Opinion ID: 1465616
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Deals With Brill and Bartee

Text: During April and May, 1996, Brill was housed temporarily at the Maryland Penitentiary, apparently because of an overload at the Baltimore City Detention Center. While there, he met Donnell Bartee, who was awaiting trial on charges of first-degree murder, use of a handgun in a crime of violence, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine as well as a violation of probation charge that could and likely would result in execution of a suspended 15-year sentence. Brill had told him that he (Brill) was locked up for shooting somebody doing a favor, that a guy asked him to do a favor for some insurance money and he would pay him a lump sum of money, but that he didn't do it. He was too scared. In June, 1996, Bartee was moved to the Detention Center, where he met Harris. Harris asked whether, while at the Penitentiary, Bartee had met Brill, and Bartee said that he had. According to Bartee, Harris then offered to pay him $1,000 if he would tell Harris's lawyer that Brill had acknowledged robbing Harris, taking his gun, and shooting his wife. Bartee said he would think about it but instead related the conversation to his lawyer. Some time later, Harris approached him again and said that Harris's father would pay an additional $500, that Bartee would get half the money then from the father and the other half after he testified for Harris. Bartee related that as well to his lawyer. That revelation led to Bartee later telling his story to the police. Bartee and Brill each entered into a plea agreement with the State premised, in whole or in part, on his testifying for the State in Harris's case. All three cases were pending in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, and the agreements were made with the same prosecutor, who was handling all three cases. Bartee's agreement came first. On January 17, 1997, the prosecutor and Bartee's attorney appeared before Judge Byrnes. Until Bartee entered the courtroom some time later, the entire proceeding, at the prosecutor's request, occurred at the bench. After some discussion, counsel agreed that Bartee would enter a plea of guilty to second-degree murder and possession with intent to distribute cocaine and the State would drop the handgun charge. The deal presented to the court was that Bartee would receive a maximum prison term of 30 years with respect to the two charges to which he would plead guilty and to any sentence executed as a result of the violation of probation proceeding; i.e., Bartee would receive a 30-year sentence for the murder and a 10-year concurrent sentence for the drug offense, and, if Bartee received a prison sentence in the probation case and that sentence was to be consecutive to the 30-year term imposed in the instant case, Judge Byrnes would then grant a motion to modify and make his 30-year sentence concurrent with that term, to assure a total cap of 30 years. The prosecutor then disclosed an additional element to the agreement, namely, that Bartee was to testify in Harris's case, that, after his testimony, he could ask for a modification of his sentencesomething less than thirty yearsand that the State may join into that modification upon his testimony. Defense counsel added that the cap is also because the State indicated, if this man is so wonderful and so stellar on the stand that he can convince the State that they ought to really love him and want to kiss him, then they might join. The prosecutor responded that Bartee was going to testify regarding his conversation with a defendant in another case (Harris) but was going to do a little bit more for the State and for himself and, if that happened, Bartee would put himself in much danger, and that I was going to be willing to argue and actually, I would have argued and asked you to give less than that. The prosecutor noted, however, that that can't happen at this point and could not happen until Bartee testified, but I did tell [defense counsel] that if he is supreme, I might join in with her and ask that you give to him less than the 30 which you've already given him. Bartee then entered the courtroom, the conversation at the bench ended, and the prosecutor recited the agreementa cap of 30 years for both the instant case and the probation caseand one other proviso, I would add that we discussed at the bench about Mr. Bartee, that the Court knows about that, I'd rather not do that in open court. Addressing Bartee, defense counsel confirmed the basic understanding, adding that the other circumstances that are here, if they haven't been stated, were stated at the bench as to any conditions that may or may not get the State's Attorney to want to join us in asking for less time. After assuring that Bartee's plea was knowing and voluntary, Judge Byrnes accepted it and, pursuant to the plea bargain, sentenced Bartee to 30 years for the murder and 10 years, concurrent, for the drug violation. A month later, in February, 1997, Judge Johnson, presiding over the violation of probation case, revoked Bartee's probation and directed execution of the 15-year suspended sentence, to be served consecutively to the 30 years imposed by Judge Byrnes. At that point, Bartee began serving a 45-year sentence. Harris's trial began on March 20, 1997. Bartee testified as indicated above, recounting first his conversation with Brill while at the Penitentiary, in which Brill said that he had not killed Ms. McLeod, and his subsequent conversations with Harris at the Baltimore City Detention Center, in which Harris offered him money to testify that Brill had admitted robbing Harris and McLeod and shooting Ms. McLeod. On further questioning by the prosecutor, Bartee said that he had pled guilty to second-degree murder and possession with distribution, that he received a sentence of 30 years and was then serving a sentence of 45 years. The prosecutor then asked a number of questions regarding his guilty plea. When asked whether he had any