Case Acquitted: Key Witness Denies Prosecutors Promised Benefits in 2009 Homicide Trial

Editor’s note: Randolph Thomas was acquitted of all charges by a jury on June 11, 2026.

A key witness testified that he was not promised financial gain or guaranteed entry to a witness protection program during a homicide trial before DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman on June 4.

Randolph Thomas, 43, is charged with felony murder while armed, assault with intent to kill while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, five counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, robbery while armed, and first-degree burglary while armed for his alleged involvement in a Dec. 31, 2009 shooting that fatally injured 19-year-old Emmanuel Durant Jr. on the 200 block of Webster Street, NE.

During the prosecution’s redirect, a key witness and Thomas’ former friend testified that he had not been promised post-release benefits in exchange for his testimony. According to the prosecution, the former friend has testified in multiple homicide trials since his incarceration for a felony charge.

The day prior, Thomas’ attorney Pierce Suen, questioned the former friend on whether anyone had promised him “financial boost(s)” or a guaranteed entry to a witness protection program.

The witness said this “was not promised,” confirming that he knew it was a “possibility for witnesses.”

The prosecution also called Thomas’ friend who testified that in six years of knowing the defendant, she “never” saw him with a gun.

During cross-examination, Suen clarified with the witness that Thomas was “regularly” around the friend’s house without any problems.

During questioning from the prosecution, a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) forensic technician justified the investigators’ decision to pull a latent fingerprint instead of DNA off of a bullet casing. He said that, at the time in 2009, MPD considered DNA evidence “weak science.” He continued “we had a rule…latent print was the only option.”

A forensic analyst also testified that his report identified fingerprints similar to two eyewitnesses present during the shooting on .40-caliber cartridges. The expert’s comparison excluded Thomas from at least seven of the nine prints lifted.

According to the specialist, the results proved to be far from conclusive, “It’s more subjective of a scale than you see on TV.”

As a result of time constraints, the expert will continue his testimony on the next day of trial.

Additionally, Judge Edelman addressed multiple jury notes, including one that questioned what jurors should do if they feel unsafe. After bringing in every juror for questioning, the judge found that the incidents had not compromised the trial’s integrity at this time.

Parties are slated to reconvene on June 8.

Defense Questions Credibility of Victim’s Stabbing Account

Opening arguments got underway in a stabbing case before DC Superior Court Judge Andrea Hertzfeld on June 3.

Tavonte Graham, 33, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with significant bodily injury, and attempted robbery for his alleged involvement in a stabbing and burglary on the 4100 block of Ames Street, NE, on Dec. 22, 2025. The victim sustained multiple stab wounds throughout his body.

Graham is also charged with possession of an open container of alcohol for his alleged involvement in a Jan. 16 incident.

In her opening statement, the prosecutor revealed that upon police arrival, the victim was found lying on the floor, wrapped in a blanket stained with blood, and screaming. He reported to police that an Amazon delivery driver had maced and stabbed him before attempting to rob his Louis Vuitton Timberland boots valued at over $1,000.

The prosecution also highlighted that, after questioning the victim, the lead detective conducted a photo confirmation procedure to determine that the suspect had a star tattoo on his face, which is said to match Graham.

When Graham was arrested for alleged the alcohol offense, prosecutors claimed police reportedly connected him to the stabbing through an open arrest warrant.

Graham’s attorney, Craig Ricard, challenged the prosecution’s argument by claiming the victim lacks credibility, noting that the his current narrative contrasts with his statement during police questioning.

The victim initially described the aggressor as an Amazon delivery driver who, upon arrival, immediately stabbed him. In reality, Ricard argued, the victim met Graham after matching on a dating app and personally invited him into his apartment.

Ricard emphasized that all information that the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) obtained about the stabbing was provided by only the victim, not the defendant. From the moment the incident occurred, Ricard alleged the victim demonstrated a pattern of deception by lying to the 911 dispatcher, lying to the officers when they arrived at the scene, and lying to the medical professionals who treated him about his relationship to the victim.

