Defense Claims Police Discrepancies in a Homicide Investigation

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

A homicide defendant’s attorney claimed discrepancies in the police investigation of the case during an Aug. 1 hearing before DC Superior Court Judge Michael O’Keefe.

Bernard Matthews, 44, is charged with first-degree, premeditated murder while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, unlawful possession of a firearm by a convict, and carrying a pistol without a license for his alleged involvement in the shooting of 22-year-old Diamonte Green. The incident occurred on Feb. 16, 2021, on the 300 block of 33rd Street, SE.

The prosecution called on a responding officer from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) who described body-worn camera footage from the incident.

According to the witness, she arrived four minutes after the shooting happened. On the way, she testified, she passed Matthews’ son’s apartment where the prosecution alleged Matthews and his son’s mother were in their car to drive back to Matthews’ house.

When the witness arrived on the scene there was an officer already rendering Green aid. The witness secured the scene and took two friends of the victim’s back up to their apartment.

Originally, the witness stated she thought she saw multiple different casings, which is why she patted down Green’s body for a weapon.

The prosecution claimed what she saw were casings and bullet fragments that vary, but all the casings allegedly came from the same gun.

After the witness preserved the crime scene on the stairs, she testified, Green’s friends were lingering outside of the apartment and she told them to get back inside so they did not accidentally kick any evidence.

Defense attorney Marnitta King said this could have been tampering the evidence.

The witness disagreed, and stated they were trying to ask her if Green was okay. She got more information about Green one of their names and contact information, but the other friend went back inside of the apartment.

King pointed out that on the witness’ incident report she said she never got the information on the second friend because he did not want to give it to her. King claimed that the witness changed her testimony once she met with the prosecution.

The witness said that she had not seen any of her body cam footage until the prosecution showed it her and that is when she realized she made an inaccurate statement in her report.

The prosecution continued to play the body camera footage, in which the witness pointed out that her sergeant came up to her after she got the contact information from the first friend and she went downstairs because he was up there with them.

Prosecutors also called on a homicide detective who talked to the friends and they seemed “distraught” and cried at one point. King pointed out that in an investigation report it said that one of the friends was upset because the police were searching his apartment.

The witness said he does not know whether or not this is true because he was not there at the time.

One of the detective’s testified he managed to pull video from a private surveillance camera a block down from the crime scene. In the footage, the prosecution claimed you can see an individual, who they identified as Matthews, walking down the street back towards his son’s apartment.

King pointed out that the surveillance camera time is incorrect. Originally the witness said that the video was 36 minutes off, but according to the MPD video extraction team it was 44 minutes off.

The witness said this is due to “bad math,” but the time lined up with what happened right after the murder. King said this verged on bad policing.

King also indicated that the witness talked to an off-duty cop who gave information on a potential suspect. According to his investigative report, the suspect came out from behind the crime scene wearing a dark blue jacket and pants, and a black cap and got into a white Cadillac Escalade.

The witness said they followed up this lead, conducting a traffic stop on the vehicle, and the occupants were ruled out as suspects.

Additionally, King brought up to the detective that he interviewed Green’s friend who lived at the apartment. King claimed that the friend went down to the police station to clear his name.

The witness said he had told the friend to come down to be interviewed, and was also interested in clearing his name. According to the detective, the friend cooperated because Green was his “best friend.”

The detective also testified he submitted a request to preserve Instagram messages on Green’s phone because his friend mentioned that Green was angrily texting someone on it moments before the shooting. The friend originally said he did not know who Green was texting, but later said it was his cousin’s people.

King alleged that the witness did not bother to check messages other than the conversation with Matthews’ son, but the witness said another detective was the one who went through all the messages.

The parties are slated to return on Aug. 5.