ADNAN SYED APPEAL

download ADNAN SYED APPEAL

of 109

  • date post

    01-Jan-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    215
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of ADNAN SYED APPEAL

  • iiiI

    I

    I

    I

    I

    I

    I

    I

    I

    I

    I

    I

    I

    I

    IN THECOURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

    SEPTEMBER TERM, 2000

    NO. 923

    ADNAN SYED,Appellant

    V.

    STATE OF MARYLAND,Appellee

    FEB 8 7 ZOOZ

    BYGOUBTOFSPFCIAL_P_.ALB

    APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY(HONORABLE WANDA KEYES HEARD, PRESIDING)

    BRIEF OF APPELLANT "

    WARREN A. BROWNWARREN A. BROWN, P.A.1200 Court Square Building200 East Lexington StreetBaltimore, Maryland 21202(410) 576-3900

    Lisa J. Sansone, EsquireLaw Office of Lisa J. Sansone1002 Frederick RoadBaltimore, Maryland 21228(410) 719-0221

    Attorneys for Appellant

  • IIiIII!III!IIIIIII

    TABLE OFCONTENTS

    P_

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................... ii

    STATEMENT OF THE CASE ......................................... 1

    QUESTIONS PRESENTED .......................................... 2

    STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................ 3

    ARGUMENT ...................................................... 17

    A. THE STATE COMMITTED PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT,VIOLATED BRADY AND VIOLATED APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESSRIGHTS WHEN IT SUPPRESSED FAVORABLE MATERIAL EVIDENCE OFAN ORAL SIDE AGREEMENT WITH ITS KEY WITNESS, AND WHEN ITINTRODUCED FALSE AND MISLEADING EVIDENCE, AND THE TRIALCOURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN PROHIBITING APPELLANTFROM PRESENTING THIS EVIDENCE TO THE JURY ............. 17

    1. The State suppressed favorable material evidence and introduced andelicited false and misleading testimony relating to the plea agreement withits key witness in violation of Brad2t .......................... 18

    2. The State's actions constituted prosecutorial misconduct ....... 41

    3. The trial court committed reversible error in prohibiting Appellant fromcalling Benaroya and recalling Wilds as a witness .............. 43

    4. The trial court committed reversible error in restricting the cross-examination of Wilds ...................................... 44

    5. The trial court committed reversible error in denying Appellant's motionto strike the testimony of Wilds .............................. 47

    6. The trial court committed reversible'error in precluding Appellant fromcalling Ms. Julian as a witness ............................... 48

    !

  • I!

    I!IIIIIIi

    II!II

    7. The trial court committed reversible error in denying Appellant's motionto disclose documents and information from the State ............ 49

    8. The trial court committed reversible error in denying Appellant's motionto question Mr. Urick out of the presence of the jury ............. 50

    B. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING HEARSAY IN THE FORMOF A LETTER FROM THE VICTIM TO APPELLANT, WHICH IS HIGHLYPREJUDICIAL ................................................. 51

    C. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING THE INTRODUCTION OFTHE VICTIM'S 62-PAGE DIARY, WHICH CONSTITUTED IRRELEVANTHIGHLY PREJUDICIAL HEARSAY .............................. 55

    CONCLUSION ..................................................... 63

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................... 64

    PERTINENT AUTHORITIES ......................................... 65

    APPENDIX ........................................................ 75

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

    Cases

    Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51,109 S.Ct. 333 (1988) ....... 41

    Banks v. State, 92 Md. App. 422, 438, 608 A.2d 1249 (1992) .... 51, 54, 55, 58, 59,61

    Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963) .......... 18

    Buckeye Powder CO. v. DuPont Powder C.o..,.,248 U.S. 55,39 S.Ct. 38 (1918) .................................. 60

    Case v. State., 118 Md. App, 279, 702 A.2d 777 (1997) .......... 61

    Clark v. State., 364 Md. 611,774 A.2d 1136 (2001) ............. 18, 41

    ii

    i

  • I!,III!IiI,lIiliiIII

    Cluster v.. Cole, 21 Md. App. 242, 319 A.2d 320 (1974) ......... 63 --

    Commonwealth v. DelValle, 351 Mass. 489,221 N.E.2d 922 (1966) .............................. 60

    Commonwealth v. Gilday, 382 Mass. 166, 415 N.E.2d 797 (1980) . 37

    Commonwealth v. Hill, 432 Mass. 704, 739 N.E.2d 670 (2000) ... 37

    Conyers v. State, __ Md. ____, __ A.2d __(No. 26. Sept. Term 2001) (filed February 5, 2002) ........ 18, 30, 31, 33-37,.................................................. 39, 40, 47, 48, 49

    Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105 (1974) .......... 45

    Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 106 S.Ct. 1431 (1986) ... 45

    E.I. du Pont de Nemours & CO. v. Forma-Pack, Inc., 351 Md. 396,718 A.2d 1129 (1998) ............................... 47, 49, 50

    Fontaine v. State., 134 Md. App. 275, 759 A.2d 1136,cert. _denied, 362 Md. 188 (2000) ..................... 18

