281 A.3d 931
Md.2022Background
- In October 2020 (during COVID-19 masking requirements), two Kent County sheriff’s deputies serving as courtroom bailiffs wore face masks displaying the “thin blue line” American-flag variant during the criminal trial of Everett Smith (charged with assault/child abuse).
- Defense counsel objected immediately before jury selection and asked that the bailiff wear a different mask; the trial court denied the request, citing First Amendment protections and the sheriff’s mandate.
- The jury convicted Smith of second-degree assault and second-degree child abuse; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, but reserved comment that displaying the symbol was unwise.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari and reviewed de novo whether the bailiffs’ display was inherently prejudicial under the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.
- The Court of Appeals held the display was inherently prejudicial because (a) the thin blue line conveys pro‑law‑enforcement (and sometimes racially charged) meanings that have no place in a criminal trial, (b) the symbol was worn by court agents (bailiffs), and (c) the trial occurred in a highly charged post‑George Floyd context.
- The Court set a three‑part framework for inherent‑prejudice claims (objection at trial; observable to jurors; unacceptable risk of impermissible factors), and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bailiffs’ thin‑blue‑line masks were inherently prejudicial under the Sixth Amendment | Symbol injects pro‑law‑enforcement / possible white‑supremacist message that risks juror bias; wearing by bailiffs implies court approval | Symbol ambiguous; most likely benign (pride in policing); bailiffs in uniform are normal; voir dire guarded against bias | Yes. Court held the display was inherently prejudicial and violated Smith’s right to a fair trial because it posed an unacceptable risk of impermissible influence, especially given the wearers were court agents and the 2020 political context |
| Whether the record was sufficient to show jurors observed the masks | Jurors were repeatedly directed to follow/observe bailiffs; masking focus increased attention; so record suffices to show observability | Record lacked specifics (distance, exact positions); plaintiff failed to document what jurors actually saw | Court found the record adequate to infer jurors had ample opportunity to view the bailiffs’ masks and therefore to assess risk of prejudice |
| Legal standard for inherent prejudice and burden allocation | Adopt a case‑by‑case approach; require trial objection; evaluate objective risk of impermissible factors | State argues plaintiff must show uniform, unmistakable message or actual juror reaction | Court adopts three‑part test: (1) objection at trial; (2) demonstrable observability by jury in record; (3) unacceptable risk of impermissible factors; if met, State can try to justify practice by showing necessity to further a compelling governmental interest |
| Significance of bailiffs as courtroom agents | Messages from bailiffs carry special weight because bailiffs are seen as court agents; therefore political symbols by bailiffs are more prejudicial | Bailiffs are not identical to judges; uniforms are normal; jurors know sheriffs are separate elected officials | Court agrees bailiffs’ role amplifies prejudicial effect; political messaging by court agents is especially problematic and supports inherent‑prejudice finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) (Sixth Amendment fair‑trial right incorporated against the States)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976) (requiring a defendant to wear prison clothing poses an unacceptable risk of prejudice)
- Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (1986) (inherent‑prejudice inquiry; security presence requires case‑by‑case analysis; focus on unacceptable risk of impermissible factors)
- Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (1966) (bailiff’s official character carries great weight with a jury)
- Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961) (actual prejudice from pretrial publicity can violate fair‑trial rights)
- Wiggins v. State, 315 Md. 232 (1989) (contemporary context can transform neutral procedures into inherently prejudicial ones)
- Bruce v. State, 318 Md. 706 (1990) (enhanced courtroom security may be permissible where justified; distinguishes from inherently prejudicial practices)