Defense attorneys in a homicide trial requested a mistrial before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson on April 23.
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 for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 32-year old Kevin Redd on the 4700 block of Jay Street, NE on June 11, 2020.
Whitley’s attorney, Madalyn Harvey, said that the prosecution’s mislabeling and failure to provide notice of discovery documents prevented the defense from properly preparing a Winfield defense to suggest that a third party committed the crime instead of the defendant.
According to Harvey, prosecutors provided a report filed with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) from July 4, 2020 reporting that a car, registered to the third-party, which they named in court, rammed the Redd’s wife’s car. However, images from a separate July 2, 2020 vandalism incident were included in the same report.
Harvey requested that Judge Dayson rule the case as a mistrial. Harvey claimed that evidence amounts to a Winfield defense, if it had been properly provided . Since the trial is underway, the defense argued that an insufficient investigation was completed.
Additionally, Harvey said that the defense would have called other witnesses had they known the information.
In response, the prosecution said they were unaware that there were two separate incidents.
Judge Dayson said that she didn’t think the prosecution knowingly misrepresented the dates, but ultimately the photos do not match the report.
“I’m not saying you knew this was a different thing,” Judge Dayson said to the prosecution.
Harvey proceeded that it was “inconceivable” that the prosecution would try to bury evidence favorable to the defense. Specifically the report that shows that the third-party had a gun at the time. Harvey stated that the defense struggled to get the materials, and had they had access to this information prior, they would have used the Winfield strategy from the beginning. Harvey claimed the reports would show that the Winfield defense was “backed by hard evidence” and used this to argue for a mistrial.
“The [prosecution] sat silent,” Harvey said, emphasizing that this was not merely a case of sorting through voluminous evidence possibly exculpatory, but the evidence was actually mislabeled.
The prosecution said they labeled evidence based on what the lead detective told them .
The prosecution confirmed that the body-worn footage from officers responding to the shooting no longer exists.
The prosecution stated they had filed this information as discovery early in the case. They argued that this was a failure on the part of the defense for not reading the discovery thoroughly.
The prosecution told Judge Dayson that the defense had spoken to witnesses involved in the incident in question, meaning they had the opportunity to gather relevant information for their defense.
Harvey responded by telling the court that they did not know to ask about the car crash incident during their interviews.
The detective in the case repeatedly reported that she did not remember many different aspects of her investigation. For example, whether she investigated the third-party and their alleged involvement in the case.
The detective also stated she did not remember her previous day’s testimony. Thus Judge Dayson questioned if the prosecution had met their burden of proof, and enabled Harvey to call another detective, for verification purposes, as her last witness in the case.
Judge Dayson ordered the prosecution to collect and turn over any information related to the third-party, including 911 calls, police notes, and communication with Maryland police.
She will take the motion to dismiss under advisement.
Parties are slated to reconvene April 27.
