Judge Finds Probable Cause in Homicide Case, Not Self-Defense

DC Superior Court Judge Jason Park ruled there was probable cause in a homicide case on Oct. 24.

Kareem Thomas, 37, is charged with second-degree murder for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 23-year-old Jakele Allen that occurred on Oct. 21, 2024, at the intersection of 16th Street and Kentucky Avenue, SE.

Judge Park ordered Thomas remain detained after ruling that probable cause had been established in a murder case that the defense argued was self-defense. The hearing featured testimony from a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective and focused on conflicting accounts of the shooting.

The detective was called to testify and answered a series of questions from defense attorney Rachel Cicurel about nine witnesses, and their claims. For each witness, Cicurel asked whether they had seen the shooting, heard an argument before or during it, observed anyone else at the scene, or noticed a car nearby. She also asked if any of the witnesses saw Allen mocking the defendant, heard gunfire patterns, or approached Allen after he was shot.

One of the witnesses allegedly told the detective that the suspect fled the scene in a sedan. Two witnesses, according to the detective, also claimed that the shooter wore a red coat, and that there were multiple, spread-out gunshots.

According to the detective, another witness allegedly heard Allen taunt Thomas after repeatedly failing to shoot him, saying “I’m still here”.

The detective stated that other witnesses mentioned it was normal for Allen to carry around a firearm, and that he had allegedly been involved in robberies prior to the incident.

Following the detective’s testimony, the defense argued that the prosecution had not established probable cause, but cited evidence suggesting self-defense. Cicurel asserted that both firearms at the scene belonged to Allen and that shell casings found scattered around the area supported the claim that Thomas fired in self-defense. The defense contended that Allen attempted to shoot Thomas and steal his car, prompting Thomas to take Allen’s weapon and return fire to protect himself.

The prosecution countered that probable cause was clear, noting that Thomas continued shooting even after taking cover behind a car, which they argued exceeded reasonable self-defense. Prosecutors also referenced Thomas’s prior criminal history as evidence of potential risk.

Judge Park ruled that probable cause had been established, stating that while self-defense may be further explored at trial, there was sufficient basis for the charges.

The prosecution requested that Thomas continue in jail, citing his criminal record, prior bench warrants, and out-of-state ties to New York, which they said increased the risk of flight.

Cicurel requested home confinement with GPS monitoring, emphasizing that Thomas has a stable support system in the DC area, works multiple jobs and provides for his family. She described him as a man with strong community ties and argued that the self-defense claim reduced any perceived threat to public safety.

Judge Park ultimately sided with the prosecution, citing the seriousness of the offense and the defendant’s criminal history.

The parties are scheduled to reconvene on Feb. 27.

Gravely Ill Homicide Defendant Wins Medical Release

DC Superior Court Judge Michael Ryan released a hospitalized homicide defendant due to deteriorating health conditions on Oct. 27.

Byron Sneed, 40, is charged with first-degree murder while armed for his alleged involvement in the death of Raymond Washington, 18, that occurred on the 700 block of Marietta Place, NW, on June 30, 2024.

Sneed’s attorney, Destiny Fullwood-Singh, waived his presence, informing the judge that he is currently in the hospital and requested his release.

The defense argued that Sneed’s health had deteriorated severely since his arrest, citing both injuries and neglect while in custody. Fullwood-Singh argued that Sneed was injured when he fell on a set of steps before the arrest, injuring his back.

The injury deteriorated into a serious, antibiotic-resistant bacterial infection. His attorney said that the infection caused chronic pain, repeated hospitalizations, and several major medical interventions, including multiple blood transfusions, one surgery to address the infection, and an open-heart surgery.

Fullwood-Singh claimed the Department of Corrections (DoC) refused to follow medical instructions, including changing Sneed’s bandages as prescribed twice daily.

Fullwood-Singh raised concerns she had been unable to speak confidentially with Sneed throughout the week. She further stated that neither she nor Sneed’s family where he’s hospitalized.

The prosecution opposed release, arguing that Sneed’s charges were serious and his actions premeditated, that he has a prior criminal record, and that detention was necessary for the safety of the community. He suggested that a more forceful institutional intervention would be more appropriate than home confinement.

The judge disagreed, noting that Sneed’s medical circumstances had drastically changed and that his condition was not adequately addressed in custody. Sneed had done everything possible to seek medical help, but continued to suffer, Judge Ryan stated.

He emphasized that Sneed’s condition now posed no threat to the community, describing him as “not the same person” who had allegedly committed the crime.

The judge ruled in favor of releasing him under home confinement when it’s medically safe to do so. Sneed will be permitted to leave his residence only for medical treatment, meetings with his attorney, or pre-trial appointments.

