Bryan v. State
| Decision Date | 09 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1386-21 |
| Parties | ANTHONY M. BRYAN v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 820209001
OPINION [*]
A jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City convicted Anthony Bryan, appellant, of attempted kidnapping, second-degree assault, possession of a dangerous weapon with intent to injure, and false imprisonment. The court sentenced Bryan to a total term of 43 years' imprisonment. In this appeal Bryan presents a single question for our review:
Did the trial court err in excluding expert testimony regarding memory and eyewitness identification?
We answer this question in the negative and therefore affirm appellant's convictions.
At trial, Alexa Baum testified that, in the evening hours of January 19, 2020, she was walking near the corner of Pratt Street and Payson Street in Baltimore when she was accosted by an unknown assailant. The assailant proceeded to grab Ms. Baum's coat and hair, and Ms. Baum could see that the assailant had a screwdriver in his hand. Upon being grabbed, Ms. Baum dropped her cellphone and a bag she was carrying. The assailant then pressed the screwdriver against Ms. Baum's stomach and dragged her into a nearby alley.
Ms. Baum testified that she came face-to-face with the assailant when he grabbed her. Ms. Baum testified that she was able to see her assailant's face and noticed that he had "brown" skin and that one of his eyes "was gray." Ms. Baum also observed that the assailant was "skinny" and that he "wasn't that tall."
Ms. Baum testified that, after she was dragged into the alley, she and the assailant began walking to the other side of the alley. She said she was "scared" because she "thought he was going to hit [her] with a screwdriver." When Ms. Baum and the assailant reached the other side of the alley, a nearby bystander yelled, and the assailant ran away. At that point, Ms. Baum returned to where her assailant first grabbed her and found her cellphone and bag. Upon retrieving her items, Ms. Baum noticed a Maryland-issued identification card laying on the ground near her phone and bag. Ms. Baum picked up the ID card, looked at the picture on the card, and observed that the person in the picture "looked like the same person" who had just attacked her. The card identified Anthony Bryan. At trial, Ms. Baum testified that when she first saw the card, she was "100% certain" that the person depicted in the card was the same person who had attacked her.
Ms. Baum kept the ID card but did not immediately report the incident to the police. The following day, Ms. Baum returned to that same area and saw Bryan, whom she recognized as her attacker, walking on the opposite side of the street. According to Ms. Baum, when Bryan saw her, he "started looking shook" and "kept watching his back" to see "where [she] was going." Bryan eventually walked away, and Ms. Baum similarly left the area. A few days later, Ms. Baum reported the attack to the police. Ms. Baum identified Bryan in court as the person who had attacked her.
Bryan was ultimately convicted and this timely appeal followed. Additional facts will be supplied as necessary.
Bryan's sole contention in this appeal concerns the trial court's decision to exclude the testimony of an expert witness. Prior to trial, Bryan filed a motion indicating that he intended to call Nancy Steblay, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at Augsburg University as an expert in eyewitness identification. Attached to the motion was a 15-page report prepared by Dr. Steblay.
In her report, Dr. Steblay stated that, in preparing the report, she had reviewed six pages of discovery documents, which included case summary details, the application for statement of charges, and the Baltimore City Police Department incident report. Dr. Steblay then discussed the "three stages of eyewitness memory"-acquisition, retention, and retrieval. Dr. Steblay explained that a "problem at any of these three stages is sufficient to make memory fail."
Dr. Steblay then noted that there were five aspects of "memory and identification processes" that affected Ms. Baum's identification of Bryan. Those were: "[t]he conditions of the crime incident"; "[t]he lack of an immediate witness description of the offender"; the "[a]bsence of a proper and meaningful identification procedure"; "[t]he potential for memory interference"; and "[t]he potential for false confidence and problems of an in-court [identification]." For each of those factors, Dr. Steblay provided some scientific authority to explain, generally, why the factor would affect a person's memory.
