A defense attorney claimed the prosecution conducted a flawed investigation, leaving gaps in the evidence in a homicide trial before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson on April 22.
Jamil Whitley, 38, is charged with first-degree murder while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, carrying a pistol without a license outside a home or business, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction. These counts stem from his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 32-year-old Kevin Redd on June 11, 2020 on the 4700 block of Jay Street, NE.
Before the jury returned for the proceeding, Whitley’s attorney, Madalyn Harvey claimed there were gaps in the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) investigation of the shooting. Harvey noted there were no arrest warrants issued despite requests from Redd’s mother about three other suspects.
When the jury entered, the prosecution cross-examined the lead MPD detective for the case who was in close contact with Redd’s mother throughout the investigation and communicated with her frequently via text message.
In redirect, Harvey asked the detective about “Be On the Look Out” (BOLO) reports the detective filled out with information about a wanted suspect in a case. The detective was unclear regarding how many BOLO’s she filled out. She claimed to remember creating one for a suspect car present at the crime scene, and believed she created another but was unsure for what or whom.
Harvey asked the prosecution for the other BOLO to refresh the detective’s memory, which they didn’t have. The prosecutors claimed it was not their job to have the other BOLO on hand and that it was included in the evidence they turned over to the defense prior to trial.
Harvey insisted that it was not in the evidence and the prosecution has a duty to correct the record if a “witness testified to something inaccurate” or admit if they failed to turn the BOLO over to the defense.
Judge Dayson agreed to have the detective review her notes during the lunch break to refresh her memory.
Following the break, the detective claimed she made a BOLO for Whitley, but that another BOLO had already been distributed online. According to the detective, MPD will only post a second BOLO for the same individual if the first posting doesn’t garner many leads, which was not the case for Whitley’s BOLO.
The detective stated that she doesn’t believe the second BOLO was ever posted, but isn’t sure, as BOLO postings are handled by someone else in MPD.
Parties are scheduled to reconvene on April 23.