Given the what the defense says is a pattern of dishonesty, Ricard argued that the victim’s account should not be accepted at face value and that the jury lacked a reliable basis to accept his version of events as the truth.

The question of who actually initiated the violence on the night of the incident still remains, in the defense’s view, completely unanswered.

Witnesses will include the case’s lead MPD detective, officers who arrived at the crime scene, medical examiners, and the victim himself.

Parties are slated to reconvene on June 3.

Case Acquitted: ‘I Did Things For Him That I Wouldn’t Do For Family,’ Defendant’s Friend Says in Homicide Trial

Editor’s note: Juan Guerra was acquitted of all charges by a jury on June 15, 2026.

A mutual friend of both a homicide defendant and the victim continued to testify before DC Superior Judge Milton Lee on June 4.

Juan Guerra, 34, is charged with second-degree murder for his alleged involvement in the death of Peter Miller III, 32, who died from blunt force trauma on the 900 block of Maine Avenue, SW, on Oct. 6, 2021. Miller succumbed to his injuries on Oct. 11, 2021.

According to prior hearings, Guerra and Miller were friends, and the incident occurred during an argument over a game of dice.

Parties continued with the cross-examination of a mutual friend that started the previous day. Guerra’s attorney, Kevin Mosley challenged inconsistencies in the key witness’ testimony. Mosley claimed the witness originally told a detective on Oct. 6, 2021 that he arrived at the apartment where the incident occurred at midnight. The witness clarified that he “didn’t think it was significant” to mention that he was intermittently in and out of the apartment throughout the day.

The defense also presented audio from the witness’ interview with a detective on the same day as the incident, in which he stated his roommate who was present that evening was “probably asleep” in the hours surrounding the fight. The friend testified the day before that the friend was “there at some point,” and present for the gambling.

“It was long ago, so it’s hard to say,” the friend said, referring to the details of that night.

Mosley argued that, since the police interview the day of the incident, the witness had added information to his story.

The witness also acknowledged that he knowingly misinformed 911 operators when he told them that Guerra was conducting CPR on the victim at the time of the call. He said he felt protective of Guerra.

“I had love for Juan at the time,” the witness said. “I did things for him that I wouldn’t do for family.”

The friend stated he witnessed arguments between Guerra and Miller before, but not one that went “that far.” Guerra punched the witness in the chest, a level of physical violence that was unexpected, the witness said. He said that Guerra likely punched harder than intended because he was drunk..

Later, a medical examiner explained her 2021 conclusion that the primary cause of death was asphyxiation, with blunt trauma to the head and neck being factors as well. The prosecution presented graphic images from her report.

The witness said Miller had periorbital ecchymosis, commonly known as raccoon eyes, bruising to the face, and hemorrhages deep in his scalp, but no skull fracture. This indicated that the blunt trauma was in close range, concluded the examiner. There was also bleeding in the brain, which indicated that Miller was shaken.

The medical examiner then discussed the photos of Miller’s arms, starting with inside and outside of the left arm. The inside showed red discoloration consistent with the actions from grabbing or blunt force towards the arm. The expert witness said these were crucial marks as she was able to identify them as perimortem injuries, or around the time of death.

There were minor injuries to the right elbow and right hand but nothing the examiner significantly noted.

The medical examiner said the photos of Miller’s head from the highest point of view showed subtle purple hemorrhage which were consistent with blunt force trauma directly to the head. When describing the victim’s brain, the medical examiner repeatedly used the word “jostled” in regards to the brain’s multiple injuries. A healthy brain is normally a tan color whereas Miller’s brain was very clearly a mix of red and dark purple, said the expert, indicating heavy swelling from the trauma and loss of the brain’s normal contours.

The expert said she observed dark spots and tears that come from blunt force injury which also results in oxygen deprivation as it controls the respiration system in the body.

