Articles Posted in Evidence

In a recent case, the petitioner was convicted of multiple counts of second-degree murder, first-degree assault, and use of a handgun, among other things. He was sentenced to imprisonment plus 170 years.

The case arose when two men were shot and killed. There were several witnesses who testified on behalf of the State. Before his trial, one witness was sentenced to probation for charges of attempting to distribute an illegal substance. He was also charged with possession of a firearm and sentenced to six months. He was given some leniency in his jail stay because he was scheduled to testify at the petitioner’s trial.

Before trial, the State asked that the petitioner not be able to question any of its witnesses regarding prior arrests. The defense objected on the grounds that one of the witnesses had an agreement for leniency. The State claimed there was no plea and the witness had asked for a release because he was a witness to his brother’s murder and was frightened during his jail stay. The court agreed with the State that it was a safety issue. Continue reading

People in Maryland and elsewhere are often curious about how realistic television shows involving lawyers are. How television affects jurors and trials, however, is less often explored. One phenomenon in the latter category, the “CSI effect” has led to some interesting scholarship and legal rulings over the past decade.

The “CSI effect” allegedly occurs in response to the television show, leading jurors to expect they will be given forensic evidence such as DNA during a criminal trial. In earlier cases, the appellate court addressed whether or not it was appropriate to give an instruction to counter the CSI effect (an “anti-CSI effect instruction”).

In a recent case the trial judge instructed the jury that there was no legal requirement that the prosecution use a specific type of investigative or scientific technique to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He also noted that the defense argued there was no scientific link connecting the defendant to the crime. Continue reading

A recent case arose when the defendant drove his Mitsubishi with two passengers onto southbound I-95. The defendant and one of the passengers (Jackson) planned to rob the other passenger. However, the two passengers got into a fight at some point and Jackson got shot. The defendant pulled over and Jackson shot and killed the other passenger. The defendant drove the injured passenger to the hospital and left.

The police found the dead passenger’s body on the same day. The defendant was arrested and at the barracks where he was taken. While there, he made statements to three officers, including a recorded statement where he described the fight as a robbery that had gone bad.

After that, he was advised of his Miranda rights. Although he invoked his right to remain silent, he continued to talk. The officers cut him off and told him they couldn’t talk to him until he waived his Miranda rights. Ten minutes later he signed a form waiving his rights. Continue reading

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court reversed a Maryland appellate court on the subject of the Maryland DNA Collection Act. It held that it was constitutional for Maryland to allow law enforcement officers to take a DNA sample from individuals arrested for violent crimes. It explained that DNA identification was similar to fingerprinting or photographing and should be considered a “reasonable search.” Therefore, the DNA collection was considered not to violate the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights and the defendant’s conviction for rape was upheld.

The case was remanded (returned) to the appellate court to consider questions left unanswered in the original appeal including whether the DNA collection violated the defendant’s rights under Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and whether it was improper for the trial judge to shift the burden of proof to the defendant to show the search and seizure was reasonable.

The defendant argued that the Act authorized general searches without requiring the reasonable suspicion that is typically required for a search and seizure. He asked the Maryland appellate court to suppress the evidence on the grounds that this violated Article 26. Continue reading

Maryland jurors place a lot of trust in DNA evidence. However, DNA evidence is actually fairly technical and testimony or arguments related to the evidence may be confusing—so confusing it can affect the outcome of a trial. What happens, for example, if a prosecutor makes incorrect arguments about critical DNA evidence?

In a recent case, that was just what was at issue. In October 2008, police found a man who had been shot in his side lying on his back next to a pick-up truck. The sergeant who found him asked questions to figure out what the man knew about the person who shot him. The victim gave short answers to offer a description and later died.

The police discovered that the defendant and his cousin had been in the same neighborhood as the victim at the time of death. The cousin lost sight of the defendant while the defendant went to meet a woman he’d met on a chat line. During that time, the police believed, the defendant shot the victim. The defendant was indicted for first-degree murder, robbery, theft and use of a handgun while committing a crime of violence. Continue reading

How far is too far when Maryland police are trying to track criminal activity? Usually citizens are protected in their homes by the Fourth Amendment from unwarranted searches and seizures. But what happens if you consent to the entry and the search?

A recent appellate case arose when a high school junior was sitting at a bus stop talking on her cell phone. The defendant approached and told her to give him all her stuff or he would cut her. She saw him holding a knife. He took her possessions and ran away. The victim returned to school and spoke to the Baltimore police.

She described the man who attacked her as a black male with a salt and pepper beard. She told the detective her cell phone number and described the phone. The officer sent the police report to a unit that specializes in locating stolen cell phones. Continue reading

Most people are aware of the protections offered by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. One protection is the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The other requires that police only get a warrant that is particular and supported by probable cause.

The Supreme Court has ruled that searches and seizures conducted without a judicial warrant are presumptively unreasonable. This is because a neutral magistrate has not determined, in those cases, that there is probable cause to search or seize a particular property. This broad requirement for a warrant has several well-established exceptions. For example, a police officer may make a warrantless arrest when he or she has probable cause to believe the arrestee has committed a felony or attempted to commit a felony.

In a recent case, the defendant was convicted for robbery, reckless endangerment, second-degree assault, and theft. The defendant was apprehended when an officer, driving up in a marked police vehicle, saw him abandon his bike and run away near the scene of a robbery that had taken place the day before. The man’s flight, to the officer, suggested a guilty conscience. Also, the defendant looked like the description of the perpetrator of the recent robbery: a black male between 6 ft. 1 inches and 6 foot 3 inches with cornrows. The defendant went by the nickname “B” and “B” was the initial given in a previous lineup for the robbery.

Continue reading