In Closing, Defendant Claims Stabbing Was in Self-Defense

By Joseph Wolf [former] - September 25, 2024
Daily Stories | stabbing | Suspects |

A stabbing defendant’s attorney insisted to the jury on Sept. 24 that his client acted in self-defense, before DC Superior Court Judge Robert Salerno.

Amadelia Hernandez, 34, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon for her alleged involvement in a stabbing incident that occurred on March 29 on the 400 block of Emerson Street, NW. One individual sustained an injury to the lower right-part of their back.

According to court documents, when police arrived on the scene, the victim pointed to Hernandez, claiming she had been the one to stab him. She was detained. 

Damon Catacalos, Hernandez’s defense attorney, called her to testify. 

During her testimony, Hernandez claimed that a day before the incident, the victim hit her multiple times, threatening her with a knife by holding it up to her stomach. According to Hernandez, due to that incident, she did not feel safe at her residence, and announced that she tried to look for a new place to live in the midst of working two jobs.

On cross-examination, the prosecution argued Hernandez was infuriated with the victim for acting belligerently.

Moreover, the prosecution tried to prove that the defendant was not acting in self-defense due to the extended time between both attacks, stating the victim allegedly attacked her the night before Hernandez allegedly stabbed him.

The defense also called a tenant that lives at the house where the incident. He testified that the victim gets constantly drunk and tried to pick a fight with him days before the incident.

The prosecution argued that the witness wanted revenge against the victim due to a physical altercation they had which sent the witness to jail. The witness further testified that, despite being mildly upset, he has no real problems with anyone, and his case regarding the victim in this incident has since been dismissed. 

In closing the prosecution argued that Hernandez could not have acted in self-defense because she was not in fear of Javier at the time of the incident. The prosecution argued that Hernandez’ self-defense claim was moot, due to the time between the initial aggression by the victim and her reaction. 

However, Catacalos argued that the victim’s actions escalated over time and further argued that the victim was not credible, citing his tendency to allegedly lie under oath.

Parties are slated to reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.