Looking into the neck, she pointed out an abrasion on the right side indicating a struggle, hemorrhages in the neck muscles, and deeper hemorrhages near the tongue area.

The medical examiner concluded Miller’s death was a homicide from blunt force trauma to the head and neck.

Diana Yu, Guerra’s other attorney, questioned the examiner’s conclusions about blood spots, prominent in the victim’s eye. The defense asserted that could come from self-inflicted vomiting, coughing, or increased pressure. The medical examiner said those reasons are less likely as approximately 90 percent of her hanging examinations result from pressure on the neck.

The medical examiner didn’t detect alcohol in Miller’s system and Yu asked when the body was brought in for examination. Yu suggested that Miller’s body was brought in days later to which the medical examiner agreed but that was not necessarily a factor

A forensic pathologist was also called to the stand to specify the structure of the neck. When she was asked if the injuries Miller faced could be from an accidental trip and fall she responded with “if he tripped and fell off a building.”

Parties are slated to reconvene on June 8.

Shooting Defendant Considers Plea Deal

Prosecutors gave a shooting defendant more time to consider a plea deal before DC Superior Court Judge Carmen McLean on June 9.

Terrell Jones, 18, is charged with two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon and two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, for his alleged involvement in a shooting on the 3700 block of Georgia Avenue, NW, on April 15. No injuries were reported but ShotSpotter, which tracks sounds resembling gunshots, detected at least five rounds fired.

At the hearing, Jones’ attorney, Matthew Hertz, requested additional time for Jones to consider the plea offer, but did not mention the terms. The prosecutor agreed to reconvene on July 9.

Hertz also verbally requested a reconsideration of his client’s release, specifically seeking home confinement.

Judge McLean denied the request, but said that she will “certainly address” a written request for release if the defense chooses to file one.

Jury Convicts Homicide Suspect on All Charges, Acquits His Co-Defendant

A jury in DC Superior Court’s Danya Dayson’s courtroom convicted one homicide co-defendant and acquitted the other on June 5.

Alonzo Brown, 29, and Naquel Henderson, 28, were initially charged with conspiracy to commit a crime of violence while armed, first-degree murder while armed, two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, and three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence.

The charges stemmed from the fatal shooting of 22-year-old Michael Taylor on the 1700 block of Benning Road, NE on Jan. 12, 2019. Two others were injured in the incident.

After less than three days of deliberations, the jury found Brown guilty of all charges, and acquited Henderson on all counts.

The prosecution claimed that the motive for the fatal shooting was “revenge and retaliation” to avenge the murder of a mutual friend and associate, 19-year-old Shamar Marbury, who died on Jan. 1, 2019 on the 4200 block of Barnaby Road, SE.

Brown and Henderson were two of five men charged with Taylor’s death. Stephon Evans, 25, and Tavist Alston, 32, previously pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter while armed, while Carlos Turner, 27, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.

Brown and Henderson first faced a jury trial in May 2025, but DC Superior Court Judge Jason Park declared a mistrial when the panel could not reach a unanimous verdict.

In their retrial that began on May 12, the prosecution called a former co-defendant of Brown and Henderson’s as the key witness. His plea deal included terms to testify against the pair.

Lisbeth Sapirstein and Julie Swaney, Henderson’s attorneys, as well as Steven Kiersh, Brown’s attorney, accused the key witness of lying under oath and to law enforcement officers, citing his plea deal as a reason to doubt his word. Kiersh also said there is no forensic evidence against Brown, and urged the jury to decide based on the presumption of innocence.

The prosecution reminded the jury that the witness was not explicitly required to implicate the two defendants to receive a plea deal. They asked the jury to use their common sense and trust the evidence when deliberating.

Brown’s sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 15.

Judge Denies Acquittal in Brothers’ Triple-Homicide Case

DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz denied a defense motion for acquittal in a triple-homicide case on June 8.

