1) Why would a victim agree to marry her alleged abuser?

2) Why would she not testify against him?

Prosecutor Stephen Roscher, who heads the family violence division in the Baltimore County State’s Attorney’s Office, summed it up.

“The internal dynamic when we deal with domestic violence victims is completely different than any other crime,” he said.

He and Dorothy Lennig, director of the House of Ruth’s legal clinic, cited a number of potential contributing factors. Their list is similar to the one offered by the National Center for Victims of Crime.

“Domestic violence is about power and control,” Lennig said.

Knowing that, Roscher has worked with county police on domestic violence case protocol for more than a decade and regularly talks to new recruits about the topic. The strategy, which has been adopted across the country, is to “assume the victim is not going to be cooperative at the time of the trial,” Roscher said.

That’s why police thoroughly document a suspected domestic violence crime scene and get a statement and photos of the victim. That’s why 911 calls are analyzed for “excited utterances” (which can be admitted in court, even though they’re hearsay) and for anything out of the ordinary, Roscher said.

All of this allows Roscher to prosecute a case even without the victim taking the witness stand. It can be challenging, he said, but it’s never impossible.

“There’s never been a murder case where the victim has testified,” Roscher said.

The Maryland Democratic Party has wondered more vocally over the years, and according to the Baltimore Sun’s Maryland Politics blog, took formal action Thursday by writing to the state Board of Elections, challenging the propriety of the arrangement in light of Ehrlich’s expected return to the political sphere.

I was reminded of this lawyerly duel before the Supreme Court in reporting on the increased number of workplace pregnancy-discrimination claims.

The case concerned the legality of Johnson Controls’ then-policy of prohibiting fertile women of childbearing age from working in areas that would expose them to lead, such as in the manufacture of car batteries.

The argument, on Oct. 10, 1990, was most notable because the opposing attorneys ignored the conventional advice that if the law is not on your side, argue public policy, and vice versa. Rather, the lawyers each argued that both the law and public policy were on their side.

Attorney Marsha S. Berzon represented a group of women who challenged the company’s “fetal protection” policy as violating the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, a part of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The decision of whether to take on a hazardous job belongs to the woman, not her employer, argued Berzon, now a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“In today’s day and age, women in general can control whether or not they are going to have children, and, therfore, in supposing that they will not, the policy is incorporating a negative behavioral stereotype,” Berzon said.

Attorney Stanley S. Jaspan countered that the company’s compelling interest in ensuring workplace safety trumped the federal law.

“We’re not to leave common sense at the doorstep when interpreting Title VII,” said Jaspan, a partner with Foley & Lardner LLP in Milwaukee. “It would violate common sense and the overriding interest in occupational health and safety to require an employer to damage unborn children.”

The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with Berzon.

That’s my No. 1. Do any of you judges and lawyers out there have a favorite all-time oral argument?

What I wondered, though, was how the fact that B&D is no longer headquartered here in Maryland will affect Miles & Stockbridge. B&D has historically been a major client for Baltimore-based Miles. I imagine that from the beginning of negotiations with Stanley until the sale was finalized, the firm was swimming in deal-related work. But now that the company’s gone, how much business will Miles lose?

Miles “will not be discussing this matter,” the firm’s spokeswoman told me.

Dwyer, who said he plans to call for Gansler’s impeachment this month, extended his right hand and greeted the attorney general before the committee session. Gansler accepted the handshake and returned the greeting.

Gansler appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to testify in favor of a constitutional amendment to eliminate contested elections for circuit court judges. (Read all about it here.)

Dwyer, a member of the Judiciary Committee, wants to oust Gansler over the opinion he issued last month on same-sex marriage. The opinion supports Maryland’s recognition of same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions, even though such marriages are illegal here.

Dwyer says the opinion violates Gansler’s oath to uphold Maryland law, which defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Gansler counters that Maryland is required under the federal Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause to accept legally binding contracts — including marriage contracts — from other states.

A judge ordered the arrest of Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter Gabriel Baird on Tuesday after “he failed to appear at an abruptly scheduled hearing to determine how the newspaper obtained a psychiatric evaluation” of a suspected serial killer, according to the Plain Dealer.

Baird’s story based on the evaluation was published in November. The judge signed an arrest warrant for Baird’s arrest Tuesday afternoon, but “he was out on assignment,” according to the Plain Dealer. “Deputies then realized they could not serve the warrant because it did not contain Baird’s legal name.”

The judge dropped her request Wednesday when a fellow judge revealed himself as Baird’s source.

