EMMANUEL FORD ROBINSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Battaglia, Filed Nov. 27, 2013,
CSI- Jury Instruction- “Anti-CSI-Effect” instruction inappropriate unless the defendant claims that the State is required to use a particular scientific test or method. Mere commentary on evidence or methods the State could have used but did not is not sufficient to generate the instruction.

The jury instruction:
“During this trial, you’ve heard testimony of witnesses and may hear argument of counsel that the State did not utilize a specific investigative technique or scientific tests. You may consider these facts in deciding whether the State has met its burden of proof. You should consider all of the evidence or lack of evidence in deciding whether the defendant is guilty. However, I instruct you that there is no legal requirement that the State utilize any specific investigative technique or scientific test to prove its case. Your responsibility as jurors is to determine whether the State has proven based upon the evidence, the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In the context above, the trial court’s statement that “there is no legal requirement that the State utilize any specific investigative technique or scientific test to prove its case” was held by the CoA to be reversible error because it “effectively relieved the State of its burden to prove Robinson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The CoA does not explain how that instruction improperly shifts the burden or why, even if there is no CSI-effect, it is improper to explain that no particular scientific test is required. In point of fact, the first sentence should probably be stricken and the “no specific test required” instruction be given as a matter of course.

In a well-reasoned dissent, Watts notes that the defense attorney in the instant case DID improperly state the law and that, in any case, the instruction does NOT improperly shift the burden from the State.