During Closings, Parties Disagree on Defendant's Claim of Being ‘in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time'

Thank you for reading D.C. Witness. Help us continue our mission into 2024.

During the last day of trial for a non-fatal shooting incident, parties challenged whether the defendant demonstrated an intent to kill a victim. That despite a situation “where death could have easily resulted,” according to DC Superior Court Judge Marisa Demeo. Both parties rested their case on June 3 and finished closing arguments.

Tyrone Astorias Johnson, 43, is charged with assault with intent to kill while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, aggravated assault knowingly while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, and assault with significant bodily injury while armed for allegedly firing multiple shots at an individual. The shooting occurred on Aug. 30, 2022 at Starburst Plaza Park on the 1500 block of Maryland Avenue, NE.

According to court documents, the victim told a detective that the shooter asked him for a cigarette, but the victim responded he did not have one. The suspect then allegedly removed a firearm from his waistband area and began firing at the victim.

At the hearing, the prosecution called three Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers to the stand. Two of them testified that they responded to reported gunshots on Aug. 23, 2020 and interacted with the suspect.

One of the officers could not “say for certain” if the suspect was in the courtroom or not.

The prosecution played body camera footage of the officers who testified that the suspect was cooperative.

During one video, the prosecution alluded to the fact that Johnson received a phone call from his ex-girlfriend because one of the officers read three out of the ten digits of a phone number that was calling Johnson, which matched that of his ex-girlfriend’s number.

A third MPD officer, who also works in the Firearms Registration Branch, testified that Johnson did not have a valid license and was not registered as the owner of a firearm, according to a MPD database.

Following the officers’ testimony, the defense filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson was the perpetrator or had the intent to kill the victim.

Judge Demeo denied the motion, citing the proximity of the shooting, the number of shots fired, and the serious injuries suffered by the victim. She added that a reasonable juror could assume Johnson is guilty on all counts.

”Not once, not twice, but three times,” prosecutors said, Johnson shot at the victim, highlighting the incident originated “over some loose cigarettes.”

Throughout their closing, the prosecution played video surveillance of individuals identified as Johnson and his ex-girlfriend walking to and from Starburst Plaza at the time of the incident, and then going into the Pentacle Apartments. The prosecution narrated the series of events that are portrayed in the surveillance footage.

Furthermore, the prosecution mentioned that the defense would argue the victim never identified Johnson as a shooter, failing to recognize him in a photo array procedure performed about two hours after the shooting.

However, the prosecutor argued that the victim “was not given a position to accurately identify anybody” as he was “suffering grievous injuries” during the time he described two individuals to police immediately after being shot and when he was shown the photo array the morning of the incident at the hospital.

Additionally, the prosecutor asserted that the victim’s injuries were “the very definition of serious bodily injury,” specifying the victim was wheelchair-bound for a month and had to relearn how to walk. They emphasized that the victim was fired at from close range and sustained eight wounds from three gunshots.

“How do you judge a person’s intent?” asked the prosecutor when referring to the defendant’s motive to kill the victim. He advised the jurors to use their “life experiences, analytical skills, and common sense” in deciding the verdict of this case.

“Nothing about the defendant’s situation is ‘in the wrong place at the wrong time,’” referring to the defense’s opening statement argument.

“You have the power to hold the defendant accountable,” the prosecutor said to the jury.

As the prosecutor finished his closing arguments, the defendant was seen shaking his head.

Joseph Fay, Johnson’s defense attorney, reminded the jury that Johnson was “in the wrong place at the wrong time,” during the incident.

He stated that a gun from the incident was never found and his client’s ex-girlfriend testified to never having seen him with a gun.

He addressed the testimony of Johnson’s ex-girlfriend, agreeing with the prosecution that “she has a lot going on,” but arguing she told the truth when she was “corroborated by other evidence.”

He affirmed to jurors that she suffers from memory loss, acknowledging her medications for her mental illnesses.

Fay played video surveillance from Starburst Plaza and postulated to jurors, “there’s one person you can see who does not go running” after the shooting. He is referring to an individual who was seen leaving the crime scene by bicycle, but was never found or questioned by the police.

“Who does not run when a shooting starts?” questioned Fay.

Moreover, Fay described the wounds the victim suffered in his legs and genitalia and stated “those wounds just don’t line up,” expressing doubts in the victim’s testimony of how he was shot.

In their rebuttal, the prosecution stated “this is a case about what the evidence proves,” adding it all points to one person — Johnson.

The parties await for the final verdict as the jury begins deliberations.

During Closings, Parties Disagree on Defendant’s Claim of Being ‘in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time’