Judge Denies Release For Defendant Accused of Shooting Near School

DC Superior Court Judge Renee Raymond denied the release of a defendant accused of a non-fatal shooting near residences, a school, and a church during a preliminary hearing on Oct. 27.

Wilson Dodson, 44, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and carrying a pistol without a license while outside a home or business for his alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting. The incident took place on May 22 on the unit block of Peabody Street, NE, near Sela Public Charter School. No injuries were reported.

Defense attorney Charles Haskell alerted the court of Dodson’s intent to waive his right to a preliminary hearing which Judge Raymond accepted.

The prosecution requested Dodson remain held at the DC Jail while he awaits trial due to the shooting in a residential area with a nearby school where parents were picking up their children at the time of the incident. They went on to call the shooting “reckless” since it endangered multiple bystanders, one of whom ran into the school to call 911.

Haskell requested the defendant to be released with any conditions the court wanted to impose, citing Dodson has a limited criminal history, with only two misdemeanors that are more than a decade old. The defense then claimed Dodson has an extensive family in the area that could support him if he was released.

The prosecution rebutted the argument, claiming the defendant’s family aided Dodson when he fled the crime scene by allegedly lying to police about his whereabouts and therefore would be unlikely to cooperate with law enforcement if he was released.

Judge Raymond ruled no conditions could ensure the safety of the community if Dodson were released and ordered Dodson’s continued detention. The judge noted in her decision that the defendant fled, an arrest warrant had to be issued, and he was arrested more than a month after the incident during a traffic stop.

The prosecution then stated that a plea deal had been extended to Dodson which will expire after the next hearing, however none of the details were disclosed in court.

Parties are slated to reconvene on Nov. 7.

Defense Claims Police Suggested Carjacking Victim’s ID of Suspect

The defense moved to suppress identification testimony of an armed carjacking victim who claimed to recognize the defendant before DC Superior Court Judge Andrea Hertzfeld on Oct. 27.

Marcus Tucker, 30, is charged with armed carjacking, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, robbery while armed, and assault with a dangerous weapon in relation to his alleged involvement in an armed carjacking that occurred April 17 on the intersection of 30th and Hartford Streets, SE.

Before trial, the victim spoke to defense attorney Jason Tulley regarding phone calls in the early morning of April 18 with Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers investigating the carjacking. He testified that he did not remember much of the call, as he had made many calls that day.

Body-worn camera footage of one of the officers contained clips of one of those phone calls. The detective could be heard telling the officer not to let the man she had pulled over go, as he matched the extremely detailed description of the suspect provided by the victim. At the same time, the officer was on the phone with the victim.

The officer could be heard giving a physical description of what the suspect was wearing, confirmed by the victim saying “Oh, that’s him” and “yeah, that’s him, that’s him” over the phone. The detective brought the victim to the scene to see the suspect and personally identify him in what is known as a “show-up identification.”

Tulley claimed that this phone call and the subsequent show-up identification were suggestive, and he claimed that “unfair” show-up violates due process. He frequently compared the case to the previous findings of Patrick v. United States (2025) to draw parallels between the two show-ups.

In Patrick v. United States, the DC Court of Appeals reversed the original ruling based on prejudicial evidence that was admitted in the trial.

Tully argued that the victim had identified Tucker only by the clothing description provided by the officer, rather than facial features that would make for a more reliable identification. He argued that the victim had been focused on the guns, as in Patrick.

But the prosecution claimed that the victim was able to provide an incredibly detailed description of his assailants before the officer’s description of Tucker was given to him. She argued that he had been focused on the two men carjacking him, not their guns, and that he would have expected police to stop someone who was a match.

She also argued that the show-up was legal and reliable, as the detective clearly instructed the victim that the assailant may not be the man they had stopped.

The prosecution argued that the victim could not have heard what the detective told the officer – they were not part of the same phone call and the detective’s voice was quiet in the bodyworn camera footage, making it improbable that what he said was audible to the victim.

Judge Hertzfeld agreed that it is unlikely that the victim heard the conversation between the detective and the officer. She also did not find the show-up to be unduly suggestive.

Parties are slated to reconvene Oct. 28.

Stabbing Defendant Restored to Mental Competence Denied Release

DC Superior Court Judge Judith Pipe refused to release a stabbing defendant with mental health issues out of concern for public safety on Oct. 28.

