Defense Argues Against In-Court Identification Due To Change in Witness Testimony

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

At a resumed motion hearing on April 6, the defense and prosecution discussed whether or not an eyewitness should be allowed to make an in-court identification in a homicide trial due to the inconsistencies in his testimony.

Alphonso Walker is charged with two counts of first-degree murder in connection to the deaths of Dalonte Wilson, 23, and Antone Brown, 44, near the 400 block of 61st Street, NE on April 25, 2018. Walker, 45, allegedly killed the two men after attempting to rob them.

During the hearing, defense attorney Prescott Loveland requested that DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt preclude an in-court identification by one of the prosecution’s witnesses.

Loveland explained that the witness had access to and read information regarding the case and Walker’s description. At a later meeting with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), the witness identified Walker through a Facebook account that he had found on his own accord.

Because this was almost five years after the initial incident and after the witness read about the defendant, Loveland argued that the witness’ identification through Facebook should also be precluded.

The prosecution objected stating that the information the witness had been reading was all public knowledge and that he had every right to access it.

She also stated that the witness’s identification of the defendant through Facebook was completely voluntary, therefore there was no influencing in the identification.

The prosecution also expressed the importance of the witness testimony in the trial as Judge Brandt had already suppressed other eyewitness testimonies.

In response, Judge Brandt stated that she stood by the decisions she had made prior regarding the witnesses. She also explained that the witnesses’ histories of substance abuse contribute to the lack of credibility in their testimonies.

Loveland made a final request that the court schedule a hearing to bring in the witness and question him in regard to the inconsistencies in his testimony.

Judge Brandt rejected his request, stating that all of the questions regarding the witness’ credibility could be asked in cross-examination during the trial. She concluded by stating that the truth of the witness’s testimony should be left up to the jury to decide.

The motion hearing is scheduled to continue April 11.

Follow this case