Judge Continues Two Defense Motions in Homicide Case

By Anthoine Godin [former] , McKenna Bryant [former] - February 6, 2024
Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

On February 6, DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt continued two separate motions made by the defense in a 2020 first-degree murder trial 

Koran Jackson, 24 and Tyiion Kyree Freeman, 24, are two of five individuals charged with multiple counts of conspiracy, assault with the intent to kill while armed, first-degree murder while armed, carrying a pistol without a license, and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence in connection to the fatal shooting of 13-year-old Malachi Lukes on March 1, 2020 on the 600 block of S Street, NW. 

Stephen Nelson, 33, was also allegedly involved and has been charged with two counts of accessory assault after the fact with intent to kill and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm having had a prior conviction less than a year before the shooting. 

In the final motion hearing before jury selection, defense attorneys Andrew Ain and Shawn Sukumar spoke on behalf of Freeman, and discussed two motions filed regarding jail phone calls between Freeman and an alleged associate, and the defendant’s criminal history. 

On Jan. 31, Judge Brandt granted the admission of three out of four jail phone calls from an associate of Freeman, who had allegedly purchased a firearm that was used in the shooting of Lukes after the incident.

During the motions hearing, parties argued the relevance of information highlighted in the fourth phone call, where the associate and his fiancee discuss whether she is still talking to “Ty,” who prosecutors claim is in reference to Freeman. 

Sukumar, on behalf of Freeman, objected to the use of the fourth phone call due to the associate’s unavailability to testify, being detained in another jurisdiction. 

Sukumar also raised concern about the prosecution using the phone call in opening statements, without the defense counsel having enough information on the statements made regarding Freeman.

The prosecution responded they are attempting to contact the associate and his attorney to discuss testifying. They added that the associate has a “Fifth Amendment problem”.

Sukumar concurred, and added that if the associate does testify, their statements could be self-incriminating and be against their self-interest.

Parties will continue discussing the motion when the prosecution hears back from the associate’s attorney.

The second motion was to limit the prosecution’s mention of the defendants’ criminal history in establishing an alleged conspiracy to obtain firearms illegally. 

Jackson’s defense attorney, Brian McDaniel, stated that Jackson doesn’t have prior adult convictions.

“It would be very prejudicial for the jury to hear criminal history,” Sukumar stated.

Freeman’s attorneys claim that while the defense will not argue that the firearms in the shooting were obtained legally, the prosecution should not be able to bring attention to the nature of the defendants’ criminal records as reason for illegally obtained firearms. 

The defense pointed to the fact that two of the three defendants were underaged at the time of the shooting. Ain claimed the elaboration of specific criminal records would be “prejudicial” toward Freeman. 

Defense attorneys for Nelson and Jackson joined in Freeman’s second motion.

According to the prosecution, to prove conspiracy to obtain illegal firearms, they must be able to make reference to any criminal history during the trial. 

Judge Brandt has not made any final decisions on either motion. 

Jury selection will begin on Feb. 7.