A victim admitted he was mistaken about a murder defendant’s location during a mass shooting after viewing surveillance footage during a trial before DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt on May 14.
Cotey Wynn, 45, is charged with first-degree premeditated murder while armed, three counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, and four counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. The charges stem from his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 31-year-old Blake Bozeman and shooting of three surviving victims on Sept. 23, 2023. The incident occurred at CRU Lounge on the 1300 block of H Street, NE.
According to prosecutors, Wynn allegedly aided and abetted the shooter by facilitating his entry into the club with the firearm.
A former security guard at CRU Lounge resumed testimony as a victim in the case. The witness testified that a bullet remains lodged in his chest only centimeters from his carotid artery. He explained doctors advised against surgery because of the risks involved, adding that if his condition worsened, “it’s already too late kind of thing.”
Wynn’s attorney, Brian McDaniel questioned the victim about his role working security at the lounge and his familiarity with Wynn. The witness described Wynn as a “regular” who visited the lounge several times each month and testified they had a “cordial” relationship and never had problems with each other.
McDaniel then focused on the victim’s recollection of the shooting. The victim testified that while wounded on the floor, he looked over his shoulder and initially believed Wynn stood next to the individual in a white cardigan, who the victim said was the shooter.
After viewing surveillance footage, however, the victim acknowledged his recollection was incorrect, “I made a mistake in saying that,” the witness said regarding his prior statement that Wynn stood directly beside the shooter.
On redirect examination, the prosecution asked why the victim previously avoided viewing the surveillance footage. The witness replied, “Stuff is hard to see. It’s hard to see, to sit there and watch yourself.”
The prosecution also called another victim, a postal clerk who testified he was shot twice while at the lounge. The witness stated he underwent security screening before entering the club and did not observe any confrontation before gunfire erupted.
“I remember my body being, I guess, in a state of shock, still not knowing even like what happened or what was really going on,” the witness said.
The victim testified the shooting collapsed his lungs and doctors had to remove his gallbladder and approximately 70 percent of his liver. He said he spent two months hospitalized, was placed in an induced coma, and later had to relear to walk.
The witness also showed the jury scars from his injuries and testified he remains on light duty at the post office.
McDaniel questioned the victim about whether he specifically remembered being patted down that night or relied on his general experiences at the lounge. The witness insisted he distinctly remembered the security check that evening.
The prosecution next called a deputy medical examiner who performed Bozeman’s autopsy on Sept. 24, 2023, and identified two major gunshot wounds to the torso.
According to the expert, one wound entered the right side of the chest, struck the lung and ribs, and left a projectile lodged in Bozeman’s back. A second wound entered above the abdomen and exited through the back after damaging the stomach, pancreas, adrenal gland, aorta–the largest blood vessel in the body–as well as backbones.
While reviewing autopsy photographs and diagrams for the jury, the forensic pathologist testified one gunshot wound showed stippling, in which she described as the kind of the punctate, the little red spots around a gunshot wound which are also referred to as powder tattooing and unburnt gunpowder. She testified that this indicated the shot was fired from close range, potentially within inches, and that the second wound reflected an intermediate firing range of several inches up to approximately three feet.
The analyst concluded the cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds and classified the manner of death as homicide. She explained the injuries caused massive blood loss and “bleeding out.”
The prosecution also called the owner of a nearby smoke shop who testified she had known Wynn for years because he is the father of her cousin.
The business owner identified surveillance footage from inside her business showing her speaking with a man dressed in white, who is the alleged shooter, at 10:48 p. m. According to court documents, the man entered the establishment approximately 62 minutes before the shooting.
According to the witness, the man asked where Wynn was located. Although she was not certain, “either down here or CRU,” she told him, pointing in a direction that included the CRU Lounge and nearby establishments.
Before concluding the day, parties argued over the defense calling the lead detective as a witness.
The prosecution objected to questioning about the detective’s personal “beliefs” about the case during his investigation. They argued that these were subjective theories or speculation about what was happening at a particular “snapshot in time” during his investigation.
The prosecution noted the detective’s initial theories that Wynn arrived at the scene in a specific car and that Wynn was the person who actually had the gun, were irrelevant. “His belief as to that, that’s not relevant,” the prosecution added.
“Their subjective beliefs play no factor in what this jury has to decide,” the prosecution said, adding that “what matters is the facts.”
They contended that unless the defense could prove these beliefs directly led to a specific failure or mistake in the investigation, the detective’s thinking or theory that was then debunked was irrelevant and should not be presented to the jury.
McDaniel argued the defense should be permitted to question the detective about investigative mistakes and the thoroughness of the investigation.
Judge Brandt ruled the defense may question the detective regarding investigative actions and the thoroughness of the case but cautioned both sides to comply with evidentiary rules.
“Do not play fast and loose,” Judge Brandt said.
Parties are scheduled to reconvene on May 18.
