Lawyers for a man accused of shooting six people in Annapolis in 2023 want an appeals court to throw out the charges against him because of what they described as misconduct by Anne Arundel County State’s Attorney Anne Colt Leitess during his first trial in February.

Attorneys for Charles Robert Smith, charged with three counts of murder and attempted murder and hate crimes, raised the issue in sealed court papers last month and argued it Friday in front of Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Mark W. Crooks.

Crooks rejected their request to stop Smith’s retrial.

As they had promised ahead of the hearing, the defense attorneys immediately filed a notice of intent to appeal. The appellate process could take a year or more, meaning Smith won’t stand trial this month. Smith, 46, will remain locked up at the Jennifer Road Detention Center in Annapolis while his case is pending.

The defense’s accusations add scrutiny to the behavior of Leitess, who has stumbled during two high-profile cases in her third term as the county’s top prosecutor.

In February, Circuit Judge J. Michael Wachs ended Smith’s trial early, citing “several transgressions” by Leitess while questioning the defendant.

In May, Crooks removed Leitess from the prosecution of a retired Navy doctor accused of fatally stabbing his estranged wife as their polyamorous relationship unraveled.

He ruled Leitess withheld evidence potentially favorable to the defense of Dr. James Strachan Houston and irreparably tainted her role as the prosecutor in the case by speaking to witnesses with nobody else present.

Leitess appealed Crooks’ ruling. Although the Appellate Court of Maryland expressed skepticism about the judge’s reasoning, it declined to overrule him. Leitess then asked the Supreme Court of Maryland to take the case, with the high court granting that request Friday.

Smith is accused of opening fire on a group of Latino men, some his neighbors at Paddington Place, on June 11, 2023, killing Nicolas Mireles, 55, and his son Mario Mireles Ruiz, 27, and a family friend, Christian Marlon Segovia Jr., 24. Three others were injured by Smith’s bullets.

An Army veteran discharged for misconduct, Smith is arguing self-defense, claiming he was fired upon by someone in the group before he started shooting.

His trial was contentious from the start.

It ended after about two weeks when Wachs declared a mistrial at the defense’s request following Leitess’ cross-examination of Smith. The prosecutor and defendant’s exchanges were at times combative, with Smith insulting Leitess and Leitess accusing Smith of lying.

Smith’s attorneys say Leitess grew increasingly hostile as the trial progressed, running afoul of Wachs’ rulings and “mischaracterizing evidence,” culminating with the tense cross-examination. They described her behavior as misconduct and accused her of doing it intentionally to cause them to ask for a mistrial because the case was going off the rails.

“Every day she was doing things that were big things she shouldn’t be doing,” public defender Felipe Gonzalez told Crooks, later adding: “She did it on purpose because she knew her case was going down the drain.”

The defense argues that retrying Smith would violate his Fifth Amendment rights against being tried more than once for the same crimes, claiming Leitess intentionally caused a mistrial to avoid a potential acquittal.

“Her case is getting worse by the witness,” Gonzalez said of the trial. “There are very real fears it will not go her way.”

The prosecution saw it differently.

Assistant State’s Attorney Jason Steinhardt called Gonzalez’s assessment of the trial a “parallel universe.”

He described a fierce but not unprecedented trial. Although Steinhardt conceded some of his boss’s questions were “improper,” he noted that Wachs also scolded defense attorneys and admonished people in the courtroom gallery.

Rather than the state’s case falling apart, the prosecution was going “exceedingly well,” Steinhardt said. “The defendant’s testimony was not going well for the defense.”

He noted that he and Leitess argued vehemently against a mistrial.

“There was no intent to dog this case or tank this case,” Steinhardt said. “If anything, we wanted to preserve it for the jury.”

Crooks cited Wachs’ words in his ruling. After Wachs ended the trial, he told Leitess: “I don’t believe you intended to cause a mistrial.”

Prosecutors were “vociferously arguing against a mistrial,” said Crooks, adding that that fact undercut the defense’s new theory. “The state was not trying to coax a mistrial.”

Smith’s attorneys declined to comment.

After court, Leitess emphasized Crooks’ ruling.

“We look forward to seeking justice for the victims in this case,” Leitess said.