DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman ordered prosecutors to justify why they’re not sharing information with the defense about an important witness on Nov. 7.
Randolph Thomas, 42, is charged with felony murder while armed, assault with intent to kill while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, five counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, armed robbery, and first-degree burglary while armed for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 19-year-old Emmanuel Durant Jr. on the 200 block of Webster Street, NE, on Dec. 31, 2009. Thomas was arrested in October 2023 in connection to the murder.
During the hearing, parties discussed a motion to compel that defense attorney Pierce Suen had filed in regards to a witness. According to Suen, he had requested materials relating to the witness six months ago, and asked how he was supposed to conduct an investigation and put a case together when he had “none of the information.” He explained that he didn’t even know when the witness spoke with detectives about the incident, and said that was an example of “the bare minimum facts” that the defense was lacking.
The prosecution claimed to have provided a “significant amount” of information about the witness, but said that they could not disclose the additional materials Suen was requesting because of “witness security issues.” The prosecution argued that the trial date is set seven months out, so the defense could wait a few months for the disclosure to ensure the witness’ safety.
Judge Edelman asked Suen what type of investigation the defense would conduct if it had access to the information. Suen explained that he wanted to look into cellular communications data and also investigate any potential inconsistencies in the witness statements.
The judge agreed that the prosecution had an obligation to disclose the information under the Brady rule, which requires the prosecution to disclose possible exculpatory evidence, but claimed he was hesitant to order the disclosure because of the vagueness of the “witness security issues” cited by the prosecution.
The prosecution explained that the witness was currently in protective custody while in jail because he had been receiving threats, and claimed that if the defense began investigating, the “intensity of the threats” could increase and pose a danger to the witness.
Suen argued that there was no evidence that an investigation would actually compromise the witness’ safety, and that the prosecution’s argument that it would was “speculative.”
Judge Edelman asked if there was any information in the witness materials that would directly put the witness at risk, to which the prosecution said there may be, but that it would be easier to disclose all of the information in a few months rather than parse through it to find which information would be dangerous.
Judge Edelman noted that there was no “laboriousness exception” to Brady and that the court needed more substantial evidence that the information would threaten the witness to justify not disclosing it. He gave the prosecution three weeks to review the materials for anything that would put the witness at risk before disclosing the materials.
Parties are set to return on May 15, 2026.
