Man Convicted in Killing, Carjacking

Statement to Police in '02 Annapolis Case Has Been in Question

An Annapolis resident who state prosecutors once said had gotten away with murder was convicted yesterday in federal court for his role in a slaying five years ago in the city's historic district.

After deliberating for about six hours, jurors in U.S. District Court in Baltimore found Leeander J. Blake, 22, guilty of carjacking, murder and other charges. At the heart of the prosecution's case were remarks by Blake that had been ruled inadmissible in state court.

While in police custody, Blake admitted that he and a friend had set out Sept. 19, 2002, in search of a carjacking target. Prosecutors in Anne Arundel County secured a life sentence against the friend. They pursued Blake vigorously, but when their legal options were exhausted, they were forced to abandon the case against him in 2005.

A federal grand jury indicted Blake the next year, and he was soon back in custody, again charged in the slaying of Straughan Lee Griffin, an entrepreneur and sailing enthusiast. Griffin, 51, was shot once at point-blank range outside his home on a quiet cul-de-sac. As the assailants fled in his Jeep, they ran over his body.

Rod J. Rosenstein, U.S. attorney for Maryland, said after the verdict: "We think it's pretty clear that justice was done. We don't think there's any doubt that Mr. Blake was involved in the murder of Straughan Lee Griffin."

Blake's attorney, Kenneth W. Ravenell, pledged to appeal, saying Judge William M. Nickerson's ruling that the statements excluded in state court were admissible in federal court would be revisited. "This judge interpreted the law differently than numerous other judges," he said. "We certainly believe the other judges got it right."

Those statements have been the focus of considerable debate. Blake, then 17 and in custody, initially asked for a lawyer. He was given a charging document indicating that his friend Terrence Tolbert had named him as the shooter and that Blake could receive the death penalty, although he was ineligible because of his age. As the document was delivered, a police officer said, "I bet you want to talk now, huh?"

Twenty-eight minutes later, Blake gave a statement in which he admitted to being present but named Tolbert as the shooter. Eventually, Blake told police that he had selected Griffin as the target, prosecutors said.

In state court, Ravenell argued that the circumstances amounted to coercion and that his client's right to a lawyer had been violated. The statements were ruled inadmissible despite a prosecution appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Prosecutors were forced to drop the case. Under a law that has since been changed, prosecutors who appealed certain pretrial rulings were required to abandon the case if they lost.

During the week-long federal trial, prosecutors John F. Purcell Jr. and Michael C. Hanlon urged jurors to use Blake's words to convict him. Purcell dismissed the defense's argument that he was present but not involved as "pathetic, ridiculous and unbelievable."

They acknowledged not knowing who had pulled the trigger. But they said Blake was criminally responsible even if Tolbert was the gunman.

Ravenell reprised his arguments about the circumstances under which the statements were taken, urging jurors to give them little weight. Once Blake asked for a lawyer, Ravenell said, "that should have been it."

His pledge to appeal raises the possibility that the Supreme Court might hear the issue again.

Rosenstein said yesterday that the seemingly contradictory holdings in state and federal court are unusual, given that the same laws apply. But he said the records of the circumstances under which the statements were taken are not identical in state and federal court.

"It's not exactly the same facts," he said. "We have a much more thorough hearing in federal court. The factual record was much more developed."