Friend Testifies about Jailhouse Conversations with Homicide Defendant

By McKenna Bryant , Anthoine Godin - March 19, 2024
Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

On March 18, the close friend of a defendant finished his testimony before DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt in connection to a 2020 homicide case.

Koran Jackson, 23, Tyiion Kyree Freeman, 24, and Stephen Nelson, 33, are three of five individuals charged with multiple counts of conspiracy, assault with the intent to kill while armed, first-degree murder while armed, carrying a pistol without a license, and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence in connection to the fatal shooting of 13-year-old Malachi Lukes on March 1, 2020 on the 600 block of S Street, NW. The shooting also left a second juvenile victim located in the vicinity suffering from an apparent gunshot wound to the right leg.  

The case includes alleged co-conspirators Reginald Steele, 24, and Aaron Brown, 27.

During the hearing, the prosecution recalled a family friend of Freeman’s to finish his testimony from March 14.

The prosecution questioned the witness about segments from a recorded jail phone call conversation between himself and Freeman on May 16, 2020, which discussed the relationship between Freeman and one of his associates.

Prosecution believed the witness had received a firearm from Freeman after the shooting and then sold it to Freeman’s associate. The firearm was allegedly used in the murder of Lukes. 

During the hearing, the witness initially stated that he was unaware of the relationship between Freeman and his associate. When the prosecution asked about Freeman’s feelings towards the associate, the witness replied “I’d rather not talk about it.”

However, in the recorded jail phone call Freeman told the witness “don’t trust [the associate].” The witness responded to Freeman saying “nobody is worried about him.” The phone call took place before the associate was incarcerated for an unrelated matter in another jurisdiction, and after Freeman was charged and arrested for this case.

The witness stated that he had later learned from a family member that the associate was incarcerated in another state for a firearms charge. However, the firearm involved in the associate’s case turned out to be connected to the homicide of Lukes.

The prosecution questioned the credibility of the witness due to prior statements in his grand jury testimony about making representations about being Freeman’s employer. 

However, the witness clarified that he made efforts to hire Freeman for a commercial cleaning business, but was unsuccessful in onboarding because Freeman was “hard to get a hold of” on multiple occasions.

The prosecution asked the witness if he had made the false representation about being Freeman’s employer in order for Freeman to be released from detention. The witness denied doing so, and said, “I wasn’t thinking about that.” 

The witness made no mention of any of the defendants besides Freeman and denied knowing Brown when asked by the prosecution. The witness admitted being acquainted with Steele. 

Similarly, in cross examination, the witness stated that he does not “really socialize with his[Freeman’s] friends,” citing the age gap between himself and Freeman’s friends as reason to Andrew Ain, Freeman’s defense attorney. 

Ain addressed the prosecution’s use of the witness’ grand jury statement to undermine the witness’ credibility by asking the witness why he had made statements like, “I’m ready to go home now” during his grand jury testimony. 

The witness explained that he had been held for four hours and had become agitated and felt disrespected by rhetorical questions. When Ain asked if the witness had reached a point where he said anything to end the tedious questioning in his grand jury statement, the witness agreed. 

The witness also testified that Freeman’s reason for distrusting his associate was due to the associate’s most recent alleged aggressive criminal activity. The witness did not specify what action.

The witness affirmed that he did not “deal with” the associate when Ain asked if they had any connection. 

In redirect, the prosecution focused back in on the witness’ grand jury testimony asking the witness why Freeman’s onboarding never went through. The witness admitted that he “couldn’t get him up on time” on several occasions. 

When asked why the witness had lied about Freeman’s employment, he reiterated that he was “just tired” and felt disrespected by the questions the police and prosecutors were repeatedly asking him. 

The prosecution angrily pointed out that the grand jury session was trying to get cooperative responses from the witness “sort of like I had to do with you to get a response”. The judge admonished the prosecution and had the statement stricken from the court’s record. 

Prosecution also called an officer from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to corroborate body worn camera footage presented to the jury. The footage showed the officer interacting with Brown in March 2020. 

The officer testified that he was instructed by detectives to stop Brown and find his phone. The witness testified that he had done this and following the video, he had obtained Brown’s phone. The prosecution affirmed the witness’ testimony by introducing Brown’s phone to the jury as evidence. 

There were no cross examination questions from any of the defense parties.

The prosecution also called back a witness who was from the Department of Forensic Sciences (DFS) to finish her testimony from March 12. 

The witness affirmed several pieces of evidence introduced to the jury from the scene of Lukes’ homicide including a hoodie, face mask, and a shoe. 

Prosecution then asked the witness to observe the physical evidence in court.

The witness also corroborated photos taken from the crime scene that had been used to create a LEICA scan and document the crime scene. A LEICA scan is a 360 degree video of a crime scene using photos from the scene edited together. 

In addition to clothes, the witness testified that other forms of evidence appearing in the photos presented in court were also found on the scene, including bullet fragments, shell cartridges, bullet projectiles, and potential blood stains of the decedent or other victim of the shooting. 

In his cross examination, Ain called into question the accuracy of a diagram the prosecution had presented previously in court which had mapped out the crime scene and the evidence discovered by DFS. 

Ain then asked the witness to compare the diagram presented by the prosecution to a hand sketch she had made. The witness admitted that her sketch would be a more accurate representation of the crime scene than the prosecution’s diagram. 

Ain also began to question DFS collection and preservation of evidence by asking the witness if she had taken the photos presented in court. The witness admitted that she had not and also testified that she had arrived on the scene later than the lead DFS member who had taken the photos. 

The witness also admitted to Ain that the mistake DFS made in mislabeling a bullet casing as a shoe in evidence notation were “fixable” and that the system DFS used to keep track of evidence in 2020 could be “quite vague” and was “unacceptable” at the time. 

Due to time constraints, the DFS representative was unable to conclude their testimony.  

Parties are slated to return March 19.