A Gaithersburg man who was convicted of murdering his former principal’s son will get a new trial because of new DNA evidence, Maryland’s Court of Appeals has ruled.
Jermaine Deeric Arrington, 34, was convicted 14 years ago of second-degree murder for stabbing 19-year-old Paul Simmons to death during a fight.
The Court of Appeals said Arrington’s conviction was in question because a jury didn’t have access to DNA testing done after the trial that showed that blood found on Arrington’s pants didn’t belong to Simmons.
Two eyewitnesses said they saw Arrington stab Simmons, and two more witnesses said he gloated about the stabbing immediately after it happened, court records show.
“Yeah, [derogatory term], that’s right. I shanked you with my butterfly [knife],” a witness said Arrington said.
Simmons was the son of Montgomery County principal Darlene Simmons, who had mentored Arrington when he was her student, according to court records and news reports at the time of the murder.
During sentencing, Arrington said the principal had always been “a guardian” to him while he was in school.
“When I found out that this was her son that was killed that night, I didn’t know how to react,” Arrington said, according to court records. “I didn’t know how to take it because I knew I hurt somebody that I cared about and I don’t know what I can do or what I can say to let her know how sorry I am for what happened that night.”
Simmons could not be reached for comment. She currently works at the Regional Institute for Children and Adolescents in Rockville.
Arrington has argued that he was unfairly convicted because DNA testing on blood stains found on his pants was not done until after his trial.
During his initial trial, a police forensic expert told a jury that the blood found on Arrington’s pants was the same blood type as Simmons’ or anyone one else with the same blood type.
A DNA test taken after the trial showed that the blood on Arrington’s pants wasn’t Simmons’ blood. Arrington said the blood came from a woman with whom he’d had sex, according to court records.
Court records show that both the prosecutor and Arrington’s defense attorney during his original trial said the blood evidence mattered little in the case because of the strong eyewitness evidence against him.
A postconviction court agreed: “The evidence was overwhelming — setting aside the blood evidence, overwhelmingly against the defendant.”
But the Maryland Court of Appeals overruled the postconviction court’s decision this week, saying that there is a “substantial possibility that Arrington would not have been convicted if the DNA evidence had been introduced at trial.” The high court said the jury’s notes show that it put a strong emphasis on the blood test results.
No new trial date has been set.
