Miller v. State, 28 A.3d 675

Miller was convicted in Baltimore City Circuit Court of two counts of second-degree murder for deaths on April 11–12, 2003.
DNA on latex gloves near Convertino’s body linked Miller to the crime scene; he pawned Convertino’s laptop on April 17, 2003; travel agency authorization to charge form related to $2,015.98 charged to Convertino’s account; multiple calls to Earl Fowlkes in the nights around the murders; a travel-authorization fax with Convertino’s signature appeared on April 12, 2003.
The State’s theory tied these acts to Miller’s actions after the murders, including financial and travel-related steps.
Robert Verderamo, a handwriting expert, testified that there were some common characteristics between Miller’s known handwriting and the questioned document, but could not definitively identify Miller as the writer.
Defense objected to the expert’s testimony as inconclusive and prejudicial; the court admitted the testimony, and the State later elicited a redirect comparison to a bank signature, expanding the expert’s opinion.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed Miller’s conviction, and this Court granted certiorari to address the admissibility and impact of the handwriting testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether handwriting expert testimony linking to Miller was properly authenticated and admissible	Authentication permitted; expert allowed to compare specimens under Md 5-901(b)(3)	Testimony was inconclusive and prejudicial; cannot identify writer with certainty	Admissible; proper authentication and permissive opinion to assist jurors
Whether the inconclusive nature of the handwriting opinion unfairly prejudiced Miller	Testimony aided jurors in evaluating handwriting similarities	Inconclusiveness risks prejudice and misleads the jury	No reversible error; weight for jury; testimony allowed with cross-examination
Whether the redirect testimony about a general appearance difference was permissible	Door opened by cross-examination justification; admissible	Admission should have been guarded; discovery objections	Court did not abuse discretion; opening-the-door doctrine applied

United States v. Fleishman, 684 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1982) (inconclusive handwriting testimony admissible if probative and cross-examined)
United States v. Jolivet, 224 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 2000) (handwriting expert’s likely authorship admissible with caution)
United States v. Herrera, 832 F.2d 833 (4th Cir. 1987) (handwriting opinions need not be absolute; may be equivocal yet admissible)
United States v. McGlory, 968 F.2d 309 (3d Cir. 1992) (handwriting comparison evidence admissible; certainty goes to weight)
Ali v. State, 314 Md. 295 (1988) (expert testimony on effects of medication admissible to explain inconsistencies)
Wantland v. State, 45 Md.App. 527 (1980) (medical testimony may express probable, not certain, causation)