Jail Stabbing Defendant Re-Arrested 48 Hours After Release

DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt revoked release for a jail stabbing defendant on July 28 following his arrest in a new case 48 hours after his release.

Deswon Franklin, 30, pleaded guilty on July 24 to assault with a dangerous weapon for his involvement in a March 25, 2025 stabbing at the DC Jail on the 1900 block of D Street, SE. The victim sustained multiple wounds to the arms, chest, and elbow.

Judge Brandt released Franklin on GPS monitoring when he accepted his plea deal. According to court documents, he was arrested on July 26 for a misdemeanor simple assault charge that stemmed from his alleged involvement in an incident at the Gallery Place Metro Station. As a result, Franklin missed the mandatory orientation and GPS installation required for his release conditions.

“Imagine my surprise,” said Judge Brandt, “He managed to get himself arrested 48 hours after I released him last Friday.”

Franklin addressed Judge Brandt and thanked her for her prior decision to release him, stating that he “had all intentions” to make it to his orientation. Franklin’s defense attorney, Thomas Healy, said that Franklin maintained his innocence in the new misdemeanor case.

Judge Brandt revoked Franklin’s release in his jail stabbing case. The judge added that she would temporarily oversee his new misdemeanor case while Franklin awaits sentencing for the jail stabbing.

Judge Brandt also asked if Healy intended to resolve Franklin’s misdemeanor case before his felony sentencing, advising him that it would likely increase his criminal history score and risk harsher sentencing guidelines. The judge said she could resolve both of Franklin’s cases at his originally scheduled sentencing to mitigate these circumstances.

Parties are slated to reconvene for sentencing on Sept. 25.

Judge Orders Mental Competency Screening After Stabbing Defendant Claims She Was Misidentified

DC Superior Court Judge Robert Hildum ordered a mental competency exam for a stabbing defendant on July 28.

Jacqueline Grace, 47, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon for her alleged involvement in an altercation with a homeless woman on July 25 at the 900 block of G Street, NW in front of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library.

According to court documents, Grace allegedly pointed a knife at the woman, lacerating her hand during the struggle.

At the hearing, Grace entered the courtroom and was asked to confirm her name. She stated she had been falsely identified, claiming her name was Charles Eilzabeth Ingred Solaman, that she was born in England and stated her parents’ English names.

Grace made several statements during the hearing, including that the United States committed a “Title 18 crime of war” against her.

She also requested for a transfer to George Washington University Hospital’s inpatient unit. In response, Judge Hildum briefly explained that he could not fulfill her requests.

He granted the defense’s request for a mental competency exam after Grace made repeated outbursts in court. To stand trial, Grace must understand the charges against her and be able to assist in her defense.

As Grace left the courtroom, she said she was being “held hostage” and made a remark directed to the judge about his assistant.

Parties are scheduled to reconvene on Aug. 4.

Domestic Stabbing Defendant Who Claimed Victim Was a ‘Sacrifice’ to Jesus Accepts Plea Deal

A defendant accepted a plea deal for stabbing the mother of his child in a proceeding before DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt on July 30.

Jason Hill, 45, was initially charged with assault with intent to kill while armed for his involvement in a domestic violence related stabbing on the 3400 block of 18th Street, SE on Feb. 9. The victim, who shares a child with Hill, sustained injuries to her chest.

In court, Hill accepted a plea deal from prosecutors that required him to plead guilty to aggravated assault while armed. In exchange, the prosecution agreed to not seek an indictment with additional or greater charges and that Hill should receive a prison sentence between 72-and-96 months, subject to Judge Brandt’s approval.

The prosecution said if the case had proceeded to trial, they would have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Hill stabbed the victim in the chest with a knife. The victim was transferred to the hospital, treated for multiple stab wounds, and required intubation and surgery.

According to prosecutors, Hill told police upon arrest that “Jesus told him to kill the victim as a sacrifice to show his loyalty.” The incident reportedly occurred while Hill experienced a schizophrenic episode, court documents indicate.

Hill affirmed that the prosecution’s description was accurate.

In addition, Hill waived his rights to independently test forensic evidence under the Innocence Protection Act (IPA). The prosecution detailed that they tested various pieces of clothing with suspected bloodstains, a cell phone, and a knife from the scene.

Judge Brandt found that Hill entered the guilty plea knowingly, voluntarily, and with a factual basis.

Parties are slated to reconvene for Hill’s sentencing on Oct. 2.

Defendant Released in Barbeque Brawl Stabbing

A non-fatal stabbing defendant was released by DC Superior Court Judge Robert Hildum on July 28 after she waived her right to a preliminary hearing.

Lita Mcleod, 43, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon for her alleged involvement in a stabbing that took place on July 24 at the 100 block of Atlantic Street. SE.

At a barbeque, Mcleod was allegedly punched by the victim resulting in a physical argument. Mcleod sustained injuries to her hands and neck, but after leaving the scene she reportedly returned 10 minutes later with a knife, where a second altercation escalated according to the prosecution and court documents.

After Judge Hildum confirmed that Mcleod signed a waiver of her right to a preliminary hearing, he urged parties to discuss possible release conditions.

