Judge Denies Motions by Prosecution in 2018 Homicide Case

By Beatriz Olivares [former] - August 17, 2022
Burglary | Court | Daily Stories | Homicides | Suspects | Victims |

During an Aug. 12 hearing, DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt denied the prosecution’s motions in a 2018 homicide case. 

Edward Brown, 60, is charged with robbery of a senior citizen while armed and two counts of first-degree murder of a senior citizen while armed in connection to the stabbing death of 77-year-old Michael Mahoney on Feb. 5, 2018. 

During the hearing, parties convened to discuss two motions the prosecution filed in 2019, including a motion to introduce evidence of the defendant’s other crimes during the upcoming trial scheduled for Aug. 29.

According to the prosecution, witness’s made statements about conversations they had with Brown a week before the murder. One witness said the defendant talked about a business agreement he made with a dealer regarding money on food stamps in exchange for crack cocaine. The defendant told the witness when he caught the person, he was going to “cut his throat,” showing the witness a greenish brown pocketknife. Another witness said the defendant said he kept a knife on the driver’s side of his car. 

Defense attorney Gemma Stevens opposed introducing the witness statements because there is no allegation that the murder weapon is a knife and introducing any statements like that to a jury would be prejudicial. 

“It’s a wholly irrelevant threat… It’s extremely speculative to say that the knife is the murder weapon at all,” Stevens said. 

The prosecution also discussed a motion to preclude the defense from making a self-defense claim because the weight of the evidence does not support a self-defense claim. 

Defense attorney Kevin Mosley opposed the prosecution’s motion to preclude the defense from making a self-defense claim. 

“I think it’s entirely way too early to preclude the defense from making arguments that they could put forth evidence for,” Mosley said. “I believe that you can make a rational argument for self-defense,” he continued, “a struggle ensued.”

Judge Brandt agreed with the prosecution that there was no evidence to suggest that the defendant was acting in self-defense, but will allow the defense to make those claims if they choose to do so. 

“There’s nothing on the record that suggests this was self-defense,” Judge Brandt said. “[But] if the defense plans on mounting a self-defense claim, I’m asking for at least a courtesy proffer before opening statements.” 

Judge Brandt denied the prosecution’s motion to include witness statements until the prosecution can provide more evidence that the murder weapon is a knife. 

“Those statements are highly inflammatory,” Judge Brandt told the court. “I’m going to reserve a ruling on the knife until I hear what a medical examiner has to say.”

The next hearing is scheduled for Aug. 23. The hearing will be focused on preparing for trial, which is scheduled for Aug. 29 and predicted to last for two weeks.