‘You Can’t Bring a Sharp Object to a Fist Fight,’ Prosecutors Say in Stabbing Trial

The prosecution argued a stabbing defendant escalated a fight with a pair of scissors in a stabbing trial before DC Superior Court Judge Robert Salerno on April 6.

Stephanie Fawbush, 51, is charged with two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, with an aggravating factor of the victim being a Metro transit officer or station manager, and threatening to kidnap or injure a person. These charges stem from her alleged involvement in a stabbing on the 900 block of 17th Street, NW on Aug. 14, 2023. One victim sustained a stab wound to his arm and another was assaulted in the crossfire.

The stabbing victim, a bus driver for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), continued his testimony with cross-examination from Fawbush’s attorney, Tammy Thom. Thom revealed through questioning that bus drivers are trained to de-escalate situations, implying that his handling of the situation could have been improved.

Thom also played a video and the stabbing victim identified himself stepping between Fawbush and the assault victim.

On re-direct from prosecutors, the stabbing victim stated that Fawbush “lunged forward with her fists out” while the assault victim backed away.

The prosecution also called two of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers that responded to the scene.

The first MPD officer identified the scissors he recovered from the scene in the courtroom from a picture taken at the scene and the physical weapon. In response to a question from a juror, the officer confirmed that the scissors were used in the offense because they would not have been collected from the scene if they were not.

Another MPD officer said that a “show up,” or a process where the suspect is presented to eyewitnesses for identification was performed for this incident. The result of that test was one of the victims identifying the suspect as Fawbush. The officer also identified Fawbush as the suspect in court.

Without the jury present, Thom motioned for judgement of acquittal, meaning she asked Judge Salerno to dismiss the case due to insufficient evidence from the prosecutors. The judge denied the motion, and found that the prosecutors provided sufficient evidence, and that witness testimony and surveillance footage showed that the victims were injured during the incident.

After Fawbush declined to testify, the parties argued about jury instructions. Thom requested self-defense instructions, and the prosecutors requested transfer of intent instructions. The transfer of intent instructions would hold Fawbush liable for injuring one of the victims, despite them not being the intended target. Prosecutors stated that the jury was entitled to find Fawbush guilty of harming the unintended victim.

“You’re going to die today,” the prosecution said in their closing, recalling what the assault victim claimed Fawbush said to her two weeks before.

Two weeks later, the prosecution alleged, Fawbush approached her and started an altercation, loudly alleging the assault victim testified against her. The assault victim claimed in her testimony, according to the prosecutors, she had no recollection of testifying against Fawbush in any other cases.

Bystanders noticed the commotion, including when the victim was stabbed when attempting to split up the fight.

According to the prosecution, Fawbush is guilty of assaulting both victims and not in self-defense. The prosecution played surveillance footage of the altercation, drawing attention to Fawbush actions before and during. “She’s fixated on [the assault victim],” the prosecution said.

When he tried to intervene, the stabbing victim was able to get between the two women with his arms extended. Fawbush, who was getting up off the ground, then “lunged” at the assault victim, jabbing at her from underneath the stabbing victim’s arm. The prosecution argued the action of reaching under the stabbing victim’s arm implied Fawbush was aware of his presence as a shield.

The prosecution reminded the jury that Fawbush did not act in self-defense but instead she was the aggressor to both victims. “There is no reason at this moment that Fawbush should believe she is in danger of [the assault victim] at all,” the prosecution said, yet, she did not simply get up but lunged forward.

“You can’t just incite a confrontation then avail yourself of a weapon when it does not go your way,” the prosecution said. “You can’t bring a sharp object to a fist fight.”

Thom encouraged the jury “not to play Monday morning quarterback,” and to consider Fawbush’s thought process “in the moment.”

Thom argued the assault victim was not being honest in her testimonies, being inconsistent with her grand jury statements. The assault victim claimed Fawbush threatened her and incited the fight, approaching her first by “lunging and throwing fists.”

Thom, on the other hand, said Fawbush approached the assault victim with her hands in her pocket without intent to harm her. After an argument began, the assault victim put a personal fan in Fawbush’s face. Only at that moment had Fawbush taken her hand out of her pocket. She whacked the fan out of the assault victim’s hand. The assault victim, Thom emphasized, “slammed” Fawbush to the ground.

“I was irritated, [Fawbush] was in my face,” Thom recalled the assault victim’s testimony.

When the stabbing victim put himself between the two women, Thom argued it was reasonable for Fawbush to believe she was in continued danger because she could assume they knew each other from their shared uniforms.

Additionally, Thom said Fawbush held the scissors in a way that was not intended to incite significant bodily harm to either victim. She was reportedly holding the scissors with the end poking out, not weaponized like a knife. When the altercation ceased, Thom pointed out, Fawbush de-escalated and walked away. She crossed the street and smoked a cigarette.

Thom encouraged the jury to question the credibility of the assault victim’s account. She said the assault victim is “covering for herself,” because she knew her actions were not de-escalation as her job encourages, but aggression. Thom told the jury she doubts the initial threat by Fawbush ever happened.

