Judge Orders Murder, Mass Shooting Defendant Remain Detained in DC After Mistaken Transfer

DC Superior Court Judge Michael Ryan ordered that a homicide defendant remain in the DC Jail April 6 after he was transferred there by mistake.

Gerald Thomas, 23, is charged with first-and second-degree murder while armed, four counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, attempted kidnapping while armed, seven counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and carrying a pistol without a license outside of a home or business. The charges stem from Thomas’ alleged involvement in a mass shooting that resulted in the death of 18-year-old Dasha Cleary and injured four others. The incident occurred on the 4400 block of Connecticut Avenue, NW, on Jan. 27, 2022.

According to court documents, Thomas was scheduled for a hearing on Feb. 2, which he missed due to being moved to another jurisdiction for a separate matter. Judge Ryan stated he was absent due to being “accidentally shipped out to a different matter in another jurisdiction.”

At the hearing, the prosecution requested that Thomas be detained under the DC jurisdiction to avoid another transfer and ensure his presence for future hearings.

Thomas’ attorneys, Dominique Winters and Quiana Harris, expressed no opposition.

Judge Ryan subsequently changed Thomas’ detention to the DC jurisdiction.

Parties are slated to reconvene on Oct. 5.

Case Acquitted: Defense Argues to Suppress Evidence in Moped Carjacking Case

Editor’s note: Dylan Boney was acquitted of all charges by a jury on May 14, 2026.

A defense attorney argued a teenage carjacking defendant’s arrest was not legal in a motions hearing before DC Superior Court Judge Errol Arthur on April 6.

Dylan Boney, 17, is charged with armed carjacking, robbery while armed, two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, unauthorized use of a vehicle, and possession of a prohibited weapon for his alleged involvement in a carjacking on June 29, 2025 on the 2400 block of 14th Street, NW.

Boney is charged under Title 16, which allows prosecutors to try juveniles as adults for certain serious offenses.

The court arraigned Boney on the six charges and his defense attorney, Patrick Nowak, pleaded not guilty on his behalf and asserted his right to a speedy trial.

According to prosecutors, approximately fifteen minutes after police were flagged down to report the carjacking of a moped, Boney was found behind a wall in a parking garage and detained. They said the stolen moped was also found in the same garage. Prosecutors argued that he was “hiding” in the garage, while Nowak argued that he was homeless and sleeping.

Nowak argued a motion to suppress identification the defense filed on Nov. 14, 2025. They argued that the victim’s identification of Boney needed to be suppressed because he did not initially give any identifying features to the suspect besides “wearing all black and covering their face.” Then, when Boney was detained in the dark and from a distance, the victim said that [Boney] was the perpetrator.

Further, Nowak noted in court that in the body-worn camera footage the police officer accompanying the victim is heard yelling “we got someone,” which he argued could have unfairly skewed the victim’s identification.

Nowak also highlighted that a witness identified someone else as the suspect before Boney was detained. A phone with a lock screen picture of multiple men was left at the crime scene and the witness pointed to someone in the middle of the picture, telling officers that that man was the suspect. Boney was not the person identified or present in the photo at all.

Nowak in the motion argued, “because of the suggestivity of this alleged identification, the [victim’s] out-of-court identification and any subsequent in-court identifications by the [victim] must be suppressed.”

Prosecutors argued that there was no formal identification process for this case, “it was spontaneous,” and that the victim in the body-worn camera footage looked at Boney before he started pointing to him as the suspect.

Prosecutors also argued that the witness identifying the suspect on the phone did not negate the suspicion that police officers had when arresting Boney.

Judge Arthur did not rule on the suppression motion during the hearing but clarified that police responded to the stolen moped, not the witness phone identification.

Another defense motion filed on March 6 asked Judge Arthur to suppress GPS data and all other “fruits of the seizure,” obtained during Boney’s arrest. Nowak argued that the use of Boney’s GPS data after the arrest in this case goes against his constitutional rights, which protect against unreasonable search and seizures.

According to Nowak in the motion, “Boney did not voluntarily consent to the attachment of the GPS device to his leg,” and was not informed that the data would be shared with law enforcement or the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO).

Prosecutors disagreed and argued that GPS could be obtained by police officers at any time, and that the GPS device was visible on Boney in the body-worn camera footage. They argued that the GPS should be kept in as evidence because Boney consented to wearing it.

Prosecutors explained that Boney initially rejected the GPS, but he quickly accepted it after finding out his only other option was a youth group home. They also argued that in previous cases, similar situations have been upheld on appeal.

The motion to suppress all “fruits of the seizure” also includes the keys to the moped, which were found on the walkway up to where Boney was found. Nowak argued that the keys could have been dropped during the seizure.

Prosecutors refuted this, saying that where Boney was found had only one exit point and one entry point and that there is no evidence that the keys were dropped during his arrest. They argued that these were an abandoned item with no expectation to privacy.

