Glover v. State3/6/2002
Opinion by Battaglia, J.
Bell, C.J., Eldridge, and Harrell, JJ., dissent
We are required to determine whether the petitioner was denied his right to a speedy trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. We hold that, given the circumstances of this case - namely, that the delays resulted from unavailability of judges and attempts to acquire complete DNA evidence, and the fact that the record does not establish prejudice - the petitioner's right to a speedy trial was not violated. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, but on different grounds than those employed by the intermediate appellate court.
I. Facts and Legal Proceedings
This case arises from the death of Charles Scherer, whose body was discovered in a vacant lot in Aberdeen, Maryland, on February 24, 1998. A medical examiner subsequently determined the cause of death to be blunt force injuries to the head and strangulation resulting from a severe beating.
The petitioner, Robert Matthew Glover, was arrested for the murder one year later, on February 26, 1999, and was indicted for first degree murder on March 31, 1999. Bail was denied. The petitioner remained confined for the entire pre-trial period, which ultimately amounted to slightly more than fourteen months. During these fourteen months, the petitioner's trial was postponed three times.
Trial initially was scheduled for July 19, 1999, in the Circuit Court for Harford County. The State requested a postponement, however, on the ground that DNA test results had not been received from the crime lab. The judge found the absence of the DNA test results to be good cause for granting the postponement, but stated that "this motion [for postponement] really is of no consequence or no meaning whatsoever, simply because you're not going to have a judge on the 19th [of July 1999] to hear this case in any event." For these reasons, the court granted the postponement and charged it to the State.
Trial was rescheduled for November 1, 1999, but on that date, the court granted another postponement due to the unavailability of a judge and jurors. Finding that administrative reasons were the bases for the postponement, the court charged neither party with the delay. At the postponement hearing, petitioner's counsel commented that her client, the petitioner, was "unhappy about the postponement" but that she had explained to the petitioner that, "there's nothing that could be done."
Trial was then rescheduled for January 13, 2000. One week prior to the date of trial, however, the petitioner moved to suppress the DNA evidence due to the fact that the State did not provide the defense with the complete DNA discovery materials until December 23, 1999, and thereby failed to comply with the requirement that DNA evidence be disclosed thirty days prior to trial, pursuant to Maryland Code, Section 10-915(c)(2) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. The court ruled that suppression of the DNA test results would be too extreme a remedy for the State's failure to provide the petitioner with the complete discovery materials thirty days prior to trial, and therefore, denied petitioner's motion to suppress. A continuance was granted and charged to the State. With respect to the continuance, petitioner's counsel voiced some concern over postponing the trial again, but stated that because the suppression motion was denied, "the only other remedy is a postponement, although the defense, Mr. Glover and I, don't want the postponement, but that's the only other remedy we have."
The trial was reset for J
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|