Maryland

Overview

Maryland is a state of stark contrasts: a progressive legislature and activist attorney general coexist with entrenched patterns of police misconduct, prosecutorial secrecy, and resistance to transparency. While the state has acknowledged Brady and Giglio obligations in statute and case law, it lacks a unified, publicly accessible Giglio system. Disclosure of officer misconduct remains inconsistent across counties, and the state's decades-long tolerance for "testilying" and unchecked prosecutorial discretion continues to erode public trust. Even as Maryland enacts sweeping police reform laws, it remains burdened by the legacies of impunity—most notably in Baltimore, where unconstitutional policing and non-disclosure of exculpatory evidence have led to overturned convictions, federal investigations, and civil settlements in the millions. Despite progress, candor in Maryland’s courtrooms still depends more on local policy than enforceable, institutional structure.

Brief Description of Legal Landscape

Maryland’s prosecutorial structure includes 24 State’s Attorneys—one for each county and Baltimore City—elected independently and possessing wide discretion. Criminal discovery is governed by Maryland Rule 4-263, which imposes a duty on prosecutors to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence, including material affecting a law enforcement officer’s credibility. The Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 3.8) reinforce this obligation.

Law enforcement officers are certified by the Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission (MPTSC), which is authorized to suspend or decertify officers for misconduct. Under the Maryland Police Accountability Act of 2021, sustained findings of police misconduct are now partially disclosable and may be subject to judicial or administrative review. However, the state still lacks a mandated Brady or Giglio list, and no central clearinghouse exists to ensure cross-jurisdictional compliance.

Historical Context

Maryland’s relationship with prosecutorial misconduct and law enforcement dishonesty is perhaps best encapsulated by the decades-long scandal involving the Baltimore Police Department (BPD). The 2017 federal indictments of BPD’s Gun Trace Task Force (GTTF) officers revealed a sprawling criminal enterprise operating from within the department—fabricating evidence, robbing citizens, planting guns, and lying in court. More than 300 convictions were later overturned, but the revelation also underscored how officers with known credibility issues had been permitted to testify for years with no disclosure to defense counsel.

Historically, Maryland shielded police disciplinary records from public view under a stringent interpretation of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBR), repealed only in 2021. That repeal, part of a landmark police reform package, opened the door for public access to certain categories of sustained misconduct records—but implementation has been inconsistent, and disclosure practices remain highly fragmented.

Legal Framework and Precedents

Constitutional Provisions and State Statutes

The Maryland Constitution guarantees due process and confrontation rights under Article 24 of the Declaration of Rights, paralleling the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Key legal authorities governing disclosure include:

• Maryland Rule 4-263(d)(5): Requires the prosecution to disclose any material or information tending to negate guilt or mitigate punishment, including impeaching evidence related to law enforcement witnesses.

• Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8(d): Mirrors the ABA Model Rule and imposes ethical obligations on prosecutors to disclose exculpatory and impeachment material.

• Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA), GP § 4-101 et seq.: Provides public access to certain records, including limited access to police disciplinary findings following the repeal of LEOBR.

Despite these authorities, there is no statutory requirement that prosecutors track or publicly disclose the names of Giglio-impaired officers, nor is there a formal obligation that law enforcement notify prosecutors of sustained disciplinary actions relevant to testimonial integrity.

Relevant Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

Maryland courts have acknowledged the importance of Brady and Giglio, but like many jurisdictions, have typically resolved violations through narrow materiality analysis:

• Williams v. State, 364 Md. 160 (2001): The Court of Appeals held that the prosecution's failure to disclose impeachment evidence could violate due process and warrant reversal.

• Ware v. State, 348 Md. 19 (1997): Reversed a conviction after prosecutors failed to disclose evidence that undermined the credibility of their key witness—affirming Giglio’s application in Maryland.

• State v. Andrews, 227 Md. App. 350 (2016): Emphasized that Brady encompasses evidence in the hands of both prosecutors and police agencies, and that failure to disclose could merit a new trial.

Despite these rulings, courts have not imposed a requirement that Brady/Giglio material be tracked institutionally or memorialized for future use.

Implementation and Enforcement

Law Enforcement Policies and Training

MPTSC certifies and oversees officer conduct, but until 2021, police disciplinary records were largely immune from public or interagency scrutiny. The Police Accountability Act of 2021 created Administrative Charging Committees (ACCs) and Police Accountability Boards (PABs) in every county, designed to investigate and evaluate officer misconduct. However, these bodies do not systematically notify prosecutorial offices about findings relevant to Giglio, and many jurisdictions are still in the process of implementing compliance mechanisms.

Police training includes constitutional law and ethics modules, but there is no mandatory Brady/Giglio training for all officers. Agencies are not required to flag credibility impairments, report findings to prosecutors, or create “Do Not Call” lists. Even when misconduct is sustained, the officer may remain employed and testify, unless excluded by a local prosecutor’s policy.

