Anne Leitess's time as State's Attorney has included troubling ethical issues, cases that fell apart, and decisions that put her judgment into question. This page compiles the facts — drawn from court decisions, reporting, and public records. In 2014, Ms. Leitess said, "Integrity is the most important part of this job…" it is too bad she does not feel that way any longer.
You can't lead the justice system if your own record raises serious concerns.
Fact: Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge removed State's Attorney Anne Leitess from prosecuting a murder case.
Reason: Failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense.
"failed to disclose evidence favorable to the defense"
Alex Mann — The Baltimore Banner
5/6/2025 8:42 p.m. EDT
The judge found that Anne Arundel County State's Attorney Anne Colt Leitess withheld crucial evidence in the case of a former Navy doctor accused of stabbing his wife.
Anne Arundel County's top prosecutor likes to try big cases herself, so she took the lead when her office charged a former Navy doctor with stabbing his wife to death in their waterfront apartment in Edgewater last summer amid the unraveling of their polyamorous relationship.
James Strachan Houston, 58, sustained severe cuts and stab wounds during the Aug. 9 encounter with his estranged 47-year-old wife Nancianne Houston and was flown to the Maryland Shock Trauma Center, where he underwent surgery.
But prosecutors think he used his medical knowledge to wound himself, making his injuries look like they were the result of a knife fight, without actually risking his life. After he was released from the hospital, police arrested him and charged him with murder.
Anne Arundel County State's Attorney Anne Colt Leitess, who prosecuted the Capital-Gazette mass shooting trial, took this case herself, but was thrown off it Tuesday by a circuit court judge who found she failed to disclose evidence favorable to the defense — that the defendant's wife once allegedly pulled a knife on him — among other prosecutorial missteps.
Circuit Judge Mark W. Crooks said the information Leitess withheld was "unequivocally" evidence that could be considered exculpatory — potentially showing a defendant's innocence — and was required to be disclosed, particularly considering that Houston's attorneys say he was defending himself from his estranged wife.
"It's the state's principal responsibility to achieve justice, not secure convictions," said Crooks, citing the American Bar Association's Special Rules for Prosecutors.
Leitess, who was not present for Crooks' ruling, could not be reached immediately for comment.
The development marks the latest public stumble for Leitess, whose recent prosecution of a man accused of shooting six neighbors, three fatally, in a dispute over parking, ended in a mistrial after a judge ruled Leitess made "several transgressions" while cross-examining the defendant.
Defense attorneys declined to comment on Crooks' ruling.
The story of the Houstons' marriage and its violent end is still scheduled to unfold over an approximately two-week trial scheduled to begin May 23. The removal of Leitess from the case raises the question of whether there may be a delay.
In a pretrial hearing Monday, Leitess acknowledged she should have disclosed the information.
Crooks dismissed her effort to blame detectives in the case for not following her orders related to the information. She wanted them to conduct a recorded, follow-up interview with the source of the information.
"That blame game made no sense," Crooks said. "The state's attorney is the chief law enforcement officer in any county. The buck stops with her."
The potentially exculpatory information came up April 1 when Leitess called a neighbor and friend of Houston, Steven Valladares, during routine witness preparation. Towards the end of the conversation, Valladares told Leitess that Houston once told him Nancianne pulled a knife on him during a dispute — and that he had told police as much.
Valladares testified that Leitess became combative when he told her about the knife incident.
"First, I was told it never happened that I contacted detectives," he recalled, adding that he felt he was "being prosecuted."
Two police detectives testified Monday that they didn't recall being told about previous knife incident, though one acknowledged Valladares relayed some additional information in a call days after his first interview, which was recorded in August.
Police used some of that information — about potential video cameras in the Houston's apartment — to get a search warrant, but did not identify the source as Valladares and did not mention anything about a prior knife incident.
Valladares' subsequent interaction with Leitess in April left him with a bad taste and he decided to call Houston's defense attorneys. He spoke to Robinson the same night.
Leitess testified she was surprised by Valladares' disclosure and disputed that she became combative, saying he reacted with hostility when she asked follow-up questions. She said she questioned whether he was being truthful because he couldn't remember what officer he told, and there was no record of it.
The state's attorney said she knew she had an obligation to disclose the information to the defense, and that she intended to, but disputed that it was exculpatory.
"Should this information have been given two weeks ago? Absolutely," said Leitess, adding she was concerned someone had "gotten to" Valladares.
