Klein v. Martin · ¶22

Martin argued that this computer was the one to which Carter had referred in her testimony and that the report tended to discredit her claim that he had used the laptop at her home to research silencers. The postconviction court agreed and ordered a new trial, but a unanimous panel of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed on the ground that the report was not material. Based on its review of the whole record, the court concluded that even if the report had “totally discredit[ed]” Carter, the other evidence linking Martin to the crime was so “strong” that there was no “reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different.” Id., at 112a, 115a. The State's high court denied review, Martin v. State, 466 Md. 554, 222 A. 3d 1075 (2020) (table), as did this Court, see Martin v. Maryland, 590 U. S. 973 (2020).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.