Defense Argues that Convicted Murder Defendants’ Constitutional Rights Were Violated

By D.C. Witness Staff - November 10, 2020
Court | Daily Stories | Homicides | Post Disposition | Shooting | Suspects |

A DC Superior Court judge agreed to review information regarding the trial of two convicted murder defendants. 

Don Hancock and Reynaud Cook are serving 20 year sentences for second-degree murder while armed in the 2004 fatal shooting of Nacarto Gladden. A jury convicted them in 2018. But the 36-year-old defendants maintained their innocence. 

According to court documents, multiple witnesses saw Hancock pull Gladden, 32, from his car and force him to the ground. The witnesses reportedly saw Hancock and Gladden fighting when Cook shot Gladden. 

During a  Nov. 10 post-disposition hearing, Judge Craig Iscoe agreed to review the defense’s argument that their constitutional rights to confront a witness were violated during their trial. 

Hancock’s attorney, Charles Wayne, and Cook’s attorney, Sean Day, argued that a witness who testified during the trial had been wearing a face covering, as part of her Mulsim faith, which hid her facial expressions. They said the defendants had not been asked if they wanted the witness to testify without her facial covering. They also said, the defendants were never given the opportunity to object to the facial covering during the trial but would have done so, given the chance. 

Judge Iscoe asked the defense, if they were requesting an evidentiary hearing to introduce information and testimony from the trial lawyers. 

Day said, an evidentiary hearing would only be necessary if the court found no violation of the defendants’ rights. He argued that, even if this wasn’t a violation of the defendants’ rights, the trial attorney still made a strategic choice when he didn’t object to the facial covering.

He asked for another hearing where the defense and prosecutor could make arguments on whether the defendants’ constitutional rights had been violated. 

Judge Iscoe agreed to hear oral arguments over the potential rights violation on Dec. 16.  

John Sullivan wrote this article.