Cotey Wynn‘s defense attorney, Brian McDaniel, excoriated the prosecution’s evidence for inadequacy at a preliminary hearing on May 30, in which DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt was asked to decide whether there was probable cause to send Wynn’s case to a grand jury for possible indictment.
Wynn, 44, is charged with first-degree murder while armed for his alleged involvement in a mass shooting that occurred on Sept. 23, 2023, in the former CRU Lounge on the 1300 block of H Street, NE. The incident resulted in the death of 31-year-old Blake Bozeman and the injury of three other victims.
The prosecution called the lead detective from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) in the case as a witness. He testified to writing the affidavits to support arrest warrants for Wynn and another suspect, who was believed at the time to have been the shooter.
According to the lead detective, the charges against the other suspect were dropped when it was determined that he was not as tall as the shooter, based on surveillance video footage. Wynn, however, is being prosecuted on the theory that he aided and abetted the shooter, whose identity remains unknown.
The prosecution showed surveillance video footage of an individual, identified by the police as Wynn, parking the SUV that the shooter later used to flee the scene. The footage showed the individuals identified as the shooter and Wynn entering the CRU Lounge separately, then leaving the lounge together to walk to the SUV, and returning four minutes before the shooter opened fire.
McDaniel noted that the video footage of the driver parking the SUV was taken from a distance at night, making it difficult to identify Wynn as the driver. He confirmed with the detective that there’s no other evidence of Wynn’s owning or driving an SUV.
When the individuals identified as Wynn and the shooter passed through the security tent outside the lounge together, the tent blocked the camera’s view of them, but the detective testified that the amount of time they spent in the tent wasn’t adequate for them to be inspected for weapons with the security guard’s metal-detecting wand.
“I can tell you from years of experience supervising that job that it was done too quickly to be done proficiently for two people,” the detective said.
He testified that Wynn was a respected patron at the lounge, due to his work organizing events as a promoter.
“He gets preferential treatment from the club, which means he can get a person with murderous intent into the club so they can carry out their murderous intent,” the prosecutor said about Wynn.
McDaniel countered that the individual identified as Wynn appeared to be cooperating with the security screening rather than trying to pass through the tent without inspection.
“He doesn’t wave anybody off or push anybody away,” McDaniel observed.
McDaniel confirmed with the detective that there was no evidence the shooter obtained the gun used in the incident when he went out to the SUV with the individual identified as Wynn.
McDaniel also said that the behavior of the individual identified as Wynn on reentering the lounge didn’t indicate any expectation of a shooting.
“He’s smoking that hookah. He’s not trying to kill anyone,” McDaniel commented. “He’s just smoking that hookah, and drinking, and occasionally talking to a young lady.”
The detective testified that the individual identified as Wynn in the video didn’t dive to the ground or behind the bar like most of the people in the lounge when the shooter opened fire.
McDaniel slowed down the surveillance video footage to show that Wynn turned away when the shots were fired and lowered his head and upper body somewhat, although not as much as other people.
“That’s security that’s hiding behind Mr. Wynn,” the detective noted about another person in the video footage.
“Hiding behind the bar?” McDaniel asked.
“Hiding behind the bar and Mr. Wynn. And he’s security,” the detective replied.
McDaniel argued the prosecution hadn’t demonstrated that Wynn knew the shooting was going to occur.
“He didn’t have any suspicion or any knowledge of what the shooter was going to do. There’s no evidence of it,” McDaniel said.
McDaniel further argued it was unlikely Wynn would have remained at the location until the police arrived, as he did, if he had assisted in the crime.
“If he’s such a bigwig, why would he agree to such an act of violence, where he knows there are cameras around? And if he did that, after the shooter left, why would he stick around until the police came?” McDaniel demanded.
“There’s no evidence that Mr. Wynn even knew the shooter before this day,” McDaniel argued to the court.
The detective disagreed, testifying that there was evidence of phone calls between them. The video footage of the shooter outside the lounge showed him on the phone for 14 seconds, and a data dump from nearby cell towers showed a 14-second call to Wynn’s phone at about the same time. The phone that called Wynn then had made and received several other calls to and from Wynn’s phone in the preceding weeks.
McDaniel argued that it was mere speculation to equate the phone that called Wynn with the shooter’s phone. He pointed out that the phone records and the time stamp on the surveillance video disagreed on the timing of the call by two minutes.
“The standard of probable cause, although a lower standard, requires some evidence supporting what the prosecution alleges,” McDaniel said. “This man does not belong in jail, right now, on this evidence.
“A little involvement is not no involvement, and a little involvement is what the law requires,” the prosecutor countered. “All you have to find under an aiding and abetting theory is that Mr. Wynn knew about a possible crime and did what he could to make that possible.”
Judge Brandt delayed making a ruling regarding probable cause in order to review the surveillance video footage more fully.
The next hearing in this case is scheduled for June 3.