Parties are slated to reconvene on Nov. 17.

Defendant Will Represent Himself With Help in Hit-And-Run Homicide

A defendant accused of a hit-and-run murder waived his right to counsel during a hearing before DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman on Oct. 28.

Kyle Piunti, 36, is charged with second-degree murder and three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon for his alleged involvement in a vehicular accident that killed 54-year-old Michael Hamlin on Jan. 3, 2024 on Highway I-295 southbound near Mile Marker 1, SW.

At the hearing, Judge Edelman discussed Piunti’s motion to proceed Pro Se– a formal request made to a court for permission to represent oneself in a legal case without an attorney.

If granted, this motion would vacate the appointment of his defense attorney Kevin Irving, who according to Judge Edelman, was the fifth attorney appointed in this case since it opened in September 2024.

Judge Edelman emphasized some of the disadvantages Piunti would encounter without Irving as his attorney. The judge argued that Irving can argue motions–legal requests made to the judge–in a way Piunti cannot, and has better access to the prosecution’s discoveries and evidence.

Additionally, Judge Edelman explained that Irving has expertise in selecting jurors, cross-examining witnesses, and giving opening and closing arguments.

“By giving up Mr. Irving as your lawyer, your defense is going to be weaker,” Judge Edelman said to Piunti.

When asked by Judge Edelman, “What’s your understanding of the prosecution’s theory in this case?” Piunti responded, “I don’t think it’s in my best interest to say.” Piunti then responded, “The prosecution is saying that the vehicle I owned struck somebody.”

Piunti said he understood issues, and asked that Irving be appointed as his stand-by counsel. Irving will be able to handle jury selections and argue certain motions on Piunti’s behalf, according to Judge Edelman.

Judge Edelman granted Piunti’s motion to proceed Pro Se and appointed Irving as his stand-by counsel.

Parties are scheduled to reconvene on Dec. 19.

Document: Suspect Sought in Yuma Street Shooting

The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) announced they are seeking assistance in locating a suspect involved in a shooting on Oct. 24 on the 800 block of Yuma Street, SE. A teenage female, who was not the intended target, was injured while seated in a vehicle and is currently receiving treatment for non-life-threatening injuries. The suspect was captured on surveillance footage, and the community is urged to help identify the individual.

Murder Trial Postponed for Pending Motions, Rulings

DC Superior Court Judge Jason Park postponed a murder trial due to a backlog of motions and the need for more preparation, with 229 evidentiary files, 30 witnesses, and several pending rulings still awaiting resolution on Oct. 24.

Julius Worthy, 39, is charged with second-degree murder while armed, assault with intent to kill while armed, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a prior convict, for his alleged involvement in the fatal stabbing and shooting of 36-year-old Orlando Galloway on April 2, 2023, on the 200 block of 14th Street, SE. An adult female victim was also found in the apartment suffering from multiple stab wounds, but survived.

Defense attorney Michael Bruckheim said he was not prepared for trial, which was slated to begin Nov. 10, and did not anticipate being ready in the near future.

Judge Park reminded both parties that he would not be handling the trial itself, as he is assigned to other cases, and that the purpose of the current session was to rule on pending motions. Consequently, the trial will maintain the same date unless the defense discusses the matter with the trial judge, DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt.

The first motion, filed by the defense, sought to suppress police-worn body camera footage and photographs. Bruckheim argued that he wished to limit the introduction of graphic materials, asking that only images sufficient to convey the prosecution’s point be used, describing his preference as “sanitary.” The prosecution narrowed its selection to 229 files from an initial 500. Judge Park instructed the defense to identify specific images it considers problematic and to confer with the prosecution about potential exclusions.

The prosecution noted that the female complainant in the case will testify. Discussion turned to the defense’s objection to the inclusion of a 911 call. Judge Park ruled that certain parts of the recording must be heard, including the defendant’s flat tone and lack of surprise, which could be signficant evidence. However, statements describing gunshots or someone being shot may be redacted as hearsay, since the victim was stabbed. The motion was otherwise denied.

The prosecution filed a motion in limine–at the beginning of trial–to exclude specific evidence or arguments, the night before the hearing concerning drug testing and related testimony. Judge Park requested more time to deliberate, while the defense asked for a week to file a response. The judge said he would issue his ruling after reviewing both sides’ submissions to avoid unnecessary delays.

The parties are slated to reconvene on Nov. 4.

Before Closings, Defendant Testifies in Partner’s Carjacking Case

The defendant in a domestic carjacking trial testified before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson on Oct. 28, followed by closing arguments.

Bernard King, 40, is charged with carjacking and threatening to kidnap or injure a person due to his alleged involvement in a carjacking that took place on the 2000 block of S Street SE on June 10.

