Defense Compares Client to ‘Hobbit’ in Closing For Strip Club Stabbing Case

By Maggie Rhoads [former] - August 20, 2024
Court | Daily Stories | stabbing | Suspects | Victims |

Both sides presented different views of a stabbing case in closing arguments before DC Superior Court Judge Robert Salerno on Aug. 19. 

Abraham Urrutia Castillo, 29, is charged with two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon and simple assault for his alleged involvement in a stabbing incident on Nov. 23, 2023, on the 2300 block of Wisconsin Avenue, NW at a venue billed as “The Best Strip Club in DC.” One individual sustained injuries which required treatment at a hospital. 

According to court documents, the victim, who is a bouncer at a strip club, was allegedly stabbed by Urrutia Castillo when he removed him from the premises for touching a waitress. 

Before closing arguments, Judge Salerno denied defense attorney, Damon Catacalos, motion for judgment of acquittal. Urrutia Castillo also said he would not testify during trial.

In their closing, the prosecution stated the night the victim was stabbed was “fine” until Urrutia Castillo started to act “aggressive.” The prosecution said Urrutia Castillo “gripped” a waitress’ arm and “yanked her back” while she was escorting his allegedly drunken friend towards a bouncer.  Patrons are not allowed to touch the waitresses.

When the victim and his co-worker saw Urrutia Castillo allegedly grab a waitress, the prosecution said they used “force” to push Urrutia Castillo and his friend out of the strip club. 

The prosecution acknowledged a language barrier between Urrutia Castillo and the victim as Urrutia Castillo primarily speaks Spanish. However, they said security pointing at the exit “means something” and cited testimony from another worker at the club who asked them to leave in Spanish. 

The prosecution then replayed surveillance video of Urrutia Castillo allegedly stabbing the victim. They pointed out a “shiny object” Urrutia Castillo held in the footage and when the victim realized he was stabbed. 

According to the prosecution, the victim kicked Urrutia Castillo away from his co-worker, who was holding Urrutia Castillo’s friend while waiting for Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers to arrive, because the victim thought Urrutia Castillo was trying to stab his co-worker as well.  

They concluded Urrutia Castillo didn’t act in self-defense because he was the one who began the altercation by touching the waitress. The prosecution also said the victim and his co-worker were not armed, unlike Urrutia Castillo. 

Catacalos disagreed, arguing Urrutia Castillo was using self-defense tactics against the victim and his co-worker. 

Catacalos replayed the video of when Urrutia Castillo allegedly grabbed a waitress and argued he was actually grabbing his friend and not the waitress. 

He cited the waitress’ testimony earlier in trial when she stated Urrutia Castillo caused a “chain reaction,” meaning it could not be said for certain if his client touched her. 

When the victim and his co-worker decided to remove Urrutia Castillo from the nightclub, Catacalos said, his client was attacked in a “violent manner.” He said the size of the victim and his co-worker, who are over six feet tall, made Urrutia Castillo and his friend, who are five-and-a-half feet tall, look like “hobbits.” Hobbits are a fictional race of characters between two-and-four-feet tall.

According to Catacalos, Urrutia Castillo refused to leave the club without first showing it was a “racist establishment.”

Catacalos said while the victim removed Urrutia Castillo from the club, he put his jacket over his head blinding him. He used the video to show it was possible Urrutia Castillo stabbed the victim when he couldn’t see.

After allegedly stabbing the victim, he said, Urrutia Castillo waved his arm to put distance between him and the victim. Catacalos also said Urrutia Castillo ran towards his friend, who was being held down by the victim’s co-worker, to protect him, not injure the other worker. 

Catacalos concluded his client’s actions were reasonable under the “circumstances” and were not criminal. 

Parties are set to reconvene when the jury concludes their deliberations.