McGhie v. State, 120 A.3d 828

Background

In 1994 Robert McGhie was convicted of murder and related offenses after testimony and other evidence connected him to a planned robbery that resulted in a death; he was sentenced to life.
At trial the State’s ballistics expert, Joseph Kopera, testified he had engineering degrees and FBI Academy training; defense did not challenge his credentials at trial. Kopera also tied a gun fired in a prior D.C. shooting to the mailbox murder.
Years later (2007) the State discovered Kopera had lied about holding degrees from the University of Maryland and Rochester Institute of Technology and about some FBI training; the falsehoods concerned only his academic/training credentials, not the substance of his ballistics conclusions.
McGhie filed a Petition for Writ of Actual Innocence under CP § 8-301, arguing Kopera’s perjury was newly discovered evidence that created a substantial or significant possibility of a different verdict and could not have been discovered in time for a Rule 4-331 new-trial motion.
The circuit court denied relief, finding (1) McGhie satisfied the due-diligence threshold, but (2) Kopera’s false testimony about credentials was at most impeaching and, even excised or discounted, would not have created a substantial possibility of a different verdict given abundant other inculpatory evidence.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, applying the excision analysis and alternatively assessing whether discounting Kopera entirely would have changed the outcome; it held the false credential testimony was not material and the verdict would likely have been the same.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kopera’s false academic claims are "newly discovered evidence" that could not have been found with due diligence	McGhie: discovery in 2007 was new; defense counsel reasonably could not be expected to uncover Kopera’s false credentials earlier	State: evidence could have been found earlier; due-diligence threshold not met	Court: McGhie satisfied due-diligence requirement (trial court finding not an abuse of discretion)
Whether the false credential testimony is "material" (beyond merely impeaching)	McGhie: Kopera’s dishonesty undermines credibility and could have affected the jury’s view of ballistics evidence	State: falsity relates only to background/credentials, not Kopera’s ballistics conclusions; therefore merely impeaching	Court: false credentials were merely impeaching, not material to ballistics conclusions
Whether excising Kopera’s challenged testimony would create a "substantial or significant possibility" of a different verdict	McGhie: removing the false testimony would weaken State’s case and could change outcome	State: other strong eyewitness and circumstantial evidence would sustain the verdict without Kopera’s testimony	Court: excision analysis shows no substantial or significant possibility of a different verdict — verdict would remain supported
Whether, alternatively, discounting Kopera entirely (if jury had known of his dishonesty) would have created a substantial possibility of reversal	McGhie: cumulative effect of discredited expert could have led jury to doubt ballistics link and alter verdict	State: ballistics was helpful but not central; multiple witnesses and admissions tied McGhie to the crime	Court: even if jury discounted Kopera completely, overwhelming other evidence would still support the verdict; no abuse of discretion in denying relief

Key Cases Cited

Kulbicki v. State, 207 Md. App. 412 (discussion of materiality of Kopera’s false credentials)
Jackson v. State, 216 Md. App. 347 (analysis of due diligence and materiality of Kopera’s misstatements)
Argyrou v. State, 349 Md. 587 (due-diligence standard for newly discovered evidence)
Campbell v. State, 373 Md. 637 (newly discovered evidence must be material and persuasive to create substantial possibility of different result)
Stevenson v. State, 299 Md. 297 (framework: determine materiality, then assess possible impact on outcome)