Attorney Grievance Commission v. Gansler
885 A.2d 548, 835 A.2d 548, 377 Md. 656 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor violates the Rules of Professional Conduct by making extrajudicial statements that have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding, such as announcing a defendant's confession before it is public record, disclosing a plea offer, or expressing a personal opinion as to the defendant's guilt.
Facts:
- In the Cook murder case, State's Attorney Douglas F. Gansler stated at a press conference that the suspect, Albert W. Cook, Jr., had confessed with 'incredible details that only the murderer would have known' before formal charges were filed.
- In the Lucas murder case, Gansler announced at a press conference that police had 'definitively' determined Robert P. Lucas had committed the crime, mentioning that Lucas had confessed and had a prior criminal record for burglaries.
- In the Perry murder retrial, Gansler announced to the media that he had decided to offer a plea bargain to the defendant, James Edward Perry.
- Gansler also publicly criticized a Court of Appeals decision that had reversed Perry's original conviction, calling it a 'completely result oriented opinion' and an 'effort to overturn the death penalty.'
- After charges against two juveniles for making bomb threats were dismissed for lack of evidence, Gansler was quoted as saying his office would continue to prosecute such cases 'even if the case is not strong enough to warrant a conviction.'
Procedural Posture:
- The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland filed a Petition for Disciplinary Action against State's Attorney Douglas F. Gansler in the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court).
- The Court of Appeals designated a judge of the Circuit Court for Frederick County (a trial-level court) to serve as a hearing judge, conduct an evidentiary hearing, and issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- The hearing judge issued a report finding that Gansler had committed a single violation of MRPC 3.6 regarding his statements about the plea offer in the Perry case, but found no other violations.
- Both the Attorney Grievance Commission (petitioner) and Gansler (respondent) filed exceptions to the hearing judge's report, bringing the matter before the Court of Appeals for a final determination.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prosecutor violate the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC 3.6) governing trial publicity by making extrajudicial statements to the media that announce a defendant’s confession prior to it becoming public record, a decision to offer a plea bargain, and opinions on defendants' guilt in pending criminal cases?
Opinions:
Majority - Battaglia, J.
Yes, a prosecutor violates the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC 3.6) by making such statements. The court held that the 'substantial likelihood of material prejudice' standard in MRPC 3.6 is a constitutionally permissible balance between an attorney's First Amendment rights and a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. The court found that while the 'public record' safe harbor provision of the rule was unconstitutionally vague as applied to Gansler, several of his statements were nonetheless clear violations. Specifically, announcing Cook’s confession before it was public, revealing the Perry plea offer, and stating his personal opinions on the guilt of Cook and Lucas were all actions a lawyer should reasonably know would have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a trial. The court emphasized that a prosecutor’s speech is particularly prejudicial because it carries the authority of the government, distinguishing it from the speech of a defense attorney who may proclaim a client's innocence.
Analysis:
This case is the Court of Appeals of Maryland's first interpretation of MRPC 3.6 and sets a significant precedent for attorney speech regarding pending cases. The decision clarifies the previously vague 'public record' safe harbor, prospectively narrowing its definition to official government records accessible to the public, thereby preventing lawyers from laundering prejudicial information through third parties. Most importantly, the court establishes that prosecutors are held to a higher standard than defense attorneys concerning trial publicity due to their unique role as ministers of justice and the authoritative weight their statements carry. The ruling serves as a strong warning to prosecutors against trying their cases in the media.
