DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz admonished the prosecution for asking to postpone a shooting case that that’s been in progress for more than two years case just 13 days before the trial in a hearing on Sept. 17.
Daquawn Lubin, 30, and Jonathan Young, 35 are charged with conspiracy while armed, two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, aggravated assault knowingly while armed, unlawful possession of a firearm, carrying a pistol without a license outside home or business, assault with significant bodily injury while armed, and three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence while armed.
Additionally, Lubin is charged with possession of a prohibited weapon. Young is charged with an additional count of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence while armed.
The counts are in connection to their alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting at the 4600 block of Benning Road, SE on July 24, 2023. Two individuals sustained injuries.
During the hearing, parties addressed the prosecution’s motion for continuance as well as to reconsider a previous ruling to exclude the prosecution from presenting expert testimony.
This prosecution team is new to the case and they say they need more time to review the evidence as well as present expert witnesses.
Judge Kravitz was not persuaded, noting everyone’s busy schedule. In particular, the judge was concerned Lubin’s ability to present his case in a timely fashion could be prejudiced by additional delay.
In spite of concerns by his attorney Lisbeth Sapirstein, Young voiced his frustrations directly to the judge stating that motions have been “going on for months”and every time the prosecution is supposed to argue something, something comes up.
Lubin’s attorney, Kevin O’Sullivan, complained there is a lack of due diligence by the US Attorney’s Office (USAO) in terms of trial preparations.
The prosecution responded they weren’t entirely sure what expert testimony would be required but they did test for DNA at the scene which they will present as evidence.
Judge Kravitz responded the prosecution shouldn’t be permitted to present expert testimony at Lubin’s trial since the defense would only have a few days to prepare.
He also stated that a previous prosecutor said there would not be expert witnesses. While he didn’t cite the prosecutors for bad faith he noted a general “lack of diligence” and that this case hasn’t received attention it deserves from the USAO.
The prosecution noted that the circumstances are unusual and there is still a lot of material they as well as the defense counsel need to evaluate.
The motion to delay the trials was denied the but prosecution will be allowed to present cell site and GPS data.
Prosecutors later called a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer who stated that they were contacted by an MPD detective regarding a shooting that took place by the Benco Shopping Center.
The officer obtained photos of a person of interest pulled from surveillance footage that was shown to people in the shopping center. One individual claimed that the person in the photo drove a silver Volvo with Virginia tags in the area often.
After locating the car, the tags were run. Results showed the tags registered to the car, but with no named owner. However, there were records of a stop in October of 2022 where another individual along with Young were identified, according to the officer. Witnesses did not recognize the other individual when shown a photo.
According to the officer, a traffic stop was made on Aug. 2, 2023 on the basis the vehicle had an unregistered owner, Young was in the vehicle at the time.
During cross examination, Lisbeth Sapirstein, Young’s attorney, noted that in body-worn camera footage the officer and his partner only talk about the other individual in the car, not Young.
The officer told Sapirstein that the vehicle was pulled over because of excessive window tint and for having an registered owner. Sapirstein noted that the officer never said anything about the tint to the people in the vehicle.
Once the officer was excused, Sapirstein claimed that this officer and a previous one who testified had conflicting versions of events as one said the stop was because of stop sign violations. She argued that the tint was only an issue after the vehicle was stopped.
Parties are slated to reconvene Sept. 23.
