Prosecutors in a homicide trial told a jury in DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz’s courtroom on Jan. 21 that eight rounds fired in apparent retaliation were “the shots that killed Paris Odemns.”
Malik Seltzer, 31, is charged with first-degree premeditated murder while armed, unlawful possession of a firearm by a convict, and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Odemns on the 4000 block of 1st Street, SE on Sept. 15, 2021.
Before closing arguments, prosecutors called on the medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Odemns who said there were five gunshot wounds on Odemns’ back, two of which were fatal, and one on his hand. The manner of death was a ruled homicide.
In their closing arguments, prosecutors highlighted surveillance footage, which they claim depicts Seltzer with Odemns leading up to the murder and running away from the scene.
After playing the audio of the gunshots picked up by ShotSpotter, the prosecution said, “Those were the shots that killed Paris Odemns.”
The prosecutor restated earlier testimony by an eyewitness who said they heard Seltzer say “this is the one that stabbed [Seltzer’s friend]” and “I’m gonna bag him,” in relation to Odemns. The eyewitness “heard Seltzer say what he was going to do and what he did.” The prosecutor said that Seltzer “had this plan in his head.”
Finally, to refute the argument that nobody saw Seltzer shoot, the attorney stated “that is not true.” The attorney reminded the jury of earlier testimony by another eyewitness who lived across the street from the scene of the crime who reported hearing gunshots and seeing muzzle flashes followed by a figure running North on First street, who was alleged to be Seltzer.
Kevann Gardner, one of the attorneys representing Seltzer, highlighted many holes he found in the prosecution’s case, stating “there’s a whole lot of evidence we didn’t hear.” According to Gardner, prosecutors failed to call witnesses who could have shed light on what happened.
Gardner called into question the credibility of a prosecutor witness claiming the witness had every reason to lie to “prevent him from going away to prison for years.”
Gardner also argued that the prosecution was “hiding witnesses”– most importantly the lead detective on the case wasn’t called to testify.
Due to time constraints, Gardner was unable to conclude his closing arguments.
Parties are slated to reconvene Jan. 22.
