Opinion ID: 2068009
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Mechanick's opinion as to Maryland law was admissible under the Independent Source Doctrine.

Text: Although the Superior Court analyzed the admissibility of Dr. Mechanick's evaluation using a harmless error standard, the court's finding comports with an analysis under the independent source and inevitable discovery exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Dr. Mechanick examined Norman on January 28, 2006, pursuant to an order from the Maryland Circuit Court, and issued two psychiatric evaluations, one for Maryland authorities and one for Delaware authorities. Dr. Mechanick's opinion as to whether Norman satisfied the Maryland definition of not criminally responsible did not violate Norman's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Norman's Maryland defense counsel was given advance notice of Dr. Mechanick's examination and had an opportunity to consult with Norman regarding it. Thus, Dr. Mechanick's opinion regarding whether Norman was not criminally responsible under Maryland law was discovered through a source independent of the illegality and was admissible in his Delaware trial pursuant to the Independent Source Doctrine. Moreover, the Maryland evaluation was neither confidential nor privileged, and its use was not limited to the proceedings in Maryland. [47] Each expert that examined Norman in Maryland likewise became a potential expert witness in the Delaware case. Even if Delaware prosecutors had not been involved in Dr. Mechanick's evaluation, they could have later asked him to apply Delaware law to the information he gathered in his evaluation.