Court Opinion

ID: 9468918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:26:46.012887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:06.952292
License: Public Domain

SPROUSE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent. It is true that strong circumstantial evidence probative of Anderson’s guilt was presented to the jury. It is likewise true that the alibi evidence offered initially and during the post-conviction and habeas corpus proceedings, if believed, was probative of Anderson’s innocence. Our task, however, is not to weigh the evidence, but to determine if the trial court’s error was of constitutional magnitude. The trial court’s actions with respect to the alibi testimony were reconstructed by witnesses during Anderson’s habeas corpus and post-conviction proceedings; there is nothing in the record to indicate exactly what transpired in the trial judge’s chambers since no transcript of those conversations was prepared. The error occurred in the following manner:
Immediately following the testimony of alibi witnesses Cook and Roberts it appears that the state’s attorney approached the bench and the trial judge inquired as to whether he wanted the two witnesses held; the state’s attorney replied in the affirmative and the sheriff was directed to take them into custody. Whether the jury was present during this exchange is not clear; the trial transcript does not indicate that it was excused.
Cook and Roberts later testified that following Roberts’ cross-examination they were taken from the courtroom and detained elsewhere in the courthouse. Cook testified that the person detaining her, who she believed to be a bailiff, accused her of lying and threatened her with a jail sentence. It is uncertain whether the witnesses then asked to be brought before the trial judge in chambers or whether he ordered them to appear there. In any event, the two witnesses next were taken into the judge’s chambers and “given quite a lecture” by the trial judge before returning to the courtroom. The trial judge later stated that at the time Cook and Roberts originally testified it was “obvious” to him that they were lying. There is nothing either in the original trial transcript nor in the record of the habeas corpus proceeding indicating the response of these witnesses to the “lecture”.
*1343However, when the Court reconvened, the judge addressed the jury as follows:
Mr. Foreman, ladies and gentlemen of the jury at the conclusion of this case two of the witnesses who testified have indicated to the Court that they told an untruth in their testimony and desire an opportunity to correct that before you ladies and gentlemen before this case concludes. As a matter of law, the Court must afford a witness an opportunity to purge himself or herself of perjury. For that purpose we are recalling these two witnesses to the stand to give them an opportunity to revise their stories to what they are how saying is the correct testimony.
As Ms. Cook prepared to testify, the trial judge told her, in the presence of the jury:
You have indicated to the Court that a portion of the testimony that you previously gave under oath in this case was false. The Court now affords you an opportunity to correct that testimony by telling the truth and to purge yourself of the perjury you have committed. This is the last chance you will be given in this trial to tell the truth.
To Roberts, as he commenced his testimony, the trial judge said:
At the conclusion of the testimony in this case you indicated to the Court that some portions of the testimony you had given before this jury were false. You asked the Court for an opportunity to purge yourself of this crime by being afforded an opportunity to tell the truth to the jury. This is your opportunity to tell the truth. It is the last one you are going to get in this trial.
The majority, although expressly disapproving the trial judge’s conduct, characterized it as involving a mere technicality amounting to only harmless error. I disagree. Although there is no Maryland statutory provision regarding the freedom of a state trial judge to comment on the evidence, it is well established that the trial judge should endeavor to maintain an impartial attitude, refrain from unnecessary comment and avoid singling out the testimony of any particular witness for comment. Maryland Dairy Corp. v. Brown, 169 Md. 257, 181 A. 468 (1935). Even a federal trial judge, who clearly is empowered to comment on the evidence, must take special care to maintain an appearance of impartiality. Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 53 S.Ct. 698, 77 L.Ed. 1321 (1935). The purpose of judicial comment is to assist the jury in arriving at a just conclusion; therefore, the judge’s comments must be neutral and not be given so as to intimidate the witnesses or otherwise interfere with the ascertainment of truth.
When a trial judge’s comments are as emphatic, and as one-sided as in this trial, not only is there a strong possibility that the witnesses might be intimidated, but also that defense counsel might be stifled and the efforts of the defendant in his own behalf be repressed. The trial court here blatantly interfered with Anderson’s sixth amendment right to freely present the testimony of two alibi witnesses and openly pressed them to change their testimony. Additionally, Anderson had a fourteenth amendment right to a fair trial, which minimally means a fair and impartial judge and jury. The trial judge’s remarks clearly indicated his disbelief of the witnesses’ first testimony and unquestionably influenced the jury’s appraisal of their credibility. The jury, having been advised directly that Cook and Roberts had lied and having heard the judge’s strong language addressed to the witnesses, could have only come to one conclusion — that the testimony of the witnesses was false and contrived to save Anderson.
