Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 03 August 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 128, September Term, 2005.,128, September Term, 2005. |
| Parties | Jeffrey SMITH v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Matthew H. Solomson, Assigned Public Defender (Arnold & Porter LLP, on brief) of Washington, D.C., for petitioner
Brian S. Kleinbord, Assistant Attorney General (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, on brief) of Baltimore, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA and GREENE, JJ.
This case presents us with the task of determining whether a witness is deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when he is held in contempt based, in part, on an unauthorized disclosure of privileged information by his counsel. We hold that the witness in this case, Jeffrey Smith, received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney disclosed the nature of his advice to Smith and his opinion regarding the application of the Fifth Amendment.
Smith also seeks review of the trial judge's assessment of the merits of his Fifth Amendment claim and the procedures used by the trial judge to impose sanctions for the direct criminal contempt. We conclude that the trial judge committed multiple errors with respect to her determination that Smith did not have a valid basis for asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the procedures that she adhered to when she imposed sanctions for Smith's contempt.
On November 7, 2003, while the Petitioner, Jeffrey Smith, was serving a sentence for several drug violations, an Assistant State's Attorney in Baltimore City had Smith brought from prison to court to testify as a prosecution witness in a case in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, State v. Morgan, et al., case number 102235018-21. When Smith was called to the stand, the following colloquy occurred:
Next question.
The trial judge stopped the proceedings and sent the jury to lunch, at which time the following discussion ensued:
The trial judge, sua sponte, permitted the prosecutor to meet with Smith to discuss the Fifth Amendment issue. After a lunch break, the Circuit Court reconvened:
[THE COURT]: I want to put on the record that over the luncheon hour, the Court contacted the Office of the Public Defender and asked ..., who I understand is in charge today, if he could send counsel over and he graciously agreed. . .
[Speaking to Counsel for Smith], have you had an opportunity to speak to Mr. Smith?
(Emphasis added).
The trial judge informed Smith that if she determined that he could not properly invoke the Fifth Amendment, he could be imprisoned for contempt. Smith indicated that he understood. The State then proffered the testimony of the lead detective in the underlying action that Smith was not a suspect in the case nor was there any evidence against him in the case. The trial judge declined to hear the detective's testimony and engaged in the following discussion:
(Emphasis added).
The State recalled Smith, who continued to refuse to respond although without explicitly invoking the protections of the Fifth Amendment. The trial judge then asked Smith:
You understand that the Court has examined and heard the testimony and it does not believe that you have the right to not be with the program or invoke your Fifth Amendment, do you understand that?
Counsel, approach. Is there something that you want to say, [defense counsel]? Come to the Bench. The jury can hear everything you say when you stand out there.
Is there something that you want to bring to the Court's attention?
I will consider that as a factor in sentencing you. Otherwise, at the conclusion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marshall v. State Of Md.
...State, 239 Md. 645, 648, 212 A.2d 279, 281 (1965); Royal v. State, 236 Md. 443, 447, 204 A.2d 500, 502 (1964). In Smith v. State, 394 Md. 184, 213, 905 A.2d 315, 332 (2006), this Court held that, in determining whether a person was entitled to claim the privilege against self-incrimination,......
-
In re Misc. 4281
...privilege against self-incrimination does not, however, grant speakers a liberty interest in being free from inquiry. Smith v. State , 394 Md. 184, 212, 905 A.2d 315 (2006) (citations omitted). “For the history of the privilege establishes not only that it is not to be interpreted literally......
-
Washington v. State
...Mosley v. State, 378 Md. 548, 563, 836 A.2d 678 (2003). The Court of Appeals provided examples of such error in Smith v. State, 394 Md. 184, 200, 905 A.2d 315 (2006), and In re Parris W., 363 Md. 717, 726, 770 A.2d 202 In In re Parris W., the juvenile's counsel mistakenly subpoenaed witness......
-
Webb v. State
...appellant's counsel added his voice to DDP's Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing is nowhere evident from the record. In Smith v. State, 394 Md. 184, 201, 905 A.2d 315 (2006), the appellant's counsel revealed allegedly privileged information to the trial court and the judge repeatedly stated tha......