Defense attorneys argued to exclude the testimony of a witness who allegedly received a confession from a fatal stabbing defendant in the jail before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson on July 14.
Rayvon Slye, 34, is charged with second-degree murder while armed for his alleged involvement in a March 7, 2023 stabbing that fatally injured 30-year-old Andrea Bond on the 1000 block of D Street, NE. Bond sustained one stab wound to her left chest.
According to court documents, Bond and Slye were dating at the time of her death and shared one infant child, whom they were not in custody of at the time.
Prior to the hearing, Slye’s attorney, Kevin Mosley, filed a motion to either exclude the testimony of an incarcerated informant or to continue the trial date to allow time for the defense to investigate him. According to Mosley’s motion, the informant claimed that Slye made incriminating statements to him while they were both held at the DC Jail.
During the hearing, Mosley argued that the prosecution had not provided “basic information” and adequate notice regarding the agreement the witness entered into with prosecutors and what his testimony will contain. In his motion, Mosley argued that “as time passes, the defense’s ability to pursue leads turns cold, memories fade, and Mr. Slye’s ability to proactively shape his defense is impacted.”
“This is not supposed to be trial by ambush,” Mosley said in court.
Mosley also took issue with prosecutors disclosing the existence of the jailhouse informant to the defense two years after Slye allegedly confessed to him, describing the prosecution’s conduct as “preposterous” and “glaringly just nonsense.” Prosecutors said they did not notify Mosley because at the time they were not committed to calling the informant as a witness.
The parties were confused about the jailhouse informant’s intentions when he reported Slye’s alleged confession. If the informant was actively seeking out confessions from fellow inmates to gain benefits in his pending fentanyl distribution case, Mosley argued that he would be an agent on behalf of the case’s investigators. Therefore, Mosley said the law would require the witness to read Slye his rights before they spoke.
In addition, Mosely and Slye’s other attorney, Kayla Wyatt, filed a motion to suppress statements Slye made to police the day of the incident, arguing in their written motion that his statements were involuntary and the manner of questioning violated Slye’s Miranda rights.
To address the motion, the prosecution called a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) responding officer. After she learned that Slye was the last person to see Bond alive, she said she ordered Slye to remain at the incident location. She affirmed that her actions followed MPD protocol and she would have been reprimanded if she had done otherwise.
A current MPD sergeant, who worked then as a responding detective at the incident location, also testified that he followed protocol when questioning Slye on the scene. On cross-examination, Mosley alleged that the sergeant had treated Slye as a “captive audience” and had not ever explicitly told him that he had the right to leave. The detective said that had Slye tried to leave, he would not have stopped him.
Another MPD homicide detective was brought before the court to testify to an interview she conducted with Slye the day of Bond’s death.
The detective told the court that Slye arrived at the homicide department and waited for an hour in the interview room while detectives were busy. She noted that Slye was not under arrest nor was he a suspect in the case yet. Slye was not read his rights before being asked questions, said the detective.
Prosecutors displayed the footage of the interview, where Slye said that he and Bond “were together all the time.”
On cross-examination, Mosley asked the detective if Slye had been evasive in any way during their interview. The detective said, “he was being cooperative.” She did not believe he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
While Slye was waiting to be interviewed, Mosley noted that the door was closed. The detective said that sometimes detectives will leave the door open so interviewees can get air, but for Slye she did not.
Mosley asked if Slye “wasn’t free to leave.” The detective said that he was not being held, but he would have had to ask a detective to leave.
On re-direct examination, prosecutors asked why the door was closed for Slye. The detective said that it was “human nature. We forget.”
After testimony, Mosley said that he had no arguments to add to the original motion he filed. Prosecutors reminded the court that at the time of the interview, no MPD officials accused Slye as a suspect in the case. Judge Dayson decided to defer her ruling on the motion until a later hearing.
The parties also discussed the prosecution’s notice of intent to introduce evidence of eight prior “bad acts” involving Slye, spanning from February 2022 to February 2023. According to the prosecution’s motion, Slye and Bond reportedly had a history of domestic disputes and both had prior arrests for allegedly injuring one another.
Mosley and Wyatt objected to the inclusion of all eight acts based on their relevance, probative value, and prejudice. Judge Dayson refrained from making a final ruling on the motion.
Parties are slated to reconvene on July 15.
