—holding that State's filing of exceptions to Juvenile Master's findings and recommendations and resolution of those exceptions by a judge did not violate Double Jeopardy Clause

The court held that "Maryland has created a system... in which an accused juvenile is subjected to a single proceeding which begins with a master's hearing and culminates with an adjudication by a judge."

—holding that a live controversy remained, and a class was properly certified, where the adversity between the defendant and all but one of the named plaintiff had been mooted

Rule 911 of the Maryland Rules of Procedure was deemed by the Supreme Court and the parties in Swisher to be the prevailing rule governing use of masters in Maryland juvenile court proceedings.[2

Then, agreeing with the position of this Court in promulgating Rule 911, the Supreme Court held that permitting the State to file exceptions from the master's proposals does not require an accused to stand trial a second time in violation of double jeopardy principles because the juvenile is subjected to a single proceeding beginning with the master's hearing and …

While this Court, so far as we are able to ascertain, has never invalidated an Act of Congress on double jeopardy grounds, it has had frequent occasion recently to consider and pass upon double jeopardy claims raised in various contexts.

—the Supreme Court upheld a recently enacted Maryland procedure for juvenile delinquency hearings against a double jeopardy attack.

Court tested this proceeding against three identified purposes of the double jeopardy clause.(1) To bar the prosecution from another opportunity to supply evidence that it failed to muster in the first proceeding;(2) To preclude the prosecutor from enhancing the risk that an innocent defendant may be convicted by taking the question of guilt to a series of persons or groups …

In similar cases we have noted that the continuation of the action will depend " `especially [upon] the reality of the claim that otherwise the issue would evade review.'"

In such cases, the "relation back" doctrine is properly invoked to preserve the merits of the case for judicial resolution.