Defense attorneys objected to the prosecution’s editing of surveillance video footage and their late disclosure of evidence during a trial before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson on July 17.
Demann Shelton, 32, is charged with three counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, assault with significant bodily injury while armed, three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, seven counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction. The charges stem from an incident in which the suspect allegedly aimed a gun at a group of five people, then opened fire, injuring one victim, on Nov. 9, 2020, near the busy Columbia Heights Metro Station on the 3000 block of 14th Street, NW.
Shelton’s defense attorneys, Emma Mlyniec and Emily Sufrin, argued that the surveillance video footage shared by the prosecution on July 16 should have been turned over months earlier, when the defense first requested available video. The footage purportedly showed that the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer who testified he was looking at the defendant when the first shot was fired had actually been looking the other way.
The prosecution argued they were not aware then that the footage had been preserved. They also claimed that only one video captured the shooting, while Mlyniec and Sufrin claimed multiple videos existed and accused the prosecution of misrepresenting the footage. They requested the judge issue a jury instruction addressing the apparent failure to preserve evidence and disclose all available video.
When the jury returned, Judge Dayson informed them the prosecution failed to disclose all the footage as was legally required. Additional footage submitted by the defense was admitted into evidence.
Sufrin asked Judge Dayson to reject the prosecution’s argument that the defendant acted with both intent to frighten and intent to injure. She argued that one victim could not see the shooting and thus could not be a target.
Judge Dayson maintained that pointing a gun alone could show intent to frighten. Disagreeing with Sufrin’s arguments, she ruled that both charges were appropriate.
The prosecution introduced a compilation of footage, connecting the surveillance footage to an officer’s cell phone footage of the scene. They noted the cell footage had a frame rate that was double the frame rate of the surveillance footage.
Sufrin objected to the compilation, arguing that the edited footage created new evidence. She argue that disparities caused by the different frame rates could mislead the jury.
Judge Dayson acknowledged the difficulty of interpreting the footage frame by frame but said both sides had tried to align video clips. The prosecution agreed to instruct the jury about how to view the videos.
Sufrin asked the court to exclude some footage that she argued was outside the scope of the case. The prosecution agreed to shorten the compilation.
A US Attorney’s Office litigation technology specialist, called as a prosecution witness, testified that he created the video compilation for the prosecution. Sufrin asked for all emails related to his editing of the footage, which he turned over immediately for review.
The trial is set to resume for closing arguments on July 18.