The prosecution echoed the threat allegedly made by Fawbush telling the assault victim she would die. They encouraged the jury to disregard Thom’s accusations and trust the assault victim. “[Fawbush] wanted to get back at her,” the prosecution said.

Parties will reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.

Suspended Sentence for Non-Fatal Shooting Defendant

DC Superior Court Judge Robert Salerno gave a shooting defendant a one year suspended sentence on April 7.

Juwan Russell, 29, was convicted by a jury on Feb. 6 for carrying a pistol without a license outside of a home or business, possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. These charges stem from his involvement in a non-fatal shooting that occurred on the 1000 block of 16th Street, NE on June 25, 2025.

During the hearing, Judge Salerno stated that Russell had no criminal history, resulting in a sentence that would be in the lower end of the guidelines.

The prosecutors recommended a one year prison sentence, all suspended but time Russell already served, with one year of probation. They also suggested that Russell complete a gun violence prevention program with the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA).

Russell’s attorney, Lisbeth Sapirstein, stated that this was a “wake up call” for Russell. She told Judge Salerno that Russell never wanted to return to jail, but asked him to impose a sentence he felt was appropriate. According to court records, Russell was incarcerated from his arrest in this case on July 11, 2025 until the jury reached their verdict.

Sapirstein also said she didn’t think Russell had any issues with drug or alcohol use, but felt that he was struggling with mental health issues. According to Sapirstein, Russell was making progress with vocational training, and Russell told the judge he enrolled in a college prep program.

Judge Salerno stated that although this case was more serious than other cases of carrying a pistol without a license, “This could’ve been a lot worse” for Russell.

Judge Salerno agreed with the prosecution’s recommendation, and sentenced Russell to one year imprisonment all suspended and one year of probation also suspended for carrying a pistol without a license. In addition, Russell is required to register as a gun offender in DC and complete the CSOSA gun violence prevention program.

Russell received time served sentences for his other two charges, meaning the sentence is equivalent to the time he already served in jail, and he would not have to serve additional time for those charges.

If Russell fails to complete the requirements of his probation, Judge Salerno could require him to serve one year in prison.

No further dates were set.

Judge Denies Homicide Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Statements to Police

DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson denied a homicide defendant’s motion to suppress statements made during a police interrogation in a hearing on April 3.

D’Andre Montgomery, 20, is charged with conspiracy, premeditated first-degree murder while armed, first-degree felony murder while armed, assault with intent to kill while armed, four counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, unauthorized use of a vehicle during a crime of violence, attempt to commit robbery while armed, and carrying a pistol without a license outside a home or business.

These charges stem from his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of Kenneth Barksdale, 28, on Dec. 16, 2023, on the 1200 block of 44th Place, SE.

Kevin Hider, 20, and Eric Sheffield, 21, also face charges for their alleged involvement in the same incident.

Sylvia Smith, Montgomery’s attorney, filed a motion on March 6 to suppress statements Montgomery made during an interrogation because she argued his will was overcome. Smith questioned why the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) homicide detective continued to question Montgomery and show him evidence after he invoked his right to remain silent.

The prosecutor said that the interrogation, which was recorded, didn’t show any yelling or physical abuse by the detective. Therefore, the prosecutor argued that there were no factors that could’ve overwhelmed Montgomery’s voluntary cooperation.

Judge Dayson said that she wanted to hear from the detective directly to determine whether there was coercion.

The prosecutor called the detective to the stand and displayed surveillance footage from the interview room at the time of the interrogation on July 3, 2024. The detective first asked Montgormery for personal information, including his home address, spelling of his name, and an emergency contact. Then, he read Montgomery his Miranda rights and asked if he wished to answer any questions. Montgomery said no.

In the video, the detective asked whether Montgomery had any questions for him. “Why am I here?” Montgomery asked. The detective proceeded to show him images of two different cars. Another detective in the room explained that Montgomery’s GPS monitor tracked his location, so MPD believed that he was connected to the cars.

The prosecutor confirmed with the detective that he never yelled, threatened or physically abused Montgomery.

The prosecutor then played another video of the second interview that took place on July 31, 2024. The same detectives walked into the interview room and asked Montgomery if he was told why he was brought in. “I don’t want to answer any questions,” he said.

After reading his Miranda rights, the detective asked if he had any questions for them. Montgomery responded that he didn’t, but the detective then asked if he wanted to know what he was being charged with and Montgomery said yes.

“First-degree murder…that’s the charge,” the detective said in the video. “What murder?” Montgomery asked.

During the taped interview, Montgomery asked about the investigation, including what evidence they found. The detective told him about the GPS monitor that recorded his location at the scene of the homicide and images of the scene. The detective testified that he thought Montgomery had a right to know what was going on, so that’s why he showed him some of the evidence and continued to speak to him after he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Again, the detective testified that he did not yell, threaten, or physically abuse Montgomery.

Charlotte Gilliland, Montgomery’s other attorney, cross-examined the detective. She asked whether the detective knew how old Montgomery was before the interview and if he was aware of his learning disability. The detective said that he thought Montgomery was 18 and didn’t “know anything about his education.”

