Did the trial court err by letting the State to present, via a police
detective, a very prejudicial expert opinion wondering about the

where the detective in reality had observed Vaides maybe not take these actions?
TWO.
it avoided defense counsel from cross-examining Vaides’ alleged co-conspirator
about his enthusiasm for testifying on behalf of the State?
III. Did the trial court err in holding that there is no violation of both the Hicks concept

trial and arrest, the delay was overwhelmingly owing to their State and its
refusal to sever two unrelated cases, Vaides’ counsel over repeatedly argued against
postponement, the allegations concerned a simple street crime, and the
delay severely impaired Vaides’ capability to mount a complete and fair defense? 2
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A.
To the day of December 29, 2006, Baltimore Detective George Cannida collection
up monitoring in a commercial area of Baltimore City close to the intersection of
North and Druid Hill Avenues. (1T. 137. )1
Detective Cannida claimed he noticed,
on two separate occasions, unidentified individuals strategy Robert Giles and take part in
Short discussion. Giles would then walk the individuals across the street corner off of
The primary strip, behind a white carrying truck, and hand an unidentified deal to them in
Change for U.S. currency. (1T. 138, 162.) Immediately after each purchase,
Detective Cannida alerted his regional charge group via Nextel phone. (1T.
time, nevertheless, the arrest team was unable to track down the suspected purchaser. (1T.
140.)
Numerous other folks were nearby that day. (1T.
was standing near the corner of North and Druid Hill Avenues. (1T. Amy Goetz 164.) Detective
Cannida witnessed minimal contact between Giles and Vaides. He found Vaides and Giles
speak to one another at some time, but he wasn't close enough to know any discussion.
(1T. 158.) Vaides never accompanied Giles just about to happen.
toward Giles while Giles involved in the deals. (1T.

suspected purchaser. (1T. 173.) After Giles came back nearby, Detective
1
The test transcript is in two volumes, annotated as “1T.” (December 15, 2008) and
The pre-trial reading transcripts are in seven volumes, and are
cited as follows: e.g., (T. 5-6 (Vol. III). 3
Cannida said he found Giles hand money to Vaides. (1T. 147, 171-72.) Detective
Cannida couldn't estimate how much cash Giles passed Vaides, or whether it was the
same money Giles had received from the 2nd suspected purchaser. (1T. 171-73.)

Consumers. Vaides didn't interact at all with the first person. (1T. 160-61.)

he didn't notice any discussion between both. (1T. 169-70.) Vaides didn't
engage in any transactions with either individual. (1T. 160.)
After the charge team’s unsuccessful attempt at locating the 2nd suspected
purchaser, Detective Cannida led the group to charge Giles and Vaides. (1T. 142.)
Giles noticed the patrol vehicles approaching and went into a pawn shop. (1T. 144.) The
officers circled one time to the block. Giles then left the pawn shop, and grabbed an infant
stroller from the person nearby. (1T.
baby inside. As police approached, he shoved two zip lock bags of cocaine to the
stroller. (2T. 9.) The authorities arrested Giles and recovered the two bags of cocaine from
the stroller. (2T. 9.) Police recovered $227 from Giles. (2T. 9-10.)