DC Superior Court Judge Jason Park heard arguments on a defense motion to dismiss the case against a homicide defendant case on April 15.
Joshua Allen, 36, is charged with premeditated first-degree murder while armed, assault with intent to kill while armed, aggravated assault knowingly while armed, three counts of 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 crime of violence.
The charges stem from Allen’s alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 28-year-old Delonte Johnson on the 4600 block of Hillside Road, SE on June, 11, 2021. There was one surviving victim who sustained gunshot wounds.
Judge Park addressed the defense’s motion to dismiss Allen’s indictment charges, filed on Feb. 13.
Sara Kopecki, Allen’s attorney, wants the indictment dismissed because the grand jury was reportedly given misleading evidence regarding the identification of the shooter. In the motion, the defense added that a draft of the prosecution’s evidence for trial presented an incorrect timeline of events and that the prosecution knew about their mistake.
The prosecution called a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) homicide who explained his testimony to the grand jury on Dec. 30, 2022. The detective said he constructed a timeline by reviewing surveillance footage from multiple locations, including the shooting scene and the area where the suspect vehicle crashed.
The detective acknowledged that the video timestamps did not align with real time and were approximated based on other evidence. He testified that the suspect vehicle was seen near the crime scene before the shooting and later crashed at Ridge and Bowen Roads, SE. After, the detective said the suspect fled on foot, running along Alabama Avenue and Chaplin Street, SE and through an alleyway.
On cross-examination, Kopecki asked whether the detective reviewed any surveillance footage from the investigation to prepare for his grand jury testimony. The detective said he reviewed some of the footage, but not all of it.
Kopecki also questioned the detective about the arrest warrant for Allen he wrote on Nov. 9, 2021, his handling of surveillance videos, including his testimony on video timestamps, and how he constructed the timeline. The detective said he relied on timestamps to organize the footage chronologically.
The detective acknowledged he did not have a description of the suspect when initially canvassing for video. Kopecki then presented multiple videos and pointed out inconsistencies in the suspect’s appearance. In one video, the suspect wore a white hoodie and grey pants while holding an object. In another, the suspect had a larger build with dreads, wearing a white tank top and dark jeans, with nothing in his hands.
“There were multiple descriptions given” of the suspect from officers and witnesses, the detective said.
Kopecki presented the detective with two still photos from the videos side by side, one of the suspect on the 4400 block of Alabama Avenue, SE and the other Kopecki claimed was Allen in an alleyway. She asked him if the two individuals in the photos were the same person, and the detective said yes.
Kopecki argued they were not the same person because the suspect ran toward the community center and would have passed the alley on the way, but there was no video showing him entering the alley. The detective responded that the suspect could have entered the alley first and then proceeded to the community center.
The detective testified that it’s common for surveillance footage to only capture portions of a suspect’s movements, and that the absence of video showing the suspect entering the alley does not mean it did not occur.
Despite gaps in the footage and differences in appearance, the detective said there was evidence at the crash scene that led investigators to Allen. There was blood on the car that was swabbed and closely matched Allen’s DNA, said the detective. There was also a phone with messages sent from it that read, “This is Josh Allen,” to numerous numbers.
Before the arguments were presented, Judge Park stated that he would not rule on the motion because he did not have time to review the written arguments that the prosecution had sent the night before.
Parties are slated to reconvene on May 1.
