Trial began on Nov. 3 for seven men allegedly involved in a string of carjackings, with opening statements made by both parties before DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz.
Jahkai Goff, 21, Isaiah Flowers, 20, Jaelen Jordan, 20, Irshaad Ellis-Bey, 20, Taj Giles, 20, Byron Gillum, 20, and Warren Montgomery, 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. These charges are in connection with their alleged involvement in a string of carjackings that occurred in 2023, from February to May.
One carjacking occurred on Feb. 27, 2023 at the intersection of 20th Street and Sunderland Place, NW. Another occurred on April 27, 2023 at the intersection of K and 8th Streets, NE.
A third carjacking occurred May 16, 2023 on the 600 block of Butternut Street, NW. For their alleged involvement in this incident, the defendants, except Montgomery, 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 $1000 or more, and robbery of a senior citizen while armed.
The phrase “GTA IRL”, or Grand Theft Auto in real life, began the prosecution’s opening statements. The phrase was taken from a message sent in the defendants’ group chat, which described the carjackings the men had allegedly done and rated them according to the video game’s star system for game levels. But the prosecution was very clear that this was far from a game. “Members of the jury, you don’t carjack cars. You carjack people,” she said.
Using camera footage of the carjackings, paraphrased explanations of the incidents from the victims, cell site data, and messages from the group chat the defendants were in, the prosecution made its argument: these seven men had been involved in a conspiracy to carjack four victims, and did so armed.
The defendants acted in groups at each incident, stealing four cars at gunpoint: a green Dodge Charger, a silver Porsche Cayenne, a black BMW X6, and a black Porsche Cayenne GTS.
Summaries of the victims’ experiences were provided by the prosecution, who explained that the victims would be testifying as well. She explained that these men were going about mundane tasks: pumping gas, leaving work, going to work, and just getting home. She explained that each of them left their cars to the carjackers when they realized they were being held at gunpoint in each of these incidents.
Footage from a parking garage beneath an apartment building where Jordan was arrested by police was presented by the prosecution. The footage shows men bringing the cars into the parking garage, where Jordan would allegedly sell them from. These sales are captured either by the parking garage camera or the cameras of undercover police who the cars were sold to.
The same camera in the parking garage also depicts the men wearing ski masks and blue latex gloves, which the victims described and prevented the victims from identifying the men who carjacked them and kept their DNA off of the cars. An expert will be testifying to the lack of DNA evidence in the case, according to the prosecutor.
Due to the inability of the victims to identify the men by face, the defendants have been identified by distinct shoes or clothing items that were recovered from their residences. They were also placed at the scene of each crime through cell site data collected from their phones. The prosecutors again explained to the jury that an expert will explain the cell site data in greater detail, just the same as the DNA evidence.
Photos and videos from the defendants’ phones, some of which were sent in this group chat, were shown to the jury. The prosecution argued that these photos and videos were also evidence that linked the defendants to the stolen cars. One of these videos included one allegedly taken by Flowers, showing one of the stolen cars driving just in front of the car he was in. Many of the photos were allegedly taken by Jordan, in the effort to sell the cars.
One of the carjackings occurred in Prince George’s County, Maryland. The defendants are not being charged for this incident in DC, though the prosecution has included it to illustrate their arguments.
Donna Beasley, representing Goff, emphasized the fact that no evidence had been presented yet, despite the prosecution’s long opening statement, and that they needed the prosecution to prove every element of every charge beyond a reasonable doubt to deliver a guilty verdict.
She argued that the only evidence in this case will be from cell-site data, and will not involve DNA, fingerprint, or eyewitness identification.
Gretchen Franklin, representing Flowers, highlighted that this is not a group trial, but rather seven separate trials happening concurrently. She stated that this requires the jury to find each of the defendants guilty and that it would be difficult for the prosecutors to prove a conspiracy in the end. “You cannot make mistakes,” Franklin told the jury, emphasizing their need to soberly and deliberately interpret the facts of the case.
Lisbeth Sapirstein, representing Ellis-Bey, stated flatly that her client was not involved in any conspiracy. She followed this by saying that they will never hear anyone place him in the Florida Avenue garage where the cars were found, no DNA evidence will tie him to the crimes, and there will be discrepancies in the descriptions of the assailants in these cases.
Stephen LoGerfo, representing Montgomery, gave a brief, impassioned statement that the evidence against his client is either absent or speculative. He stated that the prosecution has admitted Montgomery was not involved in the alleged conspiracy until April, after two of the incidents already occurred. He pointed to the lack of eyewitnesses, DNA, or fingerprints involved in the case when asking the jury to hand down a not guilty verdict.
Christopher Young, representing Giles, stated that the jury needed to focus on the principles of presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt when listening to the case. He reiterated the lack of physical evidence brought up by other attorneys, but also stressed the fact that other people were in the group chat that have not been indicted and stated the prosecution was trying to “rope people in,” to the offenses by using the group chat as evidence of conspiracy.
Brian McDaniel, representing Jordan, stated that despite the long opening statement they never established burden of proof.
Pointing to the evidence, McDaniel stated that the cell site data would not place his client near the scene of any of the incidents, and that no other evidence of his involvement in these carjackings exists. Furthermore, he cast doubt on the use of the cell site data as a whole by stating that there are inconsistencies in the location of both the accused and the victim during the time of the incident.
Daniel Dorsey, representing Gillum, highlighted the inconsistencies that will be found with the evidence. He stated that in the footage of the last offense, the suspects can be seen without gloves on, yet no DNA or fingerprints will be introduced as evidence. He reiterated that there was no conspiracy, there is not enough evidence to convict, and that the jury should find the defendants not guilty.
Trial is set to reconvene on Nov 4.
