A debate over the whereabouts of a defendant based on cellphone evidence dominated closing arguments in a carjacking and armed robbery trial before DC Superior Court Judge Andrea Hertzfeld on Nov 4.
Marcus Tucker, 30, is charged with armed carjacking, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, robbery while armed, and assault with a dangerous weapon in relation to his alleged involvement in an armed carjacking that occurred April 17 at the intersection of 30th and Hartford Streets, SE.
Defense attorneys Jason Tulley and Marta Garcia focused on cell phone data, family alibis, and investigative efforts to obtain video evidence near the crime scene.
A forensic investigator called by the defense created a map of the carjacking scene using using longitude and latitude coordinates for three nearby cell towers.
The investigator testified that the three towers were located approximately 0.15 miles, 0.1 miles, and 0.25 miles from the site of the carjacking. The defense maintains Tucker’s cell phone activity, pinging off a tower farther from the scene, indicated he was not present when the crime occurred.
The investigator described personally visiting the cell tower sites in late October to take photographs, later marking 11 image locations on a map for the jury. She emphasized that no single tower was more powerful than another.
Under cross-examination, the prosecution questioned the investigator’s credentials and methodology. The witness acknowledged she holds no certifications, and no formal education in telecommunications or frequency analysis. The investigator also stated they took photos of the tower areas but not the towers themselves, as instructed by the defense attorneys.
The witness admitted she kept no written notes or reports for this case. The investigator has testified only for defense attorneys in previous cases.
Another witness, Tucker’s older sister, provided personal testimony about her brother’s life and family. She testified that she saw her brother at their father’s home around midnight on the night of the incident. She stated that Tucker, who lives in the basement of their father’s house, arrived after she did and left the house after she departed. The witness said she did not see her brother’s black Kia when she left and noted he was not wearing his coat that night.
During cross-examination, the prosecution clarified that she had no direct knowledge of the crime and did not witness it. She confirmed that Tucker is about five feet eight inches tall, thin-built, and light-skinned. She declared that she loves her brother and does not want him punished.
The defense called a second investigator, who detailed his efforts to gather surveillance footage from the night of the crime. The witness testified that he began working on Tucker’s case in early September, nearly five months after the carjacking. He told jurors he was largely unsuccessful in obtaining footage from nearby locations for technical reasons.
The investigator also examined the alley where the victim identified Tucker, taking measurements to determine the approximate distance between them during the identification—about 50 feet away, according to his findings. The witness noted that several identifiable features, such as a fence and trash cans, were visible in the body-worn police video used for his analysis.
On cross-examination, the prosecution questioned the investigator’s background who confirmed that they operate independently, have only worked for defense attorneys, and are being compensated for his work on the case. They also admitted they had no firsthand knowledge of the victim’s identification conditions or lighting at the scene.
The defense entered a stipulation regarding the interpretation of DNA testing. A prosecutorial forensic scientist analyzed multiple swabs from Tucker’s car, including the steering wheel, rearview mirror, drink container, and latex gloves. However, none produced conclusive results linking Tucker to the DNA evidence collected from the car.
In closing arguments, the prosecution laid out their case in three parts, highlighting the expert and eyewitness testimony as well as the physical evidence of Tucker’s being involved in the carjacking and robbery.
The most compelling evidence, they stated, was the fact that bank cards and IDs belonging to the victim were allegedly found on Tucker at the time of his arrest.
The prosecution also stated that, although there were some inconsistencies in the description of the assailant, the victim described a nearly complete picture of Tucker to a detective with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). This description was confirmed by a show-up identification during the arrest.
The prosecution also highlighted its cell-site data that came to light during the testimony of the FBI Special Agent who compiled the information. They stated that the data showed the cellphone that was recovered from Tucker was in the general area of the incident minutes before it occurred.
The defense, led by Tulley cast doubt on the testimony of the victim by stating that he had been arrested earlier in the day for having an open container of alcohol and that police can be seen in body worn camera footage stating he is drunk.
Tulley also pointed out that descriptions of the assailants’ clothes, the number and description of firearms, and the direction the suspects drove off changed throughout interviews with police and investigators.
The defense brought up the fact that the victim has two pending cases, one in DC and one in Maryland, for felony strangulation and driving under the influence, respectively. Tulley stated that this is enough bias to cast doubt on whether he is testifying of his own free will or to gain favor with the prosecutor’s office.
Tulley stated that “show up”identification procedures were not handled properly by the police and that Tucker was identified in handcuffs, which was prejudicial in nature. They also emphasized the lack of DNA evidence and the fact that a gun was never identified as having been used by Tucker during the incident.
Tulley concluded by casting doubt on the cell-site data, stating that it was compiled in a rushed manner and did not include information that could have proven Tucker was in another neighborhood at the time of the crime.
He also stated that security footage from the area was lost when police failed to collect it at the time of Tucker’s arrest. Furthermore, he posed a question about why witnesses from the carjacking were not interviewed, specifically a cousin of the victim who was present at the scene?
The prosecution’s rebuttal reemphasized the fact that the cell-site data was compiled by an expert and that there is no evidence that Tucker was anywhere other than at the scene of the crime when it occurred.
They also stated that three separate officers testified to the victim not being drunk when he spoke to them and identified Tucker later in the night.
The parties will reconvene when the jury has reached a verdict.
