Attorney Grievance v. Cassilly
476 Md. 309 (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor's ethical duty to disclose all evidence or information that tends to negate the guilt of the accused is a continuing obligation that extends post-conviction. Knowingly failing to disclose such evidence, concealing it, and making intentionally false statements to a tribunal about it constitutes professional misconduct warranting disbarment.
Facts:
- In 1983, at John Norman Huffington's second murder trial, prosecutor Joseph Ignatius Cassilly presented testimony from FBI Agent Michael P. Malone, who claimed hairs found at the crime scene microscopically matched Huffington's.
- In 1999, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sent Cassilly the 'Robertson Report,' an independent review concluding that Agent Malone's forensic work in the Huffington case was not supported by his notes and that he may have testified falsely about who performed certain tests.
- Cassilly did not disclose the Robertson Report to Huffington's counsel, did not keep a copy in the state's case file, and later testified that he discarded his copy after five years.
- In 2003, after Huffington's counsel petitioned to conduct DNA analysis on the hair evidence, Cassilly opposed the petition and requested the court's permission to destroy the very evidence Huffington sought to test.
- In 2014, Cassilly received two letters from the DOJ detailing multiple errors in Agent Malone's trial testimony, stating his analysis 'exceeded the limits of science' and was 'invalid.' Cassilly did not disclose these letters to Huffington's counsel.
- During the subsequent Bar Counsel investigation into his conduct, Cassilly appeared pursuant to a subpoena but refused to take an oath or provide a statement.
Procedural Posture:
- On November 13, 2018, John Norman Huffington filed a complaint against Joseph Cassilly with the Attorney Grievance Commission's Bar Counsel.
- On September 8, 2020, Bar Counsel filed a 'Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action' against Cassilly in the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court.
- On September 17, 2020, the Court of Appeals designated a judge of the Circuit Court for Harford County (a trial court) to serve as the hearing judge.
- The hearing judge conducted a remote evidentiary hearing from February 3-5, 2021.
- On March 10, 2021, the hearing judge issued an opinion with findings of fact and conclusions of law, determining Cassilly had violated multiple rules but not Rule 8.1(b).
- Both Bar Counsel and Cassilly filed exceptions to the hearing judge's findings and conclusions, bringing the case before the Court of Appeals of Maryland for final disposition.
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 by knowingly and intentionally failing to disclose exculpatory evidence discovered post-conviction, discarding that evidence, seeking to destroy related forensic evidence, and making false statements to a court and opposing counsel about the evidence's content?
Opinions:
Majority - Watts, J.
Yes, a prosecutor's actions of knowingly and intentionally failing to disclose post-conviction exculpatory evidence, discarding that evidence, and making false statements to a court violate multiple rules of professional conduct. The court found that Cassilly violated his duty of candor to the tribunal (Rule 3.3(a)(1)) by making four separate, knowingly false statements to the circuit court, misrepresenting that reports on Agent Malone found his testimony was proper when they concluded the opposite. He violated his duty of fairness (Rule 3.4(a)) by discarding the exculpatory Robertson Report and then seeking to have the underlying hair evidence destroyed. His conduct violated the special responsibilities of a prosecutor (Rule 3.8(d)), as the duty to disclose evidence that 'tends to negate the guilt of the accused' is a continuing obligation that applies post-conviction, which he breached by concealing the Robertson Report for over a decade. He violated Rule 8.1(b) by refusing to comply with a lawful subpoena from Bar Counsel. Finally, his actions constituted dishonesty (Rule 8.4(c)), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (8.4(d)), and a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct (8.4(a)). Given the pattern of intentional dishonesty and the absence of compelling extenuating circumstances, disbarment is the appropriate sanction.
Concurring - McDonald, J.
Yes. The finding that Cassilly made knowingly false statements to a court concerning a material matter makes disbarment the appropriate sanction, especially for a prosecutor held to a higher standard. This concurrence is written to note that while the majority correctly found a violation of Rule 3.8(d), it properly refrained from deciding the broader, unresolved question of whether that rule's disclosure obligation is more expansive than the constitutional standard set by Brady v. Maryland.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent in Maryland regarding the ethical duties of prosecutors, clarifying that the obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence under Rule 3.8(d) is not confined to the pretrial and trial stages but is a continuing duty that extends post-conviction. The court's decision to disbar a long-serving, elected State's Attorney sends a powerful message about the severity of prosecutorial misconduct, particularly the concealment of evidence and intentional dishonesty. This ruling reinforces the Vanderlinde standard, affirming that disbarment is the default sanction for intentional dishonesty by an attorney, and it underscores the prosecutor's role as a 'minister of justice' whose primary duty is to see that justice is done, not merely to secure convictions.
