DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz was sympathetic to some arguments from defense attorney Kevin O’Sullivan about the validity of evidence gathered against a shooting defendant on Sept. 29. However, the judge also had some harsh words for the prosecution.
Daquawn Lubin, 30, and Jonathan Young, 35, are charged with conspiracy while armed, two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, aggravated assault knowingly while armed, unlawful possession of a firearm, carrying a pistol without a license outside a home or business, assault with significant bodily injury while armed, three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence while armed.
Lubin is also charged with possession of a prohibited weapon. These charges are in connection to their alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting that injured two individuals on the 4600 block of Benning Road, SE, on July 24, 2023.
On Aug. 12, Judge Kravitz ruled that Young and Lubin would be granted separate trials, after Young’s defense attorney requested severance from Lubin.
During the Sept. 29 hearing, parties addressed several motions concerning the admissibility of key evidence, related to physical and digital evidence obtained by detectives during the investigation in 2023.
Defense attorney Kevin O’Sullivan first argued for the suppression of GPS data from Lubin’s car, which was originally obtained in a search without a warrant in July of 2023. O’Sullivan said the prosecution did not obtain a relevant search warrant until two years later, granted by DC Superior Court Judge Dayna Dayson on Aug. 7, 2025.
Judge Kravitz found that the detective who led the investigation understood the importance of the GPS data in connection to the shooting, and would have sought a valid search warrant regardless. He said the evidence that was obtained without a warrant did not lead to any new information or investigative breakthroughs.
Judge Kravitz therefore ruled that the evidence that was originally obtained from an unlawful search to be admitted in court if it was later obtained in a separate, lawful process.
With that, the defense’s motion to suppress the GPS data from Lubin’s car was denied.
The defense also highlighted concerns with the physical evidence taken from Lubin’s car, a red Hyundai, and filed a motion to suppress this evidence as well. When the court asked the defense about this filing, O’Sullivan stated that he was prepared to rest on the argument.
The defense had previously argued that the detective had not received consent from the car dealership where the red Hyundai was registered.
The prosecution then presented an email chain to Judge Kravitz from the general manager of the dealership and the detective. In the email chain, the manager of the dealership explicitly stated his consent for the detective to search the vehicle, and confirmed the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) of the red Hyundai.
Judge Kravitz ruled that it was undeniable that the detective had received consent, and denied the defense’s motion to suppress the physical evidence from Lubin’s car.
The prosecution also argued that a teal shirt had been recovered from the car during the search, which allegedly matched the description of the shirt that the shooter was seen wearing on CCTV footage from before the shooting.
Additionally, the defense had also filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence that had been found during the search of Lubin’s home. This motion also requested for a Frank’s hearing to be held, where the validity of a search warrant by arguing that it contained false statements or statements made with reckless disregard for the truth would be challenged.
O’Sullivan claimed that the warrant affidavit did contain false and inaccurate statements, which included the claim that Lubin’s car remained at his residence the night of the shooting, and the fact that Lubin’s car was parked on the same block of the shooting when the shooting occurred.
The defense also argued that the detective was acting on a gut feeling when drafting the affidavit, and did not have enough information to properly identify Lubin as the shooter.
O’Sullivan showed a PowerPoint presentation to the court that explained the lack of concrete evidence the detective had while drafting the affidavit, as well as at the time of Lubin’s arrest. The PowerPoint referenced the detective’s prior testimony, and also featured videos of Lubin and the detective in the interrogation room prior to Lubin being taken into custody in 2023.
“It is the detective’s instinct to say something to nullify any constitutional objection when confronted with something he did that was an error,” O’Sullivan said.
The defense also argued that the detective was matching broad descriptions of the shooting suspect’s clothing, such as ripped jeans, a teal shirt, a teal hat, and gray sneakers that were not distinct enough to identify a suspect.
The court agreed that the phrasing in certain parts of the affidavit were misleading, specifically when describing “suspect 2” and “the shooter” as the same person.
However, Judge Kravitz argued that the visible and distinct white markings made the identifying evidence strong, given the distinct white marks on the shooter’s jeans, as well as a similar build, shoes, and belt, in addition to the fact that the individual was with the same person before and after the shooting.
Judge Kravitz excised these statements from the affidavit, but still found probable cause nonetheless. He then ruled to deny the motion to suppress the physical evidence from Lubin’s home, as well as a Frank’s hearing.
Tension heightened over the prosecution’s proposed expert witness, a special agent that is part of the FBI Cellular Analysis Survey Team (CAST), to testify about cell-site data from Lubin’s phone the night of the shooting.
The defense claimed that the prosecution failed to comply with Rule 16 requirements, which require the government to disclose certain information to the defendant upon request, in order to ensure fairness between both parties.
The rule 16 obligates the prosecution to provide a disclosure with the expert witnesses’ prior publications, qualifications, prior testimony, and signature. The defense stated that they had only been given the expert’s CV, and received a notice that did not contain the expert’s signature.
Judge Kravitz similarly expressed concern with the missing expert background information, but gave the prosecution additional time to reach out to their witness to clarify what information was missing.
“My expectation here is that there would not be a Rule 16 violation,” Judge Kravitz said. “I repeatedly find myself stunned at the way things are in the matter of prosecutors handling serious cases like this.”
The defense also addressed requests for messages between witnesses and victim advocates, as well as records related to a witness’ prior arrest. The defense argued that this could constitute Brady material, which refers to any evidence in possession of the prosecution that is favorable to the defense and could affect the outcome of trial.
According to O’Sullivan, if the witness was arrested and recorded on bodycam footage disclosing their involvement as a government witness, it could cast doubt on the witness’s credibility, which also constitutes Brady material.
The prosecution agreed to review and respond.
Parties are slated to convene Sept. 30.
——————————————————————————————————–Luci Garza
