Court Opinion

ID: 9746910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:44:14.173936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:18.147271
License: Public Domain

ALPERT, Judge,
concurring.
I join my learned colleagues in affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. I part company with them regarding the necessity to view the video tape.1
According to the majority, it is not necessary to address “appellee’s contention that the issues here resolved have not been preserved for appeal because of a failure of the appellant to include the video taped statement in the record.” The majority takes this position because they believe that it was necessary to view the video tape because “here, the issue was, at least in part, the conditions under which the statement was given.” Those “conditions,” which took at least IV2 hours to view on a videotape, could have been described by the motions judge. The description should have been transcribed, thus enabling the reader of the transcript to make a determination as to “conditions” based upon a kind of record that has certainly proved adequate for many years.
The majority also suggests that it is necessary to view the video tape in order to ascertain “demeanor, for exam-*626pie — not accurately reflected in the transcript.” Once again, a trial judge could accurately and adequately describe demeanor, which description should be transcribed. The transcript, in turn (and of course), would be reviewed by the appellate court, as has been done for decades. The majority further posits that “a viewing of the tape in some cases may be necessary, such as when the constitutional issue of voluntariness is based not only on what was said, but on what was done or on the atmosphere of the proceeding.”
Our own “independent, reflective constitutional judgment” does not require us to engage in de novo review, particularly with respect to first level facts:
What we mean, therefore, when we say that we have the obligation to make an independent, reflective constitutional judgment on the facts whenever a claim of constitutionally-protected right is involved is that, although we give great weight to the findings of the hearings judge as to specific, first-level facts (such as the time that an interrogation began, whether a meal was or was not served, whether a telephone call was requested), we must make our own independent judgment as to what to make of those facts; we must in making that independent judgment resolve for ourselves the ultimate second-level fact the existence or non-existence of voluntariness.
Walker v. State, 12 Md.App. 684, 695, 280 A.2d 260 (1971).
Perceiving the demeanor of a witness (here, the appellant) is a phenomenon that a hearing judge is capable of finding as “first-level facts.” That judge would see the demeanor of the witness; that judge would see the conditions under which the confession was made; and that judge would describe them for the record, which record of course would be transcribed for our reading. We ought not substitute our judgment on those kinds of first-level facts by reviewing the video tapes of confessions. We should, on the other hand, be reading transcripts of the entire proceeding, which should include a transcript of the video tape and the judge’s findings with regard to the video tape.
*627I do not quarrel with the introduction and use of video tape evidence. My concern is with the notion that an appellate court should view the video tape rather than a transcript. That notion, that process, is fraught with dangers. It is a burden with which the appellate courts of this state are ill-equipped to handle on an ongoing basis.
Where will it end? In fourth amendment search and seizure cases, will we be required to view video tapes of surveillances — or the execution of search warrants?
In sixth amendment “ineffective assistance of counsel” claims, how many hours of a trial will we be compelled to observe?
Where will it end?

. I would further point out that Md.RuIe 8-411(a) requires a transcription of all the testimony or that part of the testimony that the parties agree, by written stipulation filed with the clerk of the lower court, is necessary for the appeal. Certainly, that which proceeded before the hearing judge at the motions hearing — the video tape — was absolutely necessary for this appeal. It was not, however, transcribed.