Background
In 2012, Marcella Holloman called Baltimore police for help with her adult son, Maurice Donald Johnson, who was experiencing a mental-health crisis. During an altercation, a responding officer shot and killed Johnson. The Baltimore Police Department and the Baltimore City State’s Attorney concluded that the shooting was justified, and the State’s Attorney declined to seek an indictment. In an earlier appeal, the Appellate Court of Maryland held that Holloman had a common-law right to seek to submit relevant material to a grand jury.
After reviewing Holloman’s material and conducting an investigation, a grand jury issued a presentment finding probable cause for voluntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment, and use of a firearm in a crime of violence. The State’s Attorney nevertheless declined to seek an indictment. The circuit court ruled that the grand jury could recommend charges through a presentment but could not independently return a true-bill indictment without a bill of indictment from the State’s Attorney. It also ruled that Holloman could not present the same matter to another grand jury and that portions of the proceedings should remain shielded to protect grand-jury secrecy.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court affirmed. It first held that Holloman had standing to appeal because she was a party challenging a final judgment that resolved her claimed rights and put her out of court. Her appeal challenged the circuit court’s legal rulings about grand-jury authority, not the grand jury’s deliberations or evidentiary decisions.
On the merits, the majority held that a Maryland grand jury receiving evidence from someone other than the State’s Attorney may investigate and issue a presentment finding probable cause, but that presentment is only a recommendation that the State’s Attorney seek an indictment. Without a bill of indictment submitted by the State’s Attorney, the grand jury cannot independently return a true-bill indictment, and its presentment does not itself become a charging document.
The court reasoned that Maryland state’s attorneys are constitutionally established officers whose broad charging discretion is protected by separation-of-powers principles. Courts may review whether that discretion was exercised illegally or unconstitutionally, but Holloman made no such allegation. The court also upheld the rulings that she had exhausted her common-law right to present this matter to a grand jury and that the matter should remain partially shielded to preserve grand-jury secrecy.
Key Takeaways
- A Maryland grand jury cannot independently return a true-bill indictment when the State’s Attorney has not submitted a bill of indictment.
- A citizen-initiated grand-jury presentment finding probable cause recommends prosecution but does not override the State’s Attorney’s charging discretion.
- A citizen who has exercised the common-law right to present material concerning a matter to a grand jury may not submit the same matter to successive grand juries.
Why It Matters
The decision defines the limit of Maryland’s common-law right allowing citizens to bring alleged criminal conduct to a grand jury. That right can prompt an investigation and probable-cause presentment, but it cannot compel an indictment when the elected State’s Attorney declines to pursue charges.
Judge Nazarian dissented, reasoning that Maryland grand juries retain common-law authority to originate charges and should be able to effectuate a probable-cause presentment through an indictment even without the State’s Attorney’s approval, while leaving the ultimate decision whether to prosecute to the State’s Attorney.