BLAKE V. STATE

By: Jayna Peterson

The Supreme Court of Maryland held that William Blake’s (“Blake”) trial attorney did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to compel impeachment evidence regarding Baltimore City Police Officer Fabian Laronde (“Officer Laronde” or “Laronde”), as Laronde’s account of the search was never disputed, rendering the Internal Affairs Division (“IAD”) files unnecessary. Blake v. State, 485 Md. 265, 276-77, 296-97, 301 A.3d 1, 7-8, 20 (2023). The court found that Blake failed to demonstrate that his trial attorney’s decision to forego obtaining the IAD files was not strategic. Id. at 297-98, 303, 301 A.3d at 20. Notwithstanding Blake’s unsuccessful argument for deficient performance, the court held that counsel’s omission did not substantially affect the trial court’s ruling. Id. at 294-95, 301 A.3d at 18-19. Further, the court denied Blake’s Brady violation claim, citing judicial policy to abstain from analyzing constitutional issues when a decision is “unnecessary.” Id. at 305, 301 A.3d at 24-25.

In July 2012, Officer Laronde observed Blake and Tavon Wilson (“Wilson”) engage in what Officer Laronde believed to be the distribution of narcotics, based on Blake and Wilson’s history of narcotics distribution in Baltimore City. Suspicious of the activity, Laronde stopped the men and requested an “arrest team” to follow a woman with whom Blake conducted a suspected narcotics transaction. Once the arrest team retrieved narcotics from the woman, Laronde arrested Blake. Despite the absence of drugs during the patdown, Officer Laronde became skeptical of Blake’s abnormal movements and stride, as Laronde’s training and experience indicated that individuals hide drugs “under their testicles.” Laronde then conducted a search incident to arrest, asking Blake to squat. Consequently, officers seized a bag containing heroin from Blake’s undergarments.

A Baltimore City grand jury charged Blake with the distribution of heroin and other supplemental charges. In the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Blake pled not guilty to a specific statement of facts. Later, Blake filed a motion to suppress the heroin, arguing a Fourth Amendment violation for the unreasonable, public nature of a strip search in the street. At the suppression hearing, Officer Laronde testified to the “triangle” position he utilized at the scene to protect Blake’s privacy, putting Blake between the Officer and the car door. Blake’s counsel tried to impeach Laronde’s credibility by noting that: (1) nobody arrested the alleged buyer; (2) the protective positioning of the search did not safeguard Blake given the time of day and area in which it was conducted; and (3) the State’s statement of probable cause omitted statements of the car’s tinted windows. The judge ruled in favor of the State. Then, the State filed a motion in limine to preclude the defense’s questioning about Officer Laronde’s false imprisonment suit, which the court granted. Subsequently, the court found Blake guilty of distribution of heroin.

After a failed direct appeal to the Appellate Court of Maryland, Blake filed multiple post-conviction petitions. The filings alleged ineffective assistance of counsel by Blake’s trial attorney for failing to compel production of Officer Laronde’s IAD files and a Brady violation for the State’s withholding of the same information. Specifically, Blake produced various IAD reports and records of an inconsistent statement from a police-involved shooting-turned lawsuit. Blake also raised evidence of alleged misconduct by Officer Laronde during the proceedings.

Additionally, Blake’s trial counsel testified that, aside from the State’s disclosure of a civil suit against Laronde, he knew of rumors that Officer Laronde had previously committed “inappropriate strip search[es]” and would have used those allegations to Blake’s advantage if there were an accompanying lawsuit. Blake’s trial attorney never asked the State to produce the IAD records because he assumed the State would not withhold exculpatory evidence. The State countered that Blake’s trial attorney’s awareness of a related civil suit against Laronde implied reason to further investigate Officer Laronde. Blake contended that he would not have entered his plea had he known the information within the IAD files. The post-conviction court held that Blake failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea waived any right to the IAD files, causing Blake’s appeal.

On certification from the Appellate Court of Maryland, the Supreme Court of Maryland considered whether Blake’s trial attorney’s failure to ask for production of the IAD files constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Blake, 483 Md. at 291-92, 301 A.3d at 16-17. To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate through a two-prong test that: (1) trial counsel’s representation did not meet the accepted professional standards; and (2) the deficient representation was detrimental to the outcome, creating an unjust trial. Id. at 292, 301 A.3d at 17 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). A court’s objective analysis also requires a showing that such actions were not made for a strategic reason after making investigative inquiries. Id. at 293, 301 A.3d at 18. Next, the court must analyze whether Blake sufficiently demonstrated that the State committed a pre-trial Brady violation by withholding information in Laronde’s IAD files. Id. at 290, 303, 301 A.3d at 16-17.

The court first analyzed Strickland’s performance prong. Blake, Md. 485 at 295, 301 A.3d at 19. Blake asserted that because his trial counsel had prior knowledge of Officer Laronde’s reputation and the disclosed civil suit, it was trial counsel’s duty to investigate further, rather than relying on the State. Id. The court agreed with the State and found that the record illustrated a reasonable strategy to prioritize precedential arguments on the Fourth Amendment violation, over discrediting Laronde or his facts. Id. at 296, 301 A.3d at 19. The court reasoned that if Blake’s trial counsel challenged the search based on Laronde’s credibility, the State could have corroborated through other witnesses. Id. at 297, 301 A.3d at 20. Further, trial counsel’s advice to take the plea on mutually accepted facts was proper to preserve appellate rights. Id. at 297-98, 301 A.3d at 20.

Moving to the prejudice prong, the Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the totality of the circumstances to ascertain whether counsel’s actions reasonably caused adverse outcomes. Blake, 485 Md. at 294, 301 A.3d at 18. Clarifying the admissibility of IAD complaints, the court noted that records are prohibited from being used for impeachment purposes when they are unfounded or not sustained. Id. at 300, 301 A.3d at 22. Giving some weight to Blake’s argument, the court expressed that evidence of prior bad acts barring conviction is admissible for impeachment purposes only if those allegations are beyond mere speculation. Id. at 300-01, 301 A.3d at 22. Further, no prejudice exists based on the outcome of the motion in limine and the absence of Laronde’s contradicting statement in the State’s records. Id. at 301-02, 301 A.3d at 23. Most importantly, the court emphasized that impeaching Laronde would serve no purpose to the defense as Blake never disputed the State’s version of events. Id. at 302, 301 A.3d at 23. Therefore, the court found that the absence of the IAD files was irrelevant and did not prejudice Blake. Id. at 303, 301 A.3d at 23.

Finally, the court declined to rule on whether Brady disclosures apply to pretrial proceedings because it is a constitutional issue that need not be determined to come to a resolution at this junction. Blake, 485 Md. at 305, 301 A.3d at 25. The court likened the Brady materiality standard to the Strickland prejudice prong — finding that even in the hypothetical that Brady does pertain to pretrial proceedings, Blake would fail to meet the materiality threshold. Id.

While access to police records is important, the Blake holding represents a situation where impeachment evidence is not imperative to litigation. Moving forward, practitioners should know that when trial strategy did not discredit the State’s version of events, failing to acquire IAD files or otherwise investigate potential impeachment evidence will be insufficient for appeal. Given the prevalence of appeals concerning IAD files, attorneys should advise their clients accordingly.

Jayna Peterson is a third-year student at the University of Baltimore School of Law. In addition to serving as Editor-in-Chief for Volume 55 of the Law Forum, Jayna is a law clerk for Brown Law. After graduation, Jayna plans to pursue criminal defense and post-conviction work.