In a hearing on April 17, parties addressed a previous defense request to dismiss a homicide case focusing on DNA evidence before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson.
D’Andre Montgomery, 20, is charged with conspiracy, premeditated first-degree murder while armed, first-degree felony murder while armed, assault with intent to kill while armed, four counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, unauthorized use of a vehicle during a crime of violence, attempt to commit robbery while armed, and carrying a pistol without a license outside a home or business.
These charges stem from his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of Kenneth Barksdale, 28, on Dec. 16, 2023, on the 1200 block of 44th Place, SE.
Kevin Hider, 20, and Eric Sheffield, 21, also face charges for their alleged involvement in the same accident.
Parties discussed a defense motion filed on March 6, to dismiss the case because they argued the prosecutors failed to preserve DNA evidence that was critical to Montgomery’s defense and could prove his innocence.
The prosecutors called a forensic biology unit manager and former DNA analyst from the DC Department of Forensic Sciences (DFS), to testify about evidence testing.
The prosecutors asked the unit manager about the process and limitations of testing evidence, and whether DFS conducted testing during the time of the incident. She replied that DFS did not conduct evidence testing in the timeframe around when the incident occurred and had testing done through another lab.
During the defense’s cross-examination, Montgomery’s attorney, Sylvia Smith asked the unit manager about the details of the incident but the unit manager said she was not aware of the specifics of the case.
The unit manager said that she did not have information to answer to Smith’s additional questions about lab and evidence collection procedures. The prosecutors eventually objected to Smith’s line of questioning as redundant and Judge Dayson concurred after a confidential conversation with the both legal teams.
The prosecutors also called a senior forensic scientist at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to testify.
The forensic scientist explained that recovering DNA from bullet casings is possible, but it is difficult due to elements such as temperature, humidity, and physical contact that can damage the evidence. Physical contact would be like rubbing the casing on a surface or placing it in envelopes, which can remove the DNA on the casing, according to the forensic scientist.
The prosecutor asked the forensic scientist if many other labs, besides ATF, perform similar testing. The forensic scientist stated that there were a few labs that did, but was unsure whether DFS did this kind of testing.
During cross-examination, Smith declared that DFS does in fact perform DNA testing on casings, disputing the forensic scientist’s statements.
When Smith asked the witness what his role in this case was, he admitted that he had no direct involvement raising an issue of relevance to the case.
As a result of time constraints, Judge Dayson stated that the forensic scientist’s testimony will continue on the next day of the hearing.
Smith also asked to address a motion to compel that she and her co-counsel, Charlotte Gilliland, filed on April 16. It asked the prosecution to disclose multiple pieces of evidence that Smith claimed had not been turned over, including body-worn camera footage, documents related to officers and detectives involved in the case, and information on the witnesses that the prosecution planned to call at trial.
The prosecutors stated that they had already turned over most of the materials requested in the motion. They also said multiple times throughout the hearing that the defense was asking for documents related to non-witnesses.
Smith argued that every officer the defense requested documents for was relevant to the case because they had been involved in the process of investigating the incident.
Parties are slated to reconvene on April 20.
