Criminal Procedure Commons^™

"A Middle Temperature Between The Two": Exploring Intermediate Remedies For The Failure To Comply With Maryland's Eyewitness Identification Statute, Marc A. Desimone Jr.

University of Baltimore Law Review

This article addresses what remedies should be available to a criminal defendant in Maryland who has been identified in an extrajudicial identification procedure that does not comply with the present statutory requirements. Part II of this article provides an overview of the present due process test for evaluating the admissibility of extrajudicial eyewitness identifications, the present Maryland iteration of that test, and alternatives to that approach that have been adopted in other jurisdictions. Part III reviews recent legislative reforms to extrajudicial identification procedures, which are required in Maryland as of January 1, 2016. Section IV.A of this article argues why …

Recent Development: Peterson V. State: Limitations On Defense Cross-Examination Are Permitted When The Testimony Lacks A Factual Foundation, Is Overly Prejudicial, Or Has Not Been Adequately Preserved, Meghan E. Ellis

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated when the defense was precluded from cross-examining a witness about hallucinations and his potential sentence prior to entering into a plea agreement. Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105, 153-54, 118 A.3d 925, 952-53 (2015). The court found that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of a witness’s expectation of benefit with respect to pending charges, and failed to show sufficient factual foundation for a cross-examination regarding the expectation. Id. at 138-39, 118 A.3d at 944. In addition, the court found that, although not …

Foreword, J. Amy Dillard

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Serial: The Presumption Of Guilt, Staff Editors

University of Baltimore Law Review

Below is a transcript of a panel discussion with key participants in the defense of Adnan Syed which inspired the popular Serial podcast. The Student Bar Association of the University of Baltimore School of Law hosted the event on February 12, 2015.

"Sweet Childish Days": Using Developmental Psychology Research In Evaluating The Admissibility Of Out-Of-Court Statements By Young Children, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

A three-year-old child, while being bathed by her babysitter, innocently mentions that her “pee-pee” hurts. When the babysitter asks the child how she hurt it, she says, “Uncle Ernie (her mother’s boyfriend) told me not to tell.” A subsequent medical examination reveals that the child has gonorrhea, a sexually transmitted disease.

By the time of trial, the child is four and-a-half-years old. When questioned by the trial judge, she cannot explain to the judge’s satisfaction, “the difference between the truth and a lie.” Moreover, she has no long term memory of the incident. The judge rules the child incompetent to …

"I'M Going To Dinner With Frank": Admissibility Of Nontestimonial Statements Of Intent To Prove The Actions Of Someone Other Than The Speaker—And The Role Of The Due Process Clause, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

A woman tells her roommate that she is going out to dinner with Frank that evening. The next morning her battered body is found along a country road outside of town. In Frank’s trial for her murder, is her statement to her roommate admissible to place Frank with her that night? Since the Court’s 2004 Crawford decision, the confrontation clause is inapplicable to nontestimonial hearsay such as this.

American jurisdictions are widely divided on the question of admissibility under their rules of evidence, however. Many say absolutely not. A sizeable number unequivocally say yes. A small number say yes, but …

Post-Crawford: Time To Liberalize The Substantive Admissibility Of A Testifying Witness's Prior Consistent Statements, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

The United States Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Tome v. United States has read Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) to prevent the prosecution's offering a child abuse victim's prior consistent statements as substantive evidence. As a result of that decision, the statements will also be inadmissible even for the limited purpose of helping to evaluate the credibility of a child, if there is a serious risk that the out-of-court statements would be used on the issue of guilt or innocence.

Moreover, after the Court's March 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington, which redesigned the landscape of Confrontation Clause analysis, other …

No Magic Formula: A New Approach For Calculating The Ten Year Time Period For Admission Of Prior Conviction Evidence, Amy E. Sloan

All Faculty Scholarship

Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 609 governs admission of prior conviction evidence. Under this rule, it is easier to admit evidence of a prior conviction that is less than ten years old than to admit evidence of older convictions. The ten year period is measured from the later of either the date of conviction or the date of release from confinement.

Calculating the ten year period is fairly straightforward in most cases but becomes confusing when the witness has been confined for violating the terms of probation, parole, or some other period of conditional release. Does the confinement for violation …

Challenging Public Investigative Reports: How To Fight The Hearsay Exception, Steven P. Grossman, Stephen J. Shapiro

All Faculty Scholarship

This paper discusses how attorneys can argue against having government and public reports admitted into evidence at trial that would be damaging to their client. When this paper was done, such reports were admitted via Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C). The authors argue that it is possible to challenge admission of factual findings in public reports despite various court decisions which make this difficult.

The Admission Of Government Fact Findings Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 803(8)(C): Limiting The Dangers Of Unreliable Hearsay, Steven P. Grossman, Stephen J. Shapiro

All Faculty Scholarship

Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C), an exception to the rule against admission of hearsay, permits introduction of public records or reports containing the fact findings of the reporter without requiring the reporter to appear at trial. These fact findings can be based upon the reporter's own observations and calculations or information imparted to the reporter from sources having no connection to any public agency whatsoever. Rule 803(8)(C) has also been used as the vehicle for presenting juries with fact findings from hearings conducted by public officials. The rule would seem to allow these fact findings even though the opponent had …

The Doctrine Of Inevitable Discovery: A Plea For Reasonable Limitations, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

In reinstating the Iowa murder conviction of Robert Williams, the Supreme Court accepted explicitly for the first time the doctrine of inevitable discovery. Applied for some time by state and federal courts, the doctrine of inevitable discovery is a means by which evidence obtained illegally can still be admitted against defendants in criminal cases. Unfortunately, the Court chose to adopt the doctrine without any of the safeguards necessary to insure that the deterrent impact of the exclusionary rule would be preserved, and in a form that is subject to and almost invites abuse.

This article warns of the danger to …