ÿWPCü 1ñŠ5`²®½–i_.¯i9QÐîËc–Æ«ÄlºÆ¿dÓ¾ºÜf"[†Ô–@¥qÓ‹¶“¨HHÅmÀcö(1:¦ÇY½l̈™¼”´Í²v± ;‰'ú~‘$ÿ‹,g®n^xmñÆ^ ´¢`‡hŒ+辩m‚tö7šªU°£YÌ‘‚-¨z¥Ào?pãÃÄ«“†ã°J»2—Å!£0Ãs`ÿЦé{²8{žÙÕö‡N«& -‚ý„Ãéb¬ ¨UhSn&V*´ƒéà–6£Á‡OÌr9Iyw@ëÔ—Ò^^i{ÎΌԕî?ÕKcEN&-[‘)îžr˜Ö…Ã%ßr"K£#D+ʶ#(™ã^Ã×+æ¤p£ÿ|˼Ðm0ÁRß~9_«ýŒnôPïäíëøY7©›0êõŒâ^ûøÏÞñQÕ¦ßsRS4|fë²g}êŽçg¼ºyE³#Ÿ‰µ=øç¥pÚÑ Ç$â½¼cKõ8°ûÕÖÌ jÿø„ýÀÿ|߸†Œ&ÍÚ/uz¦-š*¨‘ÅtÒ}MEòñ’žî Gìiß_¹Q=¢?# ⊻*÷Ɔu‘#Ò˜lŒžp¬ÖsÐCGnDÌÁœlæà³v]ðtÖG÷U‚XršòËÿ|,#!hUN‰ %× 04ÝU>U @OU.w@½4ý  m" 0 Î9 0 D*KU:u UN¯ ý   \ u b‘ Þ™ 0w §­DÆñññ·„88¢¼¼¼¼¼#^^^ BߘHP LaserJet 5MP,ð,,,,,ð0xÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX( …$¡¡Ñ  Ñ´¤ìl9Z+&Courier Regular*Ͼ¦ `(CG TimesScalable<þ6X9`(Courier ijkDlmUnopqDr«Mq),ŠN‚rƒ3|xr,ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(~(2…¨$¤¤Ý ƒ…!ÝÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÔ€XXXXÔÔ€XXXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒ …¨$ÝÑ @ ÑÔ€XXXXÔÔ€XXXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€¢Gutrick£€is€not€a€party€to€this€appeal.€€Derrick€Smith€wasÐ ° Ðalso€convicted€in€this€case€but€was€tried€separately.<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpi(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman RegularH Ñ e Ñ RÝ ƒ „í$ÝÑ @ ÑÔ€X9XXXÔÔ€X9XXX9ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€It€seems€that€this€assertion,€if€correct,€would€strengthenÐ ° ÐJonesððs€argument€that€his€appellate€counsel€was€ineffective€inÏfailing€to€raise€the€issue€on€appeal. Ý ƒ „í$ÝÑ @ ÑÔ€X9XXXÔÔ€X9XXX9ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€The€record€before€us€does€not€contain€any€information€as€toÐ ° Ðthe€criminal€proceedings€against€Smith.- ù- ÔÝ ƒ „í$ÝÑ @ ÑÔ€X9XXXÔÔ€X9XXX9ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€The€sentence€is€omitted€because€it€was€redacted€at€trial. &Ý ƒ „í$ÝÑ @ ÑÔ€X9XXXÔÔ€X9XXX9ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€The€post„conviction€court€œalso›€attributed€error€to€the€trialÐ ° Ðjudge.€€In€our€view,€it€is€difficult€to€fault€the€trial€judge€forÏwhat€transpired.€€As€the€record€reflects,€the€trial€judge,€òò¢sua£Ð @ Тsponte£óó,€reviewed€the€statement€to€ferret€out€any€improper€portions,Ð X Ðrepeatedly€invited€counsel€to€identify€potential€problems,€wasÏquick€to€strike€anything€that€appeared€problematic,€and€alertedÏcounsel€to€the€issue€of€multiple€hearsay.€€Despite€all€of€that,Ïtrial€counsel€never€challenged€the€assertion€now€in€issue.€€To€theÏcontrary,€defense€counsel€directed€the€court€to€only€one€area€ofÏconcern€and,€when€he€did,€the€court€immediately€granted€his€requestÏto€strike€that€particular€portion€of€Smithððs€statement.€€Moreover,Ïthe€defense€attorney€actually€highlighted€that€statement€for€theÏjury,€by€specifically€questioning€Smith€about€it.€ “Ý ƒ „í$ÝÑ @ ÑÔ€X9XXXÔÔ€X9XXX9ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€We€note€that€the€State€does€not€contend€that€Jones€adoptedÐ ° Ðor€ratified€¢Gutrick£ððs€statement.€€Nor€does€the€State€contend€thatÏ¢Gutrick£ððs€statement€was€admissible€based€on€the€exception€to€theÏhearsay€rule€for€a€declaration€against€penal€interest€under€Md.ÏRule€5„804(b)(3).€€òòSee€State€v.€¢Matusky£óó,€343€Md.€467€(1996);€òòseeÐ Ð  Ðalso€Williamson€v.€United€Statesóó,€512€U.S.€594€(1994);€òòState€v.Ð ˜è ТStandifur£óó,€310€Md.€3€(1987). £Ý ƒ …¨$ÝÑ @ ÑÔ€XXXXÔÔ€XXXXÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€We€shall€refer€to€these€witnesses€by€their€first€names,€inÐ ° Ðorder€to€avoid€confusion.€€Throughout€the€record€and€the€briefs,Ïthe€first€name€of€J.€¢Gulston£€is€spelled€alternately€as€ð ðJeannetteððÐ @ Ðand€ð ðJeanette.ðð€€Moreover,€in€its€application€for€leave€to€appeal,Ð X Ðthe€State€used€both€spellings.€€At€trial,€the€witness€only€providedÏthe€spelling€of€her€last€name.€€Therefore,€we€shall€use€theÏspelling€that€was€used€in€an€earlier€opinion€of€this€Court.€A, B,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 wÝ ƒ „í$ÝÑ @ ÑÔ€X9XXXÔÔ€X9XXX9ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€The€record€only€contains€the€redacted€copy€of€SmithððsÐ ° Ðstatement.€€Therefore,€we€have€relied€on€the€transcript€toÏascertain€the€wording€of€those€portions€of€Smithððs€statement€thatÏwere€redacted.€ zÝ ƒ „í$ÝÑ @ ÑÔ€X9XXXÔÔ€X9XXX9ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_Ô€Presumably,€¢Niland£€and€Bennett€meant€Donald€Ô_Ô¢Gutrick£Ô_Ô,€notÐ ° ÐGary€Ô_Ô¢Gulston£,€as€¢Gulston£€was€one€of€the€homicide€victimsÔ_Ô.€ ˜Ý ƒ „í$ÝÑ @ ÑÔ€X9XXXÔÔ€X9XXX9ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€We€note€that€the€Courtððs€factual€summary€in€òòJones€Ióó€wasÐ ° Ðaugmented€by€the€Court€in€the€course€of€its€legal€discussion.€€But,Ïwe€shall€include€here€only€those€facts€presented€in€the€opinionÏunder€the€heading€of€ð ðFACTS.ðð€ Ý ƒ „í$ÝÑ @ ÑÔ€X9XXXÔÔ€X9XXX9ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€The€court€also€noted€the€arguments€relating€to€trialÐ ° Ðcounselððs€failure€to€request€a€limiting€instruction€informing€theÏjury€that€Smithððs€conviction€was€admissible€only€in€regard€to€theÏcredibility€of€the€witness€and€not€as€substantive€evidence€againstÏthe€accused.€€The€court€did€not€address€whether€this€derelictionÏwas€deficient€œperformance,›€however.€€ TÝ ƒ „í$ÝÑ @ ÑÔ€X9XXXÔÔ€X9XXX9ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€As€we€indicated€earlier,€the€ð ðweðð€apparently€referred€toÐ ° ÐJones€and€¢Gutrick£,€and€the€ð ðhimðð€referred€to€the€victim,€GaryÐ xÈ ТGulston£.€€ dÝ ƒ…!ÝÑ  ÑÝ  Ý›ñoñ›ñoññnñ›Ô‡XÐ#XXXÔÑ  ÑÌÌà@‡‡!ìàÔ‡„sÔ„XXÐ#ÔEllen€L.€HollanderÔ#†XÐ#X„„sÔh#ԈРˆØ Ðà@««!ìà626€Courthouse€EastˆÌà@ìà111€North€¢Calvert£€StreetˆÌà@~~ìàBaltimore,€Maryland€€21202ˆÌà@||#ìà(410)€333„6241ˆÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDecember€6,€2000ÌÌÌHon.€Joseph€F.€Murphy,€Jr.,à  àà h àà À àà0  àHon.€Andrew€L.€¢Sonner£Ô#†XÐ#XXXÐ#(#ÔÔ‡XÐ#XXXÔà x àÔ#†XÐ#XXXÐ#Y#ÔÔ‡XÐ#XXXÔà Ð àÐ4„ (#(# Ѐ€Chief€Judgeà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àHon.€James€A.€Kenney,€IIIÔ#†XÐ#XXXÐ#§#ÔÔ‡XÐ#XXXÔà x àÐ  p  ÐHon.€Charles€E.€Moylan,€Jr.à  àà h àà À àà0  àHon.€Deborah€Sweet€¢Eyler£Ô#†XÐ#XXXÐ#‚#ÔÔ‡XÐ#XXXÔà x àÐ \ (#(# ÐHon.€¢Arrie£€W.€Davisà ¸ àÔ#†XÐ#XXXÐ#J#ÔÔ‡XÐ#XXXÔà  àà h àà À àà  àHon.€Sally€D.€¢Adkins£à  àÐ øH ÐHon.€James€P.€SalmonÔ#†XÐ#XXXÐ#Ø#ÔÔ‡XÐ#XXXÔà  àà h àà À àà  àHon.€Peter€B.€¢Krauser£à x àà Ð àÐ ä4 ÐHon.€James€R.€¢Eyler£Ô#†XÐ#XXXÐ#•#ÔÔ‡XÐ#XXXÔà ¸ àà  àà0 h àà À àà  àÐÐ h(#h(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àRe:à0  àState€of€MarylandДä(#(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àv.€Thomas€Wayne€JonesÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNo.€2254Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSeptember€Term€1999Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòArgued:€September€6,€2000óóÐ D” ÐÌDear€Judges:ÌÌà  àAt€the€suggestion€of€Judge€¢Moylan£,€I€offer€the€attached€opinion€for€consideration€at€theÏnext€conference.€€Please€let€me€have€your€comments,€concerns,€corrections,€and€nits.ÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSincerely,ÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÔ‡„sÔ„XXÐ#ÔòòEllenóóÔ#†XÐ#X„„sÔú #ÔÐ #à! ÐÌÌEnclosureÌÌÔ#†XÐ#XXXÐ#`#Ôcc:€The€Hon.€John€J.€BishopÐ  (ð#& ÐñnññoñÌP.S.€€The€opinion€has€not€yet€been€clerked.€€Also,€the€pin€cites€for€Charlieððs€òòGrossóó€opinion€areÐ œì Ðnot€yet€available,€but€I€left€the€blanks€because€I€expect€the€advance€sheets€to€be€available€by€theÏtime€of€conference.ÌÐ  ° ÐñoñÓ  ÓÔ‡X^˜XXXÔò òÑ  ÑñpñHEADNOTE:Ð ° ÐÌòòState€of€Maryland€v.€Thomas€Wayne€Jones,€No.€2254,€September€TermÐ @ Ð1999ñpñó óñpñóóÐ X ÐÌPOST„CONVICTION€PROCEEDINGS;€MULTIPLE€HEARSAY;€INEFFECTIVEÏASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSEL.€€Trial€counselððs€failure€to€object€toÏportion€of€statement€of€alleged€accomplice€that€containedÏincriminating€hearsay€within€hearsay€constituted€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€that€was€prejudicial€in€the€context€of€theÏevidence.€ñpñÔ#†XBXXX^˜ô #ÔñqñÐ  °1 ÐñqñÓè ÓÔ_ÔÔ‡X^˜XXXBÔñqñÑ  ÑñqñÑ€ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒØØÓ  ÓÑ8€^˜XXdÈdì8ÑÓÓÓÓÌÌREPORTEDÌÌÌòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€SPECIAL€APPEALSÐ ˜è ÐÌOF€MARYLANDóóÐ ( x ÐÌNo.€2254ÌÌSEPTEMBER€TERM,€1999ÌÌ___________________________________ÌÓ  ÓÔ#†XBXXX^˜r#ÔÔ‡X^˜XXXBÔÌÌÌÔ#†XBXXX^˜(#ÔÓùÓÔ‡X^˜XXXBÔSTATE€OF€MARYLANDÔ#†XBXXX^˜}#ÔÔ‡X^˜XXXBÔÐ øH  ÐÌv.ÌÌÌTHOMAS€WAYNE€JONESÌÓÓ€ÌÌ___________________________________ÌÌà p àÔ_Ôà È à¢Moylan£Ô_Ô,*ÌÓÓÓ  Óà p àà È àHollander,Ìà0 p àà È àBishop,€John€J.€Ð p€%p€% Ðà p àà È à(Retired,€speciallyÌà p àà È àassigned)ÌÌà p àà È àà  àà x àJJ.à Ð àÐ xÈ! ÐÓ¨ÓÔ#†XBXXX^˜Ð#ÔÔ‡X^˜XXXBÔÌ___________________________________ÌÌÌà@¬¬2LàOpinion€by€Hollander,€J.ˆÌÌ___________________________________ÌÌÌÓ  ÓFiled:ñrñ€December€22,€2000ñrñ€ÌÌ*¢Moylan£,€J.€participated€in€theÏhearing€and€conference€of€this€caseÏwhile€an€active€member€of€thisÏCourt;€he€participated€in€theÏadoption€of€this€opinion€as€aÏretired,€specially€assigned€memberÏof€this€Court.ÌÌÐ .h)5  ÐÔ_ÔÒ°ÒÒ°XÒà  àÓ:Ó¹Ñ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àIn€this€appeal€brought€by€the€State€as€appellant,€we€mustÏdecide€whether€the€Circuit€Court€for€Prince€Georgeððs€County€erredÏin€granting€post€conviction€relief€to€Thomas€Wayne€Jones,€appellee,Ïpursuant€to€the€Maryland€Post€Conviction€Procedure€Act,€Md.€CodeÏ(1957,€1996€Repl.€Vol.),€Art.€27,€ðð€¢645A£.€€The€circuit€courtððsÏruling€grew€out€of€a€trial€in€December€1996,€at€which€appellee€andÏa€co„defendant,€Donald€¢Gutrick£,¢×ƒ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€were€charged€with€the€1993€murdersÐ  ð  Ðof€¢Jamal£€Johnson€and€Gary€¢Gulston£Ô#†XBXXXì#ÔÔ‡XXXXBÔ,€and€related€offenses€involvingÐ 0€  ÐMichelle€¢Gulston£€(ð ðMichelleðð)Ô#†XBXXX§#ÔÔ‡XXXXBÔ€and€Jeannette€¢Gulston£€(ð ðJeannetteðð).¢×ƒ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€Ð À ÐAs€to€Gary€¢Gulston£,€Ô#†XBXXXC#ÔÔ‡XXXXBÔJones€was€convicted€of€first€degree€felonyÐ P  Ðmurder,€¢kidnapping£,€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon,€robbery,€and€useÏof€a€handgun€in€a€felony.€€In€addition,€he€was€found€guilty€ofÏhousebreaking€with€respect€to€Jeannetteððs€residence,€as€well€asÏrobbery€and€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon€of€Michelle.Ô#†XBXXX3#ÔÔ‡XXXXBÔ€€The€jury€didÐ à Ðnot€reach€a€verdict€against€Jones€as€to€the€charges€of€murder€ofÏMr.€Johnson,€and€those€charges€were€subsequently€nol€¢prossed£.Ô#†XBXXX°#ÔÔ‡XXXXBÔ€€Ô#†XBXXX•#ÔÔ‡XXXXBÔÐ °  Ðà  àOn€January€31,€1997,€the€trial€court€sentenced€Jones€to€lifeÏwithout€parole€for€the€felony€murder€of€Mr.€¢Gulston£,€and€imposedÏconsecutive€sentences€of€twenty€years€each€for€the€handgun€offenseÏand€the€armed€robbery€of€Michelle.€€The€other€convictions€wereÐ ð#@(Ç Ðmerged€for€sentencing€purposes.€€In€an€unreported€opinion€authoredÏby€Judge€¢Harrell£,€we€affirmed€Jonesððs€convictionsÔ#†XÐ#XXX9—#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô.€€òòSee€Jones€v.Ð @ ÐStateóó,€No.€222,€September€Term,€1997€(filed€January€21,€1998)Ð Ð  Ð(ð ðòòJones€Ióóðð).€€Jones€did€not€file€a€petition€for€certiorari.€Ð ` ° Ðà  àOn€November€12,€1998,€Jones€filed€a€Petition€for€PostÏConviction€Relief€(the€ð ðPetitionðð),€claiming€ineffective€assistanceÐ € Ð  Ðof€counsel€at€both€the€suppression€hearing€and€the€trial,Ïineffective€assistance€of€appellate€counsel,€and€trial€court€error.€ÏAfter€a€hearing€held€on€May€20,€1999,€the€court€granted€postÏconviction€relief€on€August€19,€1999,€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôbased€on€ineffectiveÐ À Ðassistance€of€trial€and€appellate€counsel,€as€well€as€trial€courtÏerror.€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9*!#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔThe€Stateððs€Application€for€Leave€to€Appeal€was€granted€byÐ à0 Ðorder€dated€April€12,€2000.€€On€appeal,€the€State€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ß!#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôpresents€oneÐ pÀ Ðissue€for€our€consideration:ÌÓÓà8  àDid€the€post€conviction€court€err€in€granting€Jones€a€newÏtrial€and€a€new€appeal?Ó#ÓÔ#†XÐ#XXX9¥"#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐX¨Ð Ð  Ðà  àAppellee€has€moved€to€strike€a€portion€of€the€Stateððs€replyÏbrief.€€For€the€reasons€discussed€below,€we€shall€grant€appelleeððsÏmotion€and€affirm€the€post€conviction€court.ÌÌò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDÐ (#x' Ðà@àà$ìàA.€€The€Trialó óˆÐ ¸$ ) ÐÓÓÓÓà  àOn€the€afternoon€of€July€16,€1993,€¢Jamal£€Johnson€and€GaryÏ¢Gulston£€were€murdered€in€Prince€Georgeððs€County.€€Johnson,€who€wasÏ16€years€old,€was€found€in€an€apartment€at€6804€Alpine€Street€inÏDistrict€HeightsÔ#†XÐ#XXX9ª##ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô,€where€Michelle€lived€with€her€cousin,€twenty„Ð ø*H&1 Ðthree€year€old€Gary€¢Gulston£.€€¢Gulston£ððs€body€was€found€that€day€atÐ ˆ,Ø'3 Ðthe€home€of€his€mother,€Jeannette,€who€resided€at€6509€CricketÏPlace€in€Forestville.€€Ìà  àWe€begin€our€factual€summary€by€repeating€the€ð ðFactsðð€as€setÐ Ð  Ðforth€by€the€Court€in€òòJones€Ióó.׃"×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€shall€then€supplement€thoseÐ ` ° Ðfacts€with€additional€information€pertinent€to€the€second€appeal.€ÏIn€òòJones€Ióó,€we€said:Ð € Ð  Ðà@ÀÀ(ìàFACTSˆÌÓW%Óà8  àà ` àMichelle€¢Gulston£€testified€that€on€16€July€1993€sheÏwas€in€her€apartment€at€6804€Alpine€Street€in€DistrictÏHeights,€Maryland,€with€her€son.€€On€that€day€her€cousin,ÏGary€¢Gulston£,€who€also€lived€in€the€apartment,€receivedÏa€page€on€his€beeper.€€Ms.€¢Gulston£€heard€him€respond€inÏhis€return€telephone€call€that€he€was€on€his€way.€€Mr.Ï¢Gulston£€then€left€the€apartment.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àMs.€¢Gulston£€was€in€her€bedroom€watching€televisionÏwith€her€son€when€she€heard€Mr.€¢Gulston£€return€eight€orÏten€minutes€later.€€Ms.€¢Gulston£€overheard€several€peopleÏtalking,€then€two€men€burst€into€her€room€yelling€that€itÏwas€a€ð ðstick„up.ðð€€Ms.€¢Gulston£€testified€that€she€did€notÐ P Ðsee€the€menððs€faces€clearly€because€her€face€was€in€aÏpillow€and€their€faces€were€covered€with€hoods.€€The€menÏtied€her€hands€together€with€a€phone€cord,€and€then€askedÏher€for€money.€€The€men€also€asked€questions€about€Mr.Ï¢Gulston£,€including€where€he€kept€his€money.€€She€saidÏthat€she€did€not€know,€and€the€men€ransacked€her€room,Ïtaking€keys€and€jewelry.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àMs.€¢Gulston£€heard€other€men€in€the€living€roomÏasking€Mr.€¢Gulston£€questions€about€money€and€drugs.€€SheÏheard€Mr.€¢Gulston£€say€that€there€was€money€at€his€mother,ÏJeannette€¢Gulston£ððs,€house,€and€that€he€knew€how€toÏdisable€the€alarm€at€her€house.€€The€men€took€Mr.