Mcleod’s attorney, Daniel Kovler, emphasized that she had no criminal history prior to her arrest. He stated that Mcleod has four children and is a grandmother. According to Kovler, she is the full-time caregiver for her two grandchildren and 17-year-old daughter.

While arguing for his client’s release, Kovler claimed that Mcleod could have taken a drug that was stronger than she anticipated on the day of the incident. Mcleod theorized that the drug was mistakenly consumed, which thus resulted in the events that led up to the incident. According to Judge Hildum, Mcleod tested positive for phencyclidine (PCP), linked to aggressive behavior, when she was arrested.

Kovler then stated that the victim was also arrested and charged for her alleged involvement in the altercation.

In response, the prosecutor acknowledged that Mcleod’s bail sheet, which typically includes personal details, employment status, and background information, was empty. However, he emphasized that the incident involved two altercations because Mcleod allegedly returned to the argument with a knife.

Judge Hildum stated, “There is no excuse for leaving and coming back armed with a knife.”

According to prosecutors, the victim received a laceration to their right wrist. Kovler stated that, in contrast, the “injury to Ms. Mcleod required stitches,” and that the victim’s wound did “not appear to be life-threatening.”

Judge Hildum acknowledged that the weight of the evidence appeared to be strong and that Mcleod’s actions were “certainly not [in] self-defense.”

Despite this, Mcleod was granted release and ordered to report to the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) on July 29 for drug testing. Judge Hildum also ordered a mental health assessment and a stay-away order for the victim. He stated, “Leave [victim’s name] alone.”

Parties are slated to reconvene on Sept. 1.

Defendant Accepts Three-Count Plea Agreement for Uber Altercation

A defendant previously charged with carjacking accepted a plea deal in front of DC Superior Court Judge Carmen McLean on July 28.

Marquesse Favors, 32, was initially charged with unarmed carjacking and attempting to commit robbery while armed for his involvement in an incident which occurred at the 5400 block of 1st Place, NW on Nov. 9, 2025.

In court, Favors pleaded guilty to simple assault, attempted theft, and unlawful entry to a motor vehicle. In exchange, the prosecution will not pursue an indictment with greater or additional charges and dismiss his initial charges.

According to the prosecution, the incident took place during one of Favors’ scheduled Uber drives. Favors and one of his passengers engaged in a verbal argument inside the vehicle, to which Favors pulled the car over and the altercation became physical.

However, according to court documents, Favors was not the Uber driver, but rather one of the two passengers that were scheduled to be driven to his house. In this version, the Uber driver is stated to be the victim.

After engaging in a fight on the sidewalk, Favors yelled at an individual watching the spat. This individual ran to a nearby gas station, and Favors chased him down before attempting to take his cell phone.

After Judge McLean accepted the plea deal, Favors’ attorney, Clarence Powell, mentioned how Favors has been completely compliant with his release conditions and would benefit from a more lenient release.

The prosecution rebutted that there was “no reason” to change Favors’ release conditions. However, Judge McLean released Favors from his GPS monitoring system.

Favors is scheduled to be sentenced on Aug. 5.

Defendant Accused of Domestic Stabbing Remains Held

A stabbing defendant waived her right to a preliminary hearing and was denied release in front of DC Superior Judge Heide Herrmann on July 27.

Terri Johnson, 49, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon after her alleged involvement in a stabbing that occurred on the 5200 block of Clay Street, NE on July 23. The victim, who Johnson was romantically involved with, sustained two stab wounds, one to the wrist and one on the left side of his neck.

Johnson waived her right to a preliminary hearing that would have determined if probable cause exists for the charge against her.

Johnson’s attorney, Everald Thompson, argued that Johnson had no major violent convictions and obeyed previous release conditions. Thompson agreed that the prosecution “does have a case,” however, he said the defense also has a case for self-defense.

Thompson concluded by requesting Johnson’s release with a stay-away order from the victim.

The prosecution asked for a continued hold with the fear Johnsin would not appear in court as ordered based on her previous drug offenses.

The prosecution walked the court through the series of events explaining that Johnson allegedly swung the knife twice at the victim, hitting his neck and wrist. The prosecution said they did not think any release condition could ensure the safety of the community.

Judge Herrmann ultimately agreed that the weight of the evidence was strong with other witnesses to back up the details and decided to hold Johnson.

As the hearing came to a close, Johnson spoke up, talking over Thompson as the two were reiterating that she “cut him one time but didn’t stab him and he punched her in the face,” said Thompson.

Judge Herrmann, already aware of that information, advised Johnson to let her attorney speak for her.

Parties are set to reconvene on Aug 20.

Stabbing Defendant Held After Victim Suffers Collapsed Lung

A stabbing defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing in front of DC Superior Judge Heide Herrmann on July 27.

Londell Jones, 27, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon for his alleged involvement in a stabbing that occurred on July 23 on the 1400 block of Saratoga Avenue, NE. The victim sustained a stab wound to the right chest that resulted in a collapsed lung.

Jones waived his right to a preliminary hearing that would have determined if probable cause existed for the charge against him.

Jones’ attorney, Everald Thompson, argued that Jones has a “sparse record” with one offense in 2023. Thompson asked that Jones be released with a stay-away order and GPS monitoring.

