fee mr. needleman, represent this woman in court. appealability." fuller, 397 md. at 382-83. our federal constitution. nor did appellant argue below that the court was otherwise would do so. see cross v. state, 144 md. app. 77, 94 (2002) (witnesses should be detained (2008 supp), section 16-204(b)(1)(iv) of the criminal procedure article. specifically, the court held that the legislature had not conferred the right of the documents were privileged. id. maryland rule 8-131(a) reads: 7 broadway noted her appeal on april 6, 2011, she did not file her appeal within thirty days 2011, it did not, as rule 4-267(b) required, fix a bond. on april 1, 2011, after ms. broadway had been incarcerated for seventeen days, an with respect to any matter contained in the application or to the conditions of iii. * * * incarceration with no bond was justified based on appellant's "demeanor" and the watch, 356 md. 118, 126, (1999) (this court pointed out that the order in the particular time and place to take the action specified therein"). (b) service. a subpoena shall be served by delivering a copy to the person commissioner after her arrest. instead, she was forced to stay in jail for three days without the state takes the position that ms. broadway is not "a party in a civil or criminal that appellant intended not to obey a subpoena even though the witness told the court that she nevertheless review this important issue because the issue of whether a defendant charged (e) content of application. an application for continued detention under competition case and would have no standing to challenge the discovery order at trial, fully warranted the circuit court's determination that the factors of rule become impracticable to secure the witness' attendance by subpoena." see md. rule 4- three days after the witness is taken into custody, the court shall hold a hearing unfair competition litigation and the parties to that case, the order was not 16 20 aggrieved appellant to appeal the order because, analytically, it is a final to ensure attendance if the court is satisfied that (1) the testimony of the or private institution may result." criminal procedure article, section 16-204(b)(1)(iv). mercy hospital v. jackson, 306 md. 556, 561 (1986), is here apposite: address the issue of whether the body attachment should be dismissed. instead, the court were left at ms. broadway's home on september 3, 2010. the summonses (2) the designation of the action for which the testimony of the witness. the application, which was signed by a baltimore city assistant state's attorney, pretrial services." to the court, i'm not. i'm simply addressing the facts and circumstances that matlock, 491 f.2d 504, 506 (6 cir. 1974) (observing that "a witness is free to talk or notth for the above reasons, we hold that the april 6, 2011 order was appealable by ms. under our cases, the order was final as to st. joseph and was appealable by st. attachment was warranted. not raised below). with regard to 14 of the documents in cardiac surgery's possession and with regard to the of appeals]" because it settles the rights of ms. broadway and the state in the matter at issue. finally terminated that proceeding adversely to st. joseph. analytically, and reveals only that appellant was angry about her treatment) could justify a judge's conclusion this case were made on august 21-22, september 2-3, 2010. two summonses contain the witness's address or "[a] summary of the information or testimony court supervision because such supervision will end when the criminal cases are concluded. nor decided in the circuit court. see md. rule 8-131(a). it also argues that the issue is moot. [defense counsel]: well the court can certainly ensure [that] she has "verify" in pertinent part as "to confirm or substantiate by oath or affidavit. particularly judgment with respect to that appellant. see, e.g., state prosecutor v. judicial ruled that such an order is not appealable. fuller, 397 md. at 395. that the state had complied with rule 4-267(e) and, in any event, it would have erred if it had criminal cases. ms. broadway was not a defendant, because that term is defined as "a person material witness. of maryland [dept. of social services v.]stein case [328 md. 1 (1992)] was appealable are arrested based on a body attachment. the appellant, roslyn broadway, was arrested and is that the grant of appellate rights extends only to parties"). the only alleged in this complaint that the defendant had, among other things, engaged in unfair north montford avenue in baltimore city. the court: and who is supposed to supply her with counsel? we reject all of the arguments just quoted. for starters, the circuit court did not "find" a drug treatment program under 7-102 of the criminal procedure article was md. rule 2-121(a)(3) allows a subpoena to be served by "certified mail requesting was sent with a summons to appear in my office on january 20, 2011 and to "the inherent supervisory authority of the court." (emphasis added). the trial judge then by appealing from a final judgment in that case. see lopez-sanchez v. state, hotten, held in contempt, in order to challenge on appeal the adverse order. party believes the witness had knowledge; address her. but it's the state's understanding that she has no prior appealability. she even been properly served with any court document requiring her appearance in court.4 council of baltimore. division. the terms of the pretrial supervision were then explained to ms. broadway by (emphasis added.) and, the subpoena should have been served in accordance with maryland rule 4-266(b), were indicted individually for the murder (and related crimes), but the cases were later issued a summons, requiring ms. broadway to appear for trial on may 26, 2011. that3 19 the court: counsel, there are people here that come into this courtroom contact me if ms. broadway is unable to appear. ms. broadway called my done so. moreover, the argument that appellant "evad[ed]" the state's attempts to secure ms. broadway told the court, in no uncertain terms, that she did not like the way that "witness' acquiescence in such interrogations"). moreover, as far as can be determined by the state has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, on two grounds viz: 1) this court broadway became very upset during that conversation and prematurely 18 the characterization of ms. broadway's behavior as being either contemptuous or6 without counsel, before the circuit court judge who signed the body attachment. by a circuit court. the right of appeal exists from a final judgment entered by 4-267(e) were satisfied in connection with broadways' (sic) status as a first, rule 4-267(e) mandates that the application for a body attachment "shall be verified," in the st. joseph's case, the court of appeals said, in relevant part: by parity of reasoning, if the discovery order in the st. joseph's case was final as to those requests. on august 17, 2010, det. ross responded to ms. broadway's

All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise