Defense Says The Wrong Man Is on Trial

By Adrianna Bhan [former] - July 23, 2024
Carjacking | Daily Stories |

Attorneys clashed during opening arguments in a carjacking and burglary trial before DC Superior Court Judge Robert Salerno on July 22.

Kenneth Phillips, 24, is charged with carjacking, aggravated assault knowingly while armed, robbery while armed, burglary two, first-degree theft, unauthorized use of a vehicle during a crime of violence, receiving stolen property of $1,000 or more, and no permit for his alleged involvement in an armed robbery and carjacking on Nov. 15 and 16, 2021. The incidents occurred on the 2000 block of 4th Street, NE.

According to court documents, on Nov. 15, 2021, Phillips allegedly assaulted an individual as he stole his key ring, which contained keys to two vehicles, a white Nissan and a brown Toyota, before fleeing the scene in the Toyota. 

On Nov. 16, 2021, Phillips was allegedly stopped in the early morning hours in the brown Toyota, after the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) broadcast a lookout for a stolen vehicle. He was allegedly found with the key fob for the white Nissan and a Penn State graduation ring.

That same morning, a family member of the victim reported someone broke into their house and stole multiple items, including a Penn State ring, a television, and four gold chains.

“On Nov. 15, 2021 one of the worst things imaginable happened,” the prosecution opened their argument, “a home of 30 years was burglarized and ransacked.”

Prosecuting attorneys stated that when Phillips was stopped “on [Phillips’] person were family heirlooms belonging to the [victim’s] family,”  and that on Nov. 16 “no one was permitted to be in the home,” at the time of the burglary. 

Phillip’s defense attorney, Joseph Yarbough, opened by asking the jury if they have ever “borrowed a car,” going on to say that during the time of the incident Phillips was hanging out on 4th and W Streets, NE. 

According to Yarbough, Phillips was walking home on Nov. 15 when he saw an acquaintance in the victim’s car and asked for a ride, “This individual tells him he can borrow the car and meet up in the morning” to return it. Yarbough argued that his client agreed and the next day, while he was driving he was pulled over and arrested. 

“The [prosecution] has put the wrong man on trial,” he stated, arguing that the description of the suspect did not match Phillips, and no bite mark was found on him, even though the victim claimed to have bitten the suspect during their struggle.

The “[prosecution] never looked for the right man who committed this crime,” Yarbough said, they “cut corners and skipped steps.” 

“His fate doesn’t lie with the [prosecution], it lies with you,” Yarbough told the jury. 

Following opening statements, the prosecution called the victim to testify. 

He said he “felt a punch to [his] head and [he] fell to the ground,” losing consciousness for a moment. He further stated that “there was a person yelling at [him] ‘I’m going to shoot you, I’m going to shoot you.’” 

The victim stated he “placed [himself] in front of the vehicle in an attempt for him to not take it,” when Phillips allegedly pushed him down again and took his “right index finger, put it in [his] mouth  and pulled on the right side,” like a fishhook. The victim then bit his finger till he let go. 

The witness said that he was pushed down again before the key was taken out of his hand and his brown Toyota was stolen. 

The victim described the individual as a Black man, “skinny but not scrawny,” and tall.. He went on to state the suspect was wearing a black jacket with a hood and a mask with lettering on it. The witness said that the mask fell down during the struggle and he didn’t say facial hair on the suspect.

Afterward he called 911 and emergency services responded to the scene. 

The stolen car was not returned until February of 2022 and the witness stated that it was a “garbage dump,” saying there were beer bottles and trash in the front and in the back there was a black jacket, mask and baton, he testified. . 

The prosecution then asked about the victim’s home after the burglary. Photos of his home after the incident showed all of his drawers opened, multiple boxes pulled out from under his bed and clothes scattered. The victim confirmed that prior to the incident, his room was clean, drawers were all closed and things were in their proper place. 

Yarbough questioned the victim if he knew “it was important to be honest with the 911 dispatchers.” The answer was yes.

When asked why he didn’t tell the dispatcher he was hit with a weapon, the victim testified he was “very scared and affected in that moment,” and didn’t tell police “because at that point [he] didn’t see a weapon.” 

Yarbough questioned the victim’s description of the suspect, and displayed body camera footage, which showed the victim telling officers that the individual wore a hat and a jacket with a hood on. However, in court he continuously stated that the individual was only wearing the jacket with the hood.

The jury was shown body-worn camera footage that revealed the victim telling paramedics that he did not lose consciousness when he was hit. In the video, the victim told paramedics  that he “truly did not remember,” and has “never passed out before so [he doesn’t] know what passing out is.” 

The victim reiterated to the prosecution that he was focusing on parking his car and going into his home when he felt a “strong impact on the head and to the ground,” when he realized what was happening he felt “panicked and under attack.” 

Following his testimony, the prosecution called the victim’s daughter.

She said before the incident took place her father was at her house visiting his grandchildren. According to the daughter, shortly after he left her home she received a call stating her father’s car had been stolen and “[her] dad had just left in an ambulance.” 

The witness confirmed that her class ring from Penn State was in her parents’ room, a television that was still in the box and a black Levi’s jacket that had fur around the hood were all in the house before the burglary on Nov. 16 took place. 

During the cross examination, Yarbough asked the victim if there were any “distinct marks or writing on the outside,” of the jacket, to which the witness replied there were not. Yarbough then confirmed that she was not present at the time of the burglary and did not witness anyone enter the home.

When asked about cameras that were visible in front of her parents’ home, the witness testified they were not correctly charged on the day of the incident.

Parties are slated to return on July 23.