Thompson also addressed Jones’ injury to his right hand. Thompson argued that Jones couldn’t have committed the stabbing if the evidence showed the suspect used their right hand since his injury occurred prior to the incident.

The prosecution asked that Jones remain held given the severity of the injury the victim sustained. The prosecution also expressed concern about witnesses, the victim, and the weapon used. They argued there was nothing the court could do or order to ensure the safety of the community if Jones was released as this incident “escalated out of nothing.”

Judge Herrmann agreed that this particular stabbing caused great injury. She reiterated there were no release conditions that could be filed to ensure safety and will remain held.

Parties are set to reconvene Aug 14.

Case Acquitted: ‘There’s No Hope for You,’ Says Victim to Alleged Killer in Call Months Before Her Death

Editor’s note: Rayvon Slye was acquitted of all charges by a jury on August 5, 2026.

Prosecutors introduced recordings of a domestic homicide defendant and victim arguing on the phone in a trial before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson on July 28.

Rayvon Slye, 34, is charged with second-degree murder while armed for his alleged involvement in the fatal stabbing of Andrea Bond, 30. The incident occurred on March 7, 2023, on the 1000 block of D Street, NE. Bond sustained one stab wound to her left upper chest.

According to court documents, Slye and Bond were in a romantic relationship and had a child together at the time of her death. The couple was reportedly physically violent with each other on multiple occasions.

Prosecutors played several clips of phone calls between Slye and Bond from April 2022 to June 2022, when Slye was in jail on unrelated charges. The conversations included arguments about when Bond would visit Slye, which resulted in the couple breaking up.

“You just gone leave me like this? Don’t leave me like this,” said Slye in a call after Bond stated she no longer wanted to be with him and would not come to see him in jail.

In another recording, Slye accused Bond of being a “snitch” and asked, “Why the f*ck did you do this to me?” Bond said Slye needed to be in jail to “learn how to grow up” and told him, “There’s no hope for you.”

The prosecution also called the DC Office of Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) forensic investigator who responded to the scene to the stand. The OCME investigator said that when she arrived at Bond’s residence, her body was lying supine in the living room.

The investigator said she noted an injury on Bond’s left upper chest, which was covered by a bandage, and a laceration on her left wrist. According to charging documents, after Slye called 911 to report that Bond was not responding, he told officers that Bond was allegedly stabbed the night before and that he had tried to bandage the wound.

According to the investigator, Bond’s body showed livor mortis, or dark purple discoloration of the skin used as an indicator of the amount of time that passed since a victim died. As the discoloration did not change when the investigator pressed the skin, she estimated that Bond died more than eight-to-12 hours before she examined the body in the evening of March 7, 2023.

Kevin Mosley, Slye’s attorney, emphasized that this time of death estimate could be impacted by many unknown factors, including the room’s temperature and any medications or illegal substances the victim had consumed.

A forensic DNA analyst, the prosecution’s witness, found blood on a pair of boxers, tank top, jackets, shoes, shirt, pants, napkins, and fitted sheet found in Bond’s residence. The DNA profile developed from a bloodstain on a pair of gray pants closely matched Bond’s DNA, according to the analyst.

To identify if any other individual’s DNA was on the collected evidence, items were tested excluding Bond’s DNA. The expert explained that their testing revealed that it was more likely than not that the DNA belonged to Slye more than another male.

The expert also tested blood from a swab of the floor near the living room couch, which did not match Bond’s genetic profile. In cross-examination, Slye’s other attorney, Kayla Wyatt, confirmed that the analyst did not test any DNA samples from the walls, doors, bathroom, hallway, or kitchen of Bond’s residence.

A forensic scientist who processed evidence from and investigated the crime scene testified to securely packing and sending the evidence for DNA testing. She informed the court that she had arrived at the incident location on March 9, 2023, two days after Bond was found.

In cross-examination, Mosley argued that because of this time gap and another team processing the crime scene before this witness did, she reasonably had “no idea where the items were before the ninth.” The witness agreed.

Parties are scheduled to reconvene on July 29.

‘That Is Not Baggage,’ Judge Notes Allowing Detective With Challenged Credibility to Testify

On July 27, DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt granted a prosecutor’s motion to limit cross-examination of a detective previously found not credible by two other judges.

John Scogins, 55, is charged with assault with intent to kill while armed and aggravated assault knowingly-grave risk while armed. These charges stem from his alleged involvement in a stabbing that occurred on Dec. 9, 2024 on the 1700 block of Minnesota Avenue, NE. The victim sustained stab wounds to his head, face, neck, two to his arm, and two to the left side of his torso.

Scogins’ charges face an aggravating factor of being allegedly committed after at least two felony convictions.

The prosecution filed a motion on March 13 to limit cross examination of the case’s lead Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective. Judge Brandt’s ruling would determine the extent to which Scogins’ attorney, Alvin Thomas, could ask the detective about his history during questioning.

In two prior cases, DC Superior Court Judges have ruled that the detective is not a credible witness. The prosecution anticipated that, should Thomas ask the detective about these findings, it would “result in more confusion for everyone else.”

