DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman denied a defense attorney’s request to dismiss a non-fatal shooting case after a reported failure to preserve video evidence at a hearing on July 17.
Guy Johnson, 59, is charged with assault with intent to kill while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction for his alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting that injured one individual on July 9, 2023, on the 300 block of P Street, SW.
Johnson’s attorney, Kevin Mosley, filed a motion to dismiss the case on Jan. 21, citing the prosecution’s “failure to preserve video evidence.” According to Mosley, CCTV video footage was not preserved by detectives or special police officers (SPOs) at the scene. Instead, the responding detective reportedly recorded four CCTV clips on an iPhone out of the existing 37.
Prosecutors called the lead Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective in the case, who testified that he reviewed the iPhone recordings of the CCTV footage and confirmed he had access to all four clips.
When asked by Mosley, the detective said he could not remember if he went to the scene to retrieve the footage and was unaware of how the responding detective retrieved the footage. The detective clarified that he did not take any additional steps to preserve the footage and was certain that it was never obtained by the MPD.
The lead detective asserted that he did not have direct access to the CCTV cameras. The incident occurred at a private apartment complex, so he claimed that he would most likely have had to request it from the apartment’s management.
The lead detective believed he spoke to the private security company to retrieve the footage, but it had already been recorded over.
Mosley confirmed the four recorded iPhone clips do not capture the shooting or anyone holding a firearm. Mosley asserted that all MPD had is “four limited views of a general scene.” The lead detective countered that the footage shows a suspect walking behind the victim.
The lead detective asserted that there are no rules that forbid the responding detectives from recording the footage with another device.
The responding MPD detective, who recorded the footage on his iPhone, testified that he viewed the CCTV camera angles at the security desk. He claimed he recorded what he considered to be potential evidence, and he viewed other footage as well, but could not see the actual shooting. He asserted that if video footage of the shooting existed, he would have recorded it.
In cross-examination, Mosley confirmed the detective did not take any notes of the unrecorded footage at the time of the incident. The detective clarified that he viewed additional camera angles in March 2024 and was unaware if these were available at the time of the incident.
The detective claimed that, once he arrived on the scene, the SPOs were already viewing the footage. He could not recall if the footage he later recorded was shown to him by the SPOs, or if he looked through them all with the SPOs.
Johnson’s other attorney, Charlotte Gilliland, argued MPD was in possession of the footage the night of the incident and able to record and view the footage for as long as they wanted.
When asked by Judge Edelman, Gilliland clarified that neither detective had the right to subpoena the footage, but they were capable of exercising their duties to preserve evidence.
Gilliland presented an email that she claimed indicated the SPOs were working with the prosecution in January 2024.
The prosecution countered that the SPOs were “cooperating witnesses,” not part of their team.
Gilliland requested that Judge Edelman dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning prosecutors cannot file the charges again. In the alternative, she asked for the suppression of video evidence, claiming they are “completely unable” to enhance the footage.
She argued that Johnson is “already facing hurdles” and that the footage could have indicated an alternative suspect, but they have “no way of knowing.”
Prosecutors argued there was a blind spot in the footage. After the reported blind spot, Johnson can allegedly be seen running behind the victim.
Judge Edelman asserted that there was “nothing suggesting bad faith” from prosecutors or intention of harming Johnson. He described the iPhone “partial preservation” as “simple negligence” from MPD.
The judge claimed that prejudice was “plausible but still fairly hypothetical” and not enough to justify Gilliland’s request of dismissal or the suppression of video evidence. He predicted they may be entitled to a missing evidence instruction at trial, but countered that it is “impossible to determine that now.”
Judge Edelman denied the defense’s motion in part, but also held it in abeyance in part. He asserted that prejudice cannot be weighed without knowing relevant context in trial. He will allow Johnson’s attorneys to make arguments about the “shoddy nature” of the investigation at trial.
Parties are scheduled to reconvene on Aug. 19.
