Defense Argues Defendant’s Statements to Police Were Unconstitutional

By Sofia Feigelson [former] , Maggie Rhoads [former] - June 13, 2024
Court | Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

In a co-defendant homicide case in front of DC Superior Court Judge Robert Okun on June 12, one defense team argued against admitting statements made by their client in an interview with a detective.

Mark Price, 29, and Antonio Murchison, 31, are charged with conspiracy, first-degree murder while armed, five counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, aggravated assault while armed, seven counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and seven counts of criminal gang affiliation. The charges stem from their alleged involvement in a mass shooting on July 16, 2018 on the 5300 block of 53rd Street, NE. The incident left 10-year-old Makiyah Wilson dead and four other individuals with gunshot wounds. 

Additionally, Price is charged with first-degree murder while armed, two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, threat to injure or kidnap a person, four counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, unlawful possession of a firearm by a convict and first-degree burglary while armed. These separate charges come from his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 47-year-old Andre Hakim Young on July 30, 2018 on the 1500 block of 19th Street, NE. 

At the hearing, Judge Okun heard a motion to suppress statements and evidence filed by Murchison’s defense on May 1. Michael Bruckheim, Murchison’s defense attorney, argued that his client’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated because of an illegal arrest and seizure on Aug. 2, 2018. 

According to Bruckheim, detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) did not follow protocol when questioning Murchison regarding the homicide at the same time he was administered a DNA buccal swab for a stolen vehicle. 

Prosecutors called on a detective from MPD to the stand, to testify regarding the interview with Murchison on Aug. 2 and 28, 2018.

According to the detective, Murchison was brought to the police station because a judge issued a search warrant for Murchison, which required a buccal swab. The detective confirmed that testing is a very quick procedure and is only supposed to take a few minutes. 

The detective testified that once the buccal swab was obtained, the search warrant was fully executed. 

Despite this, when questioned by Bruckheim, he admitted that detectives wanted to interview Murchison regarding the homicide, despite his not being arrested in connection to the incident.

As well, the detective confirmed that after completing the buccal swab, Murchison was brought to an interrogation room and his Miranda rights against self-incrimination were not presented.

Rather they were allegedly read to him after being in the room for almost two hours. At some point, though, according to the detective, Murchison was alerted that he was the suspect in two homicide cases. 

As per Bruckheim, Murchison was held in an interrogation room for multiple hours, and placed in handcuffs and escorted to the bathroom, despite not being told he was under arrest. 

The detective testified that he would not have handcuffed Murchison given that there was no arrest warrant, but said he was unsure what the detective who handcuffed him knew about the situation.

According to the detective, at least two other suspects for the murder were being interrogated in separate rooms at the time of Murchison’s interrogation. 

Bruckheim contended that MPD officials “collectively designed to elicit incriminating” evidence from his client by illegally interrogating him.

Furthermore, Bruckheim argued that Murchison would not have voluntarily participated in the interview had he known, and been clearly told by detectives, it was not mandatory.

He stated that at no point was Murchison told he was “free to go,” but instead was held in an interrogation room for almost two hours before being told his Miranda rights and that he was subject of the investigation. 

He also emphasized his client’s “uncertainty” of the situation, stating Murchison did not know what was going on. “It appears that he was never given an option or choice that he could leave,” said Bruckheim.

Bruckheim also asserted that MPD officials “had no justification, no legal reason to keep him there.”

Conversely, the prosecution objected to defense arguments, saying that there was no violation of Murchison’s Miranda rights and no basis that Murchison was under arrest. They also added that “there is zero evidence of interrogation.”

Judge Okun needed more time acknowledging that it is “not a frivolous motion.”

Asides from the motion to suppress evidence, Judge Okun heard arguments and denied the motions to dismiss the conspiracy charge for Price, and to preclude autopsy photographs and body worn camera footage from trial.

Price’s defense attorney, Megan Allburn, requested the dismissal of her client’s conspiracy charge, but Judge Okun said there “is sufficient basis,” adding that Price was already indicted on that charge.

The prosecution stated their evidence proves Price and other co-defendants conspired for a shooting and that Price committed six overt acts in the conspiracy. 

Additionally, all parties addressed the motion to preclude autopsy photographs and body worn camera footage, but Judge Okun ruled that the evidence was relevant and necessary to show jurors, despite defense attorneys for Price and Murchison requesting the autopsy photos not be used in trial against their clients. 

The autopsy photos depicted Wilson’s front entrance and back exit wound, while the body camera footage showed an officer arriving at the crime scene with a crowd of people, including Wilson, who soon received CPR. 

The defense stated the evidence is very emotional and prejudicial, adding that the body camera footage, at the very least, should have the victim blurred. 

The prosecution stated, “It’s very difficult to watch,” adding that “the jury should see that [Wilson’s] shirt is soaked in blood.” 

“The [prosecution] does not have to hide that from the jury,” stated the prosecutor. She also argued that the video was relevant for location purposes.

Due to time constraints, Judge Okun deferred rulings for other outstanding motions, which will be discussed as trial occurs. 

Parties are slated to reconvene June 13.