€¢Gulston£Ïwith€them€and€left€Ms.€¢Gulston£ððs€apartment.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àBefore€they€left,€the€men€put€¢Jamal£€Johnson€on€theÏ¢bedòò[1£]óóÔ#†XÐ#XXX9m&#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€œnextñoñòòóóñoñ›€to€Ms.€¢Gulston£ððs€son.€€Two€men€remained€in€theÐ H&˜!+ Ðapartment€while€the€others€took€Mr.€¢Gulston£€to€hisÏmotherððs€house.€€Fifteen€to€twenty€¢minues£€later,€the€menÐ Ø'(#- Ðreturned€without€Mr.€¢Gulston£.€€Ms.€¢Gulston£,€whose€handsÏwere€still€restrained€by€a€phone€cord,€heard€someone€comeÏinto€the€bedroom,€take€Mr.€Johnson€into€the€living€room,Ïturn€up€the€volume€on€the€television,€and€fire€whatÏsounded€like€two€gunshots.€€Ms.€¢Gulston£€could€not€see€whoÏfired€the€shots€or€how€many€people€were€in€the€apartmentÏbecause€she€was€still€restrained€in€the€bedroom.€€AfterÏthe€men€left€the€apartment€Ms.€¢Gulston£€freed€herself€andÏcalled€police.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌ__________________ÌÌà  àòò1óó€The€record€does€not€indicate€whether€¢Jamal£€Johnson€wasÐ `  Ðrestrained€or€unconscious€when€placed€in€the€room€with€Ms.€¢Gulston£.Ì__________________ÌÌà8  àà ` àAfter€the€incident,€Mr.€¢Gulston£ððs€car,€which€hadÏbeen€parked€in€front€of€the€apartment,€was€found€oneÏblock€away.€€Ms.€¢Gulston£€testified€that€the€men€had€takenÏMr.€¢Gulston£ððs€car€keys€and€her€house€keys€when€they€leftÏto€go€to€Jeannette€¢Gulston£ððs€house.€€In€addition,€a€.25Ïcaliber€pistol€belonging€to€Ms.€¢Gulston£€was€stolen.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àWhen€officers€responded€to€6804€Alpine€Street,€theyÏfound€Mr.€Johnsonððs€body€with€bullet€wounds€to€his€backÏand€to€the€back€of€his€head.€€At€trial,€evidence€showedÏthat€Mr.€Johnson€was€killed€by€bullets€from€a€.25€caliberÏpistol.€€Officers€also€recovered€.25€caliber€bullets€andÏshell€casings,€a€scale,€179€grams€of€suspected€crackÏcocaine,€a€shoe€box€containing€plastic€¢baggies£€and€razorÏblades,€a€pager,€and€$2,500.00€cash€from€Ms.€¢Gulston£ððsÏapartment.€€Officers€checked€Mr.€¢Gulston£ððs€car€forÏfingerprints€but€did€not€recover€any€prints.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àOfficers€who€responded€to€6508€Cricket€place,ÏJeannette€¢Gulston£ððs€house,€discovered€Mr.€¢Gulston£ððs€bodyÏin€the€basement.€€Mr.€¢Gulston£€was€lying€on€his€stomachÏwith€a€pillow€over€his€head,€concealing€a€gunshot€woundÏto€the€head.€€At€trial,€the€State€introduced€evidenceÏthat€the€bullet€recovered€from€Mr.€¢Gulston£ððs€body€wasÏfired€from€a€.¢9mm£€pistol.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àJeanette€¢Gulston£€testified€regarding€the€conditionÏof€her€house.€€She€was€out€of€town€at€the€time€of€theÏshooting€and€returned€to€find€her€house€ransacked€and€herÏpreviously€locked€safe€unlocked.€€The€contents€of€theÏsafe,€including€certificates€of€deposit,€$10,000.00€inÏsavings€bonds,€and€approximately€$4,000.00€in€cash,€wereÏmissing.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àOn€2€August€1993,€at€approximately€7:00€p.m.,Ïappellant€was€arrested€after€officers€stopped€the€car€inÐ ˆ,Ø'3 Ðwhich€he€was€a€passenger.€€Appellant€was€actingÏstrangely;€one€officer€testified€that€appellant€seemedÏœð ðvery€hyper.ðð€€Officers€took€appellant€to€the€policeÐ @ Ðstation€and€placed€him€in€an€interview€room.€€DetectiveÏKenneth€¢OððBerry£€read€appellant€his€rights€and€hadÏappellant€sign€a€waiver€form.€€Appellant€wrote€on€theÏform€that€he€had€used€PCP€and€weed€(marijuana).€€ShortlyÏthereafter,€Detective€Brian€Hickey€called€DetectiveÏ¢OððBerry£,€who€had€been€questioning€appellant,€out€of€theÏinterview€room€and€told€him€that€his€supervisor€wanted€toÏstop€questioning€appellant€until€he€slept€off€the€effectsÏof€the€PCP.€€Detective€¢OððBerry£€testified€that€appellantÏbecame€loud€and€boisterous€several€times€while€in€theÏinterview€room.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àDetective€Andrew€¢Rostich£€testified€that€he€was€inÏthe€interview€room€next€to€appellantððs€the€night€of€2ÏAugust€1993.€€Detective€¢Rostich£€heard€appellant€causingÏseveral€disturbances.€€At€one€point,€the€detectiveÏremoved€all€the€chairs€in€appellantððs€interview€roomÏbecause€appellant€had€been€throwing€them€around.€€Later,Ïat€approximately€2:15€a.m.€on€3€August,€Detective€¢Rostich£Ïhear€[sic]€another€disturbance.€€He€discovered€appellantÏtrying€to€climb€into€the€ceiling€panels€from€the€table€inÏthe€interview€room.€€The€detective€pulled€appellant€down€Ïfrom€the€table.€€As€he€was€falling,€appellant€hit€hisÏhead€on€the€table,€thereby€injuring€his€left€eye.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àDetective€Hickey€testified€that€at€4:00€a.m.€on€3ÏAugust€1993,€he€returned€to€the€interview€room€with€someÏfood€for€appellant.€€Appellant€stated€that€he€wanted€toÏsleep.€€Detective€Hickey€noticed€that€appellantððs€leftÏeye€was€red€and€swollen.€€Although€appellant€refusedÏmedical€treatment€the€detective€took€him€to€the€hospital.€ÏWhen€appellant€returned€to€the€police€station€from€theÏhospital€at€approximately€6:45€a.m.,€Detective€HickeyÏstated€that€appellant€appeared€calm.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àDetective€Richard€¢Delabrer£€testified€that€at€7:30Ïa.m.€he€entered€the€interview€room€to€talk€to€appellant.€ÏDetective€¢Delabrer£€stated€that€he€knew€appellant€fromÏpast€cases€and€had€a€good€rapport€with€him.€€TheÏdetective€read€appellant€his€rights.€€Appellant€indicatedÏthat€he€understood€his€rights€and€was€not€under€theÏinfluence€of€drugs€or€alcohol.€€Appellant€gave€aÏstatement€implicating€himself€in€the€murders€of€GaryÏ¢Gulston£€and€¢Jamal£€Johnson€and€the€robberies€of€MichelleÏ¢Gulston£€and€Jeannette€¢Gulston£.€€Detective€¢Delabrer£Ïtestified€that€appellant€wrote€a€statement,€then€theÏdetective€asked€appellant€a€series€of€questions,€and€hadÏappellant€write€down€his€answers.€€Appellant€reviewed€theÏstatement€and€signed€it.€€The€statement€was€completed€byÐ ˆ,Ø'3 Ðapproximately€2:00€p.m.€on€3€August€1993.Ð Ð Ð  ЛÌà8  àà ` àDerrick€Smith,€a€convicted€co„defendant€in€the€case,Ïtestified€that€he€made€a€statement€to€police€regardingÏthe€night€of€16€July€1993.€€Mr.€Smith,€however,€deniedÏparticipation€in€the€murders€and€testified€that€theÏpolice€coerced€him€into€giving€a€statement€implicatingÏhimself€and€appellant.€€Nevertheless,€Mr.€SmithððsÏstatement€was€admitted€into€evidence.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌòòJones€Ióó,€slip€op.€at€2„6€(footnote€omitted).Ó’ÓÐ € Ð  Ðà  àIn€addition€to€the€foregoing,€the€following€factualÏinformation€is€relevant.ÌÓ+HÓÓÓà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9¨/#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔBaltimore€City€Police€Officer€¢Etiene£€Jones€responded€to€Ms.Ð 0€  ТGulston£ððs€residence€at€around€1:54€p.m.€on€the€afternoon€of€JulyÏ16,€1993.€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9I#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€It€was€Officer€Jones€who€discovered€Johnson€lying€on€theÐ P  Ðfloor€of€the€apartment€in€the€bedroom,€face€down,€with€a€blanketÏthat€had€bullet€holes€and€powder€burns€nearby.€€In€addition€to€theÏshot€to€the€victimððs€back€from€a€.25€caliber€semi„automaticÏhandgun,€a€ballistics€expert€testified€that€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9êI#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔJohnson€was€shot€in€hisÐ à Ðhead€with€a€.45€caliber€semi„automatic€handgun.€€Around€3:15€on€theÏsame€afternoon,€Police€Officer€Joseph€Holmes€proceeded€toÏJeanetteððs€home,€where€the€front€door€was€ajar.€€A€washtub€in€theÏbasement€contained€Gutrickððs€fingerprint.Ô#†XÐ#XXX9iK#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ Ð $ Ðà  àOn€the€evening€of€August€2,€1993,€Jones€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ÆL#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôwas€arrested€inÐ `"°& Ðconnection€with€the€murders.€€At€the€time€of€his€arrest,€Jones€wasÏapparently€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9QM#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôunder€the€influence€of€PCP€and€was€later€taken€to€anÐ €%Ð * Ðarea€hospital€for€an€injury€to€his€eye.€€Several€hours€afterÏJonesððs€arrest,€when€the€effects€of€the€PCP€had€evidently€worn€off,Ïhe€gave€a€written,€incriminating€statement€to€the€police.€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9N#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔPrior€toÐ 0*€%0 Ðtrial,€Jones€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€his€written€statement.€€InÐ À+'2 Ðconnection€with€that€motion,€he€was€represented€by€William€H.ÏMurphy,€Jr.,€Esquire€and€Joseph€¢Niland£,€Esquire,€the€PublicÏDefender€for€Prince€Georgeððs€County.€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9OO#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔThe€court€denied€the€motionÐ Ð  Ðto€suppress€Jonesððs€written€statement.Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ªP#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€When€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9EQ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôthe€case€proceeded€toÐ ` ° Ðtrial,Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ŽQ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€Jones€was€represented€only€byÔ#†XÐ#XXX9R#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€¢Niland£.€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9`R#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ ð @ Ðà  àDetective€Richard€¢Delabrer£€testified€at€Jonesððs€trialÏconcerning€Jonesððs€written€statement€to€police€after€his€arrest.€ÏBecause€Jonesðð€written€statement€was€introduced€in€evidence,€weÏquote€from€it.ÌÓÓà8  àà ` àA€few€weeks€ago€I€was€over€this€girl€named€Tððs€houseÏgetting€high€talking€when€all€of€a€sudden€don€[sic]Ï[¢Gutrick£]€called€me€back€to€the€bedroom€and€asked€me€wasÏI€trying€to€get€some€quick€money€so€I€said€yes€then€heÏtold€me€that€we€were€going€to€rob€some€dude€named€GaryÏ[¢Gulston£.€¢S]o£€me,€Don€[¢Gutrick£],€Jason€[¢Pinkney£]€andÏDerrick€[Smith]€waited€until€the€next€morning€and€went€toÏhill€top€apartments€and€parked[.]€[s]o€me€and€Don€went€inÏsome€woods€waiting€for€[¢G]ary£€while€Jason€and€Derrick€wasÏin€the€car,€and€[¢G]ary£€pulled€up€and€went€in€the€house[.€Ï¢S]o£€me€and€Don€went€to€get€Jason€and€Derrick€but€by€[the]Ïtime€we€got€back€to€his€building€he€was€leaving€so€weÏwaited€in€his€building€until€he€came€back€and€when€heÏcame€back€we€took€him€into€the€apartment€and€laidÏeveryone€down€and€asked€wheres€[sic]€the€money€and€drugsÏand€[¢G]ary£€told€us€it€was€over€his€mothers€[sic]€houseÏbut€he€said€he€would€have€to€take€us€there€because€thereÏwas€a€[sic]€alarm€on€the€door€[s]o€me€and€Don€took€himÏthere€and€found€a€safe€and€four€thousand€[.€€¢S]o£€Don€keptÏon€saying€this€¢aint£€[sic]€all€the€money€and€[¢G]ary£€[kept]Ïon€saying€its€[sic]€some€more€but€I€dont€[sic]€know€whereÏits€[sic]€at€because€my€brother€hid€it€and€Don€thought€heÏwas€lying€and€went€and€got€a€pillow€and€we€is€about€toÏkill€you€and€I€told€Don€no€letððs€take€him€back€and€callÏhis€brother€and€Don€said€no€give€me€the€gun[.]€€Iððll€doÏit[.]€€Just€put€the€pillow€over€his€head[.€¢S]o£€I€did€itÏand€Don€shot€him€once€in€the€head[.ò ò€ó ó¢S]o£€we€left€and€wentÐ '`", Ðback€to€hilltop€and€I€told€Don€Ill€[sic]€get€the€carÏready€while€he€go€get€them€and€when€he€upstairs€œI›€heardÏtwo€shots€and€they€came€running€out€to€the€car€and€weÏwent€over€to€Jasons€[sic]€house€in€Seat€Pleasant€andÏsplit€the€money€4€ways€and€Derrick€had€a€25€that€he€got.€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9­R#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐú*J&1Ð Ð  ÐÐ Â+'2 ÐÓ¿SÓà  àœJones›€also€said€that€¢Gutrick£€had€a€.45€caliber€gun€and€thatÏSmith€found€a€.25€caliber€gun€in€the€apartment.€€In€addition,€JonesÏwore€a€hood€over€his€face€in€the€apartment,€and€stated€that€he€wasÏin€the€car€when€the€second€shooting€occurred.€Ìà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9C[#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔDerrick€Smith€was€also€charged€with€various€offenses€arisingÐ ð @ Ðfrom€the€same€murdersÔ#†XÐ#XXX9Ý\#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô.€€Smith€gave€a€written€statement€to€DetectiveÐ € Ð  ТRostich£€after€his€arrest,€in€which€he€admitted€his€participation€inÏthe€murders.€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9…]#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔThe€following€portion€of€Smithððs€statement€isÐ  ð  Ðparticularly€central€to€this€appeal:ÌÓÓà8  àQ.à ` àDid€Don€[¢Gutrick£]€or€¢T.J.£€[i.e.,€appellant]€sayÐ À Ðanything€when€they€came€back€[to€Michelleððs€residence]?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àA.à ` àWhen€Don€came€back€upstairs€Jason€asked€him€whereÐ h Ðthe€other€person€was€at€and€òòhe€said€we€killed€himóó€[i.e.,Ð à0 ТGulston£].Óæ^ÓÐ Ð Ð  Ð(Emphasis€added).à  àÐ 8ˆ Ðà  àSmithððs€case€was€severed€for€trial€and,€by€the€time€of€JonesððsÏtrial,€Smith€had€already€been€convicted.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9]^#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔThe€State€then€calledÐ X¨ ÐSmith€as€a€witness€at€Jonesððs€trial.€€The€following€colloquy€at€theÏoutset€of€Smithððs€testimony€is€pertinent€here:€ÌÓÓà  à[PROSECUTOR]:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ºa#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Mr.€Smith,€where€are€you€presentlyÐ  X# Ðà  àresiding?ÌÌà  à[SMITH]:€Prison.ÌÌà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9Ëb#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô[PROSECUTOR]:€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9‡c#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€Iððm€sorry.Ð ð#@( ÐÌà  à[SMITH]:€€Prison.ÌÌà  à[PROSECUTOR]:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9×c#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ud#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔDepartment€of€Corrections?Ð '`", ÐÌà  à[SMITH]:€€Yeah.ÌÐ h)¸$/ Ðà0  à[PROSECUTOR]:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9¹d#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ue#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔAnd€you€have€previously€been€convictedа(#(# Ѐ€€€€in€this€case;€is€that€correct,€Mr.€Smith?ÌÌà  à[SMITH]:€€Yeah.ÌÌÓÓà  àBoth€the€prosecutor€and€the€defense€were€surprised€when€SmithÏdenied€knowledge€of€or€participation€in€either€murder.€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9¹e#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔIn€fact,Ð ( x ТNiland£€said€to€the€court:€€ð ðWe€thought€he€was€going€to€testify,ðð€andÐ ¸   Ðhe€expressly€acknowledged€that€he€was€ð ðsurprisedðð€by€SmithððsÐ H ˜  Ðtestimony.