A Virginia man convicted of murdering his wife's boyfriend at a Jessup hotel in 1991 should get a new trial because the prosecution wrongfully called the woman as a witness, his attorney argued yesterday.
Baltimore attorney William H. Murphy Jr. asserted that the prosecution's actions biased the jury against his client, Adel George Hagez of Richmond, Va., even though his wife refused to testify against him.
Hagez, 46, was convicted of first-degree murder in May 1993 in the slaying of Riad Hijas at the Holiday Inn on June 22, 1991. Police said Mr. Hijas, also of Richmond, was the boyfriend of Hagez's then ex-wife.
The woman, Virginia Dorhan Hagez of Richmond, remarried her ex-husband four days before his Howard Circuit Court trial was to start.
Calling the marriage a sham, Howard District Judge Cornelius F. Sybert Jr. ordered Mrs. Hagez to testify as a prosecution witness. However, she refused to answer any of the prosecution's questions while the jurors were present.
Judge Sybert must now decide whether the court and the prosecution mishandled the issue and if Hagez should be granted a new trial. The judge said he will issue a written ruling next week.
At yesterday's hearing on his motion for a new trial, Mr. Murphy argued that Mrs. Hagez had the right not to testify against her husband.
Mr. Murphy also asserted that Senior Assistant State's Attorney Christine Gage attempted to get jurors to sympathize with the prosecution by trying to show that the defense was withholding information.
He said that Ms. Gage violated Judge Sybert's instructions by asking the jurors in her closing statement to speculate why Mrs. Hagez would not testify.
"Ms. Gage literally got away with a whole lot more than any court should have allowed her to do," Mr. Murphy said. "It's as though the privilege [not to testify against a spouse] does not exist at all."
Ms. Gage defended her actions during the trial. She said the judge's instructions cautioning the jurors against speculating rectified any harm caused by her statements.
"Clearly, even though Virginia Hagez invoked a privilege that you told her she did not have, this jury was given a proper cautionary instruction," Ms. Gage told Judge Sybert.
Ms. Gage said that Mrs. Hagez was not a crucial prosecution witness who could have swayed the jury in favor of a conviction.
She noted that much of the prosecution's evidence, such as the Hagezes' 1991 divorce decree and their second marriage certificate, were introduced without Mrs. Hagez's testimony.