The defense attorney in a homicide case argued that the suspect’s reaction to past trauma caused him to shoot a victim in self-defense in a hearing before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson on Oct. 10.
David Pena, 48, is charged with second-degree murder while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, two counts of firearm possession during a crime of violence, and the unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of Maurice Robinson, 24, on the 2900 block of Southern Avenue, SE, on June 12, 2023.
During the hearing, parties addressed motions filed by the prosecution to exclude a self-defense instruction to the jury, and a motion to exclude a defense expert’s testimony.
Defense attorney Dana Page said that the defendant’s actions, which she argued were a result of trauma, could be construed as self-defense using battered woman syndrome case law, which states that a victim of domestic violence may believe that killing their abuser is the only way to protect themselves.
Judge Dayson asked if this case met both requirements of self-defense: the defendant’s subjective belief of imminent harm, and that a reasonable person in the defendant’s same situation with their same history would react in a similar way. Judge Dayson also asked if it could meet an imperfect self-defense standard, where the defendant has a genuine belief of imminent harm, but a reasonable person would not also believe the same in the defendant’s situation.
The prosecution argued that this case did not meet the battered woman requirements because the defendant’s belief of imminent harm was “not tethered in reality.” They claimed that a reasonable person could not say whether they would react the same in the same situation, because trauma is innately unreasonable and involves looking for trouble where there is none.
The prosecution also noted that trauma and PTSD are not as well-documented as domestic abuse when analyzing a person’s perception of and reaction to perceived imminent harm.
Judge Dayson stated that there was a difference between arguing that a victim had a “genuine but unreasonable belief” that they were in imminent danger and arguing that someone with past trauma has a diminished capacity for malice.
The prosecution argued that using trauma to explain a “genuine but unreasonable belief” of imminent danger is the same thing as saying they have a diminished capacity for malice, because it requires arguing that trauma makes people view the world differently. They claimed it was “diminished capacity by another name.”
Judge Dayson said it seemed “odd” to say that someone could not have a genuine but unreasonable belief of imminent harm. The prosecution argued that trauma reactions deal more with an inability to control one’s actions than a belief of imminent danger, which is entirely different than battered woman cases.
Further, the prosecution noted that the trauma expert the defense planned on questioning did not evaluate the defendant specifically, but was rather an expert on general trauma reactions, and would be unable to explain the defendant’s unique situation and perception of danger.
Page responded that experts are brought in to explain general trauma responses to the jury, not to justify a defendant’s testimony. She compared the situation to child sex abuse cases, where victims often don’t report their abusers. According to Page, experts aren’t brought in to testify as to why a specific child wouldn’t report their abuser, but rather to the fact that not reporting is a common trauma response.
The judge stated that she wanted an expert notice regarding the material the trauma expert would be referencing, and also asked if the defense could explain what they planned to have the expert testify to. The prosecution explained that trying to find their own trauma expert to review the defense expert may take time, which could impact the trial date.
Parties are slated to reconvene on Oct. 16.
