Judge Grants Motions to Introduce Evidence From Prosecution in Co-defendant Murder Trial

By Rohan Naval [former] , McKenna Bryant [former] - January 29, 2024
Daily Stories | Homicides | Juveniles | Non-Fatal Shooting | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

On Jan. 29,  DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt addressed two motions submitted by prosecution to admit a witness’s 911 call and police body worn camera footage into evidence.

Koran Jackson, 23,Reginald Steele, 24, Tyiion Kyree Freeman, 24, Stephen Nelson, 22, and Aaron Dequan Brown, 27, are charged with multiple counts of conspiracy, assault with the intent to kill while armed, first-degree murder while armed, carrying a pistol without a license, and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence in connection to the fatal shooting of 13-year-old Malachi Lukes on March 1, 2020 on the 600 block of S Street, NW.

Steele is also being charged with assault with the intent to kill while armed and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for his alleged involvement in a second shooting on March 20, which injured a seven-year-old and killed a second victim.

During the hearing, prosecutors played a two-part 911 call from a witness who had told the dispatcher she’d seen the shooting, and described the suspect’s vehicle as “small”, “brown”, and having a Maryland license plate. The witness claimed that she had been following behind the car, but lost sight of it.

The prosecution also submitted three different exhibits of body-worn camera footage from Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers. The first exhibit showed officers responding to Malachi Lukes, who died before they arrived at the scene on March 1, 2020. The second and third exhibits showed officers tending to the wounds of the victim of the non-fatal shooting on March 20.

Freeman’s counsel, Shawn Sukumar, objected to entering both audio and visual evidence into the court, on the basis of the statements being “premeditated.” Objections to entering 911 calls centered around the complainant providing a ‘reflective’ statement, and not indicating any stress from the event.

The prosecution responded by stating that the witness immediately called 911 after seeing the incident,  and was startled in a manner that shows “excitement.”

There were similar objections raised to introducing the body-worn camera footage. The defense argued that the questions asked by MPD officers indicated that they were “gathering information for a prosecution.” However, the prosecution countered by stating that their actions were understandable “to meet the ongoing emergency,” and that officers acted to keep the victims and community safe.

Judge Brandt first addressed the motion to introduce body-worn camera footage, and stated that the officers’ questions did not violate any rules regarding evidence. The 911 call was similarly accepted, although the judge did underline that it was not an ‘excited utterance’ as is generally required.

Parties are set to reconvene on Jan 31, as Judge Brandt is expected to deliver a ruling on whether evidence relating to a defendant’s phone is admissible into evidence.