The detective testified that he continued to engage the conversation but would have left the room if Montgomery asked to remove him. “It would’ve been nice,” if Montgomery talked about the shooting, he said. Montgomery continued to ask about the evidence the police had, so he simply provided it, said the detective.

Judge Dayson decided that based on the detective’s testimony and video evidence, Montgomery’s will was not “overborne.” Although violence is not the only form of coercion, he was read his Miranda rights, not under the influence, and not physically impaired, said the judge. Judge Dayson noted that Montgomery was given information to re-engage in the conversation, a tactic used in the past with young offenders, but he was an adult when interviewed.

The prosecution filed a motion on Feb. 27 to admit statements made by Montgomery against penal interests, meaning a statement that subjects someone to criminal liability that they would not have said unless it was true. The prosecutor wants to include text messages from Sheffield’s phone recovered from the homicide scene.

At the hearing, the prosecutor said that Montgomery, Sheffield, and Lider allegedly said “checking cars,” referring to pulling on car door handles to see if they’re locked, 35 times in text messages. These are possible confessions to very serious crimes, which people typically do not lie about, asserted prosecutors.

Smith argued that Montgomery’s statements have to be considered with sufficient context.

Judge Dayson said she would rule on that argument at a later date. Parties are slated to reconvene on April 15.

Judge Reschedules Preliminary Hearing For Missing Stabbing Defendant

DC Superior Court Judge Robert Hildum rescheduled a preliminary hearing for a stabbing defendant after he failed to appear on April 3.
Davon Patterson, 35, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon for his alleged involvement in a stabbing at the Petworth Metro station, on the 3700 block of George Avenue, NW. The victim sustained a stab wound to his arm.

During the hearing, Patterson’s attorney, Sharon Weathers, explained that the US Marshals reported Patterson was non-compliant and was not placed on the bus to the courthouse that morning. She requested that the court set a new hearing date.

The prosecution acknowledged the issue and noted that there is a pending plea offer in the case.

Parties are slated to reconvene on April 14.

Jury Convicts Triple-Fatal Defendant of Manslaughter

A jury in DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt’s courtroom found a triple-homicide defendant guilty of three counts of involuntary manslaughter on April 6.

Nakita Walker, 46, was originally charged with three counts of second-degree murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, and fleeing a law enforcement officer, for her involvement in a fatal crash that killed Mohamed Kamara, 43, Jonathan Cabrera Mendez, 23, and Olvin Josue Torres Velasquez, 22, on March 15, 2023 on Rock Creek Parkway, NW.

After less than two days of deliberations, a jury found Walker not guilty of three counts of second-degree murder, but guilty on three lesser-included counts of involuntary manslaughter. The jury also found Walker guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon and fleeing a law enforcement officer.

Throughout the trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Walker chose to drive while she was under the influence of alcohol, resulting in the crash.

Albert Amissah, Walker’s attorney, questioned the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses and claimed Walker’s blood samples that determined her intoxication were stored improperly.

Walker’s sentencing is scheduled for June 5.

Judge Denies Release After Stabbing Defendant Waives Preliminary Evidence

DC Superior Court Judge Robert Hildum denied a defendant’s request for release after he waived his right to a preliminary hearing in a stabbing case on April 3.
Alem Tesfatsion, 50, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon for his alleged involvement in a stabbing on the 2400 block of 12th Street, NE.

According to court documents, Tesfatsion reportedly went to his neighbor’s door screaming and making obscene remarks. Tesfatsion then allegedly swung a cleaver -ype knife and injured his neighbor.

Tesfatsion, through his attorney Lucas Dansie, waived his right to a preliminary hearing of the prosecution’s evidence.

Dansie then requested his client’s release and emphasized that Tesfatsion had no prior criminal history and worked as a cab driver in DC for over 20 years.

According to Dansie, the incident stemmed from an escalated dispute with a neighbor and was a one-time occurrence. Dansie requested that Tesfatsion be released to his home under strict conditions, including compliance with an existing stay-away order prohibiting any contact with the victim in this case.

The prosecution opposed Tesfatsion’s release, citing the violent nature of the offense and concern for community safety. The prosecutor argued that there were no conditions that could reasonably ensure the safety of the victim or community.

Judge Hildum acknowledged Tesfatsion’s lack of criminal history and strong community ties but ultimately determined that the seriousness of the alleged offense warranted continued detention.

Parties are slated to reconvene on April 29.

Teenage Homicide Co-Defendant Pleads Not Guilty at Arraignment

A teen homicide defendant pleaded not guilty before DC Superior Court Judge Michael Ryan on April 6 while a bench warrant remains outstanding for his co-defendant.

Jaylen Suggs, 19, and Lawrence Bradshaw, 20, are charged with first-degree murder while armed with aggravating circumstances, four counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, attempted robbery while armed, and unauthorized use of a vehicle during a crime of violence.. These charges stem from their alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 38-year-old Ricky Canty. The incident occurred on April 25, 2024, on the 4500 block of Sheriff Road, NE.

At the hearing, the court arraigned Suggs on the charges against him and his attorney, Kevann Gardner, entered a not guilty plea on behalf of his client and asserted his right to a jury trial. Parties scheduled a trial date for March 29, 2027.

Bradshaw was not present at the hearing. According to court records, a bench warrant was ordered for Bradshaw on April 1 and parties will reconvene when US Marshals successfully execute the warrant.

Parties for Suggs are scheduled to reconvene on Jan. 15, 2027.

Case Acquitted: Judge Tells Prosecutors in Shooting Case, ‘I Don’t Want Your Apologies’

Editor’s Note: Marquis Allen was acquitted of all charges by a jury on April 9, 2026.

DC Superior Court Judge Carmen McLean clashed with prosecutors as they attempted to impeach their own witness on April 8.

Marquis Allen, 32, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of firearm during crime of violence, threats to kidnap or injure a person, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction greater than a year for his alleged involvement in shooting at his sister on Aug. 19, 2025 at the 3500 block of East Capitol Street, SE. No injuries were reported.

Before calling the jury, the prosecution informed the court that they wished to impeach, or challenge, an eyewitness, Allen’s sister’s roommate, who testified the previous day, believing the roommate had a motive to lie. Impeachment highlights prior inconsistent statements from a witness to discredit their credibility to the jury.

According to prosecutors, the roommate’s feelings for Allen could have motivated her to lie during her testimony. The prosecution requested to ask the roommate in their re-direct whether she was in a relationship with Allen, and planned to ask for her impeachment if she said no. If the roommate denied her relationship with Allen, prosecutors said they want to present text messages and jail phone calls between Allen and the roommate, claiming they hinted at a romantic relationship between the two.

Allen’s attorney, Shawn Sukumar, found this problematic, claiming that prosecutors shouldn’t be allowed to impeach a witness they called to testify. Additionally, Sukumar stated that the prosecution knew about this evidence for a while but did not take action.

Sukumar continued, saying the phone calls and messages are inadmissible, out-of-court statements, and that if the roommate said anything on direct examination that was false, it should have been addressed during then so that the defense could have an opportunity to question her about it.

Judge McLean questioned the prosecution about the points Sukumar raised, asking why the prosecution hadn’t talked with the roommate about this issue, stating that the prosecutors failed “to do an adequate amount of trial preparation.”

The judge also mentioned that she had requested prosecutors send all relevant information regarding the impeachment matter by 5:30 p. m. the previous day and they failed to meet this deadline. Prosecutors apologized, to which Judge McLean retorted, “I don’t want your apologies, I want you to be candid with the court.”

Prosecutors apparently forgot which of Sukumar’s points they were discussing and asked Judge McLean to remind them. “I’m not going to do your job for you,” stated the judge.

Judge McLean then asked prosecutors a question regarding the timeline of the jail calls, to which a but the response wasn’t clear. “I want a f*****g answer to my question,” McLean exclaimed. Then Judge McLean apologized to the prosecutors, calling her actions “wildly inappropriate.”

Judge McLean did not allow prosecutors to impeach the roommate, as she didn’t find any bias in her testimony.

Prosecutors called the roommate who testified the previous day to continue her questioning. The roommate claimed she felt pressured by her friend, the victim, to lie to the police on her behalf during an interview. She also stated that she called 911 the morning of the incident only after the victim told her to.

Prosecutors also called the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer who responded to the scene after receiving a 911 call. The officer stated that she asked the victim if she needed medical attention and identified two other individuals in the apartment, an adult and a child.

The prosecution played the officer’s body-worn camera footage, which, according to the officer, showed the victim pointing at a bullet hole in the wall. The officer stated that she did not search the apartment for a firearm.

On cross-examination, Allen’s other attorney, Gabriela Menna Barreto Scanlon, asked the officer if a firearm was recovered from the scene, to which the officer said no. Additionally, the officer claimed she was only in the apartment’s kitchen and living room, and did not enter the bedrooms.

Barreto Scanlon asked the officer about residents living on other floors of the building. The officer said she didn’t interview anyone else in the building, and stated none of the building’s other residents reported a gunshot to the police.

The prosecution called an MPD crime scene search officer who testified about the physical evidence that he recovered.

The officer testified about photos of a cartridge casing in the living room and a bullet hole through the wall from the living room into the kitchen. He explained how he determined the bullet’s path and recovered it from the kitchen wall. The officer also displayed the casing and bullet to the jury, noting that he sealed and logged them himself.

On cross-examination, Sukamar highlighted the gaps in the investigation and questioned why the casing was not tested for DNA. The officer said he does not handle DNA testing and was unsure why it hadn’t been done in this case.

During closing arguments, the prosecution emphasized credibility. The prosecution claimed that the victim had no reason to fabricate her story, emphasizing her emotional testimony and the fact that she had also called 911, along with the roommate.

The prosecution stated that Allen threatened his sister before firing the shot and then fled, urging jurors to “not let him avoid justice again.”

