Custodial Interrogation of Minors - Admissibility of Statements (Exonerated 5 Act)
HB 626, titled the Exonerated 5 Act, creates a new rule governing the admissibility of statements made by minors during custodial interrogation. Under the bill, if a law enforcement officer intentionally uses information the officer knows is false to elicit a statement from a minor, there is a rebuttable presumption that the statement was involuntary and therefore inadmissible in a juvenile or criminal proceeding against the minor. The bill applies only to minors and only in the custodial interrogation setting.
The presumption can be overcome if the State proves by clear and convincing evidence that the statement was voluntary and was not made in response to the false information used by the officer. The bill adds a new section to the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article and takes effect October 1, 2026.
HB 626 would amend Maryland law by adding Section 10-926 to the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, creating a specific evidentiary rule for juvenile and criminal cases involving minors. It would limit the use of statements obtained through intentional deception by police during custodial interrogation, shifting the burden to the State to rebut inadmissibility by clear and convincing evidence. The bill would affect law enforcement interrogation practices, prosecutors, defense counsel, and courts handling juvenile and criminal proceedings involving minors.
The available context shows the bill was introduced and assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, with a hearing scheduled, but no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts are provided. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a juvenile justice and wrongful-conviction safeguard, suggesting support from sponsors concerned with protecting minors from coercive interrogation tactics. Because no hearing testimony or vote history is available, there is no documented opposition or consensus in the provided materials.
The main point of contention is likely to be the use of false information by law enforcement during interrogations of minors. Supporters would view the bill as a safeguard against unreliable or coerced statements and a protection for vulnerable youth, while critics may argue it restricts a common investigative technique and could make prosecutions more difficult. Another likely issue is the bill’s rebuttable presumption and the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, which places a meaningful burden on the State to prove voluntariness.