Md. high court scraps rule on accomplice testimony

By Steve Lash
Steve.Lash@TheDailyRecord.com

Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera (The Daily Record File)

Maryland’s top court has scrapped its long-standing common law rule that criminal defendants cannot be convicted based solely on their alleged accomplices’ testimony.

In a splintered 5-2 decision Wednesday, the Court of Appeals said accomplice testimony need no longer be supported by other, corroborative evidence so long as the judge tells the jury the accomplices’ testimony must be considered with great caution because they may be trying to transfer the blame.

The high court said its ruling applies prospectively and not to past cases.

With its ruling, the Court of Appeals joins at least 32 states that allow carefully instructed juries to accept the testimony of accomplices without corroborating evidence. The high court’s decision overturns its 1911 holding in Luery v. State that accomplice testimony is inherently unreliable without the state presenting evidence to support the testimony.

The court noted it has required no such corroboration for testimony given by arguably less credible witnesses -- such as jailhouse informants and paid experts – and trusted instead that jurors can make their own decisions regarding credibility and potential bias. That trust in juries now also applies to accomplice testimony, the high court added.

“We hold that, in criminal jury trials, the courts should disturb as little as possible the jury’s role of factfinder, as established under the Maryland Constitution,” Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera wrote for a three-judge plurality. “This deference to the jury restores the balance between the concerns underlying accomplice testimony and its potential benefits.”

Barbera was joined in the opinion by Judges Joseph M. Getty and Alan M. Wilner, a retired jurist sitting by special assignment. Judges Robert N. McDonald and Shirley M. Watts wrote concurring opinions. 

In dissent, Judge Michele D. Hotten said the rule against uncorroborated accomplice testimony is necessary “for combatting the biases and harms” inherent in the testimony and which cannot be cured through a judge’s directions to the jury.

“The rule provides more than a cautionary instruction and serves to safeguard defendants from accomplice testimony that may be motivated by an accomplice’s self-gain,” wrote Hotten, joined in dissent by retired Judge Clayton Greene Jr., who was sitting by special assignment.

“We find a mandatory instruction, in lieu of the rule, untenable for preserving defendants’ rights against accomplices who may be guilty counterparts in an offense, yet are motivated by self-interest to hide or minimize the extent of that guilt,” Hotten added.  “We must retain the rule, as we have since the 1911 Luery decision, in order to safeguard against the inherent problems that arise from accomplice testimony.”

The Court of Appeals, however, declined to apply its landmark decision to the case before it: an effort by Maryland prosecutors to reinstate a conviction for conspiracy to commit armed carjacking conviction that was based on the uncorroborated testimony of an alleged accomplice.

To apply the new rule would have been “unfair” to Hassan Emmanuel Jones as it would have stripped his only defense, the lack of corroborating evidence, the high court said. Application of the new rule would have also eased “after the fact, the quantum of evidence the state was required to present,” the high court added in affirming the intermediate Court of Special Appeals decision overturning Jones’ conviction in Baltimore County Circuit Court.

The Court of Appeals rendered its decision in State of Maryland v. Hassan Emmanuel Jones, No. 52 September Term 2018.