Thomas opposed the motion, asking Judge Brandt, “How can I not be allowed to go into that?” He argued that the detective’s history was essential in demonstrating his level of credibility as a witness in Scogins’ case.

Similar to how defendants must disclose any prior convictions to the jury, the detective should have to carry his history with him as “baggage” in trial, Thomas argued.

“That is not baggage,” Judge Brandt responded, and granted the motion.

A witness’ credibility should be assessed within the context of the evidence in each specific case, Judge Brandt noted. She stated that it is up to the jury to decide whether the detective is credible.

In some circumstances, it would be appropriate to deny the motion, Judge Brandt claimed. But, “neither one of those judges drew that hard line in the sand and called him a liar,” which would have made it impermissible for the detective to testify.

In addition, Judge Brandt denied another motion filed by the prosecution asking to exclude a voluntary intoxication defense theory. As a result, Thomas was permitted to use the theory to argue that Scogins was incapacitated due to alcohol use on the day of the incident.

The prosecution argued that this theory should not be permitted because Thomas has not formally laid out the evidentiary basis in the form of a proffer.

However, Thomas claimed that because police reports mention Scogins’ and the other individuals’ intoxication, there is a strong “indication that parties were drinking,” and that he should be allowed to employ this theory.

“Until I hear all of the evidence,” Judge Brandt noted, “I don’t know whether this case is going to marry into voluntary intoxication.”

Parties are set to reconvene on Aug. 6.

‘I Don’t Know What Happened, But I Know What the Result Was,’ Says Judge at Homicide Sentencing

DC Superior Court Judge Michael Ryan sentenced a murder defendant to 20 years in prison on July 28.

Charles Best, 28, pleaded guilty on April 17 to second-degree murder while armed and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

The victim, Darius Robinson, 35, was the romantic partner of Best’s cousin. Robinson was shot six times. The murder occurred on Feb. 18, 2024, at the 1600 block of Rosedale St, NE.

Judge Ryan explained that because the case was resolved through a guilty plea rather than a trial, he had a limited amount of evidence to review–namely, an acknowledgment of guilt by Best and a short proffer of facts from prosecutors.

The facts indicate Best shot Robinson before leaving a family gathering, not for defensive purposes, but rather to protect his cousin from what he believed was domestic abuse. However there is no evidence to support the claim. Megan Allburn, Best’s attorney, acknowledged this was an “overreaction.”

Judge Ryan, however, did have access to supplemental materials submitted by both parties before imposing Best’s sentence. They included letters from Best and Robinson’s families, a certificate of completion in the Georgetown University rehabilitation program, and a pre-sentence report from the Community Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA).

The prosecutor asked Judge Ryan to impose the maximum sentence permitted under the 11c1C agreement, which is a sentencing agreement between the parties subject to the judge’s approval.

Best’s 11c1C agreement limited Judge Ryan to a sentence between 14-to-20 years in prison.

The prosecution also presented Judge Ryan with a 911 call and three victim impact statements from Robinson’s family.

In addition, the prosecution read two of the victims’ impact statements from Robinson’s sister and his now six-year-old daughter.

Robinson’s sister asked the court to “consider the lasting impacts of our family.”

While his daughter asked Best, “Why did you kill my daddy?” “Why couldn’t you be his friend?”

The final victim impact statement was read aloud by Robinson’s cousin, where she said “There is no way justice can be served if he gets less than 20 years.” She added that, “20 years is already a slap in the face to our family.”

The prosecution acknowledged that Best accepted responsibility for the shooting but argued that the circumstances still warranted the maximum agreed-upon sentence of 20 years. They noted that Robinson was shot in the head, neck, and back six times while he was seated at a table. The prosecutors argued Best’s actions after the shooting, such as disposing of the firearm and his jacket, demonstrated his initial effort to avoid responsibility.

“No matter what the court imposes today, he will be out in society one day,” said the prosecution.

In response, Allburn expressed to the court the “sincere remorse” Best had for the incident.

“He wants to accept everything the court will impose and then do everything he can to better himself,” said Allburn.

When Best was given an opportunity to address the court, he said he “genuinely apologized for the pain I caused.” Then he addressed his children saying he “apologized for being an embarrassment.” Best said he hoped one day they would welcome him back into their lives.

Allburn then requested the court impose the lowest agreed-upon sentence of 14 years.

Judge Ryan acknowledged the Georgetown University programs Best had taken part in to “better himself,” but reiterated that he could not speculate on the facts, and only use what he knew to be true, that Best shot Robinson with “no justification.”

“When you sit where I sit, you try not to speculate,” said Judge Ryan. Later adding, “I don’t know what happened, but I know what the result was,” before delivering his sentence.

Judge Ryan accepted the binding plea agreement and sentenced Best to 20 years in prison, with credit for approximately two years already served, followed by five years of supervised release. He also ordered Best to receive mental health treatment and register as a gun offender.

No further dates were set.

Defense Argues to Reverse 50-Year Murder Conviction Claiming Defendant Was ‘Blackout’ Intoxicated

An attorney argued before DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt on July 23 that a convicted homicide defendant’s sentence should be reversed because his previous defense failed to argue he was intoxicated during the murder.

