admission test in Maryland

2016Maryland Rule 1-323 directs that the court clerk may not accept for filing a pleading or other paper requiring service, unless it is accompanied by “an admission or waiver of service or a signed certificate showing the date and manner of making service.” In Director of Finance of Baltimore City v. Harris, this Court addressed whether a certificate of service that failed to identify all the persons upon whom service was required should have been rejected for filing by the court clerk. 90 Md.App. 506, 513-14 , 602 A.2d 191 (1992).

2016Maryland Rule 1-323 directs that the court clerk may not accept for filing a pleading or other paper requiring service, unless it is accompanied by “an admission or waiver of service or a signed certificate showing the date and manner of making service.” In Director of Finance of Baltimore City v. Harris, this Court addressed whether a certificate of service that failed to identify all the persons upon whom service was required should have been rejected for filing by the court clerk. 90 Md.App. 506, 513-14 , 602 A.2d 191 (1992).

2015As was unequivocally stated in Akonom v. State, 40 Md.App. 676, 680 , 394 A.2d 1213 (1978): “It cannot logically be argued that a stipulation enhances in any significant way the inherent reliability of evidence produced by a so-called scientific process or art....

2015As was unequivocally stated in Akonom v. State, 40 Md.App. 676, 680 , 394 A.2d 1213 (1978): “It cannot logically be argued that a stipulation enhances in any significant way the inherent reliability of evidence produced by a so-called scientific process or art....

2015The Department cites to Guesfeird v. State, for the proposition that “there have been cases in Maryland in which references to lie detector tests were held not to be so prejudicial as to warrant reversal.” 300 Md. at 659 , 480 A.2d 800 (1984) (citing Poole v. State, 295 Md. 167, 182-84 , 453 A.2d 1218 (1983); Lusby, 217 Md. at 195 , 141 A.2d 893 ).

2015The Department cites to Guesfeird v. State, for the proposition that “there have been cases in Maryland in which references to lie detector tests were held not to be so prejudicial as to warrant reversal.” 300 Md. at 659 , 480 A.2d 800 (1984) (citing Poole v. State, 295 Md. 167, 182-84 , 453 A.2d 1218 (1983); Lusby, 217 Md. at 195 , 141 A.2d 893 ).

2015The Department cites to Guesfeird v. State, for the proposition that “there have been cases in Maryland in which references to lie detector tests were held not to be so prejudicial as to warrant reversal.” 300 Md. at 659 , 480 A.2d 800 (1984) (citing Poole v. State, 295 Md. 167, 182-84 , 453 A.2d 1218 (1983); Lusby, 217 Md. at 195 , 141 A.2d 893 ).

2015The Department cites to Guesfeird v. State, for the proposition that “there have been cases in Maryland in which references to lie detector tests were held not to be so prejudicial as to warrant reversal.” 300 Md. at 659 , 480 A.2d 800 (1984) (citing Poole v. State, 295 Md. 167, 182-84 , 453 A.2d 1218 (1983); Lusby, 217 Md. at 195 , 141 A.2d 893 ).

2001There, the driver had refused to consent, but the Court upheld the admission of the test results stating that the driver was “not one of the few who on grounds of fear, concern for health, or religious scruple might prefer some other means of testing, such as [a] ‘[B]reathalyzer.’ ” Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 771 , 86 S.Ct. at 1836 , 16 L.Ed.2d at 920 .

2001There, the driver had refused to consent, but the Court upheld the admission of the test results stating that the driver was “not one of the few who on grounds of fear, concern for health, or religious scruple might prefer some other means of testing, such as [a] ‘[B]reathalyzer.’ ” Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 771 , 86 S.Ct. at 1836 , 16 L.Ed.2d at 920 .

2015This is especially clear where this Court’s precedent instructs that, even had all parties stipulated to the admissibility of the polygraph results, “the long settled law in this state is that the technique is considered so inherently unreliable as to preclude the admission of such test results in *313 a trial, civil or criminal,” and “reliance upon the polygraph tests [i]s itself sufficient error to flaw the proceedings.” In re Rachel S., 60 Md.App. at 150, 481 A.2d 520 .

2015Because we conclude, consistent with Maryland case law, that polygraph examinations are "considered so inherently unreliable as to preclude the admission of such test results in a trial, civil or criminal,” In re Rachel S., 60 Md.App. at 150, 481 A.2d 520 , we need not address the level of qualification needed to allow a witness to testify regarding *312 the results of such an examination.

