DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman released a non-fatal stabbing defendant to home confinement after finding against probable cause for an assault with intent to kill charge, but ruled there was evidence for an assault with a dangerous weapon count on June 30.
Shauntia Daniels, 27, was originally charged with assault with intent to kill while armed for her alleged involvement in a stabbing that occurred on May 23, at the intersection of 14th and Irving Streets, NW. The victim sustained injuries to the left chest and arm.
On June 30, Judge Edelman dismissed the charge. However, he did find probable cause for assault with a dangerous weapon, which Daniels is facing.
According to court documents, Daniels assaulted the victim after a verbal argument between the two that began in the SNIPES shoe store at the DC USA Mall. The argument allegedly started because Daniels accused the victim of calling Child Protective Services (CPS) on her.
During the hearing, the prosecution offered Daniels an early plea, which she rejected. The offer required Daniels to plead guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon, in exchange the prosecution would not seek an indictment.
After the rejection, the prosecution called on a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective to testify regarding information in the affidavit.
“[The victim] said she was stabbed by Shauntia Daniels,” the detective said.
The detective interviewed the victim at the hospital after the stabbing. During the interview the victim walked MPD through the incident documented in the report. Accordingly, the victim said that Daniels followed her out of the mall, removed a knife from her purse and stabbed her
The prosecution asked the detective about a video of the incident that was captured on Metro transit cameras. The detective confirmed he allegedly saw a sharp object in Daniels’ hand in the recording. \
During cross-examinations, Daniels’ attorney, Terrence Austin, attempted to impeach the victim’s story. Austin highlighted several discrepancies between video evidence and the interview that the victim gave of the events that occurred before, during and after the incident.
While walking out of the mall before the incident, the victim told the detective that Daniels was following her. But, the video showed the victim and Daniels walking together, the victim blocking Daniels’ walking path and them walking out of the frame shoulder to shoulder.
The detective also said the victim told him that Daniels told her, “Go in the alley so I can kill you in the alley,” before the incident. A mall security guard, who saw them walk out of the mall together, told an officer on body-worn camera footage that she saw “arguing but it was nothing aggressive,” and “they left together quietly.”
The video of the incident was shown during Austin’s cross-examination. The video showed a woman, identified as Daniels, snapping at the victim and hitting her with some sort of object. After the incident, video showed the two of them walking off together.
Austin highlighted that the victim didn’t turn around and go in the other direction. Also contrary to the victim’s interview with the detective, the video showed them with a third person that the victim never mentioned.
Following the incident, the victim called the police. She told the detective that she flagged down an officer, however, body-worn camera footage showed the victim walking past a police officer until the officer stopped her. The victim walked down the block on her own power, spoke to the police, used her phone and called someone else. The victim said “it’s good,” in the first encounter with the officer.
Austin questioned the detective about the arrest warrant because it used language including the words “followed,” “pursued,” and “fled,” that were seemingly disproven by video evidence.
Despite the apparent discrepancies between the victim’s account and video evidence, the prosecution still argued for probable cause. They said that the defense was “adding some facts that aren’t really born out in the affidavit.”
Austin asked the court not to find probable cause of assault with intent to kill, highlighting that the video contradicts the victim’s recount of the story. Instead, he acknowledged that probable cause for assault with a dangerous weapon could be inferred from the video.
Judge Edelman found probable cause of assault with a dangerous weapon, due to the evidence in the video. He did not find probable cause for assault with intent to kill because the video “demonstrates the complainant’s credibility is far from what the government is trying to say.”
After Edelman’s decision, the prosecution requested to detain Daniels, citing the violent nature of the incident. The prosecution emphasized that although assault with a dangerous weapon carries a lesser degree of danger than assault with intent to kill, Daniels’ remaining charge still harbors a significant degree of danger.
Austin requested Daniels be put on home confinement and GPS monitoring. He revealed that Daniels works two jobs, is a high school graduate and her children are temporarily in police custody. He said that Daniels’ children could go into foster care if not released, but a release would allow her to regain custody of her children.
Judge Edelman granted Daniels release to home confinement at an alternative residence of a friend and GPS monitoring. Daniels was also given a stay-away order from the victim.
Parties are slated to reconvene on Aug. 6.