€€As€a€result€of€Smithððs€testimony,€the€prosecutorÏdirected€Smith€to€his€written€statement.€Ìà  àThe€prosecutor€initially€asked€Smith€to€verify€both€hisÏsignature€at€the€bottom€of€the€written€statement€and€hisÏhandwriting€on€the€document.€€Although€Smith€acknowledged€hisÏsignature€and€handwriting,€he€claimed€that€the€police€had€made€himÏgive€the€statement.€€At€the€bench,€the€prosecutor€then€offeredÏSmithððs€statement€in€evidence.€€¢Niland£€responded:€ð ðWell,€I€thinkÐ È Ðweððre€a€ways€from€that€yet.ðð€€A€lengthy€bench€conference€ensued,€atÐ X¨ Ðwhich€the€State€argued,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€Smith€had€alreadyÐ è8 Ðauthenticated€the€document.€€¢Niland£€observed,€however,€that€SmithÏdenied€the€truth€of€the€content€of€his€written€statement,€adding:€ÌÓjfÓà8  àà ` àHe€hasnððt€been€asked€any€questions€about€anyÏpurported€admission€made€to€him€by€the€defendant€orÏperhaps€more€importantly€any€observation€that€he€madeÏwith€respect€to€the€defendant€thatððs€contained€in€thisÏstatement.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àI€think€the€only€things€that€would€be€admissibleÏfrom€the€statement,€if€any€of€it€was€admissible€.€.€.€isÏit€either€admissible€hearsay€exception€to€the€hearsayÏ[sic]€or€I€believe€in€this€statement€thereððs€someplaceÏwhere€he€says€he€was€involved€with€others€with€regard€toÏone€of€these€shootings€and€that€ð"ð€and€then€the€onlyÐ 0*€%0 Ðthing,€only€other€thing,€he€says€I€think€is€that€theÏdefendant,€he€may€have€some€observations€that€he€actuallyÏpersonally€made€with€regard€to€the€defendant€thatÐ ˆ,Ø'3 Ðwouldnððt€ordinarily€be€admissible.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àSo€I€think€the€next€thing€that€has€to€happen€here€isÏthat€there€be€an€isolation€and€a€denial€on€his€part€orÏrefusal€on€his€part€with€regard€to€admissible€areas€ofÏthe€statement.Ð Ð Ð  Ѐ€ÌÓP]ÓThe€court€essentially€agreed€with€the€defense.€€The€judge€said€toÏthe€prosecutor:€€ð ðYouððre€offering€[the€statement]€en€mass€and€IððmÐ ¸   Ðrejecting€[it]€en€mass.ðð€€Ð H ˜  Ðà  àThereafter,€tÓÅoÓÔ#†XÐ#XXX9!g#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÓÓhe€trial€judge,€òò¢sua£€¢sponte£óó,€undertook€a€review€ofÐ Ø(  ÐSmithððs€statement€to€determine€whether€it€needed€to€be€redacted.€ÏNeither€the€State€nor€the€defense€made€any€suggestions€to€the€courtÏas€to€what,€if€anything,€to€redact.€€Nevertheless,€the€judgeÏÔ#†XÐ#XXX9q#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôconcluded€that€the€following€statement€constituted€inadmissibleÐ h Ðð ðhearsay€within€hearsayðð€and€had€to€be€redacted:€ð ðSo€Don€[¢Gutrick£]Ð ¨ø Ðtold€¢TJ£€[i.e.,€appellant]€about€some€guy€named€Gary€[¢Gulston£]€thatÏhe€[i.e.,€¢Gutrick£]€had€robbed€before.ðð€€Other€than€that€statement,Ð È Ðthe€court€indicated€that€ð ðthe€rest€of€the€statement€certainly€wouldÐ X¨ Ðbe€admissible€.€.€.€.ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Then,€the€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9jr#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôcourt€asked€¢Niland£€his€ð ðpositionððÐ è8 Ðabout€the€rest€of€the€statement,€and€¢Niland£€initially€said:€ð ðIf€theÐ xÈ! Ðwitness€wrote€this,€then€I€donððt€have€any€objection€to€the€contentsÏof€it€period.ðð€€¢Niland£€indicated€only€that€he€wanted€ð ðto€clarifyððÐ ˜!è% Ðand€ð ðmake€sureðð€that€Smith€actually€wrote€the€text€of€the€statement.€Ð (#x' ÐHe€also€wanted€to€determine€who€wrote€the€questions€and€answersÏthat€were€part€of€the€statement.€€Later,€¢Niland£€asked€the€court€toÏredact€one€question€and€answer€at€the€top€of€page€4€of€SmithððsÐ Ø'(#- Ðstatement.€€According€to€the€transcript,€it€read:€€ð ð[Question]:€DidÐ ° ТTJ£€and€Don€say€what€happened€when€they€were€gone?€[Answer]:€ThatÏthey€left€him€[i.e.€the€victim]€over€his€motherððs.ðð€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9Øt#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔThe€courtÐ Ð  Ðreadily€agreed€to€the€defense€request.€€Again,€the€court€invitedÏcounsel€to€identify€any€other€concerns,€stating:€ð ðNow€letððs€dealÐ ð @ Ðwith€any€other€issues€you€wish€to€deal€with.ðð€€¢Niland£€merelyÐ € Ð  Ðresponded:€ð ðThe€document€itself€should€not€be€admitted.€€TheÐ `  Ðcontents,€if€youððre€going€to€admit,€should€be€òòreadóó€to€the€jury€.€.Ð  ð  Ð.€.ðð€€(Emphasis€added).€€¢Niland£€explained€that€he€was€concernedÐ 0€  Ðthat€the€jury€would€place€ð ðgreater€weightðð€on€a€written€document.€Ð À ÐThe€court€opted€to€defer€ruling€on€that€issue€until€after€the€voirÏdire€of€Smith.Ìà  àThereafter,€the€lawyers€conducted€a€voir€dire€of€Smith€as€toÏhis€role€in€making€or€writing€the€statement.€€Although€Smith€Ïacknowledged€that,€with€respect€to€the€question€and€answer€portion,Ïhe€wrote€the€answers€that€appeared€in€his€statement,€he€claimedÏthat€the€content€of€the€statement€and€the€answers€to€the€questionsÏwere€inaccurate.€€Subsequently,€¢Niland£€renewed€his€request€that€theÏcourt€permit€the€prosecutor€to€read€the€statement,€but€bar€theÏState€from€ð ðphysicallyðð€admitting€the€document.€€The€State€disagreedÐ `"°& Ðwith€that€position.€€ÓqÓÔ#†XÐ#XXX9qx#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÓÓWhen€the€State€then€offered€Smithððs€redactedÐ ð#@( Ðstatement,€the€defense€objected€ð ðon€the€grounds€previously€stated.ðð€Ð €%Ð * ÐThe€judge€reserved€ruling,€telling€the€State€that€it€had€ð ðtoÐ '`", Ðexplore€a€little€further€an€evidentiary€basis€to€show€there€is€anÏinconsistency.ðð€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9Ü}#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ԀР0*€%0 Ðà  àIn€his€trial€testimony,€Smith€maintained€that€he€did€notÐ À+'2 Ðparticipate€in€the€murders€and€was€not€a€witness€to€what€occurred.€ÏHe€also€denied€talking€to€Jones€about€the€matter.€€When€the€StateÏagain€offered€Smithððs€statement,€the€court€said€it€would€ruleÐ Ð  Ðð ðafter€cross.ðð€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9}#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔOn€cross„examination,€the€following€occurred:Ð ` ° ÐÓû}Óà8  à[¢NILAND£]:€€Your€testimony€now€is€that€you€did€notÏparticipate€in€€either€one€of€these€shootings€that€tookÏplace€at€Alpine€Street€and€Cricket€Place€that€is€theÏsubject€of€this€case?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à[SMITH]:€€Yeah.ÌÌà8  à[¢NILAND£]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:€€And€youððre€the€same€Derrick€Smith€who€wasÐ h¸  Ðconvicted€in€a€trial€by€jury€of€both€those€murders?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à[SMITH]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9Æ‚#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:€€Yes.Ð À Ðà  àÌà8  à[¢NILAND£]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ªƒ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:€€€Well,€how€is€it€that€on€December€the€2òòndóó,Ð P  Ð1993,€when€the€police€took€this€statement€from€you€thatÏyou€were€able€to€tell€them€all€these€things?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[SMITH]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9+„#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9D…#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔThey€forced€me€to€write€a€statement.€€They€toldÐ pÀ Ðme€what€to€say.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓà@ÀÀ(ìà*€*€*ˆÌÓ†Óà8  à[¢NILAND£]:€€òòThe€last€question€on€page€6€says,€ð ðDid€Don€orÐ X¨ ТTJ£€say€anything€when€they€came€back?ððóóÐ pÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àòòThe€answer€says,€ð ðWhen€Don€came€back€upstairs€JasonÐ °  Ðasked€him€where€the€other€person€was€at€and€he€said€weÏkilled€him.ððóóÐ@"Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àSee€that?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[SMITH]:€Yes.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à[¢NILAND£]:€Thatððs€in€your€writing?Ô#†XÐ#XXX9‰…#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ ð#@( ÐÌà8  à[SMITH]:€€Yes.Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ˆ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔЀ%Ð *Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[¢NILAND£]:€òòDid€the€policeman€tell€you€to€write€that?óóÐ'`",Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[SMITH]:€òòNo,€I€heard€that€somewhere.óóР(ð#.Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[¢NILAND£]:€You€heard€that€somewhere?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[SMITH]:€Yeah.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÐ ˆ,Ø'3 Ðà8  à[¢NILAND£]:€òòYou€heard€that€Don€had€killed€the€guy?óóаРР ÐÌà8  à[SMITH]:€òòYeah.óóÐ@Ð Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  ÐÓczÓ(Emphasis€added).à  àÐ Ð  Ðà  àOn€redirect€examination,€Smith€insisted€that€the€police€hadÏtried€to€ð ðframeðð€him.€€He€also€claimed€that€the€police€dictated€halfÐ ð @ Ðof€his€statement€and€he€made€up€the€other€half.€€Moreover,€SmithÏmaintained€that€the€content€of€the€statement€was€not€true,€andÏsaid:€€ð ðI€donððt€lie.ðð€€Later,€the€judge€said:€€ð ðYou€have€offeredÐ  ð  Ð[the€statement],€Iððll€reserve€ruling.€€Weððll€discuss€it€at€a€laterÏtime.ðð€€Ð À Ðà  àAfter€tÓS‹ÓÓÓhe€State€recalled€Detective€¢Rositch£,€who€took€SmithððsÏstatement,€the€State€again€moved€Smithððs€written€statement€intoÏevidence.€€The€following€transpired:€€ÓµÓÌÌà8  à[THE€COURT]:€Other€than€the€objection€you€have€placed€onÏthe€record€do€you€have€any€additional€objections?€AnyÏreasons€why€we€should€not€receive€[the€writtenÏstatement]?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à[DEFENSE€ATTORNEY]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9‰#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9‘#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€No€your€honor.Ð è8 ÐÌà  à[THE€COURT]:€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9Ô#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔObjection€is€overruled.€[The€statement]€isÐ xÈ! Ѐ€€€€admitted.€Ìà  àÌÓÓà  àThe€foregoing€exchanges€demonstrate€that€¢Niland£€did€notÏspecifically€challenge€Smithððs€reference€to€¢Gutrick£ððs€assertion,Ïeven€though€the€court€had€invited€defense€counsel€to€challengeÏobjectionable€portions€of€the€statement,€and€had€even€alertedÏ¢Niland£€to€a€concern€about€ð ðhearsay€within€hearsay.ðð€€Moreover,Ð '`", ТNiland£€actually€highlighted€for€the€jury€the€portion€of€theÏstatement€in€issue,€because€he€specifically€questioned€Smith€aboutÏit.€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9T#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ À+'2 Ðà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9ð’#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔSmithððs€written€statement€to€Detective€¢Rositch£€was€thenÐ ° Ðintroduced€in€evidence.€€There,€Smith€said,€in€part:€ÌÓÏÓà8  àMe€and€Don€[¢Gutrick£],€¢T.J.£€[i.e.,€appellant],€and€JasonÏmeet€[sic]€over€Teeððs€house€and€then€Don€called€¢T.J.£€inÏthe€back€room.€*€*€*€*òò[׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝò…òÚ  Ú6Ú  Úó…óÝ  Ý×  ×]óó€€So€we€went€to€Gary€[sic]€houseÐ ` ° Ðand€robbed€him.€€We€was€looking€for€some€drugs€and€money.€ÏBut€there€was€no€money€there€so€Don€and€¢T.J.£€left€theÏapartment€with€Gary€and€they€did€not€come€back€with€him.€ÏSo€me€and€Jason€was€waiting€for€them€to€come€back.€€SoÏwent€œ[sic]›€they€came€back€Don€came€up€stairs€and€said€areÏyou€ready€to€go€and€we€said€yes,€but€before€we€left€weÏasked€him€did€they€get€anything€and€he€said€yes€so€weÏrolled.€€And€then€we€went€over€Jasonððs€house€to€count€theÏmoney.€€We€counted€about€5000€dollar€[sic]€and€we€all€gotÏabout€1100€dollars€a€peace€[sic].€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓøgÓà  àIn€his€statement,€Smith€also€said€that€the€robbery€had€beenÏplanned€the€day€before€it€occurred€and€that€the€group€arrived€atÏ¢Gulston£ððs€apartment€in€appellantððs€car.€€Further,€Smith€recountedÏthat€¢Gutrick£€and€appellant€were€the€ones€who€first€approachedÏ¢Gulston£€outside€the€apartment.€€Smith€also€stated:€ð ðWhen€Don€cameÐ P Ðback€up€stairs€Jason€asked€him€where€the€other€person€was€at€and€heÏsaid€we€killed€him.ðð€€Moreover,€Smith€initially€said€¢Gutrick£€shotÐ  p Ðthe€person€in€the€apartment,€but€later€admitted€that€he€also€shotÏJohnson,€because€ð ðhe€seen€everybody€[sic]€face.ððÔ#†XÐ#XXX9S“#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôà  àÓx—ÓÔ#†XÐ#XXX96š#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ @" ÐÌÓÓà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9šš#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔThereafter,€the€jury€found€Jones€guilty€of€the€offensesÐ Ð $ Ðspecified€earlier,€including€first€degree€felony€murder€of€GaryÏ¢Gulston£.€€In€his€direct€appeal€with€respect€to€those€convictions,Ïappellant€was€represented€by€Leonard€L.€Long,€Jr.,€Esquire,€whoÏraised€three€issues:€the€denial€of€Jonesððs€motion€to€suppress,€theÏsufficiency€of€evidence,€and€the€Stateððs€Notice€of€Intention€toÏSeek€Life€without€Parole.Ð 0*€%0 Ðà  àAs€to€the€motion€to€suppress,€appellant€presented€severalÏgrounds€to€support€his€claim€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denyingÏhis€motion.€€In€òòJones€Ióó,€the€Court€thoroughly€considered€the€issueÐ Ð  Ðand€concluded€that€the€ð ðtrial€court€properly€deniedðð€the€motion.€Ð ` ° ÐÔ#†XÐ#XXX9›#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔWith€respect€to€the€sufficiency€issue,€the€Court€in€òòJones€IóóÐ ð @ Ðrecognized€the€importance€of€Smithððs€statement€to€the€prosecution,Ïstating,€in€part:ÌÓÓà8  àà ` àòòAlthough€Michelle€¢Gulston£€was€not€able€to€identifyÐ  ð  Ðthe€robbers,€and€no€fingerprints€were€recovered€from€theÏcrime€scenes,€appellantððs€statement€and€Mr.€SmithððsÏstatement€corroborate€Ms.€¢Gulston£ððs€testimonyóó€and€provideÐ øH  Ðsufficient€evidence€for€a€jury€to€find€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€appellant€¢kidnapped£€Gary€¢Gulston£,Ïrobbed€Michelle€¢Gulston£,€and€broke€into€JeannetteÏ¢Gulston£ððs€house.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àFurthermore,€as€to€appellantððs€use€of€a€handgun,€inÏhis€statement€he€admits€that€he€had€a€gun,€which€heÏhanded€to€Don€so€that€Don€could€kill€Gary€¢Gulston£€whileÏappellant€held€a€pillow€over€his€head.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àFinally,€as€to€the€question€of€whether€Gary€¢Gulston£Ïwas€killed€while€in€the€process€of€committing€a€felony,Ïwe€find€ample€evidence€that€Gary€¢Gulston£€was€killedÏduring€the€commission€of€his€¢kidnapping£€and€robbery€withÏa€deadly€weapon.€€Appellant€claims€that€because€DonÏkilled€Mr€¢Gulston£€after€the€robbery,€it€was€anÏindependent€and€separate€act.€€Appellantððs€argument€hasÏno€merit.