‘Serial’ Case to be Revisited, Prosecutor Asks for New Trial for Adnan Syed

Adnan Syed, who was convicted in 2000 for the murder of his girlfriend Hae Min Lee, may have a chance for a new trial. His case came to national attention through the hit podcast ‘Serial’, and was later revisited by an HBO documentary. There was a substantial question whether the conviction against Mr. Syed was correct, though the appeal had been upheld. However, a new appeal led to a ruling in 2018 that he should be entitled to a new trial, but that decision was reversed by the highest Court in Maryland.

Earlier this year, Mr. Syed’s attorneys approached the Sentencing Review Unit at the Baltimore prosecutor’s office, and asked them to conduct a new review of the case. Subsequent to that investigation, prosecutors indicate there is new evidence that should entitle Mr. Syed to having the prior conviction set aside, and be given a new trial.

During the investigation, prosecutors (basically a conviction integrity unit), uncovered additional evidence that had not been disclosed to the defense. Most notably, different suspect were known to the prosecutors, they were not properly ruled out, and related information was not given to the defense. There was another witness who said the suspects had motive to kill the victim, and threatened her, saying he would make her disappear, that he would kill her. Obviously that is relevant evidence to Mr. Syed’s defense, and should have been turned over to his attorneys prior to the trial. This type of evidence is known as ‘Brady’ evidence, and prosecutors have a duty to disclose.

Mr. Syed has always maintained his innocence, and there were always questions surrounding his conviction. It looks likely that he will get a chance to have another day in court, and increases the likelihood of finding out what actually happened to Ms. Lee.

DUI on a Golf Cart (and Fleeing!)

Alex Acevedo via CCSO

This week a Collier County man from Immokalee was arrested for drunk driving in a golf cart when deputies tried to pull him over. According to reports, Alex Acevedo saw the cops, pulled over, tossed a can out the side of his cart, and then sped off. He got to a nearby residence, tossed his cell phone to someone before being detained. Deputies indicate he smelled strongly of alcohol, had trouble maintaining his balance, and refused to do exercises. He was arrested and charged with DUI and Resisting an Officer.

Notably, Mr. Acevedo actually got lucky. He could have been charged with Fleeing, which is a felony. The golf cart is technically a vehicle, and he left the stop– fleeing does not require high speeds– so he could have been charged with a felony in addition to the misdemeanor resisting charge. That’s probably some fair discretion to leave it at DUI, it’s not like he was on a high speed frolic! Again, the attempt to get away from the original charge was worse than the underlying offense.

Apparently, fleeing in a golf cart is not that unusual. A couple years ago in Martin County, several men fled a stop. One of them ran onto a golf course, stole a cart from some golfers as they played, and continued to flee. As golf carts are not very fast, he was “immediately” captured by deputies and taken into custody. Newsweek covered that case, and cited several other recent occurrences. So, fleeing on a golf cart is not that rare, but I suspect escaping on one doesn’t happen very often.

Charlotte County Teacher Charged with Harboring a Runaway Minor in her Home

simpson mug shotCharlotte County teacher Kelly Simpson, 31, has been charged with Interference with Custody of a Minor. Charlotte deputies allege that she picked up the minor from an unknown location, and knowing his missing/endangered status, concealed him inside her home. That’s all the details available right now. It’s important not to jump to conclusions of guilt, perhaps the minor had fled an unsafe circumstance (or convinced her as much), and she was acting in the child’s interest. She is innocent until proven guilty.

10-Year Anniversary for my Crimcourts Blog

10 years ago I posted my first blog on here. 1,322 posts later we’re still going strong. Not as strong as I used to- I post much less frequently nowadays between keeping busy with the job and growing kids that have gotten involved in all kinds of activity. Thanks to everyone that has sent me post ideas over the years, I wish I could have written a post for all of them. WordPress tells me I’ve had over 285,000 page views and over 180,000 unique visitors, which is kind of crazy.

I thought the anniversary might be a good time for a little trip down memory lane.

My all time most viewed post was a legal update: “”Important Changes to Florida’s DUI Laws: Legistlative Update 2013

Some of the more popular subjects over the years were Zimmerman, Amanda Knox, NFL Cheerleaders, and Ashley Toye (of the Cash Feenz cases). Also, the Sievers case got a lot of attention, though it didn’t seem to have the national appeal that drove up numbers on the others.

One of my favorite subjects was the shark trial, where a man claimed self-defense for taking a shark: “The Shark Trial Recap

Self-defense has been one of the more interesting repeat topics we’ve discussed on crimcourts, probably in part due to timing. I started writing this not too long after the Stand Your Ground Law has been enacted, and the Florida courts have been a trying ground for that policy. Also, being Florida, we’ve seen self-defense claimed for Bears, the aforementioned shark, and even an iguana.

Sometimes I like to think it would be fun to do videos, but I really don’t have the time. I don’t have as much time as I’d like to spend on the blog, as it has been fun, but I’ll keep posting whenever I can find time so follow me here and on Twitter.