The majority opinion concludes that these actions and their effects were harmless error.
An error involving the denial of a federal constitutional right in a state criminal case can be held harmless only if the reviewing court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt *1344that the error did not contribute to the conviction. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). To reach that conclusion, it is necessary not only to review the evidence which came before the jury, but also to evaluate the effect which the improper evidence or proceedings had upon the jury’s deliberations.
The evidence probative of guilt included Anderson’s fingerprints and palmprints which were found inside the victim’s bathroom window ledge and on the bathtub beneath the window, but, as the majority pointed out, Anderson claimed he previously had entered the house through the same window for a legitimate purpose.
It also is true that Anderson confessed. However, he was fifteen years old and had only a seventh grade education at the time the crime was committed. The interrogation began at about 11 p. m. and was not completed until nearly 2 a. m. Although Anderson’s parents accompanied him to the police station when he was arrested they soon left, and it was after their departure that Anderson abandoned his earlier strong denials. Also, he repudiated the confession prior to trial, maintaining that he did not remember signing it and that he had been under the influence of drugs at the time of his arrest and interrogation. The officer conducting the interrogation admitted that the confession was essentially in his own words, not Anderson’s, and that Anderson had merely agreed with the statements contained therein.
As detailed by the majority opinion, forensic experts testified that negroid head hairs were found on the victim’s nightgown and blanket and that a fragment of Caucasian pubic hair was found on trousers taken from Anderson’s home. On cross-examination, however, the expert admitted that the negroid head hairs were not specifically identifiable as Anderson’s; similarly, the pubic hair could not be identified as the victim’s. Blood grouping tests on blood and seminal fluid found on Anderson’s clothing and the victim’s bed covers did not rule him out as the perpetrator of the crime, but neither did they establish him as such.
The alibi testimony from two witnesses was the evidence probative of innocence. The witness Cook testified initially that Anderson arrived at her home early on the evening of the murder and played cards there all night.
The initial testimony of alibi witness Roberts was that on the day of the murder he played baseball and wrestled with Anderson and some other neighborhood boys. He then went home to clean up and eat dinner; later, he met the group, including Anderson, on a corner near his home.. Roberts testified that they all stood around on the corner until 9:00 or 9:30 p. m. Then, he and Anderson hitchhiked out to Ms. Cook’s house, where they joined a card game which lasted until about 3:30 a. m.
Unfettered by the trial court’s impermissible comment the jury could have considered this collage of circumstantial and alibi evidence and, disbelieving the alibi evidence, could have found Anderson guilty. An attack on such a verdict grounded on insufficiency of the evidence would have failed. The very large clink in the process, however, is that the jury did not have a fair opportunity to evaluate the alibi testimony; in light of the conduct and comments of the presiding judge they could have only disbelieved the evidence which was favorable to Anderson. Additionally, they were left with the unmistakable impression that the judge believed the alibi testimony was contrived for the benefit of Anderson. This, of course, inescapably added greater weight to the existing circumstantial evidence probative of guilt.
A reviewing court determining harmless error vel non does not merely determine if there was sufficient evidence to convince a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The constitutional error is harmless only if the jury would have convicted even in the absence of the error and the reviewing court is able to determine this beyond a reasonable doubt.
*1345I do not believe that a reviewing court in this case can correctly conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the denial to Anderson of an impartial judge and jury, by the impermissible judicial tainting of the defense alibi evidence, had no effect on the verdict. I agree with the majority that “guilty” people should not be freed on technicalities. It is the tradition of our criminal jurisprudence and constitutional practice, however, that courts go “to extraordinary lengths in the name of liberty to free” the innocent or more correctly, to free those who have not been constitutionally found guilty. The trial judge’s conduct in this case, far from representing a mere technical error, demonstrates vividly the reason for our constitutional shields against the abuse of judicial conduct.