Sukamar questioned, “How many things do [prosecutors] tell you to assume are true?”

Sukamar explained that the victim argued with Allen before the incident, which gave her motive to lie about who fired the shot and stated that the victim “wants her brother out of her life.”

The prosecution dismissed the defense’s theory, asking jurors what reason the victim would have to lie.

Parties will reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.

Judge Suspends Sentence for Defendant Who Shot at Mother of His Child

DC Superior Court Judge Jennifer Di Toro fully suspended a sentence for a defendant who shot at his child’s mother on April 7.

Darnell Morgan, 35, pleaded guilty on Jan. 21 to assault with a dangerous weapon for his involvement in a non-fatal shooting on Oct. 13, 2025 at the 700 block of Brandywine Street, SE. No injuries were reported but Morgan shot at the mother of his children.

During the hearing, the prosecution requested 18 months of imprisonment, a sentence at the bottom third of the guidelines which was part of the plea deal. They argued since Morgan discharged a firearm in a densely populated area; in front of the victim and the victim’s mother, it shows the concerning and aggravating factors of the incident.

In addition, according to the prosecution, Morgan discarded the firearm near a playground. While they acknowledged he has no prior criminal history, the specific facts of assault with a firearm and the location he discarded the gun, warranted punishment rather than just probation.

Morgan’s attorney, Courtney Vaughan, requested 18 months of incarceration to be suspended. Vaughan argued that because Morgan has no criminal history, the incident was an isolated “misdeed” rather than a reflection of who he is.

“I am not trying to minimize the incident,” Vaughan said. “It is not accurate to say he discarded it [the firearm] near a playground.” She said the body camera footage showed that the gun was found underneath a tree, lying in a pile of foliage and trash.

Vaughan told Judge Di Toro she observed the body-worn camera footage of the incident and stated Morgan and the victim were both “fueled by alcohol” and claimed the video showed the victim started the verbal argument and Morgan escalated it.

“Nerves were frayed,” Vaughan continued. According to Vaughan, since the incident, Morgan has been successfully co-parenting his three daughters with the victim and is eligible to work at the end of April. She stated, Morgan has a support team composed of his mother, sister, and daughters who were all present in the courtroom.

Morgan himself apologized to his family, the victim, and three daughters for his actions.

“I am happy to hear you are co-parenting,” Judge Di Toro said. “That is what’s most important to me.”

As a result, Judge Di Toro, sentenced Morgan to 20 months of incarceration, all suspended except for the time already served. She placed Morgan on one year of supervised probation. Morgan must also register as a gun offender and is not legally allowed to possess a firearm.

No further dates were set.

Judge Releases Defendant Claiming He Shot in Self-Defense

DC Superior Court Judge Renee Raymond released a shooting defendant who said he fired shots to protect his family at a preliminary hearing on April 6.

Shalamar Brown, 31, is charged with endangerment with a firearm for his alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting at the 4600 block of Hillside Road, SE on Feb. 21.

According to court documents, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers responded after ShotSpotter, a software used to detect and collect sounds of gunshots in the District, alerted MPD of 15 shots fired. CCTV video footage reportedly shows a suspect, alleged to be Brown, outside the incident location, ducking as if he was avoiding gun shots, before retrieving a shotgun and firing approximately four rounds. The suspect can then be seen collecting the spent shell casings.

At the hearing, Brown’s attorney, Sean McCliggott alerted the court that his client intended to waive his preliminary hearing rights.

McCliggott argued for Brown to be released. He stated that Brown’s house was shot at during the incident, and that he was acting in self-defense to protect his family since his wife and five children were in the house.

According to McCliggott, Brown’s home has been burgled several times and he had to relocate to a hotel for the safety of his family.

In addition, McCliggott stated that Brown is employed and is the sole provider for his family.

The prosecution argued that Brown should remain held stating even though Brown has no prior gun offenses, the weight of the evidence in this case is strong based on the arrest warrant.

Judge Raymond found that Brown could be released on personal recognizance without endangering the safety of the community. Brown was released on his promise to appear in court, but is required to contact the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) twice a month.

The parties are scheduled to reconvene on May 11.

‘I Could’ve Been the Bigger Man’ Says Shooting Defendant at Sentencing

DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman sentenced a non-fatal shooting defendant to seven-and-a-half years in prison on April 3.

Nigel Pulliam, 32, pleaded guilty on Oct. 7, 2025 to assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for his involvement in a non-fatal shooting on the 2100 block of Benning Road, NE on Aug. 29, 2022 and a robbery on the 700 block of 14th Street, NE on Sept. 23, 2022.

As part of the plea deal, parties agreed to a sentence between six-to-10 years in prison, subject to Judge Edelman’s approval.

The prosecutor requested Pulliam be sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment. She claimed that Pulliam had shot at the same victim in a prior incident on a busy thoroughfare. According to the prosecutor, this history contradicted the “completely unsupported allegation,” that the victim was a drug dealer Pulliam was frightened of.

Judge Edelman asked why Pulliam was afraid of the victim, his attorney Sarah Kopecki said the victim had control over others and owned firearms.

“[The victim’s] well-established, we maintain, as a violent person,” Kopecki said.

“[The victim] was just trying to live his life,” the prosecutor said.

In addition, the prosecutor referenced a psychological evaluation of Pulliam that cited his post-traumatic stress disorder from gun violence as an explanation for his escalation of minor disagreements. “It’s shocking then that he would choose to engage in gun violence against this victim not once but twice,” the prosecutor said.

Kopecki said Pulliam understood he was admitting to the harm he caused and was relieved to plead guilty.

Kopecki requested for the two charges to be served concurrently in a six-year sentence. She also asked he be granted probation instead of supervised release so he would have easier access to Bureau of Prisons (BoP) apprenticeships and the Life Connections program, which uses faith-based communities to help inmates reintegrate into society.

“My client, right now, could truly use some support,” Kopecki said. “That history of violence, if we can support him, can be turned around.”

Pulliam said he acted out of fear of the victim, but regretted his actions.

“I could’ve been the bigger man,” Pulliam said. “To live amongst violence doesn’t mean you have to be a part of it.”

Judge Edelman acknowledged that this plea agreement, offered in the middle of Pulliam’s trial, was not the preferred option of either party. Edelman said the deal was “The result of arms-length bargaining in the midst of a contested trial.”

Judge Edelman noted that Pulliam did not injure the victim, but endangered him and others. He said the evidence clearly showed the victim was unarmed and they were not trying to fight Pulliam.

“Pulliam has been remorseful and reflective,” Judge Edelman said and added that Pulliam showed “a deeper expression of regret and acceptance of responsibility than” most defendants.

Judge Edelman also noted that he was struck by a sympathetic call between Pulliam and his romantic partner that was played during the trial. Judge Edelman said that while there was evidence Pulliam was jealous of a perceived relationship between his partner and the victim, his demeanor was different over the phone.

“You just didn’t sound like someone who would do that,” Judge Edelman said to Pulliam.

As a result, Judge Edelman sentenced Pulliam to concurrent sentences of six years for assault with a dangerous weapon and seven and a half years for possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, followed by three years of supervised release. He recommended Pulliam for drug treatment, the Life Connections program, and BoP apprenticeship.

No further dates were set.

Medical Examiner Testifies About Wounds in 2020 Homicide Trial

DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson heard testimony from a medical examiner at the DC Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) in a six-year-old homicide case on April 6.

Jamil Whitley, 38, is charged with first-degree premeditated murder while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, carrying a pistol without a license outside a home or business, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction greater than one year. The charges stem from his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 32-year-old Kevin Redd on the 4700 block of Jay Street, NE, on June 11, 2020. Redd sustained gunshot wounds to his chest, forearm, and shoulder.

A doctor and deputy medical examiner at OCME, the prosecutors called , said she performed Redd’s autopsy on the day of the incident. The medical examiner said an external examination revealed four “defects” resembling gunshot wounds on his left shoulder, right chest, and left forearm.

Referencing an autopsy report that was admitted as evidence, the medical examiner said the shot to Redd’s shoulder exited through his right chest and was fatal. She said the shot damaged his aorta and both lungs, causing him to lose nearly half of his blood volume.

The medical examiner said she recovered bullet fragments from Redd’s forearm wound and said the shot broke his bones. She said she recovered a bullet from soft tissue in Redd’s right chest.

After the prosecutor asked whether it was possible Redd’s wounds came from less than three bullets, the medical examiner said that would be speculation and said at least three shots were fired at Redd.

The medical examiner also said there is no way for her to determine Redd’s position when he was shot.

During questioning from James Brockway, Whitley’s attorney, the medical examiner said she could only determine the direction of the wound paths, not the direction from which Redd was shot.

A Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer, who the prosecutors called to continue her testimony from April 2, identified the scene based on body-worn camera footage. The officer pointed out an alley with broken glass, a gate with a gap large enough for a person to fit through, and spots of blood on the ground.

According to the officer, more than six police officers were present at the scene, including at different locations in the alley and outside the scene looking for shell casings.

A senior police officer in the Electronic Surveillance Unit (ESU) of MPD was additionally called to testify. Prosecutors asked him to review security footage he extracted from the Shell gas station on the 4300 block of Nannie Helen Burroughs Avenue, NE. According to court documents, this is where Redd reportedly met Whitley for the first time on the night of the shooting.

The ESU officer said he played no investigative role in this case besides extracting video footage from the Shell. He pulled camera footage from three cameras and reviewed the footage.

All of the surveillance footage from the Shell was one day and 15 minutes ahead of real time. He did not verify the time to the second, because this is something he “never does.”

One camera produced color video, but the others were in black and white. None of the cameras captured audio.

The prosecutors also called a former DC Department of Forensic Sciences (DFS) employee who collected evidence in the case. He said he received fingerprints, bullet fragments, a bullet, and a blood card used to collect Redd’s blood for forensic analysis.

The DFS employee said he was not present at the scene of the incident or the hospital.

Parties are set to reconvene on April 7.

