At a post-sentencing hearing before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson on Sept. 18, parties argued about whether a victim’s mother’s statement at a homicide sentencing warrants a new trial.
David Pena, 49, was sentenced on Feb. 27 to more than 14 years in prison for fatally shooting 24 year-old Maurice Robinson on June 12, 2023, on the 3000 block of 30th Street, SE. A jury found him guilty on Nov. 25, 2025 of voluntary manslaughter while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, assault with a dangerous weapon, and unlawful possession of a firearm with prior conviction.
According to court records, Pena’s attorney, Dana Page, filed a motion for a new trial on March 24 based on newly discovered evidence.
At the hearing, the defense called an attorney from the Public Defender Service (PDS) for DC, who attended Pena’s sentencing as a close friend and colleague.
The witness testified that she heard Robinson’s mother say, “We should’ve killed his ass” and similar comments following the judge’s imposition of Pena’s sentence. According to the witness, she took notes on her phone when the statement was made because, as a lawyer with 13 years of experience, she believed it could be significant to the case. The witness said she also knew that Robinson’s mother was present during the shooting.
Judge Dayson sustained objections raised by the prosecution to two questions Page asked: whether the statement was different from what the witness typically heard and whether other people in the audience reacted to the statement.
During cross-examination, the witness agreed with the prosecutor that she knew several facts about the case, including Page’s views about Robinson’s mother. To the prosecutor’s question whether those opinions were favorable, the witness answered, “It’s complicated.”
The prosecution also noted the witness didn’t clearly hear the second statement from Robsinson’s mother. The witness clarified that although she didn’t hear the second part, she was “quite sure” she heard the first part “verbatim.”
Prior to the witness’ testimony, Judge Dayson said “Timeliness is very essential,” and noted Page filed the motion after the 14-day post-trial deadline.
Page argued that the 14-day deadline would have been “impossible” in this situation because the evidence didn’t exist before the trial. Page also argued that the failure to submit the motion on time was due to excusable neglect as she was out of the jurisdiction for 13 days, but tried her best to file the motion within 11 days after her return.
The prosecution raised that Page had co-counsel in the case and is also part of PDS, an organization with a well-funded appellate division and many attorneys. They asserted others could have filed the evidence for Page while she was out of the country.
Page responded, “There is no reason. I thought about it. I worked on it. I am the lead in this case. It’s my case. There is no explanation,” for why someone else didn’t file the motion.
Regarding a new trial, Page argued that the “obvious, clear, plain meaning” of the statement, “We should’ve killed him,” is “We should’ve killed him when we could. We should’ve killed him when we had the chance.” Page claimed that the statement demonstrates motive and means, and corroborates Pena’s testimony that he saw Robinson reach for his waistband and heard someone say “Blow his ass up,” which is why he feared imminent bodily injury or death.
Page asserted that a fair trial requires that the jury hear the statement “because it is a statement directly relevant to what we know ended up becoming the only problem for the jury.” In trial, Pena claimed self-defense.
The prosecution responded that “should’ve” is not the same as “could’ve,” because Pena didn’t see a gun, only a reach, which does not support the defense’s argument that Robinson might’ve been armed. Although Robinson and his mother may have had the opportunity to harm Pena, as they were both present at the scene, the prosecution asserted that there was no evidence that Pena saw a gun. i
According to prosecutors, there was no reason for guns when the incident began as a one-on-one fight between two 18-year-old girls, who were best friends until a week prior. The prosecution added that the six shots Pena fired demonstrated excessive force.
The prosecution contended that the evidence did not meet all of the factors of the five-prong test: that the evidence is discovered after trial, is not cumulative or discrediting of existing evidence, is relevant to the case’s core issue, will likely produce an acquittal at a new trial, and the discovery is not due to a lack of due diligence.
The prosecution argued that the evidence is cumulative because Robinson’s mother already had an unfavorable opinion of Pena, and the statement is irrelevant because it isn’t corroborative of any of the other evidence. Moreover, they argued the probability of producing an acquittal is non-existent because the evidence would be considered hearsay if not directly delivered through Robinson’s mother.
The prosecution emphasized that words from Robinson’s mother on their own are not enough to warrant a new trial, and “reasonable doubt” is a high burden for the defense to overturn a jury verdict.
Judge Dayson summarized the defense argued that “should’ve” means “opportunity and the means to do so” and the prosecution argued that Robinson’s mother spoke in the “heat of passion” and the statement wasn’t specific enough to indicate the means and opportunities. Although the judge understood both arguments, she believed that both parties asked her to “read a comma phrase” missing in the statement.
Judge Dayson stated she would consider the motion and issue a written ruling in 30 days. No further dates were set.
