AUBURN — The lawyer for an Auburn man filed a motion to dismiss a murder charge against his client in a fatal shooting Halloween night 2020, claiming “critical information” had been intentionally left out of an arrest affidavit that cast doubt on his client’s role in the slaying.
Abdikadir Nur Lewiston Police Department
Lewiston defense attorney Verne Paradie is asking a judge in Androscoggin County Superior Court to reverse her earlier decision that there was probable cause to believe that Abdikatur Nur, 21, of 303 Aspen Court, Auburn, committed intentional or knowing murder, based on that affidavit written by a Maine State Police detective.
Nur is charged with intentional or knowing murder in the shooting death of 18-year-old Hassan Hassan of Lewiston on River Street in Lewiston.
Paradie also is seeking to have his client released from jail and have the judge throw out statements made by witnesses and evidence collected by police that relied on the affidavit for warrants.
“The state intentionally withheld critical information in multiple affidavits in order to secure probable cause,” Paradie wrote in one of his two motions that were filed in Androscoggin County Superior Court this week.
Paradie said the author of the affidavit reported a woman told police she witnessed Nur shoot the victim.
“The court relied significantly on that statement in determining that probable cause existed to deny him bail,” Paradie wrote.
But “what the state intentionally left out of the affidavit was that (the witness) also told detectives that someone in the victim’s vehicle also had fired a gun at or about the same time as she claims that defendant did so,” Paradie wrote.
The same witness “also reported that another guy with the defendant was shot, as well, a fact not reported in the affidavit.”
Paradie said that witness’ recorded interview “brings into question the reliability of her statements.”
Also “conveniently” left out of the affidavit was “the fact that an individual with the victim nicknamed ‘Werdi’ had been seen with a gun before the shooting and that ‘Werdi’ was avoiding law enforcement immediately after the shooting,” Paradie wrote.
The affidavit also was “misleading” when it implied that “Polo,” also known as Nur, was at a Portland nightclub later that night because the name “Polo” had been on a contact tracing list.
Another shooting was reported at that nightclub later that evening.
“The state certainly used this information to create the impression that (Nur) had left Lewiston and gone to Portland and engaged in similar behavior” to the Lewiston shooting, Paradie wrote.
But what the affidavit doesn’t say is that the name “Polo” hadn’t been crossed off the guest list at the club, Paradie wrote. “That meant he had been invited but had never shown up.”
“The state intentionally leaving these significant facts out of the affidavit deprived the defense and the court the opportunity to know of this information and was seriously misleading regarding what actually transpired on Oct. 31,” Paradie wrote.
Nur has been in jail for several months “based on misleading information,” Paradie wrote.
The murder complaint against Nur should be dismissed because of the state’s conduct “as a sanction for the intentional omission of significantly material information in seeking an arrest warrant and a finding of probable cause,” Paradie wrote.
If the charge isn’t dismissed, the judge should “at least” allow Nur to be released on bail, Paradie wrote.
“Defendant should not be held based on the flimsy evidence that the state possesses regarding defendant’s responsibility for the crime,” he wrote.
In a companion motion, Paradie wrote that no evidence, including Nur’s DNA and fingerprints nor any cellphone information or social media records, as well as any other evidence that was obtained from “illegal” search warrants should be allowed at trial.
“Now that the state has finally provided discovery, it is clear that the state intentionally omitted significant facts from the search warrant affidavits that this court relied upon in approving the numerous warrants,” he wrote.
Prosecutors haven’t responded to the motions nor has a court hearing been scheduled, a clerk said Friday.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
