DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz heard openings and witness testimony–including a victim–on the first day of a jury trial, Oct. 9, for a non-fatal shooting defendant.
Daquawn Lubin, 30, is charged with with conspiracy while armed, two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, aggravated assault knowingly while armed, unlawful possession of a firearm, carrying a pistol without a license outside home or business, assault with significant bodily injury while armed, and three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence while armed and possession of a prohibited weapon for his alleged involvement in the non-fatal shooting of two victims.
The incident occurred on the 4600 block of Benning Road, SE on July 24, 2023.
In their opening, the prosecution claimed Lubin is one of two individuals responsible for shooting the victims, whose “lives changed forever”.
According to the prosecution, Lubin and his ex-codefendant Johnathan Young, 35, were invited to an apartment complex by one of the victim’s now ex-girlfriends friends on July 24. The men were in the apartment for approximately 30 minutes before one of the victims arrived at the apartment and kicked the pair out.
Consequently, the suspects returned allegedly armed, according to the prosecution. The shooters “unloaded” their magazines on the two victims after lying in wait in the parking lot of an apartment complex on Benning Road, alleged the prosecution.
In his opening the prosecutor admitted that he did not have any physical or forensic evidence to connect Lubin to the shootings. He went on to advise the jury that there is not just a single piece of evidence or witness that makes the case, it is “like a puzzle”.
Defense attorney Kevin O’Sullivan insisted, “A structure built on a flawed foundation cannot stand”. He said that there are three reasons why Lubin should be found innocent, mainly that the prosecution failed to do a thorough investigation.
According to O’Sullivan, Lubin does not fit the description of the shooter. He stated that there were two eyewitnesses who will not be called by the prosecution and not talked to by the lead detective in the case who identified the shooters as both having dreads. Lubin allegedly had short hair at the time of the incident.
O’Sullivan alleged that the victims lied to police in original statements. One of the victims stated that the shooting was a result of a robbery gone wrong, when that was not the cause for the incident. Additionally, one of the victims was said to be carrying a weapon, violating the terms of his parole, but threw the weapon away on scene in order to not be found in possession of it by police on scene.
Finally, O’Sullivan argued that the prosecution will not provide “one shred” of physical or forensic evidence connecting the defendant to this shooting. When a search warrant was executed on Lubin’s home, the clothing matching what the shooter was wearing was not recovered.
Additionally, a magazine and shell casings were found on scene. However, the defense says the shooter’s DNA would have been found on that magazine and the casings because the individual would have had to load the bullets. Lubin’s DNA was not found on any of these items, according to O’Sullivan.
The prosecution called one of the victims to testify. He used to date an individual who lived at the apartment complex–the violence occurred in the building’s parking lot.
He testified that on the day of the incident, he spoke to his girlfriend multiple times over the phone and felt something was wrong, so he visited her late in the afternoon. Upon arriving, he saw his girlfriend and four other guests, two of which were men.
He said he had a private conversation with his girlfriend, which led to him forcefully telling the other guests to leave. He noted that they took some time to gather things, but that everyone left without complaint.
The victim said he invited his godfather to moderate the conversation with his girlfriend. Once the conversation concluded, he and his godfather left.
When the two got to the parking lot, the victim claimed he heard gunshots, but couldn’t tell how far away they were. He recalled a sharp sting in his “lower half” before not being able to feel anything. He also remembered bleeding. Sometime after, he testified, he woke up in a hospital bed, reporting that he had numerous stitches and staples down his leg.
While in the hospital, the victim spoke with detectives. They showed him an array of suspects and asked him if he recognized any. He highlighted one with long dreadlocks and no others. The man he identified was not Lubin.
The prosecution showed three different pieces of police footage to verify events with the victim. First, they showed him an image of him being found with blood-soaked clothing by a van. The victim confirmed that he was the man in the image.
Next, they showed two short videos of questions the police asked the victim when treating him. One was the police asking if he knew who shot him, and he said he didn’t. In the other, he stated that his family members were around. He clarified that the family he was referring to was his godfather and cousin.
The victim claimed that only one officer found him at the scene, but that his body and mind were still in shock, and that he remembered little of his interactions with the officer.
The victim noted that he had a gun during the incident. He stated he carries one for his protection, but that he wasn’t able to fire it during this incident and that he wished he did. He thought the incident may have gone differently if he could’ve used it. He said it “fell” and didn’t fire.
O’Sullivan asked the victim to confirm that he is a convicted felon and on probation for a case in Maryland. The victim confirmed, and clarified that he did not hide this when police found him.
O’Sullivan asked if he was aware of the consequences if he were to be charged for having the gun. He said that he knew he wasn’t supposed to have it, but wasn’t aware of the exact consequences.
The victim was granted statutory immunity for this case, but was warned of the charges he could face should the prosecution so desire including unlawful possession of a weapon, which, paired with the probation could result in his being sent to a federal prison.
During a short break, O’Sullivan highlighted a ballistics report from the incident, in which three shell casings were found around the victim and his car. Police also found a firearm nearby. Judge Kravitz agreed that the victim’s testimony was unclear, and that it seemed like the victim was not being completely truthful.
O’Sullivan highlighted the discrepancy in the victim’s testimony in court and to the grand jury. While in court, he claimed that he didn’t fire and lost the gun, but he told the grand jury that he threw it away, which O’Sullivan presumed was due to his felony status.
The victim did not clarify one way or the other, but noted that his primary thought during the incident was to get out of the area. He also assured that his godfather was not the one who shot the gun.
O’Sullivan asked if the victim yelled or threatened the other guests to get them to leave. He said he recalled saying “get the hell out,” but did not raise his voice or brandish the gun. He noted that the guests didn’t push to stay either, and that they left without confrontation.
The prosecution also called the victim’s now ex-girlfriend to testify.
The witness identified, through prosecution’s exhibits, Lubin and Young as the men in security footage seen entering her apartment on July 24, 2023. She also testified that before this date she did not know Lubin, had not seen him before, and this was his first time entering her residence.
When asked about the demeanor of the victim when he arrived at her apartment and kicked out the guests, she stated he was angry. She testified that although he was angry, she did not hear any profanity. yelling, and no one brandished a weapon. According to the witness, everyone left without issues.
She testified that she heard gunshots as she attempted to leave her apartment.
In cross examination by O’Sullivan, she stated that she did not see the shooters or the shooting occur. Furthermore, she did not see the injuries inflicted on either victim.
The witness also stated that Lubin did not refuse or retaliate when he was kicked out of the apartment.
Parties are slated to reconvene on Oct. 7.