2015The Department cites to Guesfeird v. State, for the proposition that “there have been cases in Maryland in which references to lie detector tests were held not to be so prejudicial as to warrant reversal.” 300 Md. at 659 , 480 A.2d 800 (1984) (citing Poole v. State, 295 Md. 167, 182-84 , 453 A.2d 1218 (1983); Lusby, 217 Md. at 195 , 141 A.2d 893 ).

2015The Department cites to Guesfeird v. State, for the proposition that “there have been cases in Maryland in which references to lie detector tests were held not to be so prejudicial as to warrant reversal.” 300 Md. at 659 , 480 A.2d 800 (1984) (citing Poole v. State, 295 Md. 167, 182-84 , 453 A.2d 1218 (1983); Lusby, 217 Md. at 195 , 141 A.2d 893 ).

2011In Maxwell v. Ingerman, 107 Md.App. 677, 679 , 670 A.2d 959 , cert. denied, 344 Md. 117 , 685 A.2d 451 (1996), the appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, with the appropriate certificate of service, as required by Rule 1-323, on January 6,1995.

2011In Maxwell v. Ingerman, 107 Md.App. 677, 679 , 670 A.2d 959 , cert. denied, 344 Md. 117 , 685 A.2d 451 (1996), the appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, with the appropriate certificate of service, as required by Rule 1-323, on January 6,1995.

2006Id. at 74 , 867 A.2d at 319 .

2006Id. at 74 , 867 A.2d at 319 .

1991Hersch v. State, 317 Md. 200 , 562 A.2d 1254 (1989).

1991Hersch v. State, 317 Md. 200 , 562 A.2d 1254 (1989).

1989In Curtis v. State, 284 Md. 132 , 395 A.2d 464 (1978), Judge Eldridge for the Court reviewed the several meanings of the term “waiver,” and the standards applicable to various types of waivers in criminal proceedings.

1989In Curtis v. State, 284 Md. 132 , 395 A.2d 464 (1978), Judge Eldridge for the Court reviewed the several meanings of the term “waiver,” and the standards applicable to various types of waivers in criminal proceedings.

1989The Court of Special Appeals also held that the third sentence of "Rule 4-346(c) severely limits the authority granted by Art. 27, § 642,” 73 Md.App. at 467 , 534 A.2d at 1357 .

1989The provisions of Rule 4-242 do not apply to an admission of violation of conditions of probation." [2] The Court of Special Appeals also held that the third sentence of "Rule 4-346(c) severely limits the authority granted by Art. 27, § 642," 73 Md.

1989The Court of Appeals of Michigan engaged in a similar analysis of whether the waiver of a probation revocation hearing through the admission of a violation must pass muster under the Johnson v. Zerbst standard in the case of People v. Brown, 248 N.W.2d 695 , *210 72 Mich.App. 7 (1977).

1989The Court of Appeals of Michigan engaged in a similar analysis of whether the waiver of a probation revocation hearing through the admission of a violation must pass muster under the Johnson v. Zerbst standard in the case of People v. Brown, 248 N.W.2d 695 , *210 72 Mich.App. 7 (1977).

1987Moreover, the Supreme Court said in Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 , 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984): Just as there is no right to a jury trial before probation may be revoked, neither is the privilege against compelled self-incrimination available to a probationer.

1987Moreover, the Supreme Court said in Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 , 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984): Just as there is no right to a jury trial before probation may be revoked, neither is the privilege against compelled self-incrimination available to a probationer.

1987The Court of Appeals in Maus v. State, 311 Md. 85 , 532 A.2d 1066 (1987), effectively held that in a probation violation proceeding a "guilty plea was no more than an admission of violation.” Judge Adkins, speaking for the court, said: Rule 4-346(c) explicitly states that “[t]he provisions of Rule 4-242 [dealing with pleas in criminal cases] do not apply to an admission of violation of conditions of probation.” It is, of course, just such an admission that we have before us. .

1987The Court of Appeals in Maus v. State, 311 Md. 85 , 532 A.2d 1066 (1987), effectively held that in a probation violation proceeding a "guilty plea was no more than an admission of violation.” Judge Adkins, speaking for the court, said: Rule 4-346(c) explicitly states that “[t]he provisions of Rule 4-242 [dealing with pleas in criminal cases] do not apply to an admission of violation of conditions of probation.” It is, of course, just such an admission that we have before us. .

