Case Acquitted: ‘Cultural Dissonance’ Led Prosecutors to Doubt Friend’s Confession in Murder Trial, Defense Says

By Graham Krewinghaus [former] - November 8, 2022
Court | Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

This case was acquitted on Nov. 9, 2022.

As arguments closed in a murder trial on Nov. 7, a defense attorney sought to explain what prosecutors saw as discrepancies in the defense’s story, arguing that “they just don’t know how the street works” and “anybody who’s been on the streets knows what this is.”

Mike Bidgell, 26, is charged with second-degree murder while armed in connection with the June 6, 2020, shooting of Marquis Harrod, 18, on the 1300 block of Brentwood Road, NE. According to court documents, Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detectives recovered footage from a liquor store that showed Harrod approaching the vehicle Bidgell was in, before being shot three times by someone inside the car. There were at least two people in the car, according to the footage.

Sometime in 2022, after Bidgell had been held in the D.C. Jail for almost two years, a close friend of his admitted to police and prosecutors that he was the second person in the car and the one who shot Harrod. The friend provided more details, saying Harrod had a gun and wanted to rob Bidgell. To allegedly protect his friend the witness said he shot Harrod twice, and later that day he and Bidgell destroyed the car to get rid of the evidence. His story was corroborated by another witness, Bidgell’s brother, who was also on the scene.

However, in closing arguments and throughout the trial, the prosecution attempted to poke holes in the confession, painting him as a loyal friend lying to cover up for Bidgell. 

The prosecutor said Harrod did not have a firearm on him when police arrived. She also wanted to know why Bidgell’s brother waited to testify that the friend shot Harrod until it came up in trial, rather than submitting an anonymous tip to police earlier.

Even when the brother did testify, the prosecutor said, he called his mother from jail first and told her he didn’t want to sound “wild” on the stand.

In his closing arguments, defense attorney Brian McDaniel confronted these claims, saying there was “cultural dissonance at play” that was causing the prosecution to misinterpret the facts of the case.

“They just don’t understand how the street works,” McDaniel said, “which is why they misunderstood much of what happened and much of what was said in the jail calls.”

Harrod could be clearly seen in video footage entering a store and meeting another man. The two go outside together and the other man covertly hands Harrod something that he tucks into either his pocket or his waistband. The second man then rushes back into the store as Harrod approaches Bidgell’s car.

If the man needed to leave the store just to hand Harrod something, McDaniel remarked, “it’s probably not a phone charger.” He said that would be apparent to anyone who grew up in the same circumstances.

After the shooting, a woman, who later testified to having known Harrod, can be seen in the video reaching down and taking the white shirt he had draped over his shoulder. She pauses with the shirt at about his waistband level, then bunches it up and hands it over to a man who hurries off with the shirt still bunched up in a ball.

“Is it likely he was trying to hide the t-shirt from the police? Or is it more likely he was trying to get a handgun off the scene,” McDaniel asked the jury.

As for the question of why Bidgell’s brother didn’t come forward earlier, McDaniel said this too could be explained by cultural dissonance.

“That’s because you just don’t do that if you’re from the streets,” McDaniel said. 

“Nobody believes that you’re going to do the right thing,” he added, speaking directly to the prosecutors and explaining Bidgell’s brother’s hesitancy to come forward. “And it’s because of stuff like this.”

Bidgell’s brother was also fearful of the reputation he might get on the streets from testifying, McDaniel said—that is why he called his mother from jail. He wanted to ensure the friend would also be confessing, so he wouldn’t be the one to pin it on him, McDaniels continued.

“There’s another culture in play right now, and it’s a culture of winning at all costs,” McDaniel said, referring to the prosecutor’s office. The prosecutors, he argued, refused to dismiss the case against Bidgell despite his friend’s confession because they wanted to keep their conviction rates high.

“The scariest thing as a defense attorney,” he added, “is to have a client that’s real-life innocent. Because if they get convicted, it’s on you.”

A prosecutor objected to the commentary, but DC Superior Court Judge Milton Lee overruled the objection.

“See? She still don’t want you to hear the truth,” McDaniel exclaimed to the jury, evoking sounds of dismay from the audience.

In the prosecutor’s rebuttal, she responded to the argument of cultural dissonance in respect to the woman who took the shirt from Harrod shortly after he was shot.

“It is offensive to assume that just because a woman grew up on the streets, or on a particular block, that her first instinct is to hide a gun,” she said.

When instructing the jury on how to consider all the factors and charges, Judge Lee highlighted the arguments for self defense as a reason to acquit, and the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter should the jury not find Bidgell guilty of second-degree murder due to mitigating factors.

The jury is slated to begin deliberations on Nov. 8.