Prosecutors argued that the location Boney and the moped were discovered, the time of day and the nearby offense were all “particularized facts that officers can consider,” making the seizure and evidence both legal.

Erica Arensman, Boney’s other attorney, told Judge Arthur that the only GPS data they received is a series of tables and maps, not the actual “raw data.”

Arensman reported that she and Nowak had “asked for the information multiple times,” and that they “still don’t have it.” She believes that they can’t have meaningful testimony without all of the information relayed to them from prosecutors.

Prosecutors said that this was the first time they had heard this and that they thought all of the information was provided. They asked Arensman for an example.

Arensman said that “[they’ve] been making this request for the raw data for quite some time,” and that there has been a lot of back and forth because “this is not something new.”

As a result of time constraints, parties are scheduled to reconvene on April 7 to continue arguments.

Investigator Describes Suspect Vehicle’s Path in Homicide Trial

An investigator testified about recovering surveillance footage of what prosecutors allege is the defendant’s vehicle during a fatal shooting trial before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson on April 7.

Jamil Whitley, 38, is charged with first-degree 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 for his alleged involvement in a June 11, 2020 shooting that fatally injured 32-year-old Kevin Redd on the 4700 block of Jay Street, NE. Redd sustained three gunshot wounds to his chest, forearm, and shoulder.

An investigator for the Evidence Surveillance Unit at the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) testified that he recovered footage on the day of the incident from a residence on the 900 block of 47th Street, NE. According to court documents, the residence is located next to the alleyway in which Redd’s body was found.

The investigator clarified that the timestamps on the footage were approximately 15 minutes earlier than the actual time. He identified videos from two cameras affixed to the residence that show a white car passing the residence at approximately 1:49 a. m. and driving through the alleyway at around 1:50 a. m. According to court documents, detectives reportedly tied this white car to Whitley.

On cross-examination, the investigator told Whitley’s attorney, Madalyn Harvey, that he collaborated with the lead detective in the case to specify the time discrepancy.

The forensic services manager at SoundThinking Inc., the entity who owns ShotSpotter, testified that a report was generated for MPD based on data collected by ShotSpotter at 1:50 a. m. on the date of the incident. ShotSpotter is a gunshot detection system used by MPD to locate and identify gunfire throughout the city. The prosecution played three audio recordings collected by ShotSpotter, each of which appear to record two consecutive gunshot noises.

On cross-examination, Whitley’s other attorney, James Brockway, questioned the manager about report automation and a disclaimer on the report stating that data should only be used for initial investigation. The manager said that all reports are reviewed by employees before publishing to MPD.

On re-direct, prosecutors confirmed that the company advises ShotSpotter to be used in conjunction with other corroborate evidence.

The prosecution also called a T-Mobile records custodian. He testified that the defendant’s phone number, as seen on the arrest warrant, is associated with a prepaid phone that was last renewed in June 2020.

He also said that T-Mobile maintains records of cell tower data including the date, time, and running time of phone calls when the phone is connected to a tower.

The prosecution also called a forensic examiner for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) who testified that she reviewed approximately 100 pieces of glass recovered as evidence from the scene.

On cross-examination, Brockway asked whether the examiner tested black debris that was found amongst the glass which she did not.

A second FBI forensic examiner who examined the glass was called by the prosecution. She testified that the glass in evidence was light green tempered glass, which can be found in a variety of places including automobile and architectural windows.

During cross-examination, she confirmed that she does not know the origin of the glass, nor is she offering an opinion about how long the glass has been broken.

Parties are slated to reconvene on April 8.

Judge Denies Release For Stabbing Defendant Waiving Preliminary Hearing

DC Superior Court Judge Dorsey Jones denied the release of a stabbing defendant who waived her preliminary hearing of the prosecution’s evidence on April 6.

Donnita Fountain, 38, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon for her alleged involvement in a stabbing on April 2 on the 3300 block of 13th Street, SE.

According to court documents, Fountain reportedly approached the victim and the two engaged in a verbal altercation. Fountain then allegedly knocked the victim to the ground, the victim attempted to get up and leave, but Fountain continued to assault the victim, and stabbed her. The victim sustained lacerations to her face and hands.

During the hearing, Fountain’s attorney, Lucas Dansie, waived his client’s right to a preliminary hearing. After making sure Fountain understood the rights she surrendered, Judge Jones accepted the waiver.

Dansie requested Fountain’s release, stating she wasn’t a threat to the community. Dansie highlighted that Fountain is a stay-at-home mother of two children, lived with her partner, and would stay away from the victim.

According to Dansie, the incident was a specific altercation that might raise the legal issue of self-defense, arguing the victim brought the knife. He also noted that Fountain successfully graduated from mental health court.

The prosecution opposed Fountain’s release, citing the violent nature of the offense and safety concerns for the community. The prosecutor argued that Fountain was the initial aggressor and used a knife to significantly harm the victim. They noted Fountain’s lengthy criminal record, including prior assault cases and 10 executed bench warrants.

