DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz granted a motion for separate trials to two non-fatal shooting co-defendants during a motions hearing on Aug. 7.
Daquawn Lubin, 30, and Jonathan Young, 35, are charged with conspiracy while armed, two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, assault with significant bodily injury while armed, aggravated assault knowingly while armed, four counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence while armed, carrying a pistol without a license outside a home or business, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior crime of violence.
Lubin is also charged with possession of a prohibited weapon. These counts stem from their alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting that injured two on the 4000 block of Benning Road, SE, on July 24, 2023.
During the hearing, Young’s attorney, Lisbeth Saperstein, proposed Young’s motion for severance from Lubin, namely to have a separate trial. Saperstein stated that Lubin agreed to testify in Young’s trial and his testimony would prove Young’s innocence.
The government argued that Lubin’s testimony must have substantial evidence in order to separate the trials for Lubin and Young.
Judge Kravitz acknowledged that it would be inefficient to have two separate trials but granted the motion after a discussion under seal with Saperstein and Lubin’s attorney, Kevin O’Sullivan. Judge Kravitz said Lubin’s testimony would show inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
The prosecution also requested delaying the trial in order to get Lubin’s cell site data around the time of the shooting. They argued that this evidence would be pivotal for their case but needed more time to receive the report.
O’Sullivan, argued against any continuance, stating that Lubin is ready to proceed with trial and this case is making him take time off from work.
Judge Kravitz agreed that the evidence is pivotal and ruled that he would grant the government’s request for a continuance. The trial was scheduled to begin on Aug. 11 but a new trial date for Lubin was set for Sept. 29.
In addition, Saperstein requested Young be released from jail awaiting trial.
The prosecution had no objection, but wanted Young to be put on GPS monitoring and home confinement. However, Saperstein stated that home confinement keep Young from getting a job.
Judge Kravitz released Young with GPS monitoring and a curfew from 10 p. m. to 6 a. m.
The prosecution also argued their motion for a good faith exception to illegally obtained evidence. Previously, in an Aug. 5 hearing, Judge Kravitz ruled that the lead Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective in the case collected GPS evidence from Lubin’s rental car illegally without a warrant and that evidence couldn’t be used in the trial.
Prosecutors disputed Judge Kravitz’s ruling and argued the detective was acting in good faith because he thought he obtained the evidence legally. The prosecution stated the detective believed he could get the GPS data from the rental car based on the rental agreement and since it was not Lubin’s personal car. Therefore, admissible in court.
O’Sulliven rebutted the government’s motion stating that the good faith exception only applies if the detective relied on a specific precedent from the courts or training which caused him to believe that he could obtain the evidence without warrant. But since there was no specific training or precedent that the detective used when gathering the GPS illegally, the good faith clause does not apply and the evidence can’t be used in court.
Judge Kravitz ruled that it was unreasonable for the detective to believe that he could access the GPS data without a warrant. He also stated that MPD should have trained the detective on what is prohibited or permitted under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, Judge Kravitz denied the prosecution’s motion and affirmed the suppression of GPS evidence.
After Judge Kravitz’s ruling, prosecutors proposed since the GPS data is going to be obtained legally through a new warrant the government filed, the evidence should be included.
Judge Kravitz allowed parties to submit arguments and he will rule on it at a later time.
For the remaining motions filed, O’Sullivan argued the probable cause for the arrest of Lubin wasn’t established. Prosecutors called the case’s lead MPD detective to the stand to establish his reasoning.
During the direct examination by the prosecution, the detective stated that he noticed Lubin’s rental car in the area before the shooting and after the shooting seen through video surveillance and GPS tracking. The detective also stated that surveillance footage captured Lubin and Young wearing the same clothing said to be the same as the shooters. For example, the detective said one of the suspects wore a teal shirt on surveillance video before the shooting, and MPD discovered a similar teal shirt in Lubin’s rental.
On cross examination by O’Sullivan, the detective stated that they did not know of any gun in Lubin’s possession. The detective also stated that they never recovered a ski mask or black hoodie that was seen worn by the shooters. In addition, no witnesses identified Lubin as the shooter to the detective.
Parties are slated to reconvene on Aug. 11 to continue discussing motions.