During the trial, King told the court that the incident happened because the victim, the mother of his children, had taken his phone. He explained that he used ApplePay to buy groceries, and that he was unable to buy food for his children without the device. He resorted to borrowing money and raiding his relative’s fridge for food.

According to King, the victim had not been home in “three-to-four days,” and that he had been growing frustrated and “desperate.” He said he was “concerned about where she was,” and used an iPad to find her location. When asked why he didn’t call the police about his wife by prosecutors, King told the court that he didn’t have his phone.

When he saw that the victim at a convenience store, he intended to retrieve his phone and convince her to return home. He said he was unable to get his phone back, but that he was able to take hers instead.

King said that he followed the victim out of the parking lot in his car, and expected her to drive home. However, he said that when she turned right instead of left, he knew she was not going home.

He told the court that he “pulled over and blocked her off” with his car because she was “driving erratically.” When questioned further, he testified to the victim looking disoriented, and that he thought she may have been drunk or high.

He told the court that he was “concerned for her safety,” and said that she didn’t know how to drive because she “doesn’t have a license.”

After pulling over, King claimed that he opened the victim’s door, and that she ran out of her car and to a nearby officer’s house. He testified he got in the car and drove out of view of nearby camera footage, before claiming to park the car.

When asked how the victim was supposed to return home, he told the court that “she lived half a block away.” When the prosecution asked if King was planning on leaving the victim to walk home, he reiterated that she lived nearby, that the car had been visibly parked, and that she still had the key fob.

The prosecution asked King why he didn’t ask the victim to go home, and instead threatened her by telling her that she was “going to die,” after he claimed to be concerned about her.

King admitted threatening the victim, but said that he didn’t mean it and that he was just frustrated. He also said that he thought the victim would go home after he took the car because she knew no adult was at home.

When asked by prosecutors why he didn’t return home to the kids, after claiming to be worried about them as well, he said that he was worried about the police, and that he thought the victim was probably lying to the police officers.

The responding officer addressed King’s “allegations” that the victim was intoxicated during the carjacking, saying that she had been around the victim for “quite a while” and had not observed any signs of the victim being under the influence. According to the officer, the victim was “a normal victim” and just appeared to be in distress.

The officer also noted that none of the other responding officers or witnesses had expressed any concerns about the victim’s being drunk or driving erratically.

However, the prosecution said that it was the defendant who followed he victim, blocked her in, pushed her car against the curb, and “force[d] her to take evasive maneuvers” to escape. The prosecution called the altercation the “most terrifying moments” of the victim’s life.

The prosecution also rebutted King’s claims that he was concerned for the victim. The prosecutors noted that, after removing the victim from her car, King threatened her life. Those were not the words of someone who was concerned, but rather, the words of “a man who was really pissed off,” according to the prosecution.

The prosecution asked the jury to consider the “pressures” on the victim given her “competing interests.” In previous testimony, the victim was “evasive” during questioning.

The prosecution insisted that the victim was forthright but wouldn’t “directly implicated Mr. King in criminal conduct.” The victim in this case was not unreliable, “just human,” according to the prosecution.

The prosecution told the jury to look at the testimony from unbiased third parties, as well as the camera footage that corroborated the witness testimony. The victim was followed, forcibly removed from her vehicle, and threatened before the defendant drove off with her car. According to the prosecution, “that’s a carjacking.”

Prosecutors asked the jury to use their “common sense,” and find the defendant guilty on both counts.

Karen Minor, King’s attorney, emphasized that the nature of this dispute was an argument between two individuals in a domestic relationship.

She stated that they live together, sleep in the same room, and are raising their children together. According to Minor, it was common for both of them to use each other’s cars without asking.

The defense stated that the victim’s testimony contradicted what she said at the scene, and that there was no concrete evidence of threats made by the defendant or of him having a gun at the time. The victim had also testified that she “got out” of the vehicle, rather than being dragged out as she originally stated.

Minor followed up by stating that the two key eyewitnesses were too far away and had obstructed views of the incident which cast doubt on their testimony as some details of their accounts conflicted with video of the incident.

The prosecution rebutted that there is no exception to the law based on the relationship between suspect and victim, even if they were having an argument.

They concluded by stating that the victim must have been forced out of the car in fear and under threat.

Parties are slated to reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.

Judge Denies Carjacking Co-Defendant’s Release a Third Time

DC Superior Court Judge Jennifer Di Toro denied a carjacking co-defendant’s request for release on Oct. 29 due to his ongoing cases in Virginia and Maryland.

Antonio Kent, 20, Darryl Butler, 20, and Julan Byrd, 18, are charged with armed carjacking for their alleged involvement in a carjacking incident that occurred on Sept. 1, 2024 on the 5500 block of Jay Street, NE.

