Diggs and Ramsey v. State
Decision Date | 12 June 2009 |
Docket Number | Nos. 110, 147, September Term, 2008.,s. 110, 147, September Term, 2008. |
Citation | 409 Md. 260,973 A.2d 796 |
Parties | Steven DIGGS v. STATE of Maryland. Damon Lamar Ramsey v. State of Maryland. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Claudia A. Cortese, Asst. Public Defender (Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender, Baltimore), on brief, for appellant.
Jessica V. Carter, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore), on brief, for appellee.
Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS and BARBERA, JJ.
In this opinion, we are called upon to determine whether Steven Diggs and Damon Lamar Ramsey, Appellants, are entitled to new trials, because the judge who presided over their original proceedings acted like a co-prosecutor. It is clear in both of these cases that neither of the prosecutors presented the cases well, nor did the defense attorneys adequately represent their clients. Nevertheless, it is the presiding judge who is the subject of the questions presented. Diggs presents the following question:
1. Was Mr. Diggs deprived of a fair trial because the trial court failed to preserve an attitude of impartiality in his questioning of witnesses?
Diggs v. State, 406 Md. 443, 959 A.2d 792 (2008). In the companion bypass case,1 Ramsey presents the following questions:
1. Did the trial court violate Damon Ramsey's constitutional right, under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, to a fair trial where the trial judge acted as a second prosecutor and created a hostile courtroom environment for defense counsel in front of the jury, all of which suggested extreme bias against the defense?
2. Did the trial court violate Damon Ramsey's Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser when the trial judge prevented defense counsel from challenging the credibility of the only police officer to testify against Damon Ramsey?[2]
Ramsey v. State, 406 Md. 744, 962 A.2d 370 (2008).
Steven Diggs was arrested and charged in Baltimore City with possession of marijuana, possession of marijuana with an intent to distribute, operating an unregistered motor vehicle, driving an uninsured vehicle, and driving without a license. During the course of trial proceedings that occurred on June 1, 2007, Diggs was tried for possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana with an intent to distribute.3 A jury found Diggs guilty on the charge of possession of marijuana, but was unable to render a unanimous decision on the charge of possession of marijuana with an intent to distribute. Diggs appeals from his conviction, alleging that he was denied a fair trial as a result of judicial bias, premised upon repeated and egregious behavior of the trial judge.
Diggs' first allegation of bias involves statements made by the judge during the direct examination of Detective John Giganti, who testified that he pulled Diggs' vehicle over because it had no license plates and thereafter discovered what he believed to be marijuana. When the prosecutor did not adequately lay the foundation for distribution of the marijuana, the judge pursued his inquiry more specifically about the packaging of the marijuana:
Diggs also contends that the judge interfered during Detective Georgiades' direct examination, because after Detective Georgiades could not recall telling Detective Giganti that he had previous contact with Diggs or previously had arrested Diggs, the judge allegedly attempted to rehabilitate the officer by stating:
Diggs further posits that the judge acted as a co-prosecutor during the direct examination of Diggs' first witness, Sherienne Diggs, Diggs' sister. The first instance of bias allegedly arose when Sherienne Diggs failed to recall various details about money and marijuana bags found in her car, and the judge pressed her for details:
During cross-examination, Diggs points to numerous instances in which the judge allegedly acted inappropriately. When the State questioned Ms. Diggs about her recollection of how long her brother had been staying at her house, she responded "[n]ot long" and "[m]aybe weeks." The judge intervened and again pressed for details:
Moments later, the judge inquired into whether Ms. Diggs was "comfortable" with the information she provided regarding where she left her car keys, what time she got home, and what time she received the phone call that her brother had been arrested, while driving her car:
The judge's effort to cross-examine Ms. Diggs about the $1,500 found in the car continued:
The judge continued to press Ms. Diggs regarding why Ms. Diggs failed to inform the officers, immediately, that the drugs and money belonged to her boyfriend, as opposed to her brother:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boulden v. State, No. 49, September Term, 2009 (Md. App. 5/14/2010)
...design or trial tactics or the result of bald inattention.' Hutchinson, 287 Md. at 203, 411 A.2d [at]1038." Diggs v. State, 409 Md. 260, 286-87, 973 A.2d 796, 811 (2009). Article 5 of this State's Declaration of Rights and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantee the ......
-
In re S., 1184
...issue, explaining: “Plain error is ‘error which vitally affects a defendant's right to a fair and impartial trial.’ ” Diggs v. State, 409 Md. 260, 286, 973 A.2d 796 (2009) (quoting State v. Daughton, 321 Md. 206, 211, 582 A.2d 521 (1990)). Appellate courts will exercise their discretion to ......
-
Newton v. State
..."so material to the rights of the accused as to amount to the kind of prejudice [that] precluded an impartial trial." Diggs v. State , 409 Md. 260, 286, 973 A.2d 796 (2009) (quoting Trimble v. State , 300 Md. 387, 397, 478 A.2d 1143 (1984) ). We have found this to be true of serious errors ......
-
In re Gloria H.
...evidence was sufficient as a matter of law, the verdict must be set aside on other grounds. Other examples include Diggs v. State, 409 Md. 260, 973 A.2d 796 (2009); State v. Grady, 276 Md. 178, 345 A.2d 436 (1975) (aff'g Grady v. State, 24 Md.App. 85, 329 A.2d 726 (1974)); and State v. Evan......