A lead detective testified that a vehicle reportedly associated with a non-fatal shooting was released before the suspect’s trial started during a motions hearing before DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz on June 25.
Jaymario Kirksey, 36, also known as Mario Kirksey, is charged with assault with intent to kill while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with significant bodily injury while armed, three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unauthorized use of a vehicle. The charges stem from his alleged involvement in non-fatal shooting on Feb. 28, 2024 that injured one individual on the 1300 block of Okie Street, NE.
The prosecution called the lead detective from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to address motions filed by the parties. As of the morning of June 25, Kirksey’s attorney Kevin O’Sullivan had filed 12 motions. The hearing marked the third day of hearings to resolve the matters.
Parties discussed the defense motion to dismiss the case because of investigators’ reported failure to preserve the suspect vehicle and related items. The lead detective testified that he signed a form to release a vehicle reportedly involved in the shooting. According to surveillance footage shown in court, the suspect in the crime exited the rear passenger door of a Hyundai Tucson before demanding money from the victim. When the victim refused, the suspect shot him.
The detective, who now works in a different unit of MPD, said he approved the request to release the vehicle in December 2025 after looking up Kirksey’s name in court records and seeing that he was awaiting sentencing. Kirksey had been charged under two different names, leading to the detective mistakenly assuming the shooting case was resolved.
On cross-examination, the lead detective said that he expected that appropriate parties in MPD and the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) had already approved the request before he signed the document. He added that clothes found in the vehicle were also released.
The lead detective then testified about O’Sullivan’s motion to dismiss for failure to preserve body-worn camera footage. According to the detective, two separate officers equipped with body-worn cameras accompanied him as he located the Hyundai and later searched it.
Both officers reportedly incorrectly uploaded and categorized the footage, said the detective. On direct examination, the lead detective said that he assumed the officers would follow protocol, though admitted on cross-examination that there was nothing stopping him from aiding the officers in the process.
During questioning from O’Sullivan concerning his motion to suppress DNA evidence, the lead detective confirmed that MPD’s investigation had discovered that the suspect was reportedly sleeping in the vehicle during the time leading up to the incident. The detective testified that neither Kirksey’s DNA nor his fingerprints were found in the rear of the car after a warrant approved the extraction of his mouth swab.
Judge Kravitz agreed with O’Sullivan’s argument that the search warrant does not contain reasonable probability to connect Kirksey’s DNA to swabs from the suspect vehicle. According to Judge Kravitz, this proved that the warrant was invalid under the Fourth Amendment’s protection against illegal search and seizure due to a failure to establish a specific connection.
However, Judge Kravitz said the “good faith exception,” if officers reasonably believed they were acting under legal authority, would likely cause him to deny the motion unless further evidence was presented.
During questioning from O’Sullivan regarding his claim that the prosecution failed to preserve surveillance footage from a business near the crime scene, the detective testified that investigators had difficulty recovering footage. He confirmed that any footage not recovered was deleted.
In regard to O’Sullivan’s motion to suppress the cell site location data, the detective also testified that a cell phone without a SIM card was recovered from the driver’s floor area of the Hyundai. In his motion, O’Sullivan contended that the data was a “fruit” from a “poisonous” search warrant of the phone and should be suppressed.
The detective said that he requested a cell site data warrant for the phone number that was formerly associated with the phone over a month-long period. The number was reportedly registered to Kirksey.
O’Sullivan argued in court that Kirksey’s phone number had been disconnected from the device five weeks before the crime occurred.
Judge Kravitz also delivered an initial opinion on the cell site data motion, without a final ruling. He said that the search warrant that granted data for an entire month appeared “extremely overbroad” and concluded that it was invalid. Judge Kravitz added that the prosecution would have a “far steeper climb” to prove that the motion should be denied.
The prosecution also called a DNA analyst employed at Bode Technology to complete a recorded deposition, as she will not be present during trial.
Parties are slated to reconvene on June 29 to continue motions.
