Skip to main content
Article
Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellants, Quinton Richmond, et al., v. The District Court of Maryland, et al., No. 08-54
Court Briefs
  • Brenda Bratton Blom, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
  • Robert Rubinson
  • Phillip J. Closius
Document Type
Brief
Publication Date
9-5-2008
Keywords
  • right to counsel,
  • indigent criminal defendants
Comments

Filled in the Court of Appeals of Maryland. On Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.

Brief of Amicus Curiae Faculty Members of the University of Baltimore School of Law and the University of Maryland School of Law in Support of Appellants

Abstract

Amici curiae brief filed by 78 faculty members from the University of Maryland School of Law and the University of Baltimore School of Law, on behalf of Appellants Quinton Richmond, et al. Amicus members felt the need to comment on the application and implications of the statutory right to counsel under Maryland law for indigent criminal defendants. The issue before the Court of Appeals was whether the Court’s previous holding in McCarter v. State, 363 Md. 705 (2001), that the plain language of the Maryland Public Defender Act created a right to counsel during all stages of a criminal proceeding, establish that criminal defendants have a statutory right to representation at bail hearings?

Amici argue that the Maryland Public Defender Act and Maryland Rule 4-214(b), the Maryland Legislature established a statutory guarantee of counsel for indigent criminal defendants at all “stages of proceedings”. See, MD. Code Ann. Art., art. 27A §4(2001) and Md. Rule 4-214(2008). In McCarter, the Court recognized that the plain language of art. 27A, § 4, creates a right to representation that “extends to all stages in the proceedings.” McCarter 363 Md. at 716. In the view of the amici, a right to representation at “all stages in the [criminal] proceedings” necessarily includes the initial setting of bail, an integral part of the criminal process that has immediate implications for the accused and for the development of the case. They argue that representation at the initial appearance reduces the likelihood of unnecessary pre-trial detention and affords an accused the opportunity to investigate the allegations, prepare a defense and obtain a fair trial.

Citation Information
Brenda Bratton Blom, Robert Rubinson and Phillip J. Closius. "Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellants, Quinton Richmond, et al., v. The District Court of Maryland, et al., No. 08-54" (2008)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/robert_rubinson/8/