Editor’s note: Randolph Thomas was acquitted of all charges by a jury on June 11, 2026.
In a 2009 homicide trial before DC Superior Court Judge Todd E. Edelman on June 8, a former detective recalled the involvement of eyewitnesses in identifying the suspect.
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. These charges stem from his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of Emmanuel Durant Jr, 19, on Dec. 31, 2009, on the 200 block of Webster Street, NE.
Thomas’ trial continued with the prosecution calling a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective who previously worked on the case. The former detective helped create three photo arrays, which he presented to eyewitnesses in January 2010.
These photo arrays were composed of nine faces, one of which was a suspect in Durant’s murder, and eight of which were “fillers,” or individuals who are not suspects.
The prosecution displayed several images of Thomas and asked the former detective if any of these images were in the 2010 photo arrays. While the former detective claimed that “number seven” looked “the closest” to the images of Thomas, none of the pictures matched with those in the photo array. Photo seven was not the suspect in the photo array, noted the detective.
Thomas’ attorney, Pierce Suen, pointed out that the former detective used yearbook photos to attempt to aid eyewitnesses in identifying the suspect. Shortly after the incident, one eyewitness claimed that a suspect may have been someone she attended high school with, prompting the former detective to acquire yearbooks.
The former detective was only able to retrieve the yearbook from 2006. However, he also sought to retrieve the 2007 yearbook.
When the eyewitness was presented with the 2006 yearbook, she was not able to pick out any individual which she believed to be the suspect. In a redirect examination by the prosecution, the former detective noted that the book could have contained over 200 photos. He also could not recall how thorough the eyewitness was when she reviewed the yearbook images.
The prosecution also called a forensic firearms examiner, who outlined his process of analyzing projectiles involved in the incident. Two fired 40-caliber cartridge cases recovered from the scene, he claimed, were consistent with being fired from the same firearm.
After his testimony, the parties disclosed a stipulation which specified that on New Year’s Eve in 2009, Randolph Thomas was in possession of a 40-caliber firearm from which bullets were later fired.
The prosecution also called two forensic DNA technicians from Bode Technology. Both of these individuals described their processes of handling, sampling, and analyzing pieces of evidence including nail clippings, a known blood card from Durant, and a known saliva sample from Thomas.
Both technicians confirmed they were not familiar with the significance of Thomas’ name.
The prosecution also called the medical examiner who performed Durant’s autopsy and said his injuries included an entrance wound on the front left thigh and an exit wound on the back of the same thigh. Durant also had graze wounds on his genitalia, stitches from the groin to the chest from therapeutic attempts to stop the bleeding, and small abrasions to his forehead and right leg.
According to the examiner, Durant’s cause of death was a gunshot wound to the thigh, which led to injury of blood vessels. She determined the manner of death was a homicide.
The defense proceeded with a cross-examination of a latent fingerprint examiner who had previously testified on June 4. The examiner described the metrics he used to either identify or exclude the likelihood that a print belongs to an individual. He referenced that he was able to draw this conclusion in part based on the verification of another examiner.
Nine latent prints were examined for identification, and the examiner said that Thomas was likely excluded from the possibility of identification. Several of the prints were partially attributed to other subjects, although the examiner did not believe they were definitively identified. One print excluded all tested subjects, including Thomas. This conclusion was reaffirmed by the verifier.
Latent-to-latent comparisons were not done, which the witness explained are “unusual” and only done when specifically requested by the prosecution. Two prints could also have been uploaded by the investigators to a secure Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). When the defense asked if either of the two prints were uploaded to the database, the witness did not know.
Parties are scheduled to reconvene on June 9.
