Saturday, November 21, 2009

Current
Weather
56°F

Court upholds murder conviction

Federal appeals panel concludes Blake's confession not coerced

By EARL KELLY, Staff Writer

Published 07/04/09

A federal appeals court this week upheld the 2007 conviction and prison sentence of Leeander Jerome Blake in the 2002 murder of Annapolis businessman Straughan Lee Griffin.

Courtesy photo
A federal appeals court this week upheld the 2007 conviction and prison sentence of Leeander Jerome Blake in the 2002 murder of Annapolis businessman Straughan Lee Griffin.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., on Thursday rejected claims by Blake's attorneys that their client's confession was obtained by illegal interrogation, and that his sentence was excessive.

"We are pleased, no question about it," Linda Griffin, the victim's oldest sister, said yesterday in a phone interview from her home in Norfolk, Va.

"I wish my father had lived to see this," Griffin said.

Her father, Straughan Griffin, died at age 84 on April 20 of this year, four days after defense attorneys and prosecutors argued the Blake case before the appeals court.

"He visited Lee's grave every day as long as he could," Linda Griffin said.

Griffin said that her father had been in failing health for some time, but the protracted trials and subsequent appeals weakened him even further.

Attempts to reach Blake's family were unsuccessful, but Blake - or someone on his behalf - recently published on the Internet site writeaprisoner.com Blake's bio and a photo of him in a prison jumpsuit.

"I'm twenty three years old with a beautiful little girl," he wrote. "When I was home I attended church every Sunday."

He wrote of the Griffin killing, "I'm seeking any help I can possibly find from an attorney, group or organization ... I might have been at the wrong place at the wrong time but I didn't commit the crime."

Blake's attorney, Kenneth Ravenell, did not return a reporter's calls by press time.

Ravenell filed a 300-page brief in the appeal that raised eight questions, including whether the trial court improperly excluded certain hearsay statements from evidence.

The trial court did not err, the appeals court held.

The main argument before the court dealt with whether a confession Blake made to Annapolis Police Department detectives should have been admitted at trial.

"If we are not successful," Ravenell said at the time of the appeal, "we will revisit this case with the (U.S.) Supreme Court."

Linda Griffin said that after reading Thursday's Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals holding, she doubts the Supreme Court, which has heard a version of this case once before, will agree to hear it again.

Blake was convicted of the brutal Sept. 19, 2002, killing of Griffin in the Annapolis Historic District. Griffin was shot in the head at about 7:30 p.m. that evening outside his Cumberland Court home, within sight of the State House.

Blake and his accomplice, Terrence Tolbert, both of Robinwood, then stole Griffin's Jeep Cherokee and drove over Griffin's body as they fled the scene.

Tolbert was convicted by a state court and sentenced to prison, while Blake's case dragged on for five more years.

Blake, 17 at the time, was arrested on Oct. 26, 2002, about five weeks after the killing.

He quickly asked for an attorney and invoked his right to remain silent.

Officers then handed Blake a document stating that he was being charged with first degree murder and, incorrectly, that he was subject to the death penalty.

"I bet you want to talk now, huh?" one officer asked.

Twenty-eight minutes later, Blake waived his rights and submitted a four-page written statement confessing his involvement in the crime.

Circuit Court Judge Pamela L. North threw out the confession on grounds it had been coerced, thereby effectively ending the state's case.

The Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, upheld North's ruling. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the state's argument claiming that the confession should be allowed, but never ruled on it.

Federal officials then brought a case against Blake based on anti-carjacking laws.

A jury convicted Blake of carjacking and second degree murder in June 2007, and the court sentenced him to two concurrent life sentences, plus 10 years, in prison.

In the 34-page opinion handed down Thursday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the confession had not been coerced.

Blake also argued on appeal that he was a "minor or minimal participant" in the crime and his sentence was excessive under federal sentencing guidelines.

Once again, the three-judge panel was not moved.

