116 A.3d 520
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2015Background
- Two 1979 Montgomery County rape cold cases were reopened in 2009; DNA testing linked Robert Armstrong White to biological samples, leading to charges and two separate trials in 2012.
- The State initially filed district-court charges/detainer (Nov. 23, 2010) but entered a nolle prosequi (April 15, 2011) because a key DNA analyst’s availability was uncertain; a new statement of charges/detainer issued July 22, 2011.
- Appellant’s first trial (T.K.) proceeded March 19–22, 2012; Hostetler (serologist who handled original evidence in 1979) testified via two-way Skype/WebEx and the jury convicted.
- Appellant’s second trial (E.L.) began April 10–13, 2012; Hostetler again testified remotely and Appellant was convicted. Sentences were consecutive life terms; appeals followed.
- On appeal White challenged: (1) denial of speedy-trial dismissal (IDA, Hicks/Rule 4-271, constitutional speedy trial); (2) admission of Hostetler’s two-way video testimony as violating the Confrontation Clause; and (3) alleged improper prosecutorial remarks in closing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delay before second trial violated speedy-trial rights (IDA/Hicks/constitutional) | White: nol pros was bad-faith circumvention; speedy-clock began with Nov. 23, 2010 filing, producing unconstitutional delay | State: nol pros was in good faith; operative speedy-clock began with July 22, 2011 detainer/charging sequence | Court: IDA satisfied; Hicks inapplicable because district-court filings don’t trigger Rule 4-271; under MacDonald/Henson good-faith nol pros means earlier period not counted; no constitutional violation after balancing Barker factors. |
| Whether two-way live video testimony of serologist violated Confrontation Clause | White: physical face-to-face confrontation required absent necessity; two-way video insufficient and testimony unreliable | State: two-way video (Skype/WebEx) preserved oath, contemporaneous cross-examination, and demeanor; witness medically unable to travel — important public policy (protect witness, resolve cold cases) | Court: Applied Craig standard to two-way video, found procedure sufficiently reliable, important public policies implicated, and case-specific medical findings of necessity were adequate — no confrontation violation. |
| Whether prosecutor’s closing statements were improper and prejudicial | White: prosecutor shifted burden and attacked defense counsel, warranting reversal | State: issue not preserved; statements not prejudicial | Court: Not preserved; would not meet plain-error standard; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1 (1982) (good-faith dismissal by government stops Speedy Trial Clause application to the dismissed period)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor balancing test for Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claims)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (Confrontation Clause permits testimony without face-to-face confrontation only where necessity furthers important public policy and reliability is assured)
- State v. Henson, 335 Md. 326 (1994) (Maryland adoption of MacDonald good-faith dismissal standard)
- Derr v. State, 434 Md. 88 (2013) (forensic evidence and testimonial concerns informing confrontation analysis)