At a motions hearing before DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz on Sept. 21, the defense argued a homicide defendant was illegally questioned after invoking his right to remain silent.
Dwayne Fountain, 46, is charged with premeditated first-degree murder while armed, carrying a dangerous weapon outside a home or place of business with a prior felony conviction, and possession of a prohibited weapon. The charges stem from his alleged involvement in beating 47-year old Marcus Carey with a bat on May 4, 2023, on the 3500 block of Hayes Street, NE. Carey succumbed to his injuries on May 5, 2023.
According to the defense motion filed on Aug. 21, the issue happened on June 30, 2023, when Fountain was arrested and transported to the homicide branch for questioning.
Fountain’s attorney, Jason Tulley, argued that his client invoked his right to remain silent twice during the recorded interrogation, telling detectives “I don’t want to answer that question” and later “I don’t want to talk about that.” Tulley asserted the entire recording should be suppressed.
Prosecutors countered that Fountain’s unwillingness was limited to specific questions about surveillance footage investigators said they had obtained, not an invocation of his rights altogether. They noted that he continued to answer questions on other topics, including his whereabouts and relationship to Carey, before requesting a lawyer.
Both sides agreed to rely on a transcript of the interview for the motion arguments. Tulley argued the aforementioned two statements were a clear invocation of Fountain’s right to remain silent under DC Court of Appeals Burno v. US (2008).
Judge Kravitz questioned Tulley’s interpretation, and asked whether Fountain meant to invoke silence broadly, or simply declined to discuss the murder itself.
Tulley argued Fountain’s invocation of silence was a response to the improperly broad interrogation. He cited the US Court of Appeals case US v. Rought (2021), and argued investigators cannot continue to ask about the topic raised, or any related subject they should reasonably expect might elicit an incriminating response related to it.
The detective repeatedly invited Fountain to explain “what happened,” Tulley argued. In addition, the detective referenced a camera, leaving the store, and walking around with a bat, which all related to Carey’s homicide.
Judge Kravitz revisited an earlier defense argument about detectives telling Fountain the case “involves your friend,” in reference to Carey, before telling him he had died.
Tulley described the phrasing as a deliberate tactic to prompt Fountain to talk before he understood the situation, violating the same standard from Rought. Prosecutors argued the phrase only provided Fountain context, and that he was read his Miranda rights before learning who the “friend” was.
Prosecutors asked the court to consider all of Fountain’s statements in context. They said he willingly answered questions at first, grew hesitant once detectives brought up surveillance footage, and only asked for a lawyer the second time the footage came up. They argued that unwillingness to talk about one topic is not the same as invoking the right to remain silent.
Judge Kravitz disputed prosecutors’ interpretation, noting that the surveillance footage appeared to be the one subject Fountain was willing to discuss.
Prosecutors maintained that the word “that” in Fountain’s statements was ambiguous in terms of what he was willing to discuss and left room for different interpretations of what he meant. Tulley disagreed, reiterating that the ambiguity stemmed from the detective’s questions, and asked the court to suppress the full interrogation video.
Judge Kravitz said he needed time to collect his thoughts and review the arguments before making a formal ruling.
Parties are slated to reconvene on Sept. 23.
