Local News

Defense: Suspect in Apex teen's death wasn't uncooperative

Posted September 28, 2010

— The defense attorney for a man charged in the slaying of an Apex teenager nearly two years ago asked a judge Tuesday not to revoke a plea deal that the state offered his client in exchange for his testimony in the case.

Doug Kingsbery argued that Aadil Shahid Khan, 19, simply couldn't remember details about Nov. 30, 2008, when prosecutors say, Khan and three others were involved in a plot to kill 18-year-old Matthew Silliman.

Wake County Assistant District Attorney Jason Waller, however, argued that the plea deal should be withdrawn because Khan was uncooperative, gave inconsistent statements and claimed he couldn't remember events he had previously been able to recall in two interviews leading up to the murder trial of Ryan Hare earlier this month.

"There is no motive for this young man to knowingly, purposely not cooperate," Kingsbery said. "He would gain nothing reneging on this agreement he made with the state. Nothing."

Kingsbery said his client couldn't remember important details from two years ago because he had little or no time to review previous interviews.

"I would offer this: The same thing happened to the state's other witnesses in this case," Kingsbery said. "They repeatedly couldn't remember specific detail … and the state's professional witnesses fared no better."

But Waller told Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway that something changed with Khan. In prior interviews, he said, the defendant sat for hours and talked non-stop about details in the case.

A Sept. 10, 2010, interview, days before Hare went to trial, Waller said, was like pulling teeth.

"We're not asking people to make things up, but if he says, 'I believe this is what happened' and then provides an explanation, that would be fine," Waller said. "That's not what happened. Everything (he said) was 'I don't know,' 'I can't remember.'"

Khan's deal was like a contractual agreement with the state, Waller said, but it wasn't fulfilled.

"The state has not received the substantial benefit of the bargain. What did we get out of this? Absolutely nothing," Waller said. "We couldn't even call him as a witness in a first-degree murder case."

"That's the material breech, no benefit whatsoever," he continued. "That's why we're here. We couldn't call him. He was inconsistent."

Ridgeway delayed a decision on the matter but did not say when he might rule.

During Hare's trial, his defense attorney characterized Khan as a "master manipulator" who talked Hare into the plot to kill Silliman.

An autopsy found Silliman drank wine laced with narcotics, but that his death was the result of suffocation. His mouth had been covered with duct tape and his head covered with a plastic bag. Zip ties were fastened around his wrists, legs and neck.

Khan, witnesses testified, put the duct tape on Silliman's mouth.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • newhillhorse Sep 29, 2010

    Evilwinbob- the death penalty was never on the table. He admitted guilt to 2nd degree murder... do you think he would admit to 1st, I doubt it. So then you are leaving it up to a jury to decide ($$$$$ - these trials arent' cheap)if he was guilty of 1st degree murder. Why pull his plea deal it already has a 160 year max sentence?? That seems like life to me.

  • eviltwinbob Sep 29, 2010

    All four deserve life in prison, since the death penalty was taken off the table. The deal for the defendant's was to secure insider testimony in exchange for a lighter sentence. The sentense is steep and still can be implimented. I think that the fact that he did not hold up his end should signal that he does not want the deal and the state should proceed with his trial. Whether the deal is pulled or not, he has admitted guilt. Or has he forgotten that?

  • newhillhorse Sep 29, 2010

    The judge should take into account his "foggy memory"... hmm this wasn't a trip to the grocery store...are you really telling me that it doesn't play over and over in his head??? The judge should give him the max. for the nature of the crime and the uncooperativeness, in addition he should make him serve it consecutively (160 years) vs. concurrently (40 years - he'd be 59). Save the tax payer's money and the chance some softy on the jury letting him go.

  • newhillhorse Sep 29, 2010

    Ok people. If you're going to have an opinion can we make it an informed one? Everyone likes to spout out at the mouth when they only know some of the details. Why are we wasting the tax payers money by taking away the plea deal?!?!?!?! The plea deal (as outlined in the documents "motion to withdraw appeal,so kindly made available to us by WRAL) it's a guilty plea! That means for us tax payers that he is admitting guilt, a guilty plea...saves us on all the cost and time associated with a trial! As also outlined, he would receive sentencing for 2nd degree murder, two counts of conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted murder. The document states the maximum sentence is 160 years. That sounds like life to me!

  • stephalford Sep 29, 2010

    HE played a part....no we...

  • stephalford Sep 29, 2010

    I do hope the judge lets the da withdraw the plea deal. life in prison with no parole. shaw, on the other hand, i dont believe deserves life in prison with no parole...we did play a part and was definitely in the wrong, but didn't participate in the actual murder. i am anxious to know when they will sentence allegra.

  • penelope1 Sep 29, 2010

    IMO he was just as guilty as Hare and appeared to be excited about murdering this young man and he should have never been given a plea deal; revoke the deal and send his tush to the pokie.

  • wildcat Sep 29, 2010

    To heck with life, give him death. He's 19 now.


  • dang_skippy Sep 29, 2010

    To heck with life, give him death. He's 19 now.

  • dang_skippy Sep 29, 2010

    His end of the deal was simple, he didn't hold up his end, he suffers the same fate. To heck with a trial, he gave up that right when he renegged on the deal.