DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson denied a homicide defendant’s motion to suppress statements made during a police interrogation in a hearing on April 3.
D’Andre Montgomery, 20, is charged with conspiracy, premeditated first-degree murder while armed, first-degree felony murder while armed, assault with intent to kill while armed, four counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, unauthorized use of a vehicle during a crime of violence, attempt to commit robbery while armed, and carrying a pistol without a license outside a home or business.
These charges stem from his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of Kenneth Barksdale, 28, on Dec. 16, 2023, on the 1200 block of 44th Place, SE.
Kevin Hider, 20, and Eric Sheffield, 21, also face charges for their alleged involvement in the same incident.
Sylvia Smith, Montgomery’s attorney, filed a motion on March 6 to suppress statements Montgomery made during an interrogation because she argued his will was overcome. Smith questioned why the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) homicide detective continued to question Montgomery and show him evidence after he invoked his right to remain silent.
The prosecutor said that the interrogation, which was recorded, didn’t show any yelling or physical abuse by the detective. Therefore, the prosecutor argued that there were no factors that could’ve overwhelmed Montgomery’s voluntary cooperation.
Judge Dayson said that she wanted to hear from the detective directly to determine whether there was coercion.
The prosecutor called the detective to the stand and displayed surveillance footage from the interview room at the time of the interrogation on July 3, 2024. The detective first asked Montgormery for personal information, including his home address, spelling of his name, and an emergency contact. Then, he read Montgomery his Miranda rights and asked if he wished to answer any questions. Montgomery said no.
In the video, the detective asked whether Montgomery had any questions for him. “Why am I here?” Montgomery asked. The detective proceeded to show him images of two different cars. Another detective in the room explained that Montgomery’s GPS monitor tracked his location, so MPD believed that he was connected to the cars.
The prosecutor confirmed with the detective that he never yelled, threatened or physically abused Montgomery.
The prosecutor then played another video of the second interview that took place on July 31, 2024. The same detectives walked into the interview room and asked Montgomery if he was told why he was brought in. “I don’t want to answer any questions,” he said.
After reading his Miranda rights, the detective asked if he had any questions for them. Montgomery responded that he didn’t, but the detective then asked if he wanted to know what he was being charged with and Montgomery said yes.
“First-degree murder…that’s the charge,” the detective said in the video. “What murder?” Montgomery asked.
During the taped interview, Montgomery asked about the investigation, including what evidence they found. The detective told him about the GPS monitor that recorded his location at the scene of the homicide and images of the scene. The detective testified that he thought Montgomery had a right to know what was going on, so that’s why he showed him some of the evidence and continued to speak to him after he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Again, the detective testified that he did not yell, threaten, or physically abuse Montgomery.
Charlotte Gilliland, Montgomery’s other attorney, cross-examined the detective. She asked whether the detective knew how old Montgomery was before the interview and if he was aware of his learning disability. The detective said that he thought Montgomery was 18 and didn’t “know anything about his education.”
The detective testified that he continued to engage the conversation but would have left the room if Montgomery asked to remove him. “It would’ve been nice,” if Montgomery talked about the shooting, he said. Montgomery continued to ask about the evidence the police had, so he simply provided it, said the detective.
Judge Dayson decided that based on the detective’s testimony and video evidence, Montgomery’s will was not “overborne.” Although violence is not the only form of coercion, he was read his Miranda rights, not under the influence, and not physically impaired, said the judge. Judge Dayson noted that Montgomery was given information to re-engage in the conversation, a tactic used in the past with young offenders, but he was an adult when interviewed.
The prosecution filed a motion on Feb. 27 to admit statements made by Montgomery against penal interests, meaning a statement that subjects someone to criminal liability that they would not have said unless it was true. The prosecutor wants to include text messages from Sheffield’s phone recovered from the homicide scene.
At the hearing, the prosecutor said that Montgomery, Sheffield, and Lider allegedly said “checking cars,” referring to pulling on car door handles to see if they’re locked, 35 times in text messages. These are possible confessions to very serious crimes, which people typically do not lie about, asserted prosecutors.
Smith argued that Montgomery’s statements have to be considered with sufficient context.
Judge Dayson said she would rule on that argument at a later date. Parties are slated to reconvene on April 15.
