The defense called a detective to testify in a homicide trial before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson about the victim’s phone records on April 15.
Jamil Whitley, 38, is charged with first-degree murder while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, carrying a pistol without a license outside a home or business, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 32-year-old Kevin Redd on June 11, 2020, at the rear end of an alley on the 4700 block of Jay Street, NE.
Whitley’s attorneys, Madalyn Harvey and James Brockway, called the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) lead detective of the case to the stand. She testified that as part of the investigation, she typically looks into a defendant’s family, home life, and work environment.
Harvey asked the detective what Redd’s wife said during their interview. The wife told the detective that she suspected Redd was having a romantic relationship with another man. When Harvey asked if she investigated this allegation, the detective said no.
Then, Harvey asked the detective what she talked about with Redd’s mother during a separate interview. The victim’s mother alleged that her daughter-in-law took out a life insurance policy on Redd because he walked home alone often. Redd’s mother also suspected that her son’s wife had a boyfriend and Redd wasn’t the father of her child. The detective testified that Redd’s mother believed he was “set up.”
The detective testified that Redd’s wife handed over her phone to the police and provided her phone number. However, Harvey pointed out that the number she told the detective didn’t match the phone she turned over. The detective said she didn’t look into the call logs of the phone number Redd’s wife told her, but another detective looked through the phone.
The police received Redd’s cell phone, the detective testified. She wrote down recent calls and found a contact named “Love.”
Harvey showed the detective the call logs from “Love.” The contact called three times around one a. m. and continued throughout the day of the shooting. They also called close to the time when the shooting occurred.
Harvey asked the detective if the police ever pinpointed “Love’s” identity.
“I remember digging into Love, but I don’t remember what I found,” the detective said.
Harvey gave the detective a case file and handwritten notes from when the police were investigating the homicide. After several minutes of reviewing her notes, the detective couldn’t find any confirmation of “Love’s” identity.
Harvey continued pressing the detective, asking her about gaps in the investigation regarding the phone logs. The detective acknowledged that she did not try to locate “Love” despite having a phone number linked to the individual, and stated that she never obtained “Love’s” physical phone or location data.
Harvey’s questioning of the detective, also revealed inconsistencies in the phone evidence with other contacts that Redd had reached out to right before the shooting. The detective confirmed she never followed up on any leads regarding these contacts.
Harvey also challenged how the detective handled surveillance footage and timestamps. The detective testified that the video timestamps were approximate and that a car she tracked appeared in an alley for just a few seconds, despite larger time gaps.
The prosecution objected several times to defense questions stating that they “object to this entire thing.” Judge Dayson agreed, and struck from the record a defense question about how many phone extractions were done in the case.
Parties are slated to reconvene on April 17 without the jury present.
