The three-judge panel in an opinion published Monday ordered a federal district court to find whether Raminder Kaur's Sixth Amendment rights were violated after a Maryland appeals court said prosecutors could use new information generated from that motion to retry a murder case against her.
"Our examination of the record before the state court compels us to conclude that two critical aspects of the appellate court's factual determinations were objectively unreasonable," Judge Nicole Berner said in the opinion. "The appellate court's determination that evidence discovered through attorney-client protected communications did not prejudice Kaur at the second trial was objectively unreasonable and ignored clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."
Kaur, along with her husband, were tried in Maryland state court for the killing of her husband's ex-wife, Preeta Gabba, over a disagreement related to alimony payments to Gabba, the opinion says.
Police at the scene recovered evidence from the murder including a black and gray Halloween wig as well as hair dye and a .357 Ruger, which experts later said was the weapon used to kill Gabba, the opinion says.
Though prosecutors conceded at trial that the case against Kaur was weaker than the case against her husband, they said they still believed she was involved in the killing. Kaur sought to testify at trial but her appointed counsel said she would be unable to do so because of marital privilege, the opinion says.
Kaur was found guilty by a state jury, and she shortly thereafter filed a motion for a new trial, alleging her counsel was ineffective. Kaur alleged that in addition to advice on not testifying, her attorney failed to subpoena out-of-state evidence, and did not meet with her prior to trial, the opinion says.
Prosecutors began requesting information relating to Kaur's claims, and as part of the process of proving her ineffective counsel claims, Kaur produced documents including emails with her former attorneys about potential evidence in the case.
An email with her attorney revealed that a plastic bag police recovered at the scene was actually from a second, previously undisclosed wig, that was more realistic looking than the Halloween wig, the opinion says.
Kaur was cross-examined by prosecutors and was allowed to describe the testimony she would have given had her counsel not advised her against it. Kaur was ultimately able to prove her claims that she had been given ineffective counsel by her attorney, and a new trial was ordered in her case, the opinion says.
Prior to trial, Kaur sought a protective order to suppress evidence and her testimony supporting the new trial motion, in particular the new evidence about the wigs, which would have typically been considered privileged. A trial court denied the motion, claiming Kaur waived attorney-client privilege by asserting the ineffective counsel claim, the opinion says.
The prosecution heavily relied on the new evidence to reinforce its murder theory, shifting the role it believed Kaur had in the killing. In the first trial, the state had alleged Kaur was the shooter, but in the new trial the theory shifted to Kaur acting as an accomplice, the panel said.
Because prosecutors were allowed to use her testimony from the ineffective counsel motion hearing, Kaur and her attorneys determined that she should not testify at the second trial, the opinion says.
Kaur was again found guilty, and filed an appeal with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, the appellate court in the state, asking whether the trial court had made an error by allowing the testimony and new evidence at trial.
The state appeals court found that while Kaur did waive attorney-client privilege, that waiver was much narrower than the second trial court's interpretation, and only applied to the new trial proceedings. The court also found that while it assumed the trial court made a mistake, Kaur had not proven that the mistake was prejudicial.
Kaur appealed to the Maryland Supreme Court, then to the U.S. Supreme Court, both of which denied certiorari. Kaur then applied for habeas relief with the district court after exhausting direct appeals, the opinion says.
The district court denied Kaur's petition, but said it was "sympathetic to Kaur's dilemma," and granted her a certificate to appeal the question of whether her Sixth Amendment rights were violated as a result of the evidence being allowed at the second trial.
The Fourth Circuit has found that it did violate her rights, and that the district court was wrong to deny the habeas petition. The federal appellate court also found that the Maryland appeals court's conclusion that the trial court's error had not introduced prejudice was fundamentally wrong.
Representatives for the parties did not respond to requests for comment.
Kaur is represented by Kevin B. Collins of the Maryland Office of Public Defender.
The government is represented by Jer Welter and Virginia S. Hovermill of the Maryland Attorney General's Office.
The case is Kaur v. Warden, case number 24-6440, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
--Editing by Marygrace Anderson.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
