Closing arguments commenced after the defense introduced a video showing the victim involved in a love triange allegedly naming a different potential shooter before DC Superior Court Judge Judith Pipe on Oct. 7.
Dominick Jackson, 41, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, assault with significant bodily injury while armed, aggravated assault knowingly while armed, unlawful possession of a firearm, and obstruction of justice for his alleged involvement in a shooting that hospitalized an individual at the 700 block of 12th Street, NE, on Nov. 20, 2022.
The trial continued with Jackson’s attorney, Kevin Robertson, presenting a video of an interaction the victim had with an officer on their ambulance ride to the hospital. In the sequence, the officer asked the victim whether they could identify his assailant. In response, the victim seems to mention the name “Foster” before quickly changing it to “Jackson.”
The prosecutor started closing arguments, stating that the events that happened were straightforward. Jackson threatened to “blow [the victim’s] brains out” and tried exactly do do so.
According to the prosecution, Jackson was in a complicated love triangle with the victim and a woman. The prosecution claimed that after Jackson pulled up to the woman’s house, and when she turned away, he shot the victim’s car four times. As a result, the victim was severely wounded, experienced significant blood loss, which resulted in a month-long hospitalization, the prosecution recalled.
Following the incident, the prosecution claimed that Jackson threatened the woman about her involvement in the case, stating, “snitches be bitches, bitches end up in ditches.” The prosecutor mentioned that the witness was terrified to testify, thinking that she would “be six feet under” because of her involvement in the case.
Robertson responded by stating that there were crucial moments in the trial that the prosecution was ignoring.
According to Robertson, when the woman testified in trial, she was asked who she was in a relationship with. After hesitation, she stated she was married to an individual named “Foster.” Robertson insisted he could have been the one to commit the shooting.
Robertson questioned the woman’s credibility, stating that she and the victim both mentioned Foster in statements to police and during trial.
Robertson also insisted the woman was not afraid to testify, but rather afraid to tell the truth, because Foster could retaliate. According to Robertson, this alluded to the fact that there was some “real truth” other than that Jackson shot the victim that night.
The claim was that when the witness was in a difficult spot due to the shooting and heard that the victim mentioned Jackson’s name as the shooter, the prosecutor jumped at the opportunity to put the blame on Jackson.
Robertson emphasized inconsistencies in the testimony and timeline, attempting to cast doubt on the credibility of the victim’s account.
Robertson challenged a protective order filed by the victim, portraying it as a tactical move rather than a genuine plea for protection, claiming it was used to gain control in a volatile situation. The defense argued that Jackso had no clear motive and that the state’s theory relied too heavily on assumptions and emotional testimony.
In response, the prosecution argued that it was a “messy, toxic love triangle.” Rather than distancing itself from the complicated dynamics between the individuals involved, the prosecution leaned into them, arguing that the buildup of “tension, betrayal, and aggression” inevitably led to the violent outcome.
They dismissed the defense’s narrative as a deliberate illusion—an attempt to redirect focus away from clear identifications and credible threats. According to the prosecution, the first name the victim spoke was that of the defendant, and this was repeated more than once. They pushed back against the idea that drugs or confusion were responsible, emphasizing consistency of the identification.
While the defense framed the forensic evidence and witness credibility as distractions, the prosecution insisted the truth was simple: the defendant acted out violently, and two people placed him at the scene.
The prosecution closed with a reminder that “the government does not choose its victims, the defendant did.” The jury left and started deliberating.
Parties are slated to reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.
