A forensics’ analyst appeared before DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt on Sept. 17 and 18, and testified that a murder suspect’s DNA was likely in samples found on several pieces of evidence.
Reginald Steele, 26, is charged with conspiracy, first-degree murder, 10 counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, 11 counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, four counts of carrying a pistol without a license, five counts of possession of an unregistered firearm, and two counts of tampering with physical evidence.
These charges stem from Steele’s alleged involvement in four separate shootings, including the murder of 13-year-old Malachi Lukes and injury of another juvenile on March 1, 2020, on the 600 block of S Street, NW. Steele’s accused of a separate shooting the same day with no reported injuries on the unit block of Channing Street, NE.
The other incidents Steele is accused of include a non-fatal shooting that injured two individuals on Feb. 22, 2020 on the 700 block of Farragut Street, NW, and a non-fatal shooting that injured three on Feb. 24, 2020 on the 1700 block of 9th Street, NW.
Prosecutors called on a forensic analysis expert who explained the basics of DNA and forensic analysis to the jury and presented her findings. The lab tested DNA samples found on several pieces of evidence—such as a car door handle, steering wheel, clothing, and beverage containers—to determine whether Steele’s DNA was likely to be in the samples. She found it to be highly probable that Steele was a source of multiple DNA samples on the physical evidence linked to the case.
The analyst testified she examined a pair of pants that, according to the witness, provided “limited support for exclusion.” In other words, there is a high probability that the DNA found on the pants belongs to Steele.
Defense attorney Megan Allburn questioned the process of DNA analysis in her cross-examination. The witness explained that, despite finding DNA on the evidence, an analyst cannot tell the court when, how, or why the DNA ended up on the item.
Allburn also questioned the witness on “touch DNA,” or the process by which touch transfers DNA evidence. Allburn described herself touching the jury box, and then explained how, if a juror touched the same place she did, her DNA could end up on anything that juror touched–despite never touching it herself–because her DNA would be transferred. The witness explained that it is “very possible” for multiple transfers to occur.
A second witness called by the prosecution was a digital forensic examiner. The witness testified to extracting information from a phone, which she identified as belonging to codefendant Aaron Brown, 29, using the Apple ID, email accounts, and social media accounts found on the user profile.
Call logs from the phone showed multiple calls from a contact labeled as “Gordo,” which, according to police documents, is the defendant’s nickname.
Cross-examination of the witness revealed that the calls had all taken place after the March 1 murder.
Parties are slated to reconvene Sept. 22.