Idrissa Fall, 39, was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder while armed in a bias-related hate crime, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction less than one year. The charges stem from his involvement in the fatal shooting of his ex-girlfriend, 29 year-old Dara Northern, on the 6100 block of 4th Street, NW on July 18, 2021. Northern was shot once in the head. Fall was sentenced in May 2025 to 50 years imprisonment across these three charges.

According to court documents, Fall and Northern broke up days before the shooting. In Fall’s trial, prosecutors argued the motivation for the shooting stemmed from his perception that Northern may have been part of the LGBTQ+ community.

In court, Fall’s attorney, Peter Meyers, argued that Fall was “blackout” the night of the murder, and his previous counsel, attorney Wole Falodun, failed to pursue this defense during the trial when he should have. Meyers filed a motion to vacate Fall’s conviction on grounds of ineffective representation by Falodun.

Judge Brandt explained to parties and Northern’s family that she will have a decision by Aug. 14.

Fall testified during the hearing that on the night of Northern’s death, he took Molly (MDMA,a powerful hallucinogen), about three-and-a-half ounces of cocaine, and three narcotic, pain-killing percocets, as well as drinking full bottles of red wine and Hennessy, cognac

“I was high, I was way too high,” Fall said in his testimony, “I was wasted, I was tripping.”

In Fall’s cross-examination, the prosecution played a video of an interview with Fall and two detectives conducted a month after Northern’s death, in which he said that he was not “so intoxicated.” In the video, he attested to drinking four small glasses of wine and a shot of Hennessy, bottles he shared with three other friends.

Fall admitted on the stand to changing his account of how much he drank in between that interview and the hearing, but claimed that his current testimony was the most accurate. He also alleged he was intoxicated during the interview.

Meyers pointed out that the detectives did not believe much of Fall’s interview because they said “you’ve been lying to us this entire time” in the video.

Falodun, Fall’s attorney during the trial, also testified.

The prosecution asked Falodun why he did not consider an intoxication defense, to which he replied that Fall “advised there was an individual that fired the gun that ultimately killed Ms. Northern.” Falodun said that arguing an intoxication defense in addition to claiming a third party was responsible for the murder “would be a contradictory defense.”

“[Fall] never deviated,” Falodun said. “He always maintained that someone else did it.”

According to Fall, an African-American man with dreadlocks standing a distance away shot Northern.

Falodun also repeatedly asserted that he was aware about Fall’s substance abuse challenges leading up to the trial, but only recalls being told that Fall drank some alcohol the night of the murder.

In cross-examination, Meyers asked Falodun if he knew about the quantity of substances Fall took before the incident and if he had any mention of intoxication in his notes from discussions with Fall, to which Falodun said he was not sure.

Meyers discussed Falodun’s familiarity with substance-induced blackouts and asked “could a blackout have prevented [Fall] from remembering he killed Ms. Northern?”

Falodun said he was familiar with blackouts but claimed that he had no reason to believe Fall was incapacitated at any time surrounding the incident.

“Based on the evidence that was available to me, there was no indication of that,” Falodun said.

Meyers also questioned comments from an eyewitness who allegedly told Fall “You’re tripping” twice on the scene. Meyers argued that the statement was related to Fall’s substance use, while the prosecution argued that it was due to the eyewitness’ annoyance with his misbehavior.

Falodun contended that “context matters,” when it came to that statement and that the eyewitness made the comment as an offensive jab during an argument.

Meyers also noted that Northern’s mother called Fall an alcoholic when she testified in front of a grand jury in September 2021.

In his argument, Meyers claimed that Fall’s intoxication was indisputable. He said that his substance use on the night of the incident could have led him to suffer a blackout preventing him from remembering the shooting. As a result, he requested that the conviction be overturned.

The prosecution described Judge Brandt’s decision as a debate of credibility between Fall and Falodun. They argued that Fall’s testimony should have little weight.

The prosecution questioned, “Which version of Mr. Fall are we going to believe?”

The prosecution claimed that Falodun, a “very accomplished, very well respected defense attorney,” was a more credible source in comparison. They argued that the manner and length of time needed to establish intoxication was not explained by Fall and little evidence was provided proving incapacitation. The prosecution requested that the motion be denied.

Meyers noted that the case’s direct appeal is pending in the DC Court of Appeals.

No further dates were set.

‘Sometimes Survival Looks Ugly,’ Says Defense in Fatal Stabbing Trial

Parties presented opening arguments in a homicide trial before DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz on July 28.

Vanessa Bonaparte, 34, is charged with first-degree premeditated murder while armed and destruction of property valued at $1,000 or more for her alleged involvement in the fatal stabbing of her former romantic partner, 31-year-old Dwayne Boyd. The incident occurred on June 22, 2024 on the 3500 block of East Capitol Street, SE. Boyd sustained two stab wounds to his chest and died on the scene.

Prosecutors claimed in their opening arguments that Bonaparte came to Boyd’s apartment with violent intentions. Defense attorneys, Roderick Thompson and Kevann Gardner, argued Bonaparte killed Boyd in an act of self-defense, not jealousy.

The prosecution and defense described the events leading up to Boyd’s death in two distinct ways, but they agreed on some facts.

