"Judge, Jury, and Executioner"

Thank you for reading D.C. Witness.
Consider making a donation to help us continue our mission.

A jury in DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz heard closing arguments from the prosecution and defense in a mass shooting case during a June 26 hearing.

Erwin Dubose, 31, Kamar Queen, 28, Damonta Thompson, 28, and William Johnson-Lee, 22, are charged with conspiracy, premeditated first-degree murder while armed, assault with intent to kill while armed, assault with significant bodily injury while armed, among other charges, for their alleged involvement in the mass shooting that killed 31-year-old Donnetta Dyson, 24-year-old Keenan Braxton, and 37-year-old Johnny Joyner. The incident occurred on the 600 block of Longfellow Street, NW on Sept. 4, 2021, and injured three additional individuals.

Mussay Rezene, 32, and Toyia Johnson, 53, are charged with accessory after the fact while armed and tampering with physical evidence for their alleged involvement in assisting the other defendants in discarding evidence and avoiding arrest.

Continuing from earlier arguments, prosecutors layered forensic, digital, and testimonial evidence to argue that the defendants “appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner.”

Prosecutors walked jurors through electronic evidence, surveillance video, and physical details such as the white flap on the shooters’ pants’ pocket and black COVID-style mask, seen consistently in both CCTV footage and Instagram posts from August through October 2021. The video showed a white flap at Johnson-Lee’s hip, visible during the shooting and again as he left the apartment on Galloway Street.

The prosecution emphasized a private identification made by Johnson-Lee’s ex-girlfriend, who initially told detectives that the man in the surveillance video, “looks like my ex-boyfriend.”

Although her in-court testimony shifted, the prosecution urged jurors to “believe the ID [the witness] gave in private,” describing the emotional difficulty of testifying truthfully in front of an ex-partner who might go to prison. “She was in an awful position,” prosecutors said, “but it is the defendants who put her there.”

Queen allegedly fired a 5.7 caliber round and was identified in footage through distinctive clothing, including bright yellow shoes and Purple Brand jeans, as well as a ski mask shown in video evidence. His godmother testified during a previous hearing, identifying him in Ring footage outside her Oglethorpe Street home, according to the prosecution. Queen’s motive, the prosecution argued, was personal, citing the Longfellow shooting was retaliation for another shooting at Olgethorpe Street, in which a close friend of Queen’s was shot.

Although Rezene is not accused of direct participation in the shooting, the prosecution asserted he was not only aware there were plans to carry out the crime, but made considerable efforts to help cover up the shooting.

These alleged efforts include assisting in the burning of the Honda Accord which was used as the escape vehicle during the incident.

The prosecution presented cellsite data and License Plate Reader (LPR) records which show Rezene and Dubose allegedly meeting after the incident and drive a grey Nissan and the Honda Accord to the 4500 block of Ead Street, NE.

Surveillance footage presented by the prosecution showed the Nissan parked on Ead Street. A second camera angle captured fire and smoke rising from the alleyway as the Nissan drove away. The first 911 call reporting a torched vehicle on Ead Street was received minutes later.

The same gray Nissan was later spotted running a stop sign by a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer. When the officer attempted to pull the vehicle over, Rezene allegedly exited and fled on foot to a second vehicle, in which he escaped, according to the prosecution.

MPD seized and searched the Nissan. Inside, recovering finger prints identified as Rezene’s, as well as DNA evidence linked to both Rezene and Dubose, the prosecutor stated.

Regarding Johnson, the prosecution cited her deep interpersonal relationship with Queen and Dubose as motivation for alleged involvement in the crime.

The prosecution presented Instagram messages suggesting a romantic relationship between Johnson and Dubose, including messages stating “I love you,” and a maternal bond with Queen. The prosecution argued these relationships motivated Johnson’s alleged attempts to protect both individuals, particularly through seven 911 calls in he 48 hours after the incident, falsely reporting the Honda Accord stolen after the incident.

Johnson allegedly rented the Honda Accord for Rezene on Aug. 28, about a week before the shooting.

On Sept. 7, Johnson returned to the car rental office to attempt to report the vehicle stolen again, according to the prosecution. There, she encountered MPD officers who informed her the Honda Accord was involved in a triple homicide.

“She [Johnson] had no reaction,” the prosecution narrated, recalling an MPD officer’s testimony, “because she already knew what the car had been used to do.”

Later that day, Johnson told an MPD officer that she had reported the vehicle stolen before the shooting, the prosecution stated. They argued this claim to be demonstrably false.

The prosecution urged the jury to consider the impact of Johnson’s actions, arguing that her efforts could have successfully concealed a triple homicide.

“She knew exactly what she was covering up,” the prosecution said. “And she lied, over and over and over again.”

Dubose’s defense attorney, Steven Ogilvie rebutted the prosecution, stating their argument was built entirely on circumstantial evidence. He pointed out the absence of direct evidence such as a confession or firearm linking Dubose to the crime, a lack of either eyewitness identification or forensic evidence placing him at the scene.

Ogilvie emphasized the compromised integrity of the crime itself, which multiple officers and forensic technicians described as chaotic and unsecured. Civilians crossed police tape, some even entered homes inside the crime scene, and multiple firearms were allegedly removed or mishandled.

Officers admitted that a witness pointed out two firearms behind a tire, yet only one was recovered, and no follow-up search was conducted. Ogilvie stressed that Kennedy Street Crew (KDY) members had the motive and access to tamper with evidence.

“The scene was contaminated from the beginning,” Ogilvie argues. “This was KDY’s block.” He portrayed the prosecution’s case as asking jurors to “draw inference after inference,” connecting “dots they didn’t prove” while ignoring gaps in how evidence was collected and preserved.

Ogilvie also scrutinized the prosecution’s motive theory, mainly the connection between Dubose and KDY members. He pointed to the prosecution’s evidence, specifically Instagram messages and a 2016 fist fight Dubose was involved in.

“Speculation isn’t a motive,” Ogilvie said. “It’s a void the [prosecution] is trying to fill.”

The importance of a black sedan and Dubose’s left-handedness was also called into question. Ogilvie specifically pointed out that a black sedan is a common car and argued that the car does not prove much about the case.

Earlier in the trial, the prosecutors brought in clothing evidence, namely a black hoodie and distressed black jeans. Ogilvie told the jury that this evidence is weak because the clothing is common.

“This is practically the uniform for young Black men in this city,” he said.

Johnson-Lee’s defense attorney, Peter Fayne, attempted to set his client apart from the other co-defendants. Emphasizing the gravity of the jury’s decision, he urged them to be absolutely certain before delivering their final verdict.

Fayne argued that cell phone data excluded Johnson-Lee from involvement in the incident. Cell phone maps shown by Fayne placed Johnson-Lee at a location away from the shooting location about 10 minutes before it occurred.

Fayne also brought up that although there was significant communication between the other defendants, there were no call records between Johnson-Lee and the others the night of the shooting. Fayne further noted that Johnson-Lee never cancelled his phone number or turned off his phone.

Fayne further challenged the prosecution by scrutinizing forensic evidence at the scene of the incident.

The prosecution had argued that the forensic investigation determined that Johnson-Lee’s DNA was found on a shell casing on the scene of the shooting. Fayne challenged this finding, citing that the DNA had a low likelihood-ratio.

Fayne also pointed out that the DNA on the shell casing was a mixture of five different people and contained a higher concentration of DNA from an unknown person.

Finally, Fayne turned to the video surveillance evidence. He showed that the person the prosecution identified as Johnson-Lee was wearing a face and head covering, making him difficult to identify. Furthermore, he argued that Johnson-Lee’s ex-girlfriend was unable to identify the person in the surveillance footage as Johnson-Lee, only saying that the “person looks similar.”

“No face means no case,” Fayne insisted, adding, “Far better is it to let one guilty man free than that one innocent one should suffer.”

Parties are slated to reconvene on June 30.

“Judge, Jury, and Executioner”