Thank you for reading D.C. Witness.
Help us continue our mission into 2025 by donating to our end of year campaign.
By
Madelyn Nall [former]
- October 2, 2024
Carjacking
|
Daily Stories
|
Robbery
|
Attorneys asked DC Superior Court Judge Errol Arthur to dismiss a carjacking case after the prosecution elicited what the defense claims was inadmissible evidence in trial on Oct. 2.
Gregory Patterson, 41, and Jimmy Johnson, 43, are charged with armed carjacking, three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and robbery while armed for their alleged involvement in a carjacking incident that occurred on the 1600 block of Kenilworth Avenue, NE, on July 11, 2023.
Patterson is also charged with armed robbery in connection to the incident.
Johnson also faces charges of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convict, possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. The additional charges stem from his alleged possession of the items during his arrest on March 28, on the 4000 block of Ponds Street, NE.
At a previous hearing, the prosecution agreed to the defense’s motion to exclude mentions of specific evidence and testimony, under the notion that it would prejudice the jury against the defendants whether or not the information was true.
Defense attorney Alvin Thomas motioned to exclude mentions that Patterson is currently on probation for a different offense, and defense attorney Joseph McCoy wanted to exclude references to a gun found at the scene where Johnson was arrested;
The gun is evidence for another case though the outcome wasn’t clear.
During the hearing, the prosecution asked the lead detective about the potential identification of Patterson by a witness, and asked the detective who he followed up with about the matter. The detective responded, “Gregory Patterson’s probation officer.”
This led to an immediate sustained objection.
The prosecution also ended their examination with the question, “Did you recover a gun in this case?” to which the detective responded, “yes.”
After immediately sustaining the objection again, Judge Arthur ended the trial early and sent the jury home, so parties could discuss how to move forward with the case due to potentially inadmissible evidence mentioned by the detective.
Defense attorney Joseph McCoy, representing Johnson, said the detective’s statements will impact the jury’s decision even if stricken from the record.
McCoy accused the prosecution of attempting to trigger a mistrial on purpose, claiming the prosecution’s case was going poorly and they wanted another attempt at trial.
“This is gross negligence,” claimed McCoy.
Attorney Thomas, representing Patterson, stated that mentioning the probation alone is enough for a dismissal. Judge Arther gave the prosecution leeway, after a string of objections from McCoy about potential inadmissible testimony, in particular the reference to Patterson’s probation.
“It’s not the mistake of the officer,” said Thomas, “but the prosecuting attorney.”
The prosecutor explained that in his mind, the detective knew not to mention the probation officer, and thought he would answer no to the question, “Did you discover a gun in this case?”
Both defense attorneys responded that with the phrasing of the question, the only answer that wouldn’t lead to perjury is “yes.”
Judge Arthur has not ruled about a mistrial, a dismissal, or if trial will continue as planned.
The trial is set to resume on Oct. 3.