Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue on review by the Supreme Court is the extent to which the Local Government Tort Claims Act limits the recovery of a man whose constitutional rights were violated by acts of a local police force. Respondent Keith Longtin was arrested, interrogated for over 36 hours, and charged with the rape and murder of his wife. He was held in prison for over eight months. During his stay, the police department obtained exculpatory evidence, but failed to inform Respondent or to release him. Only when the police confirmed through a DNA match that the crime was committed by the another suspect did it release Respondent from prison. Respondent sued the police, the County and individual officers, and obtained a jury verdict of $6.2 million. The County appealed and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the verdict. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address, among other issues, the Countyâs primary argument on appeal: whether Respondentâs claim and verdict complied with the state Local Government Tort Claims Act (LGTCA). On review, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courtsâ decisions, finding that neither the notice provisions nor the damages cap of the LGTCA apply to limit the claim or the jury award in this case.

In January, 2006, Appellee-Defendant Demetrius Daughtry was indicted with murder, robbery, robbery with a deadly weapon and use of a handgun in the commission of a violent felony stemming from the botched robbery and shooting death of Anthony Brown. Defendant negotiated with the State to plead guilty to first-degree murder and use of a handgun in the commission of a violent felony. The circuit court agreed with the terms of the plea agreement, and sentenced Defendant to a term of life imprisonment. On appeal of the sentence, Defendant argued that the guilty plea should be vacated because the circuit court judge did not determine "on the record that defense counsel had advised [Defendant] of the elements of first degree murder." The appellate court vacated the convictions, explaining that "all [Defendant] said [on the record] was that he had 'talked over his plea' with counsel. â¦[The court] did not, in any way, assure that he understood the elements of the charge of first-degree murder. â¦Consequently, the voir dire conducted in this case failed to show that the plea met the required knowing, voluntary and intelligent standard [of Maryland Rule 4-242 and relevant caselaw]." On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate decision vacating Defendant's convictions, finding no indicia that Defendant made a "knowing and voluntary" plea.