160 A.2d 912 (Md. 1960), 204, Brady v. State

Docket Nº:204.
Citation:160 A.2d 912, 222 Md. 442
Opinion Judge:[10] Horney
Party Name:John L. BRADY v. STATE of Maryland.
Attorney:[7] E. Clinton Bamberger, with whom was George B. Woelfel on the brief, for the appellant.
Case Date:May 19, 1960
Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 912

160 A.2d 912 (Md. 1960)

222 Md. 442

John L. BRADY

v.

STATE of Maryland.

No. 204.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

May 19, 1960

Page 913

[222 Md. 443] E. Clinton Bamberger, Jr., Baltimore (George B. Woelfel, Annapolis, on the brief), for appellant.

Joseph S. Kaufman, Asst. Atty. Gen. (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., Stedman Prescott, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., and C. Osborne Duvall, State's Atty. for Anne Arundel County, Annapolis, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.

HORNEY, Judge.

John L. Brady (Brady) and Charles D. Boblit (Boblit) were indicted for the murder of William Brooks committed in the perpetration of a robbery. Brady was tried first before a jury. Boblit was tried by the court sitting without a jury. Both were found guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. The evidence being sufficient to sustain the judgments, both convictions were affirmed by this Court in Boblit v. State, 1959, 220 Md. 454, sub nom. Brady v. State, 154 A.2d 434.

In extra-judicial statement and at his trial, Brady admitted participation in the robbery, but denied that he had [222 Md. 444] killed the victim. His claim was that Boblit was the actual murderer. It was for this reason that counsel for Brady in his argument to the jury, though admitting that the accused was guilty of murder in the first degree, plead with the jury to add to its verdict in that degree the words 'without capital punishment.' The jury declined to do so.

Page 914

On the appeal in Boblit v. State, supra, the sole contention raised on behalf of Brady was that his confession had been obtained by force and a promise of reward. It was conceded, however, that he had not beek mistreated by the police. We held that the trial court was not in error in accepting the denial by the police that a promise of reward had been made.

At the subsequent trial of Boblit, the State offered as evidence a transcription of what purported to be an oral statement made by Boblit to the police on July 9, 1958. The unsigned statement, after setting forth that on July 2, 1958, he (Boblit) had told the police that Brady had strangled William Brooks and that he wanted to change his story, goes on to say, among other things, that at the suggestion of Brady he (Boblit) 'took and twisted * * * [his] shirt sleeve and choked him [the victim]', but he concluded by saying that '[i]t was his...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP