Parties argued over whether or not a shooting victim could be questioned about potential harassment and past criminal history in a trial held before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson on Oct. 9.
Ato Ocran, 46, is charged with assault with the intent to kill while armed, aggravated assault while armed, two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, four counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, five counts of possession of an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a licence outside of a home or business, and destruction of property worth $1000 or more for his alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting on the 2600 block of 10th Street, NE on June 3. One individual was injured during the incident.
In a motions hearing before the trial, the defense requested to cross-examine the victim about an incident that occurred outside the courthouse. According to defense attorney Kevann Gardner, the victim followed the defendant’s sister out of the courtroom after one of the hearings and allegedly harassed her as she walked down the street.
When she called the defense counsel for help, Gardner claimed, the victim told the attorneys to “tell your boy to stop being weird.” Gardner claimed that this interaction was an attempt by the victim to intimidate the defendant through a third party and “prevent Mr. Ocran from testifying.”
The prosecution argued the line of questioning was “highly speculative” because it presupposed the victim knew Ocran’s sister’s identity. Gardner explained she had been present in the courtroom near the defense counsel on multiple occasions and had spoken with them in and out of the courtroom. He argued that the victim knowing Ocran’s sister was “common sense” and that the victim had no reason to follow her without knowing who she was.
Judge Dayson called the relevance of the questioning “attenuated,” but agreed to look into the matter after defense counsel provided case law to support the testimony’s admissibility, in spite of rulings against the practice.
Following the discussion, prosecutors recalled the victim to complete questioning, where he walked through the shooting for the court. He explained he had initially been in an altercation with the defendant after the defendant allegedly unplugged the victim’s electric vehicle from the charging station.
He testified to leaving the scene, claiming that he “ain’t feel safe,” and turning down 10th Street to see the defendant’s car pull out of a side street near him. He claimed that the driver of the car raised a gun out of the driver’s side window and fired at his car multiple times. The incident, according to the victim, was “real quick,” and lasted for about ninety seconds total. According to the victim, he was shot in his left arm and bruised by debris on his side.
After driving away from the scene, the victim explained he began driving home rather than calling the police. When asked why, he said that he was worried for his passenger—his girlfriend’s brother—but more importantly, that he knew the police’s “way of doing things,” and that he had been involved in a previous shooting incident where the “person who got shot was mistreated” by officers.
Arriving home the victim told the court that he drove past to a nearby recreational center. He said he wanted to get a weapon and that he “wanted revenge.” He asked if anyone at the center had a firearm, but the suggestion was greeted with laughter. He left without a weapon and returned to his house, where he was eventually transported to the hospital for treatment and police questioning.
Following a break, the parties had a lengthy disagreement regarding the defense’s questioning of the victim’s being a known drug dealer. The judge disallowed it since there was no proof, such as a conviction, and the defense’s claims were mostly based on what others supposedly said, which is hearsay. The judge also reminded both sides that they could not bring in previously excluded information about character.
There was also a discussion about the witness’s immunity and whether he could be asked questions about drug distribution. The judge pointed out that the immunity letter didn’t cover those topics and warned the defense to wait for a ruling before asking anything. The defense said an officer had told them the witness was known for dealing drugs, but the prosecution argued this wasn’t a valid reason to keep bringing it up. The judge agreed and said there was no good faith basis to allow those questions.
The victim was put back on the stand and was also questioned about past crimes and inconsistencies in his statements. He admitted to having a criminal history but said he is a different person now. The defense played body camera and hospital footage showing that the witness didn’t tell police the full story. He claimed he didn’t mention certain things, like hearing sirens, because the police never asked, but this was the first time he brought that up in four months.
Parking lot video footage depicted the defendant’s kicking the victim’s car, even though the victim said that didn’t happen. More footage showed the victim apparently chasing the defendant’s car, though he denied it. When pressed about these details, the witness pushed back and even interrupted the defense’s questioning at one point.
Due to time constraints, the victim was unable to conclude his testimony.
A Tesla employee testified remotely as a technical witness. He explained how Tesla cameras and storage systems work. He said that video clips can’t be deleted from the Tesla app and can only be removed directly from the car’s screen or by taking out the USB drive. This was meant to help clarify whether video evidence from the defendant’s car could have been deleted.
Parties are slated to return on Oct. 14.
