A key witness testified that he was not promised financial gsin or guaranteed entry to a witness protection program during a homicide trial before DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman on June 4.
Randolph Thomas, 43, is charged with felony murder while armed, assault with intent to kill while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, five counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, robbery while armed, and first-degree burglary while armed for his alleged involvement in a Dec. 31, 2009 shooting that fatally injured 19-year-old Emmanuel Durant Jr. on the 200 block of Webster Street, NE.
During the prosecution’s redirect, a key witness and Thomas’ former friend testified that he had not been promised post-release benefits in exchange for his testimony. According to the prosecution, the former friend has testified in multiple homicide trials since his incarceration for a felony charge.
The day prior, Thomas’ attorney Pierce Suen, questioned the former friend on whether anyone had promised him “financial boost(s)” or a guaranteed entry to a witness protection program.
The witness said this “was not promised,” confirming that he knew it was a “possibility for witnesses.”
The prosecution also called Thomas’ friend who testified that in six years of knowing the defendant, she “never” saw him with a gun.
During cross-examination, Suen clarified with the witness that Thomas was “regularly” around the friend’s house without any problems.
During questioning from the prosecution, a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) forensic technician justified the investigators’ decision to pull a latent fingerprint instead of DNA off of a bullet casing. He said that, at the time in 2009, MPD considered DNA evidence “weak science.” He continued “we had a rule…latent print was the only option.”
A forensic analyst also testified that his report identified fingerprints similar to two eyewitnesses present during the shooting on .40-caliber cartridges. The expert’s comparison excluded Thomas from seven of the nine prints lifted.
According to the specialist, the results proved to be far from conclusive, “It’s more subjective of a scale than you see on TV.”
As a result of time constraints, the expert will continue his testimony on the next day of trial.
Additionally, Judge Edelman addressed multiple jury notes, including one that questioned what jurors should do if they feel unsafe. After bringing in every juror for questioning, the judge found that the incidents had not compromised the trial’s integrity at this time.
Parties are slated to reconvene on June 8.
