DC Superior Court Judge Dayna Dayson heard closing arguments on Sept. 24 in a jury trial involving a bus stop mass shooting that injured five victims, including a five-year-old girl.
Ronell Offutt, 36, is charged with five counts of assault with intent to kill while armed and five counts of possession of a firearm during crime of violence for his alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting on the 2300 block of Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, on Feb 4, 2019.
One of the assault with intent to kill counts includes an enhancement for injuring a minor.
The prosecution used video evidence from various surveillance cameras, photos from key witnesses, and cell tower data to outline their theory of what occurred the day of the incident.
“He [Offutt] turned that street corner into a blood bath,” the prosecution said. “And for what, for what? He wanted revenge.”
The prosecution argued that Offutt decided to take matters into his own hands after he was physically assaulted with a bat by multiple suspects an hour before the shooting. His fiance and daughter were in the car and witnessed the attack.
The prosecution claimed that surveillance footage from a car wash, photos taken by a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) commander, and a piece of hair confirmed to be Offutt’s proves he was present during the initial altercation. During an interview with police, Offutt allegedly confirmed he was the one in the photos taken by the MPD commander.
“Think about how violent the altercation was for him to lose his hair,” said the prosecution. “Something awful happened to Mr. Offutt but that doesn’t justify a shooting.”
The prosecution claimed that, during the hour before the shooting, Offutt went home to retrieve a firearm and came back to the area where he was assaulted, proving that the shooting was premeditated. They used his fiancé’s cell phone data to track his movements.
The prosecution used video clips from local businesses of a man walking with a multicolored hat and white shoes to claim that Offutt parked two blocks away from the bus stop, walked past the bus stop, turned around, and opened fire at the pedestrians.
They claim he fired eight shots, with a brief pause after the initial three shots, arguing that he stopped to aim and reflect on the shooting.
According to the prosecution, there were five victims: one who was shot twice, one who was shot in the chest, a victim who was five years old, and two others shot once. The victim shot in the chest was allegedly wearing similar clothing to one of Offutt’s assailants who they allege was Offutt’s intended target.
The prosecution also claimed that surveillance footage and photos from a witness captured Offutt running from the scene of the crime with a firearm. The man in the footage wears what appears to be the same hat and shoes from Offutt’s initial assault.
The prosecution argued that a firearm recovered in a Maryland traffic stop was used in the shooting based on the eight shell casings and two projectiles examined by an expert. The DNA collected on the firearm was a likely match for Offutt.
The prosecution also argued that the projectiles retrieved from a car in the direct line of the shooting path demonstrate that the shooter aimed at human height.
To prove that Offutt had intent to kill, the prosecution must convince the jury that Offutt’s return to the scene of the assault and fire directly at people.
“This is a crowded bus stop, you don’t open fire at a crowded bus stop unless you intend to kill,” the prosecution said. “He didn’t walk around and trip on his gun, he walked around the block and shot at people.”
Donna Beasley, Offut’s defense attorney, argued that the surveillance footageis unreliable because the timestamps do not match the timeline outlined by the prosecution. She claimed that some of the footage is from before and after the shooting happened.
“The prosecution does not explain this in any shape, form, or fashion,” Beasley said.
In rebuttal, the prosecution argued that the time stamp variance should not play a role in the jury’s decision making because the sequence of events captured in the footage does correlate.
“There is timestamp variance,” the prosecution said. “But the video content matches up.”
Beasley took issue with the prosecution’s failure to maintain the metadata from the photos taken by the witness. Without the metadata, there is no way to confirm the date, time, or that the photos were not fabricated. When instructing the jury, Judge Dayson explained that they should consider this a prosecutorial failing.
Beasley doubted the credibility of the witness who took the photos. She argued that the photos demonstrate that the witness could not see the bus stop from his location. She also argued that he falsely identified the victims in his photos.
The prosecution argued on rebuttal that the metadata is not important when the witness can clarify any questions about the photos.
“[He] has no motive to lie, to fabricate,” the prosecution said. “You know who else can tell you that, the person who testified under oath. He had first hand knowledge of the contents.”
Beasley also argued that the prosecution had no way of proving that one of the victims was Offut’s assailant. Beasley explained that, without that confirmation, any arguments of motive or intent that connect Offutt to the crime are moot.
“The prosecution said [one of Offutt’s alleged attackers] was a target,” Beasley said. “There hasn’t been any investigation into who beat up Mr. Offutt.”
Challenging one of the five charges and its accompanying firearm charge, Beasley explained that the fifth victim may not be a victim of the shooting. She explained that there is limited knowledge of his identity and there is no way to connect the alleged victim to the shooting patient at Howard Hospital.
The prosecution argued that the bus stop footage shows a fifth man injured as he began limping and hopping as a result of a new wound.
Beasley also questioned the DNA evidence. She argued that the prosecution should have considered the DNA of the person in the traffic stop instead of only testing Offutt’s DNA.
“The [prosecution] decided who their suspect was and they were going to make a case for it,” Beasley said.
Beasley also argued that the projectiles were different colors and were most likely from different guns.
The prosecution argued on rebuttal that testing the firearm for another set of DNA doesn’t change the likelihood that Offutt’s DNA is on the firearm.
Lastly, Beasely reminded the court that there was no in court identification of the defendant. None of the witnesses were asked to identify Offutt as the shooter when testifying in court.
Before the jury entered the courtroom, Judge Dayson dismissed two of the original charges against Offut including aggravated assault knowingly while armed and the accompanying firearm charge.
Based on the testimony of one of the victim’s physicians, there was no evidence of “significant bodily injury” to meet the definition of aggravated result.
The jury is deliberating the case.
