Opinion ID: 2317297
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Removal of the Case for Trial

Text: [T]he People of the State of Maryland ... taking into [their] serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof made certain declarations which are known as the Declaration of Rights. One of these declarations, now designated as Article 20, is [t]hat the trial of facts, where they arise, is one of the greatest securities of the lives, liberties and estate of the People. This principle is reflected in Article IV, § 8 of the Constitution of Maryland which now distinguishes between capital and noncapital cases. It provides: (b) In all cases of presentments or indictments for offenses that are punishable by death, on suggestion in writing under oath of either of the parties to the proceedings that the party cannot have a fair and impartial trial in the court in which the proceedings may be pending, the court shall order and direct the record of proceedings in the presentment or indictment to be transmitted to some other court having jurisdiction in such case for trial. (c) In all other cases of presentment or indictment, ... in addition to the suggestion in writing of either of the parties to the cause or case that the party cannot have a fair and impartial trial in the court in which the cause or case may be pending, it shall be necessary for the party making the suggestion to make it satisfactorily appear to the court that the suggestion is true, or that there is reasonable ground for the same; and thereupon the court shall order and direct the record of the proceedings in the cause or case to be transmitted to some other court, having jurisdiction in the cause or case, for trial.... The court to which the record of proceedings in such ... presentment or indictment is transmitted, shall hear and determine that cause or case in the same manner as if it had been originally instituted in that Court.... These constitutional provisions are implemented by Maryland Rule 744 (now Rule 4-254(b)). The action against Lodowski was removed for trial from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County at the instance of the State's Attorney for Prince George's County. He suggested in writing under oath that the State could not have a fair and impartial trial in the court in which the case was pending. He prayed that the court order that counts one, two and seven, charging Lodowski with the two murders and the armed robbery, be transmitted to another court having jurisdiction. Lodowski made known to the court his belief that he could obtain a fair and impartial trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County and his disagreement with the State's Attorney's suggestion that the State could not. He objected to any removal. Ultimately, the court granted the State's prayer, and, as we have seen, ordered that counts one, two and seven against Lodowski be transmitted to the Circuit Court for Charles County for trial. Lodowski urges that this was improper. In opposing the removal, Lodowski requested a hearing on the matter. Although the State's Attorney insisted that the State had an absolute right of removal, he did not oppose a hearing. The judge conducted a plenary hearing. Defense counsel requested leave for approximately three days in which to prepare legal pleadings in the matter. The court, however, granted the State's request for removal without further ado. He announced in open court, I want to make my position clear in this case. He did so in this language: I think the State has an absolute right of removal in this case, based on the law as I understand it at the present time, and the only reason we went to hearing is that [the State's Attorney] said that he thought [the defense] was entitled to a hearing. And I don't intend to give you anymore time to file any legal pleadings. I am signing an order. I think the State has an absolute right of removal. After further argument by defense counsel, the judge observed that defense counsel had a right to file a memorandum but that he, as judge, was sworn to follow the law. He explained: In my judgment the law is that I have to sign [the order for removal] right now, and I just removed the case. [4]