Prosecutors Dismiss Non-Fatal Shooting Case Over Mental Issues

DC Superior Court Judge Errol Arthur dismissed a non-fatal shooting case without prejudice on March 27. However, prosecutors could revive the matter.

Johnathan Jones, 39, was charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm, unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction exceeding one year, carrying a pistol without a license outside a home or business, possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. These charges stem from Jones’ alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting that occurred on the 800 block of 8th Street, NW on Feb. 8, 2023.

During a hearing on Feb. 2, parties discussed that Jones, who was held at Saint Elizabeth’s Hospital, was diagnosed with schizophrenia and experiencing hallucinations.

Jones was previously found mentally incompetent to stand trial on May 16, 2023 by the Department of Behavioral Health (DBH).

Doctors at DBH created a treatment plan for Jones. However, Jones refused to take the medication prescribed to him despite a doctor attesting that it would improve his condition.

Due to Jones’ refusal, the prosecution filed a motion for “involuntary medication,” which would force Jones to take the drugs.

A second doctor said that they created a treatment plan involving involuntary medication, and another doctor said they believed involuntary medication would be “inappropriate” in this case.

Madhuri Swarna, who stood in as Jones’ defense attorney, asked the prosecution to hold the motion so she could review it with Jones, but the prosecution requested the motion be granted so the case could move as quickly as possible. Judge Arthur granted the motion.

At a later hearing on March 6, the prosecution withdrew the motion for involuntary medication and the parties reached a joint “Jackson finding.” The finding, which is referenced in Jackson v. Indiana (1972), states that a defendant being indefinitely detained to determine if they will regain competency to stand trial violates due process.

However, Judge Arthur denied Jones’ attorney, Henry Druschel’s request to release Jones and ordered that he continue mental health treatment.

On March 27, Judge Arthur granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, meaning the prosecution could bring the case back to court, and ordered that Jones be released from Saint Elizabeths.

No further dates were set.

Defense Attorney Claims Assault Victim in Bus Stop Stabbing ‘Lied’

The defense argued that an assault victim involved in a stabbing was “lying” during opening statements of a trial before DC Superior Court Judge Robert Salerno on April 2.

Stephanie Fawbush, 51, is charged with two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon with aggravating circumstances of the victim being a Metro Transit Officer or station manager and threatening to kidnap or injure a person. The charges stem from her alleged involvement in a stabbing that occurred on the 900 block of 17th Street, NW, on Aug. 14, 2023.

The prosecution laid out the timeline of events during their opening statement, explaining the assault victim’s first encounter with Fawbush.

“You’re gonna die,” the prosecution quoted, recounting what Fawbush had told the assault victim in July 2023.

The prosecution said when the assault victim saw Fawbush again that August, she tried to look away. Fawbush approached her and the assault victim took steps back to create distance and deescalate the situation. The prosecution stated that Fawbush continued to approach the woman before striking her in the arm and assaulting her. The assault victim fought back, resulting in both women falling to the ground.

The prosecution explained that’s when the stabbing victim came and separated the two. They stated that the attack could’ve ended there, but Fawbush lunged at the assault victim. The stabbing victim intervened and Fawbush struck him in the arm with a pair of scissors, showing the scissors to the jury.

The prosecution stated the assault victim went to get help while Fawbush crossed the street and went to a restaurant.

The defense says that’s not what happened.

“It was the third hit that knocked the fan out of her hand,” Fawbush’s attorney, Tammy Thom, told the jury.

Thom described her client as the victim of a physical assault, telling the jury that the assault victim hit Fawbush in the face with her fan. She said that when Fawbush knocked the fan out of the assault victim’s hand, she grabbed Fawbush’s arm and twisted it behind her back.

“[Fawbush] didn’t [stab] out of anger,” Thom stated, “she did it because it was the only thing she could do.”

Thom pointed out how the assault victim didn’t initially mention having the fan when testifying before the grand jury in December 2023, only remembering it after being shown a video of the incident.

“She didn’t remember,” Thom told the jury, “she lied.”

The prosecution called the assault victim to testify. She told the jury that she was waiting for her bus when Fawbush walked by. She kept an eye on Fawbush, recognizing her from their previous encounter.

During the first unwitnessed encounter, the assault victim said that Fawbush told her she had a message for her, “You’re gonna die today b****.”

“You first,” the assault victim replied before telling Fawbush to back away. She stated that she didn’t report the threat to anyone, thinking nothing of it until she encountered Fawbush again.

She stated she was on the phone with Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA) when she noticed Fawbush walk by. She kept an eye on Fawbush, feeling worried. She said she started walking the other direction when Fawbush started approaching her, not wanting to interact with her.

“I’m not a mean person,” she said, “I wanted her out of my space.”

The assault victim recalled turning to face Fawbush, extending her arm to create space between them. She stated that she felt irritated and wanted to know why this was happening before Fawbush swung at her.

“When she swung, I swung and we got to tusseling,” the assault victim said.

