State v. Matthews: Maryland Fails to Measure Up to Its New Expert Testimony Standard

Thomas Kiley

In State v. Matthews, the then-Maryland Court of Appeals considered the admissibility of expert testimony in Kirk Matthews’s trial for a double murder. The forensic scientist presented a conclusion on the height of an individual captured on security camera footage, but did not include multiple variables in her measurement because she could not quantify them. The Court of Appeals had to determine the admissibility of the expert testimony under the new standard adopted in Rochkind v. Stevenson, which adopted the federal Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. standard.

The court found that the testimony was admissible. The expert witness’s inability to calculate the uncertainty of some variables did not make the testimony inadmissible. There was no “analytical gap” between the expert witness’s opinion and the facts and data. The expert witness provided sufficient information to aid the trier of fact, and any issues with accuracy could be handled at trial. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony.

The Matthews decision indicates that Maryland courts are unlikely to properly analyze scientific testimony in future cases. The court failed to recognize an analytical gap between the precise conclusion and unknown variables that should have barred its admission. Additionally, the court did not analyze other factors affecting the testimony’s reliability, nor did it properly frame the scientific method that it was analyzing. As a result, Maryland courts will likely make the same mistakes as other jurisdictions that have adopted the federal expert testimony standard. The proper way to analyze scientific expert testimony has been a consistent problem for courts, and the reasoning of the court in Matthews indicates that Maryland courts will be unlikely to measure up to the task of properly analyzing scientific testimony.