Regarding the conditions of the crime, Dr. Steblay explained that there were certain factors present at the time of Ms. Baum's identification that would have made it "difficult to encode a strong memory of a stranger's face." Those factors were: that the event was "unexpected, brief, fast-paced, and stressful"; that the event included a "physical threat with a weapon"; that Ms. Baum was afraid for her life; that the lighting was poor; that the assailant was "reportedly wearing a hoodie" that might have been covering his head; that there was significant "competition" for Ms. Baum's attention; and that escape was "likely at the forefront" of Ms. Baum's concerns.
Regarding Ms. Baum's initial description of the assailant to the police, Dr. Steblay noted that Ms. Baum had not provided that description until three days after the attack. Dr. Steblay further noted that Ms. Baum's description was "for the most part general" and did not include details such as age, hair color, facial hair, body size, or complexion.
Regarding the absence of a formal identification procedure, Dr. Steblay noted that Ms. Baum's identification of Bryan as the assailant was made by way of the ID card found at the scene. Dr. Steblay explained that those circumstances were akin to "a single-photo showup," which is normally conducted by the police and involves the police presenting a single suspect to a witness for identification. Dr. Steblay explained that, "for the same reasons that a showup is considered unfair and dangerous, the ID found on the ground presented a highly suggestive encounter without protections for the suspect to help tamp down an eyewitness assumption that this suspect simply must be the perpetrator."
Regarding memory interference, Dr. Steblay noted that there were "two post-event incidents" that were "relevant as memory interference." Those incidents were the finding of the ID card and the "street sighting reported by the witness." Dr. Steblay explained that those incidents would have "become part of the witness's memory of the culprit."
Finally, regarding false confidence and the problems with in-court identification, Dr. Steblay did not make any specific findings regarding Bryan's case. Rather, Dr. Steblay provided a general explanation about the need for proper police identification procedures and the unreliability of confidence levels expressed by witnesses during in-court identifications.
The remainder of Dr. Steblay's report was devoted to a "summary of scientific framework principles for eyewitness memory" and the importance of expert testimony on the subject. Much of that discussion involved the use of proper police procedures for conducting "lineups" and other identification practices.
Dr. Steblay concluded by noting that "[e]yewitness memory and identification evidence [were] central to this case" and that there existed "possible limitations" on eyewitness memory. Dr. Steblay added that those problems "increase the likelihood of mistaken identification."
On the first day of trial, prior to jury selection, the State moved to preclude Dr. Steblay from testifying. The State argued that Dr. Steblay's testimony, as evidenced by her report, would include irrelevant topics as well as topics that were within the average juror's understanding. The State also argued that the testimony would not assist the jurors in resolving the issues presented. Defense counsel responded that Dr. Steblay's testimony would be helpful because it would explain how Ms. Baum's memory might have been tainted and how she may have been mistaken in identifying Bryan as the assailant. Following argument, the trial court announced that it would hold the matter under advisement so that it could read all of the documents, including Dr. Steblay's report and the relevant case law.
The following day, the trial court informed the parties that it had reviewed Dr. Steblay's report and the relevant case law. The court then received additional argument on the issue.
Following argument, the trial court ruled that Dr. Steblay's testimony would be excluded. The court noted that "75 to 80 percent" of the report dealt with police procedures for conducting witness identifications, which was not relevant to Ms. Baum's identification testimony. The court further noted that many of Dr. Steblay's conclusions about the identification in this case were based on factual assumptions that Dr. Steblay had made. The court highlighted several instances in which Dr. Steblay made factual conclusions that were not supported by the evidence known at the time. The court also emphasized the fact that Dr. Steblay had not spoken with Ms. Baum prior to reaching her conclusions.
Based on those findings, the trial court determined that Dr Steblay's testimony would be "more harmful, less helpful, more confusing, and misleading." The court expressed its view that the jury was "more than capable of appropriately evaluating and weighing the testimony of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial