A series of pre-trial motions about key evidence in a homicide case were debated before DC Superior Court Justice Danya Dayson on Oct. 20.
David Pena, 48, is charged with second-degree murder while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence or dangerous offense, assault with a dangerous weapon, and unlawful possession of a firearm (prior conviction). The charges stem from his alleged involvement in a fatal shooting on June 12, 2023 on the 3000 block of 30th Street, SE. Maurice Robinson, 24, died in the incident.
The discussions revolved around four key motions before the case is expected to go to trial on Nov. 3.
Defense attorney Dana Page argued against the prosecution’s motion to prevent the defense team from making a self-defense argument in their opening statements. Page argued that she and fellow attorney Gail Engmann should be able to argue self-defense in their opening and that they were not required to explain their arguments beforehand.
Judge Dayson noted that making a self-defense argument in opening statements while not providing much evidence for their claims could put prosecutors in an awkward position.
“The issue is that if there is an opening on self-defense and then no evidence, it shifts the burden of proof,” Judge Dayson said.
Judge Dayson said that allowing Page and Engmann to argue self-defense hinged partly on another motion before the court to suppress information about alleged prior bad acts by the victim. Judge Dayson did not give a ruling on the issue, and the parties opened a discussion on what information from the victim’s past could be brought in as evidence in the trial.
Prosecutors argued that evidence of the victim’s prior bad acts in separate criminal incidents in 2019 and 2020 should not be entered because it was not clear that the victim was actually implicated in the incidents, and their admission would unnecessarily prejudice the jury.
In the 2019 matter, prosecutors said that testimony from an investigation that indicated the victim ran after a witness with something that could have been a gun was far too vague and speculative to be introduced as evidence. Engmann agreed with prosecutors that the testimony alone was insufficient, but indicated that the defense had more evidence to corroborate the witness’s statements.
The 2020 incident revolved around a witness identification of the victim in a robbery incident. Prosecutors argued that the witness identified the victim at the scene of the crime but then later re-identified someone else.
“It’s not clear who was even involved,” prosecutors said.
Judge Dayson did not deliver a ruling on the matter during the hearing and parties turned to the issue of whether statements Pena made while in police custody were admissible as evidence.
Engmann argued that officers elicited statements from Pena before reading him his rights. Engmann pointed to a moment in footage of the interrogation when one of the officers interrupts another officer about to read him his rights and says “let him talk.”
“Let him continue to talk and engage in the very conversation that we’ve been trying to have for the last few minutes,” Engmann said.
Prosecutors painted a very different picture of the interaction between officers and Pena, arguing that Pena made voluntary statements before officers were able to read him his rights.
“The detectives did pretty much everything they could to prevent him from giving statements before they Mirandazed him,” a prosecutor said.
Judge Dayson said that she would return to the video of the incident after the hearing and make a determination then.
Finally, parties discussed a motion by the prosecution to suppress references to an arson incident that occurred at the defendant’s apartment building after the shooting.
Prosecutors’ effort to suppress the incident hinged on their claim that there was no evidence linking the arson incident to the shooting. Page argued that the arson was clearly an act of retaliation for the shooting.
She based her claim on witness testimony and the fact that Pena’s family has received witness protection as a result of the incident. Prosecutors disagreed with the defense’s claim that a witness in the incident had positively identified one of the arson perpetrators as a relative of the victim.
Judge Dayson said that she could not give a ruling on the motion until the witness’ statements were clarified.
Parties are slated to reconvene Oct. 30.
