Thank you for reading D.C. Witness.
Consider making a donation to help us continue our mission.
By
Jeff Levine
- January 13, 2025
Daily Stories
|
Non-Fatal Shooting
|
Suspects
|
After an argument about two conflicting identifications of a shooting suspect, DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman denied a defense motion to suppress the victim’s identification of the shooter at trial, during a hearing on Jan. 7.
Daniel Cary, 30, and his co-defendant, Chantel Stewart, 33 were originally charged with two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, five counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, one count of aggravated assault while armed, and two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon for their alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting that occurred on July 22, 2020, on the 4000 block of First Street, SE.
One woman sustained a gunshot wound to the back which caused a collapsed lung and required surgery.
During the hearing the prosecutor said he was dropping the possession of an unlawful firearm and the possession of ammunition charges against Cary.
According to a police affidavit, the incident stemmed from a domestic dispute earlier in the day, which escalated in a shouting match between Stewart and the victim. Stewart allegedly told her to “Get out of here!”
As the victim was attempting to drive away she described hearing several loud booms and realized she’d been shot. Carey was later identified as the alleged trigger man.
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers interviewed the victim shortly after the incident. Initially, she failed to identify Cary’s picture, saying she didn’t see the shooter. However, she changed her mind five months later, picking out Cary’s picture from another group of photos.
Cary’s attorney, Alvin Thomas, said that police were “unduly suggestive” in the way they conducted the photo array presentation of possible suspects. When the victim said she didn’t recognize the suspect, an officer asked if a different view “would change her perspective?”
The prosecutor countered that the two photo presentations were different in that the victim described the suspect as having “dreads.” None of the individuals presented in the first group had that hairstyle present among those pictured in the second group.
Further, the prosecutor said the victim allegedly identified Cary as present during the earlier argument and in a vehicle involved in the shooting.
In reviewing the facts of the case, Judge Edelman noted that the victim responded emotionally within three seconds of seeing the second set of pictures. “She began to cry,” he said.
The judge said while the Constitution prohibits “impermissively suggestive” identification procedures on the face of it” there’s nothing suggestive about the second photo array.
He denied the defense motion deferring the matter for trial, which is scheduled to begin on Jan. 22. Judge Edelman said he was anxious to get the proceeding underway given how long the case has been pending.
“Perhaps all the cases these days are older,” he said.