COVID-19 Continues to Delay Hearing As Homicide Case Nears Trial

Thank you for reading D.C. Witness. Help us continue our mission into 2024.

A motion hearing was delayed yet again, raising concerns that parties will not be ready to begin the homicide trial currently scheduled for Sept. 19.

Eric Beasley, 31, is charged with first-degree murder in connection to the alleged hit-and-run of 45-year-old cyclist David Farewell on the 2100 block of Young Street, SE on Sept. 4, 2020. According to court documents, a female witness accompanying Farewell told police that Beasley made belittling comments towards her at a gas station and then followed the pair down the street. Surveillance footage shows a red Honda Accord that “appears to accelerate and swerve toward the decedent, striking and running over him.”

Beasley was on probation for assault with a dangerous weapon and attempted assault with a dangerous weapon at the time of the homicide.

At the Aug. 2 hearing, DC Superior Court Judge Maribeth Raffinan intended to rule on whether the prosecution could use evidence from the vehicle involved in the hit-and-run, but could not not hear arguments because the defendant is placed under COVID-19 quarantine at the DC Jail until at least Aug. 5.

The motion to exclude evidence from the car was filed on Feb. 28. However, scheduling and logistical issues, including COVID-19 that have continuously delayed the motion hearing.

The hearing was rescheduled as recently as July 21.

Judge Raffinan rescheduled the motion hearing for a seventh time for Aug. 25, which is the earliest date that all parties would be available. Out of concerns on timing, Judge Raffinan asked the parties if she should reschedule the trial for a later date.

Defense attorney Madalyn Harvey strongly objected to making a final decision to reschedule the trial because she has not had the opportunity to discuss the decision with her client and is not able to reach him over a confidential phone line while he is in quarantine.

“My client is entitled to be here,” Harvey said. “I do not believe this is appropriate. I strongly object.”

If Judge Raffinan permits the admittance of the evidence, Harvey said Beasley would have to decide whether to proceed to trial in September without an expert witness or to reschedule the trial to allow for a defense expert witness.

The deadline to notify the court of an expert witness for the September trial has already passed.

If Judge Raffinan disallows the inclusion of evidence from the car, the defense attorney said she does not intend to call an expert witness.

“I ideally would want my client to continue the trial and get an expert witness,” Harvey said. “I can’t subject him to more time of incarceration without discussing the pros and cons.” However, Harvey said she doesn’t know if she would be ready for trial if her client wished to proceed without an expert witness.

Harvey added that she would not object to delaying the trial if Judge Raffinan released Beasley under the High Intensity Supervision Program (HISP).

The prosecution objected to going forward with the trial on Sept. 19, arguing that Harvey should have already discussed the scenario with Beasley.

“Both sides have a right to a fair trial and to prepare for it,” the prosecutor said. “Those phone calls should have happened.”

Harvey refuted the prosecutor’s argument, saying Beasley’s rights should be the preeminent consideration.

“He’s very wrong about that,” she said. “[My client] is incarcerated and is facing first-degree murder charges. He has rights that need to be protected.”

Referring to the impact of the motion’s outcome, Harvey said the prosecution needed to “prepare both ways,” particularly because “this is a motion about government negligence.”

Judge Raffinan did not reach a final decision on whether to delay the trial, opting to reach a final decision of whether to reschedule the trial at the Aug. 25 motion hearing.

“I’m not unsympathetic to the fact that the government has to do a multitude of things to prepare for trial, but I think it’s a bit premature to continue the matter,” she said.

A trial readiness hearing is also scheduled for Sept. 1.

Follow this case