Juvenile Murder Suspect Admits to Changing Story to Get a Better Deal 

By Jeff Levine - October 24, 2024
Daily Stories | Homicides | Juveniles | Suspects | Victims |

In a withering cross-examination defense attorney Charlotte Gilliland got a 15-year-old witness, who is also a murder defendant, to admit that her version of the crime was motivated by a desire to avoid punishment at the expense of her codefendants.  

“The story that you told has changed,” Gilliland said accusingly to the witness before DC Superior Court Judge Kendra Briggs in an Oct. 22 hearing. 

The teen is one of five co-defendants, girls aged 12-to-15 at the time of the crime, charged with first-degree murder and assault with a dangerous weapon for their alleged involvement in the fatal beating of 64-year-old Reggie Brown. 

The incident occurred late at night on Oct. 17, 2023, on the 6200 block of Georgia Avenue, NW. 

Throughout the three month trial the prosecution has introduced an arsenal of evidence including three huge binders summarizing social media posts among the defendants as well as presenting police video interviews with two of the suspects.

However, the most devastating piece of evidence is a 55 second cell phone video taken by one of the defendants in which the group is allegedly seen kicking and stomping Brown who is supine and defenseless while celebrating the assault in a dark alley.  

Among the posts introduced earlier is an exchange among the group allegedly acknowledging they killed Brown and discussed destroying the incriminating video.

Prior to her testimony, the 15-year-old had reached a plea agreement with the prosecution, and that was the focus of Gililland’s attack against her credibility.  The teen had previously identified the other alleged participants in what the prosecution described as a conspiracy to commit murder.

Gililland’s started by painting a dark picture of the Youth Services Center (YSC) where juveniles are detained. She characterized the facility as threatening, a place where you have to watch your back and where the witness might be incarcerated for a long time.

One night at the YSC changed the witness’ mind, suggested Gilliland.

“You were willing to do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening again,” said Gilliland.

The witness agreed.

“A deal you were hoping would get you home,” said Gilliland with the witness assenting. 

Referring to the plea agreement, Gilliland continued, “You didn’t write down any of the names [of the defendants] on the piece of paper.” The witness agreed again.

Alerting the witness to the possibility that she could be facing perjury charges for lying on the stand, Gilliland pointed out a glaring discrepancy in the witness’ previous testimony regarding her 14-year-old client.

Initially, she was unable to identify the 14-year-old when a detective from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) presented her with a picture but after experiencing the YSC, the witness claimed to recollect the suspect. The witness also said she instigated the assault but named another defendant as the leader in a police interview.  

Gilliland bore in on the questionable identification of her client.   

“This was the person you supposed to say was in the alley,” said Gilliland.  The witness softly agreed.

In her redirect, the prosecutor said, “There are no conditions in the agreement that relate to your testifying.” The witness said no.  The prosecutor also produced a picture of two codefendants that the witness was able to identify after the initial interrogation.  

The deal as briefly described was that the 15-year-old would plead guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon in return for dismissing other charges and that she would remain in juvenile custody until age 19.  Throughout the case the defendant claimed she was less involved in the actual attack and remorseful for the killing. 

The trial is scheduled to continue on Oct. 29.