State v. Pratt
Court of Appeals of Maryland
398 A.2d 421 (1979)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
The State of Maryland (plaintiff) prosecuted Margaret Melton Pratt (defendant) for murdering her husband. Pratt claimed she was legally insane at the time. At trial, two of the five or more psychiatrists who examined Pratt after the killing accepted Pratt's claim. Over Pratt's objection, the State called Dr. Brian Crowley, another psychiatrist who examined Pratt. Crowley testified that originally, Pratt's own counsel retained him to conduct the examination, but that nevertheless the examination persuaded Crowley that Pratt was not legally insane at the time of the killing. In closing arguments, the State emphasized how Crowley would not give defense counsel the testimony counsel expected, and suggested counsel may have retained many experts before finding two who would say Pratt was insane. The jury found Pratt guilty. Pratt appealed to the Court of Special Appeals on the grounds that Crowley's testimony violated the attorney-client privilege. The court agreed and ordered a new trial. The State appealed to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Digges, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
