Montgomery College and Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) students had the opportunity to witness democracy in action when the Supreme Court of Maryland held oral arguments at the college’s Rockville campus on Tuesday morning.
The court heard oral arguments in two state cases: Fred Cromartie v. State of Maryland and Estefany Martinez v. Amazon.com Services LLC. During oral arguments, attorneys representing both the appellant and appellee were each given 30 minutes to make their case, and the seven justices were able to ask questions. No decisions are made during oral arguments.
The Supreme Court of Maryland holds oral arguments at secondary or post-secondary educational institutions twice a term year at geographically diverse locations, according to a court press release. Tuesday’s event at the Robert E. Parilla Performing Arts Center marked the beginning of the third year that the Supreme Court is holding oral arguments outside Annapolis, where its physical court is located.
Montgomery College partnered with MCPS to bring high school students to the oral arguments as part of their studies. Montgomery College students also attended the arguments, and the event was open to the general public.
Justice Steven Gould, who represents Montgomery County on the Supreme Court, told spectators before Tuesday’s arguments that he is proud to be from the county and “a product of the public school system from kindergarten through 12th grade.”
Jermaine Williams, the president of Montgomery College, told the audience he was thrilled to have the hearing take place on campus and partner with MCPS.
“We’ve brought you here for experiential learning at its best,” Williams said.
Prior to the arguments, Gould thanked the legal counsel and the parties in the cases for their willingness to participate in the off-site hearings with a large audience.
“It is nerve-racking enough without anyone watching,” Gould said.
In the Cromartie case, the court is being asked to decide whether prosecutors designate a law enforcement officer as the state’s “representative” during court cases and exempt the officer from being sequestered, which is required of most witnesses.
The case concerns Cromartie, an Anne Arundel man, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison for illegal possession of a firearm and second-degree assault after he pointed a gun at another person from a distance. Cromartie is challenging the state for allowing Detective Courtney Moore to serve as the state’s representative during his court hearings, as Moore arrived on the scene of the incident after it occurred and did not witness it. Cromartie is appealing his conviction on these grounds.
John Sharifi argued on behalf of Cromartie and Cristin Treaster argued on behalf of the state.
In the Martinez case, the court is being asked to decide whether the legal doctrine of “de minimis non curat lex,” meaning “the law does not concern itself with trifles,” or insignificant matters, applies to claims brought under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law.
The case concerns a worker at an Amazon fulfillment center in Baltimore who is seeking financial compensation for time spent in theft-prevention security checkpoint lines following her shifts. Brian Markovitz argued on behalf of Martinez and Jason Schwartz argued on behalf of Amazon.
Following the conclusion of the oral arguments, students had the opportunity to participate in a question-and-answer panel with the justices.
When asked if the justices all get along, Justice Jonathan Biran said he is proud to work with a team that has deep respect for each other. Biran represents Anne Arundel, Calvert, Charles and St. Mary’s counties.
“We disagree on cases frequently,” Biran said. “… We’re all curious, and even when we’re in disagreement, I think we appreciate that all of us are just trying to do our job here to what we think is the right answer.”
Justice Shirley Watts said she likes the collaborative aspect of her work, when asked how she feels about having to work so closely as a group. Watts represents Baltimore City.
“On any given day, I may be in agreement with one colleague, and then in the next case, in disagreement [with them],” Watts said. “But in the end, there’s a sense of camaraderie on the court and the collective sense that we really are making good decisions and achieving justice.”
