An Anne Arundel County judge on Wednesday considered throwing out the case against a retired Navy doctor charged with fatally stabbing his wife as their polyamorous relationship deteriorated but decided against it.

Attorneys for Dr. James Strachan Houston argued the case was tainted beyond reproach by the behavior of Anne Arundel County State’s Attorney Anne Colt Leitess and two police detectives.

Circuit Judge Mark W. Crooks described dismissing the case as “not fair to the public,” but maintained he would keep an open mind towards that “ultimate remedy” as he and defense attorneys learned more about Leitess’ interactions with witnesses in the case.

Crooks said the withholding of evidence favorable to the defense by Leitess “points in the direction of intentional misconduct” that could be appropriate for review by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, which investigates misconduct by lawyers.

Crooks also imposed several penalties, including potentially ruling out numerous witnesses, for the state’s transgressions in an effort to assure Houston a fair trial, should it begin as scheduled May 23.

His ruling likely impacts how prosecutors would present their case against him.

Leitess’ office alleges Houston, 58, lured his estranged wife, Nancianne, to their waterfront Edgewater apartment Aug. 9 under the guise of completing tax documents as their divorce progressed.

There is no debate that Houston stabbed the 47-year-old Nancianne to death with a kitchen knife. The only dispute is whether it was justified.

Defense attorneys say Houston was defending himself from Nancianne, contending he almost died as a result of his injuries from the encounter.

Prosecutors believe the knife wounds Houston sustained were self-inflicted, arguing he used his medical knowledge to injure himself without risking death.

The couple had no record of violence, save a March 2023 incident when Nancianne alleged in an application for court protection that he threw a drink in her face.

But on April 1, when Leitess spoke with Houston’s neighbor and friend Steven Valladares to go over his testimony before trial, he told her that Houston said at a party that Nancianne once pulled a knife on him.

Instead of immediately disclosing that to Houston’s attorneys, Leitess ordered the lead homicide detective on Houston’s case, Justin Downey, to interview Valladares, which she could then disclose to the defense. She said she followed up with Downey several times.

Crooks ruled that Leitess should have told Houston’s attorneys immediately about what Valladares said, finding that the statement could bolster his self-defense claim. He threw Leitess off the case for failing that responsibility and for “irreparably” making herself a witness in the case by speaking with Valladares and about 15 other potential witnesses with nobody else present.

“The reasons the disclosure was not made increasingly looks intentional and not oversight or recklessness,” said Crooks, adding that withholding the information was “unnecessary.”

If Leitess had disclosed Valladares’ account of what Houston said, it likely wouldn’t have been allowed at trial because it was hearsay, Crooks said. But because Leitess withheld it, Crooks ruled the jury would now hear a statement crafted by the defense and prosecution about what Valladares said, and that police and prosecutors weren’t forthcoming about it.

Prosecutors planned to tell the story of the unraveling of the Houstons’ tumultuous relationship through their own words as written in divorce papers and the observations of the couple’s various acquaintances. They also intended to have witnesses testify in defense of Nancianne’s character.

Some of that story now could be in jeopardy.

Crooks ordered prosecutors to review all of the witness interviews conducted by Leitess to determine whether anyone else was present. If Leitess spoke to any of them alone, Crooks said, those witnesses will not be allowed to testify.

The judge also banned Anne Arundel County Police Detective George Davis, the investigator who first interviewed Valladares after the killing, from testifying in the case.

“I find that his representations about what occurred in the conversation between him and Ms. Leitess do not hold water,” said Crooks, describing the inconsistencies in his and Leitess’ testimony at an emergency hearing last week as “stark ” and “disturbing.”

The judge will allow Downey to testify. However, if he takes the witness stand, Crooks ruled, defense attorneys can ask him the same question that prompted him to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in court Monday.

Last week, Downey acknowledged Leitess ordered him to interview Valladares, but said “time got away from me.”

The detective said he couldn’t remember how many times Leitess followed up. He also testified that he was having problems with his department-issued phone and that, when he got a new one, his call logs and text messages didn’t transfer over.

Crooks and defense attorneys wanted to verify Leitess’ claims with Downey‘s call logs. The judge ordered Downey to appear in court Monday so they could follow up.

When defense attorney John Robinson asked Downey whether he recalled telling the department’s technology unit to “wipe” his phone, Downey conferred with his attorney before invoking his right against self incrimination.

“We are saddened, stunned and shaken by these revelations. How can anyone have confidence in the outcome of this case?” asked Robinson, arguing for dismissal Wednesday. “This case is founded on a web of deception, unethical behavior and a violation of the laws of this state.”

Assistant State’s Attorney David Russell, the lead prosecutor now, argued against throwing out the charges, saying he believed Leitess’ actions were not “willful misconduct” and that it was not so bad because the statement Leitess withheld came from Houston’s mouth — meaning the defense always had access to it.

After Crook’s ruling, Russell told the judge that his supervisors denied his request to remove him from the case, citing ethical guidelines that warn lawyers against participating as an advocate in a case where they may become a witness.

“I know there’s a very good chance I’ll be a witness,” said Russell, adding that he could be called upon to explain the actions of Leitess.

Crooks declined Russell’s request to be removed from the case, saying it was up to the state’s attorney’s office to staff what he described as a murder case that is “not complicated.”

The office declined to comment.