Both parties agreed that an eyewitness was unreliable and unpredictable in a homicide trial before DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz on Aug. 4.
Vanessa Bonaparte, 34, is charged with first-degree premeditated murder while armed and destruction of property valued at $1,000 or more. The charges stem from her alleged involvement in the fatal stabbing of 31-year-old Dwayne Boyd on June 22, 2024 on the 3500 block of East Capitol Street, SE. Boyd sustained two stab wounds to his chest and died on the scene.
The unpredictable witness was a neighbor and friend of both Boyd and Bonaparte who reportedly told investigators that Bonaparte threatened to harm her if she spoke about the incident.
Bonaparte’s attorneys, Kevann Gardner and Roderick Thompson, argued that the witness should be instructed to withhold that information in her testimony before the jury.
Meanwhile, the prosecution asked to keep the door open as they worry the witness would disregard instructions regardless.
Both the prosecution and the defense painted the witness as unreliable and unpredictable. According to prosecutors, although she was questioned about this conversation during her grand jury testimony, she failed to mention the alleged threat from Bonaparte.
Furthermore, the prosecution claimed the witness provided a false name, address, and date of birth to the police, and never wanted to be a part of the investigation, possibly out of fear.
Thompson asserted there was no shortage of reasons to question the witness’ credibility. “Her contradictions contradict themselves,” Thompson added.
Gardner and Thompson also alleged that the prosecution knew about the witness’ accusation in time to formally include it in their Drew Johnson notice, which would have allowed the defense time to file a motion to exclude the evidence. Under DC law, a Drew Johnson notice is the prosecution’s formal request to introduce evidence of a defendant’s uncharged prior bad acts.
Judge Kravitz called-out the prosecution for not notifying the defense of the accusation sooner, and said he likely would have allowed the evidence as a useful tool for the prosecution’s case against Bonaparte.
“It’s excluded from your direct because you didn’t give proper notice of it,” Judge Kravitz said to the prosecution.
Judge Kravitz ruled that the witness should be told to withhold the information at least during the prosecution’s direct examination. Afterwards, the parties can decide whether to address it.
When the prosecution brought the witness to the stand, she followed the instructions and withheld the information as Judge Kravitz ruled.
With the jury present, the witness testified that Bonaparte “was like a sister,” and someone who her children called “auntie.” Living in the same apartment building as Boyd, she testified that she frequently saw Boyd and Bonaparte together.
The witness also mentioned that she had seen Boyd with another woman, though she did not know the woman’s name.
At first, the witness testified that she met Boyd at a nearby liquor store. When confronted with her grand jury testimony, she changed her testimony to state that she met Boyd in the apartment building.
According to the witness, she and Boyd texted frequently. The day he died, Boyd sent the witness a voicemail, which was played in court. The witness identified Boyd and Bonaparte’s voices when she was on the stand.
In cross examination, Thompson asked the witness if she knew information about Boyd’s engagement to the other women. The witness said no. Boyd “would have told you?,” Thompson asked and the witness confirmed he would have.
Thompson also clarified that the witness previously testified about a third voice that she did not recognize in the voicemail. The witness agreed.
A Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer then testified. She responded to a domestic violence call on June 7, 2024 at the apartment where Boyd was later killed. Alongside her body-worn camera footage shown in the courtroom, she explained that there didn’t appear to be any broken glass on the premises.
During cross-examination, Gardner asked the officer if she knew what happened in the weeks after she responded to the domestic violence call, and she did not. Gardner also asked if she believed it would be possible for the apartment’s windows to have been broken, and remain broken, for multiple weeks. She said yes.
The prosecution alleges that Bonaparte shattered the apartment windows the night of Boyd’s death.
Another MPD officer was brought to the witness stand who responded to a call the day Boyd was stabbed. Her body-worn camera footage showed the neighbor witness who testified earlier in the day and Bonaparte leaving the scene as officers arrived. The officer also shared footage without audio that showed the neighbor witness talking to police later that night.
The officer testified that police covered up broken windows in Boyd’s apartment with sheets to deter onlookers. In addition, the officer noted that there were no weapons recovered near Boyd’s body.
In cross-examination, Gardner asked if the officer knew the condition of the windows prior to the incident. The officer confirmed she did not. Gardner also asked if the officer knew the events that led to Boyd’s death and the officer said she did not.
The prosecution also called a witness from the Department of Forensic Sciences (DFS) who investigated and documented the scene. He measured and sketched diagrams of the windows in the apartment, and later returned to take photos of the building and nearby apartments.
During cross-examination, the forensic scientist explained that one of the prosecutors in this case asked him to take the photos.
Parties are slated to continue the trial on Aug. 5.
