An Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer testified about confusing a non-fatal shooting defendant for a person with the last same name in a motions hearing before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson on July 8.
Demann Shelton, 32, is charged with three counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with significant bodily injury while armed, seven counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction. The charges stem from his alleged involvement in a shooting that occurred on Nov. 9, 2020, on the 3000 block of 14th Street, NW.
In the motions hearing, the prosecution first called an MPD officer to explain a mistake made in his previous testimony about the defendant. The officer apparently confused the defendant with another individual with the same last name, Shelton, and provided testimony to clarify the interactions he had with Demann Shelton at a recreation center.
“I give the individuals I come into contact with the utmost respect. I refer to them as ‘Mister’ or ‘Miss,’” he said. The officer also claimed that his reported interactions with both the defendant and the misidentified individual took place more than five years ago.
The officer testified that he had come into frequent contact with Shelton on his patrols of the Columbia Heights neighborhood during a two-year period. He said, interactions with the defendant were often brief, however, including short conversations about his alleged involvement in illegal gambling, drugs consumption and trespassing.
Shelton’s defense attorney, Emma Mlyniec, objected that the officer’s confusion and inconsistency makes him an unreliable witness. Judge Dayson overruled the objection, finding that the officer had substantial contact with the defendant, as well as provided sufficient identification.
“Bullets don’t have a name,” the prosecution said in their opening statement. The prosecution claimed that five years ago, the defendant opened fire at the Columbia Heights Metro station, but the case went cold during the COVID pandemic since it was difficult to get witnesses.
The prosecution highlighted a person said to be the defendant from surveillance footage, wearing a black puffer jacket, a ski mask, and jeans with olive green patches as he walked into a Wawa store. Prosecutors claimed that this description matched with other footage depicting Shelton holding a gun and fleeing the scene.
In addition, prosecutors claimed that witnesses saw Shelton throw a gun and ski mask into a storm drain. Upon recovering new DNA evidence of the ski mask likely matching the defendant, the prosecution stated the case was no longer cold and Shelton is guilty of the shooting.
However, Emily Sufrin, Shelton’s other attorney, claimed it was a stranger who shot into the crowd. Sufrin stated that there was no motive for Shelton to shoot the victim, as they had no previous relationship or interaction. She also argued that the defense has no reliable evidence to identify the eye-witness, as their only witness was distracted and unreliable.
Sufrin stated that the prosecution also deleted surveillance evidence from the scene. She noted that the bodyworn camera footage, 911 call recordings, and surveillance footage from the Metro station were also deleted by the police.
The prosecution called an eyewitness who testified that the Columbia Heights Metro station was a common gathering place where individuals frequently sold and smoked cigarettes. Prosecutors asked whether he had been threatened or had any conflicts with anyone in the crowd that day, to which he responded no.
When the shots were fired, the witness said he did not stick around.
“I did the best thing I can do, get down and run,” he said.
The prosecution also called a Metro Transit Police Department (MTPD) officer and his rookie partner who was on patrol during the shooting. The prosecution submitted a cell phone video the officer recorded at the time.
The cell phone video appears to capture the shooter pulling out a gun and firing multiple times into the crowd. Several still images from the video were admitted into evidence, showing what the shooter was wearing at the time.
After the shooting the officer immediately drew his weapon and ordered the suspect to drop his weapon.
While the cell phone video stopped there, as the officer’s cell phone fell out of his pocket, he further testified that he pursued the shooter before losing him in an alleyway nearby.
During cross-examination, defense attorney Emily Sufrin asked the officer whether he had taken any notes or written a witness statement. He responded that he had not, explaining that he was not required to do so. The defense further emphasised that the cell phone video was the only evidence he could base his testimony on.
The video was played again and the defense highlighted that the video presented multiple angles and the officer was swaying back and forth, which the defense quickly questioned whether his attention was solely on the group. The officer said he was focused on the group and that his original goal was to show his rookie partner how to approach and monitor a large group.
Parties are slated to return July 9.
