Defense argued for a motion to dismiss a carjacking case before DC Superior Court Judge Errol Arthur on April 20.
Dylan Boney, 17, is charged with armed carjacking, robbery while armed, two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, unauthorized use of a vehicle, and possession of a prohibited weapon. These charges stem from his alleged involvement in a carjacking that took place on the 2400 block of 14th Street, NW on June 29, 2025.
Boney is charged under Title 16, which allows juveniles to be charged as adults for certain serious offenses.
Boney’s attorney, Patrick Nowak, asked Judge Arthur for a motion to dismiss the case because the prosecution failed to disclose relevant evidence in a timely manner. Nowak accused the prosecutors of playing a ‘hide and seek game” with evidence.
Nowak claimed prosecutors did not disclose information about a key eyewitness. Apparently, given the delay Nowak said the witness was unable to recall the incident as accurately. Nowak also noted the prosecution has repeatedly missed procedurql deadlines , and had already received “significant warnings” from Judge Arthur.
Nowak argued the delays had a significant effect on Boney, who has endured six months of incarceration and still faces charges awaiting trial.
According to the prosecutors, the witness left the scene of the carjacking without providing his contact information. In addition, they said they didn’t obtain the witness’ identity until October 2025, after a thorough investigation.
Despite this information, parties agreed prosecutors still didn’t give the witness information to the defense until January.
According to the prosecution, when they contacted the witness in November 2025, he requested an attorney represent him in reltion to the incident. Prosecutors claimed that because the witness retained an attorney, it would be unethical to speak with him directly, as the law requires attorneys to speak only with opposing counsel.
Additionally, the prosecutors said the witness declined to talk to police and attorneys involved with the case. This includes Nowak, who reached out to the witness in March seeking information but the witness declined.
However, prosecutors admitted speaking to the witness on the phone. Judge Arthur expressed displeasure that it took weeks for the prosecution to disclose it, stating it “could have been helpful to the defense.”
Nowak insisted that the prosecution should have disclosed more of the evidence regarding the witness and his identity. In addition, how the proscution’s assertion that speaking to the witness was unethicalea a “stupid point.”
Judge Arthur did not rule on the motiom to dismiss, but asked if Nowak would be open to alternative penalties. Nowak insisted that dismissal is the only just action, but would be open to alternatives.
For a separate motion, Judge Arthur denied Nowak’s request to exclude a witness with expertise in GPS monitoring.
Parties are scheduled to reconvene on April 29.