Butler and Byrd are also charged with possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for alleged involvement in the same incident. Byrd is additionally charged with robbery while armed.

While Butler and Byrd have been released into the community, Kent remains in detention at the DC Jail.

Kent’s attorney, Alvin Thomas Jr., argued that he should be released as he has been detained for one year during pre-trial while his co-defendants have been released.

Thomas explained that Kent wants to attend college and continue courses while he awaits trial. He claimed that the DC Jail has not offered any educational programming.

Kent hopes to use release to demonstrate how he has bettered himself while detained. Thomas argued that establishing himself in the community will impact hi sentence.

The prosecution argued that Kent is most likely going to be convicted of his charges and there is no reason to release him now. According to the prosecution, parties are in plea negotiations.

They also explained that Kent has additional counts in Maryland and Virginia that could lead to his incarceration as well.

After speaking to the Maryland prosecutor, Thomas argued that the Maryland matter will most likely result in his release and he will not be jailed for long.

He explained that Kent has also served time for the Virginia matter as well.

Judge Di Toro ruled in favor of the prosecution and denied Kent’s request for release. This is the third time that Kent’s release has been denied.

Parties are slated to reconvene Nov. 17.

Shooter’s Sentencing Delayed for the Second Time

A non-fatal shooting defendant’s sentencing was delayed for the second time pending a Youth Rehabilitation Act (YRA) Study before DC Superior Court Judge Errol Arthur on Oct. 28.

On July 14, Nathaniel Washington, 21, pled guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. The charges are in connection to a non-fatal shooting on the 500 block of Division Avenue, NE, on Feb. 7.

During the hearing, Judge Arthur informed the court that the Youth Rehabilitation Act (YRA) study had still not come through. He noted that he was trying to see what the hold up is with the Department of Corrections (DoC). Parties in different cases have previously stated that the DoC is experiencing a staffing shortage.

If a defendant is sentenced under the YRA the judge has discretion over the terms and the offender’s recored will be sealed if he successfully completes imprisonment.

Washington’s attorney, Chantal Jean-Baptiste, suggested that she obtain an independent YRA study so that the parties are able to move forward with sentencing.

Parties are slated to reconvene for sentencing on Jan. 29.

‘It’s Not A Negotiation Between You and Me,’ Judge Tells Prosecutors About Evidence Motions

Co-defendants in an armed carjacking and conspiracy case worked through 30 motions and navigated sensitive firearms evidence with their attorneys and prosecutors before DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz on Oct 23.

Byron Gillum, 20, Jaelen Jordan, 20, Isaiah Flowers, 20, Jahkai Goff, 21, Warren Montgomery, 20, Taj Giles, 20, and Irshaad Ellis-Bey, 20, are charged with conspiracy, trafficking stolen property, two counts of armed carjacking, two counts of unauthorized use of a vehicle, four counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and two counts of robbery while armed.

The charges stem from their alleged involvement in a carjacking ring. A Feb 27, 2023 armed carjacking of a Porsche Cayenne at the intersection of 20th Street and Sunderland Place, NW and an April 27, 2023 armed carjacking of a BMW X6 at the intersection of 8th and K Streets, NE.

Jordan, Goff, Gillum, Ellis-Bey, Giles, and Flowers are also charged with two additional counts of unauthorized use of a vehicle, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, armed carjacking of a senior citizen, receiving stolen property of $1,000 or more, and robbery of a senior citizen while armed. The charges stem from their alleged involvement in a carjacking that occurred on the 600 block of Butternut Street, NE, on May 16, 2023. They are alleged to have carjacked a Porsche Cayenne GTS in that incident.

During the hearing, the co-defendants, their eight attorneys, two prosecutors, and Judge Kravitz worked through 30 motions in preparation for their upcoming trial. Much of the hearing centered on the admission of photo evidence of the defendants with guns.

In an earlier hearing, Judge Kravitz had instructed prosecutors to be extremely selective in their portrayal of firearm evidence during the trial.

Judge Kravitz clarified his position during the hearing after prosecutors said they hoped to introduce six images of firearms and make nine total references to firearms photos in their arguments. Judge Kravitz said that those numbers did not reflect his instruction at the previous hearing.

“It’s not a negotiation between you and me,” Kravitz told prosecutors.

After parties returned from lunch, prosecutors presented a reduced list of four total photo exhibits concerning firearms. Together, they depict each of the defendants with firearms, including two assault-style rifles.

Jordan’s defense attorney, Brian McDaniel, objected to the use of images with the assault-style firearms, arguing that a witness’ description of an “Uzi style weapon” was not sufficient to justify including images of the longer assault-style rifles.

“This is not an Uzi-style weapon,” McDaniel said. “In essence that would be the court guessing at what [the witness] meant.”

