State v. Rice, Nero, Miller White & Goodson v. State
136 A.3d 720
| Md. | 2016Background
- Freddie Gray died after an injury in Baltimore police custody; six officers were charged. Officer William Porter was tried first; his trial ended in a mistrial. The State sought to compel Porter to testify, under use-and-derivative-use immunity, in trials of other officers.
- The trial court granted the State’s motion to compel Porter in Goodson and White, but denied identical motions in Rice, Nero, and Miller, finding the State’s requests a subterfuge to affect scheduling.
- The State appealed; Porter (and some defendants) appealed the orders compelling testimony. Maryland Court of Appeals took the cases to decide standing, appealability, statutory interpretation of CJ § 9-123, and constitutional challenges.
- CJ § 9-123 authorizes a prosecutor, upon written motion, to obtain a court order compelling testimony when the prosecutor determines the testimony "may be necessary to the public interest;" compelled testimony is protected from use and derivative use in later prosecutions (except for perjury, obstruction, or failure to comply).
- Central legal questions: (1) who has standing to challenge/appeal an order to compel immunized testimony; (2) whether denial/grant of a § 9-123 motion is immediately appealable; (3) whether the trial court has discretion to deny a properly pled § 9-123 motion; and (4) whether use-and-derivative-use immunity under § 9-123 satisfies the Fifth Amendment and Maryland Article 22 for a witness who is also a criminal defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Porter / Defs.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper parties / standing to appeal who may challenge a § 9-123 order | State: the witness (Porter) is the proper party; defendants lack a personal, direct interest | Porter/Defs: defendants claimed an interest (speedy trial, evidentiary) and asserted right to litigate denial/grant | Held: Porter (the witness) is the proper appellee; defendants lack standing to challenge the immunity determination |
| Appealability of denial of § 9-123 motion | State: motion to compel is collateral to the criminal prosecution and resolves the dispute between State and witness, so denial is a final, appealable order under CJ § 12-301 | Defs: characterized the action as part of a criminal case making State’s appeal limited by CJ § 12-302(c) | Held: orders on § 9-123 motions are final, collateral civil judgments between State and witness and are immediately appealable under CJ § 12-301 |
| Court discretion to deny a properly pled § 9-123 motion | State: statute’s mandatory language ("shall issue") makes the prosecutor’s public-interest determination dispositive; court’s role is ministerial to verify pleading requirements | Defs/Court below: trial court may deny if motion is a pretext or not in the public interest (directory reading) | Held: CJ § 9-123 is mandatory; once the motion meets statutory prerequisites the court must issue the order and may not substitute its own public-interest judgment |
| Constitutional sufficiency of use-and-derivative-use immunity (Fifth Amendment / Article 22) | State: Kastigar-sanctioned use-and-derivative-use immunity is coextensive with the Fifth Amendment and, by in pari materia, with Article 22; safeguards (Kastigar burden) address taint at any later retrial | Porter: as a criminal defendant he needs greater protection (transactional immunity), risk of taint, federal prosecution, and risk of suborned perjury | Held: Use-and-derivative-use immunity under § 9-123 satisfies the Fifth Amendment and Article 22; Porter’s concerns are premature and addressed by Kastigar burden at any subsequent prosecution; perjury exception and federal taint rules apply as established law |
Key Cases Cited
- Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (use and derivative-use immunity can be coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege)
- Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (trial court has no discretion to deny an immunity order when statutory requirements are satisfied)
- Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U.S. 52 (state grant of immunity bars federal use/derivatives unless federal government proves independent source)
- Apfelbaum v. United States, 445 U.S. 115 (immunity does not permit perjury; perjury prosecutions after immunized testimony are permissible)
- In re Criminal Investigation No. 1-162, 307 Md. 674 (Md. 1986) (Maryland recognition of witness-immunity issues and appellate posture)
- In re Special Investigation No. 231, 295 Md. 366 (Md. 1983) (collateral orders in criminal proceedings can be final and appealable)