After two years in prison, a jury found 21-year-old Dujuan Garris not guilty for the murder of James Anderson on Thursday.

Throughout the duration of the case, defense attorneys Jeffrey Stein and Eugene Ohm denied any guilt on behalf of their client and instead suggested a drug gang was at fault for Anderson’s murder. They also suggested negligence on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Department.

In opening statements, Ohm told the jury that there was an incident in which officers on the scene failed to wear rubber gloves when handling evidence.

The possibility that lead detectives in the case didn’t thoroughly investigate the murder was another focal point.

The defense argued that Lead Detective Paris White chose not to disclose information involving other potential shooters that could have been the true suspect responsible for ending Anderson’s life.

The prosecution attempted to counter the defense’s argument by focusing on the eyewitnesses to the murder. However, multiple witnesses struggled to recall the details of the murder.

Prosecuting attorneys Mike Liebman and Chris Bruckmann called this repeated trend a result of the “no snitch rule.” Which Bruckmann explained as a trend in the Southwest Waterfront neighborhood not to speak with police in fear of being deemed “hot” or a “snitch.”

Despite their efforts the jury found Garris not guilty on all counts including first-degree murder.

Garris was held in jail for 779 days before Thursday’s verdict.

The government on Wednesday reaffirmed their argument that Dujuan Garris is responsible for the shooting of James Anderson.

Responding to arguments made by the government, Prosecutor Michael Liebman refuted that there were others who were responsible.

Liebman also slammed the defense’s contention that it was a rumor Garris came into the house and was identified as the shooter. The defense tried to discredit the witnesses who testified during the trial, and but Liegman said all witnesses’ testimonies matched what witness Jaquan Coates said when he “saw” the “shooter.”

According to the prosecutors, Coates did not personally know Garris but had seen him before about “four times.”

In response to the defense’s argument that Coates and his family were promised $25,000 if they spoke to the police, the government said Coates and his family moved from one “rough” neighborhood to another, suggesting that money was not a motivation for him to testify.

During closing arguments, the defense argued Garris did not have the gun about a year after the shooting.  Leibman said it was irrelevant–what mattered is who “had the gun” when the shooting happened, and suggested it was Garris.

The jury has begun deliberating and Garris is still being held without bond.

Defense Attorney Jeffrey Stein pointed at Dujuan Garris as he began his closing statements Tuesday.

“Long dreads, six inches, dark complexion, not that guy,” Stein said, motioning toward his client, charged with the fatal shooting of James Anderson.

Throughout the trial, the defense has argued Garris never shot Anderson, and he was wrongfully charged because of “unreliable sources.” Stein began by telling the jury that they had to abide by the three principles of law, which include presumption of innocence, burden of proof and level of proof.

Stein told the jurors that their start point is not to be “neutral” but start from the position that Garris is “not the shooter.”

In response to the government’s argument that Jaquan Coates was a key witness who identified Garris as the shooter, the defense argued that Coates was not a reliable witness. Stein said Coates was put under a lot of “pressure” both by the police and his mother to come up with an answer “regardless” of what he “saw.”

According to Stein, police offered Coates a reward of $25,000 to speak up and they also threatened to remove his family from their government housing if he did not talk.

Coates was shown an Instagram picture of Garris by the police, and he identified Garris as the person responsible for Anderson’s death.

Stein argued that Coates lies about “small things” and big “things” therefore the jury should not take his testimony into account when deliberating.

During closing arguments, the government argued that there was more than one witness who identified Garris as the shooter. Some of the witnesses never wanted to be labeled as the “snitch” in the neighborhood.

During grand jury testimony, a juror asked one of the witnesses, Darnell Gibson, if the situation were reversed, would he want Anderson to report it.

Gibson, who was one of the people in the house at the time of the shooting said he wouldn’t want him (Anderson), to say anything about it for his “protection and his daughter’s.”

During his final closing arguments, Stein told the jury that once again it is their job to look at the evidence and ask if the prosecution has showed any proof that Garris is guilty.

Stein reminded the jury that he would not get a chance to offer a rebuttal, but the government would. And just because they get to speak last doesn’t mean they have the last words: “you do,” he said.

Garris is charged with first-degree murder while armed, possession of firearm during violation of law, carrying a pistol without a license and attempted robbery while armed.  He is still being without bond, and his trial resumes with the government’s rebuttals Wednesday.