Tamara Francis, 36, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon for her alleged involvement in a stabbing that occurred on Sept. 15, at the 1400 block of Belmont Street, NW. One individual sustained injuries during the incident.

After previously being found incompetent to stand trial, a report from the Department of Behavioral Health (DBH) declared Francis is now competent. The defense, Chantal Jean-Baptiste, requested that Francis be released at this time.

Jean-Baptiste cited that Francis was provoked by the victim, her boyfriend at the time. She stated that, in her own investigation, the victim said he knew that Francis was suffering a mental health crisis at the time of the incident and that he did not wish to pursue the case. She also noted that the victim works with people suffering from mental health issues.

The defense argued that the victim acknowledged his role in the incident and that he previously had told the prosecution that he did not fear for his life. Francis also claimed that their relationship was toxic in nature, as he had power over her while she was vulnerable and he had previously boiled her phone, so she had no phone at the time of the incident.

Jean-Baptiste said that, according to the victim, he provoked her by taking her three-year-old child into his bedroom where she had no access, at which point she began stabbing through the door and accidentally stabbed the victim in the side of the head.

Judge Pipe brought up her concern that the child could have been hurt in this incident, as Francis could not see where the child was in the room during the stabbing.

The defense cited the DBH report, which found that Francis reacts to stressors and asked Judge Pipe to release her into a situation that would be free of stressors.

“That is not the world anyone lives with,” said Judge Pipe. She reminded the defense that the “facts of the case are extremely concerning” and that Francis had a very strong reaction.

Judge Pipe also noted that Francis has a prior assault charge and she also did not drop the weapon when police arrived.

“I cannot fashion conditions that would ensure the safety of the community,” the judge said in light of these details.

In spite of protests from Jean-Baptiste, Judge Pipe reminded her that the victim’s story had changed several times, as the narrative he provided her was not the same as what he had previously said to police or to the prosecution.

Regardless of what provocation there was, Francis’ reaction was extreme enough to endanger her child and the community as a whole, Judge Pipe insisted.

Parties are slated to reconvene Oct. 30.

Social Media Evidence Reviewed in 7 Co-Defendant Carjacking Case

DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz reviewed social media evidence in a carjacking conspiracy case with seven co-defendants before jury selection on Oct. 29.

Irshaad Ellis-Bey, 20, Isaiah Flowers, 20, Taj Giles, 20, Bryon Gillum, 20, Jahkai Goff, 21, Jaelen Jordan, 20, and Warren Montgomery, 20, are charged with conspiracy, trafficking stolen property, two counts of armed carjacking, two counts of unauthorized use of a vehicle, four counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and two counts of robbery while armed. These charges stem from the group’s alleged involvement in a series of armed carjackings and the subsequent distribution of the stolen vehicles between February and May of 2023.

One of the carjackings occurred on Feb. 27, 2023 at the intersection of 20th Street and Sunderland Place, NW. Another carjacking took place at the intersection of K and 8th Street, NE, on April 27, 2023.

Additionally, Ellis-Bey, Flowers, Giles, Gillum, Goff, and Jordan are charged with two additional counts of unauthorized use of a vehicle, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, armed carjacking of a senior citizen, receiving stolen property of $1000 or more, and robbery of a senior citizen while armed. These charges stem from their alleged involvement in a carjacking that occurred on the 600 block of Butternut Street, NW, on May 16, 2023.

During the hearing, parties discussed motions regarding Instagram messages among the defendants that the prosecutors want to introduce during trial. Goff, Gillum and their defense attorneys, Donna Beasley and Janai Reed, opposed admitting the messages into evidence.

Judge Kravitz noted some specific messages that, to him, seemed irrelevant or missing context. One read “Aye, Geet, I need…” The prosecution claimed that “Geet” is a nickname for Giles that the other defendants used and the message would connect Giles to the alleged conspiracy.

Judge Kavitz asked why part of the message was redacted? The prosecution stated that the part they excluded was someone asking for marijuana. They stated the relevance of the message was Giles’ nickname and not the request, but the redacted message still included part of it with the phrase “I need…” Judge Kravitz asked them to remove that part of the message.

Another message stated “Haven’t ran into none of them yet.” The prosecution argued this was referring to the police. Judge Kravitz noted that it was sent 30 minutes after the carjacking on Feb. 27, 2023 and allowed the message into evidence.

