Parties presented opening statements for a non-fatal shooting defendant before DC Superior Court Judge Errol Arthur on July 20.
Marcus Reavenell, 48, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction greater than one year, unlawful discharge of a firearm, reckless driving, and destruction of property less than $1,000. These charges stem from Reavenell’s alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting following a traffic incident at the intersection of 58th and Foote Streets, NE on May 14, 2025. No injuries were reported.
The prosecution told the jury to picture their daily morning commutes, describing it as a time to “clear your head” and relax before the workday.
“What no one expects on their way to work is getting shot at,” the prosecutor said.
The prosecutor walked through the escalation of the incident, claiming that Reavenell started closely following the victim’s white work van after a traffic dispute. They played footage from the camera on the rear door of the victim’s vehicle that showed the proximity between the cars. After several minutes of footage, the car behind the victim’s appeared to fire a gunshot before driving off.
The prosecution concluded by asserting that Reavenell intended to scare the victim. They noted that evidence, such as social media posts, will reportedly link Reavenell to the car that harbored the shooter.
Reavenell’s attorney, Margaret Dawson, contended that ,“No one knows who did this.” She countered that the prosecution didn’t have sufficient proof to identify Reavenell as the suspect in the car.
“You’re going to see that the puzzle pieces don’t connect,” Dawson said. “This doesn’t work to this. That doesn’t work to that.” She told the jury that when the prosecution’s evidence does not connect, “that’s doubt.”
The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer who first arrived at the scene of the incident was called to testify by the prosecution. The officer testified that he received a call from dispatch about a shooting, prompting him to drive to the scene.
Upon his arrival, the officer spoke to a man who claimed he had been shot at while driving. The officer described the man as “real jittery,” and someone who “couldn’t focus properly.” The officer testified that this is “common in cases people are shot at.”
The prosecution displayed several photos of the car that the man was driving. The officer testified that a bullet hole could be seen in several of the photos.
Some of the officer’s body-worn camera footage was also displayed, which the officer claimed was MPD searching for the bullet. While he knew that a bullet was found, the officer could not remember where.
On cross-examination, Dawson elicited testimony confirming that the officer was a first responder whose job was to secure the scene. She also confirmed the names of the detectives who arrived at the scene after the officer. The officer noted that he did not personally recover evidence.
The prosecution called Reavenell’s boss to the witness stand. She said that she is an executive of Associated Community Services, the nonprofit Reavenell works at, where residential support is provided to those with physical and mental disabilities. She testified that she is “sort of” familiar with Reavenell.
According to the CEO, Reavenell is a Direct Support Professional who works “in the field.” His job is to stay overnight at residents’ homes and care for them. She said that on May 14, 2025, the day he allegedly committed the shooting, Reavenell clocked out of work at 8:23 a. m.
Dawson cross-examined the CEO. The CEO noted that she can only testify to the time Reavenell clocked out, not when he actually left the residents’ house.
Before the jury had arrived, Judge Arthur considered a defense motion to suppress a witness’ identification of Reavenell. The prosecution brought a witness who reportedly identified Reavenell in surveillance video and worked with him at the nonprofit. She testified that she saw him once every three months and exchanged “hi’s and bye’s” each time.
Dawson’s cross-examination noted that the witness only met Reavenell when he was hired in 2023.
Judge Arthur denied the defense’s motion, calling the issue “a matter of weight,” and “ripe for cross-examination.”
Parties are scheduled to reconvene on July 21.