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà@ÀÀ(ìà*€*€*ˆÌÌà8  àà ` àFinally,€we€note€that€although€a€jury€could€findÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€appellant€was€a€principalÏoffender€in€the€robberies€and€murder,€appellantððsÏconvictions€could€also€stem€from€his€participation€as€anÏaccomplice.€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9[ž#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÓ(ŸÓÐH&˜!+Ð Ð  ÐòòJones€Ióó,€slip€op.€at€24„25€(emphasis€added).Ð Ø'(#- ÐÌà@0 0 ìàò òB.€€Post„Conviction€Proceedingsó 󀀈Ð ø*H&1 Ðà  àOn€November€12,€1998,€Jones€filed€the€underlying€Petition,Ïasserting€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel,€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€appellate€counsel,€and€prejudicial€error€by€the€courtÏin€admitting€Smithððs€redacted€statement.€€On€May€7,€1999,€JonesÏfiled€a€supplement€to€his€Petition.€€Shortly€thereafter,€on€May€20,Ï1999,€the€court€held€an€evidentiary€hearing€at€which€Jones€wasÏrepresented€by€Fred€Bennett,€Esquire.€€Testimony€was€obtained€fromÏMurphy,€¢Niland£,€and€Long,€who€wereÔ#†XÐ#XXX9!¥#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€Jonesððs€prior€attorneys.Ð  ð  Ðà  àIn€questioning€¢Niland£,€Bennett€focused€on€various€portions€ofÏSmithððs€trial€testimony.€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9&¨#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔThe€following€colloquy€is€relevant:Ð À ÐÔ#†XÐ#XXX9©#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÓÓà8  à[BENNETTÔ#†XÐ#XXX9|©#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ä©#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9'ª#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Is€there€any€tactic€or€strategy€that€you€canÐ P  Ðrelate€to€the€Court€at€this€time€as€to€why€you€would€notÏhave€objected€to€a€prior€conviction€of€a€severed€co„¼defendant€for€the€same€crime€for€which€the€defendant€wasÏon€trial?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[NILAND]:€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9jª#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔWell,€I€think€at€the€time€I€thought€that€thisÐ P Ðman,€Smith,€admitting€that€he€was€convicted€of€both€ofÏthese€homicides€tended€to€reenforce€my€theory€thatÏalienated€the€defendant€from€these€homicides€or€alienatedÏthe€defendant€from€participation€in€these€homicides€andÏso€I€didnððt€think€it€was€harmful.€€I€thought€it€wasÏprobably€ð"ð€I€think€my€thinking€at€the€timeð"ð€well,€thereÐ °  Ðwere€a€number€of€things€caught€up€in€all€of€this.€€SmithÏsurprised€me€by€not€testifying.€€I€had€been€informedÏbefore€this€trial€started€that€both€Smith€and€GulstonÏ[sic]òò€óóÔ#†XÐ#XXX9Ϋ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôwere€going€to€testify€against€the€defendant.ÐÐ $Ð Ð  Ðà  àÌà8  à[BENNETTÔ#†XÐ#XXX9g®#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9¯#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9X¯#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Derrick€Smith€and€Don€¢Gulston£?òò[óó¢×ƒ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£òò]óóÔ#†XÐ#XXX9›¯#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ`"°&Ð Ð  Ðà  àÌà  à[¢NILAND£]:€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9b°#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔYes.Ð ð#@( Ðà  àÌà  à[BENNETTÔ#†XÐ#XXX9é°#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9e±#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9¨±#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€All€right.Ð €%Ð * Ðà  àÌà8  à[¢NILAND£]:€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ë±#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔAnd€of€course€I€was€prepared€to„„I€assume€theyÐ '`", Ðwere€going€to€testify€in€the€most€unfavorable€possibleÏways€that€I€could€imagine.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà  àÐ h)¸$/ Ðà8  à[BENNETTÔ#†XÐ#XXX9t²#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9–³#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9Ù³#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Now,€let€me€stop€you€there.€€Such€asÐ ° Ðimplicating€the€defendant?Ð Ð Ð  Ðà  àÌà8  à[¢NILAND£]:€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9´#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔYeah.€€I€was€there€and€saw€the€defendant€andÐ X Ðsaw€the€defendant€participate€in€killing€this€guy.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà@HH'ìà*€*€*€€ˆÌÌà8  à[BENNETT]:€€Now,€you€said€a€minute€or€so€ago€one€of€theÏreasons€you€may€not€have€objected€is€the€fact€that€heÏadmitted,€that€is,€Derrick€Smith€for€being€convicted€ofÏthe€same€crime€that€the€defendant€was€on€trial€might€giveÏsome€distance€between€the€defendant€and€Derrick€Smith,Ïright?Ð Ð Ð  Ðà  àÌà8  à[¢NILAND£]:€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ð´#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔYes,€and€conclusions€you€might€reach€about€whoÐ h¸  Ðreally€were€the€killers€in€this€case.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓà  àBennett€then€inquired€about€Smithððs€written€statement€toÏpolice,€and€¢Niland£ððs€failure€to€object€to€the€portion€of€SmithððsÏstatement€in€which€Smith€quoted€¢Gutrick£€as€saying€ð ðwe€killed€him.ðð¢×ƒ)×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€Ð à0 ÐÔ#†XÐ#XXX9?·#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔThe€following€testimony€is€relevant:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9Y¹#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ pÀ ÐÓÓà8  à[BENNETTÔ#†XÐ#XXX9¿¹#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9<º#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9º#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€All€right.€Now,€so€far€weððve€identified€fromÐ P Ðthe€transcript€that€your€objection€was€based€on€you€didÏnot€want€a€written€statement€to€go€in€front€of€the€jury,Ïcorrect?€€Thatððs€as€far€as€we€got€so€far?Ô#†XÐ#XXX9º#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐX¨Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[¢NILAND£]:€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ç»#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔI€think€I€objected€because€I€didnððt€want€anyÐ è8 Ðof€the€statement€to€go€in€front€of€the€jury.€€òòI€donððtÐ °  Ðknow€that€I€ever€was€given€an€opportunity€to€go€intoÏwhether€the€statement€conformed€to€admissibility€based€onÏthe€rule.€€I€donððt€even€know€if€he€let€me€get€into€that.óóÐ  X# ÐThe€judge„„I€started€on€this€statement.€I€did€say€whatÏyou€said€which€is€if€youððre€going€to€let€any€of€this€inÏit€should€be€testimonial.€€It€shouldnððt€be€the€documentÏitself.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà@HH'ìà*€*€*€€ˆÌÌÔ#†XÐ#XXX9b¼#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôà8  à[¢NILAND£]:€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9â¾#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔYouððre€characterizing€it€by€saying€that€myÐ H&˜!+ Ðobjection€was€limited€to€me„„to€the€written€part€notÏcoming€in€as€opposed€to€me€indicating€that€itððs€OK€toÏleave,€to€have€the„„I€think€that€was€a€secondaryÐ  (ð#. Ðobjection€I€made.€€òòI€think€I€objected€to€the€statementÐ ° Ðcoming€in.óó€€And€then€when€I€saw€the€writing€on€the€wall,Ð xÈ Ðthat€is€that€the€statement€was€coming€in,€I€tried€to€getÏmy€half€a€yard€instead€of€my€whole€yard,€and€I€asked€forÏhim€not€to€let€the€written€part€in.€So€I€donððt€think,€IÏdonððt€think€thatððs€wrong.€Thatððs€all€I€did.€€Now,€youððreÏright.€€òòIn€retrospect€you€have€shown€me€some€things€inÐ ` ° Ðthe€statement€that€I€could€have€specifically€objectedÐ ( x Ðtoð"ðóóÐð @Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[BENNETTÔ#†XÐ#XXX9=¿#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô]:€€And€thatððs€where€Iððm€going€to€next.Ѐ Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à[¢NILAND£]:€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ÙÂ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô„òò„and€I€didnððtóó.€òòBut€I€donððt€think€that€meansÐ `  ÐI€didnððt€object€to€this€whole€statement€coming.óó€ÐØ( Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[BENNETT]:€€I€agree€that€you€clearly€objected€to€theÏstatement€coming€in.€€Youððre€saying€that€was€a€fall€back.ÏYour€first€objection€was€the€statement€shouldnððt€come€inÏat€all,€but€if€it€does,€it€should€be€in€a€Q€and€A€formÏand€not€in€the€document€itself;€is€that€a€fair€statement?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à[¢NILAND£]:€€Yes,€thatððs€a€fair€statement,€yes.ÌÌ(Emphasis€added).Ìò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àó óÌÓÓà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9£Ã#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔThe€following€testimony€is€also€pertinent:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9hÆ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ 8ˆ ÐÓÓà8  à[BENNETTÔ#†XÐ#XXX9ÔÆ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9QÇ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9”Ç#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€òòWould€you€not€agree€that€¢that£€statement€wasÐ È Ða€direct€out„of„court€statement€implicating€the€defendantÏin€the€crime€for€which€he€was€ultimately€convicted?óóÐX¨Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à[¢NILAND£]:€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9×Ç#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔòòYes,€it€was.óóÐ è8 ÐÌà8  à[BENNETTÔ#†XÐ#XXX9 É#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9‡É#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ÊÉ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€Now,€you€were€aware,€were€you€not,€of€theÐ xÈ! Ðòò¢Nance£óó€case€at€the€time€of€this€trial,€right?€€Ð@"Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à[¢NILAND£]:€Yes.€€Ìà  àÌà8  à[BENNETT]:€€And€were€you€aware€in€footnote€nine€in€theÏòò¢Nance£óó€decision€where€it€says€ð ðassuming€that€a€priorÐ (#x' Ðinconsistent€statement€can€come€in,€you€have€a€separateÏobjection€to€a€line„by„line€statement€to€portions€of€theÏprior€inconsistent€statements€that€are€hearsay.ððЀ%Ð *Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[¢NILAND£]:€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9 Ê#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔTo€tell€you„„I€can€only€say€that€I€hadÐ '`", Ðprobably€by€that€time€read€òò¢Nance£óó€a€dozen€times,€reviewedÐ Ø'(#- Ðit,€given€seminars€on€it,€discussed€it,€consideredÏvarious€ramifications€of€òò¢Nance£óó€because€it€was€a€problemÐ h)¸$/ Ðin€the€defense€case€at€the€time.€€Now,€itððs€maybe€aÏproblem€in€the€Stateððs€case.€But€the„„I€guess€the€bottomÏline€answer€is€yes.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àI€think€that€the€case€indicates€that€if€there€isÐ ˆ,Ø'3 Ðextraneous€hearsay€that€the€whole€thing€is€based€uponÏhearsay,€the€whole€statement€is€hearsay.€€But€if€there€isÏextraneous€or€as€you€say€second„hand€hearsay€or€doubleÏhearsay€or€triple€hearsay,€then€thatððs€objectionableÏbecause€it€loses€the€reliability€of€being€subject€toÏœcross[„]examination›€of€the€person€who€itððs€beingÏattributed€to€on€the€part€of€the€defendant.€€So€yes„„andÏthat€would€fall„„this€would€fall€clearly€into€thatÏcategory.€€No€question€about€it.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[BENNETTÔ#†XÐ#XXX9ƒÌ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ØÐ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9Ñ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Now,€youððve€testified€a€few€minutes€earlierÐ € Ð  Ðthat€your€goal€is€to€keep€this€out€generally.€€YouÏobjected.€€First,€donððt€let€it€in€under€òò¢Nance£óó€and€donððtÐ `  Ðlet€in€the€written€statement.€So€your€goal€at€trial€wasÏto€keep€the€statement€out?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[¢NILAND£]:€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9^Ñ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔMy€goal„„when€it€came€up€at€trial,€òòthis€wasnððtÐ 0€  Ðpart€of€my€pretrial€preparation€because€I€didnððt€think€itÏwould€happen.€€But€once€it€happened€my€goal€was€to€keepÏit€out€if€I€could.óóЈØÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à[BENNETTÔ#†XÐ#XXX9õÒ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9>Ô#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9Ô#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€òòThat€would€include€a€goal€of€keeping€out€aÐ h Ðportion€of€the€statement€that€would€be€multiple€hearsayÏhad€you€recognized€it,€correct?óóШøÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à[¢NILAND£]:€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ÄÔ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔòòI€would€think€so,€especially€this€piece€ofÐ 8ˆ Ðhearsay.óóÐPÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à[BENNETTÔ#†XÐ#XXX9ÝÕ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9 Ö#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ãÖ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€So€is€it€fair€to€say€that€it€was€an€oversightÐ à Ðon€your€part?Ð Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà@ÀÀ(ìà*€*€*ˆÌÌà8  à[BENNETTÔ#†XÐ#XXX9&×#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9#Ø#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9fØ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€It€was€an€oversight€on€your€part€in€notÐ xÈ! Ðrecognizing€the€last€question€on€page€six€to€be€multipleÏhearsay,€i.e.,€Itððs€multiple€hearsay,€Your€Honor.€€ItÏdoesnððt€qualify€even€under€„Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[¢NILAND£]:€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9©Ø#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔòòI€canððt€attribute€it€to€anything€other€than€anÐ `"°& Ðoversight€on€my€partóó€that€I€wouldnððt€have€objected€toÐ (#x' Ðthat€on€that€basis.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[BENNETTÔ#†XÐ#XXX9ëÙ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9Û#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9HÛ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Is€it€also€accurate€to€say€evidence€againstÐ €%Ð * Ðthe€defendant€at€trial€consisted€generally„„that€is,€theÏharmful€evidence€at€trial€of€his€statement€and€theÏstatement€of€Derrick€Smith.€€They€had€no€fingerprints,Ïdid€they?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[¢NILAND£]:€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9‹Û#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔNo,€I€donððt€think€so.€€òòI€donððt€think€there€wasÐ 0*€%0 Ðany€kind€of€physical€evidence€that€tied€the€defendant€toÏeither€one€of€the€homicidesóó€that€I€can€recall,€not€thatÐ À+'2 ÐI€can€recall.€€So€yeah,€his€statement.