She stated that’s when the stabbing victim, another bus driver, came to help, stepping between them and separating them with his arms out. She told transit central command to call the police as the stabbing victim tried to convince her to get on his bus and leave. She said no, looking away at a supervisor who was down the street nearby.

She recalled hearing Fawbush call her a “b****” before Fawbush allegedly lunged from the ground, trying to go under the stabbing victim’s arm to get to her. She stated Fawbush held “something pointy,” taking a step back when Fawbush tried to reach for her with the pointy object.

The assault victim stated she didn’t know if Fawbush made contact with anyone using the pointy object. She watched as Fawbush stood up and crossed the street to a restaurant where she lit a cigarette.

The assault victim stated that she had to go to physical therapy and see a work-provided therapist for months after the incident. When she tried to go back to the scene, she stated that it wasn’t “difficult” per se but “It just brought back everything [she] went through.”

On cross-examination, Thom asked the assault victim if she remembered telling the police that Fawbush had a shiny object concealed in her palm, the victim said no she remembered it being between her fingers.

Thom approached the victim with a Metro employee incident report she filled out. Prosecutors objected to this, but Judge Salerno let her approach anyway.

Thom asked the assault victim if she remembered writing this report right after it happened, so it was fresh on her mind. The assault victim responded with yes.

Thom read the report, in which the assault victim wrote down that Fawbush lunged at her and swung at her. The assault victim admitted in her testimony that after watching the video, she now sees that Fawbush did not lunge at her, but that she thought it to be true when writing the report. In reference to the swinging, the assault victim clarified that she meant when Fawbush swung at her fan.

Thom asked the assault victim if Metro employees have to take a de-escalation course, to which she responded yes. Thom showed her a de-escalation pamphlet. The assault victim told her that she had never seen that before because their de-escalation course is with police officers on site, they never receive any sort of pamphlet.

The prosecution then called the stabbing victim to the stand. The day of the incident, he said he was a WMATA employee approaching his bus to sanitize it before continuing the route, when he saw two women yelling and cursing at each other.

He told prosecutors that his main focus was sanitizing the bus as fast as he could and getting it back on route, so his attention to the two women was not full. The last time he glanced at them to see what was going on, he saw the two of them on the ground tusseling. That was when he stepped off the bus to try and separate the two of them.

Prosecutors asked him about how tall he was compared to everyone else in the incident and he said that he was “six foot one” the other Metro employee was “probably about five foot seven” and the other woman was “around five foot three.”

They continued to ask him why he would intervene and he answered that he knew the assault victim and he was worried for her. He tried to step in between them and seperate them said the stabbing victim, and he thought he got them about two to three feet away from each other.

He recalled the other woman lunging towards the assault victim and then walking off cursing. It was not until after that when he realized he had been stabbed.

Due to time constraints, parties will reconvene on April 6 to continue cross-examination of the witness.

Homicide Defendant Objects to Finding he’s Mental Incompetent

A homicide defendant objected to a report from the Department of Behavioral Health (DBH) that found him mentqlly incompetent to stand trial before DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz on April 3.

Marcus Barringer, 35, is charged with first-degree premeditated murder while armed, two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, six counts of possession of large capacity ammunition feeding device, two counts of obstructing justice, two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction, carrying a pistol without a license outside a home or business, and unlawful possession of ammunition.

The charges stem from Barringer’s alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 32-year-old Rashad Davis at the 2300 block of Nicholson Street, SE on May 6, 2022. Davis sustained three gunshot wounds to his throat and torso.

Judge Kravitz read a Department of Behavioral Health (DBH) report that Barringer is mentally incompetent to stand trial and needs to psychiatric drug treatment. DBH recommended Barringer remain at Saint Elizabeths Hospital the therapy.

To stand trial, Barringer must understand the charges against him and be able to assist his attorney in his defense.

“Slightly predictable, he is incompetent,” the prosecution said, in response to the DBH report.

The parties requested Judge Kravitz order DBH to do a cell evaluation of Barringer at the DC Jail.

“I wanted to object…I am competent,” Barringer said. Barringer entered the courtroom carrying an armful of papers stacked thick in a manila folder.

Barringer continued, claiming that he had been involuntarily medicated after being physically attacked by other patients. He said the medication caused “physical trauma and allergic reactions.” Barringer also accused detectives of committing perjury.

Additionally, Barringer submitted a written motion from his claims requesting his release on GPS monitoring.

When scheduling the next hearing, Lisbeth Sapirstein, Barringer’s attorney, shared that her schedule is filled with trials. Barringer, frustrated, accused Saperstein of taking cases to make it difficult to proceed with his case.

“[You are making it] inconvenient for me because I do not want to be incarcerated and you are giving [the prosecution] more time,” Barringer said.

Judge Kravitz, having heard Barringer speak for the majority of the hearing, interrupted and said “Sir, I need you to stop interrupting. You have done a lot of talking already. You need to let me think and speak.”

Judge Kravitz then denied Barringer’s motion for release due to the seriousness of the offense and his extensive record of violent and weapons related offenses. He agreed to order the cell evaluation.

Parties are slated to reconvene on May 15.

Search