Judge Rules Prosecution’s Loss of Evidence was Gross Negligence

Thank you for reading D.C. Witness. Help us continue our mission into 2024.

A DC Superior Court judge ruled that while not an intentional act of bad faith, the prosecution has committed gross negligence by losing evidence connected to a vehicular homicide.

Eric Beasely, 31, is charged with first-degree murder in connection to the death of David Farewell on Sept. 5 2020, on the 2100 block of Young Street, SE.

The lost evidence was the exhaust system from the defendant’s vehicle. The prosecution argued that there was no intention on the part of Blue Plains Impoundment Lot, part of the Metropolitan Police Department Evidence Control Division, to destroy or lose evidence.

The prosecutor asserted that not only has the defense failed to prove the exhaust system was lost at Blue Plains, but even if it had, Blue Plains workers had no knowledge of this case and any action therefore could not be intentional because Blue Plains employees are also instructed to throw away any stray scrap metal as part of the procedure.

The prosecutor, who was able to have an expert conduct an in-person investigation of the exhaust system before it went missing, argued that the exhaust system is not crucial evidence for the defense but still provided the defense with more than 47 photos.

The prosecution denied the possibility of bad faith and found any possible sanctions suggested by the defense to be unfounded.

Defense attorney Madalyn Harvey refuted the claim that Blue Plains workers were unaware of the case and that they did in fact know it was necessary to the case since defense counsel had spoken to a supervisor at Blue Plains regarding the visit of their expert.

According to the defense, not only was the exhaust system missing, but once the vehicle had been released from Blue Plains, towed and reached its destination, a window was smashed which was not the case a couple weeks prior when it was being arranged for the defense to review.

Harvey declared that the condition of the exhaust system is critical given the potential of what it could have shown, and that defense counsel cannot solely rely on prosecution-provided images. The defense contends that this incident was an attempt to thwart defense investigators from receiving the car in a condition in which it could be properly examined.

The first sanction states the prosecution should be precluded from invoking expert testimony regarding the exhaust system since the defense examination could not be completed. The second sanction states expert testimony regarding the car in its entirety should also be prevented. The third requested that expert testimony regarding crime scene video and audio also be denied.

D.C. Superior Court Judge Maribeth Raffinan ruled that while the exhaust system was likely lost while in the possession of the prosecution at Blue Plains, there was no intentional destruction of the exhaust pipe and therefore denied the defense’s motions to dismiss or to exclude evidence.

However, Blue Plains workers should have taken more care with the evidence; they failed to file, tag, and photograph the exhaust system which led to its loss, according to Judge Raffinan.

Given the insufficiency of the photographs provided by the prosecution and the ruling of gross negligence, Judge Raffinan declared that some sanctions are warranted and accepted the defense’s first sanction to preclude expert testimony. She rejected the second and requested the defense file a motion for the third, which is slated for a decision at a later date.

The defense also requested that Beasely be released from detention and enter into the High Intensity Supervision Program (HISP) and be placed under home confinement.

Judge Raffinan, while acknowledging Beasley’s good behavior in jail, took into consideration several prior assault convictions and the fact that this murder occurred while on probation.

She denied the motion for release.

The next hearing is set for March 10, 2023.