Parties in a homicide case discussed the admissibility of crucial witness testimony in a motions hearing on Feb. 23 before DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz.
Jaime Macedo, 24, is charged with first-degree felony murder while armed, robbery while armed, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of then 25-year-old Maxwell Emerson. The incident occurred on the 600 block of Alumni Lane, NE, on July 5, 2023.
In February, the defense filed several motions –the first regarding witness testimony concerning the victim’s father.
The prosecution said they plan to call both the victim’s parents as witnesses in the upcoming trial. Emerson’s father, however, requested to attend parts of the trial and the pre-trial hearings, during which he could hear information that could influence his or his wife’s testimony.
The prosecutors argued that it was necessary to call Emerson’s father as a witness due to “the facts of the case.” The defense stated they felt that prosecutors were in a “precarious situation.”
The parties agreed that Emerson’s father would be allowed to attend pre-trial hearings and parts of the trial as long as his testimony would not contain information about the incident itself. Additionally, he can not share information regarding the hearings with his wife, the victim’s mother.
Parties discussed another defense motion regarding Macedo’s prior conviction, which involved the testimony of a Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) officer whom prosecutors plan to call at trial. The officer said Macedo’s probation was under his supervision at the time.
According to the CSOSA officer, he first met Macedo the morning of the murder and briefly entered the defendant’s home during a scheduled check-in meeting. As the witness is likely to testify during the trial, defense attorneys Rachel Cicurel and Jessica Willis were concerned that telling the jury the witness’s occupation would reveal prejudicial information about the defendant’s criminal history.
While parties couldn’t agree on a way to describe the witness accurately and in a non-prejudicial manner in front of the jury, they agreed to continue the discussion at a later time, closer to trial.
Prosecutors also called a detective at the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) regarding their opposition to a defense motion to exclude other witness testimony.
The defense argued the witnesses should not be allowed to testify at trial because they did not witness the actual events of the incident, but identified Macedo.
According to the detective during testimony, days after the incident, a “seeking to identify” flyer was distributed throughout the MPD, and the department was taking tips from civilians regarding the murder.
The prosecutors questioned the detective about two witnesses who provided tips regarding Macedo’s identity over the phone, claiming to have connections to Macedo through family or friends.
One witness, who called in, told the detective their sister attended school with Macedo’s girlfriend, and would see him hanging around the school often. The second witness, who texted, told the detective they had known Macedo and his family for two years, providing what they knew to be Macedo’s Instagram handle and a nickname.
Due to time constraints, parties are scheduled to resume questioning her on Feb. 24.
