Lost Evidence Dismissal Sanction Argued in Murder Case

By Emily Reed [former] - June 4, 2024
Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

A status hearing on June 3 before DC Superior Court Judge Michael O’Keefe was extended to debate a proposed sanction on lost video evidence used in the investigation of a murder case.

Ronnie Melson, 43, is charged with first-degree murder while armed for his alleged involvement in the homicide of 41-year-old Demetrius Jones. The incident occurred Nov. 6, 2020 on the 1700 block of Gales Street, NE.

According to eyewitness testimony, Jones was seen being followed by the suspect, later identified as Melson. Jones was later seen lying unconscious on the sidewalk while the individual identified as Melson stood over him, extending his arm holding an object that looked like a firearm. Police responded to the scene and found that Jones had suffered sixteen gunshots.

The hearing convened to discuss various discovery items and evidentiary issues, most notably a specific piece of video footage. The video evidence allegedly contained footage of the suspect’s car parked in the area of the incident with Melson exiting the vehicle. However, this evidence was reportedly lost by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).

At the hearing, defense attorney Jason Tulley requested a sanction of dismissal on the grounds of gross negligence based on the lost video footage not being available for discussion during trial.

The prosecution called the lead homicide detective on the case from MPD to testify on the lost footage. The detective stated that at the time, all video footage had been kept on various thumb drives and hard drives. The detective stated that he reviewed the footage but was not the detective that gathered the footage.

According to the detective’s testimony, MPD searched diligently for the lost footage but was unable to find it. Additionally, MPD attempted multiple times to retrieve the video footage from the original camera source, a church in the area, but was unsuccessful.

The detective also testified during cross-examination that the footage was of poor quality and investigators would be unable to see specifics such as a license plate or clear identification. They could, however, see figures.

Tulley also inquired about the video retention policies of MPD. The detective stated that at the time of the murder, MPD had no policy for what would happen to videos after review. However, MPD has now changed their policy due to the lost footage in this case.

Tulley emphasized the video footage was lost as a result of gross negligence of MPD. He argued that at the time, there were no policies, practices, or rules in place for the retention of video evidence.

However, prosecutors argued that the loss of evidence was an accidental loss. They stated that while the system was not centralized, MPD had systems in place for video retention. The detective had multiple cases at the time and was constrained by COVID-19 limitations.

Judge O’Keefe requested additional time to review the evidence before making a ruling on the sanction.

Parties are slated to return June 4.