The prosecution argued although an apparent CashApp robbery was not a “snatch and grab,” it should still count as felony murder trial before DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz in trial on March 31.
The defense argued against the charge. They contend the felony robbery prosecutors allege Macedo was intending to commit was not carried out, because nothing from Emerson’s physical body was taken.
Prosecutors objected, saying that the 300 dollar Cash App transaction from Emerson’s phone to Macedo’s phone is a robbery, and just because it wasn’t a “snatch and grab,” doesn’t mean it wasn’t a robbery.
Judge Kravitz stated that he did not know the law about electronic robbery, but he would look into it.
The judge denied a defense motion for acquittal because there is proof of Macedo taking money from Emerson, and trying to take his backpack when the fight ensued, therefore he did not “abandon” the robbery, like defense stated.
Jaime Macedo, 24, is charged with first-degree felony murder while armed, attempt to commit robbery while armed, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, felony murder while armed, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The charges stem from his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 25-year-old Maxwell Emerson at the 600 block of Alumni Lane, NE at The Catholic University of America’s campus on July 5, 2023. Emerson sustained a gunshot wound to his abdomen.
Without the jury present, the prosecution read his questions of a police officer, which he intended to introduce during trial. The prosecution had asked the officer about his experience handling firearms and argued the testimony was necessary to explain how they work.
Jessica Willis, Macedo’s attorney, objected saying the prosecution’s testimony is “empirically rooted,” rather than, what Kravitz echoed to the court from previous proceedings, an “expert testimony masquerading as a layman’s testimony.”
Judge Kravitz asked the prosecution not to use the testimony with the stipulation the defense does not make “improper arguments.” The prosecutor claimed the defense inaccurately said before the jury that an accidental shooting would not eject a shell casing. There was no casing found on scene.
The jury arrived and the prosecution called a senior DNA analyst as an expert witness. The expert tested a backpack handle, a face mask, a ski mask, and an AirPod found at the scene.
According to the expert, the backpack handle and face mask were congruent with Emerson’s DNA while the ski mask had DNA congruent with Macedo. There was evidence of both Macedo’s and Emerson’s DNA on the AirPod, with Macedo having a higher percentage of comparibility.
In cross-examination by Willis, the expert said there were two quality control issues during DNA testing. Willis pointed out that two rounds of DNA testing after two quality issues in the same case raises concerns.
The prosecution confirmed with the expert that both of the quality issues did not affect the second round nor did it cause contamination. The expert continued, saying usually less than one percent of cases per year have a quality issue. The issues in this case were separated by a year.
During a brief recess, the parties reviewed a series of videos compiled and edited together by the prosecution. Rachel Cicurel, Macedo’s other attorney, objected to the video of Macedo biking because she argued the brief black screen would encourage the jury to speculate. According to Cicurel, the parties previously agreed to remove a half-second of film picturing Macedo outstretching his hand to a passing biker, which the prosecution obliged and blacked out.
The prosecution argued the blacked out footage is consistent with editing in the rest of the video and would not raise concern among the jury. Judge Kravitz agreed, stating the jury is unlikely to speculate without knowledge of what was being deleted.
Despite agreeing the jury is unlikely to speculate, Judge Kravitz ordered the prosecution to call the litigation technology specialist and re-edit the video. The prosecution obliged.
After the jury returned, the prosecution called a litigation technology specialist from the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) to testify about the video compilation he made. The specialist told the jury that he took various videos that were shared to him by the prosecutors and compiled them into one video without changing anything from the original videos.
Prosecutors played the video compilation of surveillance footage following a man dressed in all black and wearing red shoes. According to court documents, the individual pictured is Macedo. It follows him riding a bike, and approaching a man near an escalator, it then follows the two men to a park, where an interaction ensues, ending in a man’s being shot and lying on the pavement.
On cross-examination, Cicurel asked the witness why he did not zoom in on the interaction. He told her that he did not zoom in on the interaction in order to preserve the video. She also asked him why there was a segment of the video where there was no footage of the person riding his bike, and he stated that he did not receive any footage from that block. She asked him if he had independently investigated to see if there could have been security cameras on that specific block, and he said no.
The prosecution also called an expert in forensic pathology who testified about completing the autopsy on Emerson, which included taking pictures and writing the report.
Prosecutors showed a picture that the expert took depicting the entrance wound of the bullet. The expert said she took the photo right after the body was taken out of the bag because she wanted to preserve the chances of soot and stippling. According to the expert, soot is residue from the muzzle of the gun after it is fired, and stippling is tiny abrasions on the skin around the wound that are caused by gun powder after the bullet exits the gun.
The expert took another picture of the wound that depicts an abrasion rim, which she told the court is how examiners figure out the path of travel of the bullet. According to the expert, the bullet traveled upward and there was no exit wound or bullet recovered from Emerson’s body.
The expert said Emerson’s cause of death was a gunshot wound to the abdomen and the manner of death was a homicide.
Willis on cross-examination asked the expert if the manner of death is universal, and she answered no, it is not a legal definition, it is specific to forensic pathologists.
Willis asked the expert whether or not she had found any soot or stippling on Emerson’s body. The expert said she did not. The expert told Willis that distance, the force of the gun, or objects in the way between the gun and the victim could prevent soot and stippling.
Willis asked further if clothes could be in the way of soot and stippling, in which the examiner said yes in most cases clothing can prevent soot and stippling.
Parties are slated to reconvene on April 1.