Ј,Ø'3Ð Ð  Їà8  àà ` àà  à[BENNETTÔ#†XÐ#XXX9ìÜ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9tÞ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9·Þ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€And€the€[Smith]€statement?аРР ÐÌà8  à[¢NILAND£]:€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9úÞ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔAnd€this€statement„òò„frankly,€overall€I€didnððtÐ @ Ðconsider€this€statement€as€particularly€harmfulóó.€€I€mean,Ð X ÐI€guess€I€was€looking€at€it€in€its€totality€at€the€time.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).à  àÐ ` ° Ðà  àAppelleeððs€attorney€also€inquired€as€to€why€¢Niland£€did€notÏrefer€the€trial€court€to€the€Court€of€Appealsððs€decision€in€òò¢Matusky£Ð € Ð  Ðv.€State,óó€343€Md.€467€(1996).€€The€following€testimony€is€relevant:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9‘ß#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ `  ÐÓÓà8  à[BENNETTÔ#†XÐ#XXX9òá#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9oâ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9²â#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€.€.€.€From€what€weððve€gone€over€so€far,€youÐ  ð  Ðdid€not€object€to€the€document,€that€is,€the€physicalÏdocument€or€a€Q€and€A€on€the€basis€that€it€was€hearsayÏsince€it€included€portions€that€were€not€contrary€to€theÏpenal€interests€of€Derrick€Smith,€didnððt€you?€€That€wasÏbased€on€the€òò¢Matusky£óó€case?ЈØÐ Ð  ÐÌà  à[¢NILAND£]:€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9õâ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔRight.€€I€didnððt€raise€that,€no.Ð h ÐÌà@ÀÀ(ìà*€*€*ˆÌÌà8  à[¢NILAND£]:à ¸ àIððm€certain€I€was€aware€of€the€¢Matusky£€case€byÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€time€this€case€came€to€trial.€€Now,€did€I€consciouslyÏanalyze€this€statement€in€light€of€the€¢Matusky£€opinion?€ÏI€canððt€say€I€did,€but€I€might€have€considered€it.€€ButÏI€donððt€have€any€recollection.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà@ÀÀ(ìà*€*€*ˆÌÌà8  à[BENNETTÔ#†XÐ#XXX9·ä#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9Îæ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ç#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Now,€would€there€be€any€trial€tactic€orÐ xÈ! Ðstrategy€involved€not€to€object€based€on€a€recent€CourtÏof€Appeals€case€[òò¢Matusky£óó]€that€would€be€favorable€to€yourÐ  X# Ðclient€that€youððre€aware€of€since€you€were€trying€to€keepÏit€out?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[¢NILAND£]:€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9Tç#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔWell,€I€think€you€would€have€to€ask€me€aboutÐ (#x' Ðany€particular€thing€thatððs€in€here€before€I€can€answerÏthat.Ô#†XÐ#XXX9×è#ÔÓ&âÓÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôи$ )Ð Ð  Ðà  àOn€the€related€issue€of€the€ineffectiveness€of€appellateÏcounsel,€the€question€of€ð ðhearsay€within€hearsayðð€was€also€examined.€Ð Ø'(#- ÐThe€State€questioned€Long,€Jonesððs€appellate€œattorney,›€about€hisÏpreparation€for€the€appeal.€€Long€said:€ð ðI€read€the€transcript,€theÐ ø*H&1 Ðsuppression€hearing€transcripts€as€well€as€the€trial€transcripts,Ð ˆ,Ø'3 Ðresearched€and€reviewed€relevant€case€law,€visited€Mr.€Jones,€hadÏa€conversation€with€Mr.€Jones€and€prepared€the€appeal.ðð€€On€cross„Ð @ Ðexamination,€however,€Long€admitted€that€he€did€not€review€SmithððsÏstatement€to€the€police,€nor€did€he€speak€with€¢Niland£€before€filingÏthe€appeal.€€Bennett€also€inquired€as€to€why,€on€appeal,€Long€hadÏnot€challenged€the€admission€of€Smithððs€statement€to€police.€€TheÏfollowing€is€noteworthy:€ÌÓÓà8  à[BENNETTÔ#†XÐ#XXX9°é#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9œí#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ßí#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€You€said€you€didnððt€do€so€because€afterÐ  ð  Ðreview€of€the€motions€hearing€and€the€trial€transcriptÏyou€found€that€there€was€no€merit€to€that€issue,€correct?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à[LONG]:€€Yes,€in€my€understanding€of€the€law.ÌÌà8  à[BENNETT]:€Your€understanding€of€the€law.€€How€could€youÏmake€a€determination€that€there€was€no€merit€to€theÏquestion€of€the€admissibility€into€evidence€as€a€physicalÏexhibit,€the€statement€in€toto€without€having€reviewedÏthe€substance€of€the€statement?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[LONG]:€I€didnððt€say€I€didnððt€review€it.€€I€said€I€donððtÏrecall€reviewing€it.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[BENNETT]:€But€on€direct€you€were€asked€what€you€did€andÏit€did€not€include€reviewing€the€exhibits€and€talking€toÏthe€trial€attorney?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à[LONG]:€Correct.ÌÌà8  à[BENNETT]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9"î#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:€And€the€best€you€said€is€you€donððt€recall;€isÐ  X# Ðthat€correct?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à[LONG]:€Correct.ÌÌà8  à[BENNETT]:€Sir,€in€reaching€that€determination€that€theÏissue€had€no€merit,€that€is,€the€question€of€theÏadmissibility€of€the€Derrick€Smith€statement,€are€youÏbasing€that€on€a€Maryland€evidence€rule€or€case€law€orÏboth?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à[LONG]:€Maryland€evidence€rule.ÌÌà8  à[BENNETT]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ßñ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:€Is€that€the€rule€dealing€with€theÐ 0*€%0 Ðadmissibility€of€prior€inconsistent€statements€that€isÏcodified€after€the€òò¢Nance£óó€case,€òò¢Nance£óó€versus€State.ÐÀ+'2Ð Ð  ÐÐ ˆ,Ø'3 Ðà  à[LONG]:€Yes.ÌÌà8  à[BENNETT]Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ìó#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô:€Sir,€€€.€€€€.€€€.€€are€you€aware€in€òò¢Nance£óó€thatÐ @ Ðeven€if€[a]€portion€of€the€statement€came€in€a€portionÏmay€not?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[LONG]:€Yes.€€And€I€was€satisfied€that€the€portion€thatÏcame€in€did€not€contain€any€opinions€or€conclusions€ofÏthe€¢declarant£.ÓSíÓÐ Ð Ð  Ðà  àOn€August€19,€1999,€the€post€conviction€court€issued€a€writtenÏopinion€and€order,€amended€on€August€25,€1999,€granting€JonesððsÏPetition;€it€awarded€Jones€a€new€trial€and€a€belated€appeal.€€Ìà  àWith€regard€to€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel,€theÏcourt€found€two€prejudicial€errors.€€First,€it€found€that€trialÏcounsel€was€ineffective€because€he€failed€to€object€to€the€evidenceÏof€Smithððs€conviction€in€the€same€case,€and€the€error€was€notÏharmless.€€Second,€the€court€found€that€ð ðdefense€counsel€probablyÐ pÀ Ðshould€have€objectedðð€to€the€admission€of€Smithððs€statement€toÐ P Ðpolice,€in€which€Smith€attributed€to€¢Gutrick£€the€statement,€ð ðweÐ à Ðkilled€him.ððœ×ƒ'×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9Bõ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔRelying€on€òò¢Strickland£€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668Ð  p Ð(1984),€the€post„conviction€court€said:ÌÓÓà8  àWith€the€benefit€of€hindsight,€the€Court€agrees€withÏ[Jones]€that€certain€mistakes€were€made€.€.€.€€€CounselððsÏtrial€performance,€although€generally€excellent,€did€fallÏbelow€a€standard€of€reasonableness€when€he€failed€toÏobject€to€the€admission€of€the€multiple€hearsayÏstatement.€€This,€when€combined€with€the€cumulativeÏeffects€of€the€other,€more€minor€mistakes€did€result€inÏprejudice€to€the€defendant.ÓÀúÓÐ Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†XÐ#XXX9+ú#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôà  àFurther,€the€post„conviction€court€found€ineffectiveÐ H&˜!+ Ðassistance€of€appellate€counsel,€stating:ÌÓÓà8  àPetitioner€argues€that€there€are€three€things€that€anÏappellate€attorney€should€do,€as€a€matter€of€course:€€1)Ïreview€the€transcripts,€2)€review€the€trial€exhibits,€andÏ3)€confer€with€¢tr[ia]l£€counsel.€.€.€€Appellate€counsel€.Ï.€.€testified€that€after€reading€the€transcripts,€he€didÏnot€see€a€basis€for€raising€the€issue€of€theÏinadmissibility€of€the€redacted€statement€of€DerrickÏSmith.€€Appellate€counsel€admitted€that€he€did€not€reviewÏthe€exhibits,€and€did€not€speak€to€trial€counsel€.€.€.€.ÏThe€Court€agrees€that€appellate€counsel€was€deficient,Ïsaid€deficiency€excuses€Petitionerððs€failure€to€raiseÏallegations€on€direct€appeal,€and€that,€at€a€minimum,ÏPetitioner€is€entitled€to€a€new€appeal.ÓdýÓÐ Ð Ð  Ðà  àAdditionally,€the€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€trialÏjudge€committed€prejudicial€error€in€failing€to€redact€the€portionÏof€Smithððs€statement€in€which€he€quoted€¢Gutrick£€as€saying€ð ðweÐ P  Ðkilled€him.ðð€€Ð à0 Ðà  àThereafter,€we€granted€the€Stateððs€motion€for€leave€to€appeal.€ÏWe€shall€include€additional€facts€in€our€discussion.Ô#†XÐ#XXX9Æü#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÑ€ïWÑÐ P ÐÓÉÓÔ#†XÐ#XXX9 #ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÌò òà@@””%ìàDISCUSSIONÐ  p Ðà@@tt)ìàÔ#†XÐ#XXX9˜#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔI.Ð °  ÐÓ  Óà  àó óPreliminarily,€we€consider€appelleeððs€motion€to€strike€aÐ @" Ðportion€of€the€Stateððs€reply€brief.€€Jones€complains€that€the€StateÏimproperly€raised€an€argument€in€its€reply€brief€that€it€did€notÏpresent€earlier,€either€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€or€in€theÏStateððs€opening€appellate€brief.€€Ìà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9!#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔJones€notes€that€in€the€Stateððs€initial€brief,€the€StateÐ '`", Ðargued€that€Smithððs€statement€was€admissible€under€òò¢Nance£€v.€Stateóó,Ð  (ð#. Ð331€Md.€549€(1993),€and€Md.€Rule€5„802.1(a),€because€it€wasÔ_Ô€reducedÏto€writing€and€was€signed€by€the€¢declarant£,€who€was€present€atÐ À+'2 Ðtrial€and€subject€to€cross„examination.€€At€that€time,€the€StateÏdid€not€advance€the€alternative€argument€that€the€statement€wasÏadmissible€based€on€the€co„conspirator€exception€to€the€hearsayÏrule.€€As€Jones€points€out,€that€argument€was€made€for€the€firstÏtime€in€the€Stateððs€reply€briefÔ#†XÐ#XXX9à#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô.€€Ð ð @ Ðà  àThe€State€does€not€contest€that€it€never€raised€the€issue€ofÏthe€co„conspirator€hearsay€exception€in€its€opening€brief.€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9¡#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ `  ÐNevertheless,€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôin€its€opposition€to€Jonesððs€motion€to€strike,€theÐ  ð  ÐState€argues€that€we€should€overlook€its€omission,€because€theÏState€raised€the€argument€of€the€co„conspirator€exception€beforeÏthe€post€conviction€court€and€in€the€Application€for€Leave€toÏAppeal.€€Relying€on€òòState€v.€Purveyóó,€129€Md.€App.€1,€12€(1999),Ð à0 Ðòòcert.€deniedóó,€357€Md.€483€(2000),€the€State€argues€that€Jones€wasÐ pÀ Ðnot€prejudiced,€because€the€State€merely€amplified€in€the€replyÏbrief€an€argument€that€it€had€previously€presented.Ìà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9ä#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔThe€State€has€referred€us€to€the€following€colloquy€at€theÐ  p Ðpost„conviction€hearing€to€support€its€position€that€the€matter€wasÏraised€below:€ÌÓÓà8  à[THE€STATE]:€And€if€he€had€kept€out€the€statement€by€.€.Ï.€€Mr.€Smith€[,€Jones]€still€would€have€been€convicted,Ïbecause€the€one€statement€and€all€the€other€corroboratingÏevidence€.€.€.€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[THE€COURT]:€Does€what€you€say€fly€in€the€face€of€òòCarrÐ ¸$ ) Ð[v.€State,óó€50€Md.€App.€209€(1981)],€which€was€the€law?Ѐ%Ð *Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[THE€STATE]:€òòCarróó€has€some€qualifications€to€it,€YourÐ '`", ÐHonor.€€It€indicates€that€if€the€State€can€prove€that€itÏwas€harmless€or€the€evidence€was€cumulative,€then€theÏState€can€prevail.€€òòCarróó„„itððs€qualified,€Ô_Ôits€aÔ_Ô€qualifiedÐ h)¸$/ Ðcase,€and€it€was€a€conspiracy€case€also.€€The€differenceÏis€this;€in€a€conspiracy€case€you€have€to€conspire€withÏsomebody,€and€if€one€person€is€convicted€of€conspiracy,Ïthen€normally€the€jury€will€say,€well,€if€heððs€beenÐ ˆ,Ø'3 Ðconvicted€of€conspiracy€he€must€have€conspired€withÏeverybody.€€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àItððs€logical€to€conclude€that€the€defendant€isÏguilty,€but€thatððs€not€true.€.€.€.òò[Ô_Ô¢T]his£Ô_Ô€is€not€aÐ X Ðconspiracy€caseóó€.€.€.€.€Ó% ÓÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†XÐ#XXX9d #ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô(Emphasis€added).à  àÐ ` ° Ðà  àAs€we€see€it,€the€foregoing€colloquy€does€not€establish€thatÏthe€State€raised€the€issue€of€the€co„conspirator€exception€at€theÏpost„conviction€hearing.€€Nor€does€it€appear€to€us€that€the€courtÏbelow€ever€considered€the€issue.€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ  ð  Ðà  àIt€is€true,€however,€that,€in€its€Application€For€Leave€ToÏAppeal,€the€State€mentioned€the€co„conspirator€exception.€€There,Ïit€asserted:ÌÓÓà8  àIt€is€clear€from€the€context€of€this€statement€and€theÏother€evidence€presented€at€trial€that€Donald€Ô_Ô¢Gutrick£Ô_ÔððsÏremark€to€Derrick€Smith€was€made€before€the€criminalÏenterprise€that€started€at€6804€Alpine€St.€was€over€.€.Ï.€€The€remark€was€clearly€admissible€as€a€statement€of€aÏcoconspirator€made€during€the€course€of€and€inÏfurtherance€of€the€conspiracy.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà  àÌÓ®ÓNevertheless,€we€do€not€consider€the€Stateððs€reference€to€the€co„¼conspirator€exception€in€its€Application€for€Leave€to€Appeal€as€anÏadequate€substitute€for€the€Stateððs€failure€to€raise€the€argumentÏbelow€or€to€include€the€argument€in€its€opening€brief€in€thisÏCourt.€Ìà  àWÔ#†XÐ#XXX9ä#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôe€are€left€with€several€unassailable€facts:€€the€State€didÐ ð#@( Ðnot€advance€the€co„conspirator€hearsay€exception€at€the€hearingÏbelow,€or€in€its€opening€brief,€and€the€post€conviction€court€hadÏno€opportunity€to€address€the€merits€of€the€Stateððs€alternativeÏlegal€argument.€€Ìà  àOrdinarily,€if€an€argument€is€not€raised€below,€it€is€notÐ À+'2 Ðpreserved€for€appellate€review.€€Maryland€Rule€8„131(a).€€It€isÏalso€well€settled€that€we€will€not€address€arguments€that€anÏappellant€has€not€raised€in€an€opening€brief€submitted€to€thisÏCourt.€€In€òòÔ#†XÐ#XXX9Ð#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔHealth€¢Servs£.€Cost€Review€¢Comm'n£€v.€Lutheran€Hosp.óó,€298Ð ` ° ÐMd.€651,€664€(1984),€the€Court€said:€ð ð[A]€question€not€presented€orÐ ð @ Ðargued€in€an€appellant's€brief€is€waived€or€abandoned€and€is,Ïtherefore,€not€properly€preserved€for€review."€òò€See€¢Conaway£€v.