Both parties agreed that on the day of the incident Boyd, Boyd’s romantic partner, Bonaparte, and Bonaparte’s boyfriend smoked methylamenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), also known as the hallucinogen Molly, watched movies, and sorted through clothes. Later, parties said Bonaparte entered Boyd’s apartment and stabbed Boyd with two knives in the kitchen.

According to prosecutors, Bonaparte intended to kill Boyd’s romantic partner because she was angry that they reconciled.

“Vanessa Bonaparte was going to get her way no matter what,” the prosecutor said.

The prosecutors said Boyd and his romantic partner were preparing to leave their apartment when Bonaparte stabbed Boyd.

Earlier in the day, prosecutors alleged Bonaparte told the romantic partner “I’m so mad I could fight you right now.” Prosecutors said the romantic partner later returned to the apartment, and soon after Bonaparte started belligerently banging on the front door as though she was “trying to kick the door in.”

According to prosecutors, Bonaparte broke five of Boyd’s apartment windows before coming in. In later testimony, the romantic partner claimed that Bonaparte kicked the first window with her foot, then used a black crowbar for the rest of the windows.

At the end of their opening argument, prosecutors played body-worn camera footage from the day of the incident, showing Bonaparte hurriedly leaving the apartment building and the officers discovering Boyd’s blood-covered body.

Thompson argued Boyd “got himself stabbed” by physically assaulting Bonaparte that day.

According to Thompson, Bonaparte left Boyd’s “trap house” after they smoked molly, but forgot her bag inside. Allegedly, when she returned to retrieve her bag, the romantic partner and Boyd would not let her in.

Thompson said when the romantic partner and Boyd eventually let Bonaparte in, Boyd started to beat her. According to Thompson, Boyd grabbed Bonaparte by the throat until her “feet [were] off the ground.” At that moment, Thompson said, Bonaparte grabbed two knives off the counter behind her and stabbed Boyd in the lung and heart.

“Ms. Bonaparte caused those wounds, but sometimes survival looks ugly,” Thompson said.

Thompson told the jury to expect a “parade of women” to testify to Boyd allegedly committing acts of domestic violence and “terrorizing the women in his life since the Obama administration.”

Thompson concluded his opening argument by comparing the prosecution’s case to Will Hunting from the 1997 film Good Will Hunting. He said, just like Will, the prosecution’s case is inadequate because it relies on theory, not real world experience.

Thompson encouraged the jury to be like Robin Williams’ character, Sean Maguire, and use their “738 years of combined life experience” to interpret the facts presented at trial.

Boyd’s romantic partner, who claimed to be his fiancée, then testified. US Marshals arrested the witness in the early hours of the morning after she failed to appear in court the day prior.

Boyd’s romantic partner was noticeably emotional throughout her testimony, especially during her description of Boyd. She had to take a five-minute break because she said it was her first time seeing Bonaparte since the incident.

“He was a bright spirit. He was very funny, very ambitious, hard worker,” she said. “I miss him so much. This is very hard.”

Throughout her testimony, the witness had trouble recalling what happened and relied on her previous grand jury testimony.

The romantic partner revealed she and Boyd were inseparable after meeting while buying Molly. They eventually moved into a vacant apartment, where the incident occurred.

Boyd choked his romantic partner in response to finding out she had an abortion without telling him and they had a break.

“I did not want to have kids at that time,” she first said, but then agreed she should’ve told Boyd about the abortion, “I was wrong. I lied to him.”

While the romantic partner and Boyd were on a break, she claimed Boyd had sex with Bonaparte. After Boyd and the romantic partner reconciled, she met Bonaparte and said she felt uncomfortable around her.

The day of Boyd’s death, the romantic partner said she and Boyd “boosted” items from stores and separated to sell them. The romantic partner said in an encounter outside of a convenience store, Bonaparte reportedly tried to fight her, but she walked away and returned to the apartment.

Later, the romantic partner testified that Bonaparte banged on the apartment door, demanding to be let in. According to the witness, Bonaparte said Boyd told her they would be together and yelled, “did you know we had sex?”

The romantic partner said Boyd returned to the apartment and tried to calm Bonaparte down. He then went inside and told the romantic partner to gather their things.

According to the romantic partner, Bonaparte broke into the apartment and Boyd blocked her. The witness recalled hearing Bonaparte say, “Let me get her, she’s in the way.” Boyd and Bonaparte got into a tussle, said the witness, and Bonaparte slid through the door, ran down the hallway to the living room and kitchen. Boyd followed her.

Then, the witness heard Boyd say “[Bonaparte], Oh my god, why would you do that? What’s wrong with you?” Boyd came into the bedroom with the witness and closed the door behind him.

In the bedroom, Boyd put his back against the door, and said “don’t go out there.” His shirt was wet with blood, and he was panting. She saw blood dripping onto the floor. “It sounded like water hitting the floor. There was so much blood.” He pulled his shirt down, and the witness said she saw two “dripping” wounds.

During the romantic partner’s testimony, the prosecution read her grand jury testimony to the jury. In the grand jury testimony, she said Bonaparte would get her boyfriend and weapons to break Boyd’s windows and enter the apartment. In response, Gardner requested a mistrial because the mention of weapons was not specifically admitted into evidence.

