DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz denied two defense motions to dismiss a homicide case for police misconduct in a hearing on March 24.
Jaime Macedo, 24, is charged with first-degree felony murder while armed, attempted robbery while armed, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction of less than one year, for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 25-year-old Maxwell Emerson. The incident occurred on the 600 block of Alumni Lane, NE, on July 5, 2023.
According to the motion to dismiss the indictment filed on March 17 by Macedo’s defense attorneys, Jessica Willis and Rachel Cicurel, the prosecutors “committed multiple…violations by not disclosing exculpatory and impeaching information to the defense as soon as practicable.”
Judge Kravitz agreed that the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) did not act as soon as feasible. They were more focused “on efforts to win the case” than providing information favorable to the defense, said the judge.
Because of this, Willis argued that “dismissal is appropriate” for Macedo’s case.
Judge Kravitz ruled that dismissal of the charges is too severe of a sanction in this case. He said the USAO did not act in “bad faith” which is a requirement to warrant the dismissal of the charges.
Cicurel said prosecutors were made aware of an investigation into the previous lead detective on his case on Jan. 5, 2024. According to Cicurel, prosecutors did not disclose this information to the defense until March 9 and because of this, they were not acting “as soon as practicable.”
During the hearing, a USAO supervisor said they received notice from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) about the detective’s misconduct on Jan. 5.
Cicurel said this was a “unique call under unique circumstances” and that prosecutors failed to turn this over to the defense counsel “as soon as practicable.”
In court on March 18 and 19, parties debated emails that showed when USAO knew about the detective’s misconduct. The emails, sent in January and March 2024, referenced the former lead detective on the case, who was investigated for sexual misconduct that violated MPD policies.
The prosecutors did not disclose the officer’s misconduct until around a week before Macedo’s trial was scheduled to begin, and the defense did not know what the emails between USAO supervisors contained until the day before the March 18 hearing, according to Willis.
Prosecutors provided summaries of these USAO emails originally, but Cicurel said these were not representations of the extent of their violations.
A prosecutor said the defense’s argument contained inaccuracies and a “compressed timeline.”
According to Willis, the January 2024 email thread included multiple USAO Homicide Division supervisors and stated the detective would not be testifying in Macedo’s case. Willis said one of the prosecutors replied, “WTF. Are we going to make an affirmative disclosure?”
Willis said the email thread shows the prosecutors made a decision in January 2024 not to disclose information about the detective to the defense counsel.
A USAO supervisor, who parties informally questioned in court, said he did not believe in January 2024 that the detective’s misconduct pointed to “credibility” or “veracity.” He said he did not know why the email’s sender from USAO chose to replace the detective on the case.
The supervisor said the officers involved were “idiots,” but the incident did not go to their “credibility” or “veracity” in his mind. He said that he did not want to “put anyone on blast.”
Cicurel said if USAO supervisors did not see an issue with the detective’s “credibility or veracity,” then they did not read the MPD misconduct report. Cicurel read that in the documents, MPD found that the detective’s “misconduct has cast a shadow over [his] credibility and reputation as a law enforcement officer.”
When being questioned by Cicurel, the supervisor said that they did not completely read the MPD documents provided to them. As a result, Circurel said they missed crucial information about the credibility of the previous lead detective.
Cicurel noted that the MPD documents include conversation about the detective’s MPD-issued phone being wiped by the detective nine minutes after he was made aware he was under investigation. MPD did not find that he did so on purpose, but interview documents provided by the defense suggest that they know he “could” have done so.
According to another higher level USAO supervisor, who Judge Kravitz and the parties questioned, a March 2024 email concerned the former lead detective’s status on the Lewis List, a confidential database listing police officers with possible credibility issues.
The higher level supervisor said another Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) flagged that detective’s status as “green,” indicating AUSAs would not need to check with their supervisors before sponsoring an officer to testify in a case. According to the higher level supervisor, he said this email prompted him to flag the officer as “yellow,” indicating AUSAs would need to check with their supervisors.
The higher level supervisor flagged the detective as “yellow” in the database two months after receiving information about his misconduct from MPD. He said it was a “failure” on his part not to notify other USAO supervisors. He said he initially did not prioritize it because the detective was either on a no-contact order, meaning he was not allowed to speak with USAO about cases, or he was not taking cases at the time.
Judge Kravitz said the higher level supervisor acted, “more with laziness than intentionally with bad faith.” The judge said he does not think that the supervisors knew the “extent of the exculpatory information,” but he personally would have known if he read through the MPD finding.
Judge Kravitz suggested potential sanctions that would be less severe than dismissal. He proposed the defense could call the former lead detective as a witness. The failures of the “initial investigation” could be “reasons [for the jury] to doubt” Macedo’s guilt.
Judge Kravitz said he believes these sanctions “more directly” address the violations by the prosecution in this case. Cicurel asked for time to discuss the proposed sanctions and decide what they plan to implement moving forward.
Sanctions are expected to be decided before the jury arrives on March 25.
