“They have not met their burden in this case,” said a Maryland defense attorney. His client was recently vindicated in court when he heard the verdict that clears his name of some serious charges.
After a manager from a convenience store was hurt and robbed of $3,500 in 2009, authorities arrested a Mr. T. for the incident. He was charged with robbery, assault and theft, and faced significant legal consequences should the jury have decided he was responsible for the crimes.
Lucky for him, the jury saw past what defense called an “extremely weak” line of evidence connecting Mr. T. to the violent incident. According to the prosecution, the sole existence of a black scarf in the defendant’s apartment was enough to accuse him of the violent robbery.
The person who did assault the store manager was reportedly wearing a similar black accessory over his or her face. A black scarf can be found in the homes of many men and women, so finding one in Mr. T. place does little to meet the burden of proof the prosecution is responsible for meeting.
Prosecution also presented DNA found on Mr. T.’s scarf as proof in their case against the defendant. But they did not firmly match the DNA to the theft victim. A DNA analyst said about the DNA on the scarf and Mr. T’s suspected guilt during her testimony that because it was there, “That doesn’t mean it’s him.”
The defense also argued against the scarf as evidence because the prosecution never verified that the scarf was in fact the defendant’s. None of the DNA on the accessory was ever tested against Mr. T.’s. Maybe it wasn’t even his in the first place.
The Maryland jury agreed with both the DNA analyst’s quote above and the defense’s overall argument. It took them two hours to agree that Mr. T. is not guilty on all charges.
delmarvanow.com: “Jury: Man not guilty in robbery, assault,” Charlene Sharp, 4 Nov. 2010
7310 Ritchie Highway, Suite 910
Glen Burnie, MD 21061
30 Corporate Center
10440 Little Patuxent Parkway,
Columbia, MD 21044