A DC Superior Court judge ruled that a burglary case has enough evidence to proceed to trial and continued to hold the defendant at the DC Jail.
Eric Butler, 23, is charged with first-degree burglary for allegedly assaulting his mother’s ex-boyfriend in his home and trying to take his property on May 26.
The prosecution called a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective who helped investigate Butler’s case to testify during the Aug. 3 preliminary hearing.
According to the witness, officers received a 911 call from a neighbor who saw a person wearing dark clothes enter the victim’s home by climbing through a second-floor window. When officers arrived on the scene, Butler answered the door and told them the house belonged to his uncle.
Inside the house, officers found the victim bleeding from his nose. At first, officers interviewed the two together, the victim said that Butler was allowed in the house and that the he was injured due to a fall.
The victim then received medical treatment, during which he was interviewed three more times. In these interviews, the victim contradicted his earlier statements, saying Butler had assaulted him while demanding money.
The prosecution argued for Judge Julie Becker to find probable cause, bringing up a car that was double-parked near the victim’s home during the incident. The defendant said the car was his mother’s and that the bottle of liquor found inside of it was his, which the prosecution argued tied the defendant to the car.
The prosecution also said that two televisions found on the floor near the back door were “suspiciously located,” and, when paired with the victim’s later interviews, indicated that the defendant was trying to steal from the home.
However, defense attorney Peter Cooper said there may be more to the story than the prosecution says. Cooper pointed to several lines of questioning that officers failed to pursue during their investigation.
According to the prosecution’s witness, two neighbors called 911 to report someone climbing into the victim’s window. However, during the cross-examination, the witness told Cooper that the first caller had not seen the person who entered the window. The second caller, who got a much better view of the suspect, was not asked to identify Butler as the perpetrator.
Cooper also emphasized the police’s failure to investigate the unclear details of the relationship between Butler’s mother and the victim.
Cooper said that whether or not the mother had property in the victim’s home, or whether or not the two were even still in contact, was unknown. He went on to say that these details remain important since it was unclear if the relationship ended on good terms.
Lastly, Cooper said the prosecution’s argument regarding the televisions did not hold up.
The witness had indicated, during his testimony, that the investigating officers had not asked the victim about the televisions. Cooper also said the back-door, which opened to an alleyway, would not be a logical place for his client to place the televisions if he wished to steal them with the car parked in front of the house.
Judge Julie Becker said that, while the prosecution’s arguments had holes, the defense’s did as well. She said the prosecution’s arguments about the car and the victim’s testimony tied to the defendant to the crime.
Cooper requested release under the High Intensity Supervision Program (HISP.) However, Judge Becker chose to continue holding Butler at the DC Jail, where he has been since May 27. She cited the defendant’s history of failing to appear in court and a second-degree assault case from Maryland, for which he is currently on supervision.
Butler is scheduled for a hearing on Sept. 2.