Jalonte Thompkins, 34, is charged with three counts of premeditated first-degree murder while armed, three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction greater than a year for his alleged involvement in the fatal shootout of the brothers, James Morgan, 34, Jamal Morgan, 30, and Vincent Martin, 42, on the 1700 block of Euclid Street, NW on Aug. 5, 2023.

Judge Kravitz started by asking if there were any disputes that needed to be resolved before bringing the jury into the courtroom.

The defense attorney, Brandi Harden, moved to suppress the prosecution’s compilation video that included detailed locations, CCTV footage of Thompkins, and audio of gunshots, claiming the added timestamp was inaccurate. Judge Kravitz agreed about the discrepancy but nonetheless, allowed the video to be admitted without the timestamp.

Harden also objected to diagrams said to pinpoint Thompkins’ phone calls since not “all activity” was shown. Judge Kravitz allowed all three diagrams to be presented to the jury because it would be unnecessary to show all the information.

The prosecution also presented evidence to the jury, including digitized graphs that allegedly located bullet casings, victims, and damaged vehicles. In addition, the prosecution introduced a video that walks through events before, during, and after the incident using CCTV footage with added time stamps and locations.

In arguing for acquittal Harden wanted a stipulation that the defendant acted in self-defense and that the victims engaged in criminal behavior provoking the shootout.

During the gun battle, shots were fired from both directions. Damaged buildings on the north side where the victims were located indicate shots were fired from south to north. Vehicles on the north side, Thompkins alleged location, were damaged from shots coming from the south.

Harden said Thompkins was innocent since evidence didn’t show he was the initial aggressor.

The prosecution argued Thompkins did not act in self-defense because he could have left the confrontation. He also used excessive force, the prosecutor said.

Both parties cited a witness who said, “He’s right there,” interpreting the quote different ways. The defense argued that the phrase was said before the shoot out began as a way to identify Thompkins as a target. The prosecution believed the victims’ made the statement as a way to identify the person who was shooting at them, since the witness who testified claimed she heard that after shots were fired.

Judge Kravitz agreed with prosecutors, adding that one of the victims in particular sustained multiple gunshot wounds and didn’t pose a threat to Thompkins. Therefore, he denied the motion for a judgement of acquittal.

Closing arguments scheduled to reconvene on June 9.

Case Acquitted: Challenged Witness Says, ‘You Know [the Defendant] Did it,’ in 2009 Homicide Trial

Editor’s note: Randolph Thomas was acquitted of all charges by a jury on June 11, 2026.

A key witness in a 17-year-old homicide case testified that the defendant confessed to him in a trial before DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman on June 3.

Randolph Thomas, 43, is charged with felony murder while armed, assault with intent to kill while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, five counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, robbery while armed, and first-degree burglary while armed. The charges stem from his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of Emmanuel Durant Jr., 19, on Dec. 31, 2009, on the 200 block of Webster Street, NE.

The shooting reportedly stemmed from a robbery in which Durant’s brother was also shot at but did not sustain any injuries.

The trial continued with the prosecution’s direct examination of a witness who was previously Thomas’ friend. The witness confirmed his conviction for the fatal stabbing of Darlene Bryant, 43, on May 13, 2015, on the 4300 block of Wheeler Road, SE. In addition the witness admitted he lied about his innocence as a strategy to appeal his conviction.

After the witness was sentenced for murder, he said he attempted to negotiate a shorter sentence by offering up information to prosecutors about other homicides and sought to reduce it further through participation in Thomas’ trial.

Pierce Suen, Thomas’ attorney, pointed out the witness’ timing, questioning the credibility of the claims. In response, the witness said the information “didn’t come out of a genie hat,” to convey the validity of the details.

The witness claimed that the defendant had confessed to him that Thomas shot Durant’s brother and thought he had killed him. The witness said he gained this information from a phone call with Thomas on Dec. 31, 2009.

The bulk of cross-examination in the afternoon session concerned the process by which the witness received homicide case information and later chose to share it in testimony. The witness alleged that perpetrators, including Thomas, confessed their crimes to him.

