FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ON NET
CONDENSED DECISION –SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES
Arthur
L. CROMWELL vs. State of MARYLAND
No.
2397 Fall 2023 Term
Argued
October 12, 2023 - Decided March 10, 2024
Unanimous opinion
by Martinez, Chief Justice – This case appears before this Court by writ of
certiorari issued to the Court of Appeals of Maryland to review its decision in
Cromwell v. State, 567 Md. 889, 107
A.3d 223 (2022). Cromwell contends his
Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was violated when his own
electronically recorded memories were used in court against him...[procedural
history omitted].
I
Petitioner
Arthur Cromwell was the president and head scientist at the Brain-Machine
Interface Corporation (“BMIC”) in Rockville ,
Maryland
As
with all breath-taking discoveries, there were questions about costs. Specifically, allegations arose that BMIC had
used test animals from small mammals to chimpanzees in any number of gruesome
and fatal experiments which had not been disclosed on grant applications as
required by law. The Maryland Office of
Special Prosecutor executed an otherwise valid search warrant on March 23, 2021
and seized, among other items, the complete data storage of Petitioner Cromwell
– in essence, a copy of his memories.
The
State of Maryland indicted Petitioner Cromwell
on fifty-two counts of felony aggravated animal cruelty, Ann. Code of Md. Montgomery County
Cromwell
contends he would not have been convicted absent the use of his memories, as there
were no documents remaining in existence concerning the experiments and no
other testimony was elicited. The
Attorney General of Maryland, before us in oral argument, concedes Cromwell’s
memories were pivotal, but contends there was no error.
II
The
Fifth Amendment provides, in relevant part, that “No person shall be compelled
in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...” Cromwell argues that when his memories were
played as evidence, he was essentially compelled to be a witness. Maryland
The
restriction against compelled self-incrimination is an ancient one in our law,
having been brought by the Puritans to America
The
Attorney General replies, quite naturally, that we have successively eliminated
or narrowed the privilege in Boyd. See,
e.g, Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322 (1973)(no privilege when handed
to a third person); Fisher v. United
States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)(producing documents not ‘testimonial’). Quoting Fisher,
the Attorney General argues “[s]everal of Boyd’s
express or implicit declarations have not stood the test of time.” Fisher,
supra at 407. Mechanically applying
our post-Boyd cases would seem to
make a result clear: using Cromwell’s own memories against him does not violate
the Fifth Amendment.
Such a conclusion
seems repugnant to the very idea of a “private inner sanctum of individual
feeling and thought” the Fifth Amendment was designed to protect. Bellis
v. United States , 417 U.S.
III
For
the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Appeals of Maryland