Multiple defense attorneys also made the point that prosecutors could just use the physical guns already in evidence. Prosecutors explained the necessity of evidence showing that each of the defendants had access to firearms consistent with the firearms reportedly used in the carjackings.

Kravitz ultimately sided with prosecutors on most of the firearms pictures, but warned them to proceed with extreme caution in how they present arguments about firearms during trial.

“I think that this present set of items of evidence is not inappropriate given the case law and the options available to the [prosecution] and the defendant’s access to firearms during the conspiracy and specifically their possession of a black and tan pistol,” Judge Kravitz said.

“I hope the [prosecution] understands the great risk of mistrial in their firearms arguments,” Judge Kravitz later added.

Parties also discussed a swath of evidence from the defendants’ Instagram accounts. Prosecutors informed the court that they whittled down the number of Instagram exhibits from 415 to around 200. Much of the morning was spent deliberating over lingering issues with the remaining exhibits.

Several of Judge Kravitz’s rulings on the Instagram evidence went in the favor of prosecutors. Judge Kravitz allowed prosecutors to introduce text re-posted by Giles. The original post read “we gon be rich legally or illegally idgaf.”

Judge Kravitz also allowed in several other pieces of evidence over objection including video of the defendants sleeping in a car, a birthday post made by Ellis-Bey for Flowers, and correspondence between the defendants about a Twitter post allegedly highlighting the Feb. 27 carjacking.

Judge Kravitz denied prosecutors’ motions to include a photo of an unindicted alleged co-conspirator, video of one of the defendants driving with a gloves and a ski mask, and a string of text messages talking about the illegal sale of cars unrelated to the cars the defendants are accused of carjacking.

Parties agreed to highlight to the jury that Montgomery is only charged with conspiracy from April to May, whereas the other co-defendants are charged with conspiracy from Feb. to May. A prosecutors’ motion to admit statements was not decided by the court.

Parties are slated to reconvene on Oct. 27.

‘You Can Get Back on Your Feet,’ Judge Tells Tearful Shooting Defendant at Sentencing

DC Superior Court Judge Andrea Hertzfeld wished a remorseful defendant well when she sentenced him for discharging a firearm on Oct. 28.

On Aug. 12, Kevin Jackson, 58, pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful discharge of a firearm for his involvement in a shooting that occurred at the 1300 block of Pennsylvania Avenue, SE on Dec. 1, 2024. No one was injured in the incident.

Judge Hertzfeld reviewed Jackson’s pre-sentence report, a letter on behalf of the defendant, and a video made by Jackson.

Judge Hertzfeld said she was very touched by the video, which described hearing how Jackson’s son was killed as a result of gun violence. She was also moved by how Jackson’s daughter spoke about him in the video.

“Clearly, you have a family that cares a lot about you,” Judge Hertzfeld said.

Before Judge Hertzfeld ruled on a sentence, both parties and Jackson himself spoke in front of the court.

The prosecution stated that consistent with the plea agreement, they would be requesting the full 12 months of incarceration. They acknowledged Jackson’s circumstances he shared in his video, however also noted their concern with his prior criminal record.

Jackson had been arrested numerous times dating back to 1989, however he had been on the “right path” as described by Judge Hertzfeld up until this incident.

Defense attorney Emily Sufrin said she would keep her statements short, as in her opinion, “Mr. Jackson is the better voice to be heard here”.

Sufrin recounted the day of the incident, sharing that Jackson was battling depression and was fearful that a group nearby would cause him harm. She stated that he had even tried to approach a police officer for help, but was turned away.

Despite these circumstances, she reiterated that Jackson is fully aware of and remorseful for his actions on that day, and provided insight into Jackson’s efforts both in the community and while he has been incarcerated.

Sufrin described how Jackson has been supportive and encouraging to other young men, trying to lead them to the “right path”. She stated that he is the type of person the community will listen and look up to, “because of his heart and who he is”.

“It’s been an honor to represent [Jackson] as a client, and as a friend”, Sufrin stated, before requesting that Jackson’s sentence include reduced probation time once released.

Judge Hertzfeld gave Jackson time to speak, and listened intently as he apologized and shared his vision for the future.

“I’d like to apologize for my actions,” Jackson said immediately. He spoke of the crimes he committed many years ago- “I was a young man”, however that was “not the man who is sitting here now”.

He described his mindset on the day of the crime, sharing that his depression had resulted from the death of his mother, son, and father all within a short timeframe.

“That’s not to say those deaths excuse my behavior,” he continued. “I have to be an adult, even when [I] don’t want to be”.

He concluded by sharing that when he gets released from prison, he hopes to continue working as a chef, which has been his profession for many years before this incident.

