Defense attorneys representing a double-homicide suspect argued detectives used coercive tactics during a police interview. The challenge came in a gang-related, conspiracy case before DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman during a motions hearing on Aug. 12.
Michael Mason, 21, is charged with conspiracy, two counts of first-degree murder while armed, three counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, two counts of assault with intent to murder while armed, seven counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and seven counts of criminal street gang affiliation while committing a felony or violent misdemeanor.
The charges stem from his alleged involvement in three separate incidents. The death of 21-year-old Brea Moon and injury of a second victim on the 3900 block of Alabama Avenue, SE, on April 7, 2020. A shooting that injured two on April 8, 2020 on the 300 block of Anacostia Road, SE. Additionally, the death of 18-year-old Antwuan Roach on May 22, 2020 on the 3800 block of East Capitol Street, NE.
According to court documents, Mason is part of the “Avenue Crew of Simple City” street gang and conspired to assault and kill the crew’s adversaries.
The defense asked Judge Edelman to have the conspiracy count tried separately from the other charges. They worried the jury might be influenced by unrelated or damaging evidence from the conspiracy charge affecting a verdict.
The prosecution argued all the evidence supports a conspiracy.
Prosecutors alleged that Mason is connected to 13 other shootings in DC as part of another street gang named “Avenue Crew.” On multiple occasions, according to prosecutors, Mason is visible in social media posts and group chats associated with co-conspirators, linking himself with several crimes that took place in 2020.
Defense attorney Andrew Ain argued Mason’s Instagram account was not the address for some of the messages prosecutors cited. He said, like other professionals, criminals may talk about the work they do, but that does not automatically prove conspiracy and that it is unfair that the alleged co-conspirators are not also being charged.
However, prosecutors also noted that many of the shootings happened in what they described as rival crew territory, and alleged that guns seized during the arrests were linked to other shootings on crew turf.
Prosecutors said they plan to call law enforcement officers as witnesses to testify who are familiar with how the crews operate and have knowledge of the locations they frequent.
Mason’s attorneys, Ain and Bernadette Armaand, filed a motion to prevent prosecutors from showing Mason’s second interview with Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detectives to the jury. They argued that it’s manipulative and coercive.
They say Mason was only 16 at the time of the interview, had a 10th-to-12th grade education level, and invoked his right to remain silent during the first interview.
The defense says that despite his refusal to speak during the first interview, he was interviewed a second time for an extended period and was told that if he talked, detectives would reveal the evidence against him.
Judge Edelman stated that the DC Court of Appeals ruled in several cases that an interview can still be considered voluntary despite its length. He also noted that Mason was offered food and water during both interviews, that there was no yelling, no direct threats, and no promises made by the detectives and ultimately denied the defense’s motion.
Meanwhile, prosecutors stated that the firearms expert they intend to call during trial will present research purporting to show that recovered shell casings can be linked to a specific firearm with a high degree of conincidence.
Ain argued that is essentially the same as saying “studies have shown that.” He said this could prejudice the jury into believing the firearms expert’s assessment was made with absolute certainty, when in most cases it is only an educated guess.
The prosecution clarified that the expert will testify only that he observed specific marks on the casings and that studies have found each mark to be unique, with individual characteristics that can link it to a specific source.
Judge Edelman ruled that the firearms analyst cannot claim an accurate percentage during testimony and required prosecutors to say the results are not 100 percent certain.
Parties are scheduled to reconvene on Aug. 13 to continue discussing motions.