    Marshall v. State, 346 Md. 186, 695 A.2d 184 (1997) ........... 44, 46-49, 51

    Martin v. State, __ Ala. Crim App. ___,2001 Ala. Crim. App. Lexis 298, 21 (2001) ............... 32

    McNeil v. State, 112 Md. App. 434, 685 A.2d 83.9 (1996) ....... 41

    Moosavi v. State, 355 Md. 651,736 A.2d 285 (1999) ........... 63

    Moye v. State, 139 Md. App. 538, 776 A.2d 120,cert. granted, 366 Md. 274 (2001) ...................... 63

    Napue v. People of Ill., 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173 (1959) ....... 32, 36, 37

    Richardson v. State 324 Md. 611,598 A.2d 180 (1991) .......... 62

    Simmons v. State, 333 Md. 547, 636 A.2d 463,

    o,.

    111

    !

  • Ii

    i

    !II!I!iIIiII!I!

    cert. denied, 513 U.S. 815, 115 S.Ct. 70 (1994) ........... 45

    State v. Cox., 298 Md. 173,468 A.2d 319 (1983) ............... 45

    Taliaferro v, State, 295 Md. 376, 456 A.2d 29,cert. denied, 461 U.S. 948, 103 S.Ct. 2114 (1983) ......... 47, 48

    Trupp v. Wolff, 24 Md. App. 588, 335 A.2d 178,cert. denied, 275 Md. 757 (1975) ...................... 50

    United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S.Ct. 3375 (1985) .... 32

    United States v. Brown., 490 F.2d 758, 763 n. 10 (D.C.Cir. 1973) .. 60

    United States v. Day, 591 F.2d 861 (D.C.Cir.1978) ............. 60

    United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 97 S.Ct. 2044 (1977) ... 41

    United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S.Ct. 455 (1971) ...... 41

    University_ of Maryland Medical Systems Corp. v. Malory,__ Md. App. ___, __ A.2d __ (No. 1883, Sept. Term, 2000)(Filed Oct. 31, 2001) (2001 WL 1335643) ............... 47, 48

    Wilson v. State, 363 Md. 333,768 A.2d 675 (200_) . ........... 31, 33-38, 40

    Maryland Rule 4-242

    Maryland Rule 5-401

    Maryland Rule 5-801

    Maryland Rule 5-802

    Maryland Rule 5-803

    Statutes, Rules, Constitutional Provisions

    ..................................... 24, 42

    ..................................... 61

    ..................................... 53

    ..................................... 53

    ..................................... 54,55,61,62

    iv

    I

  • I!

    D

    IIlll,IIIllIIIIII

    Maryland Rule 8-131 ............................. _ ....... 63

    Maryland Rule 8-504 ..................................... 63

    U.S. Const. Amend. VI .................................... 44, 46

    U.S. Const. Amend. XIV ......................... -.......... 40

    Article 21, Md. Decl. Rights ................................ 44, 46

    Article 24, Md. Decl. Rights ................................ 40

  • Il

    !iIIIIIIIi!II

    !I

    IN THE -COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

    SEPTEMBER TERM, 2000

    NO. 923

    ADNAN SYED,Appellant

    V.

    STATE OF MARYLAND,Appellee

    APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY(HONORABLE WANDA KEYES HEARD, PRESIDING)

    BRIEF OF APPELLANT

    I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

    On February 25, 2000, Appellant was convicted by a jury in Baltimore City, the

    Honorable Wanda Keyes Heard presiding, of the following offenses: first degree murder,

    robbery, kidnapping and false imprisonment. I On June 6, 2000, Judge Heard sentenced

    Appellant as follows: life imprisonment for first degree murder; 30 years imprisonment for

    kidnapping, consecutive to the life sentence; 10 years imprisonment for robbery concurrent

    to 30 years for kidnapping and consecutive to the life imprisonment sentence; and the trial

    court merged the false imprisonment with the kidnapping count.

    IA first trial ended in a mistrial on December 15, 1999 after the jury overheard adifferent trial judge at a bench conference refer to defense counsel as a "liar." (12/15/99-253)

    I

  • Iiii!IIIIiIiIIIiII

    II. QUESTIONS PRESENTED

    A. Whether the State Committed Prosecutorial Misconduct, Violated Br_Lo__dand Violated Appellant's Due Process Rights When it Suppressed FavorableMaterial Evidence of an Oral Side Agreement with its Key Witness, and Whenit Introduced False and Misleading Evidence, and the Trial Court CommittedReversible Error In Prohibiting Appellant from Presenting this Evidence to theJury?

    1. Whether the State suppressed favorable material evidence andintroduced and elicited false and misleading testimony relating to the pleaagreement with its key witness in violation of Brads,?

    2. Whether the State's actions constituted prosecutorial misconduct?

    3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in prohibitingAppellant from calling Benaroya and recalling Wilds as a witness?

    4. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in restricting thecross-examination of Wilds?

    5. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in denyingAppellant's motion to strike the testimony of Wilds?

    6. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in precludingAppellant from calling Ms. Julia