Parties in a homicide retrial debated the credibility of the prosecution’s key witness in closing arguments on June 3 before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson.
Alonzo Brown, 29, and Naquel Henderson, 28, are charged with conspiracy to commit a crime of violence while armed, first-degree murder while armed, two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, and three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for their alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of Michael Taylor, 22, on the 1700 block of Benning Road, NE on Jan. 12, 2019. Two additional surviving victims sustained gunshot injuries.
Prosecutors spoke first, playing a video of the victims after they were shot as prosecutors told the jury that Brown and Henderson “unleashed their fury in eight seconds,” when they allegedly shot at a rival apartment complex following the death of their friend.
Several videos were shown to the jury of four men in black masks approaching the Benning Courts apartments. Two of the men were identified as Brown and Henderson by the prosecution’s key witness, a co-conspirator who took a plea deal with the prosecution in exchange for his testimony.
The key witness, who previously testified and walked the jury through the entire crime, “did not take the stand eagerly,” said prosecutors, but knew that the only requirement of his cooperation was to tell the truth.
A primary eyewitness brought by the prosecution had identified Brown at the incident scene as well, though they admitted they only saw Brown’s eyes from a distance, noted prosecutors.
While the only person who identified Henderson at the incident scene was the key witness, prosecutors alleged that Henderson’s distinct hair can be seen in the video footage shown to the jury.
Jurors were told to, “use their common sense,” by prosecutors to see that this case was about “revenge and retaliation.”
Brown’s attorney, Steven Kiersh, attempted to dismantle the prosecution’s case by targeting the credibility of its key witness. The individual was branded an “admitted liar, perjurer, and murderer” by Kiersh, who claimed the witness fabricated their testimony to escape a 70-year prison sentence.
The prosecution’s primary eyewitness, Kiersh argued, admitted they were not certain that Brown was there due to not having his glasses on and being under the influence of marijuana.
There was another eyewitness, said Kiresh, who was unable to identify any of the shooters, despite standing much closer than the prosecution’s primary eyewitness.
Kiersh stressed that it is the prosecution’s job to prove that Brown was there and if their own eyewitness was not sure, the jury could not be sure either.
In addition, Kiersh emphasized that there was no forensic or scientific evidence that connected Brown to the case.. For example, Kiersh said there was no DNA, no fingerprints, no murder weapon, and no cell phone location data presented to the jury.
Henderson’s attorney, Lisbeth Sapirstein, continued the assault against the prosecution’s evidence.
Sapirstein demanded an acquittal for Henderson, arguing that the prosecution’s case relied entirely on guilty by association rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Sapirstien reiterated Kiersh’s argument that there is no independent or forensic evidence linking Henderson to the shooting, as investigators did not match any DNA, fingerprints, firearms, or cellphone data.
According to Sapirstein, the prosecutor made a significant factual error when they claimed a key communication on the day of the crime was a standard phone call, not a FaceTime call.
The remainder of Sapirstein’s closing statement targeted the prosecution’s key witness, branding him as an admitted liar who fabricated facts to protect himself under a plea agreement.
Sapirstein concluded by urging the jury to view the key witness with extreme caution, arguing that a man with a “tenuous relationship with the truth,” cannot be trusted to identify the shooters.
The prosecutor attempted to rebut the defense’s arguments, saying that the key witness did not need to “point the finger” at Brown and Henderson specifically to get their cooperation deal. They argued that Brown and the key witness were close friends before the alleged crime, as the prosecutors attempted to reaffirm the key witness’ credibility.
While prosecutors acknowledged the primary eyewitness’ shortcomings, they said he has been “nothing but consistent.” They asked the jury to focus on the evidence in front of them instead of the “wishlist” of evidence the defense asked for.
“Trust your eyes,” the prosecutor said. “Trust the evidence and return the only verdict that is consistent with the evidence.”
Parties are slated to reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.