“The rest will be told when I get home and I get my life back,” he concluded.

For unlawful possession of a firearm, Jackson was sentenced to 367 days incarcerated, with all suspended except one day. For unlawful discharge of a firearm, Jackson was sentenced to 12 months, with 6 months suspended. The sentences will be served concurrently. Both charges will also come with one year of probation, and three years of suspended supervised release.

Jackson will also have to register as a gun offender in DC, and pay $100 to the Victim of Violent Crime Compensation Act (VVCA).

When the sentence was read, Jackson began tearing up. “It’s over,” he stated.

“You can get back on your feet, good luck to you,” Judge Hertzfeld said, concluding the sentencing.

No further dates were set.

Two Carjacking Defendants’ Appearance Waived For Cellblock Overcrowding

Multiple defendants were unable to participate in their hearing before DC Superior Court Judge Andrea Hertzfeld on Oct. 23 due to overcrowding at the courthouse cellblock.

John IV Gear,21, Jayquan Johnson,20, Lee Johnson, 20, Marquis Alston, 20 are charged with counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with intent to commit robbery while armed, robbery while armed, robbery, and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence in connection with their alleged involvement in an armed robbery and carjacking on the 1700 block of New Jersey Avenue, NW on April 16.

Judge Hertzfeld waived the appearance of Alston and Lee after US Marshalls told her that a courtroom’s cell block cannot hold more than four defendants at once, therefore, only Gear and Jayquan were present for their hearings.

Defense counsel for Jayquan, Kevann Gardner, and defense counsel for Gear, Alvin Thomas, expressed their interest to negotiate a resolution to the case. Additionally, the prosecution stated that he just received a motion to sever the individual cases and needs time to respond.

All parties are expected to reconvene on Oct. 27 to discuss the motion to sever.

Defense Accuses Judge, Prosecution of Multiple Violations in a Carjacking

D.C. Superior Court Judge Andrea Hertzfeld denied multiple defense motions on Oct. 24, leading to accusations that she violated a suspect’s constitutional rights..

Marcus Tucker, 30, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, armed carjacking, robbery while armed, and three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for his alleged involvement in a carjacking on April 17 on the 2700 block of Hartford Street, SE.

Defense counsel Jason Tulley made a request for US Marshals court security personnel to un-cuff one of Tucker’s hands in order to take notes–Judge Hertzfeld refused based on the Marshal Service policy.

Tulley claimed that this was a violation of Tucker’s constitutional rights to participate in his trial and confer with counsel. Ultimately, the Marshals un-cuffed one of Tucker’s hands.

Tulley moved to recuse Judge Hertzfeld, claiming that she is partial and favoring prosecution.

The prosecution opposed the motion arguing Judge Hertzfeld had been impartial and made rulings in accordance with the law.

Judge Hertzfeld rejected the motion arguing the defense wanted her off the case because they disagreed with her rulings.

Tulley also moved to ask a prosecution’s witness about allegedly violating release conditions for an open strangulation case and suggesting the witness is testifying to “curry favor” with the prosecution.

The prosecution agreed to allow the defense to ask about the maximum sentence but argued Tulley cannot ask about the nature of the crime. Judge Hertzfeld ruled that the defense can ask about the case and sentencing, however, will limit cross examination.

Tulley also complained the prosecution failed to send out correct arrests records of the victim.

Judge Hertzfeld ruled there was nothing improper about relying on the prosecution’s methods to find out arrest records and the prosecution corrected the issue once they were notified.

Tulley moved to exclude screenshots that tracked Tucker’s cellphone location because it was a late discovery. The prosecution claimed it was not late because they sent more information as they received it.

Tulley asked Judge Hertzfeld to sign a subpoena to get access to the metadata on a private phone. Judge Hertzfeld agreed with the prosecution’s argument that this action required a search warrant and refused to sign a subpoena.

Tulley also moved to suppress a suggestive identification by the victim after the witness made an identification based on a police officer’s mistake of not muting their phone.

Both parties disagree about the facts of the incident, therefore, Judge Hertzfeld ordered the officers and complaining witness to an evidentiary hearing to decide on this matter.

The parties are slated to reconvene on Oct. 27.

Carjacking Defendant Acquitted of Shooting Charge Mid-Trial

DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson acquitted a carjacking defendant of a shooting charge and heard testimony from additional witnesses on the second day of a trial on Oct. 27.

Bernard King, 41, is charged with unarmed carjacking, and threat to injure or kidnap a person. These charges stem from King’s alleged involvement in the unarmed carjacking and assault on a victim, the mother of his children, on June 7, at the 1900 block of 18th Street, SE.