"The information was going to be provided," said Leitess, without answering when she planned to turn it over. "The delay is regrettable but the intent was to record [Valladares]."
Crooks called it "incredibly troubling" that Leitess did not immediately disclose potentially exculpatory evidence, as required by law.
Briefed on Houston's case, defense attorney and former prosecutor Andrew I. Alperstein said Leitess' intent did not absolve her legal obligation.
"It sounds like once the discoverable statement was made, the prosecutor did what she was supposed to do and memorialize it — her instinct was to do that, but it didn't happen. The police didn't do that. The state's attorney didn't do what she was supposed to do and disclose it," Alperstein said in an interview.
Crooks also admonished Leitess, saying it was "poor practice" for her to have spoken to Valladares and approximately 14 other witnesses without anyone else present.
Alperstein said it defies best practice for an attorney to speak to a witness alone — especially in a case as significant as a homicide.
Crooks said such interviews "irreparably" made Leitess a witness in the case.
Court found:
"disqualified… for the discovery violation"
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/legal-ethics-the-fasc inating-case-of-4898570/
Judge also cited:
"irreparably made herself a witness in the case"
Clara Longo de Freitas — 2/26/2025 12:57 p.m. EST, Updated 2/26/2025 3:12 p.m. EST
Anne Arundel Circuit Judge J. Michael Wachs on Wednesday declared a mistrial in the case, saying he was not making the decision lightly.
Anne Arundel Circuit Judge J. Michael Wachs said the case likely won't be heard again until 2026.
A judge declared a mistrial on Wednesday in the case of an Annapolis man charged in an alleged hate-driven shooting after an altercation over a parking space that killed three men and injured three others in 2023.
Anne Arundel Circuit Judge J. Michael Wachs said the state's attorney made "several transgressions" that tainted the testimony of Charles Robert Smith.
Smith, 45, who is white, was indicted in July 2023 and charged with six counts of attempted first-degree murder, three counts of first-degree murder substantially motivated by hate towards persons of Hispanic national origin, and other offenses.
An alleged altercation between Smith's mother and neighbors over a neighborhood parking space preceded the fatal shooting on June 11, 2023, on Paddington Place in Annapolis. The victims, all Latino, were a father and son, Nicolas Mireles, 55, of Odenton, and Mario Mireles Ruiz, 27, of Annapolis; and a family friend, Christian Marlon Segovia Jr., 24, of Severn. Three others were injured.
More than two weeks into the trial, Smith's attorney called for a mistrial, saying Anne Arundel County State's Attorney Anne Colt Leitess mischaracterized evidence and brought up facts the judge ruled to be irrelevant to the case. Smith's attorney also said Leitess suggested Smith was making up statements while on the stand.
When Smith took the stand Tuesday, Leitess brought up a jail call where Smith said he wanted to get his mother evaluated and diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. Leitess said Smith was attempting to prevent his mother from testifying because her recollection of what happened the day of the shooting is different than his.
Smith's attorney said Leitess' questions were "highly prejudicial," and that Smith was worried for his mother's safety. Smith's attorney said Leitess "created an atmosphere where the defense was being attacked."
Leitess, however, said Smith was hostile towards her during his testimony, cursing at her and repeatedly berating her.
"His behavior at the stand is why they [Smith's attorney] are asking for mistrial," Leitess said.
Wachs said Leitess violated several rules of evidence and he had "no choice" but to declare a mistrial. The case isn't likely to be heard again until 2026, the judge said. For several minutes, Leitess asked the judge to reconsider, arguing that declaring a mistrial was an extreme response.
Wachs said he was not making this decision lightly. He added that he recognized the trauma a mistrial will continue to cause and apologized to the victims' families, the victims, Smith and taxpayers.
"It's a shame all around," he said.
After the trial, relatives of the victims were distraught, with their cries echoing in the courthouse halls. Harcinia Ruiz, Mireles Ruiz's mother, sat in front of the courtroom. She was silent at first, then wailed for several minutes.
Christian Segovia, the father of Segovia Jr., said he was thankful for Leitess and disappointed by the judge's decision, though not entirely surprised. Segovia said he was unsure what he'd say to his grandchildren, Segovia Jr.'s son and baby daughter.
"I really don't know," he said. He considered for a few moments. "I guess, injustice," he said.
