Homicide Defendant Balked at Questions, Officers Testify

Thank you for reading D.C. Witness. Help us continue our mission into 2024.

Two Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers testified about interviewing Eugene Burns with similar questions until he refused to say any more. That they say was on the day his mother reported finding the dead body of his friend in her apartment.

The testimony was presented during the trial of Burns and his co-defendant, Tyre Allen, before DC Superior Court Judge Marisa Demeo on Sept. 30.

Burns, 32, is charged with first-degree murder while armed, carrying a pistol without a license, and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for his alleged involvement in the shooting death of 24-year-old Onyekachi Emmanuel Osuchukwu III, on Nov. 14, 2015, on the 2900 block of Second Street, SE.

Burns was convicted of the charges in 2017, but the verdict was overturned in 2020 and the DC Court of Appeals returned the case to DC Superior Court.

Along with Allen, 24, Burns is also charged with conspiracy, obstructing justice by influencing or delaying a witness or officer, and obstruction of the due administration of justice. The charges stem from their alleged attempts in 2020 to persuade and intimidate a witness into recanting testimony he gave against Burns in the original murder trial.

The prosecution called as witnesses two MPD officers who responded to the scene of the incident when Burns’ mother called 911 to report the homicide.

The first officer confirmed the accuracy of her body-worn camera footage showing her questioning an individual identified as Burns on the stairwell outside his mother’s apartment. The questions included who the victim was, why he was there, what his phone number was, when Burns was last in contact with him, what Burns’ phone number was, and where Burns lived.

The officer told the jury that Burns named the victim, said he was a friend visiting from California, gave both their phone numbers, and said they last texted each other the previous night at 7:00 or 7:30. He said he split his time living with his mother, his grandmother and a cousin.

The second officer to testify said he asked Burns similar questions in the courtyard outside Burns’ mother’s apartment building. He then took Burns to the police station, intending to conduct a more extensive interview.

The prosecution showed surveillance video the second officer identified as being from his interview with Burns at the station. When the officer began asking questions, the individual identified as Burns objected that he had already answered twice and asked if he was being charged.

“If you were being charged with anything, you’d be here,” the officer said, striking the metal chair positioned between the two upholstered office chairs he and Burns were sitting in. “With this on your ankle,” the officer added, shaking a metal restraint bolted to the floor.

The individual identified as Burns asked for a lawyer.

“Why don’t you want to talk about your friend’s murder?” the officer asked.

“I’m done talking,” the individual identified as Burns said.

The officer testified he ended the interview at that point and let Burns leave.

During cross-examination, Rosemary Szanyi, Burns’ defense attorney, confirmed with the officer that he interviewed Burns in a room where people under arrest are interviewed.

On redirect examination, the prosecutor clarified that the same room is used to interview suspects under arrest and witnesses not under suspicion.

The officer said it is standard practice to interview witnesses at the police station because they will often give more information there than in a public place where others can see them speaking to police.

While the jury was out of the room Judge Demeo heard parties’ arguments over evidence the prosecution wanted to present that the defense objected to.

Szanyi argued that a recording of a jail call the prosecution wanted to play in court was not relevant. Although the prosecution said the call was about the witness Burns and Allen were accused of trying to subvert, Szanyi argued the call was about a different witness.

Judge Demeo ruled the recording of the jail call inadmissible.

Jocelyn Wisner, another defense attorney representing Burns, argued that the records of text messages the prosecution planned to present to the jury were hearsay and therefore inadmissible in court if the prosecution didn’t call as witnesses the owners of the phones from which the texts were extracted.

The hearsay rule says no statement intended to prove the truth can be admitted as evidence unless the person who made the statement is available for cross-examination.

Judge Demeo said the records of text messages weren’t intended to prove the truth of what they asserted. She said they were evidence of actions taken by the owners of the phones, such as erasing messages or requesting an alibi.

Judge Demeo ruled the records of text messages admissible.

Wisner objected to the prosecution’s showing the jury cell phone records from the morning after the murder indicating Burns repeatedly searched the internet for “Rico Paid in Full.”

The prosecution claimed the searches are relevant because Paid in Full is a movie in which the drug dealer Rico kills his partner. Burns is accused of killing Osuchukwu over the profits from their shared drug deals.

Wisner said the prosecution plans to ask a detective to give his subjective account of the movie, but the movie is complex and Burns could have many reasons for searching for it.

Judge Demeo ruled the record of searches for “Rico Paid in Full” admissible.

If the defense wants to challenge the detective’s account, Judge Demeo said, they can cross-examine him or call another witness to give a different view.

The trial will resume on Oct. 1.