Defense Calls Homicide Investigation ‘Sloppy’ in Closing Argument

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

Defense counsel criticized the prosecution’s investigation as “sloppy” during closing arguments in a homicide trial on Feb. 10 before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson.

Aaron Murchison, 28, is charged with second-degree murder while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convict for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of Jamontate Brown, 32, on Oct. 16, 2022, on the 2500 block of Pomeroy Road, SE.

Defense attorney Kevann Gardner alleged there were key inconsistencies in the case, arguing the prosecution failed to conduct a thorough investigation and shaped the evidence to fit their theory by “trying to put a square peg in a round hole.”

Prosecutors accused the defense of not regarding the case seriously and “using theatrics” to distract the jury with humor rather than facts.

Gardner said the prosecution presented a “lazy investigation based on a video that shows nothing” with little to no evidence connecting Murchison to Brown. He claimed the prosecution did not call the lead detective to testify because “they’re hiding him” and “know their investigation was sloppy.” Gardner continued “that type of investigation is how innocent people are convicted of crimes they didn’t commit.”

Gardner questioned the handling of the case, and urged the jury to consider overlooked facts instead of ignoring them as prosecution asked, including the presence of ten or more individuals in the area—known as “the cut”—where the incident occurred.

He said an officer, who arrived at the scene, repeatedly informed the lead detective about the number of people present between buildings. However, the prosecution never called the detective to testify, a decision Gardner criticized as a major investigative failure.

During their rebuttal, prosecutors said the defense’s claims of ten-to-15 people on the scene were misleading, as those individuals were seen only after the shooting and when police responded.

The defense also attacked the prosecution’s assertion that there was only one way in and out of the cut, highlighting multiple access points, including a parking lot, a front gate, a back side door, and as many as 47 windows. The defense contended this is a misrepresentation in an attempt to place Murchison at the scene to fit their narrative.

Gardner argued the only eyewitness to testify described the perpetrator as middle-aged and wearing all black which did not match the defendant. Garnder also pointed out that the witness was never shown a photo or presented a photo lineup to see if he’d be able to identify Murchison, arguing this was a deliberate omission. He said the prosecution feared the witness would state Murchison was not the shooter, and therefore, ”they can lose the case.”

The prosecution explained the lack of an ID photo or lineup was due to the dark situation and the witness’ inability to see clearly.

Additionally, Gardner presented a self-defense argument, stating that the victim was armed and potentially firing as he ran towards his car. According to the prosecution, Murchison was not defending himself, as he left his home and ran toward the incident rather than away from it.

Jurors are scheduled to reconvene Feb. 11 to begin deliberations.