In some counties—most notably Baltimore City, Prince George’s County, Montgomery County, and Anne Arundel County—State’s Attorneys have implemented internal Giglio tracking protocols. But these lists are rarely public, are not standardized across counties, and are subject to constant litigation over MPIA requests.

Oversight Mechanisms and Accountability Structures

Maryland lacks a centralized prosecutorial oversight body. The Attorney Grievance Commission investigates misconduct but has rarely disciplined prosecutors for Brady violations. There is no independent agency responsible for auditing Giglio compliance.

Public accountability for prosecutorial disclosure failures tends to emerge only through appellate litigation, press exposure, or civil suits. Even in the wake of the Gun Trace Task Force scandal, no statewide database of compromised officers has been created, and the vast majority of Giglio-related disclosures occur—if at all—only after a defense demand.

Case Studies from the State

Significant Cases Illustrating Issues of Candor

1. Gun Trace Task Force (2017–2020)
   Multiple BPD officers were convicted of racketeering, robbery, and fraud. Hundreds of convictions were tainted by officers with known credibility issues, and State’s Attorneys failed to flag or disclose these impairments for years. The fallout included federal investigations, overturned convictions, and the largest law enforcement credibility scandal in Maryland’s history.

2. State v. Tyrone Jones (2020)
   A Baltimore man’s conviction was vacated after it was revealed that the testifying officer had a known history of misconduct and had previously lied in other cases—information that was never disclosed to the defense.

3. Prince George’s County Whistleblower Litigation (2018)
   A former prosecutor alleged that the office maintained a secret list of officers with credibility concerns but discouraged disclosure. The claims, though settled confidentially, fueled public debate over the nonexistence of standardized Brady practices.

Outcomes and Implications

These cases underscore how Maryland’s failure to institutionalize candor has undermined both justice and public trust. Officers with sustained findings of dishonesty routinely testified in criminal cases without disclosure to defense counsel. Prosecutors operated in informational silos, lacking either legal obligation or interagency coordination. While some reforms have begun to take shape—especially post-LEOBR repeal—much of the system still depends on discretion and institutional memory, not policy or law.

Challenges and Gaps

Identified Issues within the State’s System

• No Statewide Giglio List or Disclosure Mandate
  There is no law requiring prosecutors to track or disclose credibility-compromised officers, and only a few counties maintain partial lists.

• Fragmented Implementation of Police Accountability
  Despite statewide reform efforts, many counties lack functioning Police Accountability Boards or interagency data-sharing protocols.

• FOIA Resistance and Redaction
  Access to disciplinary records is heavily redacted or denied under MPIA, especially when unions contest disclosure.

• No Audit or Oversight Body
  Maryland lacks an agency empowered to enforce Brady compliance or review statewide prosecutorial misconduct trends.

Legislative and Institutional Barriers

Resistance to transparency—particularly from police unions and some prosecutors—has hampered the full implementation of accountability measures. Even after the LEOBR repeal, many agencies continue to interpret MPIA narrowly, limiting public access to critical impeachment material. Attempts to mandate disclosure systems have stalled in the legislature amid concerns about liability and due process for officers.

Recommendations

Suggested Improvements in Law, Policy, and Practice

1. Create a Mandatory Statewide Brady/Giglio Disclosure System
   Enact legislation requiring prosecutors and police departments to jointly maintain and update a secure list of officers with sustained credibility impairments.

2. Require Prosecutorial Notice to Defense Counsel
   Mandate pretrial notification whenever a testifying officer has a sustained finding of dishonesty, excessive force, or civil rights violations.

3. Integrate Police Accountability Boards with Prosecutorial Systems
   Formalize reporting lines between PABs/ACCs and the appropriate State’s Attorney Office to ensure relevant findings are treated as Giglio material.

4. Standardize Prosecutorial Training
   Require annual training on Brady and Giglio obligations for all prosecutors and defense attorneys through the Maryland Judiciary or AG’s Office.

Recommendations for Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

1. Public Access to Giglio-Impaired Officers
   Launch a redacted, publicly accessible database of officers whose credibility has been impaired by sustained findings.

2. Independent Disclosure Oversight Board
   Create a state agency with authority to audit Brady compliance, investigate complaints, and recommend sanctions or retraining.

3. Centralize Certification Discipline at MPTSC
   Require that MPTSC share all suspensions, decertifications, and dishonesty-related findings with prosecutors and defense counsel.

4. Encourage Cross-County Disclosure Protocols
   Require prosecutors to share Giglio-related data when officers transfer between jurisdictions or testify outside their home county.

Conclusion

Maryland has made progress toward accountability—but candor remains an institutional afterthought, not a systemic imperative. As long as disclosure practices remain fragmented, optional, and secretive, the state risks repeating the mistakes of its past. Only by mandating transparency, tracking misconduct, and empowering oversight can Maryland ensure that truth—not silence—guides its pursuit of justice.