Seven carjacking co-defendants, and their respective attorneys, argued complex motions on the first day of trial before DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz and were unable to select a jury on Oct. 20.
Byron Gillum, 20, Jaelen Jordan, 20, Isaiah Flowers, 20, Jahkai Goff, 21, Warren Montgomery, 20, Taj Giles, 20, and Irshaad Ellis-Bey, 20, are charged with conspiracy, trafficking stolen property, two counts of armed carjacking, two counts of unauthorized use of a vehicle, four counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and two counts of robbery while armed.
These charges stem from the group’s alleged involvement in a series of armed carjackings and the subsequent distribution of the stolen vehicles between February and May of 2023.
According to court documents, the first verified carjacking took place on Feb. 27, 2023 at the intersection of 20th Street, and Sunderpland Place, NW. The second incident occurred on April 27, 2023 at the intersection of 8th and K Streets, NE.
A third incident occurred on May 16, 2023, in the 600 block of Butternut Street, NE, for which Jordan, Goff, Gillum, Ellis-Bey, and Flowers, are facing additional charges.
The charges include two counts of unauthorized use of a vehicle, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, armed carjacking of a senior citizen, receiving stolen property of $1,000 or more, and robbery of a senior citizen while armed.
On the first day of trial, the prosecution and the entire defense counsel, composed of nine attorneys, moved forward with preliminary motions. Judge Kravitz stated that he had a list of more than 15 motions to address throughout the day.
The prosecution’s notice of intent to introduce evidence of the defendant’s prior crimes was discussed.
The prosecution stated that Goff, Ellis-Bey, and Flowers were involved in a prior carjacking that occurred on Feb. 25, 2023 at the Royal Farms gas station on the 6200 block of Allentown Road in Camp Springs, MD. The prosecution argued that the stolen car from the Feb. 25 carjacking was used two days later as part of the carjacking that took place on Feb. 27, and is direct evidence to the pattern of carjackings the defendants followed.
None of the defense attorneys filed any oppositions, although Goff’s attorney, Donna Beasley, argued that she had “missed” the prosecution’s filing and wished to oppose the notice.
Beasley further argued that the prosecution was proceeding on the Pinkerton Theory, without establishing that the co-defendants had agreed to commit crimes together beforehand.
The Pinkerton Theory holds that a conspirator can be convicted of a substantive crime committed by a co-conspirator if the crime was a reasonable and foreseeable outcome of the conspiracy and was committed in the purpose of the crime, even if the defendant did not directly participate.
Beasley further argued that Goff had not been identified by the victim, and therefore the prosecution was making the assertion that Goff had participated in the crime from cell-site data that showed his phone was in the area at the time of the crime.
Judge Kravitz told Beasley that the jury would be instructed on Pinkerton Theory and the fact that some evidence applies to certain defendants only. Judge Kravitz asserted Goff’s defense that some evidence, specifically regarding cell-site data, could even fail to prove Goff’s involvement or role as a co-conspirator.
However, Judge Kravitz ultimately agreed with the prosecution that the evidence presented about the carjacking committed on Feb. 25, 2023 by Goff, Giles, Ellis-Bey, and Flowers was valid and admissible for conspiracy. Therefore, the prosecution’s notice of intent to introduce evidence of the defendant’s other crimes was granted.
The court further discussed the prosecution’s notice of intent to present evidence from another carjacking that occurred on April 15, 2023.
The prosecution stated that the carjacking was committed by two unknown offenders, but contained valid evidence against the defendants, given that the stolen vehicle was driven to the parking garage used as the headquarters of their operation, located on the 1300 block of Florida Avenue, NE.
With that, the prosecution further argued the evidence was relevant given that the stolen vehicle from April 15 was later sold to undercover Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers by Jordan, with 15 pre-recorded hundred dollar bills.
All 15 hundred dollar bills, with the matching serial numbers, were allegedly recovered during a search of Jordan’s apartment following his arrest in May of 2023.
Jordan’s defense attorney, Brian McDaniel, opposed the motion and argued that there was no evidence that supported that Jordan was involved in the carjacking.
Judge Kravitz referenced the indictment, which stated that the scope of the conspiracy was from February to May of 2023, and included the sales of vehicles stolen and sold solely by the defendants.
The prosecution argued that this evidence was probative to Jordan’s identity, and proves that Jordan sold vehicles to undercover MPD agents.
McDaniels, as well as the other defense attorneys, argued that the prosecution was prejudicial, and that it was not necessary to include another violent carjacking to the case.
