Judge Dismisses Murder Case Against One Defendant

By Ashley Fajardo Perez [former] , Mona Walls , Isabella Graf - January 30, 2024
Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Victims |

On Jan. 26, parties finished pleading two homicide defendants’ cases before DC Superior Court Judge Robert Okun in a preliminary hearing. In the end, Judge Okun found probable cause that Jalonte Nathaniel Thompkins committed a crime but not Renza Bryant. 

Thompkins, 32, and Bryant, 37, were charged as co-defendants for first-degree murder while armed for their alleged involvement in the shooting of James Morgan, 34, his brother Jamal Morgan, 30, 42-year-old Vincent Martin, and two surviving victims. The incident occurred on the 2500 block of Ontario Road, NW on Aug. 5, 2023. 

The hearing resumed with the prosecution finishing their cross examination of the lead detective from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), who highlighted the large number of gun shell casings recovered from the scene suggesting there were additional firearms involved in the incident beyond the two handguns that were recovered.

Shortly after the detective’s testimony, the defense called an investigator from the Public Defender Services (PDS) responsible for reviewing evidence of the incident and assisted in creating a hand drawn diagram which outlined locations of various shell casings found at and around the crime scene. 

Bryant’s defense attorney, Sylvia Smith, asked the investigator to explain the process of mapping out the gun shell casings diagram, who said it was based on a report. The prosecution said that visiting a crime scene months after the incident took place cannot give an exact depiction of the event since the crime scene is likely to have changed over time. 

Prosecutors also reviewed surveillance footage of Unity Park where there appears to be  a confrontation between the victims and the defendants. After reviewing the footage, the prosecution argued that both defendants and one of the victims appeared to be armed. 

The prosecution suggested that both Thompkins and Bryant conspired to ambush the three victims, but the defense said there is zero evidence that supports the idea of a planned attack.

In the surveillance footage, an individual identified as Thompkins can be seen riding a scooter which is the same one that an individual identified as Bryant can later be seen on scooting away. That same scooter was later found in the Ontario Road apartments.

Prosecutors say this is not a case of self-defense due to the location of the multiple gunshot wounds found on the victims’ bodies. For all three victims, multiple gunshot wounds were found on their back and side suggesting they were trying to get away from the perpetrators. 

According to Smith, the identification of a second suspect does not match the description of Bryant and he cannot be charged for simply being in the vicinity of the crime. Smith also pointed to the lack of Bryant’s DNA recovered at the scene, while Thompkins DNA was found on several shell casings.

In response to the surveillance footage, Smith pointed out that there is zero interaction between Bryant and Thompkins, highlighting that the defendants don’t even know each other.

There were numerous witnesses on the scene, none of which mentioned seeing a man with a white shirt and a tan hat, a description that matched the clothing Bryant can be seen wearing in surveillance footage on the night of the incident. 

Smith said the government and law enforcement are only speculating Bryant’s alleged involvement in the shooting.

Although the evidence suggesting Bryant’s involvement in the shooting is limited, prosecutors mentioned the DNA link between Thompkins and a recovered gun shell cartridge found at the scene. In addition, witnesses described the shooter as being a black male with long dreadlocks past shoulder length, which is similar to Thompkins description.

The prosecution maintains that circumstantial evidence in this case can be just as strong as direct evidence. 

Thompkins defense attorney, Michelle Stevens, argued that the description of the shooter provided by a witness does not match Thompkins’ description it only suggests that he was present. 

Regarding Thompkins DNA found on the shell casing, the defense states it represents very “preliminary testing” and should not be viewed as completely accurate. Furthermore, DNA can be shed and it’s possible that a shell casing rolled and picked up Thompkins DNA indirectly. 

Judge Okun found probable cause that Thompkins was involved in the shooting, but did not find probable cause for Bryant’s involvement. Judge Okun dismissed all charges against Bryant and he ordered he be released from the jail. 

Following the probable cause ruling, Stevens requested Thompkins be released awaiting further proceedings, arguing he has strong family ties in the community and record of employment. Prosecutors opposed the request, stating he poses immense danger to the community. 

Judge Okun ordered Thompkins be detained awaiting trial, stating that there is no combination of release conditions that would ensure the safety of the community. 

Parties are slated to return April 5.