The lead detective testified before a jury and DC Superior Court Judge Andrea Hertzfeld about the identification of the defendant and nearby cameras during a carjacking trial on Oct. 31.
Marcus Tucker, 30, is charged with armed carjacking, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, robbery while armed, and assault with a dangerous weapon in relation to his alleged involvement in an armed carjacking that occurred April 17 at the intersection of 30th and Hartford Streets, SE.
The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective continued his testimony, which began the previous day of trial. He testified that when the victim was initially interviewed, he gave a description of his carjacker that fit the defendant’s description.
However, during the cross examination, defense attorney Jason Tulley focused on the fact that the detective was not at the scene when the identification was made. He testified that he was at the hospital after a triple shooting at the time, but instructed an officer to hold the defendant until he arrived.
Tulley scrutinized the identification of Tucker, as the victim said in a statement to the police that the person who carjacked him was wearing “black and white and gray or something.” Body-worn camera footage of the victim’s statement confirmed the description. When police arrested Tucker, he was wearing all white underneath a black jacket.
The detective also testified that he performed a search warrant on Tucker’s car. He said that he and an agent from the Department of Forensic Sciences (DFS) allegedly found ID cards, bank cards and insurance cards belonging to the victim. They also found ID cards, medication bottles and a jacket belonging to the defendant.
Tulley asked about the search of the car, pointing out that the detective did the majority of the searching, when that is typically the role of the DFS agent. The detective confirmed that this is usually the case, but officers assist with the execution of search warrants as well.
Tulley also questioned the detective on the presence of cameras near where the carjacking occurred. The detective testified that he did not see any CCTV or crime cameras belonging to MPD but did not extensively search for them.
During the redirect by the prosecution, the detective said that nearby apartment building’s management told him that the buildings have a few cameras, but not enough to catch the carjacking. The victim’s car also has heavily tinted windows, the detective said, making it impossible to see inside from a camera.
The defense’s case focused on cameras near the carjacking. Tulley called a CCTV specialist to the stand to testify about footage of the crime. The specialist said that a malfunction with the download of footage led to there only being two minutes of footage from a period of more than three hours.
The prosecutor pointed out during cross examination that there were no crime cameras nearby that would have shown the carjacking.
The community manager for Hartford Square, where the carjacking occurred, also testified. She said she provided photos to the defense showing the angle of cameras on the buildings she manages. She also testified that she believed the cameras were working at the time of the crime.
However, prosecutors pointed out during cross examination that she started working for the company that manages the buildings in September, five months after the carjacking.
The prosecution moved to strike her testimony, saying that it was based on speculation and not expected based on documents the defense provided that outlined her testimony. Judge Hertzfeld ruled that the testimony about the operability of the cameras would be stricken from the record, but the testimony about the angle of the camera will remain.
The defense case will continue during the next hearing.
Parties are slated to reconvene on Nov. 3.