When questioned, the witness repeated that each of his statements about these confessions was “not a claim, [but] a fact.”

Suen argued that instead of directly receiving confessions, the witness asked his acquaintances to gather information and relay it back to him. The witness denied this, reminding Suen that he was under oath and “committed to telling the truth, sir.”

Suen alleged the witness planned the robbery and murder because he knew where they lived and identified Durant’s brother’s car. The witness responded, “You know he [Thomas] did it.”

Then, Suen emphasized the witness’ past, including a “15-year history of assaulting and abusing women.” The defense introduced the witness’ prior convictions, including two assault charges from 1999 and a second-degree assault charge from 2000.

Suen continued to reference the other eleven criminal cases in which the witness was charged with and five other assaults he was accused of. When previously asked about those five assaults, Suen noted, he responded in the past, “I don’t remember that happening.” The witness confirmed he still did not remember.

Suen then attempted to uncover more holes in the witness’s testimony. He presented the court with written and audio evidence that contradicted the claims he was making on the stand.

The witness was in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), in which he received a one-to-two year subscription to The Washington Post from his attorney. He denied asking for newspapers or information from the outside, but the defense then played a phone call in which the witness requested delivery of the paper during weekdays. In another call, he asked his sister to research prosecutors through the internet.

In response, the witness claimed that he needed something to read for entertainment and that he could not have derived all of the information in his testimony from those sources. The witness then admitted to smuggling in a cell phone but denied any of the claims that the phone was used for researching other inmates.

Later, the defense played a phone call of the witness admitting that he “looked him up” from inside prison.

The day concluded with Suen confirming that the witness would gain immense financial benefits after a potential resentencing, which could occur if Thomas is convicted. The witness argued that these assets, including housing and a biweekly stipend, were for his protection, whereas in the phone call evidence, he refers to them as a “financial boost.” However, the defense questioned his motives for cooperating in the trial.

In a phone call Suen played, the witness said he was “trying to get everything [he] can out of these people.”

Parties are set to reconvene on June 4 to conclude this witness’ testimony.

2005 Homicide Victim Was ‘Murdered in Cold Blood by a Member of Her Family,’ Says Prosecution

Prosecutors for a 2005 homicide argued that the victim was murdered by her foster brother in a trial before DC Superior Court Judge Jason Park on June 8.

Michael Wells, 55, is charged with premeditated first-degree murder while armed, second-degree murder while armed, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, arson, and tampering with physical evidence for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 23-year-old Makia Mosby. The shooting occurred on Nov. 24, 2005 on the 1200 block of Valley Avenue, SE. Mosby sustained burns and gunshot wounds.

During opening statements, the prosecution argued that Mosby was “murdered in cold blood by a member of her family,” referring to Wells. According to prosecutors, Wells was Mosby’s foster brother.

The prosecution said Wells had a motive to kill Mosby because he believed she was involved in murder his best friend’s murder. They argued Wells in retaliation committed arson “to mimic what happened to his best friend and to destroy the evidence he left in his wake.”

Prosecuting attorneys said they will bring forward several witnesses, including an individual that will testify that Wells and Mosby were left alone in Mosby’s home the day of the murder. They expect Wells’ ex-girlfriend to testify that he reportedly confessed to murdering Mosby and said he shot himself in the leg by accident afterward.

The prosecutors said that even though witnesses “come with baggage,” Wells inadvertently chose who became a witness by his reported actions.

In the defense’s opening statement, they argued that the prosecution focused their argument on “emotions over evidence” with a case that “lacks basic integrity” and ignored evidence pointing to another suspect.

The defense identified three main reasons that highlighting Wells’ innocence–problems with the early investigation, a possible alternative suspect, and prosecutors relying on a questionable witness, Wells’ ex-girlfriend, who they referred to as a “demonstrable liar.”

