Parties presented closing arguments on June 10 before DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt in a domestic violence stabbing trial.
James Callen, 42, is charged with assault with intent to kill while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, aggravated assault knowingly while armed, and assault with significant bodily injury while armed. The charges stem from his alleged involvement in a non-fatal stabbing that injured one person, his former romantic interest, on July 13, 2024, on the 1600 block of Morris Road, SE. The charges face an aggravating factor of allegedly being committed while Callen was on release for a prior offense.
Callen is also charged with three counts of felony contempt for allegedly violating a stay-away order by contacting the victim.
In closings, the prosecutors emphasized Callen’s statement to the victim, “If I can’t have you, b*tch, no one can,” was evidence of his intent to kill her.
The prosecution compared Callen’s changing recollection of events to the victim’s incomplete but consistent memory.
Callen’s attorney, Alvin Thomas, argued the victim’s fragmented memory created logical inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. Thomas said the prosecution, “threw [the jury] a shovel and told [them] to go fill some holes.”
He repeatedly asserted that the victim’s memory was not reliable because she had consumed alcohol, snorted cocaine, and lost a significant amount of blood.
Thomas addressed the prosecution’s opening quote by stating that Callen “never had her” because the two were not in an exclusive relationship. Thomas questioned Callen’s reported motive, arguing that they had spoken about living together, and the victim had previously rejected the idea.
The night of the incident, parties agreed that Callen and the victim were at his brother’s apartment to celebrate their new jobs. According to toxicology reports introduced in the trial, they had Bacardi Gold rum and cocaine in their systems. In his testimony, Callen revealed he also ingested MDMA (Molly) and claimed the victim smoked Molly as well, which her toxicology reports did not indicate. The drug can create a distorted sense of awareness.
Callen and the victim then began to be intimate with one another when she bit him, according to Thomas. After, Thomas claimed Callen slapped the victim, which made her bleed.
The prosecution argued that Callen went to the kitchen, grabbed a knife, and returned to the living room, approaching the victim with an “evil grin, flared nostrils,” a “vein popping out” of his forehead, and then stabbed the victim.
She sustained injuries to her neck, specifically her jugular vein, hands, face, and shoulder.
Thomas argued that Callen went to the kitchen to grab cleaning supplies for the victim’s blood from the slap. According to Thomas, he returned with a knife to cut a rag, which prompted a struggle for the knife.
The prosecutors questioned why a struggle would occur if the knife was not used as a weapon, arguing there was no evidence that the victim wielded it and that she was “the only one struggling.”
Prosecutors urged jurors to consider that the victim, unlike Callen, had “nothing to gain” from testifying. The prosecution addressed her lapse in memory claiming, “what her brain doesn’t remember, her body remembers.”
Parties agreed that Callen called 911 after the incident. Thomas questioned why Callen would call if he intended to kill the victim. He highlighted that Callen begged for medical help, voluntarily spoke to police, remained at the scene for hours, ran to open the door for emergency medical technicians (EMTs), and repeatedly checked in on the victim’s condition afterwards.
Prosecutors argued that Callen saying “hurry up” during the 911 call was indicative of a man who was regretful, but not a man who lacked a murderous intention. They alleged Callen would have been charged with murder if help didn’t come quickly.
According to prosecutors, “the victim laid there dying.” They argued that EMTs left in such a rush to help the victim, pointing to an abandoned computer and an ambulance.
The prosecution referenced the testimony of a domestic violence expert who described “escalating pattern(s) of violence” in abusive relationships. Prosecutors argued that Callen’s stabbing was a result of this pattern.
Thomas emphasized the expert’s unfamiliarity with the case, asserting that she never spoke to either of the parties or looked at any evidence, and calling her a disconnected “academic.”
After Judge Brandt dismissed the jury for deliberations, parties discussed a previously filed defense motion for judgement of acquittal for all counts. Thomas argued there was a lack of evidence for Callen’s intent to harm the victim. Prosecutors argued that the victim’s injuries and testimony demonstrated intent.
Thomas argued that phone call records do not demonstrate actual contact for Callen’s contempt charges. The prosecution argued that the act of calling was a sufficient violation of the protective order.
Judge Brandt denied the defense’s motion, determining a jury could find Callen guilty based on witness testimony and evidence.
The closing arguments mark the conclusion of a one-week trial. Parties will reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.