The prosecutor concluded there are no conditions that can be set for Fountain’s release that could reasonably ensure the safety of the victim or community.

Judge Jones acknowledged that Fountain’s prior criminal history and bench warrants are dated. However, Judge Jones decided that due to the severity of the offense and Fountain’s pending simple assault case, she would remain held.

Parties are slated to reconvene on April 29.

Judge Finds Probable Cause in Shooting Case, Denies Defendant’s Release

DC Superior Court Judge Dorsey Jones found probable cause in a shooting case after a detective testified during a preliminary hearing on April 6.

Jovan Pratt, 46, is charged with substantial risk of endangerment with a firearm and carrying a pistol without a license outside a home or business for his alleged involvement in a shooting on the 400 block of 51st Street, SE on March 28.

During the preliminary hearing, the prosecution called a detective from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to testify, and he identified Pratt in open court.

The detective testified that three shots were registered on ShotSpotter, a software used to detect and collect sounds of gunshots in DC, before receiving a call for a shooting victim. When officers arrived at the scene, they found Pratt with a gunshot wound to his inner left thigh. Pratt was uncooperative, refusing to provide identifying information before being transported to the hospital, said the detective.

After reviewing surveillance footage, the detective testified that Pratt likely had a firearm, having been seen holding an “L-shaped” object in the footage.

The detective stated that a muzzle flash could be seen in the footage, the timestamp matching the second ShotSpotter activation. The detective also noted that gunshots and the sounds of someone loading a firearm was heard from residential doorbell footage. He pointed out footage of Pratt appearing to load a firearm and point it was consistent with the third ShotSpotter activation and that officers found two spent casings and six unspent rounds in the location of the shooting.

During cross-examination, Pratt’s attorney, Karen Minor, requested officers’ body-worn footage from the scene, the detective’s interview with Pratt at the cellblock, and the radio runs. The detective testified that he was unsure of the caliber of the casings and the firearm, stating officers were unable to locate a weapon.

Minor confirmed that the detective was aware of gun violence in the area and emphasized that the casings and unspent rounds could’ve come from anywhere.

The prosecution argued for probable cause based on the testimony of the MPD detective. They said that a person identified as Pratt is seen on the surveillance footage holding an object consistent with a firearm and subsequent flashes. Pratt has prior convictions for robbery and therefore is not legally allowed to carry or own a firearm. They also stated that Pratt would’ve known he wasn’t allowed to possess a firearm given his prior conviction.

The defense argued against probable cause, citing that there is not enough evidence for either charge. The detective said the object that Pratt was holding looked like a firearm in the video, but Minor argued it was not because the “barrel” was not longer than 12 inches. Additionally, the suspect’s face isn’t clearly identifiable in the surveillance footage. Minor emphasized that there was no gun found at the scene or taken off Pratt at the hospital. She also added there was no proof of projectile discharge.

Judge Dorsey found probable cause for both charges. He stated that the conditions for carrying a pistol without a license were met because of the two spent casings being found, the detective’s testimony, and Pratt’s prior convictions. Judge Jones said the conditions for endangerment with a firearm were met because there was evidence Pratt allegedly fired the gun on a public street.

The prosecution asked the judge to continue holding Pratt, stating he was on supervised release for a different case when the offense occurred and has a violent criminal history.

Minor requested release for Pratt. She argued that, although Pratt has criminal history, he only has two bench warrants, one of which is over 10 years old. She suggested Pratt could report two times a month to court and be on GPS electronic monitoring. She emphasized Pratt’s stability and commitment to following his release conditions.

Judge Jones stated that due to the weight of the evidence, there were no conditions he could impose that could guarantee the safety of the community. He maintained Pratt’s hold.

Parties are slated to reconvene on April 23.

Judge Rules Jail Stabbing Defendant Mentally Competent For Trial

DC Superior Court Judge Andrea Hertzfeld ruled that a stabbing defendant is mental competent to stand trial at a hearing on April 7.

Joly Germine, 33, is charged with two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon and two counts of unlawful possession of contraband into a penal institution. These charges stem from his alleged involvement in stabbings that took place in the DC Jail on the 1900 Block of D Street, SE on Aug. 28, 2025.

According to court documents, one victim suffered a stab wound to the right shoulder, a second victim suffered two stab wounds to his armpit and back, and a third victim suffered two stab wounds to the chest and the arm.

At the hearing, Judge Hertzfeld alerted parties that Germine had been found competent to stand trial based on a report done by the Department of Behavioral Health (DBH). Judge Hertzfeld asserted that she agreed with the report of Germine’s competency.

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

Additionally, Germine’s attorney, Brandon Taylor, submitted a request to Judge Hertzfeld in order to withdraw as counsel because he is leaving the Criminal Justice Attorney (CJA) panel which handles the overwhelming number of criminal cases against indigent clients.

Judge Hertzfeld set the next hearing in order to appoint a new attorney for Germine.

Parties are slated to reconvene on April 9.

‘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.

Search