Gardner said “the bell can’t be unrung” and that a mistrial was necessary. Judge Kravitz said he would review the recording of the trial later that night.

As a result of time constraints, the romantic partner will continue her direct examination on July 29, but Judge Kravitz opted to keep her held overnight.

‘I Ain’t Gonna Miss a Beat,’ Says Stabbing Defendant to Judge Who Threatens to ‘Max [Him] Out’ at Sentencing

DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt released a defendant after he accepted a plea deal for a jail stabbing at a July 24 status hearing.

Deswon Franklin, 30, was initially charged with assault with intent to kill while armed and assault with a dangerous weapon, for his involvement in a stabbing at the DC Jail on the 1900 block of D Street, SE, on March 24, 2025.

The hearing allowed parties to finalize a plea deal. Franklin accepted the agreement, which required him to plead guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon. In return, the prosecution waived sentencing enhancements and dismissed the remaining charge against Franklin.

According to the prosecution, had the case proceeded to trial, they would have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that after Franklin engaged in a conversation with the victim, he began stabbing the victim with a sharp metal object. The victim sustained multiple stab wounds.

At the time of the stabbing, Franklin was incarcerated for violating his probation in a previous matter. After Franklin’s sentencing was scheduled for September, his attorney, Thomas Healy, asked for the judge to grant a motion for release.

Healy said release would allow Franklin to spend time with his mother, who, as a result of her rapidly declining cognitive state may not recognize him by the time he finishes his sentence.

Before hearing Healy’s argument for release, Judge Brant made it clear that to consider release she needed concrete evidence that he would not be a threat to the community.

“I can sympathize until we are blue in the face” but that’s not enough for release, said Judge Brandt.

In response, Healy emphasized that Franklin had two locations for stable housing, one within DC, at his brother’s house. In addition, Healy indicated that Franklin’s former employer at Giant was amenable to giving Franklin his job back if he was released. Healy added that Franklin’s friend could offer him a remote or in-person job.

The prosecution argued against release, noting that Franklin just pleaded guilty to a violent crime. In addition, prosecutors also noted Franklin’s history of not complying with court orders, shown in his extensive bench warrant history and that he violated his probation in another case.

Judge Brandt agreed with the prosecution that Franklin had a “pretty wicked” bench warrant history but said she heavily weighed that Franklin had a stable place to live and two jobs lined up.

Judge Brandt ruled in favor of release but warned Franklin.

Judge Brandt said to Franklin, “If you think for a minute I won’t max you out” at sentencing for a misstep, he’s mistaken. The judge emphasized that forgetting to charge his GPS monitor, or not calling his officer from the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) could result in serious consequences for Franklin.

“I ain’t gonna miss a beat” said Franklin before thanking Judge Brandt.

Parties are slated to reconvene on Sept. 25 for sentencing.

‘I Am Just a Normal Person, Just Like Every One of You,’ Says Defendant Convicted of 1997 Double Homicide at Sentencing

DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman sentenced a 1997 double homicide defendant to 24 years according to pre-2000 sentencing guidelines on July 16.

Oscar Diaz-Romero, 48, was convicted by a jury on March 25 of two counts of second-degree murder for his involvement in an Aug. 9, 1997 fatal shooting that killed 22-year-old Jose Noel Coreas-Carcaro and 27-year-old Jose Molina at a restaurant on the 2400 block of 18th Street, NW. After the shooting, Diaz-Romero left the United States and traveled to El Salvador, where he was extradited from in January 2025.

Diaz-Romero spoke at the sentencing, highlighting the changes he had made while living life in El Salvador and the challenges he has undergone since being incarcerated.

“I am just a normal person, just like every one of you,” Diaz-Romero said.

He also emphasized his religious beliefs, explaining that he had “walked in the Lord’s path.” He asked Judge Edelman to “put his hand on his conscience” when delivering the sentencing.

“I am not the person they say I am,” Diaz-Romero said.

In addition to pointing to evidence from the jury trial, the prosecution read letters from Coreas-Carcaro and Molina’s families. Molina’s sister wrote that “[Molina’s] absence has left a permanent emptiness.”

Coreas-Carcaro’s family member wrote that “a family never truly recovers from such an atrocious crime.” The prosecution asked for 18 consecutive years for each charge.

Diaz-Romero’s attorney, Julie Swaney, pointed to letters written by family members and religious personnel that were included in the defense’s pre-sentencing report. Swaney emphasized that in the almost 30 years that have elapsed since the crime, Diaz-Romero had undergone “rehabilitative efforts” while living life in El Salvador and is now an “exemplary person.”

“This turnaround would be something almost the court would put on its website,” Swaney said.

Swaney also noted that Diaz-Romero had spent one year in an El Salvadoran prison while awaiting extradition to the United States. She described the conditions in the prison as “human rights violations,” adding that Diaz-Romero had undergone traumatic experiences there. Swaney requested that given the facts, Judge Edelman credit this time served as longer than one year when giving Diaz-Romero credit in the sentencing.

Swaney ultimately requested a sentencing range between 20-and-60 years, with each count being sentenced to five-to-15 years, and credit for time served.

