Judge Denies Prosecutor’s Motion to Admit Witness Statements

By Isabelle Chiu [former] - August 1, 2022
Court | Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

After listening to counsel arguments on July 29, DC Superior Court Judge Maribeth Raffinan decided not to admit a contested witness’s statements about a homicide defendant. 

Robert Moses, 23, and James Mayfield, 22, are charged with first-degree murder while armed, assault with the intent to kill while armed, and aggravated assault while armed for allegedly shooting 17-year-old Jamahri Sydnor and wounding three other bystanders on Aug. 10, 2017. 

Moses and Mayfield also face multiple counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, threat to kidnap or injure a person, robbery while armed, attempt to commit robbery while armed, possession of an unregistered firearm, obstructing justice, and conspiracy while armed. 

The shooting is believed to have occurred from an ongoing feud between young men from the Langston and Saratoga neighborhoods in Northeast DC, according to reports.

During the July 29 hearing, Judge Raffinan addressed the prosecutor’s motion to admit Mayfield’s statements to a witness – Mayfield’s friend. According to the prosecutor, the witness, without being prompted by the police, told detectives of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) about conversations Mayfield had about the shooting. 

In her opposition to the prosecutor’s motion, Mayfield’s defense attorney, Veronice Holt, argued the witness’s statements were not credible due to the witness’s mental health issues and animosity toward Mayfield, which would potentially bias or alter the witness’s testimony. 

In response, the prosecutor told Judge Raffinan that a medical examination concluded that the witness’s “memory, sight, and perception are fair.” Additionally, Mayfield and the witness were cohabiting, placing the witness in a “vicinity of trust” where he could overhear Mayfield’s conversations. 

“They were acting as a de facto family,” the prosecutor said, emphasizing the close and nuanced relationship between Mayfield and the witness.

Holt refuted the prosecutor’s arguments, calling Mayfield and the witness’s familial relationship a “complete fiction.” She pointed to the witness’s statement to police that whenever Mayfield came to his home, the witness would “throw his ass out” as evidence of “a complete dislike for Mr. Mayfield.”

In addition to the witness’s alleged animosity towards Mayfield, Holt argued the witness completely lacked credibility due to his criminal record, which includes a conviction for contempt. Holt said the conviction showed how the witness “is someone who has no respect for the law.” 

“The prosecution is desperate and that’s why they want to use the witness’s statements,” said Holt. 

After reading the parties’ motions and hearing their arguments, Judge Maribeth ultimately denied the prosecution’s motion to admit the witness’s statements. 

The parties also investigated a potential conflict with the witness’s testimony due to the witness having been previously represented by Moses and Mayfields’ current defense attorneys, Steven Kiersch and Sweta Patel. 

Due to the prosecution’s motion being denied and the witness’s statements no longer available, Judge Raffinan determined the conflict investigation to be moot. 

Mayfield and Moses’ next court appearances are scheduled for Aug. 23, so parties could address additional motions from both the prosecutor and defense.