Judge Continues Hearing for Decision to Suppress Witnesses Identification of Juvenile in Homicide Case

By D.C. Witness Staff - February 23, 2021
Court | Daily Stories | Homicides | Juveniles | Suspects | Victims |

On Feb. 22, a DC judge continued a hearing for more information from defense counsel regarding a motion to suppress two officers’ identifications of a juvenile defendant who is charged with murder.

The juvenile allegedly shot 36-year-old Antonio Gardiner on July 4 outside of a McDonald’s restaurant in Southeast, DC. The juvenile is being held under the supervision of the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS).

According to defense counsel, Christen Philips and Kevin O’Sullivan, the witnesses are unreliable and their identifications were too subjective. Additionally, counsel said the witnesses simply did not have enough prior interaction with the juvenile to make a proper identification.

Philips and O’Sullivan said there were apparent gaps and discrepancies from the identifying witnesses, specifically regarding their prior history with the juvenile.

Part of the defense’s argument on Feb. 22 included three detectives and one lieutenant with the MPD, whose testimony supported the defense’s motion for DC Superior Court Judge Andrea Hertzfeld to deny the submission of the officers’ Feb. 16 and 18 testimonies of how they identified the juvenile.  

According to one of the detectives examined on Feb. 22, the sergeant, who identified the juvenile as the suspect, told him that he used to see the juvenile two times a week since October 2018. But, according to defense counsel, the sergeant said he did not know of the juvenile until March of 2020. 

Another discrepancy came from the other MPD officer, who identified the juvenile on the night of July 4.

According to the officer’s testimony on Feb. 18, he spoke with a Housing Authority officer to remember the name of the juvenile before identifying him. But when the witnesses were examined on Feb. 22, the officer never mentioned speaking to the Housing Authority officer to any other police officer.

The defense said these discrepancies are cause for concern and show enough evidence for the judge to rule their testimonies inadmissible when the case goes to trial.

However, the prosecution argued that the witnesses’ testimonies are admissible, citing their 22 years of experience and their absolute confidence in their identification of the juvenile.

When referencing the officer who had a hard time remembering the juvenile’s name, the prosecution said that he is simply not good with names, and he comes across hundreds of kids during his job. The prosecution also said the officer was able to identify the juvenile by his gait, which, the counselor argued, is more substantial than matching a name to a face.

Judge Hertzfeld said she was not prepared to make a ruling on the motion to suppress given new information that the prosecution intends to submit, including additional identifications that were made by the officers from video footage. 

The juvenile has also been charged with the murder of 52-year-old Everett King, which occurred on July 6.

Judge Hertzfield said she has not made a decision on whether to join both murder cases together for trial. However, she said she will discuss the option with counsel at the next hearing.

The next hearing is scheduled for March 5 to discuss both the motion to suppress and the defense’s motion to not join the two homicide cases at trial.

Read D.C. Witness’ previous articles on the juvenile’s case.

This article was written by Krystin Roehl