Defense Argues Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in 2008 New Year’s Eve Family Bar Shooting

By Andrew Michaels - April 14, 2023
Court | Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

More than a decade after his second-degree murder conviction, Christopher Bryan Williams and his defense counsel argued that the defendant’s former counsel “made really big mistakes” at trial that could have effectively altered its outcome in 2010.

Counsel sat inside Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Yolanda Tanner’s courtroom on April 13 for defense counsel’s motion for a new trial. Williams is currently serving a 30-year sentence after he was found guilty of his cousin’s murder on New Year’s Eve in 2008.

As his new defense attorney, Edie Cimino, explained that on Dec. 31, 2008, Williams was on the corner of East Monument Street and North Luzerne Avenue at Rumors Bar, which his cousin, 31-year-old Mario Williams, owned. That evening, his cousin asked him to leave because he was forcefully and inappropriately dancing with women.

Williams responded by punching and then shooting his cousin.

During Thursday’s proceedings, Cimino said that Williams’ trial counsel, defense attorney Adam Frank, mishandled both evidence and testimony, raising concerns of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Among these concerns was gun cartridge evidence that one of the victim’s colleagues found at the bar a few days after the shooting. According to Cimino, a man who made music with the victim went to the bar on Jan. 3, 2009, saw a jacket on a nearby chair, picked it up, and realized there were cartridges inside the pocket.

These cartridges were later admitted into evidence and used at trial. Cimino said Frank alluded to the jacket belonging to the defendant, despite a detective’s testimony that did not acknowledge who owned the jacket.

This evidence would not have been “a twinkle in the jurors’ eyes had trial counsel performed gatekeeping functions,” Cimino said and objected to its use prior to trial. Although Williams was acquitted of first-degree murder, the jury may have only convicted him of manslaughter had this evidence not been included at trial.

A similar issue was presented regarding a detective’s testimony about a gun that was found on the roof of the bar. Cimino said Frank did not object to the detective’s testimony that the gun belonged to another person, which may have presented reasonable doubt that Williams was the gunman.

Cimino also presented an issue with the detective’s testimony regarding the defendant’s level of intoxication on the night of the shooting. Despite Frank’s trial defense that his client was voluntarily intoxicated, she said, he elicited testimony from a detective who said that the defendant “wasn’t that drunk.” This was further corroborated by Frank’s testimony during Thursday’s hearing.

The crux of the defense “was that Mr. Williams was intoxicated and couldn’t remember what happened that evening,” Frank informed the court, adding that he was seeking a manslaughter conviction as opposed to murder.

In response, the prosecution countered that Frank was an attorney in good standing, having reviewed discovery, developed a trial strategy, and prepared for hundreds of hours.

“He had the basket, but he put the wrong eggs in the basket,” Cimino concluded.

Williams is scheduled to return before Judge Tanner for a collateral hearing via Zoom on July 13, according to the Maryland Judiciary website.