DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz continued a pretrial motions hearing for a murder case on March 10.
Jaime Macedo, 24, is charged with first-degree felony murder while armed, robbery while armed, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 25-year-old Maxwell Emerson. The incident occurred on the 600 block of Alumni Lane, NE on July 5, 2023.
The hearing opened with Judge Kravitz’s ruling on the defense’s motion to preclude a witness’ testimony.
The prosecutors wanted to call Emerson’s parents to testify before the jurors about Emerson’s life and his background as a teacher and a wrestling coach. However, the defense argued that testimony from both parents on the victim’s character would be duplicative and unnecessary.
Judge Kravitz said it was unfair to have two grieving parents on the witness stand, creating prejudice towards the defense.
The judge partially granted the motion, stating he would not let the father testify, because his would be duplicative to the mother’s testimony. Instead, Judge Kravitz would allow prosecutors to ask the mother questions that they would have asked the father.
According to court documents, security footage shows Macedo and Emerson allegedly walking together towards a park bench. Macedo is seen taking Emerson’s bookbag before returning it. Emerson then texted a family member he was being robbed at gunpoint. Macedo reportedly tried to snatch something else from Emerson, which resulted in Emerson tackling Macedo to the ground. It was at this point that Macedo allegedly shot Emerson in the abdomen before witnesses saw him flee the scene.
Judge Kravitz also brought up the prosecution’s motion to preclude the argument for self-defense, which was filed on Feb. 20, 2026.
Prosecutors stated that if the incident is brought to the jurors attention as an armed robbery turned murder, then Macedo’s defense attorneys, Jessica Willis and Rachel Cicurel, could not argue self-defense.
Judge Kravitz denied the motion to preclude self-defense out of concern for prejudice towards the defense.
Willis and Cicurel filed a motion to exclude asking potential jurors questions about their arrest records on Feb. 21, 2026.
Willis objected to the questioning of being arrested or being a witness to an arrest because it is racially charged. She said that in D.C. Black people are more likely to answer “yes” to the question than Caucasions. She said she believed that it ultimately leads to the prosecution being able to strike more Black people out of jury selection.
“We would want to know,” Judge Kravitz replied, denying the defense’s motion.
The prosecution also filed another motion for a toxicology report on Emerson.
Cicurel and Willis objected, stating that there are a lot of unknowns and that they didn’t have adequate time to ask questions to fully understand the report. Cicurel stated that problem prejudices the defense.
The prosecution stated that a toxicology report was not novel testimony and an investigation into the report could be done with a simple conversation with the toxicologist.
They said that they would help the defense get in touch with the toxicologist and push back his testimony until the end of the trial to give the defense more time to figure out the report.
Judge Kravitz granted the prosecution’s motion without prejudice.
Cicurel and Willis also presented a motion to sever mention of Macedo’s prior convictions from the charges in the current trial. They stated that it would be unfair to their client if the jury knew about his prior felon in possession conviction. However, the judge said that if Macedo were called to testify, the jury would need to know about the prior conviction anyway.
Judge Kravitz granted the defense’s motion in part, agreeing to sever the prior conviction, with the stipulation that if Macedo was called to testify, he would tell the jury about it.
Parties also discussed a motion filed by the defense to dismiss evidence allegedly destroyed by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). According to the motion, “the government intentionally and deliberately failed to preserve material.”
A former lead detective on the case was questioned about his decision to not classify Emerson’s tablet as evidence.
According to the detective, the glare from the tablet was seen in video footage. This footage took place one minute and 22 seconds before Emerson’s mother received a text message from her son that he was being robbed at gunpoint.
Judge Kravitz did not rule on the motion to dismiss the evidence during the hearing.
Parties are slated to reconvene on March 12 to resume motions.