1984As was unequivocally stated in Akonom v. State, 40 Md.App. 676, 680 , 394 A.2d 1213 (1978): “It cannot logically be argued that a stipulation enhances in any significant way the inherent reliability of evidence produced by a so-called scientific process or art____ Thus, while we are generally reluctant to invalidate agreements entered into by the parties, we view this as one of the unusual occasions when we are obligated to do so.” See also Poole v. State, 295 Md. 167, 205 , 453 A.2d 1218 (1983) (Davidson, J., concurring and dissenting); Kelley v. State, 288 Md. 298 , 418 A.2d 217 (1980); Lusb

1984As was unequivocally stated in Akonom v. State, 40 Md.App. 676, 680 , 394 A.2d 1213 (1978): “It cannot logically be argued that a stipulation enhances in any significant way the inherent reliability of evidence produced by a so-called scientific process or art____ Thus, while we are generally reluctant to invalidate agreements entered into by the parties, we view this as one of the unusual occasions when we are obligated to do so.” See also Poole v. State, 295 Md. 167, 205 , 453 A.2d 1218 (1983) (Davidson, J., concurring and dissenting); Kelley v. State, 288 Md. 298 , 418 A.2d 217 (1980); Lusb

1984As was unequivocally stated in Akonom v. State, 40 Md.App. 676, 680 , 394 A.2d 1213 (1978): “It cannot logically be argued that a stipulation enhances in any significant way the inherent reliability of evidence produced by a so-called scientific process or art____ Thus, while we are generally reluctant to invalidate agreements entered into by the parties, we view this as one of the unusual occasions when we are obligated to do so.” See also Poole v. State, 295 Md. 167, 205 , 453 A.2d 1218 (1983) (Davidson, J., concurring and dissenting); Kelley v. State, 288 Md. 298 , 418 A.2d 217 (1980); Lusb

1984As was unequivocally stated in Akonom v. State, 40 Md.App. 676, 680 , 394 A.2d 1213 (1978): “It cannot logically be argued that a stipulation enhances in any significant way the inherent reliability of evidence produced by a so-called scientific process or art____ Thus, while we are generally reluctant to invalidate agreements entered into by the parties, we view this as one of the unusual occasions when we are obligated to do so.” See also Poole v. State, 295 Md. 167, 205 , 453 A.2d 1218 (1983) (Davidson, J., concurring and dissenting); Kelley v. State, 288 Md. 298 , 418 A.2d 217 (1980); Lusb

1984As was unequivocally stated in Akonom v. State, 40 Md.App. 676, 680 , 394 A.2d 1213 (1978): “It cannot logically be argued that a stipulation enhances in any significant way the inherent reliability of evidence produced by a so-called scientific process or art____ Thus, while we are generally reluctant to invalidate agreements entered into by the parties, we view this as one of the unusual occasions when we are obligated to do so.” See also Poole v. State, 295 Md. 167, 205 , 453 A.2d 1218 (1983) (Davidson, J., concurring and dissenting); Kelley v. State, 288 Md. 298 , 418 A.2d 217 (1980); Lusb

1984As was unequivocally stated in Akonom v. State, 40 Md.App. 676, 680 , 394 A.2d 1213 (1978): “It cannot logically be argued that a stipulation enhances in any significant way the inherent reliability of evidence produced by a so-called scientific process or art____ Thus, while we are generally reluctant to invalidate agreements entered into by the parties, we view this as one of the unusual occasions when we are obligated to do so.” See also Poole v. State, 295 Md. 167, 205 , 453 A.2d 1218 (1983) (Davidson, J., concurring and dissenting); Kelley v. State, 288 Md. 298 , 418 A.2d 217 (1980); Lusb

1984As was unequivocally stated in Akonom v. State, 40 Md.App. 676, 680 , 394 A.2d 1213 (1978): “It cannot logically be argued that a stipulation enhances in any significant way the inherent reliability of evidence produced by a so-called scientific process or art____ Thus, while we are generally reluctant to invalidate agreements entered into by the parties, we view this as one of the unusual occasions when we are obligated to do so.” See also Poole v. State, 295 Md. 167, 205 , 453 A.2d 1218 (1983) (Davidson, J., concurring and dissenting); Kelley v. State, 288 Md. 298 , 418 A.2d 217 (1980); Lusb

1984As was unequivocally stated in Akonom v. State, 40 Md.App. 676, 680 , 394 A.2d 1213 (1978): “It cannot logically be argued that a stipulation enhances in any significant way the inherent reliability of evidence produced by a so-called scientific process or art____ Thus, while we are generally reluctant to invalidate agreements entered into by the parties, we view this as one of the unusual occasions when we are obligated to do so.” See also Poole v. State, 295 Md. 167, 205 , 453 A.2d 1218 (1983) (Davidson, J., concurring and dissenting); Kelley v. State, 288 Md. 298 , 418 A.2d 217 (1980); Lusb