Ð `  ÐStateóó,€108€Md.€App.€475,€484„85,€òòcert.€deniedóó,€342€Md.€472€(1996);Ð  ð  ÐòòMonumental€Life€Ins.€Co.€v.€United€States€Fid.€&€Guar.€Co.óó,€94€Md.Ð 0€  ÐApp.€505,€544,€òòcert.€deniedóó,€330€Md.€319€(1993);€òòHoliday€UniversalÐ À ÐClub€v.€Montgomery€Countyóó,€67€Md.€App.€568,€570€n.1,€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ð P  Ð307€Md.€260€(1986),òò€appeal€dismissedóó,€479€U.S.€1049€(1987).€€InÐ à0 Ðthis€regard,€wÔ#†XÐ#XXX9\#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôe€are€guided€by€òòFederal€Land€Bank€of€Baltimore,€Inc.Ð pÀ Ðv.€¢Esham£óó,€43€Md.€App.€446€(1979).€€There,€we€observed:€Ð P ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓ[¢I]t£€is€necessary€for€the€appellant€to€present€and€argueÏall€points€of€appeal€in€his€initial€brief.€€As€we€haveÏindicated€in€the€past,€our€function€is€not€to€scour€theÏrecord€for€error€once€a€party€notes€an€appeal€and€filesÏa€brief.Ìà ` àIn€prior€cases€where€a€party€initially€raised€anÏissue€but€then€failed€to€provide€supporting€argument,Ïthis€Court€has€declined€to€consider€the€merits€of€theÏquestion€so€presented€but€not€argued.Ìà ` àÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓòòId.óó€at€457„58(citations€omitted).€€Ð `"°& Ðà  àThe€Stateððs€discussion€of€the€argument€in€its€reply€brief€doesÏnot€remedy€the€situation.€€TheÔ#†XÐ#XXX9Ç#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€reply€brief€serves€a€limitedÐ €%Ð * Ðpurpose.€€òòSeeóó€òòFed.€Land€Bankóó,€43€Md.€App.€at€459.€€An€appellant€isÐ '`", Ðsupposed€to€use€the€reply€brief€to€respond€to€the€points€and€issuesÏasserted€in€the€appelleeððs€brief€which,€in€turn,€are€ordinarilyÏoffered€by€the€appellee€in€response€to€the€appellantððs€contentionsÐ À+'2 ÐÑïWÑâ âÑe°Ñâ âÑ  Ñin€the€opening€brief.€€òòSeeò ò€ó óMayor€and€City€Council€v.€New€Ô_Ô¢Pulaski£Ô_ÔÐ ° ÐCo.€Ltd.€Ô_Ô¢Pððship£Ô_Ôóó,€112€Md.€App.€218,€233„34€(1996),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€344Ð D” ÐMd.€717€(1997)Ô#†XÐ#XXX9s #ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô;òòò ò€ó óÔ_Ô¢Berkson£Ô_Ô€v.€Ô_Ô¢Berryman£Ô_Ôóó,€63€Md.€App.€134,€140„41,€òòcert.Ð Ô$ Ðdeniedóó,€304€Md.€296€(1985).€€If€an€appellant€is€permitted€toÐ h ¸ Ðinterject€new€claims€or€issues€in€a€reply€brief,€this€may€wellÏresult€in€a€ð ðfundamental€injustice€upon€the€appellee,€who€wouldÐ ˆ Ø  Ðthen€have€no€opportunity€to€respond€in€writing€to€the€new€questionsÏraised€by€appellant.ððò ò€€ó óòòFed.€Land€Bankóó,€43€Md.€App.€at€459.€€Ð ¨ø  Ðà  àIn€our€view,€the€Stateððs€reliance€on€òòPurveyóó,€òòsupraóó,€129€Md.Ð <Œ  ÐApp.€1,€does€not€advance€its€position.€€In€òòPurveyóó,€the€StateÐ Ì Ðappealed€a€decision€granting€post€conviction€relief€to€theÏappellee.€€In€reviewing€the€issue€regarding€effective€assistance€ofÏtrial€counsel,€the€Court€considered€whether€to€address€certainÏissues€raised€by€the€State€in€its€òòopeningóó€brief€that€the€appelleeÐ  \ Ðclaimed€were€not€preserved€for€appeal€because€they€were€not€raisedÏduring€the€post€conviction€proceeding.€We€determined€that€the€ð ðnewððÐ ,| Ðarguments€regarding€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel€wereÏmerely€an€expansion€or€ð ðfleshing„out€.€.€.€of€the€skeletal€theoriesððÐ Lœ" Ðthat€had,€indeed,€been€raised€below.€€òòId.€óóat€12.€€Therefore,€inÐ Ü ,$ ÐòòPurvey,óó€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9„##ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôunlike€in€this€case,€we€were€satisfied€that€the€State€didÐ l"¼& Ðnot€present€a€new€argument€on€appeal.€€Instead,€it€amplified€anÏargument€that€had€been€raised€earlier.€€Moreover,€even€if€the€StateÏhad€asserted€a€new€argument€in€òòPurveyóó,€it€did€so€in€its€òòopeningóóÐ 'l", Ðbrief,€not€in€its€reply€brief,€so€that€the€appellee€had€a€chance€toÏrespond.€ò òÐ <*Œ%0 Ðó óà  àAccordingly,€we€shall€grant€appelleeððs€motion€to€strike€thatÐ Ì+'2 Ðportion€of€the€Stateððs€reply€brief€concerning€the€co„conspiratorÏexception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€For€this€reason,€we€decline€toÏdiscuss€the€issue.€€Nevertheless,€in€the€event€of€a€re„trial€ofÏJones,€our€ruling€is€without€prejudice€to€the€right€of€the€State€toÏtimely€assert€the€co„conspirator€hearsay€exception€as€a€basis€toÏsupport€the€admission€in€evidence€of€Smithððs€written€statement€toÏthe€police.€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9v)#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôà ¸ àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9K-#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ `  ÐÔ#†XÐ#XXX9™-#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôò òÓ  ÓIIó ó.Ð  ð  ÐÓ.Óà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9ð-#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔThree€of€the€four€grounds€upon€which€the€post€conviction€courtÐ 4„  Ðgranted€relief€concern€the€performance€by€Jonesððs€trial€andÏappellate€attorneys.€€The€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counselÏin€a€criminal€trial€is€guaranteed€by€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€theÏUnited€States€Constitution,€made€applicable€to€the€states€throughÏthe€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.€€òò¢McMann£€v.Ð T ÐRichardsonóó,€397€U.S.€759,€771€n.14€(1970).€€As€Judge€¢Moylan£Ð ”ä Ðrecently€stated€for€this€Court€in€òòState€v.€Grossóó,€134€Md.€App.€528,Ð $t Ð550€(2000),€the€case€of€òò¢Strickland£€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668Ð ´  Ð(1984)Ô#†XÐ#XXX9x.#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô,€is€ð ð[¢t]he£€fountainheadðð€in€post„conviction€claims€ofÐ D”" Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€In€òò¢Strickland£óó,€the€SupremeÐ Ô $$ ÐCourt€set€forth€tÔ#†XÐ#XXX9}1#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôhe€standard€to€assess€whether€the€legalÐ d"´& Ðrepresentation€afforded€to€a€defendant€comports€with€theÏrequirements€of€the€Sixth€Amendment.€òò€See€also€Williams€v.€Tayloróó,Ð „%Ô * Ð529€U.S.€362,€120€S.€Ct.€1479,€1511„13€(2000).€€It€said€that€theÐ 'd", Ðð ðbenchmark€for€judging€any€claim€of€ineffectiveness€must€be€whetherÐ ¤(ô#. Ðcounselððs€conduct€so€undermined€the€proper€functioning€of€theÏadversarial€process€that€the€trial€cannot€be€relied€on€as€havingÐ Ä+'2 Ðproduced€a€just€result.ðð€€òò¢Strickland£óó,€466€U.S.€at€686.€€Ð ° Ðà  àThe€òò¢Strickland£óó€Court€established€a€two„pronged€test€for€theÐ @ Ðð ðineffectiveness€inquiry,ðð€consisting€of€a€ð ðperformance€componentððÐ Ð  Ðand€a€ð ðprejudice€component.ðð€òò€Id.óó€at€687.€€But,€the€reviewing€courtÐ ` ° Ðð ðneed€not€determine€whether€counselððs€performance€was€deficientÐ ð @ Ðbefore€examining€the€prejudice€suffered€by€the€defendant€as€aÏresult€of€the€alleged€deficiencies.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€697.€€This€is€becauseÐ `  Ðð ð[Ô_Ô¢t]he£Ô_Ô€object€of€an€ineffectiveness€claim€is€not€to€grade€counselððsÐ  ð  Ðperformance.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9~2#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Ð 0€  Ðà  àTo€establish€that€trial€counselððs€representation€ð ðwas€soÐ À Ðdeficient€as€to€undermine€the€adversarial€process,ðð€€òòGrossóó,€134€Md.Ð P  ÐApp.€at€551,€a€defendant€must€show€that:€(1)€ð ðcounselððsÐ à0 Ðrepresentation€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness,ððÐ pÀ Ðòòandóó€(2)€ð ðthere€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððsÐ P Ðunprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€beenÏdifferent.ðð€€òò¢Strickland£óó,€466€U.S.€at€688,€694.€€But,€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ð7#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôòò¢Strickland£Ð  p Ðóórequires€review€of€defense€counselððs€performance€ð ðas€of€the€time€ofÐ °  Ðcounselððs€conduct.ðð€òò€Id.óó€at€690.€€Moreover,€review€of€counselððsÐ @" Ðperformance€ð ðmust€be€highly€deferential.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€689.€€Put€anotherÐ Ð $ Ðway,€the€defendant€must€demonstrate€that€ð ðcounsel€made€errors€soÐ `"°& Ðserious€that€counsel€was€not€functioning€as€the€ððcounselððÏguaranteed€the€defendant€by€the€Sixth€Amendment.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€687.Ð €%Ð * Ðà  àTo€be€sure,€the€Supreme€Court€recognized€that€€ð ð[Ô_Ô¢t]here£Ô_Ô€areÐ '`", Ðcountless€ways€to€provide€effective€assistance€in€any€given€caseððÐ  (ð#. Ðand€ð ð[Ô_Ô¢e]ven£Ô_Ô€the€best€criminal€defense€attorneys€would€not€defend€aÐ 0*€%0 Ðparticular€client€in€the€same€way.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€689.€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9:#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔAccordingly,€aÐ À+'2 Ðdefendant€ð ðmust€overcome€the€presumption€that,€under€theÐ ° Ðcircumstances,€the€challenged€action€ððmight€be€considered€soundÏtrial€strategy.ðððð€òò€¢Strickland£óó,€œ4ñkñ55ñkññlñ66ñlñ›€U.S.€at€œ689ñkñòòóóñkñ›€(citation€omitted).€Ð Ð  ÐMoreover,€ð ðthe€defendant€must€show€that€counselððs€representationÐ ` ° Ðfell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness,ðð€as€measured€byÐ ð @ Ðð ðprevailing€professional€norms.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€688.€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9°>#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔIn€that€calculation,Ð € Ð  Ðð ðÔ#†XÐ#XXX9)A#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôevery€effort€[must]€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€ofÐ `  Ðhindsight,€to€reconstruct€the€circumstances€of€counselððs€challengedÏconduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€from€counselððs€perspective€atÏthe€time.ðð€òò€Id.óó€at€689;€òòsee€¢Cirincione£€v.€Stateóó,€119€Md.€App.€471,Ð À Ð492,€òòcert.€deniedóó,€350€Md.€275€(1998).€€Ð P  Ðà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9˜A#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔAs€we€noted,€the€second€prong€of€the€òò¢Strickland£óó€test€requiresÐ à0 Ðthe€defendant€to€establish€that€the€deficiencies€in€counselððsÏconduct€were€prejudicial€to€the€defense.€€òò¢Strickland£,óó€466€U.S.€atÐ P Ð692.€€In€other€words,€even€if€counsel€made€ð ða€professionallyÐ à Ðunreasonableðð€error,€òòid.óó€at€691,€this€alone€would€ð ðnot€warrantÐ  p Ðsetting€aside€the€judgment€of€a€criminal€proceeding€[unless]€theÏerror€had€[an]€effect€on€the€judgment.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Instead,€a€defendantÐ @" Ðmust€ð ðshow€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€forÐ Ð $ Ðcounselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€wouldÏhave€been€different.€€A€reasonable€probability€is€a€probabilityÏsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€694;Ð €%Ð * Ðòòsee€also€Williamsóó,€529€U.S.€362€(2000);€òò¢Lockhart£€v.€¢Fretwell£óó,€506Ð '`", ÐU.S.€364€(1993);€òò¢Kimmelman£€v.€Morrisonóó,€477€U.S.€365€(1986).€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9uC#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ  (ð#. Ðà  àMaryland€has€consistently€applied€the€òò¢Strickland£óó€test€toÐ 0*€%0 Ðdetermine€if€counsel€has€rendered€ineffective€assistance.€òò€See,Ð À+'2 Ðe.g.,€Wiggins€v.€Stateóó,€352€Md.€580,€602„605,€òòcert.€deniedóó,€120€S.Ð ° ÐCt.€90€(1999);€òòÔ_Ô¢Oken£Ô_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€343€Md.€256,€283„295€(1996),€òòcert.Ð @ Ðdeniedóó,€519€U.S.€1079€(1977);€òòÔ_Ô¢Gilliam£Ô_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€331€Md.€651,€664„Ð Ð  Ð686€(1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€510€U.S.€1077€(1994);€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,Ð ` ° Ð325€Md.€160,€170„73€(1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€508€U.S.€917€(1993);Ð ð @ ÐòòPurveyóó,€129€Md.€App.€at€8„11Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ëG#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô.€€IÔ#†XÐ#XXX97K#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôn€order€to€establish€the€requisiteÐ € Ð  Ðdegree€of€prejudice€in€Maryland,€the€defendant€must€show€ð ðaÐ `  Ðsubstantial€possibility€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessionalÏerrors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.ðð€Ð 0€  ÐòòÔ_Ô¢Oken£Ô_Ôóó,€343€Md.€at€284.€€Therefore,€ð ð[a]€proper€analysis€of€prejudiceÐ À Ð.€.€should€not€focus€solely€on€an€outcome€determination,€but€shouldÏconsider€ððwhether€the€result€of€the€proceeding€was€fundamentallyÏunfair€or€unreliable.ðððð€òòId.óó€€(quoting€òòÔ_Ô¢Lockhart£Ô_Ôóó,€506€U.S.€at€369).€Ð pÀ Ðà  àSimilarly,€a€defendant€claiming€ineffective€assistance€ofÏappellate€counsel€is€bound€by€the€òò¢Strickland£óó€standard.€€òòSmith€v.Ð à ÐRobbinsóó,€528€U.S.€259,€120€S.€Ct.€746,€764€(2000);òò€Grossóó,€134€Md.Ð  p ÐApp.€at€556Ô#†XÐ#XXX9}K#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô.€€As€this€Court€said€in€òòGrossóó,€ð ð[¢a]lthough£€the€basicÐ °  Ðprinciples€enunciated€by€òò¢Strickland£óó€remain€the€same,€whetherÐ @" Ðapplied€to€a€trial€performance€or€an€appellate€performance,€theÏ¢juridicial£€events€to€which€those€principles€apply€obviously€differÏsomewhat€depending€on€the€operational€level€being€scrutinized.ðð€€œñoñòòóóñoñ›€Ð ð#@( Ð134€Md.€App.€at€556.€€For€example,€in€òòJones€v.€Barnesóó,€463€U.S.€745Ð €%Ð * Ð(1983),€the€Supreme€Court€emphasized€ð ðthe€importance€of€having€theÐ '`", Ðappellate€advocate€examine€the€record€with€a€view€to€selecting€theÏmost€promising€issues€for€review.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€752.€€Similarly,€inÐ 0*€%0 ÐòòSmith€v.€Murrayóó,€477€U.S.€527€(1986),€the€Supreme€Court€underscoredÐ À+'2 Ðas€ð ðthe€hallmark€of€effective€appellate€advocacyðð€the€role€ofÐ ° Ðappellate€counsel€in€ð ðððwinnowing€out€weaker€arguments€on€appeal€andÐ @ Ðfocusing€onðð€those€more€likely€to€prevail€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€536Ð Ð  Ð(quoting€òòJones€v.€Barnesóó,€463€U.S.€745,€751„52€(1983)).Ð ` ° Ðà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9ŠO#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔThe€standard€of€review€of€the€lower€courtððs€determinationsÐ ð @ Ðregarding€issues€of€effective€assistance€of€counsel€ð ðis€a€mixedÐ € Ð  Ðquestion€of€law€and€fact€.€€.€€.€.ðð€€òò¢Strickland£óó,€466€U.S.€at€698;òòÐ `  Ðsee€Grossóó,€134€Md.€App.€at€559„60Ô#†XÐ#XXX9“T#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô.€€Therefore,€on€review€weÔ#†XÐ#XXX9V#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€acceptÐ  ð  Ðthe€fact€findings€of€the€hearing€judge€unless€clearly€erroneous,Ïand€then€make€an€independent€analysis€to€determine€the€ð ðultimateÐ À Ðmixed€question€of€law€and€fact,€namely,€was€there€a€violation€of€aÏconstitutional€right€as€claimed.ðð€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€303€Md.