JOHN W. GREEN, III v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Watts, Oct. 20, 2017,
Discovery – Where witness identification of a co-defendant allows identification of the defendant by process of elimination, that co-defendant identification must be disclosed to the defense

Facts:
Jonathan Copeland was a drug dealer who sold to Jeffrey Myers. Myers broke into Copeland’s house and stole cash and drugs.
The next day, Copeland obtained a handgun and took John Green along with him to go kill Myers.
Green and Copeland were both eventually charged with Myers’ murder. Copeland took a plea, but Green went to trial.
At trial, Green admitted that he was with Copeland when he approached Myers, but claimed that Copeland was the one that shot Myers.
The State brought in an eyewitness who testified that she saw two men with Myers before Myers was killed. One was shorter and stouter, while the other was tall and thin. The eyewitness testified that she saw the short man shoot into Myers’ car several times.
This was disclosed to the defense prior to trial.
However, at trial the eyewitness identified Copeland as the tall man that did not do the shooting.
It was not disclosed to the defense before trial that the eyewitness would be able to identify Copeland.
The defense argued that the State improperly withheld information that the eyewitness would identify Copeland. By identifying Copeland as the person who did not shoot Myers, the witness effectively identified Green as the one who DID shoot Myers. Because the witness identified Green as the shooter, her ability to do so should have been disclosed to the defense prior to trial.
The trial judge overruled the defense objection and Green was convicted of murder.
On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals upheld the conviction, holding that the rules only require identification of the defendant be turned over
Green asked for review by the Court of Appeals, arguing that identification of his co-defendant was, in fact, an identification of him by process of elimination.

Held:
The Court of Appeals agree with Green. The State should have turned over information related to identification of Green’s co-defendant because identifying Copeland as the man that did not shoot made Green the shooter. Because of the importance of the witness, the discovery violation was not harmless error. Sent back for a new trial.

Discovery – In every circuit court criminal case, the State is required to turn over certain material in its possession AND material that police investigators have in their possession

Discovery– The State is required to turn over to the defense a significant amount of material, including:
– All statements by the defendant
– Criminal history of the defendant
– Witness list with contact information and any written statements made
– Prior bad acts to be used against the defendant
– Exculpatory material
– Impeachment evidence for State witnesses (including failure to ID the suspect in a photo array)
– “All relevant material” related to searches, seizures, and surveillance
– Pre-trial identification of the defendant by a State witness
– Expert reports
– Evidence to be used at trial
– Opportunity to inspect the property of the defendant

Discovery – Pre-trial identification- The State is required to turn over “all relevant material or information regarding… pretrial identification of the defendant by a State’s witness”

Discovery – Pre-trial identification- In general, the State is not required to turn over information about pre-trial identification of a co-defendant

Discovery- “Co-Defendant” – A “co-defendant” means someone that is charged with the same crime as the defendant (regardless of whether they are tried together)

Discovery – Pre-trial identification- However, the State must turn over information about the identification of a co-defendant if identifying the co-defendant is “the equivalent of a pretrial identification of the defendant”

From the Case: Because Green admitted to being with Copeland when Myers was killed, the fact that the eyewitness identified Copeland as the man who did NOT shoot Myers made Green the man that DID shoot Myers. This, in effect, became an identification of Green.

Discovery- Identification – Identification that needs to be disclosed to the defense includes: law-enforcement surveillance resulting in ID of the defendant, statements by witnesses that they saw the defendant near the scene of the crime, etc.

Discovery- Identification – This identification doesn’t need to be during a formal interview. If a witness tells a police officer that they either can or can’t identify the defendant, that is an identification statement that generally needs to be disclosed to the defense by the State.

Discovery Identification- Identification information is given to the defense in order to “assist defendants in preparing their defense and to protect them from unfair surprise.”