DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt complained that a detective’s “sloppiness was a hot mess” in terms of managing evidence in a mother-and- son murder case.
Violet Davenport, 55, and her son, William Davenport, 33, are charged with first-degree premeditated murder while armed and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for her alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 27-year-old, Leonard Turner. The incident occurred near a shelter on the 400 block of 2nd Street, NW, on May 14, 2021.
The issue in the Dec. 17 hearing was whether missing surveillance images could show whether a robbery in a drug deal gone bad the night before the killing could provide prosecutors with the motive for the crime.
Judge Brandt severed Violet Davenport’s case from her son’s on Nov. 7.
Jason Tully, representing William, said he was hamstrung by a ruling by Judge Brandt in 2022 that surveillance video and pictures of the robbery were inadmissible, because a detective inadvertently deleted part of the material instead of transferring it.
The prosecutor said the detective was “embarrassed” by the error but there is no indication that he was lying or not forthcoming.
Nonetheless, the mistake, Tulley said, cut to the heart of his case and he motioned Judge Brandt to suppress any mention of the robbery as prejudicial.
“I can’t defend the robbery because they’ve lost it,” said Tully. “The decedent is not the robber. Mr. Davenport has no reason to kill the decedent,” continued Tully.
Meanwhile, the prosecution claimed the missing video was also hurting its case. “Evidence of bad actions of police should not suppress good evidence,” said the prosecutor.
However, she hinted at trying to get the robbery evidence into the proceedings by calling in person witnesses, possibly co-defendant Violet Davenport
“It makes sense to admit the evidence,” said the prosecutor under the Drew Johnson rule which makes previously inadmissible statements acceptable in certain circumstances. Further, she said Davenport himself made statements he was robbed as did his mother Violet.
However, Tully countered that would open the door to “wildly prejudicial” hearsay citing information from Davenport’s wife, reportedly in an abusive marriage, who talked to police seven months after the fact and got paid for the information. “She threw her husband under the bus,” said Tully who termed the prosecution’s motion an “attempt to cobble together Frankenstein’s monster.”
Meanwhile, Judge Brandt said since the prosecution now wants to admit evidence that will carry the same weight as the video she needs to vet the request “to make sure it’s not running a foul” of her previous ruling.
“I’d probably be losing my mind in a polite way if these motions were submitted the day before trial, ” she said.
Judge Brandt said she would rule on the dueling motions on Jan. 8.