The defense will present evidence of a footprint belonging to someone other than Wells’ found on a Victoria’s Secret bag at the scene and DNA found under Mosby’s nails not belonging to Wells.

According to the defense, the police had critical leads to the “actual” suspect, but didn’t follow up, and later destroyed evidence.

After opening statements, prosecutors called a former crime scene technician from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to testify and identify items discovered from the crime scene.

The technician identified a Victoria’s Secret bag, a red lingerie set, a Bud Ice beer can, an earring, a polaroid photo, two bullets, and two cartridges. When asked by Well’s attorney, Hannah Claudio, he viewed the scene as though there were “signs of a violent struggle.”

Claudio questioned the technician about evidentiary details lost over the past 20 years. She pointed out that the evidence folder was not located and asserted that the only record from the scene is the technician’s evidence report, which contains what Claudio described as a “basic” description of the scene.

In the document, the technician claimed he used one roll of film to photograph a vehicle. In court, however, the witness asserted that he did not recall a vehicle at the scene and his mistake was a “typographical error.” Claudio highlighted that the evidence report, despite this error, was signed by both the witness and his supervising officer and has never been corrected.

However, the prosecutor clarified that the evidence folder is typically stored in a file room. The technician was unaware if another crime scene technician pulled the folder or if a homicide detective requested it. He reached out to previous partners in an attempt to locate the folder, but was unsuccessful.

In testimony for the prosecution, he described 22 crime scene photos that he took at the scene that showed injuries to Mosby’s body, including a gunshot wound and burns, fire damage in Mosby’s apartment, and the initial recovery of cartridge and shell casings. The photos also showed the Victoria’s Secret bag found in Mosby’s living room and a lighter found on Mosby’s bathroom sink.

Mosby’s older sister was also called to the stand who explained Mosby was separated from her family when she was a teenager. According to her sister, Mosby was subsequently placed in Wells’ home and he regarded her as a sister.

The witness said Mosby was planning on working overnight at the post office the day of the incident and had called her sister to check in on her son who was staying with Mosby’s sister for Thanksgiving. Mosby’s sister said she recognized Wells’ voice in the background of Mosby’s call the night of the incident. After she questioned Mosby about the voice, Mosby replied, “That’s just Mike.”

Later that day, Mosby’s sister said she was informed that there were firetrucks at Mosby’s apartment and detectives confirmed she was with Mosby’s child. Mosby’s sister and mother were informed of her death at the police station, according to testimony.

Mosby’s sister said that she spoke to Wells days later and he first denied being at Mosby’s house the day of her death. Then, the sister said Wells told her he was there and left Mosby’s house prior to her death. Mosby’s sister said Wells did not ask her any questions about the circumstances surrounding Mosby’s death.

In cross-examination, Mosby’s sister clarified she didn’t hear yelling or arguing when she heard the male voice on the phone with Mosby.

The prosecution also called a former MPD officer who was present for Mosby’s autopsy. She identified a tattered, burned bathrobe that was removed from Mosby’s body during the autopsy. She also identified a bullet fragment removed from Mosby’s brain, and left and right finger-nail clippings, taken during the autopsy.

The officer reminded the jury that precautionary measures were taken to prevent contamination, such as wrapping brown bags over Mosby’s hands prior to the autopsy.

A firearms expert also testified on behalf of the prosecution and could not determine if the two cartridge cases and two bullets found at the scene were all fired by the same or different guns.

The parties are slated to reconvene on June 9.

Defense Claims Prosecutors Told Jury ‘To Go Fill Some Holes,’ in Domestic Stabbing Case

Parties presented closing arguments on June 10 before DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt in a domestic violence stabbing trial.

James Callen, 42, is charged with assault with intent to kill while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, aggravated assault knowingly while armed, and assault with significant bodily injury while armed. The charges stem from his alleged involvement in a non-fatal stabbing that injured one person, his former romantic interest, on July 13, 2024, on the 1600 block of Morris Road, SE. The charges face an aggravating factor of allegedly being committed while Callen was on release for a prior offense.

