DC Superior Court Judge Jason Park found probable cause in a domestic shooting case in a hearing on Nov. 4.
Bruce Lee, 46, is charged with assault with intent to kill while armed and assault with a dangerous weapon for his alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting that wounded one individual on the 400 block of Douglas Street, NE, on Oct. 16.
During the hearing, a detective who responded to the scene and interviewed the victim’s girlfriend, who witnessed the shooting, testified. According to the detective, the victim’s girlfriend stated Lee had gotten into a “verbal altercation” with the victim, his stepson, which escalated into a physical fight after Lee punched the victim. She told the detective that when the fighting stopped, Lee said, “I got something for you” to the victim, grabbed a gun from his room, and shot the victim in the mid-back. She said that the defendant left the apartment after the shooting.
The detective also discussed interviews that other officers did with the victim and the victim’s mother – Lee’s wife. One officer told the detective that the victim said he “had his back turned” to Lee during the shooting. The victim’s mother corroborated this account in a statement to another officer.
When the prosecution asked about the scene, the detective noted that he found two blood smears in the apartment located to the right and left of the door. He also said that officers recovered shell casings, live rounds, and a handgun magazine found in a black bag containing a photo ID of Lee. When asked about firearms, the detective said that officers had not recovered any during the investigation.
During the cross-examination, defense attorney Shawn Sukumar asked how much time had passed between the fight and the detective’s arrival on scene, which the detective estimated to be “maybe 30 minutes.” According to the detective, however, the responding officers arrived “fairly soon” after the 911 call was made.
Sukumar also asked if the detective had reviewed the victim’s medical records, which would corroborate his testimony that the victim was shot in his back. The detective said that he had not reviewed any records, but had been told about the victim’s injury by his colleague, who interviewed the victim.
When asked if the detective knew about any conflicts between the witnesses, the detective said he had “heard of prior conflicts” between the victim and his mom, and that there was a “contentious relationship on scene” between the victim’s mom and the girlfriend as well.
The detective also told Sukumar that Lee had come to the police station “of his own accord” after questions about his arrest, but said that Lee may not have known he was being arrested. According to the detective, Lee also waived his Miranda rights and gave a voluntary statement after his arrest.
Sukumar argued against probable cause in the case. He acknowledged that “every single witness” agreed that there was a fight, but argued that the victim’s girlfriend was a biased party with a “strong incentive” to side with her boyfriend, and said that there was “significant conflict” between the victim’s girlfriend, his mother, and Lee.
He also argued that there was a “very strong reason” to question where the victim was shot, given that blood smears were found to the right and left of the door, and not in one spot. He said it was possible the victim was not shot by the door attempting to leave, but may have instead been “closer to Mr. Lee,” which he claimed could be evidence that Lee shot the victim in self-defense.
Judge Park said there is “no dispute that the complainant was shot,” and that it was “quite clear” that Lee was the shooter. Judge Park also noted how Lee allegedly told the victim, “I got something for you,” before shooting him, and that both witnesses claimed the victim was “getting ready to leave” when he was shot.
Judge Park argued that there was little evidence of self-defense and found probable cause.
When asked about potential release, Sukumar argued that the defendant had “an entire lack of criminal violent history” for twenty years, was employed, and had a place to stay upon release. He noted that, while the allegations were serious, they were over a “specific issue with a specific individual,” and there was no other indication that Lee would pose a danger to the community. He asked Judge Park to issue a no-contact order with the victim and release Lee.
The prosecution argued that there is “clear and convincing evidence” that Lee is a danger, citing the nature of the allegations and that Lee was “willing to use a firearm against someone who angered him.” They further noted that the victim was unarmed, shot in the back, and “left for dead.” According to the prosecution, the defendant could not be safely released back into the community.
Judge Park called the ruling a “close call,” given the “many factors” that weighed in the defendant’s favor, including familial support, employment, and minimal criminal history.
However, he ultimately sided with the prosecution and continued to hold Lee, citing the nature of the charges and noting that the weight of the evidence “appears very strong.” Judge Park also said that the case for self-defense is “extraordinarily thin.”
Parties are slated to return on Dec. 8.
