ISA MANUEL SANTIAGO v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Getty, March 27, 2018,
Evidence- Pre-Arrest Silence – Evidence of a defendant’s decision not to give a statement to his insurance company about how his car was stolen could be used against the defendant at trial as evidence of consciousness of guilt

Facts:
On Friday, June 13, 2003, LaToya Taylor told a coworker that she was going to meet someone who owed her money on her lunch break. She then got into a black box-truck. Six days later, her body was found wrapped in trash bags in Charles County. She had received a single gunshot wound to the back of her head.
On Saturday, June 14, 2003, police responded to a vehicle fire. Officers found a black Jeep Cherokee, registered to Santiago, in flames with a gas canister next to it. Investigation revealed that someone drove the Jeep to the area, set it on fire, and drove off in another car. The ignition of the Jeep had not been tampered with.
That same day, Santiago made a claim with State Farm that his Jeep had been stolen. However, when State Farm tried to investigate further Santiago failed to cooperate with their investigation.
Taylor’s murder investigation revealed that she and Santiago had an “extensive and turbulent relationship” that included acts of domestic violence against Taylor. Taylor was suing Santiago for child support and a hearing was to be held on June 18, 2003.
Forensic examination of the burned Jeep revealed grass fragments within the undercarriage consistent with grass in the field where Taylor’s body was found. Additionally, carpet fibers on Taylor’s clothing matched the automobile carpet fiber samples from the Jeep.
Moreover, an examination of Taylor’s historic cell site information showed that he was in the area where Taylor’s body was found at the approximate time her body was placed there.
The examination of Taylor’s cell-site information was complicated by a “rehoming” process Cingular conducted in 2003-2004. Because of this, a Cingular engineer had to go through and manually adjust Taylor’s information.
In 2006, Santiago was tried for the murder.
At trial, evidence was introduced against him ranging from the motive to the burned Jeep to the cell-site information to his failure to cooperate with State Farm investigators.
Santiago was subsequently convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and related charges.
Santiago then appealed and a new trial was ordered on the basis of an improper jury verdict. Santiago’s re-trial was put off by various other appeals related to re-charging and the re-trial.
In 2015, Santiago was brought back to trial. However, by this time the Cingular engineer no longer had the original records from the adjustment he had performed (he destroyed it at some point between 2006-2015).
The trial court allowed the Cingular engineer to testify, even without his records, because he was able to explain his process and had “substantial experience” and “knowledge” in the area. Moreover, the fact that he no longer had the records went to the “weight” of his testimony and not its admissibility.
The trial court also allowed the State to introduce records from State Farm showing that Santiago failed to cooperate with their investigators looking into the “stolen” Jeep claim.
Santiago was once again convicted.
Santiago then appealed, arguing that the cell-site engineer should not have been allowed to testify since he no longer had the records supporting his testimony. He also argued that the State Farm records violated his 5th Amendment right not to have his silence held against him.

Held: The Court of Appeals found that Santiago’s conviction and trial were proper. The engineer didn’t need to have his notes in order to be allowed to testify. And Santiago’s 5th-Amendment right only applied to law-enforcement, not his insurance company.

5th Amendment – A suspect in a criminal case has the right not to be “compelled” (forced) by the government to incriminate himself

5th Amendment – A suspect’s decision to exercise his 5th Amendment right cannot be held against him in court and a jury is not allowed to consider whether a defendant exercised his right against self-incrimination

5th Amendment – The 5th Amendment only protects the suspect against government action (direct or indirect).

From the Case: “There was no police involvement at any stage of Mr. Santiago’s initial insurance claim or during State Farm’s subsequent investigation. State Farm’s involvement and investigation only began due to Mr. Santiago’s voluntary action of filing a claim.”

Character evidence – In general, evidence of a defendant’s character cannot be used to show that they should be convicted because they’re a bad person

Consciousness of Guilt – Consciousness of guilt evidence is generally admissible and may include flight after a crime, escape from confinement, use of a false name, and destruction or concealment of evidence.

Consciousness of Guilt – To be admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, the act in question should not be “ambiguous.” It should be something that naturally leads someone to believe that the person is guilty.

Pre-Arrest Silence – Pre-arrest silence in police presence is not admissible as substantive evidence of guilt because “silence is the natural reaction of many people in the presence of law enforcement officers.”

Silence Generally – However, “silence in the presence of an accuser or non-threatening bystanders may indeed” show that the suspect knows he is guilty.

From the Case: State Farm’s involvement and investigation only began due to Mr. Santiago’s voluntary action of filing a claim. As such, State Farm’s position in this case more similar to that of a “non-threatening bystander” rather than any type of “police presence.” The State Farm records confirmed that Mr. Santiago filed a stolen vehicle claim for his Jeep Cherokee and subsequently did not cooperate with State Farm by refusing to give a requested examination under oath. Mr. Santiago’s failure to comply with the terms of his State Farm policy tended to show that Mr. Santiago knew he had submitted a fictitious stolen vehicle claim.

Expert Testimony – Expert testimony may be admitted if the testimony will assist the judge or jury understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue

Expert Testimony – Frye-Reed – Not all expert opinions are allowed into evidence in Maryland. In order for an expert to testify on the basis of a technique or method, it must be shown that:
– The scientific technique is not “novel” to the courts (it has already been accepted by the courts)
– or, if the technique is novel to the courts, it has been generally accepted by the scientific community as reliable (accurate, reproducible, standardized, etc.)

Expert Testimony – Scientific evidence can be admitted if it has previously been accepted by the courts, if there is a statute that allows it (for example: breath tests) or where the evidence is “generally accepted” in the relevant scientific community.

Expert Testimony – “General acceptance” in the relevant scientific community can be determined by expert testimony explaining the acceptance, judicial notice, or some combination of the two.

Note: Federal courts use a different standard that looks at whether the witness is qualified and if the technique is reliable. The federal test if more flexible and relies less on “general acceptance” within the scientific community.

Expert Testimony – To decide whether expert testimony will be admitted, the court must consider:
(1) whether the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,
(2) the appropriateness of the expert testimony on the particular subject, and
(3) whether a sufficient factual basis exists to support the expert testimony.

Expert Testimony – To determine whether there is a “sufficient factual basis” for an expert to testify, courts will look at whether the testimony is based on:
– an adequate supply of data
– and a reliable methodology of analyzing that data

Expert Testimony – Expert testimony must be “more than mere speculation.” It has to show that reliable methods were used to examine actual data and come to a conclusion.

Expert Testimony – Data- Data may come from an “expert’s first-hand knowledge, facts obtained from the testimony of others, and facts related to an expert through the use of hypothetical questions.”

From the Case: “The absence of the 2003 Index at the third trial, while unfortunate, was merely a factor for the jury to weigh regarding the believability of Mr. Hagy’s testimony rather than a question of admissibility.”

Expert Testimony – Methodology – An expert opinion must provide a sound reasoning process for coming to its conclusion from the factual data and must have an adequate theory or rational explanation of how the factual data led to the expert’s conclusion

From the Case: “Being able to spot technological inconsistencies and correct them was Mr. Hagy’s job. By using a logical reasoning process in comparing Mr. Santiago’s CDRs to a database that Mr. Hagy produced and updated as part of his day-to-day job managing Cingular’s network, Mr. Hagy was able to deduce that calls designated as being made in the Switch 3 area in fact were made in the Switch 2 area.” Therefore, “we agree with the trial court and the Court of Special Appeals and find that a sufficient factual basis existed for Mr. Hagy’s expert opinion testimony.”