Appeals Court Reverses Windsor Mill Man’s Murder Conviction, Orders New Trial

A Windsor Mill man serving life in prison for a fatal 2021 shooting outside a Baltimore County bar will get a new trial after a Maryland appeals court reversed his murder conviction.

The Appellate Court of Maryland ruled that jurors should not have been allowed to hear Jamell William Smith ask for an attorney and invoke his right to remain silent during a police interrogation.

The court ordered a new trial for Smith, who was convicted in Baltimore County Circuit Court of first-degree murder and use of a firearm in a crime of violence in the killing of Darrin Barnes.

Barnes was shot outside B.J. Mallards, near Ingleside Avenue and Johnnycake Road, in the Gwynn Oak area, shortly after 12:40 a.m. on June 14, 2021. A woman was also shot but survived. Smith and Barnes allegedly had fought two days before the shooting.

Circuit Court Judge Mickey Norman sentenced Smith to life in prison for Barnes’ murder, plus a consecutive 20 years for the firearm conviction.

In an unreported opinion filed Aug. 5, a three-judge appellate panel concluded that the trial court made a mistake when it allowed the jury to hear an un-redacted recording of Smith’s police interview.

Smith, 38, initially agreed to speak with Baltimore County police after being advised of his Miranda rights. During the interview, Detective Jason Metz began asking Smith about a blue Acura and several people investigators believed were connected to the case, according to the appellate opinion.

Smith then told the detective, “I want a lawyer because I don’t understand.” He also said he was not going to answer additional questions about other people.

Metz ended the interview, but at Smith’s trial, the defense asked Norman to prevent the jury from hearing the portion of the recording in which Smith requested a lawyer and said he would not answer more questions. Norman denied the request, and prosecutors played the entire recording for the jury.

The appellate court said that was error.

In its written opinion, the court rejected the state’s argument that Smith’s request for a lawyer was ambiguous because he continued talking and appeared primarily frustrated by the detective’s questions.

Smith’s statement that he wanted a lawyer was an “unambiguous invocation” of his right to counsel, the appellate panel concluded. He also essentially invoked his right to remain silent when he said he would not answer additional questions, according to the opinion.

The appellate judges wrote that a defendant’s invocation of those rights generally cannot be introduced as evidence against him. That remains true, the court said, even when a defendant initially agrees to speak with police and later decides not to answer certain questions.

The opinion noted the danger that jurors could interpret a defendant’s decision to stop talking or request an attorney as evidence of guilt.

The problem was compounded during closing arguments, the appellate court found, when the prosecutor specifically called the jury’s attention to Smith’s reaction during the interview.

The prosecutor urged jurors to think about the recording and argued that when Smith said he no longer wanted to talk, he became animated “because he already knew why he was there.”

By making that argument, the prosecution “expressly invited the jury to draw an inference of guilt” from Smith’s invocation of his rights, the appellate court wrote.

The state argued on appeal that even if the jury should not have heard that portion of the interview, the error was harmless because of the other evidence against Smith.

The appellate court disagreed.

In determining whether the error was harmless, the judges wrote, the question was not simply whether there was enough other evidence to convict Smith. Instead, the state had to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not influence the verdict.

The court concluded it could not say that standard had been met.

Because jurors heard Smith invoke his rights and prosecutors later highlighted his decision to stop talking during closing arguments, the appellate panel found a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the guilty verdict.

The court reversed Smith’s convictions and sent the case back to Baltimore County Circuit Court for a new trial.

A new trial date has not been set.