DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt scheduled a hearing on April 7 to determine whether a defense witness can testify as an expert in a fatal mass shooting trial.
Cotey Wynn, 45, is charged with first-degree premeditated murder while armed, three counts of assault with intent to kill, and four counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for his alleged involvement in a mass shooting at CRU Lounge on the 1300 block H Street, NE, on Sept. 23, 2024 which injured three people and killed one. Blake Bozeman, 31, sustained two gunshot wounds to his chest and died on Sept. 24, 2024.
According to court documents, Wynn was at the club when he reportedly exited to speak with a co-defendant police later identified as 44-year-old Frank Johnson. The two allegedly re-entered the club and were not checked for firearms, possibly because Wynn is “a respected, regular customer,” documents state. Johnson was allegedly carrying a firearm when the two re-entered the club and fired shots.
Wynn’s attorney, Randy McDonald, said a defense expert witness will analyze Johnson’s behavior and gait in videos leading up to the shooting to prove that he was armed before his interaction with Wynn. McDonald said the witness is a former Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective with experience identifying armed individuals by noticing subconscious behaviors like grabbing their waistband or only swinging one arm when walking.
Judge Brandt said she did not understand how the witness would prove Johnson was armed from the video.
“On paper, it all sounds a little hokey,” Judge Brandt said.
McDonald noted that the witness could only identify whether the suspect showed characteristics of an armed person but cannot prove it with absolute certainty. The prosecutor said a jury would not be able to distinguish between displayed characteristics and conclusive evidence.
Judge Brandt said she was concerned the witness may not qualify as an “expert” because these identification tactics are common knowledge among MPD officers.
“That’s regular lay-opinion testimony that any officer more than a rookie could take the stand and testify,” Judge Brandt said.
The prosecutor said it would qualify as expert testimony because it is outside the knowledge of a normal person. Additionally, he said the jury would take the witness’ outsider analysis more seriously than testimony from personal experience.
The prosecutor said the inclusion of this witness disadvantaged him because he would not have enough time to find a rebutting witness before the May 11 trial. He filed a motion to vacate the trial date on April 1, which Judge Brandt denied on April 6.
Wynn’s other attorney, Brian McDaniel, affirmed that Wynn wanted to maintain the scheduled trial date. He said they would forgo using this witness’ testimony if it would cause disruptions to the schedule.
Judge Brandt noted that they would not be able to appeal a guilty verdict on the basis that the witness’ testimony was excluded if they do not object to that exclusion.
Judge Brandt scheduled a hearing to evaluate the witness’ expertise, analysis, and relevance to the case. She requested a copy of the witness’ resume.
Parties are scheduled to reconvene on May 1.
