Brief in Support of Appellant of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys Association, and the Innocence Network.

Argument: NACDL’s amicus brief argues that the State’s misconduct in this case was truly startling; indeed, it is among the most serious examples of prosecutorial misconduct in amici’s collective experience.  The record shows that the prosecution: (1) suppressed “a fountain of favorable evidence from the defense”; (2) “[s]ponsored dubious claims from a credibility-ravaged witness who tainted every other prosecution witness”; (3) “made serial false representations to the defense, to jurors, and to the trial court about critical exculpatory evidence”; and (4) testified falsely under oath to hide its misconduct.  This misconduct was an attempt to shore up a weak case in which there was no physical evidence to link Mr. Smith or his co-defendants to the crime, and there was physical evidence that pointed away from them.  Authority from jurisdictions throughout the country supports the dismissal of the indictment under these circumstances.  Prosecutorial conduct that is “so grossly shocking and outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice” requires dismissal of a resulting prosecution on due process grounds.  A case also can be dismissed under a court’s supervisory powers even if “the conduct does not rise to the level of a due process violation.”  The egregious misconduct found by the court of appeals satisfies either standard.  Retrial would not adequately address the egregious misconduct that occurred in this case because (1) the extensive misconduct here was unusually extreme and shocks the conscience, and it created pervasive prejudice that would prevent Mr. Smith from receiving a fair retrial, and (2) any remedy short of dismissal would be inadequate to deter the type of intentional, willful, and reckless misconduct that the court of appeals recognized and the State now admits.  While dismissal is an extreme remedy, courts have invoked it regularly in cases with extreme facts of the type found here. 

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Argument: In deciding whether to disclose the identity of a government’s confidential informant, Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) compels the trial court to rigorously balance the competing interests of both the government and the defendant. When the courts fail to apply this test, erroneous convictions and corruption of the justice system may result: the use of confidential informants undermines the truth-seeking function of criminal trials, increases the chance of wrongful convictions, and fosters an environment where corrupt practices can thrive. To protect against these dangers, the Roviaro balancing test must be rigorously applied, with an eye to the rule that disclosure is required when the informant is not a mere “tipster” but rather a participant, accessory, or material witness to the offense charged, in that his testimony is important to a fair determination of the case.

Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys' Association Regarding the State's Application for Leave to Appeal.

Argument: The Court must hold the State to at least the same high standard that it applies to prisoners' § 7-109 applications. A prompt retrial is better calculated to promote public confidence in the Maryland criminal justice system. Amici urge the Court to deny the State's application for leave to appeal.