MPD Detective Denies Threatening Witness to Lie During Homicide Investigation

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

A Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective testified that he did not threaten a witness or ask a witness to lie during a homicide and conspiracy trial before DC Superior Court Judge Marisa Demeo on Oct. 16.

Eugene Burns, 32, is charged with first-degree murder while armed, carrying a pistol without a license, and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for his alleged involvement in the Nov. 14, 2015, fatal shooting of 24-year-old Onyekachi Emmanuel Osuchukwu III on the 2900 block of Second Street, SE.

Burns was convicted of these charges in 2017, but the DC Court of Appeals overturned the verdict in 2020. The court ruled that investigators had searched beyond what was legally allowed.

Burns and Tyre Allen, 24, are also charged with conspiracy, obstructing justice by influencing or delaying a witness or officer, and obstruction of justice for their alleged attempts to persuade a witness to redact testimony from Burns’ first trial.

The detective was the former lead detective in the 2015 murder of Osuchukwu before he retired in 2020.

The witness, who was allegedly threatened was Burns’ cousin and Allen’s brother.

According to the detective, Allen’s brother originally contacted MPD through an anonymous phone call, saying he had evidence regarding his cousin’s involvement in Osuchukwu’s murder.

Following that call, the lead detective said he interviewed the witness on Nov. 20, 2015. The witness told the detective that Burns shot and killed Osuchukwu.

The witness provided testimony regarding the claim at Burn’s first trial.

The prosecution presented evidence from 2020 when the witness recanted his testimony through a signed affidavit stating that he lied to the court and to the police.

The affidavit was created by Burns’s former attorney, Ronald Resetarits, and alleged the witness lied because of potential reward money, fear of going to jail, and animosity for Burns.

The affidavit further alleged that these fears stemmed from the detective’s threatening the witness and asking him to provide a fabricated story.

Allegations include the detective telling the witness that he knew Burns committed the murder but could not prove it, that the witness would receive $25,000 in reward money if he provided testimony that resulted in a conviction, and that he could face jail time as Burns was claiming he was the mastermind of the murder.

The detective said he had no knowledge of the affidavit and was not made aware of the witness’s recantation or allegations until the beginning of this trial in 2024. There was never a formal claim against the detective for any misconduct.

The detective denied the witness’s claims in their entirety.

Footage of the detective’s interview with the witness was shown to the jury and appeared to substantiate the detective’s assertions that the claims of misconduct were false.

Trial is set to resume on Oct. 17.