The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated a Maryland drug conviction Tuesday, ruling that the state's introduction of previously undisclosed evidence during trial violated the defendant's rights. The court remanded the case for further proceedings in a split 2-1 decision.
Robert Gary Moore was convicted in Maryland state court on charges of possession of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The conviction stemmed from evidence involving a plastic bag containing a substance the state alleged was cocaine.
The case took a critical turn on the second day of Moore's three-day trial when prosecutors introduced a previously undisclosed report describing the chain of custody for the plastic bag. According to the Fourth Circuit opinion, this newly disclosed report "could have been used to cast doubt on whether the State had tested the contents of the plastic bag, thus potentially undermining the sole evidence upon which the State relied to prove an essential element of its case."
Despite the late disclosure, the jury found Moore guilty on both counts. Moore subsequently pursued state court remedies unsuccessfully before filing a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland initially denied Moore's petition. Senior District Judge James K. Bredar presided over the lower court proceedings, which began with Moore's original filing in 2020.
However, the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the district court's analysis. Judge Berner wrote the majority opinion vacating the conviction, with Judge Benjamin joining. The majority found that the state's failure to disclose the chain of custody report earlier in the proceedings violated Moore's constitutional rights.
The timing of the evidence disclosure appears central to the Fourth Circuit's decision. Brady v. Maryland and its progeny require prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense in time for effective use. When evidence is disclosed late in trial, defendants may lack sufficient time to investigate or challenge the evidence effectively.
Judge Niemeyer filed a dissenting opinion, suggesting significant disagreement within the panel about the legal standards applicable to the case. The dissent indicates the judges differed on whether the late disclosure of the chain of custody report warranted reversal of Moore's conviction.
The case highlights ongoing tensions in criminal procedure regarding prosecutorial disclosure obligations. Defense attorneys frequently argue that late disclosure of evidence violates due process even when prosecutors eventually turn over the material. Prosecutors, meanwhile, often contend that disclosure during trial satisfies constitutional requirements if defendants have adequate opportunity to respond.
Chain of custody documentation proves particularly important in drug cases, where the integrity of physical evidence forms the foundation of the prosecution's case. Defense attorneys routinely scrutinize these records to identify gaps or inconsistencies that might create reasonable doubt about whether tested substances match those allegedly possessed by defendants.
The Fourth Circuit's decision could influence how Maryland prosecutors handle evidence disclosure in future drug cases. The ruling suggests courts will scrutinize not just whether evidence was disclosed, but whether the timing of disclosure allowed defendants meaningful opportunity to challenge the evidence.
Moore was represented by the Federal Public Defender's Office, with James Wyda serving as Federal Public Defender and Paresh S. Patel arguing the case. The Maryland Attorney General's Office represented the state, with Attorney General Anthony G. Brown on the brief and Andrew John DiMiceli arguing before the Fourth Circuit.
The case originated in the District of Maryland and proceeded through multiple levels of state and federal review before reaching the Fourth Circuit. Moore's initial federal petition was filed in 2020, indicating the lengthy appellate process typical in habeas corpus cases.
The Fourth Circuit's published opinion means the decision will serve as binding precedent for future cases within the circuit, which includes Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The published status suggests the court viewed the legal questions as sufficiently important to provide guidance for lower courts.
The remand order returns the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Fourth Circuit's opinion. The lower court must now determine appropriate relief for Moore, which could include ordering a new trial or other remedies.
The split decision reflects the complex constitutional questions surrounding prosecutorial disclosure obligations and their enforcement through federal habeas corpus review. The case joins a growing body of federal appellate decisions examining when late disclosure of evidence violates defendants' due process rights sufficiently to warrant overturning state court convictions.