€685,Ð à0 Ð699€(1985).Ô#†XÐ#XXX9bV#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9X#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€In€other€words,€we€must€exercise€our€own€independentÐ pÀ Ðjudgment€as€to€the€reasonableness€of€counselððs€conduct€andÏprejudice.€€òòÔ_Ô¢Oken£Ô_Ôóó,€343€Md.€at€285.€€Ô_ÔÔ#†XÐ#XXX9HX#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôð ðððWithinÔ_Ô€the€òò¢Strickland£óóÐ à Ðframework,€òòwe€will€evaluate€anew€the€findings€of€the€lower€court€asÐ  p Ðto€the€reasonableness€of€counselððs€conduct€and€the€prejudiceÏsufferedóó€.€.€.€.€As€a€question€of€whether€a€constitutional€rightÐ @" Ðhas€been€violated,€òòwe€make€our€own€independent€analysis€byÐ Ð $ Ðreviewing€the€law€and€applying€it€to€the€facts€of€the€caseóó.ðððð€òòÐ `"°& ÐGrossóó,€134€Md.€App.€at€559„60Ô#†XÐ#XXX9mY#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôòò€óóÔ#†XÐ#XXX9½[#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô(quoting€òòPurveyóó,€129€Md.€App.€at€10)Ð ð#@( Ð(emphasis€added€inÔ#†XÐ#XXX9\#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔòòÔ_Ô€Gross)óó;€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9™\#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôòò¢Cirincione£Ô_Ôóó,€119€Md.€App.€at€485Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ú\#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€(statingÐ €%Ð * Ðthat€ð ðwe€will€defer€to€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€ofÐ '`", Ðhistorical€fact,€absent€clear€error,ðð€but€ð ðwe€[will]€make€our€own,Ð  (ð#. Ðindependent€analysis€of€the€appellantððs€claim.ðð).ñmñÐ 0*€%0 ÐñmñÔ#†XÐ#XXX9s]#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ À+'2 ÐÔ#†XÐ#XXX9ß^#Ôò òÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÓ  ÓIII.€€ó óÐ ° ÐÓX_Óà  àJones€asserted€numerous€claims€of€error€in€connection€with€theÏtrial€and€the€appeal,€many€of€which€are€not€relevant€here.€€AsÏnoted,€the€motion€court€found€two€critical€instances€in€which€theÏtrial€attorney€erroneously€failed€to€object€to€damaging€evidence.€ÏThe€first€concerned€the€following€colloquy:€Ì€ÓÓà  à[PROSECUTOR]:Ô#†XÐ#XXX99_#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Mr.€Smith,€where€are€you€presentlyÐ `  Ðà  àresiding?ÌÌà  à[SMITH]:€Prison.ÌÌà@ÀÀ(ìà*€*€*ˆÌÌÔ#†XÐ#XXX9a#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôà8  à[PROSECUTOR]:Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ça#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9Bb#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔAnd€you€have€previously€been€convicted€inÐ ˆØ Ðthis€case;€is€that€correct,€Mr.€Smith?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à[SMITH]:€€Yeah.ÌÌÔ#†XÐ#XXX9†b#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÓÓà  àIn€òò¢Clemmons£€v.€Stateóó,€352€Md.€49,€55€(1998),€the€Court€ofÐ pÀ ÐAppeals€reiterated€the€well€settled€principle€that,€ordinarily,Ð P Ðð ðthe€conviction€or€guilty€plea€of€a€co„perpetrator€may€not€be€usedÐ à Ðas€substantive€evidence€of€anotherððs€guilt.ðð€€Although€there€areÐ  p Ðexceptions€to€the€general€rule,€these€have€been€ð ðnarrowly€confinedÐ °  Ðto€situations€where€the€evidence€has€a€special€relevance€presentedÏby€the€circumstances€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€56.€€Subsequently,€in€òòCaseyÐ Ð $ Ðv.€Stateóó,€124€Md.€App.€331€(1999),€we€observed€again€that€theÐ `"°& Ðð ðState€is€not€entitled€to€present€evidence€of€an€alleged€co„Ð ð#@( Ðconspiratorððs€guilty€plea.ðð€€òòñfñId.ñfññgñCaseyñgñóóñgñ,€124€Md.€App.ñgñ€at€341.€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ac#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9.g#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Ð €%Ð * Ðà  àRelying€on€òòCaseyóó,€the€court€below€found€that€ð ðthe€StateÐ '`", Ðimproperly€offered€the€fact€of€[Smithððs]€conviction,€and€that€itÏwas€not€harmless€error.€€Defense€counsel€should€have€objected.ðð€Ð 0*€%0 ÐThe€State€disagrees€with€that€conclusion.€€ItÔ#†XÐ#XXX9qg#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€contends€thatÐ À+'2 ÐÔ_Ô¢Niland£Ô_Ôððs€failure€to€object€constituted€reasonableÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€trial€strategy,€ñhñand€didñhñÏnot€constitutionally€defective€assistance€of€counsel.€€We€agreeÏwith€the€State.€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ôh#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ Ð  Ðà  àCertainly,€Smithððs€guilt€did€not€necessarily€mean€thatÏappellant€was€also€one€of€the€assailants.€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9Cj#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÔ_ÔMoreover,€although€theÐ ð @ ÐState€elicited€that€Smith€was€convicted€in€the€same€underlying€caseÏfor€which€Jones€was€on€trial,€Smith€did€not€offer€direct€testimonyÏimplicating€Jones.€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9 k#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ  ð  Ðà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9#l#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔIn€any€event,€at€trial,€the€defense€conceded€that€Jones€wasÐ 0€  Ðinvolved€in€€the€robbery€of€Gary€Ô_Ô¢Gulston£Ô_Ô,€but€denied€that€he€was€aÏparticipant€in€either€murder.€€In€his€opening€statement€to€theÏjury,€dÔ#†XÐ#XXX9†l#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôefense€counsel€argued:Ð à0 ÐÓÓà8  à[Ô_Ô¢B]ut£Ô_Ô€the€involvement€of€Thomas€Jones€in€this€robberyÏceased€before€any€killing€took€place€in€this€case€totallyÏunconnected€to€the€carrying€out€of€force€that€was€exertedÏduring€the€robbery€by€Mr.€Ô_Ô¢Gutrick£Ô_Ô.€€And€in€the€case€ofÏMr.€Ô_Ô¢Jamal£Ô_Ô€Johnson,€Thomas€Jones€was€not€even€present€whenÏMr.€Johnson€was€killed.Ó nÓÐ Ð Ð  Ðà  àDefense€counsel€also€asserted€to€the€jury:€ð ð[Ô_Ô¢Y]ou£Ô_Ô€may€wellÐ è8 Ðfind€him€guilty€of€some€offenses€in€this€case€including€robbery€orÏpossibly€Ô_Ô¢kidnapping£Ô_Ô,€but€you€cannot€find€him€guilty€of€either€ofÏthese€murders.ðð€€Similarly,€in€closing,€Jonesððs€lawyer€argued€thatÐ ˜!è% Ðthe€robbery€of€Ô_Ô¢Gulston£Ô_Ô€was€over€before€the€killing€occurred,ÏÔ_Ô¢Gutrick£Ô_Ô€killed€both€men,€and€ð ðThomas€Jones€did€not€kill€anybody€inÐ ¸$ ) Ðthis€case.ðð€€Ð H&˜!+ Ðà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9Ãm#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔIn€his€post€conviction€testimony,€¢Niland£Ô_Ô€was€unwavering€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9¢r#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔthatÐ Ø'(#- Ðhe€had€evaluated€the€evidence€of€Smithððs€conviction€and€consideredÏit€helpful€to€his€effort€to€separate€Jones€from€the€two€homicides.€ÏAs€¢Niland£€recalled,€his€strategy€was€to€ð ðdistance€him,€ThomasÐ ˆ,Ø'3 ÐJones,€as€much€as€I€could€from€these€other€hoodlums.ðð€€As€we€notedÐ ° Ðearlier,€he€also€explained:ÌÓÓà8  àà ` àWell,€I€think€at€the€time€I€thought€that€this€man,ÏSmith,€admitting€that€he€was€convicted€of€both€of€theseÏhomicides€tended€to€reenforce€my€theory€that€alienatedÏthe€defendant€from€these€homicides€or€alienated€theÏdefendant€from€participation€in€these€homicides€and€so€IÏdidnððt€think€it€was€harmful.€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9.s#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9:v#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ԁи  Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ½tÓà  àWe€are€satisfied€that€¢Niland£ððs€performance€represented€aÏreasonable€trial€strategy.€€Therefore,€in€this€respect,€defenseÏcounselððs€representation€was€not€constitutionally€deficient.ÌÔ#†XÐ#XXX9}v#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôà@„„'ìàò òIV.ó ó€€€ˆÐ øH  ÐÔ#†XÐ#XXX9Àw#ÔÔ‡XÐ#XXXÐ#Ô€Ô#†XÐ#XXXÐ#6x#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9yx#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔThe€post€conviction€court€found€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ŒÜ Ðcounsel€and€trial€court€error€based€on€the€admission€of€the€portionÏof€Smithððs€statement€to€police€in€which€he€said:€ð ðWhen€Don€cameÐ ôD Ðback€up€stairs€Jason€asked€him€where€the€other€person€was€at€and€òòheÐ „Ô Ðsaid€weóó€òòkilled€himóó.ðð€€(Emphasis€added).€€It€concludedÔ#†XÐ#XXX9Çx#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€that€SmithððsÐ d Ðstatement€contained€ð ðmultiple€hearsay,ðð€and€thus€trial€counselððsÐ ¤ô Ðperformance€ð ðdid€fall€below€a€standard€of€reasonableness€when€heÐ 4„ Ðfailed€to€object€to€the€admission€of€the€multiple€hearsayÏstatement.ðð€€Relying€on€òò¢Matusky£óó,€343€Md.€at€487,€the€court€alsoÐ T ¤# Ðfound€prejudicial€error€by€the€trial€court€in€failing€to€redactÏthat€portion€of€Smithððs€statement.€€Ìà  àWe€focus€here€on€Jonesððs€complaint€to€the€post„convictionÏcourt€that€his€trial€attorneyððs€performance€was€constitutionallyÏineffective€because€he€did€not€object€to€the€inadmissible€hearsayÏwithin€hearsay€in€Smithððs€statement.€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9‘z#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔThe€State€maintains€thatÐ ´)%/ Ðbecause€Ô_Ô¢Niland£Ô_Ô€objected€generally€to€the€admission€of€SmithððsÐ D+”&1 Ðentire€written€statement,€the€œpost„conviction›€court€was€clearlyÏerroneous€in€concluding€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€object.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р@ ÐMoreover,€the€State€contends€substantively€that€no€error€occurred,Ïbecause€the€statement€was€properly€admitted.€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9§}#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ ` ° Ðà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9è#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔMaryland€Rule€2„517(a)€provides,€in€relevant€part,€that€ð ð[¢t]he£Ð ð @ Ðgrounds€for€[an]€objection€need€not€be€stated€unless€the€court,€atÏthe€request€of€a€party€or€on€its€own€initiative,€so€directs.ðð€€IfÐ `  Ða€general€objection€is€made,€and€neither€the€court€nor€a€ruleÏrequires€otherwise,€it€ð ðis€sufficient€to€preserve€all€grounds€ofÐ 0€  Ðobjection€which€may€exist.ðð€€òò¢Grier£€v.€Stateóó,€351€Md.€241,€250Ð À Ð(1998);€òòsee€Ali€v.€Stateóó,€314€Md.€295,€305„06€(1988).€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9K€#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ P  Ðà  àAs€oÔ#†XÐ#XXX9±‚#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôur€detailed€factual€summary€reveals,€defense€counsel€neverÐ à0 Ðobjected€generally€to€the€admissibility€of€the€òòcontentóó€of€theÐ pÀ Ðstatement.€€Rather,€he€quarreled€with€the€physical€admission€of€theÏactual€document,€urging€the€court€only€to€permit€the€State€to€òòreadóó€Ð à ÐSmithððs€statement€to€the€jury.€€As€we€see€it,€an€objection€to€theÏphysical€admission€of€the€written€statement€does€not€constituteÔ% € Ô€aÏgeneral€objection€under€Rule€2„517(a).€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ƒ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔRather,€it€was€a€veryÐ @" Ðspecific€objection€that€did€not€encompass€an€objection€to€aÏmultiple€hearsay€statement.€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9_…#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9#†#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ `"°& Ðà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9g†#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔThe€statement€in€issue€is€unmistakably€a€hearsay€statement.€Ð ð#@( ÐAbsent€an€applicable€exception,Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ʆ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€ð ðhearsay€is€not€admissible.ðð€€òòSeeóóÐ €%Ð * ÐMd.€Rule€5„802.€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9|‡#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔMoreover,€the€disputed€portion€is€clearly€hearsayÐ '`", Ðwithin€hearsay.Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ˆ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9©ˆ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔTherefore,€we€must€next€determine€whether€a€timelyÐ  (ð#. Ðobjection€by€defense€counsel€would€have€had€merit.€Ìà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9íˆ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔThe€State€devotes€less€than€two€pages€of€its€briefÔ#†XÐ#XXX9¶‰#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€to€thisÐ @ Ðissue,€and€summarily€argues€that€the€disputed€portion€of€SmithððsÏstatement€was€admissible€under€òò¢Nance£€v.€Stateóó,€331€Md.€549€(1993),Ð ` ° Ðð ðand€its€progeny,ðð€as€well€as€Md.€Rule€5„802.1(a).€€In€sum,€itÐ ð @ Ðcontends€that€the€statement€was€properly€admitted€because€SmithððsÏstatement€was€reduced€to€writing€and€signed€by€him,€and€he€wasÏpresent€at€trial€and€subject€to€cross„examination.€€Maryland€RuleÏ5„802.1(a)€does€not€apply,€however,€because€the€statement€in€issueÏwas€not€given€under€oath€at€a€prior€court€proceeding.€€Moreover,Ïthe€State€failed€to€address€the€hearsay€within€hearsay€problemÏrecognized€by€the€Court€in€òò¢Nance£óó.¢×ƒ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9*Š#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Ð à0 Ðà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9Ž#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔMaryland€Rule€5„802.1€provides,€in€relevant€part:Ð pÀ ÐÓÓà8  àò òRule€5„802.1.€Hearsay€exceptions€„„€Prior€statements€byÐ P Ðwitnesses.òòÐÈÐ Ð  Ðóóó óÌà8  àà ` àThe€following€statements€previously€made€by€aÏwitness€who€testifies€at€the€trial€or€hearing€and€who€isÏsubject€to€cross„examination€concerning€the€statement€areÏnot€excluded€by€the€hearsay€rule:Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓXŽÓÓÓÌà8  àà ` à(a)€A€statement€that€is€inconsistent€with€theÏ¢declarant£ððs€testimony,€if€the€statement€was€(1)€givenÏunder€oath€subject€to€the€penalty€of€perjury€at€a€trial,Ïhearing,€or€other€proceeding€or€in€a€deposition;€(2)Ïreduced€to€writing€and€signed€by€the€¢declarant£;€or€(3)Ïrecorded€in€substantially€verbatim€fashion€byÏstenographic€or€electronic€means€contemporaneously€withÏthe€making€of€the€œstatement;›Ð Ð Ð  ÐÐ €%Ð * Ðà@ÀÀ(ìà*€*€*ˆÌà8  àà ` à(e)à ¸ àA€statement€that€is€in€the€form€of€a€memorandumÐ xÈ Ðor€record€concerning€a€matter€about€which€the€witnessÏonce€had€knowledge€but€now€has€insufficient€recollectionÏto€enable€the€witness€to€testify€fully€and€accurately,€ifÏthe€statement€was€made€or€adopted€by€the€witness€when€theÏmatter€was€fresh€in€the€witnessððs€memory€and€reflectsÏthat€knowledge€correctly.€€If€admitted,€the€statement€mayÏbe€read€into€evidence€but€the€memorandum€or€record€mayÏnot€itself€be€received€as€an€exhibit€unless€offered€by€anÏadverse€party.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÿÓà  àMaryland€Rule€5„805€is€also€relevant€here.€€It€states:€Ìà8  àò òRule€5„805.€€Hearsay€within€hearsay.