DC Superior Court Judge Errol Arthur heard testimony from the victim in a carjacking trial on April 22.
Miquel Beasley, 23, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, armed carjacking, three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and robbery while armed for his alleged involvement in a carjacking on March 22, 2024 on the 3900 block of 1st Street, SE.
The prosecution called the victim to testify who said he intended to purchase marijuana from Beasley.
The victim recalled Beasley arriving in an Audi with another individual the victim didn’t recognize. The victim said Beasley broke the front passenger door handle entering the car. The victim said “I remember a pistol being put up to my head,” and he heard Beasley say, “I don’t want to kill you.”
According to the victim, the gun was pointed to the right side of his head towards the back and it touched him. He described the gun as a “black Luger.”
The victim said he exited the car, and the Audi drove off with Beasley following behind driving the victim’s car. The victim then called 911.
The prosecutor played the 911 call for the jury in which the victim identified his voice. In the call, the victim repeated “I’ve just been carjacked.” He said “a friend pulled a gun and said get the f*** out the car.” The victim described his car in the call as a 1983 Toyota Camry with handicapped stickers.
The victim told the operator he would go to a nearby fire station and testified that he spoke with Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers there. He gave the MPD officers Beasley’s phone number. At a later date, the victim said he identified Beasley as the carjacker to two detectives.
In the cross-examination, Antoini Jones, Beasley’s attorney, asked the victim if he told the MPD officers the gun was pointed at his neck. The victim said he did not because that was not true. However after reviewing video footage provided by Jones, the victim said he didn’t recall saying it was pointed at his neck but he may have gestured to his neck when describing the event.
Jones told the victim in the conversation with MPD officers he described the gun as a nine millimeter. The victim said he didn’t remember that, so Jones read from the grand jury transcript where the victim said it was not a nine millimeter and he was a “gun enthusiast, being in the military and all.”
The victim on the stand said “it was a gun,” “I wouldn’t know [if it was a nine millemeter] when it was pointed at my head.”
According to Jones, the victim told MPD officers that he planned to meet with Beasley to loan him some money, but in his testimony he said it was to buy marijuana. Jones asked “was it your intent to loan [Beasley] money?” When the victim answered no, Jones said “so you lied to the police,” and the victim responded “I can’t recall.”
Jones confirmed that the victim told MPD officers and the jury that his car was a 1983 Camry. However, according to Jones, the car was a 1999 Camry. The victim said “ I gave them the information I did when I was under duress.”
The victim told Jones he knew Beasley for no more than two months before the incident. Jones noted that the victim told police it was three months, and asked, “you just said you were certain two months, now maybe three? Which is right?” The victim responded “I really don’t know. It’s been a long time.”
As a result of time constraints, the rest of the victim’s testimony was postponed.
Prosecutors called an expert witness, a special agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to testify who is a member of the Cellular Analysis Survey Team (CAST). The prosecution asked the expert about the historical cell site analysis report he created for the case. They showed a map of cell towers a Verizon number pigged off of on the night of the offense.
The expert testified that the call records showed the number pinging off of a tower in Hillcrest Heights at 2:46 p. m. before pinging off a tower that would’ve likely provided coverage to the incident location 14 minutes later. He testified that the time between locations was indicative of someone driving and making phone calls.
The expert also testified that at 3:28 p. m., the same number pinged off a tower that would’ve likely provided coverage to the location where the carjacked vehicle was recovered.
During cross-examination, Jones asked the expert questions about the accuracy of cell site analysis. The expert explained that while cell phones are typically within the range he provided on the map, this is not always the case. He testified it was possible that a phone could be outside of the range.
The expert testified that he believes his analysis placed the owner of the phone in a vehicle during that time period. When asked to clarify, the expert asserted that the person could have been on a bicycle.
He also explained that he could not track if the phone was transferred to a person who is not the subscriber. He does know that there was one subscriber associated with that phone number.
Parties are slated to reconvene on April 23.
