Maryland Court Rules on Witness Cross-Examination Rights
You're on trial, and the main witness against you has a criminal record and is on probation — but the judge won't let your lawyer ask about it. That's exactly what happened to Demitri Duhart in Howard County, Maryland. In November 2026, Maryland's Appellate Court ruled that the trial court acted within the law, and Duhart's constitutional right to confront witnesses was not violated.
What the Case Was About
On June 2, 2023, Quantonio Dunscomb was shot once outside a motel room in Jessup, Maryland. Police identified Demitri Anwar Duhart through motel surveillance footage and clothing found in his nearby apartment. A Howard County jury acquitted Duhart of attempted first-degree murder but convicted him of attempted second-degree murder, first-degree assault, use of a firearm in a crime of violence, and illegal firearm possession. The circuit court sentenced him to 35 years in prison.
The Core Legal Fight: Could the Defense Question the Witness?
Duhart's defense team wanted to cross-examine Dunscomb — the shooting victim and a key witness — about his probation status, prior drug distribution convictions, and the possibility that prosecutors had quietly decided not to charge him with anything. The defense argued this showed Dunscomb had a reason to lie: he might be testifying to stay out of trouble. The trial court blocked most of those questions, finding there was no evidence that Dunscomb actually knew about any deal or decision not to prosecute him.
Immigration Deadlines 2026 — Free
Download PDF with all key dates
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights both guarantee a defendant the right to confront witnesses — including the right to question them about bias. But Maryland's Appellate Court, in an opinion by Judge Zic filed November 2, 2026, held that this right has limits. Under Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4), a lawyer can cross-examine a witness about an expected benefit — but only if there is a real factual basis for that expectation. Because the record showed no pending charges against Dunscomb, no known decision to drop charges, and no other government action suggesting leniency, the court found the trial judge was right to limit the questioning. The jury still heard substantial evidence about Dunscomb's credibility, which satisfied the constitutional minimum.
The Immunity Instruction Question
Dunscomb testified under use and derivative use immunity — meaning the state could compel him to testify, but prosecutors could not use his own words against him in a future case. Duhart's lawyers asked the judge to give the jury a special instruction called MPJI-Cr 3:13 ("Witness Promised Benefit"), which tells jurors to be extra careful when a witness received something in exchange for testimony. The trial court refused. The Appellate Court agreed with that refusal: immunity that simply protects a witness from self-incrimination is not a "benefit" that makes the witness better off — it only shields him from the consequences of being forced to speak. A separate standard credibility instruction (MPJI-Cr 3:10) already told jurors to weigh the witness's motives and interests. On one point, the court ruled in Duhart's favor: his sentence for first-degree assault must merge into his sentence for attempted second-degree murder under the rule of lenity.
Why This Matters Beyond This Case
This ruling does not directly affect immigration cases, but it matters to anyone involved in U.S. criminal proceedings — including immigrants. A criminal conviction can trigger removal proceedings (deportation), affect a green card application, or block naturalization. Understanding how courts handle witness credibility and cross-examination rights helps immigrants and their families know what protections exist in the U.S. justice system. If you face criminal charges, the outcome can follow you through every immigration application you ever file.
What to Do
- If you or a family member faces criminal charges in the U.S., hire both a criminal defense attorney and an immigration lawyer — a conviction can affect your green card, work permit (EAD), or asylum case.
- Ask your criminal defense lawyer specifically whether any plea deal or conviction could be considered a "crime of moral turpitude" or an "aggravated felony" under immigration law — these categories carry the harshest immigration consequences.
- If you are already in removal proceedings and a witness testified against you, ask your immigration attorney whether that testimony can be challenged on credibility grounds.
- Keep records of any immunity agreements, plea deals, or prosecutorial decisions in your criminal case — these documents may be relevant if you later apply for asylum, a green card, or naturalization.
What to do, step by step — see our guide “Appealing to the BIA”.
Fishkin Law Firm, New York
Any immigrant charged with a crime in the U.S. should understand that the criminal court and the immigration court operate separately — a "not guilty" verdict does not automatically protect your immigration status, and even a conviction that results in probation can be enough to trigger removal proceedings. Under immigration law, certain convictions — including drug distribution offenses — are treated as aggravated felonies or crimes of moral turpitude, which can make you permanently inadmissible or deportable regardless of how long you have lived here. Talk to an immigration attorney before you accept any plea deal in a criminal case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a criminal conviction in the U.S. affect my green card or immigration status?
Yes. Many criminal convictions — including drug offenses, assault, and firearm charges — can make you deportable or permanently bar you from getting a green card, even if you have lived in the U.S. for years. The specific immigration consequences depend on the exact charge and how it is classified under federal immigration law.
What does 'use and derivative use immunity' mean, and does it help a witness in immigration court?
Use and derivative use immunity means the government cannot use a witness's own compelled testimony against that witness in a future criminal case. It does not erase prior convictions or protect the witness from immigration consequences based on those convictions. It is a narrow protection limited to how that specific testimony can be used.
What is the Confrontation Clause, and does it apply to immigration hearings?
The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause gives criminal defendants the right to cross-examine witnesses against them. Immigration removal hearings are civil proceedings, not criminal trials, so the full Sixth Amendment right does not automatically apply — but immigration judges do have discretion to allow cross-examination of government witnesses.
If I have a prior conviction, can I still apply for asylum or a green card?
It depends on the type of conviction. Some convictions — especially aggravated felonies — permanently bar asylum and most green card applications. Others may be waivable. An immigration attorney can review your specific record and tell you which applications, if any, are still open to you.