Parties Finish Closing Arguments in Homicide Trial

By Ayda Atici [former] - January 31, 2024
Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

On Jan. 31, defense continued their closing statements and prosecution gave their rebuttal before DC Superior Court Judge Marisa Demeo in a multi-week homicide trial. 

Vorreze Thomas, 25, and his uncle Delonta Stevenson, 28, are charged with conspiracy, first-degree murder while armed, and two counts of assault with intent to kill, among other charges, for their alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 32-year-old Terrance Allen. The incident occurred on Jan. 18, 2021, on the 3000 block of Stanton Road, SE, and left two other individuals suffering from gunshot wounds. 

All three victims were found inside a vehicle at the scene.

Thomas’s defense attorney, Howard McEachern, began his closing statements by stating that although many of the prosecution’s witnesses had testified, only one of them identified Thomas as being the driver of the green Volvo at the crime scene. This witness was one of the surviving victims of the shooting, who prosecutors claim is the individual they were attempting to kill.

McEachern argued that this witness had initially repeatedly denied identifying Stevenson or Thomas at the crime scene during his interview with the police. However, McEachern stated he had only later identified them as being there in order to be rewarded with more favorable sentencing for his ongoing criminal charges.

McEachern also disputed the prosecution’s DNA evidence by stating that “inside of the courtroom, DNA means nothing.” He elaborated that transfer DNA cannot be detected, so people could have their DNA falsely placed at a crime scene, and there is no way to determine how long DNA was at a location. \

McEachern concluded by stating that cell data tracking is not the same thing as GPS tracking, so the prosecution’s cell phone location evidence could only provide the jury with the approximate area Thomas’s phone was in, and could not place him at the crime scene with certainty. 

The prosecution began their rebuttal by telling the jury that the defense was trying to distract them from the most incriminating evidence against the defendants. 

The prosecution first reminded the jury that Stevenson’s girlfriend had been at the scene of the crime shortly before it occurred, along with two individuals who looked like the defendants. They stated that the clothing of the defendants was easily recognizable due to social media posts showing them wearing the same clothing that was seen on surveillance footage from the crime scene. 

The prosecution responded to the defense’s questions regarding the reliability of the shooting victim’s testimony by stating that they were not asking the jury to believe him completely; instead, they wanted the jury to look at his testimony in relation to the other evidence.

They emphasized that even though the witness had not seen the surveillance camera footage from the day of the crime, his description of the events matched up perfectly with what occurred in the footage. The prosecution also argued that the witness had testified due to the guilt he felt after Terrence Allen’s death, and not because he expected any rewards from the prosecution.

The prosecution then responded to the defense’s arguments about the reliability of the DNA. They argued that there was no evidence of contamination in the case, and that the arguments that the defense was making about DNA should not be considered as evidence by the jury–they should only consider the DNA expert witness’s testimony.

Finally, the prosecution concluded by stating that although some types of evidence, such as DNA evidence and cell site data, needed expert testimony, other types of evidence did not. The prosecution told the jury that “You can look at footage and pictures and put two and two together,” and asked the jury to “hold the defendants accountable for using a firearm to settle whatever petty dispute they had.”

Jury instruction and deliberation began immediately after the closing statements and rebuttal.