Savage v. State
166 A.3d 183
Md.2017Background
- On July 7, 2013 Eddie Lee Savage, Jr. shot at Joshua Sparks; one bullet fatally struck Kenneth Sparks. Savage surrendered the next day and was indicted on murder and related counts.
- Defense sought to introduce neuropsychologist Dr. William Garmoe to testify about Savage’s prior traumatic brain injury (TBI), cognitive testing (WAIS-IV, WMS-IV, PAI, TOMM, etc.), and how TBI could cause hypervigilance, suspiciousness, and impaired impulse control relevant to an imperfect self‑defense theory.
- The State requested a Frye‑Reed hearing challenging the general acceptance and reliability of Garmoe’s methodology and the causal link he would draw from tests to behavioral conclusions in conditions of "chaos and stress."
- The trial court held a Frye‑Reed hearing, found the Frye‑Reed standard unmet for Garmoe’s ultimate behavioral conclusions (though not excluding all of his testimony), and limited what Garmoe could say at trial.
- The jury convicted Savage; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the exclusion/limitation; the Court of Appeals granted certiorari to address the proper scope of Frye‑Reed and affirmed the lower courts.
Issues
| Issue | Savage's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Frye‑Reed applied to Garmoe’s opinions connecting TBI/test results to perceptions/reactions in "chaos and stress" | Frye‑Reed should not reach ultimate opinions; only underlying tests/methods are subject; Garmoe’s methods/tests and DSM diagnosis are generally accepted | Frye‑Reed applies to both methodology and novel applications/conclusions that rely on scientific premises | Frye‑Reed applies; trial court correctly subjected Garmoe’s ultimate behavioral conclusions to Frye‑Reed review |
| Whether defense met Frye‑Reed / bridged the analytical gap between data and conclusions | Garmoe’s credentials, standardized tests, and DSM diagnosis establish general acceptance and reliability | Proponent must show not only generally accepted methods but also a reliable, articulated analytical link from data to novel conclusions | Defense failed to bridge the analytical gap; the specific causal/behavioral opinions were properly excluded/limited |
| Whether limiting Garmoe’s testimony at trial was an abuse of discretion | Exclusion of the specific behavioral opinions unfairly hampered Savage’s imperfect self‑defense presentation | The judge’s limitation preserved admissible test results while excluding novel, unsubstantiated extrapolations | Trial court did not abuse discretion; permissible portions of Garmoe’s testing/results were presented while novel conclusions were barred |
| Whether prosecutor’s closing argument violated Doyle (impermissible use of silence) | Prosecutor’s remarks improperly used Savage’s post‑arrest silence to impeach his testimony | Closing argument targeted inconsistencies and witness Joel Hills’ credibility; any reference to defense timing did not single out Savage’s silence post‑Miranda | No Doyle violation: argument focused primarily on Hills’ changing story; not an improper comment on defendant’s silence |
Key Cases Cited
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir.) (establishing the “general acceptance” test for novel scientific evidence)
- Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374 (Md. 1978) (Maryland adoption of Frye for novel scientific techniques)
- Blackwell v. Wyeth, 408 Md. 575 (Md. 2009) (Frye‑Reed includes scrutiny for an "analytical gap" between accepted methods and novel conclusions)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (reliability‑focused admissibility standard under FRE 702; methodology over conclusions)
- General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1997) (courts may exclude expert opinion when there is too great an analytical gap)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert technical and specialized testimony)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (prosecutor may not use post‑Miranda silence to impeach defendant)
- United States v. Mamah, 332 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 2003) (expert social‑science testimony excluded for lack of empirical link between studies and offered conclusion)
- Wilson v. State, 370 Md. 191 (Md. 2002) (Frye‑Reed applied to assess acceptance of intermediary scientific premises used to reach expert conclusions)