Judge Denies Release After Stabbing Defendant Waives Preliminary Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parties are slated to reconvene on April 29.

Teenage Homicide Co-Defendant Pleads Not Guilty at Arraignment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parties will reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No further dates were set.

Judge Releases Defendant Claiming He Shot in Self-Defense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The parties are scheduled to reconvene on May 11.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No further dates were set.

Medical Examiner Testifies About Wounds in 2020 Homicide Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parties are set to reconvene on April 7.

Prosecutors Dismiss Non-Fatal Shooting Case Over Mental Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No further dates were set.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The defense says that’s not what happened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homicide Defendant Objects to Finding he’s Mental Incompetent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parties are slated to reconvene on May 15.

Judge Says Defense Can’t Raise Self-Defense in Homicide Opening Arguments

DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman said a defense attorney in a homicide case can’t mention self-defense in an opening arguments on April 3.

Robert Lowe, 42, is charged with second-degree murder while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of Kenneth Goins, 43, on the 1300 block of U Street, NW, on April 27, 2024.

Prosecutors filed a motion on Nov. 14, 2025 to exclude arguments that Lowe acted in self-defense unless the defense can offer clear evidence before the trial. According to the motion, the counter-move was out of concern the defense might introduce evidence about Goins’ over 10-year-old convictions that do not adequately support a self-defense claim but may bias a jury against him.

The prosecution also motioned to exclude any evidence implicating a third-party committed the crime without sharing specific factual evidence prior to the trial.

As a result of a sealed discussion with Lowe and his attorney, Lisbeth Sapirstein, Judge Edelman said that he thought most of this evidence would not be relevant. He ruled that self-defense, third-party evidence, and references to Goins’ prior convictions could not be brought up in opening arguments. However, the judge did not ban them from being presented into evidence or mentioned during the trial.

Parties are scheduled to reconvene on April 27.

Prosecutors Challenge Defense Expert’s Credibility in a Homicide

Prosecutors challenged a defense mental health expert in a motions hearing before DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt on April 3.

Spiro Stafilatos, 38, is charged with second-degree murder, aggravated assault knowingly grave risk while armed, and fleeing law enforcement, for his alleged involvement in a Dec. 30, 2022, hit-and-run incident. The accident occurred on the 1400 block of New York Avenue, NW, and resulted in the death of 31-year-old Shuyu Sui and severe injury to another individual.

At the hearing, parties discussed an expert in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that Stafilatos’ attorney, Brian McDaniel, plans to call to testify during the trial.

According to McDaniel, in 2021, Stafilatos was diagnosed by a social worker with PTSD after he was reportedly beaten by police officers at the Montgomery County Jail.

McDaniel said Stafilatos was then transferred to the care of a nurse practitioner who administered his medication. The nurse practitioner is not a medical doctor nor does she have a PhD credential, which is why prosecutors are challenging her expertise.

Prosecutors asked for the expert to testify before the trial in order to see if she qualified to make the determination. They said she cannot be solely relied upon about the evidence, if she was not the one who diagnosed Stafilatos with PTSD.

McDaniel told prosecutors that the medical records the defense has only reference the treatment from the nurse practitioner. He told the judge that he has tried to subpoena all of the records, but he has not received them.

Judge Brandt told him that, “the plot thickens Mr. McDaniel.”

Parties are slated to reconvene on April 9 for testimony from the nurse practitioner.

Homicide Co-Defendants Reject Plea Deal

Co-defendants in a homicide case rejected a plea offer before DC Superior Court Judge Jason Park on April 3.

Damari Brown, 24, and Antoin Whitehead, 24, are charged with conspiracy, first-degree premeditated murder while armed, attempted robbery while armed, and two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. The charges stem from their alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 35-year-old Henry Crutchfield on May 27, 2025 on the 1600 block of 14th Street, NW.

The prosecution extended a plea offer that would require Brown and Whitehead to plead guilty to second-degree murder while armed in exchange for the prosecution dismissing all other charges.

Whitehead’s attorney, Elizabeth Weller, and Brown’s attorney, Madalyn Harvey, rejected the plea deal on behalf of their clients and expressed that they wanted to proceed to a jury trial.

Afterwards, parties discussed a motion filed by the prosecution on Feb. 15 opposing Weller’s proposed witness for a witness at an upcoming detention hearing.

Weller made a request for Whitehead to call the lead detective on the case to testify at his detention hearing, which does not currently have a set date. The prosecution was opposed to this motion because the proffer submitted by Weller on the matter was too broad regarding the topics they wanted to question the detective about.

Judge Park agreed that the proffer was too vague, but said its areas of inquiry were legitimate and that the specifics of the questioning could be monitored by the judge during the hearing.

Parties are slated to reconvene on May 15.

‘I Want to Have a Voice in This Matter as Well,’ Defiant Homicide Defendant Says to Judge

An argumentative homicide defendant asked DC Superior Court Judge Jason Park to reschedule a hearing on April 3 before parties discussed missing documents regarding his mental health.

Darryl Thompson, 37, also known as Darryl Tompkins, is charged with two counts of first-degree murder while armed, assault with intent to kill while armed, three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, three counts of carrying a pistol without a license, three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, obstruction of justice, and threats to kidnap or injure a person.

The charges stem from his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 29-year-old Edward Roberts Jr., on July 30, 2016 on the 3500 block of 14th Street, NW. Thompson is also charged for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 23-year-old Tyler McEachern, on Aug. 29, 2016 on the 3100 block of Buena Vista Terrace, SE.

Thompson’s attorney, Dana Page, told Judge Park that Thompson wanted to reschedule the hearing to a day where his other attorney, Mani Golzari, could attend, because he had some letters he wanted Golzari to read to the judge. Golzari was not present at the hearing due to his involvement in another matter.

Judge Park said he wanted to talk about other issues first, but Thompson persisted saying, “I want to have a voice in this matter as well,” and kept asking to reschedule the hearing. Eventually, Thompson and Judge Park agreed it would be best for him to exit the courtroom, and he was escorted out by a US Marshal.

Both parties addressed subpoenas they had filed asking for documents from the Department of Behavioral Health (DBH) pertaining to Thompson’s mental health treatment. Page said they were missing letters from DBH, and the prosecution was facing the same problem.

The letters both parties were missing related to the potential placement of Thompson in a “safety suite” treatment facility. The purpose for this placement would be to restore Thompson’s mental competency after he was found incompetent to stand trial on May 16, 2025. To stand trial, Thompson must understand the charges against him and be able to assist his attorneys in his defense.

Judge Park agreed to reschedule the hearing to allow parties time to obtain the documents they need. He also briefly discussed Page’s proposal to redact parts of the DBH records before they are turned in to the prosecution.

Parties are slated to reconvene on May 4.

Case Acquitted: Judge Admonishes Prosecutors About ‘The Suspect Way’ They’re Handling Shooting Case

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

DC Superior Court Judge Carmen McLean criticized prosecutors during trial openings on April 7 about their misrepresentations to the defense in a shooting case.

Marquis Allen, 32, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, threat 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 a Aug. 19, 2025, shooting that occurred on the 3500 block of East Capitol Street, SE.

According to court documents, Allen allegedly fired one shot at his sister but she sustained no injuries. His sister claimed that her ear felt hot and that she wasn’t able to hear for a few hours after the shooting.

During the hearing, Judge McLean first addressed the defense’s motion to exclude evidence filed on March 30. She stated she is “concerned about the representations” from prosecutors.

According to Judge McLean, Allen’s attorney, Shawn Sukumar, claimed there was evidence of Allen’s prior bad acts that prosecutors planned to introduce in the trial but did not disclose, despite numerous opportunities to do so. Judge McLean said she wasn’t suggesting it was a “deliberate falsehood” by prosecutors, but it is a misrepresentation because they previously said they disclosed all required evidence.

The prosecution’s “conduct has not been okay,” asserted Judge McLean.

“As a sanction of the suspect way” prosecutors handled the case and their failure to disclose Allen’s prior bad acts, Judge McLean said she granted Sukumar’s motion. The prosecution has had “problem after problem after problem,” and must deal with the repercussions of their actions, Judge McLean said.

The prosecutors did not respond to the complaints.

In the prosecution’s opening statements, they argued this shooting was “a broken bond between a brother and a sister.” Allen broke their bond with a threat, an act of violence, and by pulling out a firearm and shooting at his sister’s head, prosecutors claimed.

According to prosecutors, Allen was staying at his sister’s apartment and on the morning of the shooting, he and his sister got into an argument. Because of the fight, prosecutors said, Allen’s sister asked him to leave but he refused. After more arguing, he agreed to leave but wanted to come back at a later time for his things, prosecutors claimed.

The prosecution alleged when Allen’s sister insisted he leave with his belongings, he pulled out a gun and shot it above her head. He then got his things, fled the scene, and took his gun with him, prosecutors said.

