State v. Hunt & Hardy
116 A.3d 477
| Md. | 2015Background
- In 2007 media and Innocence Project reporting revealed that Maryland ballistics examiner Joseph Kopera had misrepresented academic credentials and possibly committed perjury; this prompted challenges to convictions in which he testified.
- Ronnie A. Hunt (convicted 1991) and Kevin Hardy (convicted 1991) filed petitions for writs of actual innocence under Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 8-301, alleging Kopera’s misrepresentations were newly discovered evidence that could have changed their trial outcomes.
- Both petitioners claimed Kopera’s ballistics testimony was central to the State’s case and that no other conclusive physical or eyewitness evidence tied them to the crimes.
- The Baltimore City Circuit Court dismissed both petitions without hearings for failure to state grounds for relief; the Court of Special Appeals reversed and remanded for hearings.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Special Appeals, holding that Hunt’s and Hardy’s petitions met § 8-301’s pleading standards (as interpreted in Douglas v. State) and therefore warranted hearings; guidance on how hearings should be conducted was provided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners were entitled to a hearing on § 8-301 petitions | Hunt/Hardy: petitions pleaded newly discovered evidence (Kopera fraud) and requested hearings, satisfying § 8-301(b) | State: petitions failed to meet statutory pleading requirements and could be dismissed without hearings | Held: petitions met pleading threshold under § 8-301 and Douglas; hearings required |
| Whether Kopera revelations qualify as "newly discovered evidence" that could not have been found earlier | Hunt/Hardy: 2007 revelations were new and with due diligence could not have been discovered in time for Rule 4-331 motions | State: Kopera’s credentials could have been discovered earlier; evidence is merely impeachment or cumulative | Held: At pleading stage, allegations suffice as newly discovered evidence; materiality and diligence are questions for the hearing/judge to decide |
| Whether Kopera’s credential misrepresentations are only "merely impeaching" (insufficient to warrant relief) | Hunt/Hardy: Kopera’s false credentials went to expert credibility and, where his testimony was central, could be directly exculpatory | State: Even if false, Kopera’s degrees were not material to ballistics work; evidence is merely impeaching and would not change verdicts | Held: Whether evidence is merely impeaching or materially exculpatory depends on trial context and is for the hearing judge to evaluate |
| Whether post-2011 petitions had to comply strictly with Rule 4-332 technicalities | Hardy: complied substantially; attached 2007 materials and alleged why evidence was newly discovered | State: argued technical noncompliance could justify dismissal | Held: Substantial compliance with Rule 4-332 is acceptable; technical omissions do not mandate dismissal at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglas v. State, 423 Md. 156 (court must hold hearing if § 8-301 pleading requirements satisfied)
- Jackson v. State, 216 Md. App. 347 (discussion of materiality, due diligence, and whether Kopera revelations were merely impeaching)
- Kulbicki v. State, 440 Md. 33 (consideration of defense counsel’s duty to investigate scientific evidence; distinguished in reasoning here)
- Campbell v. State, 373 Md. 637 (newly discovered evidence must be more than merely cumulative or impeaching)