Taliaferro v. Maryland

1983-05-23

Headline: Denial leaves Maryland rule allowing courts to exclude undisclosed alibi witnesses intact, making it harder for defendants who miss disclosure deadlines to present their only alibi testimony.

Holding: The Court denied review and left in place the state conviction and Maryland’s rule allowing exclusion of undisclosed alibi witnesses, while the constitutional question remains unresolved.

Real World Impact:

Leaves rules allowing exclusion of undisclosed alibi witnesses in effect.
Makes it harder for defendants who miss disclosure deadlines to present alibi testimony.
Keeps the constitutional question unresolved for lower courts and defendants.

Topics: criminal defense, alibi witnesses, discovery rules, right to present a defense

Summary

Background

A man on trial in Maryland tried to call Edward Rich as his only alibi witness, but Rich had not been named in response to the State’s rule requiring advance notice of alibi witnesses (Md. Rule Proc. 741). The State said it would not object to Rich testifying if the trial were continued a few days to allow an investigation. The trial judge refused a continuance and barred Rich from testifying. The exclusion seriously hurt the defendant because alibi was his only defense, and he was later convicted. The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction by a 4–3 vote.

Reasoning

The narrow procedural question before the Supreme Court was whether to review that ruling. The Court declined to take the case, so it did not decide whether excluding an undisclosed alibi witness as a penalty for violating a disclosure rule violates the constitutional right to present witnesses. The lower courts and some commentators disagree about the constitutionality of that exclusionary sanction, and at least one federal appeals court has held such exclusion impermissible. The record in this case showed the trial court did not find the failure to disclose was deliberate, only that the defendant had not been diligent.

Real world impact

By refusing review, the Supreme Court left in place Maryland’s rule and similar state rules that allow trial judges to bar undisclosed alibi witnesses. The opinion notes that 35 States and the District of Columbia have similar provisions, the Federal Rule 12.1 permits such a sanction, and one State (Michigan) even requires exclusion. The result is that many defendants and trial courts will continue to face this rule unless and until a higher court directly resolves the constitutional question.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by Justices Brennan and Blackmun, dissented from the denial and would have granted review to decide whether excluding a witness for discovery violations unconstitutionally denies a defendant the right to present witnesses.