Both the prosecution and defense presented opening arguments in a domestic violence stabbing case before DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt on June 3.
James Callen 42, is charged with assault with intent to kill while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, aggravated assault knowingly while armed, and assault with significant bodily injury while armed for his alleged involvement in stabbing his former romantic partner on July 13, 2024 on the 1600 block of Morris Road, SE.
All charges face an aggravating factor of allegedly being committed while Callen was on release for another matter.
Callen is also charged with four counts of felony contempt for allegedly violating a stay-away order by calling the victim multiple times from jail.
In opening arguments, both parties acknowledged the extent and severity of the victim’s injuries, but placed the blame in different places. The prosecution focused on the “who” of the case, the defendant, Callen. While defense highlighted the “how” behind the alleged attack, a question defense attorneys claim, the prosecution cannot answer due to a lack of eyewitnesses.
The prosecution alleged Callen attacked the victim with a knife, slicing her jugular vein, and stabbing her in the chin, right hand, and armpit. They said it was the “ultimate step to control her [the victim],” and a culmination of the previous domestic violence incidents.
According to the prosecution, Callen and the victim had two prior altercations that resulted in a broken leg and black eyes for the victim in August 2023 and January 2024, respectively.
Shortly after the stabbing on June 3, Callen called 911 to report the situation, a piece of evidence that prosecutors said they will play in the trial.
The prosecutors said they also plan to elaborate on four calls Callen made to the victim from jail after the incident to support his contempt charges. Along with eight witnesses, including the victim.
During the defense’s opening, attorney Alvin Thomas told the jury to “talk about what they [the prosecution] did not show you.” Thomas argued that no one beside Callen and the victim knew the order of events, nor what happened that night.
Thomas claimed the victim grabbed the knife from Callen’s hand, causing some of her injuries.
This is “not a lovers’ dispute, not a quarrel” Thomas stated while arguing the unusual nature of the relationship between Callen and the victim, reminding the jury that both parties were married to other partners.
“No expert they [the prosecution calls] shows you knows what happened that night,” stated Thomas.
A domestic violence expert, who had no specific knowledge of the case testified for the prosecuction. The expert spoke to the jury about the general characteristics of domestic violence between romantic partners, not specifically discussing Callen and the victim.
The prosecution asked the expert to describe cycles of abuse in toxic relationships. The expert also testified from her own published research on the effect of jail calls from abusers on their victims, stating the calls are highly manipulative. The expert developed a five-stage system to classify jail calls and their impact on victims.
In cross-examination, Thomas asked if a victim had to experience all five stages of manipulation in order to be manipulated by an abuser, and if she had ever heard the jail calls between Callen and the victim. The expert said no to both questions, but mentioned this was the pattern of manipulation observed in the study.
The expert talked about the relationship between male abusers and female victims. She stated that “95 percent of domestic abuse follows these gendered roles.” However, Thomas questioned the expert whether abuse can occur between a female abuser and male victim, the expert said “it was not common.”
Thomas attempted to impeach the expert’s testimony by highlighting the witness’ lack of knowledge about the case, implying generalizations could be made about all domestic violence cases. The witness had not heard the jail calls, the 911 calls, or knew about the relationship between Callen and the victim and could only speak generally.
A DNA forensic analyst also testified, finding traces of DNA likely from both Callen, and the victim on all five items they analyzed from the crime scene–a knife handle, the outside of a bottle, the neck and cap of a bottle, and two swabs of suspected blood from a knife handle and blade.
Another defense attorney, Bryan Brookhard, argued that the analysis “does not tell you how DNA got there,” leaving gaps about the DNA sources. In response, the witness stated “[DNA analysis] addresses the question of who, not how.”
Callen’s trial is slated to resume on June 4.