"Regardless of whether Blake actually controlled the gun, pulled the trigger, or drove the car, he comprised one-half of an armed two-person carjacking team," Judge William B. Traxler Jr. wrote on behalf of the panel. "Indeed, he was the person who pointed Griffin out and suggested to Tolbert that they rob him."

---

YOUR COMMENTS

RULES OF PARTICIPATION

If you encounter other problems, please email ewiffin@capitalgazette.com and include your name, username, and any errors or messages that are displayed. The more information you can provide, the better able we will be to assist you.

In order to post or vote on a comment, you must be signed in with a hometownannapolis account.

Take a look at a summary of Commenting Guidelines.

Report Abuse or Vote In order to allow the user community the ability to collectively rank the value of comments posted on the Capital Gazette websites we have implemented a thumbs-up/down system. All logged-in users may participate by voting up/down each comment. If others vote on your comment, your individual score will go up/down depending on the votes. Initially, everyone starts with a score of zero, and must earn credits to have significant voting weight. Individuals with higher scores will have more voting weight. -21

your equation - 2009-07-04 22:40:06

"In theory this is a good thing; but, in practice it does leave a trail of anguish for the victim's family and friends and also pretty much removes the victim from the picture and the deliberations."

You comment is ambiguous at best. If the victim's family suffers intolerable emotional distress because of appeals that is a problem for which a remedy ( mental health services) is readily available. The families suffering, though unfortunate, can never obstruct the defendants right to exhaust his legal remedies.

unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?

Corporal Reinhart - , - Karma: Terrible

Sarah B - 2009-07-04 16:53:12

You see now why I was making the post regarding "Corporal Reinhart"

unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?

M. Donnell - Annapolis, MD - Karma: Good

Right To Appeal Is Good, But - - 2009-07-04 15:15:11

A defendant's right to appeals is a critical part of our judicial system providing the defendant with several avenues of pursuit in their quest to overturn what they/their attorneys view as a wrongful conviction/sentence. In theory this is a good thing; but, in practice it does leave a trail of anguish for the victim's family and friends and also pretty much removes the victim from the picture and the deliberations. I whole heartily support the right to appeal; but, as the sister of the murder victim, Lee Griffin, I wish that there was some way to keep Lee's life in the equation and wish there was a way to shield the family and friends from the pain resulting from reopening the wounds each and every time. It is impossible to move ahead when you are thrust back into the nightmare so many times. You never, ever forget and you still have bad dreams and you still cry. What we, Lee's family and friends, fervently want is for the end of the process to finally arrive and not to have to keep reading over and over about Lee's final minutes of life and knowing in our minds the horror and fear that Lee must have experienced when the trigger was pulled once but didn't fire and then pulled again. No one should have to live with these memories.

unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?

Linda G. - , - Karma: Neutral

stay the course ? - 2009-07-04 13:34:29

"Stay the Course"-- ahhhh the Bush administration. Right or Wrong, just stay the course.

Being inflexible and stubborn is seen as a strength when it fact is a weakness. The alternative , adjusting to new information and correcting mistakes, is called "flip-flopping". This is the law, and if mistakes were made Judges have a right to affirm or overturn or remand.

This has nothing to do with 'satying the course"

unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?

Corporal Reinhart - , - Karma: Terrible

The Judge Is Right - 2009-07-04 08:26:33

I wish more courts stay the course of the convictions that are handed out like this one did. Yes there are some that are wrong, but they are not all "wrong". Kids need to know that when you hang out with people who kill, rob or Rape you are an accomplice plain and simple. Those kids who were laughing when that little girl was shot just goes to show how these young kids are growing up without a concise. They are laughing and talking about how do you miss your target, I mean come on. It starts young, kids need to have more discipline instilled in them now starting from birth. Too many times parents think the threat of CPS or that their kids won't like them anymore because for some reason now parents are trying to be their kids friends instead of parenting, why? Whose bright idea was this?....As long as parents do not discipline their kids we will continue to have kids like the one above who feel that since he did not pull the trigger he is not responsible. Responsibility also comes in who you choose as your friends as well....

unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?

Sarah B. - Elkton, MD - Karma: Neutral