Thank you for reading D.C. Witness.
Help us continue our mission into 2025 by donating to our end of year campaign.
By
Ella Munnelly
- October 2, 2024
Daily Stories
|
stabbing
|
Suspects
|
DC Superior Court Judge Heidi Pasichow delayed her decision about suppressing a witness’ identification of a stabbing suspect which she called procedurally “inept.”
Warnell Reams, 57, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon and obstruction of justice for his alleged involvement in a stabbing on June 5 on the 200 block of Vine Street, NW, that left one person injured.
According to court documents, Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detectives showed the victim a photo array which included multiple potential suspects, including Reams. The witness identified Reams as the stabbing suspect, not who the MPD originally believed was the potential suspect.
During the hearing Oct. 1 hearing, prosecutors called on a detective from MPD, who testified that during the identification process the victim identified Reams as the perpetrator, and provided his first name, but was unable to provide an accurate last name.
Reams’s defense attorney, Michelle Lockard, argued against this identification being used in trial, stating that the detectives at the scene prompted the photo identification by telling the victim “not to second guess himself.”
According to Lockard, the detectives did not give the victim enough time to be confident in his decision.
When conducting a photo array, there is a series of questions and instructions the detective provides for the witness to review and Lockard stated the detective in this case failed to do so, making the identification invalid.
However, the prosecutor stated that although the detective might have provided the victim with a more condensed version of the instructions, he still relayed the material. She also added that if MPD was trying to prompt the witness to identify someone, it would be for the suspect and not a filler photo, which they claimed Reams was at the time.
“I’m not saying that I would call the detective’s process suggestive, but I would certainly call it sloppy,” said Judge Pasichow. She told parties she requires more time to review the body worn camera footage before she can make a ruling on the motion. “This photo spread procedure was so inept, ” Judge Pasichow added.
Parties will reconvene on Oct. 2.