EDDIE LEE SAVAGE, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Greene, August 4, 2017,
Expert Witness- An expert witness may not give an opinion if he fails to connect the “analytic gap” between the evidence he was given and the conclusion he arrived at.

(Concur- Adkins with McDonald, Barbera- Would adopt Daubert)

Facts
In 2013, Tynise Sparks took her husband and her in-laws to the home of her child’s father (Savage) in Wicomico County in order to pick up her children. An argument erupted and Savage ended up going into his house, returning with a gun, and shooting both Sparks’ husband and her father-in-law (killing the father-in-law). Savage then fled the scene and gave the gun to a friend before turning himself in to the police.
Savage was subsequently charged with murder and related charges.
Savage had himself been shot in the head in 2003 and hired an expert witness, “Dr. Garmoe”, to testify that Savage had a TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) and that “under such conditions of chaos and stress Mr. Savage would be more likely to perceive himself to be facing an imminent threat and have greater difficulty controlling his reactions.”
A hearing was held to determine what, if anything, Dr. Garmoe would be able to testify about. Dr. Garmoe was a board-certified neuropsychologist. However, his opinion regarding Savage was based largely on Savage’s self-reporting.
The trial court allowed Dr. Garmoe to testify generally, but refused to allow Dr. Garmoe to testify about Savage’s mental state at the time he shot and killed the victim.
Savage’s trial was before a jury. At trial, Savage’s friend testified that the victim was the aggressor and that Savage was just defending himself.
In his closing argument, the prosecutor noted that Savage’s friend was the one that took the gun from Savage and cleaned prints off of it. The prosecutor also noted that Savage’s friend didn’t go to the police with this information and that the first time that story was heard was at trial.
Savage objected, arguing that the prosecutor was infringing on Savage’s right to remain silent. The trial court overruled the objection.
Savage was convicted and sentenced to 61 years in prison.
Savage then appealed, but the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court.
Savage then requested that the Court of Appeals review the case, arguing that his expert should have been allowed to testify about Savage’s state of mind at the time and that the prosecutor infringed on Savage’s right to remain silent.
Law from the Case
Held: The Court of Appeals disagreed. Savage’s expert failed to connect the dots between the evidence and his conclusions. And the prosecutor was allowed to comment on the defense’s case.
Expert Witness Testimony- An expert cannot give an opinion based on a scientific technique or method unless:
– The technique is not “novel” (has previously been accepted by the court system)
– The technique is accepted by statute
– Or the technique is “generally accepted” in the relevant scientific community
Expert Witness Testimony- An expert also cannot give an opinion without a sufficient factual basis for that opinion. The expert must demonstrate that these facts lead to the conclusion drawn using the reliable scientific method described above.
From the Case: “Dr. Garmoe does not articulate a connection between the performance data from the testing or explain how Petitioner’s representations during the interview lead to the evaluations of hyper-vigilance to “possible threats,” and an overarching “untrusting and suspicious perspective,” and how these affects emerge “under such conditions of chaos and stress.”
Right to Remain Silent – Impeachment- A defendant cannot be impeached with the fact that they exercised their right to remain silent.
Right to Remain Silent – Impeachment- However, a defense witness can be impeached based on their failure to come forward with information earlier