The prosecution continued to argue that the evidence was going to be used to prove Jordan’s knowledge that he was selling a stolen vehicle, and was therefore part of the conspiracy.
When Judge Kravitz asked the prosecution what other evidence the prosecution had relating to the fact that Jordan was allegedly selling stolen vehicles, they said that they had recovered hidden camera footage from undercover agents, text messages and hidden phone calls from Jordan’s cellphone with undercover agents.
The prosecution also stated that they had more than 111 security footage videos from the parking garage on Florida Avenue, many of which capture an individual, identified as Jordan, cleaning and preparing cars for sale, photographing vehicles to display for sale, in addition to the exchange of keys of the stolen vehicles between sellers and undercover MPD agents.
All of this, Judge Kravitz asserted, was strong evidence about Jordan’s identity, and said that the finding from April 15 was not supported by the language of the indictment and was not part of the ongoing conspiracy.
Therefore, Judge Kravitz denied the prosecution’s notice of intent to introduce evidence from the carjacking that occurred on April 15, 2023.
Parties also discussed Jordan’s motion to suppress evidence recovered from his apartment during the execution of a search warrant.
McDaniels argued that the fruits of the search from Jordan’s apartment should be dismissed given that the original search warrant lacked probable cause and particularity, in addition to containing some misstatements.
The prosecution opposed the motion, and Judge Kravitz said that the affidavit made probable cause given that it was believed evidence worn by the defendants at the time of the crimes, as well as pre-recorded funds would be found in his home.
However, Judge Kravitz did admit that some parts of the warrant were overly broad, such as a certain section pertaining to the search for evidence that would show Jordan’s state of mind when committing the crimes.
Despite this statement, Judge Kravitz denied the motion.
Judge Kravitiz also addressed Gillum’s motion to dismiss charges which stem from the carjacking that took place on May 16, 2023 on the 600 block of Butternut Street, NE.
These charges include armed carjacking of a senior citizen, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, robbery while armed of a senior citizen, and unauthorized use of a vehicle.
Gillum’s defense attorney, Daniel Dorsey, argued that there was no evidence that linked Gillum to the offense that took place on May 16, 2023.
However, the prosecution argued that under the Pinkerton Theory the evidence from the carjacking would be admissible against Gillum, using statements from the defendants given that they were proffered.
Given that the defense did not dispute the prosecution’s statement, Judge Kravitz denied Gillum’s motion to dismiss the charges, without prejudice.
Judge Kravitz reviewed Goff’s motion for supplemental severance.
This was the third motion that Goff’s defense attorney had filed requesting severance for his own trial, arguing that the evidence against him was far weaker than his co-defendants.
Beasley claimed that Goff had not participated in the carjackings that occurred in February, April, or May, although the prosecution once again argued that this evidence is admissible under the Pinkerton Theory, given that Goff never withdrew from the conspiracy.
The defense argued that given that Goff had never participated, knowledge of an ongoing conspiracy is not reason to withdraw in the first place.
Judge Kravitz stated that the defense’s arguments would not change in a separate trial or a joint trial, and saw no unique reason for Goff to be severed from the case, as would be the argument from the prosecution.
With that, Judge Kravitz reassured Goff’s defense that the jury would be presented with all of the correct information during cross-examinations to make a knowledgeable decision without confusing the defendants.
Therefore, Judge Kravitz denied Goff’s motion for supplemental severance.
Judge Kravitz also addressed the prosecution’s notice of intent to introduce firearms evidence of the defendant’s other crimes and conspiracy.
The prosecution stated that their position was that the co-defendants’ acquisition and possession of firearms was done as part of their conspiracy to commit armed carjackings and later sell the stolen vehicles.
Judge Kravitz said that the evidence of the co-defendant’s prior possessions of firearms could be permissible, but was confused in part by the prosecution’s full argument.
The prosecution therefore clarified that in each of the noted carjackings, victims described assailants armed with either handguns or rifles.
The carjacking victim from Feb. 27, 2023 was held at gunpoint by two individuals wearing black ski masks, one holding a black and tan handgun, and the other holding a blue handgun.
Similarly, the carjacking victim from May 16, 2023, described one “strange looking” gun that was allegedly later found in Jordan’s apartment with DNA evidence linked back to him.
The prosecution told Judge Kravitz that each victim’s descriptions of the weapons used during the carjackings was most relevant, given that some incidents were not caught on camera, or the footage was captured in black and white or from a considerable distance.
