Court Opinion

ID: 9757323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:32:45.262653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:38.123618
License: Public Domain

ADKINS, J., dissenting.
I join in Judge Eyler’s well written majority opinion only in part. I agree that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to instruct the jury on the difficulties of cross-racial identification for the reasons stated by Judge Eyler.
I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that the trial court acted within its discretion in refusing to allow appellant to argue in his summation that they should consider the difficulty of cross-racial identification in assessing the credibility of an eyewitness. I differ from the majority on this second issue because of the fundamental nature of closing argument — “a robust forensic forum wherein its practitioners are afforded a wide range of expression.” Williams v. State, 137 Md.App. 444, 455, 768 A.2d 761, cert. denied, 365 Md. 268, 778 A.2d 383 (2001) (citations omitted). See, also State, v. Wiggins, 74 Conn.App. 703, 813 A.2d 1056, 1059 (2003)(“Although cross-racial identification jury instructions may not be required, cross-examination and closing argument may be employed to demonstrate the problems that might arise as a result of cross-racial identification”).
*712The Record Below
Before further discussion of the law, I pause to review the pertinent legal proceedings leading up to closing argument. Before trial, appellants requested the court to approve a jury instruction on cross-racial identification. They did so in li-mine so that they could raise the issue in opening statements. The trial court, after hearing arguments, denied appellants’ motion.
THE COURT: With regard to Mr. Owen’s [counsel for Smith] motion, I am going to reserve until ... we discuss jury instructions, which means, Mr. Owens, you’ll not be able to argue it in opening.
MR. FISCHER [counsel for Mack]: I can’t mention that that’s one possible factor?
THE COURT: You cannot. You can say my client’s black if you want to. You can’t say a single — you can’t argue the law anyway, only argue facts in opening. You can certainly point out this case is based on a single eyewitness identification.
After the trial court denied the requested jury instruction, defense counsel requested that they be allowed to raise the cross-racial identification issue during closing arguments. The following colloquy occurred:
MR. FISCHER: Your Honor, I understand you will not be reading an instruction to the jury on cross-racial identification. None the less, will the defense counsel be permitted to argue to the jury on cross-racial identification.
THE COURT: The defense counsel will not be able to argue cross-racial identification, ... there is no evidence in this case to that effect. But defense certainly could say my client is black, victim is white.
MR. FISCHER: But we are free to argue one reasonable inference, identification would not be as strong as if the complainant and defendant were the same race?
THE COURT: You can argue th[e] facts that are in evidence. That is not a fact that is in evidence.
*713MR. FISCHER: But it’s an inference that can be drawn.
THE COURT: You can argue he is black, and the victim is white. Anything else?
MR. ROE: No, Your Honor.
MR. OWENS: No, Your Honor.
MR. FISCHER: No, Your Honor. (Emphasis added).
Before closing arguments, defense counsel renewed his request to argue cross-racial identification in his closing. The trial court again denied the motion.
THE COURT: Okay. So it is perfectly clear, I’m denying your request, but I would permit [you] to say that your client is black, victim is white, but I will not let you refer to cross-racial identification.
MR. FISCHER: And I take exception.
THE COURT: Certainly.
During closing arguments neither defense counsel raised cross-racial identification, nor did they mention the respective races of appellants or the victim.
Law Of Closing Argument
“Subject to the trial court’s discretion, both the State’s Attorney and defense counsel are given wide latitude in the conduct of closing argument, including the right to explain or to attack all the evidence in the case.” Trimble v. State, 300 Md. 387, 405, 478 A.2d 1143 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1230, 105 S.Ct. 1231, 84 L.Ed.2d 368 (1985) (citations omitted). In the seminal case of Wilhelm v. State, 272 Md. 404, 326 A.2d 707 (1974), the Court of Appeals discussed the content and boundaries of legitimate closing argument.
As to summation, it is, as a general rule, within the range of legitimate argument for counsel to state and discuss the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences which may be drawn from the facts in evidence; and such comment or argument is afforded a wide range. Counsel is free to use the testimony most favorable to his side of the *714argument to the jury, and the evidence may be examined, collated, sifted and treated in his own way.... Generally, counsel has the right to make any comment or argument that is warranted by the evidence proved or inferences therefrom....
While arguments of counsel are required to be confined to the issues in the cases on trial, the evidence and fair and reasonable deductions therefrom, and to arguments of opposing counsel, generally speaking, liberal freedom of speech should be allowed. There are no hard-and-fast limitations within which the argument of earnest counsel must be confined — no well-defined bounds beyond which the eloquence of an advocate shall not soar. [Counsel] may discuss the facts proved or admitted in the pleadings, assess the conduct of the parties, and attack the credibility of witnesses. [Counsel] may indulge in oratorical conceit or flourish and in illustrations and metaphorical allusions.
As a limitation upon the general scope of permissible closing argument this Court ... cautioned that counsel should not be permitted by the court, over proper objection, to state and comment upon facts not in evidence or to state what he [or she] could have proven.
Id. at 412-13, 326 A.2d 707 (emphasis added, citations omitted).
“[I]t is well settled in Maryland that, during closing argument, the [lawyer] may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence before the court and/or the jury.” Daniel v. State, 132 Md.App. 576, 594, 753 A.2d 545, cert. denied, 361 Md. 232, 760 A.2d 1106 (2000). Although a lawyer cannot falsely represent facts in evidence, counsel may even be illogical about the inferences he or she asks the jury to make.
Counsel is free to use the testimony most favorable to his side of the argument to the jury, and the evidence may be examined, collated, sifted and treated in his own way. Moreover, if counsel does not make any statement of fact not fairly deducible from the evidence his argument is not *715improper, although the inferences discussed are illogical and erroneous.
