JONATHAN D. SMITH v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Graeff, July 26, 2017,
Post-Conviction- Discovery- If the State is obligated to turn over evidence to the defendant, the defendant is not required to file a separate MPIA request to make sure that the State did what they were supposed to.

Facts
In 1987, 64-year-old Adeline Wilford was stabbed to death in her Talbot County home. Wilford suffered multiple stab wounds, and a large butcher knife with an eight-inch blade was “shoved right through the side of [her] cheek and head.” Evidence suggested that Wilford had interrupted burglars in her home and was killed.
Daniel Keene subsequently contacted police and told them that a suspicious Oldsmobile Cutlass had been seen at the victim’s residence. This was indicated in a police report, but there were no follow-up reports or statements about how/when this observation allegedly occurred.
The case had gone “cold” after the murder, and Smith was not charged until 2000 when Smith’s aunt contacted Maryland State Police with information about Smith’s involvement.
Smith’s aunt wore a wire and Smith admitted to her about his involvement in the murder. In exchange, Smith’s aunt received reward money put up by the victim’s son.
Smith’s former cell-mate (a former BPD officer incarcerated for bank robbery) also provided information on the murder, stating that Smith told him he had committed the murder because “an old lady” interrupted him in the middle of a burglary and bit him when he tried to get away.
Smith was tried and convicted. Following his conviction, Smith filed unsuccessful appeals and post-conviction petitions.
In 2011, the Innocence Project began a review of his case and requested numerous documents through Maryland’s Public Information Act. This began a prolonged series of motions resulting in the following pieces of evidence being uncovered:
1) The Innocence Project uncovered tape recordings made by MSP of conversations with Smith’s aunt in which she threatened to change her story unless the State dropped unrelated charges against her grandson. According to Smith, he never received these tapes prior to trial.
2) In 2013 (after a motion by Smith) it was discovered that a previously unidentified palm print from the murder scene could now be run through MAFIS (Maryland Automated Fingerprint Identification System) and came back to a different person of interest in the case. All parties agreed that the other suspect’s comparison palm print was not available at the time of trial.
3) In 2016, Smith was given a Betamax videotape showing a hypnosis session with Keene wherein police were trying to get more information about the Oldsmobile Cutlass. At the beginning the videotape, MSP introduces the session by explaining that Keene stated he saw the Olds at the approximate time and date of the murder. According to Smith, he was not given this videotape prior to trial.
In 2013 Smith filed a Petition for Writ of Actual Innocence, alleging these 3 claims of newly discovered evidence. Smith’s petition was denied in the Circuit Court for Talbot County.
Smith then appealed, arguing that the Circuit Court judge improperly denied his petitions.
Law from the Case
Held: The Court of Appeals agreed. Smith was entitled to have the Circuit Court reconsider his petition because the judge abused his discretion in ruling that some of the evidence was not “newly discovered” and in failing to decide whether the evidence created a “substantial possibility” that the result of Smith’s trial may have been different had it been known to the jury.
Writ of Actual Innocence- A defendant who files a petition for a Writ of Actual Innocence under CP 8-301 must show there is “newly discovered evidence” pertaining to his case which he could not have discovered in a timely manner with due diligence.
Writ of Actual Innocence- The due diligence requirement does not require a defendant to file a FOIA or MPIA request with law enforcement agencies seeking information that the State was obligated to disclose pursuant to its Brady obligation and Rule 4-263.
Exculpatory Material- The Supreme Court held in Brady v. Maryland that the government violates the Constitution’s Due Process Clause “if it withholds evidence that is favorable to the defense and material to the defendant’s guilt or punishment.”
Brady Material- Evidence is “favorable to the defense” if it is potentially exculpatory (has a tendency to make it less likely that the defendant committed the crime or shows that his sentence should be reduced) or impeaches a state witness (calls into question the truthfulness of a state witness)
Newly Discovered Evidence – A defendant has the burden under CP 8-301 to show he could not have discovered the evidence in time to file a motion for a new trial. If the information could have been discovered in a timely fashion by filing a MPIA or FOIA request to review law enforcement files, then the defendant may not be able to satisfy this burden. However, if the newly discovered evidence is material which the State was obligated by the discovery rule and its Brady obligation to provide the defendant, then the defendant is not required to file a public information act request to “double check” that the State complied with its disclosure obligations.
From the case – The tapes between an investigator and the State’s witness discussing the nol pros of her grandson’s charges do qualify as “newly discovered evidence” since the State was required under Brady to turn them over before trial and Smith was not required to “scavenge for hints of undisclosed Brady material”.
Newly Discovered Evidence – Forensic testing methods that did not exist at trial and are used to test evidence introduced at the original trial can produce newly discovered evidence.
From the case – The palm print match between crime scene evidence and Ty Brooks, a known criminal from the area where the murder occurred, is newly discovered evidence because the computer program which could conduct an automated search of that print did not exist in Maryland when Smith was tried. Names of other possible suspects, including Brooks were known to the defense, but Brooks’ palm print was not in any data base at the time Smith was tried and Smith had no legal mechanism to compel Brooks to submit to palm printing for a manual comparison with the crime scene evidence.