ó óРð Ð Ð  ÐÓÓà8  àà ` àIf€one€or€more€hearsay€statements€are€containedÏwithin€another€hearsay€statement,€each€must€fall€withinÏan€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€in€order€not€to€beÏexcluded€by€that€rule.Ô_ÔÔ#†XÐ#XXX9ó#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔЈØÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ •Óà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9–#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔWe€turn€to€consider€the€seminal€case€of€òòÔ_Ô¢Nance£Ô_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó,Ð h Ð331€Md.€549.€€¢Nance£€and€Hardy€were€convicted€of€murder€and,€onÏappeal,€the€Court€considered€various€evidentiary€issues€that€aroseÏbecause€of€a€ð ðturncoat€witnessðð€at€trial.€€òòId.óó€at€552.€€InÐ È Ðparticular,€the€Court€addressed€the€admissibility,€as€substantiveÏevidence,€of€signed€witness€statements€given€to€police,€grand€juryÏtestimony,€and€out„of„court€identifications,€all€made€by€witnessesÏwho€had€implicated€the€defendants€prior€to€trial€but€recanted€atÏtrial.€€We€focus€here€on€the€aspect€of€òò¢Nance£óó€concerning€witnessÐ ˜!è% Ðstatements€given€to€police.Ìà  àThe€signed€statements€to€the€police€were€in€the€form€ofÏquestions€and€answers,€in€which€the€witnesses€identified€theÏdefendants€as€the€assailants€in€the€context€of€œð ðlarger›€descriptionsÐ Ø'(#- Ðof€what€happened€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€564.€€At€trial,€however,€thoseÐ h)¸$/ Ðstatements€ð ðwere€repudiated€.€.€.ðð€òòid.,óó€both€by€ð ðpositiveÐ ø*H&1 Ðcontradictions€and€claimed€lapses€of€memory.ðð€€òòId.óó€n.5.€€The€CourtÐ ˆ,Ø'3 Ðacknowledged€that€the€prior€statements€given€to€police€wereÏhearsay.€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9–#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔNevertheless,€the€Court€said:€ð ðWe€hold€that€the€factualÐ @ Ðportion€of€an€inconsistent€out„of„court€statement€is€sufficientlyÏtrustworthy€to€be€offered€as€substantive€evidence€of€guilt€when€theÏstatement€is€based€on€the€òò¢declarant£ððs€own€knowledgeóó€of€the€facts,Ð ð @ Ðis€reduced€to€writing€and€signed€or€otherwise€adopted€by€him,€andÏhe€is€subject€to€cross„examination€at€the€trial€where€the€priorÏstatement€is€introduced.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€569€(emphasis€added;€footnoteÐ  ð  Ðomitted).€€Of€significance€here,€the€Court€added€in€a€footnote€thatÏan€otherwise€admissible€prior€inconsistent€¢statment£€ð ðmay€containÐ À Ðinadmissible€opinions€or€conclusions€of€the€witness,€òòor€hearsayóó,€inÐ P  Ðaddition€to€a€recitation€of€the€facts€about€which€the€witnessÏclaimed€first„hand€knowledge.ðð€€òòId.óó,€n.9.€€In€that€event,€the€CourtÐ pÀ Ðadmonished€that€the€ð ðinadmissible€portions€of€the€statement€shouldÐ P Ðbe€redacted.ðð€€òòId.€€óóThat€admonition€is€¢dispositive£€here.Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ÿ›#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ à Ðà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9Ž #ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔThe€disputed€portion€of€Smithððs€statementÔ#†XÐ#XXX9ñ #ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€constituted€doubleÐ  p Ðhearsay.€€In€Smithððs€out„of„court€hearsay€statement,€he€referred€toÏthe€out„of„court€statement€made€by€Ô_Ô¢Gutrick£.€€Without€question,Ï¢Gutrick£ððs€statement€incriminated€Jones.€Ìà  àAlthough€the€State€had€the€right,€under€the€circumstances,€toÏuse€Smithððs€statement€substantively,€it€could€not€introduce€throughÏthat€statement€what€it€could€not€have€elicited€from€Smith€had€heÏcooperated€in€his€testimony€on€the€witness€stand.€€In€other€words,Ïif€Smith€could€not€have€testified€in€court€to€what€¢Gutrick£€said,Ïneither€could€his€statement€be€used€to€do€it€for€him.€€Thus,€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9_¡#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôwe€areÐ 0*€%0 Ðamply€satisfied€that€trial€counselððs€performance€wasÐ À+'2 Ðconstitutionally€deficient.€Ìà  àUnder€òò¢Strickland£óó,€however,€deficient€performance€alone€doesÐ @ Ðnot€give€rise€to€a€presumption€of€prejudice.€€òò¢Strickland£óó,€466€U.S.Ð Ð  Ðat€692.€€Rather,€Jones€must€demonstrate€ð ða€reasonable€probabilityÐ ` ° Ðthat,€but€for€his€counselððs€unreasonable€errors,€the€result€of€theÏproceeding€would€have€been€different.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€694.€€Accordingly,Ð € Ð  Ðwe€next€address€ð ðððwhether€the€result€of€the€proceeding€wasÐ `  Ðfundamentally€unfair€or€unreliable.ððððòò€Purveyóó,€129€Md.€App.€at€9Ð  ð  Ð(quoting€¢Lockhart£,€506€U.S.€at€369);€òòsee€ñiñalso€ñiñPerry€v.€Stateóó,€357€Md.Ð 0€  Ð37,€80€œ(1997)ñjñ€(citations€omitted)ñjñ.›€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9$¤#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ À ÐÔ#†XÐ#XXX9û§#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôà  àThe€State€asserts€that,€in€light€of€the€ð ðoverwhelming€evidenceÐ P  Ðof€Jonesððs€guilt,ðð€defense€counselððs€performance€ð ðdid€not€impact€onÐ à0 Ðthe€outcome€of€Jonesððs€trial.ðð€€In€describing€the€case€asÐ pÀ Ðoverwhelming,€the€State€points€to€the€following:€€JonesððsÏstatement,€in€which€he€admitted€placing€a€pillow€over€¢Gulston£ððsÏhead€while€¢Gutrick£€shot€him;€Michelleððs€eyewitness€account€of€theÏrobbery€by€two€masked€men€accompanied€by€others;€and€ð ðphysicalÐ °  Ðevidence€corroboratingðð€the€statements€of€Jones€and€Smith.€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9R¨#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔWeÐ @" Ðreject€the€Stateððs€characterization€of€the€strength€of€its€case.€ÏMoreover,€in€the€context€of€this€case,€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9 «#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôwe€are€of€the€view€that€theÐ `"°& Ðadmission€of€the€multiple€hearsay€statement€ð ðððso€upset€theÐ ð#@( Ðadversarial€balance€between€the€defense€and€prosecution€that€theÏtrial€was€unfair€and€the€verdict€rendered€suspect.ðððð€òòPerryóó,€357€Md.Ð '`", Ðat€87€(citations€omitted).€€We€explain.Ô#†XÐ#XXX9Ы#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Ð  (ð#. Ðà  àNo€physical€or€forensic€evidence€ever€linked€Jones€to€theÏmurder€of€¢Gulston£€or€established€his€presence€at€Jeanetteððs€home€atÐ À+'2 Ðthe€relevant€time.€€To€the€contrary,€as€the€Court€noted€in€òòJones€Ióó,Ð ° Ðappellant€was€tied€to€the€murder€of€¢Gulston£€based€primarily€on€twoÏcritical€pieces€of€evidence:€€his€own€statement€òòandóó€SmithððsÐ Ð  Ðstatement.€€Yet€Smith€never€said€that€òòheóó€saw€Jones€kill€¢Gulston£.€Ð ` ° ÐIndeed,€the€evidence€showed€that,€at€the€time€of€¢Gulston£ððs€murder,ÏSmith€was€at€Michelleððs€residence,€guarding€her€and€Johnson,€whileÏJones€and€¢Gutrick£€were€at€Jeanetteððs€home€with€¢Gulston£.€ÏConsequently,€Smith€had€no€personal€knowledge€of€what€Jones€did€atÏJeanetteððs€home.€€Rather,€Smith€included€in€his€statement€whatÏ¢Gutrick£€told€him:€ð ðwe€killed€him.ðð€€Absent€that€portion€of€SmithððsÐ À Ðstatement,€the€jury€would€have€been€left€with€Jonesððs€confession,Ïalong€with€corroboration€of€other€aspects€of€the€crimes.€€YetÔ#†XÐ#XXX9c­#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ à0 ÐJonesððs€confession€was€not€so€impregnable€as€to€render€harmless€theÏerroneous€admission€of€¢Gutrick£ððs€assertion.€€Again,€we€explain.€€Ìà  àAs€the€summary€of€facts€demonstrates,€before€trial€JonesÏunsuccessfully€sought€to€suppress€his€confession.€€At€trial,€theÏdetectives€recounted€that,€in€the€period€following€Jonesððs€arrest,Ïhe€was€under€the€influence€of€PCP€and€therefore€the€detectives€didÏnot€question€him€immediately,€because€they€wanted€to€ð ðallow€theÐ Ð $ Ðeffects€of€the€PCP€to€wear€off.ðð€€Moreover,€because€of€the€drugs,Ð `"°& Ðthey€described€Jones€as€ð ðagitated,ðð€ð ðincoherent,ðð€ð ðboisterous,ðð€andÐ ð#@( Ðð ðviolentðð€and,€at€other€times,€ð ðlucid.ðð€€At€one€point,€Jones€triedÐ €%Ð * Ðto€escape€and€was€eventually€taken€to€the€hospital.€€When€he€wasÏfinally€interviewed€by€police€the€next€morning,€he€did€not€appearÏto€the€detectives€to€be€under€the€influence€of€drugs.Ìà  àAtÔ#†XÐ#XXX9ð±#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€trial,€Jonesððs€lawyer€renewed€his€objection€to€theÐ À+'2 Ðadmission€of€Jonesððs€confession,€based€on€ð ðthe€prior€litigationÐ ° Ðconcerning€the€statement.ðð€€Although€the€judge€overruled€theÐ @ Ðobjection,€the€question€of€voluntariness€was€not€specious,€and€theÏjury€had€to€resolve€the€issue€of€voluntariness.€€The€courtÏinstructed€the€jury€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8  àà ` àEvidence€has€been€introduced€that€the€defendant€madeÏa€statement€to€the€police€about€the€crime€charged.€€TheÏState€must€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€theÏstatement€was€freely€and€voluntarily€made.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA€voluntary€statement€is€one€that€under€all€theÏcircumstances€was€given€freely.€€To€be€voluntary€it€mustÏnot€have€been€compelled€or€obtained€as€a€result€of€anyÏforce,€promises,€threats,€inducements,€or€offers€ofÏreward.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àIn€deciding€whether€the€statement€was€voluntary,Ïconsider€all€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€theÏstatement€including€the€conversations,€if€any,€betweenÏthe€police€and€the€defendant,€whether€the€defendant€wasÏwarned€of€his€rights,€the€length€of€time€that€theÏdefendant€was€questioned,€who€was€present,€the€mental€andÏphysical€condition€of€the€defendant,€whether€theÏdefendant€was€subjected€to€force€or€threat€of€force€byÏthe€police,€the€age,€background€experience,€education,Ïcharacter€and€intelligence€of€the€defendant,€whether€theÏdefendant€was€taken€before€a€District€Court€CommissionerÏwithout€unnecessary€delay€following€arrest€and,€if€not,Ïwhether€that€affected€the€voluntariness€of€the€statement,Ïany€other€circumstances€surrounding€the€taking€of€theÏstatement.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÞ·Óà  àAlthough€the€evidence€of€Jonesððs€guilt€surely€was€legallyÏsufficient€to€warrant€submission€of€the€case€to€the€jury,€and€aÏjury€may€well€have€been€persuaded€of€Jonesððs€guilt€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt,€based€on€his€confession,€we€would€hardlyÏcharacterize€such€a€case€as€ð ðoverwhelming.ðð€€Under€the€circumstancesÐ H&˜!+ Ðattendant€here,€¢Gutrick£ððs€comment€in€Smithððs€statement€may€wellÏhave€been€an€important€factor€in€persuading€the€jury€to€concludeÏthat€Jonesððs€confession€was€voluntary.€€Conversely,€withoutÏ¢Gutrick£ððs€comment,€the€jury€might€have€reached€a€differentÐ ˆ,Ø'3 Ðconclusion€as€to€the€reliability,€accuracy,€or€voluntariness€ofÏJonesððs€confession.€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9(¶#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX93À#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ԀР@ Ðà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9wÀ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔCertainly,€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9ÛÀ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔSmithððsÔ#†XÐ#XXX9(Á#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€statement€to€police€was€a€central€part€ofÐ Ð  Ðthe€Stateððs€case€against€Jones,€as€the€Court€noted€in€òòJones€Ióó.€Ð ` ° ÐIndeed,€in€his€closing€argument,€the€prosecutor€relied€on€SmithððsÏstatement€as€well€as€Jonesððs€statement.€€The€prosecutor€explainedÏSmithððs€reluctance€to€testify€by€saying€that€ð ðpersons€that€testifyÐ `  Ðin€the€courtroom€such€as€this€against€another€defendant€are€notÏfavorably€regarded€in€the€Department€of€Corrections,€butÏnonetheless€you€will€have€his€statement€and€you€can€consider€that.ððÔ#†XÐ#XXX9tÁ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ À Ðà  àÔ#†XÐ#XXX9øÃ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔWe€recognize€that,€in€òòJones€Ióó,€the€Court€said€that€even€ifÐ P  ÐSmith€was€not€a€witness€to€the€murder€of€¢Gulston£,€Jones€could€beÏfound€liable€as€an€accomplice.€€That€remains€as€true€now€as€it€wasÏin€òòJones€Ióó.€€But,€that€potentiality€does€not€obviate€the€palpableÐ P Ðprejudice€in€€a€case€such€as€this€one.€€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9[Ä#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ôð ððð[Ô_Ô¢W]hen£Ô_Ô€an€appellant,€inÐ à Ða€criminal€case,€establishes€error,€unless€a€reviewing€court,€uponÏits€own€independent€review€of€the€record,€is€able€to€declare€aÏœbelief,›€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€that€the€error€in€òòno€wayÐ @" Ðóóinfluenced€the€verdict,€such€error€cannot€be€deemed€ððharmlessðð€andÐ Ð $ Ða€reversal€is€mandated.ðððð€€òòBell€v.€Stateóó,€114€Md.€App.€480,€503Ð `"°& Ð(1997)(quoting€òòDorsey€v.€Stateóó,€276€Md.€638,€659€(1976))(emphasisÐ ð#@( Ðadded).€€€Thus,€a€review€of€the€record€must€reveal€that€the€weightÏof€the€properly€admitted€evidence€overcomes€any€prejudicial€effectÏresulting€from€the€erroneously€admitted€evidence,€rendering€theÏprejudicial€evidence€insignificant€or€merely€cumulative.€€òòCarróó,€50Ð 0*€%0 ÐMd.€App.€at€212€(citing€òòDorseyóó,€276€Md.€at€649).€€Ð À+'2 Ðà  àWe€are€mindful€that,€in€the€heat€of€battle,€it€is€oftenÏdifficult€for€an€attorney€to€proceed€flawlessly.€€In€many€ways,Ïdefense€counsel€here€provided€excellent€legal€representation,€bothÏbefore€and€during€trial.€€But,€we€must€focus€on€the€occasionalÏlapses.€€Given€the€degree€of€evidence€tying€Jones€to€Ô_Ô¢Gulston£Ô_ÔððsÏmurder,€we€cannot€deem€insignificant€the€admission€of€Ô_Ô¢Gutrick£Ô_ÔððsÏassertion,€contained€in€Smithððs€statement€to€police.€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9üÅ#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€Ô_Ô¢Gutrick£Ô_ÔððsÐ `  Ðstatement€provided€an€important€piece€of€corroborating€evidenceÏthat€the€jury€may€well€have€relied€on€to€convict€Jones.€€Because€weÏcannot€declare,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€that€the€admission€ofÏthat€assertion€did€not€influence€the€juryððs€verdict,€we€mustÏconclude€that€Jones€wasÔ#†XÐ#XXX9þË#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€prejudiced€by€his€trial€counselððs€failureÐ à0 Ðto€object€to€the€hearsay€portion€of€Smithððs€statement.œ×ƒ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›Ô#†XÐ#XXX9 Í#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#Ô€€Ð pÀ Ðà  àIn€light€of€our€ruling,€we€decline€to€address€the€remainingÏissues.€Ô#†XÐ#XXX9³Î#ÔÔ‡X9XXXÐ#ÔÐ à Ðò òÓÓà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àAPPELLEEððS€MOTION€TO€STRIKE€GRANTED;Ð  p ÐJUDGMENT€OF€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FORÏPRINCE€GEORGEððS€COUNTY€AFFIRMED.€ÏCOSTS€TO€BE€PAID€BY€APPELLANT.ó óÔ#†XÐ#XXX9\Ï#ÔÓ“ÏÓœ