Maryland v. Tejada
Annotate this CaseRespondent Emanuel Tejada was convicted by a jury on two counts of attempted murder, armed robbery, and related offenses. Respondent and a co-defendant were scheduled to stand trial in Montgomery County. The trial was expected to last seven days. The jury selection process began with 60 prospective jurors. Midway through the exercise of peremptory challenges, the court noted that it would “run out of jurors” before the process was complete. Jury selection could not continue because the jury commissioner could not procure additional jurors to keep to the trial schedule. Defense counsel suggested the parties start over with the selection process the next day when more jurors would be available to them. While the court and counsel discussed what to do about jury selection, co-defendant’s counsel (not Respondent’s counsel) raised an objection on the selection process. Eventually a jury was empanelled, and it convicted Respondent of the charges against him. Respondent appealed the judgments of conviction, contending that the bifurcated jury selection process denied him the right to an informed and comparative rejection of prospective jurors. The State opted not to challenge the trial court’s judgment, but argued that Respondent failed to preserve his objection for appellate review. The Court of Special Appeals held that Respondent did preserve his objection to the jury selection process, and that the trial court erred in bifurcating the jury selection process. It vacated the convictions and ordered a new trial. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court did not err in finding the issue preserved for review, and its decision granting Respondent a new trial.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.