Howell v. State, 214 A.3d 1128

Travis Howell, a federal cooperant, testified before a state grand jury in 2012 and agreed in his federal plea to cooperate and testify in future prosecutions.
Howell was subpoenaed to testify at Freddie Curry's 2016 state murder trial; he invoked the Fifth Amendment and was then granted use and derivative-use immunity and ordered to testify under CJ §9-123.
Howell continued to refuse at the trial, claiming fear of reprisal after an alleged courthouse altercation and related threats; the trial court found him in contempt and detained him.
Howell was later indicted for criminal contempt; at the contempt proceeding he submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts including proffers of: threats/assault outside court, a failure of promised advance notice by a grand jury prosecutor, limited witness protection offered by the State, and expert testimony on retaliation risks.
The trial court convicted Howell on the agreed facts and imposed a largely suspended sentence; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding Howell failed to generate a duress defense even assuming it were available.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, deciding it need not rule definitively whether duress is ever available to a witness charged with contempt for refusing to testify because Howell’s proffered evidence did not show a present, imminent, and impending threat required for duress.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a witness prosecuted for contempt for refusing to testify may assert common-law duress based on fear of reprisal	Howell: duress should be available where threats/assaults created a reasonable fear of serious harm	State: duress should be unavailable because recalcitrant witnesses cannot meet immediacy and no-escape elements; public-policy concerns favor excluding the defense	Court: declined to decide broadly whether duress is categorically unavailable to contempt for refusal to testify; unnecessary to resolve here
Whether Howell’s proffer generated a duress defense (i.e., some evidence of present, imminent, impending threat and no reasonable escape)	Howell: proffered assault, threats, failure of promised notice, and inadequate protection created some evidence of duress	State: proffer showed at best future risk, not the requisite immediate/impending threat; threats could be considered at sentencing but not as duress defense	Court: held Howell failed to meet the low “some evidence” threshold because the alleged danger was prospective, not present/imminent; duress not generated

McMillan v. State, 428 Md. 333 (defining elements of common-law duress and excluding duress for intentional murder)
Sigma Reproductive Health Center v. State, 297 Md. 660 (discussing necessity/duress distinction)
Piemonte v. United States, 367 U.S. 556 (noting civic duty to testify and government obligation to protect citizens)
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (use/derivative-use immunity and compelled testimony)
State v. Rice, 447 Md. 594 (power to compel testimony and related procedural issues)
Dykes v. State, 319 Md. 206 ("some evidence" threshold for jury instructions on defenses)
United States v. Patrick, 542 F.2d 381 (explaining critical importance of immediacy element in duress defense)