That raises a whole other host of questions, but it also gives a whole new spin on the open government advocacy goals of Sunshine Week.

I’ve seen some heated courtroom exchanges, but nothing like what I saw during a contempt hearing Tuesday in Baltimore County Circuit Court.

The hearing stemmed from the divorce proceedings of Michael C. Hodes of Hodes, Pessin & Katz P.A. and his wife, Lois.

At issue was, of course, money — specifically, how much of it Mr. Hodes owes Mrs. Hodes at this point, based on a November 2008 marital settlement.

Mrs. Hodes’ lawyer, Steven M. Caplan, put the figure at more than $100,000, including an installment payment and interest on it dating from November 2009.

Craig J. Little, Mr. Hodes’ lawyer, countered with zero, claiming the duty to pay is triggered only by the sale of the couple’s former homes in Baltimore and Cambridge. The Baltimore home was sold at the end of last year, but the Cambridge house remains on the market, according to courtroom testimony.

An animated Caplan alleged Mr. Hodes is inflating the price of the Cambridge home just enough so it will not sell, allowing him to use “the vacation house” and not comply with the settlement.

“He gets to effectively borrow … from my client for an unlimited amount of time, at no interest,” Caplan said.

Little vehemently disagreed with the characterizations and said a flood at the house - which Caplan derisively called “a flood of locusts” - created a year’s worth of repairs. The house is now on the market.

“He’s acting in a reasonable manner,” Little said of his client. “He wants to get this house sold.”

“I don’t care if he’s acting reasonably or unreasonably,” Caplan responded. “The provision is clear.”

So it went for more than a half-hour. Each lawyer tried to talk over the other at times, with Caplan’s voice usually being louder as Little smiled and shook his head. Judge Timothy J. Martin put his finger to his mouth several times to quiet the lawyers, often to no avail.

“This is getting out of hand,” he said. (Note: I don’t think he had a gavel with him on the bench, but if there ever was a time for the TV/movie judge command “Order in the court!,” this was it.)

Judge Martin said he would issue a ruling at a later date but “at first blush” sided with Mrs. Hodes on the reading of the marital settlement. He also noted the importance of the Cambridge house in resolving major elements of the dispute.

“The whole key to this is to sell the property,” he said.

• There are major backlogs in Baltimore’s crime lab, causing delays in cases. The Baltimore court system is grinding slowly? It can’t be true!
• Department of Pot-and-Kettle Irony: Benjamin Sifrit seeks divorce from wife Erika because she’s a “convicted felon.” The Sifrits killed another couple in Ocean City in May 2002. (Erika was convicted of both murders; Benjamin, just one.)  (HT: Baltimore Crime.)
• Ron Miller criticizes the argument that letting doctors apologize for medical mistakes without subjecting them to increased liability would help the medical/legal systems: “How about if personal injury lawyers who blow a statute of limitations can avoid responsibility by making the grandiose admission that it is all their fault?”
• “Respect the robe” even if you don’t think much of the person wearing it, Jon Katz advises.
• Does it matter that Clarence Thomas’ wife is a tea partier?
• Are law schools much better than trade schools when it comes to high tuition and a tight job market?

By contrast, 22 people applied for a Circuit Court vacancy in 2008.

The District Court vacancy appears to be the first since November 2005, when Judge Philip Tirabassi was appointed to the bench.

Among the applicants are several senior prosecutors and public defenders, as well as an Orphans’ Court judge. The Judicial Nominating Commission for Baltimore County will meet in May and submit a list of nominees to Gov. Martin O’Malley, who will pick one.

A District Court judge’s annual salary is $127,252.

According to a study to be released later this month by The National Jurist (HT: ABA Journal), the astronomical rise in law school tuition in the last 10 years–102 percent at public schools and 74 percent at private schools–coincides with a 40 percent increase in faculty rosters over the same time period. The new faculty hires account for 48 percent of the tuition hikes, The National Jurist found.

Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor William Henderson, who often writes and comments on the law school business model, attributes the flood of new hires to schools’ desire to do well in the U.S. News rankings, which take into account faculty-student ratio. Meanwhile, the professors are spending less time in the classroom and more time on scholarship.

I’m curious to see what you think about this, readers.

Professors: Are there too many of you, or is (what we’ve seen so far of) this study reductionist? Were faculty levels too low pre-1998, with today’s levels closer to appropriate? How crucial is the scholarship that professors do?

Students and recent grads: Are you angry that much of the crazy tuition you’re paying is a result of a hiring binge, or are you benefiting from the larger faculty?