right to present defense in Maryland

2021For purposes of state criminal proceedings, the right to testify arises out of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. “[I]n plain terms[,] the right to present a defense [is] the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies.” Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967); see also Allen v. State, 440 Md. 643, 677 (2014) (“The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State’s accusations.” (quoting Foster v. State, 297 M

2005The Wilson Court quoted the Supreme Court’s decision in Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967), for the proposition that “ ‘[t]he right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies.’ ” 345 Md. at 447 , 693 A.2d 344 .

2022See Kelly v. State, 392 Md. 511, 537 (2006) (noting that a defendant’s right to compulsory process does not “confer a right to present inadmissible evidence”).

2016Id. at 517 , 898 A.2d 419 , Under the facts presented, the Court answered the question in the affirmative and reversed Kelly’s convictions. 3 In Kelly , the State presented evidence that three friends engaged in an angry verbal exchange with Francesco Kelly while riding a public bus in Silver Spring, after which the three friends left the bus and walked into a nearby 7-Eleven.

1999Much like the rights of defendants protected by the Sixth Amendment, the right to present a defense is fundamental, in that it gives the appellant the opportunity “to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, [which] is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecutions to the jury—” Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 98 , 93 S.Ct. 351, 353 , 34 L.Ed.2d 330, 333 (1972) (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)).

1999Much like the rights of defendants protected by the Sixth Amendment, the right to present a defense is fundamental, in that it gives the appellant the opportunity “to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, [which] is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecutions to the jury—” Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 98 , 93 S.Ct. 351, 353 , 34 L.Ed.2d 330, 333 (1972) (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)).

2021For purposes of state criminal proceedings, the right to testify arises out of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. “[I]n plain terms[,] the right to present a defense [is] the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies.” Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967); see also Allen v. State, 440 Md. 643, 677 (2014) (“The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State’s accusations.” (quoting Foster v. State, 297 M

2021For purposes of state criminal proceedings, the right to testify arises out of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. “[I]n plain terms[,] the right to present a defense [is] the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies.” Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967); see also Allen v. State, 440 Md. 643, 677 (2014) (“The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State’s accusations.” (quoting Foster v. State, 297 M

2002Citing Clark v. State, 364 Md. 611, 660 , 774 A.2d 1136, 1165 (2001), he notes that “a proffer to permit an initial question regarding credibility needs but minimal support” — little more than an “articulable suspicion ... to believe that the facts elicited will be relevant to credibility.” We have no disagreement with the general propositions posited by petitioner that he had a right to present his defense to the jury, that evidence of bias and interest on the part of adverse witnesses is always relevant, and that such bias or interest is always the proper subject for cross-examination, which

2002Citing Clark v. State, 364 Md. 611, 660 , 774 A.2d 1136, 1165 (2001), he notes that “a proffer to permit an initial question regarding credibility needs but minimal support” — little more than an “articulable suspicion ... to believe that the facts elicited will be relevant to credibility.” We have no disagreement with the general propositions posited by petitioner that he had a right to present his defense to the jury, that evidence of bias and interest on the part of adverse witnesses is always relevant, and that such bias or interest is always the proper subject for cross-examination, which

2002See Marshall v. State, 346 Md. 186 , 695 A.2d 184 (1997).

2002See Marshall v. State, 346 Md. 186 , 695 A.2d 184 (1997).

1999See e.g., Aladdin *39 Oil Burner Corp. v. Morton, 117 N.J.L. 260 , 187 A. 350, 350 (N.J.Sup.1936) (holding that in a case exhibiting issues of fact, the right to present analysis and inferences from the evidence is absolute); Douglass v. Hill, 29 Kan. 527 (1883) (without indicating the basis of the right, the court held that a party to a law suit has an absolute right to be heard, “not merely in the testimony of his witnesses, but also in the arguments of his counsel”).

1999See e.g., Aladdin *39 Oil Burner Corp. v. Morton, 117 N.J.L. 260 , 187 A. 350, 350 (N.J.Sup.1936) (holding that in a case exhibiting issues of fact, the right to present analysis and inferences from the evidence is absolute); Douglass v. Hill, 29 Kan. 527 (1883) (without indicating the basis of the right, the court held that a party to a law suit has an absolute right to be heard, “not merely in the testimony of his witnesses, but also in the arguments of his counsel”).