Judge Rules on Contested Evidence in A Shooting

By Cameron Horne [former] - November 19, 2024
Daily Stories | Non-Fatal Shooting | Suspects | Uncategorized |

DC Superior Court Judge Erik Christian ruled against a shooting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, stating the arrest “was done through proper procedure,” in a Nov. 18 hearing.

Nathaniel Daniel, 34, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence in a gun free zone, unlawful possession of a firearm in a gun free zone, carrying a pistol w/o a license, unlawful discharge of a firearm, possession of an unregistered firearm in a gun-free zone, and unlawful possession of ammunition. These charges are tied to an April 2 incident on the unit block of N street, NW.

Defense attorney, Emma Mlyniec, notified the court of a motion to suppress evidence related to the arrest of Daniel, asserting that officers did not have probable cause, and that Daniel was potentially misidentified by the victim.

Prosecutors responded by calling one of the arresting officers as their first witness. Prosecutors walked through the description of the suspects officers received over their radio, two men, one wearing a gray jacket and pants, the other wearing dark jeans and a jacket with characters from The Simpsons on it.

Prosecutors then asked the officer how the defendant and another man were identified on surveillance footage and subsequently stopped for matching the description, despite some discrepancies in the clothing the suspects were wearing and the description from the witness.

Using body-worn footage, prosecutors also established that the defendant fled from officers, allegedly dropping a plastic bag with a gun in a trash bin before removing the distinctive jacket and attempting to hide in a shipping container in a construction site. Officers apprehended Daniel at the site and waited for the victim to arrive and positively ID Daniel allegedly as the man who had committed the offense.

Mlyniec contended that the defendant and the other man did not match the description, questioning the officer during cross examination about how the defendant was in fact wearing a jacket with Rugrats characters on it, not The Simpsons, and the other man was wearing blue jeans, not gray pants. Mlyniec stated, “Fifty percent of a four point lookout” is not adequate to make an arrest.

The defense added that the victim’s ability to identify Daniel as the man who had threatened her was unreliable. First, the victim claimed to be able to identify Daniel because of a distinctive belt, but Daniel was not wearing a belt when he was detained. Second, the victim had only seen the perpetrators through a frosted glass window making identification difficult, and third, the victim can be heard on body worn camera footage stating that she normally wears glasses, but was not wearing them when she made her positive ID of Daniel.

The defense also asserted that Daniel was held in handcuffs for over an hour with no probable cause before the victim could arrive and make her positive identification.

Ultimately, Judge Christian ruled to deny the motion to suppress stating that officers acted using “proper procedure,” throughout the stop and identification process.

Defense attorneys entered a motion to suppress two jail calls prosecutors intended to use during their case.

Erin Griffard, also representing Daniel, stated that the first call was almost unintelligible and jurors would be forced to speculate as to what was being said.

Prosecutors argued that when Daniel stated on the call that he was moving around with “that thing” and that somebody “dry-snitched,” thus it was not much of a leap for jurors to assume Daniel was referring to a gun and that someone had tipped off authorities to Daniel having a gun.

Again, Judge Christian ruled in favor of the prosecution and did not suppress the call.

The second jail call in question included Daniel speaking about his proximity to a school zone while in possession of a firearm as well as prior felony convictions he had.

However, Judge Christian ruled to suppress the call after hearing an argument from the defense.

Parties are set to reconvene Nov. 19