Prosecution Should ‘Apologize for Wasting Your Time,’ Says Defense in Homicide

Thank you for reading D.C. Witness.
Consider making a donation to help us continue our mission.

During closing statements for a fatal shooting, the defense complained that the prosecution was wasting the jury’s time before DC Superior Court Judge Jason Park on Feb. 5.

Ronald Wallace, 48, and DeAngelo Glover, 30, are charged with first-degree premeditated murder while armed, assault with intent to kill while armed, two counts of possession of a firearm during crime of violence, unlawful possession of a firearm, for their alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of Tyrone Wright and wounding of another on Jan. 19, 2021 on the 3800 block of Hayes Street, NE.

During their closing arguments, the prosecution stated that the killing of Wright was a “life for a life” due to his rumored involvement in the death of Marcus Wallace, Ronald’s brother.

The prosecution said Wallace’s phone number had been tracked and showed him frequenting the area of the incident. The tracked calls and location lined up with the “plan” Wallace had to kill Wright that a family member corroborated. The number was disconnected just one day after the shooting, indicating Wallace’s acknowledgment of guilt, according to the prosecution.

The prosecution claimed surveillance footage back up his phone’s location, and showed his movements on the day of the incident, including Wallace fleeing the scene after the shooting. They claimed Wallace shot Wright 16 times.

As for Glover, the prosecution stated, he was allegedly captured in surveillance footage firing down on Wright after he collapsed, contradicting the defense’s argument that Glover was shooting at the shooter as he ran away. They claimed Glover fired two shots, which were consistent with being shot by a person standing over Wright.

Michael Bruckheim, Wallace’s attorney, said that the prosecution “could have gotten better evidence” to present to the jury. Further, the individual followed in the surveillance has never been definitively identified as Wallace. Even if that individual was Wallace, Bruckheim insisted, he was only seen before and after the murder in the area and everyone was running from the shooting.

Bruckheim claimed the prosecutors failed to provide DNA evidence, and an exact location of Wallace’s whereabouts from his cellphone. Bruckheim also reminded the jury the murder weapon was never recovered.

The lawyer pointed out flaws in the theory for Wallace’s motive. A former partner of Wright’s described Marcus Wallace as the “best cousin ever,” so it would be odd for Wright to kill him. Additionally, a man was charged with the murder, so there was no clear reason to suspect Wright’s involvement, Bruckheim stated.

Bruckheim attempted to discredit a key witness, who he claimed only came forward for the reward money.

David Knight, Glover’s attorney, acknowledged that Glover was in fact a shooter, but he was aiming for the fleeing killer out of concern for his family. Given Wright was already shot 16 times there was no reason to shoot Wright.

There was no evidence to indicate that Glover and Wallace were even close, let alone collaborators on the murder.

Glover had been seen on surveillance walking with a woman, thus had no intention to be involved in a murder but rather had planned to spend the night with his date.

The prosecution’s theory of Glover’s movements and shots fired did not line up with the surveillance videos, Knight claimed.

He argued a bullet could be seen hitting the ground across the parking lot from Glover, which a witness had claimed was fired by an unidentified man approaching from the other way which was impossible to see given the witness’ position.

“What they should do is come up here and apologize for wasting your time,” Knight stated, as he urged the jury to acquit Glover.

“They’re asking you to disregard all the evidence… [to] ignore your own eyes,” the prosecutors told the jury.

The prosecution countered that a witness’ description of Wallace’s outfit from that night clearly matched that of the man in surveillance that they claimed was Wallace. They felt that the testimony, combined with the reiteration that the surveillance aligned with Wallace’s phone records, showed enough proof of Wallace’s identification.

Parties are slated to reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.