Id. (emphasis added, citations omitted). “The evil to be avoided is the appeal that diverts the jury away from its duty to decide the case on the evidence.” White v. State, 125 Md.App. 684, 704, 726 A.2d 858, cert. denied, 354 Md. 573, 731 A.2d 971 (1999).
The critical evidence adduced by the State in this case is the eyewitness identification of the appellants by the victim. Appellants clearly had the right to attack the credibility of this witness, and to do so by arguments directed at proving a weakness in her capacity to perceive or remember the facial characteristics of her attacker. Cf. Md. Rule 5-616(a)(5)(the credibility of a witness may be attacked through questions directed at proving that the witness has “weaknesses in [his or her ] capacity ... to perceive [or] remember”).
As the majority recognizes, moreover, there is a substantial body of empirical study suggesting that cross-racial identification, particularly by whites of blacks, is more difficult than identification of a person within one’s own race. As the majority notes, there has also been judicial recognition of this phenomenon. See, e.g., Chief Judge Bazelon’s dissenting opinion in United States v. Brown, 461 F.2d 134, 145 n. 1 (C.A.D.C.1971)(referring to the “widely-held, common sense view that whites have greater difficulty identifying blacks than identifying other whites”); State v. Cromedy, 158 N.J. 112, 727 A.2d 457, 461 (1999)(“For more than forty years, empirical studies concerning the psychological factors affecting eyewitness cross-racial or cross-ethnic identifications have appeared with increasing frequency in professional literature of the behavioral and social sciences”).
This difficulty in cross-racial identification may arise because the color of the stranger’s skin may be the most obvious information to observe and absorb, and therefore consume a disproportionate amount of the observer’s attention and memory. Alternatively, patterns and stereotypes existing in the *716observer’s mind may interfere. As the Sixth Circuit explained:
Many investigators believe that perception and memory are not purely deductive, but have substantial inductive components. See, e.g., Buckhout, “Eyewitness Testimony,” 231 Scientific American 23 (Dec.1974). Witnesses focus on gross or salient characteristics of any sensory experience, and fill in the details, not according to the observed facts of the experience, but according to some previously internalized pattern they associate with the perceived gross characteristics. In addition, the construction of memory is greatly influenced by post-experience suggestion. Suggestions compatible with the witness’ internalized stereotype are likely to become part of the witness’ memory, not because they are in fact similar to the actual experience, but because they fit the preconceived stereotype.
United States v. Russell, 532 F.2d 1063, 1066 (6th Cir.1976).
In my view, a person may acquire appreciation of this difficulty in perception simply through his or her own experience, i.e., by observing his or her own personal difficulty in making cross-racial identifications of strangers, particularly when the perception time is short. Or, the awareness may be acquired through years of social interaction with others who experience the difficulty. Although cross-racial identification difficulty may be directly experienced by only a portion of the population, the experience, and general awareness of it is sufficiently widespread to call it a matter of common knowledge. As such, it is appropriate to include in closing argument. See Wilhelm, 272 Md. at 445, 326 A.2d 707 (jury argument could include mention of “[reasonable and legitimate inferences ... from the facts which were of such general notoriety as to be matter of common knowledge and matters within the cognizance of the jury from their own observations”).
For these reasons, defense counsel’s pointing out this common experience, and asking the jury to infer that the victim was mistaken in her identification, falls well within the ambit *717of legitimate argument. This jury argument is no less reasonable or legitimate than asserting, for example, that a person did not clearly see or remember the facial features of the shooter because she was distracted by the noise of the gun and the bustle and excitement of the crowd around her. It is also as valid as arguing that a person did not clearly remember the facial features of her attacker because she was under extreme emotional distress at the time of the attack. I think the majority would accept both of these examples as legitimate argument.
Making these arguments does not constitute misstating a fact to the jury. The lawyer is simply advocating that the jury consider that the identification may be inaccurate for this reason. I am not asserting that the lawyer should be able to make a representation to the jury that empirical studies have been done, without introducing evidence of those studies. Such a representation would be prohibited as a statement of a fact not in evidence. That must be distinguished from what the trial court prohibited here — advocacy that the jury consider whether cross-racial identification of a stranger is harder than intra-racial identification of a stranger.
To be sure, “care must be taken to insulate criminal trials from base appeals to racial prejudice.” Cromedy, 727 A.2d at 467. Asking a jury to conclude that a white witness may have difficulty in identifying a stranger who was black, however, is not, in itself, a base appeal to racial prejudice. It is simply a recognition of common experiences in visual perception and memory. Naturally, if a party sought to capitalize on the opportunity to mention race in a way that appealed to racial prejudice, the trial court could restrain such conduct. There was nothing in the record to suggest that defense counsel sought or intended to appeal to racial prejudice here.
“ ‘Summation provides counsel with an opportunity to creatively mesh the diverse facets of trial, meld the evidence presented with plausible theories, and expose the deficiencies in [opposing counsel’s] argument.’ ” Stevenson v. State, 94 Md.App. 715, 729, 619 A.2d 155 (1993)(quoting Henry v. State, *718324 Md. 204, 230, 596 A.2d 1024 (1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 972, 112 S.Ct. 1590, 118 L.Ed.2d 307 (1992)). Courts should not “stifle creative license” and thereby “prevent counsel from effectively presenting his case.” Id.
Here, eyewitness identification constitutes the sum total of the State’s case-in-chief. To disallow argument challenging the reliability of that identification is unquestionably prejudicial to the defendant. The inherent unreliability of eyewitness identification, which is readily recognized by the majority, simply enhances the likelihood of prejudice to a defendant in these circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 228, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1933, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967)(“[T]he vagaries of eyewitness identification are well-known; the annals of criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken identification”).
Conclusion
For these reasons, I would reverse appellants’ convictions and remand the case to the circuit court for a new trial.