ROBERT ANTHONY MCGHIE v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Barbera, August 24, 2016,
Writ of Actual Innocence – In a writ, the reviewing court should look retrospectively and consider whether, had information come to light, there is a “substantial or significant possibility that the result may have been different.”

(Concur – McDonald – Petitioner substantially complied, even if not completely and therefore not inappropriate to consider writ)
(Dissent – Raker – Where the petitioner doesn’t assert actual innocence, writ should be dismissed)

Case Summary: Defendant was an accomplice to a failed armed robbery that ended in murder back in 1994. He requested a new trial in 2013 because it was discovered that the State’s ballistic expert had lied about his credentials. Held: based on the weight of the evidence against McGhie, there was no “substantial or significant possibility of a different outcome at trial” had the information about the ballistics expert come to light.

The trial court was conflicted about how to resolve the issue: excise the harmful statement? Or retrospectively “introduce” the impeachable information

8-301(a)(1) requires courts to look back to the trial that occurred to determine whether the newly discovered evidence “creates a substantial or significant possibility that the result may have been differentThe appropriate analysis is not simply to excise the falsehood, for such an approach, as applied to this case, ignores the “substantial or significant possibility” that one or more of the jurors at Petitioner’s trial, had they known of Kopera’s false testimony about his credentials, would have discredited his testimony in its entirety.7 If the jury is made aware that the expert lied about his qualifications, the jury might also reasonably find that other aspects of the expert’s testimony are not reliable