Let juries determine truthfulness, Md. appeals court says

A Maryland appeals court has overturned a man’s conviction on charges of sexual assault of a minor, saying the jury was improperly shown a recorded police interview with the defendant in which the detective repeatedly voiced disbelief with the protestations of innocence.

In its reported 3-0 decision, the Court of Special Appeals called it the jury’s duty to determine the truthfulness of a witness’s testimony free of being influenced by the views of other witnesses, whether provided in court or by recorded testimony. The detective’s opinion of defendant Joseph Walter’s veracity could have colored the jury’s view of his claims that he did not assault the child, the intermediate appellate court ruled last week in ordering a new trial.

In the controversial recording, Walter denied the child’s allegations of assault only to have the detective disparage and express disbelief with the denials, as well as accuse him of dishonesty.

Walter was found guilty by the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court jury, sentenced to 20 years in prison and required to register as a sex offender. He appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, successfully arguing that the jury’s seeing and hearing the detective’s disbelief on the recording denied him a fair trial.

“(T)he detective’s expressions of disbelief had little effect other than to project an aura of official skepticism over Walter’s declaration of his innocence,” Judge Kevin F. Arthur wrote for the Court of Special Appeals. “If Walter’s interview was to be played to the jury, the (circuit) court should have redacted the detective’s commentary and expressions of disbelief. Alternatively, the court could have permitted the detective to tell the jury about what Walter said during the interview, without playing the recording itself.”

The Court of Special Appeals stated its decision should not discourage officers interviewing criminal suspects from expressing disbelief as an interrogation tactic to see if they change their accounts or otherwise contradict themselves. Such expressions, however, should not be shown to the jury, the court said.

“Investigators can and should continue to employ lawful and effective investigative techniques,” Arthur wrote.

“We hold only that if the state intends to play portions of a recorded interview in which the investigators directly or indirectly express their disbelief in the suspect’s statements or their opinion about the suspect’s guilt, the court must balance the probative value (if any) of the investigator’s comments against their prejudicial effect,” Arthur added. “In general, where the investigators’ comments do not induce the suspect to alter his account or to inculpate himself, a court should prohibit the state from playing those portions of the interview.”

The Maryland Office of the  Attorney General said in a statement Thursday that it is reviewing the decision to determine whether to seek review by the Court of Appeals.

Walter’s appellate counsel, Assistant Public Defender Jeffrey M. Ross, declined to comment on the Court of Special Appeals’ decision.

Arthur was joined in the opinion by Judges Andrea M. Leahy and Donald E. Beachley.  The Court of Special Appeals rendered its decision in Joseph Walter v. State of Maryland, No. 814, September Term 2017.