Before the start of the trial on Feb. 10, prosecutors said in court documents that Smith and the Mireles family had disputes for years and that Smith's mother had used racial slurs toward one of the victims and his family prior to the shooting.
Smith's attorneys said the Mireles family had 40 to 50 people over for a birthday party on the day of the shooting. Smith was unable to park his car because a vehicle was blocking his driveway. He saw his mother was having a "heated verbal altercation" with Mireles Ruiz, who they knew owned a gun, according to Smith's attorneys.
Smith then got a Glock pistol from inside his home to protect himself and his mother, defense attorneys claim. They said Mireles Ruiz took Smith to the ground to grab the pistol, prompting Smith to shoot him several times.
Smith's attorneys said Segovia began moving toward Smith. Smith shot him as well. Smith says other partygoers fired back, so he went back to his home and fired an AR-15 from his window. He shot and killed Mireles and injured three others.
The killings sparked grief in Annapolis' Latino community. The three men left behind spouses and children. The families insist Smith's outrage was driven by hate because they are from Mexico, El Salvador and Peru.
Smith's attorneys had claimed the veteran acted in self-defense and that Mireles Ruiz had ties to "violent gangs such as the Mexican Cartel," according to court documents. But the FBI found no evidence of involvement of the victims in the MS-13 criminal gang, according to the Capital Gazette.
During emotional testimony in the trial last week, two children who were at the party on June 11, 2023, a 14-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl, testified about the shooting.
Prosecutors showed a photo collage of the victims to the 14-year-old, asking if he recognized the people in the photos. The boy wiped away a tear before answering.
"My brother Mario," he said. And his dad, Nicholas.
In separate testimony, the children, who are brother and sister, described what they saw unfold that evening, including the altercation between Mireles Ruiz and Smith's mother, then Smith coming back to the scene with a gun.
Mireles Ruiz tried to grab Smith's gun, "tried to stop the attack," the 14-year-old said. Mireles Ruiz and Smith then fell to the ground.
After shots were fired, Judith Abundez, Mireles Ruiz's fiancee, ran out of the party and lay on the ground next to him as the shooting continued, the 14-year-old said.
She never left his side, the boy said.
Anne Arundel County State's Attorney Anne Colt Leitess "willfully withheld" an accusation that a woman stabbed and killed last year by her husband had once pulled a knife on him, a judge said Wednesday.
The judge referenced several other concerns he's had with Leitess since the April 29 hearing, concerns that caused him to ask other prosecutors in the case to retain their own attorneys.
Assistant State's Attorney David Russell, for instance, testified that he was never told about the knife allegation, a claim that clashed with what Leitess told the court. And though Leitess said she repeatedly urged Det. Justin Downey to interview Valladares, prosecutors said Wednesday several emails had passed between them since last month and none had mentioned the request.
These contradictions and behaviors, Crooks said, could lead to sanctions from other bodies outside his courtroom, including, "most immediately," a "grievance process."
According to the Maryland Judiciary, the Attorney Grievance Commission oversees attorney conduct in the state, investigating and, when necessary, prosecuting violations — rules that have been referenced in recent hearings.
If a rule has been violated, an attorney could face a range of sanctions, from "a letter of cautionary advice" to disbarment.
The Anne Arundel County State's Attorneys office has a significant attrition rate compared to neighbors Baltimore City and Prince George's County. The current administration lost more than 80 attorneys over a seven-year period. That's more than a 120% attrition rate in an office budgeted for roughly 62 lawyers. More than half of these were young, promising lawyers who were hired and left under the current administration.
| Year | Convictions | Not Guilty Acquittal | Dismissals/Decline to Prosecute | Total Cases | Conviction Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 499 | 10 | 180 | 689 | 72% |
| 2024 | 313 | 15 | 198 | 526 | 60% |
| 2025 | 256 | 11 | 236 | 503 | 51% |
| Q1 2026 | 53 | 3 | 62 | 118 | 45% |
Source: Anne Arundel County State's Attorneys Office via FOIA
The job of State's Attorney demands integrity, sound judgment, and results.
The record shows troubling ethical lapses, cases that fell apart in court, and decisions that raised serious questions from judges themselves. These are not political attacks — they are documented facts from court rulings, legal analysis, and independent reporting.
When a prosecutor fails to meet the standards of the job, the consequences are real — for victims, for public safety, and for confidence in the justice system.
Anne Arundel County deserves a State's Attorney who upholds the law, respects the rules of the courtroom, and delivers results the community can trust.