In its most recent session, while deciding on Kazadi v. State, the Court of Appeals of Maryland overruled their previous decision in Twinning v. State.[1] During jury voir dire, Kazadi requested that the prospective jurors be asked about their ability, or unwillingness to consider that the State must prove each count beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is presumed innocent, and that the defendant also has the right to remain silent and not testify, and that no adverse inference can be drawn from that silence.[2] This request by the defense was denied because of the thinking behind the ruling in Twinning v. State, in that those questions to prospective jurors were inappropriate and not necessary.[3]

In Kazadi v. State, the Court of Appeals of Maryland ruled that if the defendant asks during voir dire that the jury be asked about their willingness to apply the principles of beyond a reasonable doubt, innocent until proven guilty, and the irrelevance of the defendant’s silence, then the judge must allow the questions to be asked.[4] The court explained that its reasoning in Twinning is outdated, and the significant changes in criminal law call for the Twinning ruling to be overruled.[5] The court overruled Kazadi’s criminal conviction, and stated that because of the arbitrary denial of the defendant’s proposed voir dire questions, Kazadi must be given the opportunity for a new trial.[6]

The Court of Appeals of Maryland did not just overrule their previous decision in Twinning, but the court also applied their new ruling retroactively.[7] However, the court’s language was a little ambiguous. It is unclear what the intended remedy of the court is for defendants that were denied similar questions that Kazadi proposed during their own voir dire. If the intended remedy is a new trial, this can have serious implications for the criminal justice system in Maryland.

The current criminal court system in Maryland, especially in Baltimore City, is already extremely backed up.[8] If an individual is charged with a felony in Baltimore City and the individual chooses to go to trial, the earliest the individual will likely go to trial is around eleven months after the jury issued an indictment, or the statement of charges was filed.[9] If the court intended in Kazadi that the remedy for defendants who were prohibited from asking voir dire questions similar to the ones Kazadi proposed, then the court system will be backed up even more. If all defendants who experienced the same denial as Kazadi, it is likely that individuals charged with a felony in Baltimore City will have to wait over a year before they even have the opportunity to present their case at trial. This result will also severely affect the individuals who are held without bail in pretrial incarceration. Theoretically, if a new trial is the intended remedy, and innocent person could be incarcerated for over a year of their life before they are able to prove their innocence. The Court of Appeals of Maryland needs to clarify what they meant by retroactive, and the remedy for defendants who experienced what Kazadi did. If the intended remedy is a new trial, the legislature and judges should consider an updated factor test to consider when deciding to hold an individual pretrial without bail.

Kelli Kiffer is a third- year law student at the University of Baltimore School of Law who is an Ohio transplant. During her time at UB, she was involved in University of Baltimore Students for Public Interest (UBSPI), If/When/How, and Law Forum. Kelli will continue to pursue her passion for public interest beginning January 2021, as a Public Defender in Baltimore City in the misdemeanor division.

[1] Kazadi v. State, 2020 Md. LEXIS 15 (2020).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] System Favoring Plea Deals Penalizes Defendants Who Go to Trial, MarylandReporter.com.

[9] Id.