Defense Questions Evidence Submitted in 2020 Homicide Trial

By McKenna Bryant [former] , Anthoine Godin [former] - March 22, 2024
Daily Stories | Homicides | Juveniles | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

On March 21, parties spared over expert testimony including from the District’s discredited Department of Forensic Sciences in a murder trial before DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt.

Koran Jackson, 23, Tyiion Kyree Freeman, 24, and Stephen Nelson, 33, are three of five individuals charged with multiple counts of conspiracy, assault with the intent to kill while armed, first-degree murder while armed, carrying a pistol without a license, and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence in connection to the fatal shooting of 13-year-old Malachi Lukes on March 1, 2020 on the 600 block of S Street, NW. The shooting also left a second juvenile victim located in the vicinity suffering from an apparent gunshot wound to the right leg.  

The case also involves alleged co-conspirators Reginald Steele, 24, and Aaron Brown, 27.

Throughout the trial, the prosecution has attempted to connect Jackson, Freeman, and Nelson to additional shootings that occurred on Feb. 22, Feb. 24, and a second shooting on March 1, 2020. The prosecution alleges a firearm conspiracy by the defendants, in which they aimed to obtain and use specific weapons in Lukes’ homicide .  

In an attempt to prove the conspiracy, the prosecution claims all firearms involved in the shooting are the “calling cards” of the defendants and intends to introduce the firearms allegedly used by the defendants to the court. 

The prosecution called a former District of Columbia Department of Forensic Sciences (DFS) evidence analyst to complete cross examination regarding authentication of 12 pieces of blue duct tape recovered from a suspect vehicle on March 6, 2020, and a Glock 17 recovered on March 24, 2020 in connection to the homicide.

In questioning from Freeman’s defense attorney, Andrew Ain, the witness confirmed that she was aware of the DFS losing their accreditation due to alleged mishandling of evidence, and alleged covering up of their misconduct.

The court acknowledged the controversy over DFS and had ruled that while the defense was allowed to bring up the “scandal” of the DFS office occuring at the time Lukes’ homicide, they were not allowed to imply misconduct of any individual witness testifying on the behalf of DFS.

To introduce another firearm advancing previous testimony, the prosecution brought in a former DSF forensic scientist to testify. The witness had assisted with evidence collection at the scene where the firearm was recovered and was able to identify the model of the gun as a Glock 26 based on her experience. 

In his cross examination, Jackson’s defense attorney, Brian McDaniel, asked about details of the firearm’s collection. The witness admitted that she had not recovered the weapon, rather she had received the firearm from a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer on the scene and was unsure of the date of the firearm’s recovery.

In their redirect, prosecution used the case file of the weapon’s recovery to affirm that the firearm had been recovered April 22, 2020. The firearm was allegedly discovered during a traffic stop of two unidentified females, which also took place April 22. 

The prosecution then called a captain of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections to certify DC Jail records about Nelson’s housing in the jail.

The witness authenticated an audit of housing records that reported Nelson and Steele were cell mates in May 2019 for a period of 17 days. 

To connect the defendants further, the prosecution brought in a data specialist of Meta Platforms Inc. records to authenticate Facebook and Instagram records. 

These records allegedly reveal that Instagram and Facebook accounts alleged to belong to all three defendants and the two co-conspirators all had followed each other prior to March 2020. 

Due to time constraints, the witness was unable to finish her testimony.

Finally, the court presented a pre-recorded cross examination of a latent fingerprints expert who had previously testified about 27 total prints he had been sent to analyze. The witness had identified a correlation to Jackson’s fingerprints with varying strengths in confidence. 

In his cross examination, McDaniel asked the witness about factors that could affect the integrity of a fingerprint in collecting it. The witness identified several ways including smearing, smudging, and overpowering upon collecting the fingerprint. 

McDaniel then asked if the witness had been involved in the collection of the latent fingerprints. The witness admitted he was not and had only been sent the fingerprints digitally with no knowledge of where the prints came from or how they were collected. 

McDaniels concluded his cross by asking if one could tell how long a fingerprint was present before being found. The doctor testified that it was not. 

During cross examination, Ain asked the doctor if any of the fingerprints he had analyzed in his report were consistent with Freeman’s to any extent. The witness admitted that while a separate report done by another latent fingerprint analyst found some support for Freeman’s prints, his own report did not.

The witness told Nelson’s attorney, Lisbeth Saperstein, “I was unaware of the existence of a Mr. Nelson” as he testified that Nelson did not appear in his report at all. 

In redirect, the witness affirmed that not knowing where the fingerprints had come from did not affect his report. He concluded that elements of a fingerprint could make it “robust” and able to last for days without affecting its accuracy in testing.

Parties are slated to return March 25.