Parties clashed over the validity of an expert witness testimony at a hearing before DC Superior Court Judge Andrea Hertzfeld on June 18.
Orlin Lemus-Cruz, 22, is charged with armed carjacking, two counts of robbery while armed, two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, five counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction greater than a year. These charges stem from his alleged involvement in an incident that occurred at the 3100 block of Hiatt Place, NW, on March 26, 2025.
Lemus-Cruz’s former co-defendants, Julio Villafranco, 21, and Jason Benitez-Umanzor, 26, previously pleaded guilty and were sentenced for their involvement in the same incident.
In the hearing, the prosecution challenged the credibility of an expert in cellular phone technology, whom the defense wants to call to testify in Lemus-Cruz’s trial.
Attorney Quiana Harris opened with the assertion that the expert witness was qualified to present in a jury trial and didn’t face a substantial challenge from the prosecution. In her direct examination of the expert, Harris affirmed the witness’ credentials in cell power analysis and cell phone forensics. The phone expert told the court that he works with Cellebrite software for forensic extractions and has testified 134 times in state and federal courts.
The witness testified that he has used Cellebrite for 15 to 16 years and renews his certification every two years. For Lemus-Cruz’s case, he studied multiple smaller copies of a large image and different thumbnails. He also examined data and metadata, which evaluate whether a mobile photo is an original copy.
Defense exhibits from Lemus-Cruz’s black Apple iPhone 13 contained extraction information, a Cellebrite reader report and analysis, and cache. The expert claimed that iPhone users don’t necessarily have access to a cache folder, meaning photo downloads can be unintentional. He further explained Lemus-Cruz’s cache regarding text and photo-sharing evidence, saying it was unclear whether images were received or sent.
Harris asked about the frequency analysis report covering January through April 2025, which focused on cell phone towers within a half-mile of the crime scene. The witness said it checks how many calls Lemus-Cruz made in that time frame, proving he was there “all of the time” and not “just at the time of the crime.”
During cross-examination, the prosecution argued that although there were no issues with the methodology, the witness’ findings could support either the prosecution’s or the defense’s case. They pointed to the cell phone near the location of the offense.
“The data shows it was in the area, not necessarily that address,” the expert said.
The prosecution also questioned the difference between full and partial extraction, suggesting that Lemus-Cruz could have taken the photos and later deleted them. The witness conceded that this was “one possibility.”
The prosecutor pushed the witness to comment on photos sent over Instagram, displaying Lemus-Cruz’s account on the screen. The witness said he was not asked to review them and that his analysis dealt strictly with SMS text messages.
The judge paused the prosecution’s argument since it was “too extensive” for pretrial, but would be a relevant trial question.
“Save your gunpowder for if he’s testifying,” said Judge Hertzfeld.
Harris conducted a brief redirect examination of the witness, who reasserted that cell towers cover a wide area and that it was equally plausible that Lemus-Cruz was at the incident address or not.
The prosecution raised concerns about the limitations of the witness’ testimony. Harris said she expected her questioning during the upcoming trial to be similar to that at the hearing.
The judge denied the prosecution’s motion to exclude the expert’s testimony testimony before the jury.
The parties are slated to reconvene on June 29 to begin the trial.