With that, the prosecution said that there was also evidence regarding the acquisition of the firearms, as well as evidence from before and after the charged conspiracy timeframe that had been recovered from Instagram and Jordan’s iCloud account.
According to the prosecution, all of the evidence shows possession in means to commit armed offenses. The prosecution argued that if defendants were posting or sharing their handguns on social media, it further negates any future arguments that they were unaware of the ongoing conspiracy.
While the entirety of the defense counsel attempted to move forward with oppositions, it was quickly revealed to Judge Kravitz that a number of attorneys were either unable to access the entirety of digital evidence, or were overwhelmed with the volume of evidence shared by the prosecution.
The prosecution explained that given the number of co-defendants they had made immense efforts to organize everything properly, and keep only what was most relevant.
For example, the prosecution explained that one exhibit, which contained a group chat on Instagram called “Fent Nation” between all the defendants from January 2023 to May 2023 contained more than 26,000 pages of material.
The prosecution stated that on average they had worked down each exhibit of digital evidence from Instagram to an average of five pages, despite some attorneys saying they were not comfortable moving forward without a definitive list of exhibits that the prosecution planned to use.
Given these statements on the first day of trial, Judge Kravitz urged defense attorneys to figure out a methodology that best worked for them, assuring them that accessing the information was not impossible.
The prosecution said that they had no issue with granting the defense counsel more time to thoroughly review the digital evidence at hand, and suggested that instead the court move forward to review two music videos that were also being considered as firearms evidence.
The first music video, titled Zaymoney was published to YouTube publicly in December 2022, and the prosecution stated they would not be using lyrics as evidence, simply short clippings and still shots.
In the Zaymoney music video, stills of Goff, Flowers, Ellis-Bey, Jordan, and Gillum, were presented to Judge Kravitz, each wearing unique clothing items that were later matched with a corresponding picture from each co-defendant’s Instagram account.
Additionally, the still of Goff depicts him holding a black and tan handgun that matches the description the victim from the Feb. 27, 2023 carjacking gave to officials, as well as in his testimony in front of a grand jury.
Defense attorneys objected to the relevance of the evidence, arguing that the defendants wearing clothes from before December 2022 and later in February 2023 is not relevant. However, Judge Kravitz claimed that it is useful to identify association with each of the co-defendants’ Instagram accounts.
The prosecution moved on to show Judge Kravitz a clip from the Zaymoney music video that depicted Jordan, Goff, and Ellis-Bey together, and later transitioned to show Flowers wearing a crossbody Coach bag, which was later recovered during a search of his apartment with a firearm inside.
Throughout the short clip, there were multiple transitions that show the defendants and others in the music video holding large sums of money, as well as large bags of marijuana.
Jordan’s defense objected to all images relating to the defendant’s holding large sums of money or bags of marijuana, and the rest of the defense counsel later joined in agreement.
The prosecution agreed that they would redact most clips with marijuana or large sums of money, but would not do so at wholesale value.
The prosecution argued that there were certain exhibits where the defendants were captured smoking marijuana, matching up to descriptions given by the carjacking victims stating that their vehicles smelled of marijuana following the return.
With that, the prosecution argued that some exhibits show the defendants holding large sums of money immediately before or after an offense took place, which would be relevant to include.
Judge Kravitz asked the prosecution to highlight these exhibits and share them separately with the court.
While the defense counsels continued to argue that there was no probative link, Judge Kravitz acknowledged that it would be entirely incorrect to say that there was zero logical relevance.
Lastly, the prosecution shared the second music video, titled Boxed In, which was published in May 2023 to a YouTube account titled Juwop that is not part of the indictment.
However, the prosecution argued that the music video showed the association of the co-defendant’s and asserted the claim that they would be more likely to agree to commit crimes together.
The music video, which was shown in full, showed Ellis-Bey and Jordan holding multiple handguns, with lyrics that the prosecution claimed are autobiographical in nature and describe the methodology used by the co-defendants to commit the armed carjackings.
Several attorneys as well as Judge Kravitz however, said that they were unable to follow the music video’s lyrics, and requested a former transcript before moving forward with any rulings.
However, Judge Kravitz did note that the Boxed In music video was more prejudicial than the Zaymoney video, and adequately displayed the association of the co-defendants and their willingness to commit crimes together.
By the end of the hearing, Judge Kravitz urged attorneys to return to the courtroom ready to discuss the digital evidence from Instagram and iCloud in order to have “meaningful discussion”.
Parties are slated to convene Oct. 21.
