The Maryland Court of Appeals rejected a criminal defendant’s claim that he received ineffective counsel because of his attorney’s failure to object to a “CSI-effect” voir dire question in 2007, finding state courts didn’t address the matter until years later and it wasn’t the “professional norm” at the time.

According to the opinion, Antonio McGhee’s murder case went to trial in Prince George County Circuit Court in December 2007. During voir dire, the court asked the potential jurors the following: “‘Does any member of this panel believe that the state has got to present fingerprint evidence, DNA, blood sample evidence, ballistic evidence, any scientific evidence in order to convince you of the defendant’s guilt? In other words, do you think the state has a requirement to do that in all cases?’”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]