Allen shattered the bond between him and his sister “to the point of no return,” prosecutors said. He “betrayed her in the one place she should always feel safe, her home.” They asked the jury to find Allen guilty.

Sukumar contended Allen is “entirely innocent of these charges.” He said this case begins with an argument over a bottle of Jameson whiskey. It was a “small, petty, minor, insignificant family squabble,” he said.

Sukumar noted that Allen’s sister is the only witness to see the shooting and claimed her testimony is a “bald faced fabrication” concocted by her. Sukumar told the jury her testimony will say that Allen fired a shot towards her “for absolutely no reason.”

Sukumar asked the jury to listen to her testimony and write down their questions. He argued that by closing statements, they will have a notebook full of unanswered questions that the prosecution failed to address. He asked the jury to find Allen not guilty of these “absolutely faulty charges.”

The prosecution called Allen’s sister, the victim of this shooting, to testify. The victim testified that Allen called her two days prior to the incident, asking to stay the night at her place, and she agreed. There were no problems with him staying over, she stated, and she agreed when he asked to stay another night.

When Allen arrived that night, the victim said he had a bottle of Jameson whiskey with him. She said her, her roommate, and Allen all took a shot of whiskey before she went to bed. She clarified that she didn’t know what Allen and her roommate did after that point because she was in her room.

The next morning, the victim said she saw Allen sitting on the couch. She testified that there was only a little bit of whiskey left in the bottle and he offered the rest to her, although she refused. She claimed Allen insisted she drink it because he said he got the bottle for her, and after she turned it down again, he yelled “this is why I don’t do things for people” at her.

The victim said she responded “no, this is why I don’t do things for people,” but Allen said “b***h, I don’t need you.” The victim said she responded “clearly, you do,” before telling Allen to leave.

The victim said a back-and-forth argument ensued, with Allen refusing to leave and the victim insisting he take his stuff and get out of the apartment. The victim testified that Allen said “b***h, I will shoot you” and then took out a gun from his waistband and shot at her. It happened so fast that the victim said she had “no time to block [herself] or move out of the way.”

While on the stand, the victim was emotional and when the prosecution asked why she was crying, she replied, “that’s my brother. I hate that he put me in this situation, I hate that I’m testifying against him.” The victim concluded that she no longer considered Allen her brother or an uncle to her children, stating that she is “done” with the relationship.

According to the victim, her roommate asked if she should call the police and Allen said, “call the police, I don’t give a f**k,” gathered his stuff, drank the rest of the whiskey, and threw the bottle back inside before leaving.

Sukumar asked about the night before the incident. He asked Allen’s sister if she heard her roommate and her brother engaging in any sexual activity, in which she told Sukumar that she didn’t understand the question that was being asked. Sukumar rephrased his question and asked “Do you know what sex sounds like?” Allen’s sister responded no, which led to Sukumar to stop asking questions about the topic.

The prosecution then called Allen’s sister’s roommate to the stand. The roommate stated that she was “okay, but not okay” with being in court. This was due to the fact that she had been arrested, was currently pregnant, and hadn’t seen her child in four days. The roommate was detained by US Marshals after Judge McLean issued a material witness warrant to secure her testimony.

The roommate said she lived with Allen’s sister after she was evicted from her previous residence and experiencing a domestic violence situation involving her first child’s father. She stated that she met Allen’s sister while she was in school to become a social worker. The roommate described her living arrangement, noting that she stayed in an extra room that belonged to Allen’s niece and nephew.

According to the roommate, she met Allen for the first time when he came by to stay and knew him only as “Q.” She described him as “cool” and said they had minimal interactions, though she later admitted to having a sexual encounter with him later in the night on the day they all drank whisky.

During cross-examination, Sukumar asked what happened during the morning of the incident. The roommate testified that she woke up around 5:30 a. m. and heard Allen’s sister yelling at him. She stated that the argument escalated and involved both parties, with tensions centered on the whisky bottle and Allen’s presence in the apartment. She claimed that Allen repeatedly told his sister to “back away” and “stop getting close” to him while he was trying to grab his stuff.

The roommate testified that after the incident, Allen’s sister attempted to influence her statements to the police by telling her what to say during a 911 call and through messages on social media. She stated that she eventually had to block Allen’s sister and that they no longer have a relationship.

When prosecutors asked why she gave the police a false statement, the roommate said she followed Allen’s sister’s guidance because she wanted to leave the apartment quickly and ensure her child’s safety.

As a result of time constraints, Judge McLean stated that the roommate’s testimony will continue on the next day of trial.

Parties are slated to reconvene on April 8.

Search