Judge Accepts Defense’s Motion for Disclosure of Materials from Prosecution 

By Jenna Ferrick [former] - March 3, 2023
Court | Homicides | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

During the status hearing for defendant Ernest Cleveland, DC Superior Court Judge Robert Okun ruled that the prosecution must hand over all materials and unredacted paperwork to the defense by April 3. 

Cleveland, 29, is charged with first-degree murder while armed, three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, assault with intent to kill while armed, aggravated assault knowingly while armed, and unlawful possession of a firearm for allegedly shooting  39-year-old Edward Pearson and another person. According to court documents, MPD responded to a call regarding an unconscious person on Nov. 26, 2020, on the 2900 block of Connecticut Avenue, NW.  

During the March 3 hearing, defense attorney Madalyn Harvey stated “I have no faith in the government” when explaining the reasoning for the motion to the court. 

The original motion to request the materials was filed by Harvey on Jan. 6 of this year, yet the defense stated that the materials were redacted, causing a comprehension issue in the case. Harvey filed a motion to compel un-redacted discovery on Feb. 27, requesting these materials from the prosecution once again. 

The prosecution said its primary concerns are in regards to witness safety and the disclosure of personal information and names may be dangerous. The prosecutor also explained that the defense team already knows the names of each redacted individual, furthermore they do not see how it is necessary to hand over the information. 

Judge Okun reviewed multiple documents throughout the hearing and ruled with the defense to require the prosecution to disclose all materials. However, these materials do not need to include personal information such as addresses or social security numbers as safety precautions. 

The defense filed a second motion prior to this hearing to reopen the preventative detention hearing. This motion will be discussed in the next status hearing to give the prosecution time to formally submit a written response to the motion. 

The trial is scheduled for July 10 and expected to last approximately three weeks. The next status hearing is set for April 28.