Maryland Prosecutorial Misconduct

A study of criminal appeals from 1970 to the present revealed 103 Maryland cases in which the defendant alleged prosecutorial error or misconduct. In 23, judges ruled a prosecutor’s conduct prejudiced the defendant and reversed or remanded the conviction, sentence or indictment. In five cases, a dissenting judge or judges thought the prosecutor’s conduct prejudiced the defendant. Out of the defendants who alleged prosecutorial error or misconduct, one later proved his innocence.

Of the 23 cases in which judges ruled the prosecutor’s conduct prejudiced the defendant, 16 involved improper trial arguments and tactics and five involved withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense. The other two involved a conflict of interest and a denial of a speedy trial.

Anne Arundel County assistant state’s attorney Gerald Anders prosecuted at least two of the 23 cases in which a judge found prejudicial conduct.

In November 1997, the state appeals court reversed Darris Ware’s murder conviction and death sentence because Anders withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense.

Before trial, Ware’s defense counsel asked Anders to disclose any deals he made with Richard Anderson, a witness for the state who was then in prison for first-degree murder. Anderson was friends with one of the victims and on the phone with her when the murders occurred.

Anders did not disclose that he had testified on Anderson’s behalf at a sentencing hearing and recommended a reduction in his life sentence in exchange for his testimony.

“It is beyond cavil that the suppressed evidence was favorable to Ware,” wrote Justice Irma S. Raker. “Evidence of agreements or deals with witnesses often provides powerful impeachment evidence against a witness and enables a defendant to attack the motive or bias of a witness who might otherwise appear to have no motive to falsify or color his testimony.”

Prince George’s County assistant state’s attorney Lloyd Johnson was responsible for two of the 103 cases in which defendants alleged prosecutorial error or misconduct on appeal. In both cases, the state appeals court remanded the case to determine if Johnson’s conduct prejudiced the defendant.

In December 1996, the state appeals court remanded Anthony McNeil’s armed robbery and attempted murder conviction to determine if Johnson deliberately delayed the trial so he would have time to accumulate evidence.

In 1999, the state appeals court remanded Delton Hill’s conviction for illegally transporting a firearm to determine if Johnson’s trial arguments were prejudicial.

“In a soup to nuts performance, the prosecutor, whether through inexperience or a more disturbing disdain for proper conduct, began his inappropriate remarks with the very first statement he made to the jury and did not end them until the very last statement he made, paying utterly no attention to the numerous objections that were sustained by the court,” wrote Justice Alan Wilner.  ¶ 11:40 PM