State v. Said

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

State v. Said

Case Number
Call Date
February 6, 2020
Case Time
9:00 AM
Court Number
Case Location
University of Nebraska College of Law
Court Type
District Court
Case Summary

S-18-0901 State of Nebraska v. Ahmed Said (Appellant)

Hall County District Court, Judge Mark J. Young

Attorneys: Robert W. Kortus (Nebraska Commission on Public Advocacy, for Appellant) – Douglas J. Peterson, Stacy M. Foust (Office of the Attorney General, for Appellee)

Criminal: Second degree murder; Evidence; Constitutional rights; DNA testing

Proceedings Below: A jury trial was held in June of 2018 with verdicts of guilt reached on June 25, 2018. Appellant was found guilty of each count he faced. Sentencing was held on August 28, 2018. On count I, second degree murder, Appellant was sentenced to 60 to 80 years’ imprisonment. On count II, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, he received a consecutive sentence of 25 to 30 years’ imprisonment.   

Issues: Appellant assigns the following errors: whether 1) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence statements, which arose from unconstitutional interrogations, the failure to scrupulously honor the invocation of constitutional rights, and the poisonous fruit from those violations; 2)  the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence information obtained from a search of Appellant’s cell phone obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Nebraska Constitution; 3) the trial court erred in prohibiting Appellant from presenting evidence to the jury relating to the victims current existing mental state and alcohol and drug use to establish that the victim was the first aggressor or that the cause of death was something other than the actions of the Appellant; 4) the trial court erred in denying the Appellant the constitutional right of confrontation and the opportunity to impeach a witness through specific instances of conduct and for bias; and 5) the trial court erred in permitting irrelevant and prejudicial testimony about DNA testing results with no statistical significance.

Schedule Code