DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson granted a defense attorney’s request for a continuance during a hearing on March 6, to allow him more time to gather additional material to support a motion for a new trial.
Ronell Offutt, 37, was found guilty on Sept. 26, 2025, of assault with intent to kill while armed against a minor, three counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, and four counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. The charges stem from his involvement in a mass shooting that wounded five people at a Metro bus stop on the 2300 block of Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, on Feb. 4, 2019.
Defense attorney Justin Okezie filed a motion for a new trial on behalf of Offutt because of alleged ineffective counsel and misconduct by one juror.
Judge Dayson instructed parties that she wanted to address Okezie’s ineffective counsel claim first.
The prosecutor told Judge Dayson she can deny the motion for a new trial without a hearing on the matter. He said the defense failed to present any new evidence or legal questions to justify a retrial.
“In a hypothetical world, the same body of evidence will be presented,” the prosecution said.
He claimed that even if the lesser included instruction, which allows a jury to convict a defendant of a less serious crime that is necessarily contained within a more serious charged offense, was faulty, the aim of the trial would remain the same.
No new factual issues were raised, the prosecutor said, noting that the jury would examine the same evidence and the same legal question: Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Offutt was guilty?
Okeizie disagreed with the prosecutor, saying while he can’t know what happened during jury deliberations, according to case law, the jury would have likely convicted Offutt on a lesser charge had they been given the option.
He said the main reason for requesting a new trial is that Offutt’s previous attorneys, Janai Reed and Donna Beasley, failed at their duties because they didn’t consult with Offutt as is his right.
Okeizie offered to find supporting case law but requested 14 additional days to get the supplemental material together.
Regarding the second issue of jury misconduct, both parties acknowledged if there were an issue it would focus on one juror with some legal knowledge.
However, Judge Dayson dismissed the claim of juror misconduct. During the jury selection process, the judge asked potential jurors if they had studied criminal law and participated in a law clinic. Because the juror in question truthfully disclosed her background, Judge Dayson ruled that she did not provide a false answer.
Judge Dayson told Okeizie there is no allegation that aforementioned juror brought in another legal rationale to explain a concept to the other jurors. According to Judge Dayson, the juror admitted to explaining a concept but didn’t say how she explained it.
Okeizie responded by saying that either way, it’s not a juror’s job to explain legal concepts, it’s the judge’s job. He proposed having a hearing on the matter to question the juror.
Judge Dayson was cautious, telling Okieize that the Court of Appeals strongly suggests that getting into jury deliberations may cause a significant amount of harm. She said it wasn’t enough to have an inference that the juror in question brought in outside knowledge, he has to have an allegation from another juror.
Parties are scheduled to reconvene on May 22.