Judge Kravitz excluded a message that read “craziest night of my life.” He stated it was not sent the day of the incident and could refer to any night on its own.

The prosecution argued to admit a message that read “nahfr love y’all almost took a couple life’s” for two different reasons. They stated that “love y’all” was admissible as a state of mind statement and that “almost took a couple life’s” exposed the defendant’s criminal behavior.

The motion discussion was interrupted, as the final stage of jury selection needed to begin.

Parties are slated to reconvene to conclude motions on Oct. 30.

‘As We All Know, Competency is Fleeting,’ Says Judge in Carjacking Case

A prosecutor told DC Superior Court Judge Robert Salerno on Oct. 24 that the Department of Behavioral Health (DBH) denied a carjacking defendant mental health services meant to keep him mentally competent enough to stand trial.

Dontrell Davis, 18, is charged with conspiracy, four counts of armed carjacking, eight counts of robbery while armed, unarmed carjacking, three counts of unauthorized use of a vehicle during a crime of violence, 12 counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, possession of an unregistered firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, and two counts of misdemeanor receiving stolen property. These charges stem from his alleged involvement in five incidents that occurred in September 2023.

According to court documents, the five incidents include:

Theft of a vehicle on Sept. 1 on the 1900 block of 2nd Street, NE
Armed robbery on Sept. 3 on the 3800 block of 9th Street, SE
Armed robbery on Sept. 10 at the intersection of 18th and Erie Streets, SE
Armed robbery on Sept. 11 on the 1200 block of Savannah Street, SE
Two armed carjackings on Sept. 11 on the 3300 block of 4th Street, SE, and the 2900 block of Erie Street, SE

The DBH deemed Davis competent to stand trial in Dec. 2024, so they denied him mental restoration services in 2025 on the grounds they were unnecessary. Judge Salerno wanted to know whether they would provide competency maintenance instead.

The prosecution said that DBH declined either because they never considered Davis incompetent, arguing the decision would not make logical sense.

“If there was no barrier to competency in the first place, there are no sources to continue,” the DBH wrote in their email to the prosecutor.

Therefore, Davis will not receive in or out-patient mental health services— to help him maintain sufficient mental competency to stand trial–meaning he has to understand the charges and help his lawyer defend the case.

Judge Salerno disagreed with the DBH’s literal application of the word “maintain.”

“I hear the position [but] we’re putting way too much emphasis on labels,” Judge Salerno said.

Earlier in the hearing, Judge Salerno explained his request for competency maintenance, saying that someone initially found competent may not remain so.

“As we all know, competency is fleeting,” Judge Salerno said.

He asked the prosecution to follow up and ask if they would provide these services if they were court-ordered.

Further, prosecutors called on a neurophysiologist who does evaluations for the court and a DBH clinical and forensic psychologist, both of whom evaluated Davis.

The neurophysiologist deemed Davis incompetent to stand trial but would be restorable if he was provided the necessary help.

“I don’t think that’s above and beyond what the [low bar] for competency [requires],” the witness said.

The DBH clinical and forensic psychologist conducted two evaluations– an initial screening and a follow-up interview.

In contrast, she determined that Davis was competent to stand trial, but noted that his ability to retain information was an issue.

According to the psychologist, she did not receive records from the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS), where Davis was held, or any other records before conducting the initial evaluation, which made defense attorney Erin Griffard question the validity of the witness’ evaluation.

Upon viewing her evaluation in court, the witness believed there were missing pages – Judge Salerno stopped the proceedings to ensure the witness could ensure her testimony was accurate.

Parties are slated to reconvene Nov. 14.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The parties are scheduled to reconvene on Feb. 27.

Gravely Ill Homicide Defendant Wins Medical Release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parties are slated to reconvene on Nov. 17.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parties are scheduled to reconvene on Dec. 19.

Document: Suspect Sought in Yuma Street Shooting

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

Murder Trial Postponed for Pending Motions, Rulings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The parties are slated to reconvene on Nov. 4.

Before Closings, Defendant Testifies in Partner’s Carjacking Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parties are slated to reconvene Nov. 17.

Shooter’s Sentencing Delayed for the Second Time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parties are slated to reconvene on Oct. 27.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No further dates were set.

Search