Thank you for reading D.C. Witness.
Help us continue our mission into 2025 by donating to our end of year campaign.
By
Mia Febles [former]
- March 19, 2024
Court
|
Daily Stories
|
Homicides
|
Shooting
|
Suspects
|
Victims
|
On March 18, parties gave additional arguments on pending witness and expert motions before DC Superior Court Judge Maribeth Raffinan
Oscar Ramos, 34, is charged with first-degree murder while armed, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and assault with intent to kill while armed, for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 50-year-old Pedro Alvarado on May 28, 2015, on Interstate 295 North at exit one, SW. The incident left another individual suffering from non-life-threatening injuries.
On Jan. 26, Ramos’ defense attorneys, Rachel McCoy and Camille Wagner, filed a motion to suppress and exclude statements from the interrogations between Ramos and law enforcement officials, claiming the interview was a violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In their filing, the defense claimed that officers failed to warn Ramos of his Miranda Rights to have an attorney present.
However, the prosecution argued that the officers did read Ramos his Miranda Rights and provided legal services in both English and Spanish, the language Ramos is most comfortable speaking. Ramos was voluntarily speaking to the officers and signed his initials, which indicated he understood his rights, the prosecution claimed. It is unclear what type of document he signed.
The defense argued that the statements Ramos delivered were a “product of coercion.” McCoy claimed that Ramos “felt intimidated” by law enforcement officials, which she claimed can be seen through his body language in the interrogation room camera footage. However, the footage was not played in court.
On March 11, the defense filed a motion to exclude proposed firearm and tool mark identification expert due to the prosecution’s failure to provide sufficient notice.
Acceding to the defense, the prosecution failed to comply with the Superior Court Criminal Rule 16(a)(1)(g) which requires the prosecution to give the defense a written summary of any expert testimony they intend to use during trial.
Judge Raffinan ruled that the jury trial selection date be postponed until March 26, so both parties can continue litigating the motions.
Parties are slated to return to follow up pending motions on March 19.