Callen is also charged with three counts of felony contempt for allegedly violating a stay-away order by contacting the victim.

In closings, the prosecutors emphasized Callen’s statement to the victim, “If I can’t have you, b*tch, no one can,” was evidence of his intent to kill her.

The prosecution compared Callen’s changing recollection of events to the victim’s incomplete but consistent memory.

Callen’s attorney, Alvin Thomas, argued the victim’s fragmented memory created logical inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. Thomas said the prosecution, “threw [the jury] a shovel and told [them] to go fill some holes.”

He repeatedly asserted that the victim’s memory was not reliable because she had consumed alcohol, snorted cocaine, and lost a significant amount of blood.

Thomas addressed the prosecution’s opening quote by stating that Callen “never had her” because the two were not in an exclusive relationship. Thomas questioned Callen’s reported motive, arguing that they had spoken about living together, and the victim had previously rejected the idea.

The night of the incident, parties agreed that Callen and the victim were at his brother’s apartment to celebrate their new jobs. According to toxicology reports introduced in the trial, they had Bacardi Gold rum and cocaine in their systems. In his testimony, Callen revealed he also ingested MDMA (Molly) and claimed the victim smoked Molly as well, which her toxicology reports did not indicate. The drug can create a distorted sense of awareness.

Callen and the victim then began to be intimate with one another when she bit him, according to Thomas. After, Thomas claimed Callen slapped the victim, which made her bleed.

The prosecution argued that Callen went to the kitchen, grabbed a knife, and returned to the living room, approaching the victim with an “evil grin, flared nostrils,” a “vein popping out” of his forehead, and then stabbed the victim.

She sustained injuries to her neck, specifically her jugular vein, hands, face, and shoulder.

Thomas argued that Callen went to the kitchen to grab cleaning supplies for the victim’s blood from the slap. According to Thomas, he returned with a knife to cut a rag, which prompted a struggle for the knife.

The prosecutors questioned why a struggle would occur if the knife was not used as a weapon, arguing there was no evidence that the victim wielded it and that she was “the only one struggling.”

Prosecutors urged jurors to consider that the victim, unlike Callen, had “nothing to gain” from testifying. The prosecution addressed her lapse in memory claiming, “what her brain doesn’t remember, her body remembers.”

Parties agreed that Callen called 911 after the incident. Thomas questioned why Callen would call if he intended to kill the victim. He highlighted that Callen begged for medical help, voluntarily spoke to police, remained at the scene for hours, ran to open the door for emergency medical technicians (EMTs), and repeatedly checked in on the victim’s condition afterwards.

Prosecutors argued that Callen saying “hurry up” during the 911 call was indicative of a man who was regretful, but not a man who lacked a murderous intention. They alleged Callen would have been charged with murder if help didn’t come quickly.

According to prosecutors, “the victim laid there dying.” They argued that EMTs left in such a rush to help the victim, pointing to an abandoned computer and an ambulance.

The prosecution referenced the testimony of a domestic violence expert who described “escalating pattern(s) of violence” in abusive relationships. Prosecutors argued that Callen’s stabbing was a result of this pattern.

Thomas emphasized the expert’s unfamiliarity with the case, asserting that she never spoke to either of the parties or looked at any evidence, and calling her a disconnected “academic.”

After Judge Brandt dismissed the jury for deliberations, parties discussed a previously filed defense motion for judgement of acquittal for all counts. Thomas argued there was a lack of evidence for Callen’s intent to harm the victim. Prosecutors argued that the victim’s injuries and testimony demonstrated intent.

Thomas argued that phone call records do not demonstrate actual contact for Callen’s contempt charges. The prosecution argued that the act of calling was a sufficient violation of the protective order.

Judge Brandt denied the defense’s motion, determining a jury could find Callen guilty based on witness testimony and evidence.

The closing arguments mark the conclusion of a one-week trial. Parties will reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.