understanding with the State as to your testimony here today, Bartee replied none. In response to the next question, of whether he had entered into any agreement with the State in reference to your testimony and your charges, he replied no, not that I know, and when asked whether he was getting anything for pleading guilty, he said no. He acknowledged that he had the ability to file a motion for reconsideration of his sentence but that he had no guarantee that the entire sentence he would have to serve would be only 30 years. On cross-examination, Bartee acknowledged that the deal he made was that his combined sentence, from the pending charges and the probation proceeding would not exceed 30 years, but he said that he was currently serving a sentence of 45 yearsthat he had received, as expected, a 15-year sentence for the violation of probation, consecutive to the 30-year sentence imposed by Judge Byrnes. At no time did the prosecutor, in direct or redirect examination, mention the likelihood of not opposing, or even joining, a motion to modify Bartee's sentence. In July, 1997, following Harris's conviction, Judge Byrnes considered Bartee's motion to modify the 30-year sentence. The prosecutor acknowledged that the plea bargain contained two elements: (1) that Judge Byrnes's sentence would be structured so that the maximum time Bartee would have to serve under that sentence and any received from Judge Johnson would be 30 years, and (2) that Bartee could ask for less and, if he testified properly in Harris's case, the State might join in that request. In that latter regard, he advised that it was the State's understanding of the agreement that we would not oppose the defendant asking the Court to modify his sentence after the defendant testified and the State would tell the Court how the defendant did. Bartee asked for a further reduction in his sentence, beyond implementing the 30-year cap, and the prosecutor advised that he had no objection to such a reduction and that the detectives in the case supported it. Judge Byrnes then restructured and modified his sentences in such a way as to reduce the overall prison term to a maximum of 25 years. [5] On March 12, 1997, about a week before the start of Harris's trial, Russell Brill appeared before Judge McCurdy and entered into a plea agreement. In return for a plea of guilty to first-degree murder, use of a handgun in a crime of violence, and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, the State withdrew its notice of intent to seek life imprisonment without parole, and Brill was sentenced on the murder and conspiracy charges to life imprisonment with all but 50 years suspended and 20 years on the handgun charge, all sentences to be served concurrently. We have recounted Brill's testimony at Harris's trial, including the fact that he had pled guilty to killing Ms. McLeod, which was inconsistent with his assertion that Harris had shot her. On direct examination, he said that the State had initially filed a notice of intent to seek life without parole but that he had, in fact, been sentenced to life imprisonment, with all but 50 years suspended. When asked whether he had entered into any agreement with the State for his testimony, his answer was no. On cross-examination, he said that he had pled guilty to first degree murder not because he committed the crime but because he did not want to go to jail for the rest of his life but then indicated that he did not consider 50 years a deal. He acknowledged that his sentence could be modified on a motion filed within 90 days, but, when asked whether he could get a lesser sentence depending on your testimony here today in court, he responded I don't know if it depends upon this but I know I can get a modification of sentencing. At some point within the allowable 90-day period Brill filed a motion for modification of sentence, and, on November 10, 1997, he appeared before Judge McCurdy on that motion. At that hearing, the prosecutor informed the court that part of the agreement was that Brill would testify in Harris's case and that we told the Court that we would not be opposing the Defense filing a Motion to reconsider and holding that sub curia to see how, in fact, Mr. Brill testified at the trial. The prosecutor added that Brill did testify for the State and did a very good job and that he was not opposed to the Court doing any type of modification to Mr. Brill's sentence. At Brill's request, the court modified the sentence by reducing the time to be served to 30, rather than 50, years. The post conviction trial court, as noted, found no violation of Brady. It concluded that there was no evidence that Brill's plea agreement had been withheld from defense counsel or that Brill was not truthful in describing it. Although noting that Bartee may not have accurately and completely disclosed his plea agreement, defense counsel had in fact been advised of the nature and the full extent of Bartee's plea agreement and that he read the full extent of the plead agreement into the record. The Court of Special Appeals disagreed and concluded that, under this Court's decisions in Ware v. State, 348 Md. 19, 702 A.2d 699 (1997) and Wilson v. State, 363 Md. 333, 768 A.2d 675 (2001), the State should have disclosed to appellant's trial counsel what position the prosecutor had agreed to take at the hearings on the motions for modification filed by Brill and Bartee, provided that the prosecutor was satisfied with the witness's testimony. The appellate court agreed, however, that the jury was aware that Bartee could anticipate a modification pursuant to the plea agreement and declined to hypothesize a jury that would have made a different credibility assessment of [Brill] if it also knew that the State's agreement with Brill also included a promise thatat Brill's motion for modification of sentence hearingthe State would (1) not oppose modification, and (2) advise the sentencing judge that Brill had testified truthfully when called upon to do so during appellant's trial.