The defense moved to suppress identification testimony of an armed carjacking victim who claimed to recognize the defendant before DC Superior Court Judge Andrea Hertzfeld on Oct. 27.
Marcus Tucker, 30, is charged with armed carjacking, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, robbery while armed, and assault with a dangerous weapon in relation to his alleged involvement in an armed carjacking that occurred April 17 on the intersection of 30th and Hartford Streets, SE.
Before trial, the victim spoke to defense attorney Jason Tulley regarding phone calls in the early morning of April 18 with Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers investigating the carjacking. He testified that he did not remember much of the call, as he had made many calls that day.
Body-worn camera footage of one of the officers contained clips of one of those phone calls. The detective could be heard telling the officer not to let the man she had pulled over go, as he matched the extremely detailed description of the suspect provided by the victim. At the same time, the officer was on the phone with the victim.
The officer could be heard giving a physical description of what the suspect was wearing, confirmed by the victim saying “Oh, that’s him” and “yeah, that’s him, that’s him” over the phone. The detective brought the victim to the scene to see the suspect and personally identify him in what is known as a “show-up identification.”
Tulley claimed that this phone call and the subsequent show-up identification were suggestive, and he claimed that “unfair” show-up violates due process. He frequently compared the case to the previous findings of Patrick v. United States (2025) to draw parallels between the two show-ups.
In Patrick v. United States, the DC Court of Appeals reversed the original ruling based on prejudicial evidence that was admitted in the trial.
Tully argued that the victim had identified Tucker only by the clothing description provided by the officer, rather than facial features that would make for a more reliable identification. He argued that the victim had been focused on the guns, as in Patrick.
But the prosecution claimed that the victim was able to provide an incredibly detailed description of his assailants before the officer’s description of Tucker was given to him. She argued that he had been focused on the two men carjacking him, not their guns, and that he would have expected police to stop someone who was a match.
She also argued that the show-up was legal and reliable, as the detective clearly instructed the victim that the assailant may not be the man they had stopped.
The prosecution argued that the victim could not have heard what the detective told the officer – they were not part of the same phone call and the detective’s voice was quiet in the bodyworn camera footage, making it improbable that what he said was audible to the victim.
Judge Hertzfeld agreed that it is unlikely that the victim heard the conversation between the detective and the officer. She also did not find the show-up to be unduly suggestive.
Parties are slated to reconvene Oct. 28.
