DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt denied a motion to exclude the identification testimony from someone who knew a murder defendant intimately during a hearing on Aug. 19.
Walter Jenkins, 36, is charged with first-degree murder while armed, two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction greater than a year, and carrying a rifle or shotgun outside a home or business. These charges stem from his alleged involvement in the death of David Williams, 52, on the 2000 block of Bruce Place, SE, on Nov. 14, 2021. The incident also left a surviving victim with multiple gunshot wounds to their legs.
During the hearing, Judge Brandt heard defense attorneys, Hannah Claudio and Dominique Winters’, motion to exclude one of the prosecution’s witnesses from testifying about Jenkins’ identification. The prosecution said they planned to call the mother of Jenkins’ three children to the stand who could identify herself and Jenkins in a surveillance video of them entering a car before the incident.
Claudio argued that it would be unnecessary as the jury can make the determination themselves. She stated the jury can make the inference based on the photo in the warrant and other evidence that shows Jenkins’ physical features.
Prosecutors rebutted the claim stating that the identification of Jenkins in the video would be of high value to the jury as the surveillance video does not clearly show his face. In addition, since the witness had a relationship with Jenkins, her ID would be credible.
Ultimately, Judge Brandt denied Jenkins’ motion to exclude this witness’ testimony stating it is of evidentiary value.
Judge Brandt then heard arguments regarding Jenkins’ motion to suppress cell phone data. Claudio claimed the prosecution needed to establish specific proof in the phone that supported a warrant to collect that information.
The prosecution argued that they did not need specific text messages or information but just probable cause in order to retrieve the Jenkins’ cell phone data. They stated it is common for people to make connections and communications with their phone when committing a crime. The prosecution also added that they were not searching the data of the entire phone and there were limitations on the warrant’s scope
Judge Brandt also heard arguments on another motion regarding cell site data from Jenkins’ phone which the defense said was overly broad. Cell site data could determine Jenkins’ approximate location based on the information analyzed from signal relay towers.
Claudio stated that there was no information in the warrant that the time frame of cell site data would apply to Jenkins. Further, the warrant would violate Jenkins’ privacy as it could reveal his whereabouts. Claudio also argued that it was not reasonable for the officer to collect cell site data since the warrant didn’t specifically mention it.
In response, the prosecution argued that there was strong evidence of Jenkins’ alleged involvement in the stabbing to support collecting the data. They stated that Jenkins’ likely had his phone on him and the data would show if he was in the vicinity at the time of the crime.
The prosecution then claimed that their request of a 10 day time period of Jenkins’ cell site data is not a violation of privacy as they only want a slice of time related to the crime. The prosecution also stated that it was reasonable for the officer to search the cell site data as he was just acting based on what was written and signed in the warrant.
Judge Brandt decided to rule on the two motions in the coming days.
Parties are slated to reconvene for the jury trial on Aug. 25.
