Thank you for reading D.C. Witness.
Help us continue our mission into 2025 by donating to our end of year campaign.
By
Hunter Fernandez [former]
- May 1, 2023
Court
|
Daily Stories
|
Homicides
|
Shooting
|
Suspects
|
Victims
|
On April 27, the defense attempted to show Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detectives’ failure to probe other suspects during the investigation for a double homicide case.
Alphonso Walker, 45, is charged with two counts of first-degree murder while armed with aggravating circumstances, two counts of first-degree murder while armed while committing or attempting to commit a robbery, six counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, two counts of attempt to commit robbery and two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction in connection to the death of Delonte Wilson, 23, and Antone Brown, 44, near the 400 block of 61st Street, NE on April 25, 2018.
The prosecution questioned an MPD detective who participated in the search of Walker’s home after a search warrant had been issued. The detective explained that while searching a closet, a backpack holding a gun, two boxes of ammunition, Walker’s mail, and an ID card were found.
During cross-examination, defense attorney Kevann Gardner questioned the detective about whether or not any search warrants had been issued for the residences of any of the other potential suspects.
The prosecution objected to this line of questioning, explaining that the defense was restricted to the constraints of what was discussed in direct questioning — the search warrant for Walker’s residence. Also, given that the detective on the stand had not participated in any other part of the investigation aside from the search, any information that he could give would be hearsay.
“Clearly you are putting [the lead detective] on trial through this witness,” DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt told Gardner, agreeing with prosecution.
The witness later testified that he had no known knowledge about the investigation.
During the detective’s testimony, one of the potential witnesses was in the courtroom, unbeknownst to the prosecution or defense. Upon realization, he was escorted out of the courtroom.
“Mistakes happen sometimes that are no one’s fault,” Judge Brandt said in regards to the issue.
However, his ability to testify is now at question and will be decided on Monday.
Parties are scheduled to return to court on May 1.