Florida Juveniles can now Expunge Certain Records

Juveniles who complete court-ordered diversion programs for several types of charges will now be able to get those records expunged. A bipartisan effort passed the legislature unanimously and was signed into law by Governor DeSantis a few weeks ago. It does not extend to forcible felonies. This is limited to those who complete diversion, which generally involves first-time offenders with non-violent charges that are ultimately dropped upon completion of the diversion programs.

This is another good step to meaningful criminal justice reform. I’d like to see all charges that get dropped eligible for expungement. Right now, some adult charges for people who are acquitted, or even not filed on, cannot be expunged if the alleged offender has a prior conviction, even if it is unrelated. Imagine being acquitted of a false allegation only for the arrest to remain a public record. More work needs to be done for criminal justice reform, but it is always good to see progress.

I Found a Good Explainer on the Depp / Heard Verdict (Updated)

*Update*- There are indications on the internet that the article I cited as a good explainer was plagiarized from an earlier Tweet-thread by Natalie Whittingham Burrell: @natlawyerchic on Twitter. Ms. Whittingham Burrell’s thread predates the ATL article – she posted on June 2, per Twitter. ATL indicates in an Ed note that they received the draft article on June 3. So, while the language is different, the issues raised, the discrepancies cited and even case law references are the same. I’m going to leave my post which references the Warshow article on ATL, but I’m going to add links to the Whittingham-Burrell thread, which, even if it was not plagiarized, had the scoop on ATL. Also, Ms. Whittingham-Burrell included some photographs in her thread that are very useful for context.

I was only able to watch small fractions of the trial, and edited posts on social media often don’t shed much light on the subject, so I’m happy to share a more thorough analysis. Out-of-context clips can give one a lopsided view of a trial, when it needs to be seen in totality to truly understand the verdict. I found an excellent explainer from Diana Warshow on Above the Law that really digs into the allegations and the evidence presented to the jury. This is about the most comprehensive one I’ve seen, and it addresses many of the questions I’ve heard about why the jury found in favor of Depp, despite Heard claiming evidence of injuries.

One issue this article doesn’t get into is the likability of witnesses, which goes heavily to their credibility. Johnny Depp is a huge movie star whose testimony was generally well-received by outside observers, judging by the social media reaction. Amber Heard, while being a move star in her own right, is not as well known or successful as Depp has been, and her testimony was not apparently as well-received by the general public as indicated on social media. In light of the verdict, one suspects that the perception of the testimony, both from a likability standpoint, and in light of contradictions pointed out in the ATL article, the jury certainly found Mr. Depp’s testimony more credible.

I’m not taking sides on Team Depp or Team Heard, but the jury who listened to weeks of testimony had a clear winner in awarding millions more to Mr. Depp.

Again, Twitter commentator Natalie Whittingham-Burrell had an excellent tweet-thread with some reasons why Depp won.

Club Blu Murder Trial continues after one of the Prosecutors Passes Away

Over the weekend, Assistant State Attorney Anthony Kunasek passed away. Mr. Kunasek was one of two prosecutors handling the trial of Kierra Russ, one of the co-defendants in the shooting at Club Blu several years ago in Fort Myers. Russ is charged with two counts of murder, as well as conspiracy for murder, though she is not alleged to be one of the shooters. The Sheriff’s department and the State Attorney’s Office have confirmed that it was not murder and deemed the death not suspicious. People have been speculating online that there may have been foul play, especially as the sudden death came in the midst of a murder trial with alleged gang affiliations, but there has been no evidence to support that theory, and that is not a likely explanation.

Beyond the tragedy of losing Mr. Kunasek, a long-time employee of the SAO, the State faced a challenge of what do to with the trial. Assistant State Attorney Sara Miller is the lead attorney on the case, and the State has decided to go forward. If the state had decided not to go forward, they could have requested a mistrial under the circumstances. However, had they been granted a mistrial, the Defendant would have challenged the State’s ability to retry the case due to the Constitutional Prohibition against double jeopardy. Generally, the State only gets to try somebody one time. Alternatively, the State could have asked to continue the case for a period of time in order to be prepared to go forward.

Ultimately, the State made the assuredly difficult decision to go forward on Monday without Mr. Kunasek. It was the last day of evidence- the parties had hoped to conclude evidence on Friday, but had a few witnesses left to testify before resting. The case was scheduled for closing arguments today: jury deliberations are now underway. It is a challenging case to prove, as Ms. Russ is being charged as a principal to the crime, as she was not one of the shooters.

This is a sad situation for the legal community. My heart goes out for those who knew Mr. Kunasek, especially his friends and family. I worked with him during my time at the SAO many years ago, and knew him as a talented trial attorney, a sentiment I’ve heard echoed time and again. Condolences for anyone who was affected by his passing.

*UPDATE* The Jury found Kierra Russ Guilty of two counts of second-degree murder and a count of conspiracy to commit murder. She faces life in prison at sentencing on June 6.

