Fourth Circuit says prosecutors’ use of defense talks tainted murder trial

RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — The Fourth Circuit ruled Tuesday that prosecutors’ access to attorney-client communications tainted the defense of a woman convicted of killing her husband’s ex-wife.

The three-judge panel ruled the Maryland Court of Special Appeals erred in holding the state’s access didn’t prejudice Raminder Kaur’s trial. Kaur argued the state relied on new evidence that surfaced during her effort to obtain a new trial due to ineffective counsel.

“The state relied heavily on the new, privileged evidence it obtained during the proceedings on Kaur’s motion for a new trial in prosecuting Kaur a second time, and that new evidence harmed Kaur’s defense,” U.S. Circuit Judge Nicole Berner, a Joe Biden appointee, said. “In addition, the possibility that the state might use Kaur’s motion testimony to impeach her if she took the stand in her second trial also clearly harmed Kaur’s defense.”

The Maryland-based federal judge denied Kaur’s habeas corpus petition, ruling the state court overseeing her appeal correctly found Kaur failed to show prosecutors’ access to her files led to prejudice. In denying Kaur’s petition, the lower court ruled the state’s theory against Kaur remained unchanged from the first trial to the second.

Early on Oct. 12, 2013, Preeta Gabba was fatally shot three times on a street in Germantown, Maryland. The state soon indicted Gabba’s former husband, Baldeo Taneja, and his wife, Kaur, with whom he’d had an affair, theorizing the pair conspired to kill Gabba and that Kaur fired the shots.

The jury found the pair guilty of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and use of a handgun in a crime of violence.

Kaur won a new trial after detailing errors by her defense attorney, including not meeting with Kaur and failing to raise with the trial court Kaur’s lack of competency due to post-traumatic stress disorder she suffered from Taneja’s abuse. An affidavit demonstrated her former attorney had erroneously advised her that she couldn’t testify due to marital privilege.

In the affidavit, Kaur detailed her side of the story, which focused on Taneja not telling her about the murder. Kaur claims her husband took her from their home in Nashville to Maryland under the guise of attending a conference. According to Kaur, Taneja drugged her the night before the murder, which she claims he committed while she slept.

The trial court then denied Kaur’s motion to prevent the prosecution team from viewing the privileged information disclosed during her motion for a new trial proceeding. The court ruled Kaur waived her attorney-client privileges when she published her affidavit in a public forum, which The Washington Post quickly picked up. Kaur again was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to life in prison.

The state relied on three eyewitnesses who described the shooter as a woman and the discovery of a wig, black hair dye, a black hoodie, a plastic bag containing a .357 Ruger LCR revolver later determined to be the murder weapon, and a 100 Ruger revolver in the pair’s car.

Prosecutors described Taneja as a husband engaged in a hostile divorce with Gabba. At the time of the murder, Taneja and Gabba were embroiled in a dispute over alimony. Taneja purchased the two weapons and attended a firearms training class in the lead-up to the murder.

During her second trial, the state focused on persuading the jury that Kaur helped Taneja, even if she didn’t fire the shots as they had first argued. The state relied heavily on evidence of a second wig that came to light during Kaur’s motion for a new trial, painting Kaur as an accomplice.

“The appellate court’s finding that the newly discovered second wig was not prejudicial — and in fact was beneficial to Kaur — proves objectively unreasonable in light of the record before the appellate court,” Berner said.

The state court overseeing the trial denied Kaur’s request for a new prosecution team. Kaur asserted she didn’t testify at her second trial out of fear the prosecutors would attempt to impeach her based on her testimony given during her retrial hearings.

“Kaur’s inability to testify about these critical matters clearly prejudiced her defense. Kaur’s defense at her second trial turned on her ability to create reasonable doubt as to whether Taneja carried out the murder alone,” Berner said. “Likewise, the state’s case hinged on proving that Kaur and Taneja planned the murder together. Kaur’s testimony would have directly supported her theory of defense and undermined the state’s case.”

The appellate court assumed the trial court’s conduct had violated Kaur’s Sixth Amendment rights but ruled the violation didn’t amount to prejudice. The case now returns to the appellate court to adjudicate the issue of Kaur’s constitutional rights on the merits.

“Though we conclude that the Maryland appellate court’s determination was objectively unreasonable, we cannot grant Kaur’s habeas petition at this point,” Berner said. “Because the Maryland appellate court merely assumed (but did not conclude) that a constitutional right was violated, we vacate and remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether a constitutional violation occurred.”

Attorneys representing the state and Kaur did not respond to requests for comment. Fellow Biden appointees U.S. Circuit Judge Toby Heytens and Eastern District of Virginia U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Hanes concurred with Berner.