STATE OF MARYLAND v. JAMES LESLIE ADAMS-BEY, JR.
Court of Appeals, Barbera, August 25, 2016
UPPA – Anyone that files a “proper” postconviction or motion to reopen postconviction is “entitle[d] to a new trial” if their trial involved “advisory only” instructions involving the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof in some way (either expressly or by implication).

(Joining Judgment Only – Watts – Courts should not automatically grant new trials based on Unger)

Case Summary: In 1978, Adams-Bey was convicted by jury of first degree rape and sentenced to life plus ten years. The jury was instructed that they were “the judges of both the law and the facts” (consistent with what the Court of Appeals told trial judges to instruct). Because this was federally unconstitutional, a new trial was ordered.

Quote from the case: “It also bears emphasis, moving forward, that trial courts at the time of [Adams-Bey’s] trial were required to give [this] instruction under both Article 23 and Maryland Rule 757b.”

The Maryland Law and Rules at the time were federally unconstitutional because they allowed juries to decide whether or not to follow the “burden of proof” and “presumption of innocence” instructions.

If a defendant had a trial where the judge followed the rules, that defendant is entitled to a new trial. As “[i]t is virtually certain that a court during that era would have given such an Instruction.”