A jury started deliberations for a homicide case the defense attests was self-defense before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson on Sept. 15.
Wali Shabazz, 51, is charged with second-degree murder while armed and carrying a dangerous weapon outside a home or business for his alleged involvement in the fatal stabbing of 41-year-old Martin Gross Jr. The incident occurred on April 27, 2024 on the 100 block of T Street, SW.
Shabazz and Gross worked together at Bike Valet DMV outside of Audi Field.
In their closing argument, the prosecution presented surveillance footage that captured the full interaction between Gross and Shabazz.
The prosecution argued ,“Mr. Shabazz wasn’t in danger” when he fatally stabbed Gross. As a result, they asserted that Shabazz’s use of deadly force wasn’t reasonable.
To legally justify the use of deadly force in self-defense, the prosecutor reminded jurors, Shabazz had to reasonably believe his life was in imminent danger or serious bodily harm.
Shabazz’s attorney, Michelle Stevens, used the same video footage to argue that her client felt “fear” throughout the interaction. Stevens claimed Shabazz tried to walk away when Gross approached and attacked him. Shabazz “reasonably” acted in self-defense and protected himself, Stevens concluded.
Stevens reminded jurors that investigators found a ginger ale bottle in Gross’ bag, but completed no testing on the item or its contents. However, Stevens emphasized Gross had ethanol and alcohol in his system.
The defense argued that Shabazz “couldn’t slow anything down” in the moment and didn’t have many choices when Gross approached him.
In their rebuttal argument, the prosecution stated that any potential substance in Gross’ system “doesn’t matter.” They redirected jurors’ attention to whether or not Shabazz had to use that amount of force.
The prosecution urged the jury to find that Shabazz should not have used deadly force because it wasn’t necessary.
Fear “isn’t the legal standard,” the prosecutor concluded.
Before the closing arguments, the prosecution called the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer who responded to the crime scene outside of Audi Field to testify. The officer identified Shabazz in the courtroom as the suspect at the scene.
When the officer responded, he described that Shabazz was on the ground with his arms outstretched and backpack and jacket by his side.
The prosecution played the officer’s body-worn camera footage from when he arrived at the scene and another clip of Shabazz on the ground.
The officer told prosecutors he asked Shabazz questions about the location of the knife. However, investigators never recovered a knife or sharp object on the defendant, in his belongings, or in the surrounding area.
The prosecution focused on the defendant’s backpack and jacket found next to him. Upon investigation, the officer testified that only a work ID was found and no knife was discovered.
In cross-examination, the defense presented a video of the testifying officer searching Shabazz’s belongings. The video showed nothing in the jacket, but a variety of items such as a comb, folders and notebooks, water, nail file, in the backpack.
“What was the tone or– energy of Mr. Shabazz,” the prosecution questioned during redirect. The officer replied, “upset.”
Parties are slated to reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.