Woman Who Stabbed Mother to Death Enters Plea for 15 Years in Prison

Mariya Kelly stabbed her mother one time in the chest. The knife penetrated 9 cm, piercing the membrane around the heart, and puncturing an important artery. Her mother, Melissa Kelly, quickly succumbed to blood loss from the injury. Today, Mariya Kelly entered a plea to Manslaughter charges, and pursuant to an agreement, was sentenced to 15 years in Florida State Prison. Ms. Kelly was just 21-years old when she killer her mother.

Mariya Kelly

Ms. Kelly had claimed self-defense, saying her mother attacker her and struck her in the head prior to her using the knife, with which she had been cutting strawberries in the kitchen. We covered the Stand Your Ground Motion before Judge Branning a few weeks ago, and the court did not find that she was justified in using deadly force that could have allowed the case to be dismissed before trial. She faced a jury trial, and a potential 30-year sentence, before accepting the plea offer.

The Stand Your Ground hearing was emotional, including testimony from family members about the incident and previous disputes with her mother. Several family members also testified at the sentencing hearing today, including her brothers, one of whom testified they hoped she rots in jail, while the other called her a “murderer” and a “monster.” There was also testimony that she had previously been part of a cult known as the “Carbon Nation”, which is known for polygamy and nudism, but there is no indication that had anything to do with the incident involving her mother. Without a doubt, the situation was a tragedy and that the single strike with a deadly weapon tore a family apart. In Florida, convicts must serve 85% of their sentence, so she will not be eligible for release for more than a decade.

Cape Coral Woman Who Stabbed Her Mother to Death Claims Self-Defense

Mariya Kelly, who was arrested in 2020 and charged with Manslaughter with a Weapon in the killing of her mother, filed a Stand Your Ground motion to have her charges dismissed. Essentially, she is arguing that she was justified in using force against her mother in the incident. Florida’s Stand Your Ground law permits the Defense to have the charges thrown out prior to trial unless the state is able to prove the the force was not justified.

It is undisputed in this case that the alleged victim’s death was caused by a knife wielded by Ms. Kelly. The Defense argues that the mother was the aggressor. The legal question is whether the fear claimed by Ms. Kelly justifies her use of deadly force against the victim, who was her mother. There was a single injury from one stab wound to the chest which was fatal.

At the Stand Your Ground hearing today, the Defendant’s brother gave dramatic testimony as a witness to the event. He testified that their mother was unarmed, but that an argument ensued and that the alleged victim took multiple swings at the Defendant, before the Defendant struck her mother one time with the knife. The victim’s mother, the grandmother of the Defendant, testified to a prior incident of the alleged victim beating Ms. Kelly.

Ms. Kelly took the stand to testify about the incident. She testified that her mother got upset and attacked her, flailing wildly and striking her several times about the head and upper torso. She said she was already holding the knife because she was preparing strawberries for her young daughter. She said the victim saw the knife and attacked her, when she wouldn’t put it down. She testified that she was scared, due to the prior beating and since her mother was quite a bit larger than she was (some six inches and 70 pounds). She said she struck her out of fear, one time to stop the attack. She admitted on cross that her mother was unarmed, and did not threaten her verbally, but that she was afraid of what might happen.

The legal question for whether the use of force is justified turns not on whether the victim was armed, but whether the Defendant had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury at the time of the offense. While that fear is difficult to show when only one person is armed, it’s not unheard of. The recent Tampa case of Curtis Reeves is a high-profile example. Reeves was involved in a dispute at a movie theater, and the other man threw popcorn at him. Reeves also asked for a dismissal under the Stand Your Ground law, but the motion for immunity was denied. However, he successfully argued self-defense at trial and was acquitted by a jury just last month. Key to his defense was his compelling testimony before the jury about his fear at the time.

It was a sad, difficult day in court today. Regardless of the outcome, the case is clearly a tragedy. The judge denied the motion to dismiss, but the case will proceed to a trial, potentially starting at the end of this month.

Florida Supreme Court to Hear Marsy’s Law Challenge

Florida Supreme Court

The Florida Supreme Court has accepted a case that deals with Florida’s ‘Marsy’s Law’- a legal provision that – among other things – prohibits the release of personal information for victims of crime. Since it was passed as an amendment to the Florida Constitution, it has been the subject of much litigation for First Amendment as well as its criminal ramifications. The case now before the Florida Supreme Court deals with First Amendment implications, specifically the release to media of law enforcement names when the officers are also implicated as the victims. The irony in this case is that one of the officers shot a man named Tony McDade, but claims that McDade’s actions made the officer a victim. Officers have sued to try to prevent their agency from releasing their names to the press, while the city hoped to release the names in the interest of police accountability.

The media has countered that allowing officers to be covered by the law would undercut the state’s open records laws. Florida has very broad laws allowing for publishing public records, often referred to as Sunshine Laws. However, though the name suggests Marsy’s Law is a law, it’s actually a Constitutional provision, which may end up trumping the open record laws. And while the First Amendment protects the right of media to publish information, it does not compel agencies to release information. The appellate court previously sided with the officers, ruling that they were entitled to the protection. Whether or not the policy is a good one is not before the court.