During the trial, King’s attorney, Karen Minor, motioned for acquittal on all counts. Minor argued that there is no evidence of gunshots as witnesses have not testified to hearing any and there is no evidence that King discharged a firearm. She also stated there is no evidence of carjacking or that King made any threats.

Prosecutors admitted footage of King walking towards a house allegedly stating something along the lines of, “You’re gonna die.” They also stated that the victim said she heard two loud bangs and it was her assumption that those were gunshots.

The prosecution claimed that testimony from an eyewitness is in line with carjacking and the victim stated that at the time of the incident, King did not have permission to use the vehicle.

Judge Dayson acquitted King on the charge of unlawful discharge of a firearm, stating that there was not enough evidence to prove that King fired a shot.

Prosecutors called the victim to the stand–the mother of the defendant’s children.

She testified that on the day of the incident she was at Good Hope Deli, a corner store where the incident started. Through surveillance footage the victim can be seen walking towards her vehicle when a black Jaguar comes into frame and pulls directly behind her.

When asked who was driving that black Jaguar, she stated it was King. As the footage continued, the two could be seen arguing. When asked what the two were arguing about, the victim stated that it was because she had the defendant’s phone.

The video ended with the defendant driving off first, and the victim pulling out in the same direction shortly after. She said as she was driving home she saw the car parked on 18th street and heard two loud noises. She said she sped off because she was scared.

According to the victim, she did not know where the noises came from. Prosecutors asked why she went to an officer’s house. She said that King was allegedly chasing her and she thought if she went for help he would stop.

In cross-examination by Minor, the victim was asked what the nature of her relationship was with the defendant. She said they were co-parents that were living together. She added that they had not had a romantic relationship in “quite some time”.

According to the witness, when she pulled out of the Good Hope Deli parking lot she was not trying to get away from the defendant. She stated that she was trying to go home at the time she pulled out of the parking lot.

The victim testified she didn’t call the police during the incident, and stated that she never saw King with a gun or pointing a gun at her on the day of the incident.

The defense called King to testify. He testified that he and the victim live together with their children. On June 7, he stated that he had not seen the victim for a few days, they had been going through ups and downs while coparenting.

Prior, King stated that the last time he saw the victim was June 5 when she supposedly took electronics from the home including an iPad and King’s phone. On the day of the incident, King claimed, he canvassed the neighborhood for her after one of their children notified him that they had seen her.

He went looking for her in her Jaguar which he stated he had used multiple times with permission fand the same goes for a BMW. He stated that neither of them needed to ask permission to use either of their cars.

King stated that when he located her in a corner store market he was trying to get his phone back, but was unsuccessful. After that, he stated, he left the market first believing she was going home and when she did not, he followed her to the intersection of 23rd and S Street, SE.

He claimed that the victim looked intoxicated because she was irate, loud, her eyes were droopy, and she was swerving while driving. Ultimately, he parked with BMW and took the Jaguar.

The prosecution also called an eyewitness who lived near the incident. The witness testified to seeing the incident occur through her window. She stated that she heard “angry” and “forceful” yelling from a deep voice.

According to the witness, she saw a man she did not recognize next to a black Jaguar pulling on the door handle of the BMW and banging on the window.

She stated that once the door opened, a woman was ripped out of the driver’s seat and thrown onto the pavement.

The witness claimed that the man then got into the BMW and the woman ran down S Street towards a police car. The BMW drove in the opposite direction, but the witness was unable to see how far.

The witness said that the woman was frantic and visibly upset. According to the witness, her neighbor, an off-duty officer, eventually came outside and assisted the woman.

She stated that after she got off the phone with the police the Jaguar was gone and she did not know what happened to it.

In cross examination, Minor noted that the witness was on the second floor of her building. The witness stated that from her window, flush with the front door of the building, she would be about 50 feet from the street where the incident happened. She also stated that she did not hear any words that were said.

She stated that at first she thought there might have been another carjacker because at some point the Jaguar was gone. She testified that she did not see any weapon in the suspect’s hands and did not hear gunshots.

In a redirect by prosecutors, the witness stated that nothing was obstructing her view that day.

The prosecution called an off duty Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer who was an eyewitness to the incident. The officer testified she was attempting to take a nap in her residence when she heard “frantic banging” at her door. She looked out her window and saw a Black male in a black sweatshirt walking down the street, pointing his arm at her house with a finger gun symbol.

According to the officer, when she went to open the door a woman was walking away. She called her into her home and radioed the incident in. She radioed because the woman told her that her children’s father had “fired off two rounds at her”.

She was asked if she heard or saw any gun shots, to which she said she did not.

Her residence had four security cameras, three of which were working on the day of the incident. Through surveillance from those cameras the majority of the incident could be seen. On video the victim could be seen running to the officer’s home and repeatedly ringing her doorbell. The victim was heard saying “you on camera” as the male came into frame then ran off.

