The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated when the defense was precluded from cross-examining a witness about hallucinations and his potential sentence prior to entering into a plea agreement. Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105, 153-54, 118 A.3d 925, 952-53 (2015). The court found that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of a witness’s expectation of benefit with respect to pending charges, and failed to show sufficient factual foundation for a cross-examination regarding the expectation. Id. at 138-39, 118 A.3d at 944. In addition, the court found that, although not protected by attorney-client privilege, exclusion of co-defendant’s counsel’s testimony was proper because of its prejudicial nature and limited probative value.
Ellis, Meghan E.
"Recent Development: Peterson v. State: Limitations on Defense Cross-Examination are Permitted When the Testimony Lacks a Factual Foundation, Is Overly Prejudicial, or Has Not Been Adequately Preserved,"
University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 46:
2, Article 6.
Available at: https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol46/iss2/6