Judge Denies Motion To Suppress Juvenile Statements to Police, Deems Them Voluntary

Thank you for reading D.C. Witness. Help us continue our mission into 2024.

DC Superior Court Judge Kendra Briggs denied a juvenile’s motion to suppress statements made to the police in a non-custodial interview–that after her attorneys claimed she had been illegally detained and not read her Miranda Rights, during a hearing on Sept. 4.

The juveniles, a 13-and 14-year-old, are two of five girls aged 12-to-15-years-old charged for their alleged involvement in the fatal beating of 64-year-old Reggie Brown. The incident occurred on Oct. 17, 2023, on the 6200 block of Georgia Avenue, NW.

Charlotte Gilliland and Victoria Clark, the 14-year-old’s attorneys, and prosecutors provided multiple witness testimonies to further their arguments of the motions, which included a motion to suppress statements made by the girl to the police before her arrest and three motions to suppress identification of the girl by three individuals, including the lead homicide detective, a woman who worked at a middle school that the girl frequented, and a co-defendant.

According to Judge Briggs, evidence shows that the detective conducted the interview on Nov. 6, 2023, as a non-custodial interview. The detective previously testified that he had treated the girl as a witness while she willingly provided information that corroborated evidence already in the Metropolitan Police Department’s (MPD) possession, which included surveillance footage from the murder scene and a cell-phone video provided by the girl’s caregiver.

She also ruled that the detective had not illegally seized her as a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights, and she had willingly and voluntarily provided him with information about her involvement in Brown’s murder. Judge Briggs added that, during the interview, the girl had “attempted to minimize her role in the homicide.”

However, she granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the in-court identification of the girl by the lead detective, arguing the detective, who testified he only ever interacted with the girl for a few hours during the interview, did not have “the substantial or intimate knowledge” of the girl to be able to identify her.

Judge Briggs also granted the motion to suppress the co-defendant’s identification of the girl, stating that, during the co-defendant’s interview after her arrest she stated multiple times she did not know the defendant’s name, and only identified her to the detective after an “unduly suggestive” interaction in which the detective confirmed that the one he was hoping she would identify using a nickname he asked her about was the girl.

“This suggestive identification procedure has tainted any future identifications,” Gilliland told Judge Briggs. The judge ruled the co-defendant will not be able to identify her as the nickname provided by the detective, and reiterated that the ruling does not preclude the information she provided to the detective about who was with the group and what she was wearing.

As for the motion to suppress the identification of the girl by a woman who worked at a middle school that the girl frequented but did not attend, Judge Briggs denied it. Gilliland argued the woman did not have an intimate or substantial knowledge of the girl, and her identification procedure was unreliable and duly suggestive by the detective.

Judge Briggs argued that the woman told detectives that she had met the girl in the fall of 2023, when they interacted for 20 minutes, and had another multi-hour long interaction in January, which was followed with interactions once-or-twice a week “at a school that she [the girl] did not attend.” Judge Briggs reiterated the fact that when the girl interacted with the woman in January, she specifically went to the school and asked for her by name.

“It may mean that [the girl] was told who to ask for,” Gilliland insisted. “And then she saw her one-to-two times a week at the school she didn’t attend,” Judge Briggs reiterated.

She ruled that the woman’s identification was valid in trial due to her frequent interactions with the girl.

Following the rulings, the 13-year-old’s attorney filed a motion to sever the defendants’ cases.

It was quickly denied by Judge Briggs.

Parties are slated to reconvene Sept. 5 for trial.