STATE OF MARYLAND v. KEVIN ARMSTEAD
Court of Special Appeals, Harrell, Feb. 1, 2018,
Ineffective Assistance – A lawyer was not “ineffective” by failing to object to an “anti-CSI-effect” instruction that would later be found improper

Facts:
In 2007, a victim was shot to death in the 500 block of E. 43rd St. in Baltimore.
Armstead was charged with conspiracy to commit the murder as well as handgun charges.
During jury selection, the judge asked “if you are currently of the view that you cannot convict the defendant without ‘scientific evidence’ regardless of all of the other evidence in the case and regardless of the instruction that I give you as the law, please stand.”
Armstead’s attorney did not object.
In 2009, Armstead was convicted and sentenced to life plus thirty years.
In 2011, the Court of Appeals held that these types of “anti-CSI-effect” questions and instructions are improper unless circumstances suggest that they are necessary. However, this new rule was only to apply to future cases and cases on appeal.
In 2014, Armstead filed a post-conviction, arguing that his attorney was ineffective for not objecting to the “anti-CSI-effect” question to the jury.
In 2016, a judge granted the post-conviction, granting Armstead a new trial.
The State appealed, arguing that an attorney is not ineffective because he failed to predict the future.

Held: The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the State. It was not obvious at the time that the question was objectionable and so granting a new trial was improper.