Defense Asks to Dismiss Non-Fatal Shooting Case, Alleging ‘Vindictive Prosecution’

By Laura Berol - October 7, 2024
Daily Stories | Non-Fatal Shooting | Suspects |

Molly Bunke, Amonte Moody‘s defense attorney, argued Moody’s case should be dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct. The argument took place during Moody’s arraignment before DC Superior Court Judge Anthony Epstein on Oct. 4. 

Moody, 18, is charged with four counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, four counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, and eight counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for his alleged involvement in a shooting on April 22 on the 1700 block of Independence Avenue, SE. No injuries were reported. 

Court documents state surveillance video footage showed an individual identified as Moody shooting at a black SUV as it drove away. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers reported finding 26 shell casings at the scene.

Moody pleaded not guilty to all charges, and Bunke asserted his constitutional rights, including the right to a speedy trial.

Bunke said the prosecutor misled her during a phone call on Aug. 8 in which they discussed the charges the prosecution would bring against Moody if he didn’t accept the plea deal that was being offered at the time. 

D.C. Witness previously reported the deal would have required Moody plead guilty to four counts of assault with a dangerous weapon and carrying a pistol without a license in return for the prosecution’s not seeking an indictment on greater charges.

According to Bunke, she told the prosecutor she would need to advise Moody on the plea deal if there was a possibility he would be indicted with assault with intent to kill (AWIK) because her co-counsel, Kavya Naini, wasn’t certified by the Public Defender Service (PDS) for advising clients on that charge. 

If an AWIK charge was possible, the deadline for accepting or rejecting the plea offer would need to be extended, Bunke said she told the prosecutor, because she didn’t have time to visit Moody at DC Jail before the existing deadline.

“Did Ms. Bunke make clear that she would need to go to the jail if there was even a possibility of AWIK charges?” Judge Epstein asked the prosecutor.

“I think that’s a fair interpretation of what Ms. Bunke said,” the prosecutor replied.

Judge Epstein asked the prosecutor what he told Bunke would happen if Moody rejected the plea deal.

“That we would be indicting on ADW [assault with a deadly weapon] and PFCOV [possession of a firearm during a crime of violence],” the prosecutor said.

“Did you say, ‘Not AWIK’?” Judge Epstein asked.

“Yes,” said the prosecutor.

“Why didn’t you say, ‘It’s ADW and PFCOV, but there’s a possibility of AWIK?” Judge Epstein asked.

“I thought there was already an understanding baked into the conversation about how this process works,” the prosecutor said. He said Bunke should have known from past experience that the supervisors in the US Attorney’s Office (USAO), not the prosecutors who appear in the courtroom, have final authority over deciding what the charges will be.

“[Moody] says he detrimentally relied on the [prosecution’s] promise.” Judge Epstein said to Bunke. “Does that mean that, if Mr. Moody had known AWIKs were on the table, he would have accepted the [prosecution’s] offer?”

Bunke said she didn’t know the answer “because that conversation didn’t occur.”

Judge Epstein asked if it would be an adequate remedy for the prosecution to extend the same plea offer to Moody now, but Bunke said no.

“That would not be offering any kind of deterrence and would really be giving them a win,” Bunke said. “There’s vindictive prosecution here,” she said arguing for dismissal.

Bunke asked for an evidentiary hearing so the court could scrutinize the prosecution’s statements in phone calls, emails and written filings.

“This is not a unique instance of misrepresentation. This is one of many,” Bunke said.

Even if everything Bunke alleged was true, Judge Epstein said, “It’s not clear to me that the [prosecution] would be precluded from saying, ‘We’ve changed our minds.'”

Judge Epstein gave Bunke until Oct. 18 to submit a supplemental filing addressing that issue.

“I think the odds are very low that I would dismiss the case as a whole,” Judge Epstein said. “If there is a remedy, I think I would dismiss the AWIK charges, at the most.”

Judge Epstein noted Bunke had filed motions to release Moody and to suppress evidence the prosecution planned to present in trial. The prosecution had filed oppositions to those motions. 

Judge Epstein gave Bunke additional time to reply in writing to the prosecution’s arguments.

Bunke asked Judge Epstein to hold an evidentiary hearing, requiring the prosecution to call witnesses to defend their claim that a single search warrant authorized multiple searches of Moody’s property.

Judge Epstein said he may hold an evidentiary hearing next time parties convene, depending on what he reads in the written filings for that motion.

The next hearing in this case is scheduled for Nov. 25.