University of Baltimore Law Review

Effect of COVID-19 on the Live Music Industry and the Reopening of Concert Venues

* Hayley Weisman

Before COVID-19 (COVID), artists in the live music industry toured the country, bringing arenas full of people together to have one common experience of seeing them perform.[1] Since March, the live music industry has hit a standstill, with many events getting postponed or canceled as a result of the COVID pandemic.[2] Many changes have been made to the regulations for public safety since COVID was first declared a pandemic—e.g., the need to wear a mask when out in public and restrictions on the number of people allowed at group gatherings.[3] As an industry that is almost entirely centered around bringing large groups of people together, how should the live music industry reopen amidst COVID without risking massive outbreaks and lawsuits?

Employment Classification: California Drives Away Rideshare Giants and Threatens the Future of Independent Contractors

*Michael Blanchard

I. Introduction

Uber and other rideshare companies are making headlines as California seeks to bring an end to the classification of drivers as independent contractors.[1] In a recently filed lawsuit, California Labor Commissioner, Lilia García-Brower, demands that rideshare companies reclassify drivers and is seeking millions of dollars in civil penalties, in addition to unpaid payroll and benefit taxes.[2] The Commissioner argues that by continuing to improperly classify drivers as independent contractors, rideshare companies have not only avoided paying taxes and expenses, but also unfairly deprived their drivers of the right to basic employment benefits.[3]

Highest Case Note from Write-On 2020: Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1, 223 A.3d 554 (2020)

*Joshua Gehret

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court for Baltimore County abused its discretion when, upon request during voir dire, it declined to question prospective jurors’ willingness and ability to follow jury instructions on fundamental principles of the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and the defendant’s right to not testify, overruling Twining v. State. Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1, 223 A.3d 554 (2020).

I. Introduction

In Kazadi v. State, the Court of Appeals of Maryland (Court of Appeals) overruled its decision in Twining v. State, holding that trial courts commit an abuse of discretion when declining to ask prospective jurors whether they can follow the court’s instructions on the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and the defendant’s right not to testify.[1] To reach this decision, the Court of Appeals determined that significant changes in the law superseded Twining.[2] The Court’s decision mandates that trial courts question prospective jurors—about the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and the defendant’s right not to testify—if requested during voir dire.[3] The Kazadi holding adopts the presumption that jurors may be unable or unwilling to follow the law according to the trial court’s instructions, which may significantly affect how Maryland courts conduct voir dire and help ensure selection of impartial juries.[4]

Should We Beware of “Ban-the-Box” Laws?

*Catalina Habeych

Recidivism rates in the United States are some of the highest in the world. See Christina Sterbenz, Why Norway’s Prison System Is So Successful, Bus. Insider (Dec. 11, 2014, 1:31 PM), https://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12. Persons with a criminal history face high unemployment rates, which lead to higher recidivism rates based on various studies. Sachi Barreiro, What Is a Ban-the-Box Law?, NOLO, https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-a-ban-the-box-law.html (last visited June 15, 2020). One possible contributor to the high levels of unemployment and recidivism among former offenders in the U.S. is the hiring practice of asking applicants to reveal information about prior convictions in their job applications. See generally Nicole Fortier & Abigail Finkelman, Stemming the Tide of Recidivism: Banning ‘the Box’, Am. Prospect (May 14, 2014), https://prospect.org/justice/stemming-tide-recidivism-banning-the-box/. As a result, laws prohibiting employers from asking applicants about their criminal history on initial job applications have gained popularity throughout the U.S. See Roy Maurer, Ban-the-Box Movement Goes Viral, SHRM (Mar. 10, 2016), https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/risk-management/pages/ban-the-box-movement-viral.aspx.

The “Migrant Protection Protocol”: Why the Trump Administration’s Unprecedented Immigration Policy Does Not Protect Migrants, But Puts Them in Danger

*Emma Dorris

I. Introduction

In February 2019, the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies sued the Trump Administration (the Administration) on behalf of “11 individual asylum seekers and organizational plaintiffs.” Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf, ACLU (Mar. 9, 2020), https://www.aclu.org/cases/innovation-law-lab-v-wolf; Kate Morrisey & Sandra Dibble, ACLU Sues Trump Administration over ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy for Asylum Seekers, San Diego Union-Tribune (Feb. 14, 2019, 2:40 PM), https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/immigration/sd-me-families-returned-20190214-story.html. The lawsuit challenges the Trump Administration’s implementation of its striking immigration policy, the Migrant Protection Protocol (MPP), also known as the “Remain in Mexico” Policy, which forces “asylum seekers to return to Mexico and remain there while their cases are considered.” Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf, supra.