Markham v. State

Maryland Court of Special Appeals · 2009 · Evidence

189 Md. App. 140 (2009)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidencePublic trialFingerprint evidenceSpeedy trialSufficiency of the evidenceSixth Amendmentcourtroom closureWaller

Facts

During Markham’s murder trial, the State requested that the courtroom be closed during the testimony of Beverly Lancaster, proffering that she had received threats that she would be killed if she testified. The trial court granted the request and excluded all persons not involved in the case during her testimony, but it made no case-specific findings on the record supporting closure. The State also introduced fingerprint testimony based on the ACE-V method, and Markham sought a Frye-Reed hearing, which the court denied. Trial proceedings, including voir dire, began on the Hicks date, but the jury was not sworn until the next day.

Issue

Whether the trial court violated Markham’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial by closing the courtroom during a witness’s testimony without making case-specific findings on the record. The court also considered whether ACE-V fingerprint testimony required a Frye-Reed hearing, whether trial commenced within the Hicks deadline when voir dire began on the deadline but the jury was sworn the next day, and whether the evidence was sufficient on the Nichols murder counts.

Rule

Before closing a courtroom, the Waller test requires that the party seeking closure advance an overriding interest likely to be prejudiced, the closure be no broader than necessary, the court consider reasonable alternatives, and the court make findings adequate to support the closure. In Maryland, case-specific findings on the record are required to justify courtroom closure, and failure to make them violates the public-trial right and requires a new trial. Fingerprint identification evidence, including use of the ACE-V method, is sufficiently generally accepted that a Frye-Reed hearing is not required, and for Rule 4-271/C.P. § 6-103 purposes, trial begins at the start of voir dire.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a robbery trial in Baltimore, the prosecutor asks the judge to clear the courtroom during Maya Torres's testimony, proffering that Torres received threats from the defendant's cousin. The judge orders all spectators out for that witness's testimony but says only, "We'll do this for safety," without discussing alternatives or making any factual findings on the record.

If the defendant is convicted and appeals, what is the strongest argument regarding the closure?

Explanation. Before closing a courtroom, the court must satisfy the Waller requirements, including making findings adequate to support the closure. Under the majority opinion, even where witness intimidation may justify closure, the trial court must place case-specific findings on the record so an appellate court can review necessity and narrow tailoring. Failure to do so violates the public-trial right.