In cross examination by defense, the officer was asked if at the time she was observing the incident if she ever heard or saw any gun shots. The officer testified she did not.

A ShotSpotter analyst was called to the stand to explain how the system collects and records the sounds of gunshots, then alerts police.

The specialist testified that on the day of the incident at 10:40am an alert was triggered to a single round on the 1900 block of 18th street.

In cross-examination he was asked how accurate the software was at giving the location of where the shot was fired. He stated that generally there is an 82 foot radius.

During the trial King asked to remove Minor as his attorney. He stated that he did not receive all of the discovery in his case and felt as though he was “being railroaded”.

Minor asked to withdraw herself, but Judge Dayson denied the withdrawal. She stated that there was no good reason for Minor to withdraw or be removed.

The prosecution called an MPD officer who testified to be called in to do paperwork regarding an individual who turned himself in. The officer identified the individual as King.

Parties are set to reconvene Oct. 28.

Judge Grants Motion to Delay Teen Carjacker’s Sentencing Until Graduation

DC Superior Court Judge Judge Robert Salerno granted parties’ motions in a carjacking case to continue sentencing on Oct. 24, but he denied the defense’s request to delay it until 2027.

On June 30, Eric Woods, 18, pleaded guilty to armed carjacking and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for his involvement in three carjacking incidents on Oct. 11. The incident occurred at the intersection of Hanover Place and North Capitol Street, NW. .

Gregg Baron, Woods’ defense attorney, asked the court to delay sentencing until 2027, a request which the prosecution opposed and Judge Salerno denied. Baron argued Woods is in the process of getting his high school diploma, and wants to ensure he could graduate before being transferred to the Bureau of Prisons (BoP).

“We believe that’s just far too long. There are victims who are asking for closure,” the prosecutor said, objecting to the request.

“We just want Mr. Woods to get his high school diploma,” Baron said.

In support of his request, Baron said that recidivism rates decline when convicts receive their high school diploma, “according to studies.”

Further, Baron said that the BoP does not offer programs allowing inmates to get their high school diploma and does not implement Individualized Learning Program conditions such as one-on-one sessions to receive help on assignments and help breaking down tasks into smaller parts.

“I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with what you said,” Judge Salerno responded. He said he and the prosecution disagree with the amount of time the defense asked to delay sentencing.

“This is way too far into the future,” Jude Salerno said.

Judge Salerno granted a continuance to allow parties to discuss a new sentencing date.

Parties are slated to reconvene Dec. 12.

DC Woman Receives Suspended Sentence For Bus Stabbing

DC Superior Court Judge Robert Salerno heard from the victim of a stabbing incident before sentencing the defendant to all but time served suspended on Oct. 22.

On Aug. 15, Tywanna Johnson, 33, pleaded guilty to attempted assault with a dangerous weapon for her alleged involvement in a stabbing that occurred aboard a WMATA bus on the 400 block of 15th Street, NE on Jan. 23. The victim suffered an abdominal injury.

Before hearing arguments, the victim shared an impact statement describing the physical, psychological and social consequences of this incident, expressing he “does not enjoy things anymore.”

According to the victim, he did not agree with the terms of the plea deal, sharing he “[did] not feel safe” with Johnson being released to the community.

Prosecutors requested 15 months of incarceration, three years of supervised release, restitution of $4,500 for medical expenses, and stay-away orders, noting the defendant needs help as this was a “stranger-on-stranger” crime.

Defense counsel, Derrick Page, emphasized Johnson’s traumatic history with unaddressed psychiatric conditions, substance abuse, and housing instability. Page shared “none of that is to take away from the pain [the victim] feels” and that Johnson is “greatly remorseful and apologetic.” Johnson briefly apologized to the victim in court.

A representative from the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) shared that though Johnson had “rough start” since her release in July with a few positive drug tests, she has been largely compliant. He cited a string of negative drug screenings and connecting with outpatient support.

Judge Salerno expressed concern about the combination of mental illness and illicit drug use, calling it a “deadly mix,” and found that probation alone would not guarantee Johnson’s stability and health.

He ultimately sentenced Johnson to 24 months suspended, except time already served and days it takes until Johnson can be placed into a residential dual-diagnosis program. She is also required to serve three years of supervised release, suspended, and two years of probation.

Judge Salerno ordered Johnson to comply with drug testing and treatment recommendations upon her discharge from the residential program, and imposed stay-away orders for areas the victim regularly frequents in DC.

Judge Salerno also directed the prosecution to share any medical receipts related to the case with Page so that arguments could be heard later in November before making a final decision on ordering restitution.

Parties are slated to reconvene on Nov. 7.

Search