Local News

State can't withdraw plea deal in in Apex teen's death

Posted October 5, 2010

— A Superior Court judge on Tuesday denied a motion by prosecutors to withdraw a plea deal against one of four people arrested in the death of Apex teenager Matthew Silliman nearly two years ago.

Wake County Assistant District Attorney Jason Waller asked the court to revoke the arrangement prosecutors had with Aadil Shahid Khan in exchange for his testimony in the recent trial of one of his co-defendants, Ryan Patrick Hare.

The state never called Khan, 19, to testify, saying in a motion that he was uncooperative, inconsistent in his statements and unable to remember details of the crime that he had told investigators early on in the case.

But Judge Paul Ridgeway wrote in his ruling that the state “failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant’s conduct amounted to a material breach (of) the term(s) of his plea agreement.”

During a hearing last week, Khan’s attorney argued Khan 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 Silliman.

Doug Kingsbery said his client tried to cooperate fully with investigators but that he couldn’t remember some details of his original interviews because he had little or no time to review previous interviews he did with them.

Khan and another co-defendant, Allegra Rose Dahlquist, 19, each pleaded guilty in August to charges of second-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and attempted first-degree murder in exchange for their testimony in Hare’s trial.

Waller had no comment on the ruling Tuesday morning but said sentencing for both Khan and Dahlquist is tentatively scheduled for Nov. 1.

Another defendant, Drew Logan Shaw, 18, also testified in the trial. He was also offered a plea deal but rejected it.

Hare, 19, was found guilty last month of first-degree murder and is serving a life sentence in prison.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • joekathyjoekathy Oct 7, 2010

    down2earth "Call me slow, but I am confused. They were all there during the killing so why don't they all receive the same sentence? Being there is just as guilty as participating to me."

    Its all about who spills first and whom gets the first offer. Make no mistake about it tho, Khan will not have a free ticket, hes still looking at some very long time in prison. I have a feeling he is going to passed around like a little toy. See what a tough guy he is then. I think an hope the judge will at the very least give Khan the same time that Allegra is looking at.

  • joekathyjoekathy Oct 7, 2010

    There is no way he Forgot what happened, he knows exactly what happened. I think hes thinking he beat it an is so smart. But then again is 80+ years a good deal, don't think so. Now he will have no appellant rights, saved the state alot of cash. What a waste of a life. I have no sympathy for this individual. Hope he enjoys prison, an I hope he really enjoys his ideals of lack of respect for athority, I think he will be getting an adjustment, told when an how an where to go for the rest of his pitiful life.

  • newhillhorse Oct 6, 2010

    I don't know that I would go so far to say he is being rewarded. Look at it this way. He has no chance of getting off now, no sympathetic juror to let him go on charges. He could have faced life in prison, and still can. I will be more judgemental of the judge during sentencing. That's what is most important, for all of the crimes he has plead guilty to as part of his plea agreement, if served consecutively rather than concurrently he will still be in jail for the rest of his miserable wasteful life. Make sure to look at all of the facts and before jumping to conclusions... maybe this was taken into consideration by the judge.... it sure will save tax payers money without the circus trial.

  • surfnturf27 Oct 6, 2010

    I hope that judge has a backup plan for his career.... he has lost my vote and support!!! SHAME on him!!

  • didisaythat Oct 6, 2010

    I unfortunately agree that they could not show he did not cooperate. The only thing they could have done was call him and show he was not cooperating. Is it incompatence with the DA? Not sure. They are given the cards and they have to play the best hand. Of course they would try something differenct now that they know how it played out. I just hope he gets the max penalty for what he plead to. It is a shame that everyone is rewarded for doing the wrong thing. He takes a plea and then forgets everything and the state can't convince the judge. The welfare people get more money than they are suppose to and the state can't get the money back. Got to love a welfare and criminal state.

  • Rebelyell Oct 6, 2010

    OK why didn't they wait until AFTER the main killer's trial to make the plea deals? I've seen this on TV a million times, you don't give them the deal until they pay first...

  • Jeff_W Oct 5, 2010

    "Doug Kingsbery said his client tried to cooperate fully with investigators but that he couldn’t remember some details of his original interviews because he had little or no time to review previous interviews he did with them."

    Of course had they showed him the notes of the interview, the schister would have argued that they 'coached him' and told him what to say.

    My question... unless you kill people everyday, how do you 'forget the details' of something so incredulous?

  • james27613 Oct 5, 2010

    Should have called the little creep to the stand and treat him
    as hostile witness.

  • csplantlover Oct 5, 2010

    Good - I hope they all go to prison for a real long time. What they did to that poor fella was atrocious and appalling. They need to spend a good long time in prison.

  • Prancy Oct 5, 2010

    Sometimes it is difficult to prove all the elements of a crime without the testimony of co-defendants. If all the defendants are looking out for themselves and no one cooperates, but only points the finger at each other, the jury can become confused and have doubt as to who is actually responsible. That's when crazy things happen like guilty people being found not guilty by a confused jury.

    There are good reasons to offer deals to get testimony against the other defendants. It isn't done out of pity or mercy. IT's to increase the chance of a conviction.