Editor’s Note: Marquis Allen was acquitted of all charges by a jury on April 9, 2026.
DC Superior Court Judge Carmen McLean criticized prosecutors during trial openings on April 7 about their misrepresentations to the defense in a shooting case.
Marquis Allen, 32, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, threat to kidnap or injure a person, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction greater than a year for his alleged involvement in a Aug. 19, 2025, shooting that occurred on the 3500 block of East Capitol Street, SE.
According to court documents, Allen allegedly fired one shot at his sister but she sustained no injuries. His sister claimed that her ear felt hot and that she wasn’t able to hear for a few hours after the shooting.
During the hearing, Judge McLean first addressed the defense’s motion to exclude evidence filed on March 30. She stated she is “concerned about the representations” from prosecutors.
According to Judge McLean, Allen’s attorney, Shawn Sukumar, claimed there was evidence of Allen’s prior bad acts that prosecutors planned to introduce in the trial but did not disclose, despite numerous opportunities to do so. Judge McLean said she wasn’t suggesting it was a “deliberate falsehood” by prosecutors, but it is a misrepresentation because they previously said they disclosed all required evidence.
The prosecution’s “conduct has not been okay,” asserted Judge McLean.
“As a sanction of the suspect way” prosecutors handled the case and their failure to disclose Allen’s prior bad acts, Judge McLean said she granted Sukumar’s motion. The prosecution has had “problem after problem after problem,” and must deal with the repercussions of their actions, Judge McLean said.
The prosecutors did not respond to the complaints.
In the prosecution’s opening statements, they argued this shooting was “a broken bond between a brother and a sister.” Allen broke their bond with a threat, an act of violence, and by pulling out a firearm and shooting at his sister’s head, prosecutors claimed.
According to prosecutors, Allen was staying at his sister’s apartment and on the morning of the shooting, he and his sister got into an argument. Because of the fight, prosecutors said, Allen’s sister asked him to leave but he refused. After more arguing, he agreed to leave but wanted to come back at a later time for his things, prosecutors claimed.
The prosecution alleged when Allen’s sister insisted he leave with his belongings, he pulled out a gun and shot it above her head. He then got his things, fled the scene, and took his gun with him, prosecutors said.
Allen shattered the bond between him and his sister “to the point of no return,” prosecutors said. He “betrayed her in the one place she should always feel safe, her home.” They asked the jury to find Allen guilty.
Sukumar contended Allen is “entirely innocent of these charges.” He said this case begins with an argument over a bottle of Jameson whiskey. It was a “small, petty, minor, insignificant family squabble,” he said.
Sukumar noted that Allen’s sister is the only witness to see the shooting and claimed her testimony is a “bald faced fabrication” concocted by her. Sukumar told the jury her testimony will say that Allen fired a shot towards her “for absolutely no reason.”
Sukumar asked the jury to listen to her testimony and write down their questions. He argued that by closing statements, they will have a notebook full of unanswered questions that the prosecution failed to address. He asked the jury to find Allen not guilty of these “absolutely faulty charges.”
The prosecution called Allen’s sister, the victim of this shooting, to testify. The victim testified that Allen called her two days prior to the incident, asking to stay the night at her place, and she agreed. There were no problems with him staying over, she stated, and she agreed when he asked to stay another night.
When Allen arrived that night, the victim said he had a bottle of Jameson whiskey with him. She said her, her roommate, and Allen all took a shot of whiskey before she went to bed. She clarified that she didn’t know what Allen and her roommate did after that point because she was in her room.
The next morning, the victim said she saw Allen sitting on the couch. She testified that there was only a little bit of whiskey left in the bottle and he offered the rest to her, although she refused. She claimed Allen insisted she drink it because he said he got the bottle for her, and after she turned it down again, he yelled “this is why I don’t do things for people” at her.
The victim said she responded “no, this is why I don’t do things for people,” but Allen said “b***h, I don’t need you.” The victim said she responded “clearly, you do,” before telling Allen to leave.
The victim said a back-and-forth argument ensued, with Allen refusing to leave and the victim insisting he take his stuff and get out of the apartment. The victim testified that Allen said “b***h, I will shoot you” and then took out a gun from his waistband and shot at her. It happened so fast that the victim said she had “no time to block [herself] or move out of the way.”
While on the stand, the victim was emotional and when the prosecution asked why she was crying, she replied, “that’s my brother. I hate that he put me in this situation, I hate that I’m testifying against him.” The victim concluded that she no longer considered Allen her brother or an uncle to her children, stating that she is “done” with the relationship.
According to the victim, her roommate asked if she should call the police and Allen said, “call the police, I don’t give a f**k,” gathered his stuff, drank the rest of the whiskey, and threw the bottle back inside before leaving.
Sukumar asked about the night before the incident. He asked Allen’s sister if she heard her roommate and her brother engaging in any sexual activity, in which she told Sukumar that she didn’t understand the question that was being asked. Sukumar rephrased his question and asked “Do you know what sex sounds like?” Allen’s sister responded no, which led to Sukumar to stop asking questions about the topic.
The prosecution then called Allen’s sister’s roommate to the stand. The roommate stated that she was “okay, but not okay” with being in court. This was due to the fact that she had been arrested, was currently pregnant, and hadn’t seen her child in four days. The roommate was detained by US Marshals after Judge McLean issued a material witness warrant to secure her testimony.
The roommate said she lived with Allen’s sister after she was evicted from her previous residence and experiencing a domestic violence situation involving her first child’s father. She stated that she met Allen’s sister while she was in school to become a social worker. The roommate described her living arrangement, noting that she stayed in an extra room that belonged to Allen’s niece and nephew.
According to the roommate, she met Allen for the first time when he came by to stay and knew him only as “Q.” She described him as “cool” and said they had minimal interactions, though she later admitted to having a sexual encounter with him later in the night on the day they all drank whisky.
During cross-examination, Sukumar asked what happened during the morning of the incident. The roommate testified that she woke up around 5:30 a. m. and heard Allen’s sister yelling at him. She stated that the argument escalated and involved both parties, with tensions centered on the whisky bottle and Allen’s presence in the apartment. She claimed that Allen repeatedly told his sister to “back away” and “stop getting close” to him while he was trying to grab his stuff.
The roommate testified that after the incident, Allen’s sister attempted to influence her statements to the police by telling her what to say during a 911 call and through messages on social media. She stated that she eventually had to block Allen’s sister and that they no longer have a relationship.
When prosecutors asked why she gave the police a false statement, the roommate said she followed Allen’s sister’s guidance because she wanted to leave the apartment quickly and ensure her child’s safety.
As a result of time constraints, Judge McLean stated that the roommate’s testimony will continue on the next day of trial.
Parties are slated to reconvene on April 8.
