Court grants new trial

D.C. fire captain was convicted of rape in June

Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2009

Sneed's lawyers gave several reasons and cited numerous cases in their motion for a new trial that was opposed by the prosecution. Judge Warren Krug granted a new trial on Sept. 18, the day Sneed was scheduled to be sentenced.

A jury returned guilty verdicts on charges of second-degree rape, third- and fourth-degree sex offense and second-degree assault after three days of testimony. The charges stem from a 23-year-old woman accusing Sneed of sexually assaulting her as she was passed out on a mattress at a party at Sneed's stepdaughter's home in Chesapeake Beach on Aug. 9, 2008, court records state.

Sneed, who was a captain with the District of Columbia Fire Department in Washington, D.C., was placed on "enforced leave," last September when he was charged. He was relieved of his duties after the conviction, according to the department's statements.

A new trial was granted, "based upon the prosecutor's failure to strike a juror for a race neutral reason," court records state.

In the motion for a new trial, Sneed's lawyer Joel Duboff of Silver Spring stated the prosecution failed to strike a juror for a race neutral reason during the jury selection process. Duboff stated the strike of juror number 250 was made because she was African-American, the same race as the defendant. "The facts and relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used preemptory strikes to exclude venire (summoned for jury service) person on account of their race," he wrote in his motion.

Assistant State's Attorney Kathryn Marsh wrote in her opposition to the motion that the she had no information on the juror because she had not answered any questions. It was also stated in transcripts of the jury selection process, where Duboff argued against the strike at that time.

"I had no information on juror number 250, and so I struck her based on that," Marsh stated in transcripts.

Duboff also cited cases on percentages of jury members based on race and stated that 33 percent of the African-American jury pool was struck and he was concerned with that figure since the jury pool was so small.

"Using the same logic, the prosecution had already sat 66 percent of the African-American jurors," Marsh wrote, stating that she sat two African-Americans prior to her challenge.

Attorney Robert Bonsib of Greenbelt was entered as co-counsel on Sept. 15 prior to the motion hearing.

In the motion, Duboff also recapped an objection he had with the state playing an audio tape of interviews with the victim during the trial. He stated in the motion that the trial's transcripts showed him asking the court for a mistrial after the state played the tape where "the jury heard damning evidence," he wrote. The tape "is going to open up the door to potentially prejudicial" information and "hearsay coming in," Duboff said in the transcript and stated in the motion that this denied Sneed of a fair trial.

Marsh argued that the court asked the jury to strike the inadmissible evidence heard and the court denied the request for a mistrial during the trial.

The motion also argued that there was not legally sufficient evidence to sustain the guilty verdicts because at the party, "everyone was intoxicated." And the motion argued the ruling on the guilty verdict of second-degree rape stating that while the victim was labeled as intoxicated during the trial, it "is not the same proof that one was ‘helpless' or ‘incapacitated,'" which are needed for a second-degree rape conviction.

Marsh, who is out on leave, was not available for comment and Duboff did not return a phone call.

charvat@somdnews.com