89 A.3d 1183
Md.2014Background
- The case interprets the Maryland LEOBR, specifically § 3-104(n), regarding pre-hearing disclosure of exculpatory information.
- Detective Joshua Ellsworth, a Baltimore City homicide detective, is accused of conduct unbecoming and insubordination in an incident with Sgt. Brickus at a suspected abduction scene on 2727 W. Garrison Ave.
- Ellsworth elected a trial board hearing instead of accepting the Department’s proposed sanction.
- Before the hearing, Ellsworth sought discovery including exculpatory information and, specifically, information about an FBI investigation of a witness, Detective Redd.
- The hearing board found Ellsworth guilty on two charges and imposed a sanction; the Department did not transfer him, and other charges were acquitted.
- The circuit court reversed the final order due to the Department’s failure to disclose information about Detective Redd, ruling this violated LEOBR § 3-104(n). The intermediate court of special appeals reversed that ruling, leading to the Maryland Court of Appeals decision affirmed here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does exculpatory information include impeachment information about a witness not charged with the officer? | Ellsworth argues exculpatory information includes impeachment data on a witness. | Department contends exculpatory means information tending to negate guilt, not unrelated impeachment. | No; exculpatory information does not include unrelated impeachment. |
| Does Brady and its progeny apply to LEOBR administrative proceedings to require disclosure of witness impeachment information? | Ellsworth relies on Brady as imported into LEOBR to compel disclosure of impeachment material. | Department argues Brady does not apply to civil/administrative settings and LEOBR history shows limited scope. | Brady does not apply in the administrative LEOBR context; no broad impeachment disclosure requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 Md. 83 (U.S. 1963) (due process requires disclosure of material exculpatory evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1972) (impeachment material affecting a key witness's credibility must be disclosed)
- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (materiality limits disclosure to information likely to affect outcome)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (reasonable probability that disclosure would have changed the outcome)
- Bloodsworth v. State, 307 Md. 164 (Md. 1986) (disclosure considerations in Maryland include witness credibility issues)
- Ware v. State, 348 Md. 19 (Md. 1997) (non-disclosed impeaching material among Brady considerations in Maryland)
- Williams v. State, 392 Md. 194 (Md. 2006) (Brady questions addressed in Maryland context)
- Wagonheim v. Maryland State Bd. of Censors, 255 Md. 297 (Md. 1969) (limits of Brady in civil contexts)
- Derr v. State, 434 Md. 88 (Md. 2013) (Brady jurisprudence extended to criminal context and Maryland limits)