DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz considered a bench warrant on June 1 ordering a medical examiner to testify in a triple-homicide trial if the analyst fails to appear in-person.
Jalonte Thompkins, 34, is charged with three counts of first-degree premeditated murder while armed, three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction greater than a year for his alleged involvement in a fatal shooting of three brothers, 34-year-old James Morgan, 30-year-old Jamal Morgan, and 42-year-old Vincent Martin, on Aug. 5, 2023 on the 2500 block of Ontario Road, NW.
The prosecution planned to finish their case the present week, however, there was convern the primary medical examiner, who performed two of the three autopsies, refused to testify in-person until June 19.
According to the general counsel on behalf of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME), the examiner was aware of a subpoena but provided several notes from their physician’s assistant. The general counsel said the notes did not state a specific medical problem, but claimed the medication would alter the “normal cognitive baseline.”
The prosecution and defense agreed that the examiner’s testimony is essential, with prosecutors arguing that the examiner is vital to their case to show the trajectory of the bullets given the lack of video footage.
Prosecutors said they made several attempts to contact the examiner’s physician’s assistant, including during trial, but failed. It “seems almost intentionally hard” to get information, prosecutors said.
Judge Kravitz said that it is the medical examiner’s responsibility to get the physician’s assistant to speak with the judge about the witness’ reasoning for missing court. Otherwise, the analyst must testify or face arrest.
Judge Kravitz also discussed a defense motion to show the jury evidence of the victims’ prior violent acts.
According to the defense theory of the case, argued in past hearings, the victims allegedly fired the first shots. Thompkins’ attorney, Brandi Harden, wants to show evidence the victims werre the first aggressors.
The prosecution previously agreed the defense could tell the jury about the victims’ criminal convictions without the underlying facts. However, Harden also requested to show the jury that one of the convictions was from Martin shooting at a police officer and that Martin was also arrested for homicide, despite pleading guilty to a lesser offense.
According to Judge Kravitz, in 2013, Martin pleaded guilty to accessory after the fact in connection to a homicide. The judge elaborated that the arrest warrant for that case stated Martin allegedly drove the shooter to the incident location, lied to a witness about the shooter’s presence, and drove the shooter home after the homicide.
The prosecution contested that shooting at a police officer in the past is irrelevant to this case. They also argued that the accessory after the fact charge was not violent in nature, making it inadmissible because the law requires a victim’s prior acts to be violent to support a self-defense theory.
Judge Kravitz disagreed on both grounds, saying that Martin’s accessory after the fact conviction “shows a callousness about the use of a firearm to commit an act of violence.” He granted the defense’s motion.
The parties are slated to reconvene on June 2.
