Background
Devin K. Curry was tried in Baltimore City Circuit Court on a first-degree murder charge arising from the 2022 shooting death of Daniel Pitts. After closing arguments, the jury deliberated for nearly two days. It requested the complete trial recording, which the trial judge declined to provide after hearing from counsel.
During deliberations, the judge communicated with jurors without first notifying or consulting counsel. The judge later told counsel that the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict and was split 9-3 in favor of conviction. Over Curry’s objection and request for an Allen charge, the judge declared a mistrial. Curry moved to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds, but the motions judge denied the motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed. It held that Curry’s challenge to the trial judge’s ex parte jury communications was moot because the remedy for a violation of Maryland Rule 4-326(d) would be a new trial, and the mistrial already entitled Curry to a new trial.
The court further held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in finding manifest necessity for a mistrial. The record supported a conclusion that the jury was genuinely deadlocked after nearly two days of deliberations, and the judge was not required to use particular measures—such as replaying trial testimony or giving an Allen charge—to attempt to break the impasse. Because the mistrial was manifestly necessary, double jeopardy did not bar retrial and the motions judge properly denied Curry’s motion to dismiss.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant’s challenge to undisclosed jury communications may be moot when a mistrial has already provided the new trial that would be the remedy for the claimed error.
- A genuinely deadlocked jury can establish manifest necessity for a mistrial, permitting retrial despite the defendant’s objection.
- Maryland counsel should ask court personnel about MDEC documents with heightened security settings before assuming absent docket entries or Appeal Index materials were never filed.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the substantial discretion trial judges retain in determining whether a deadlocked jury can productively continue deliberating. It also confirms that courts need not employ a particular deadlock-breaking procedure before declaring a mistrial supported by manifest necessity.
For appellate practitioners, the opinion highlights an MDEC record-access issue: documents marked “Judge/Court Personnel Only” remain part of the record but may be invisible on the docket and omitted from the Appeal Index.