An officer’s former boss testified about whether he was supposed to have a gun in a shooting trial before DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt on Feb. 24.
Gerald Day, a Howard University Special Police Office, 34, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, carrying a pistol without a license outside of a home or business, and threat to kidnap or injure a person for allegedly pointing a gun at a woman’s face after an altercation with a group of his friends at the intersection of O Street and Carrolsburg Place, SW on Oct. 29, 2023.
Day’s co-defendant, Paul Poston, 32, was sentenced on June 26, 2024, to two years of imprisonment, with all but 10 months suspended, for shooting at the same victim’s car after the altercation.
The defense resumed testimony from Day’s girlfriend’s sister, who was present during the incident. The eyewitness said that she was Maced by the victim after the fight broke out.
According to the eyewitness, the victim said “I got something for you,” as she walked towards her car to retrieve the caustic self-defense chemical after the fight.
Day’s attorney, Steven Polin, asked the witness what it felt like to be Maced and she answered that her vision went blurry and that she moved towards her husband for help.
In the cross-examination, prosecutors showed video footage of the incident in which they asserted the eyewitness was Maced and then approached the victim multiple times after. The prosecution questioned the eyewitness’ behavior, describing it as defensive.
Polin asked the eyewitness in re-direct if her behavior could be explained by her being Maced moments prior, and she agreed.
Polin then called a commander at the Howard University Police Department, Day’s former boss.
The commander highlighted that there are two different types of police officers for Howard University, Security Officers and Special Police Officers (SPO). Day was employed as an SPO and SPOs are allowed to make arrests and carry a firearm on Howard’s campus, said the commander.
Prosecutors asked the commander if in SPOs training they go through a de-escalation training course. The commander answered that all SPOs go through that training and the protocol is to calm the subject down.
The prosecution questioned whether there were different protocols if a subject had a weapon and the commander reiterated that the goal remained to calm the subject down.
“Should a special police officer pull out their firearm if the opposing subject has Mace?” asked prosecutors, to which which the commander answered, no.
Prosecutors confirmed with the commander that Howard SPOs have the right to carry a firearm, but their jurisdiction is strictly limited to the university.
Then, prosecutors discussed the process of Howard SPOs obtaining their work firearms. The commander said the SPOs must be licensed through the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), and the firearm must stay at Howard and be checked in and out after every shift.
The prosecution confirmed with the commander that Day called out sick the day of the incident. Polin later emphasized that Day was originally scheduled to work that day.
After the jury left for the day, Judge Brandt denied Polin’s motion for acquittal, ruling that the government presented enough evidence to send the case to a jury.
While the defense says Day acted in self-defense, the prosecution highlighted the video evidence and witness testimony identifying Day as the individual who approached the victim and pointed a gun.
Judge Brandt noted that the combination of witness testimony about Day’s alleged threats and his allegedly possessing an unregistered firearm was potentially enough for the jury to find him guilty on the charges.
The judge initially questioned the self-defense claim, but acknowledged that certain phrases from the victim during the incident, such as “I’ve got something for you,” noting that a jury could interpret this as a credible threat.
She emphasized that the jury remains the “sole arbiter” of witness credibility. She concluded that the prosecution met its burden. As a result, Judge Brandt denied the motion for acquittal.
Parties are scheduled to reconvene on Feb. 24.
