Murder Defendant Testifies He Was ‘Nosy’ about Gunshots

By Bridget Smith [former] - August 8, 2024
Court | Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

A murder defendant testified he was “nosy” about the sounds of gunfire during a tense exchange with the prosecutor in closing arguments before DC Superior Court Judge Michael O’Keefe on Aug. 7.

Bernard Matthews, 44,  is charged with first-degree, premeditated murder while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, unlawful possession of a firearm by a convict, and carrying a pistol without a license. The charges are related to his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of Diamonte Green, 22, on Feb 16. 2021. The shooting occurred on the 300 block of 33rd Street, SE. 

According to court documents, Green was shot in the neighborhood where Matthews’ son lives with his mother. He was visiting his son at the time of the murder. Previously admitted evidence showed his son receiving threatening messages from Green on the day of the incident. 

At the hearing, Marnitta King, Matthews’ attorney, called him to testify. 

Matthews alleged the day of the murder, his son’s mother told him the boy was struggling in school and not attending class. Matthews testified he left work in the middle of the day and went to see his son to speak with him about his grades, adding that his son’s mother drove him to her house. 

Matthews alleged that he and his son heard gunshots in the neighborhood and Matthews went into the hallway to “be nosy.” He also testified they went outside to see the commotion because he was still feeling “nosy.”

Matthews claimed the police presence concerned him because he didn’t want to be questioned or spoken to, fearing his employer would find out he had left early. 

He also testified that he and son took a walk around the block to smoke, and some time later he took another walk by himself to smoke. During his walk alone, he alleged, he left his phone in his son’s apartment on a charger. 

According to Matthews, he was unaware of the threats his son was receiving during his visit and claimed that his son hadn’t shared any of the exchanges he was having with Green with him.

“Did you shoot and kill the decedent in this case?” King asked Matthews. 

“No,” Matthews responded, adding he had never met or spoken to Green. “That’s like looking for a ghost,” he stated.

During the prosecution’s cross-examination there were multiple tense moments when the attorney and the defendant spoke over each other. In one instance, King called out “let him answer the question,” to which the prosecution responded “he’s not answering the question.”

The prosecution asked why Matthews was apparently hiding from the police in the surveillance footage from the apartment building. Matthews repeated what he said during his initial testimony, that he was nosy about the gunshots but didn’t want to get in trouble for skipping work.

He confirmed that he did go for a walk around the time of Green’s death, and identified himself in one of the surveillance videos on the street. 

However, in another somewhat distorted security videos, Matthews denied he was the person walking in the direction of Green’s apartment.

He also denied he was the figure in a video of a person clad in black walking from a distance into the apartment. Matthews testified that he walked around the block, cut through an alley, and then went back inside his son’s apartment. 

He said he changed out of the white sneakers depicted in the video to his black work boots on his second solo walk because they were more comfortable. 

King then asked if Matthews knew why the prosecution was only showing certain security footage segments and not others. “What would that video have shown?” asked King.

“What I do best, smoking,” said the defendant. He said he had to smoke outside because his son’s mother wouldn’t allow it inside her home.

During their closing arguments, the prosecution presented a slideshow that purportedly matched up security footage to the threatening messages that Matthews’ son was receiving from Green. 

The prosecution argued that, despite what Matthews claimed, he had to have known about the messages his son was receiving. They insisted that the security footage matched with his son’s call log, and showed him on the phone with Green as he walked down the hallway with his dad. 

When Green sent a message saying he was outside of the apartment, the prosecution claimed, Matthews and his son are seen on the footage walking down the stairs of the apartment and looking outside– what Matthews testified was him being “nosy” after hearing gunshots. 

The prosecutor said she can understand why Matthews’ son and his mother would testify that Matthews didn’t know about that threat and that he was there to help his son do better in school. She compelled the jury to look at the “unbiased evidence” she was presenting. 

The prosecutor said Matthews didn’t change his shoes because they were more comfortable or because he needed to wear them for his next job. Instead, she claimed, he was “worried about getting Diamonte’s blood on his shoes.”

“One person had the motive, took action, and left the neighborhood immediately after the crime,” the prosecution ended. 

Parties will reconvene on Aug. 8 for the defense’s closing statement and jury deliberation.