The prosecution played a video of a vehicular homicide defendant apparently telling a detective he did not care whether the victims survived the accident in a trial before DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt on May 4.
Spiro Stafilatos, 35, is charged with second-degree murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, and fleeing a law enforcement officer for his alleged involvement in a fatal car accident on Dec. 30, 2022 at the intersection of 14th Street and New York Avenue, NW. The incident caused the death of 31-year-old Shuyu Sui, and critically injured another pedestrian, Sui’s wife.
The prosecution continued their cross-examination of Stafilatos. They walked him through surveillance footage of the moments before impact, pointing to multiple red lights, pedestrians visible in the crosswalk, and extended stretches without brake lights engaged on Stafilatos’ vehicle.
Stafilatos frequently said he could not recall specific details, citing brain damage from a prior incident. When prosecutors asked if his car spun and hit the two victims, Stafilatos first responded that he didn’t know the answer, then said he didn’t want to respond to the prosecutor anymore. Judge Brandt sharply reminded Stafilatos he would not be permitted to address an officer of the court in that manner, and directed him to respond.
Stafilatos refused to watch crash footage played by the prosecution, prompting the judge to intervene and instruct the prosecutor to move on. The prosecution then played footage of Stafilatos being interrogated by a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective. The detective did not ask Stafilatos any questions about the incident, as Stafilatos began describing the incident from his perspective, without being prompted. The recording ended after Stafilatos made a statement that he did not care whether the victims were dead.
Stafilatos’ attorney, Brian McDaniel, remarked that, while the prosecution spent two hours going through the incident’s video frame-by-frame, this was not a fair representation about how fast these events actually occurred. McDaniel played the video at full speed one time, and noted because the incident unfolded within a few seconds of Stafilatos allegedly fleeing officers, it is reasonable to conclude that he did not see the pedestrians in the crosswalk, and that he had no intention of harming anyone.
McDaniel asked about the recorded statement played by the prosecution, Stafilatos said he was impaired from consuming an entire bottle of pills after the accident, and that he was regretful over what occurred.
Stafilatos apologized to the victims’ families, and reiterated that he had no intention of hurting anyone, and when he realized he had, he attempted to take his own life.
The prosecution then presented their rebuttal by calling a retired corporal from the Arlington County Police Department who testified about a 2009 hit-and-run incident where Stafilatos was in an accident on the highway, and did not pull over upon hitting another vehicle.
After the police were alerted, Stafilatos complied and was pulled over. He testified that Stafilatos failed all field sobriety tests and denied taking more than one drink. The corporal acknowledged he had no clear recollection of the encounter and based his testimony entirely on contemporaneous reports.
On cross-examination, McDaniel noted that the corporal conducted hundreds of sobriety exams over his career, and it was not uncommon for someone to underestimate the amount of drinks they had. He also emphasized that the corporal had no independent recollection of the encounter.
On redirect, the prosecution established that the notes and paperwork filed following the hit-and-run incident were accurate and detailed. They said that this suggests that the corporal’s testimony was still reliable, regardless of his personal recollection of the incident.
The prosecution then called an MPD detective who testified about his post-arrest interview with Stafilatos, presenting an aerial map of the incident area and footage from the interview itself. He noted that Stafilatos voluntarily spoke with him for 30-to-40 minutes after being read his Miranda rights. The detective mentioned that Stafilatos did not indicate experiencing suicidal ideation, and if he had, the detective would have been required to report it.
McDaniel highlighted that the detective sat back and allowed Stafilatos to speak at length even after he raised mental health concerns, and confirmed that Stafilatos raised his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during the interview.
The prosecution’s final rebuttal witness, an MPD patrol officer, testified that he accompanied Stafilatos in the ambulance to the hospital following the crash, wearing the same standard uniform and firearm he had on at the scene. The prosecution noted that Stafilatos seemed calm, even in the presence of the officer.
McDaniel established that the officer had no recollection reaching for a gun, which would’ve been a triggering act for Stafilatos’ PTSD. McDaniel said that the officer’s sole purpose was to ensure Stafilatos received medical care, and that he had no knowledge of the accident itself.
The prosecution then rested its rebuttal case, and Judge Brandt began her instructions to the jury.
The parties are scheduled to reconvene for closing arguments on May 5.