Judge Edelman imposed a sentence of 24-to-72 years for each count, suspending all but 24 concurrent years for each and three years of probation. Diaz-Romero will also be ordered to pay $200 to the Victims of Violent Crime fund and would have to register as a firearm offender upon release.

Judge Edelman explained that he legally must impose the sentencing guidelines in place at the time the crime was committed. Before 2000, sentences were to be given a range, rather than a definitive value.

Judge Edelman described the sentencing decision as “agonizing.” He noted the impact of the crime on the victims while also pointing out that Diaz-Romero had appeared to have made considerable changes in his life. He noted that the pre-sentencing report indicated a stage of advanced rehabilitation that Judge Edelman had never seen before on a report.

“He presents to me as a very different person than he was in 1997,” Judge Edelman said.

No further dates were set.

Case Acquitted: ‘He Was Abusive,’ Says Victim’s Friend About Domestic Homicide Defendant

Editor’s note: Rayvon Slye was acquitted of all charges by a jury on August 5, 2026.

The friend of a fatal stabbing victim, a domestic violence expert, and a forensic science expert testified before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson on July 27.

Rayvon Slye, 34, is charged with second-degree murder while armed for his alleged involvement in the fatal stabbing of 30-year-old Andrea Bond on March 7, 2023 on the 1100 block of D Street, NE. Bond sustained one stab wound to her left upper chest.

According to court documents, Bond and Slye had a romantic relationship and shared one child together.

The prosecution called Bond’s friend to testify, who was subpoenaed to appear in court on July 24, but failed to appear. US Marshals executed an arrest warrant for the witness’ testimony.

In her testimony, she described Bond as a “very good friend,” who she spoke to briefly over the phone the night prior to Bond’s death. Bond’s friend recounted that Bond sounded “aggravated” that night and said Slye was “getting on her nerves.”

Bond’s friend testified that a few days before her death, Bond spent the night at her house. That night, the witness said Bond had collapsed, was unconscious, and was foaming at the mouth. Bond’s friend testified that they drank wine together but consumed no other substances.

The witness said she then called her cousin, a registered nurse, who administered a shot of Narcan, which helped Bond regain consciousness.

Bond’s friend also testified that the following day, Slye and his friend showed up to the witness’ house. The witness reported that Bond followed a previously agreed-upon plan to pretend that she was not there if Slye appeared.

When asked why the plan was made, Bond’s friend responded, “because he was abusive.” Bond’s friend also recalled a previous occasion when she saw Bond with a “busted lip” after she had been with Slye.

Slye’s attorney, Kevin Mosley, challenged Bond’s friends’ testimony and alleged the two had used drugs the night she collapsed. The witness confirmed that she told police they didn’t use drugs but also didn’t object to her cousin using Narcan at the scene.

Mosley also questioned how close Bond and the witness were and the timeline of their relationship. Mosley confirmed with the witness that they reconnected in March 2023, the month of the incident, after two years of no contact.

Mosley emphasized that Bond’s friend testified before a grand jury in 2024 that the last night she saw Bond was March 21, 2023. However, Bond was found deceased on March 7. Bond’s friend said she did not remember telling the grand jury that date.

Mosley inquired about Bond’s reported tendency to decline medical attention. In the prosecution’s redirect examination, Bond’s friend stated that she did not remember any similar occasions and that the busted lip was the most serious injury she saw Bond endure.

Without the jury present, parties also discussed the admissibility of testimony from the prosecution’s domestic violence expert.

Slye’s other attorney, Kayla Wyatt, said that the witness’ testimony was not relevant because she was a “blind witness” with no prior knowledge regarding Slye and Bond’s relationship.

In response, the prosecutor stated that the witness was needed to explain domestic violence and “why a victim may stay,” to the jury. Judge Dayson found the expert’s testimony relevant and overruled the defense’s objection.

The prosecution’s domestic violence expert testified that domestic violence has physical and sexual aspects.

She stated that in a domestic violence relationship, “one member exerts a large amount of power and control.” The expert called that member an “abuser.” She testified to the different strategies abusers use in relationships with domestic violence.

The witness stated that in these relationships, it is “very complicated” for victims to leave. She claimed that it can take “seven or eight attempts to leave an abusive relationship.”

“Our desire to be loved and to love, it is fundamental,” the expert stated.

In cross-examination, Wyatt reaffirmed that the expert is a blind witness. The witness stated that she knew nothing about the case and was only present to testify to domestic violence in general.

A witness from the Department of Forensic Sciences (DFS), who aided in examining the crime scene after being notified of a potential stabbing, was called to the stand.

The forensic scientist described 37 pictures of the crime scene that the prosecution presented, which included images of suspected bloodstains found on clothing, the floor, and the couch, along with identification paperwork.

After the jury was excused, parties discussed the possibility of recalling Bond’s friend, emphasizing that she remained under subpoena. They discussed whether she should undergo a drug test.

Bond’s friend’s attorney said he has a way to contact the witness, who is homeless, if she is recalled by Judge Dayson.

Judge Dayson said this issue will be resolved at the next court date. Parties are scheduled to reconvene on July 28.

Co-authors: Piper George, Cole Baker, Leanna Joju, Shruthi Nadathur, and Vrinda Jhingan

Search