Surgeon Testifies Stabbing Victim’s Life-Threatening Injuries Required Force

In a domestic violence stabbing case, a surgeon testified before DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt on June 8 that force was required to make a deep wound the victim sustained to her neck.

James Callen, 42, is charged with assault with intent to kill while armed, aggravated assault knowingly while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, and assault with significant bodily injury while armed for his alleged involvement in a non-fatal stabbing on July 13, 2024 on the 1600 block of Morris Road, SE. All assault charges have an aggravating factor of allegedly being committed during Callen’s release for a prior offense.

The victim, Callen’s romantic interest, sustained puncture wounds to the neck, chin, arm, and back, visible bruising to the face, and trauma to the head.

Callen is also charged with four counts of contempt for allegedly violating a stay-away order from the victim between Sept. 1, 2024 to Feb. 1, 2025 while he was incarcerated.

A surgeon testified that the cut on the victim’s neck had reached the jugular, an important vein buried behind “thick muscle.” According to the surgeon, an injury to the jugular requires force and is life threatening. The victim had also lost a “very significant” amount of blood, which the surgeon said could cause the memory loss that the victim experienced.

In his testimony, the surgeon cited the victim’s urine test, which noted that the victim had five times the limit for Blood Alcohol Content (BAC). The victim also tested positive for cocaine and benzodiazepines which have a tranquilizing effect, though the surgeon said they could have been from medicine administered to her at the hospital.

The surgeon explained that he operated on the victim, closing the neck and chin wounds before referring her to a hand surgeon specialist.

On cross-examination, the surgeon admitted he was not an expert in reconstruction of a crime. He said, “I don’t generally try to assess how it occurred.” The surgeon could not tell the jury the order if the injuries and agreed with Callen’s attorney, Alvin Thomas, that, “a cut can be caused by accident or intent.”

The surgeon also agreed with Thomas that heavy drug use can cause memory loss and have an effect on perception, judgement, and behavior.

The prosecutors also called a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) patrol officer that responded to the crime scene on the night of the incident. He said that Callen was the first person he saw when he arrived.

While the officer said that Callen was cooperative, he also noted that Callen appeared, “agitated,” and “a little nervous.” According to the officer, Callen helped him get into the apartment building where Callen. had been with and the victim. Inside the apartment, the officer testified that he saw a bloody towel and blood on the walls.

When the officer was at the scene, he said that Callen accompanied him the entire time, approximately two hours.

In addition a former MPD detective testified for the prosecution that eight hours after the incident, Callen willingly spoke to her without an attorney present.

A video of the interview was played by prosecutors, where Callen can be heard saying that the victim was already bleeding before they met up. The former detective testified that Callen told her that he called for an ambulance, despite the victim telling him not to.

Prosecutors showed the former detective photos of Callen’s hands, taken near the time of the interview, and asked her if she saw any markings or injuries. She said that she saw no injuries in the pictures and that Callen had not mentioned any injuries in their interview, though he did have some dried blood on his hands.

On cross-examination, the defense clarified that another officer interviewed Callen prior to the former detective, which prosecutors did not discuss.

The prosecution called a monitoring specialist from the Department of Corrections (DOC) who explained to the jury how all communications between DC Jail inmates and civilians are tracked through the DOC’s system and stored in their database.

The specialist, who was tasked with producing a call log of Callen’s phone calls while incarcerated, displayed the log to the jury. She noted several outgoing calls made by Callen and explained how the log was organized.

The parties are slated to reconvene on June 9.

Defense Calls Prosecutors’ Key Witness an ‘Admitted Liar, Perjurer, and Murderer’ in Fatal Shooting Retrial Closings

Parties in a homicide retrial debated the credibility of the prosecution’s key witness in closing arguments on June 3 before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson.

Alonzo Brown, 29, and Naquel Henderson, 28, are charged with conspiracy to commit a crime of violence while armed, first-degree murder while armed, two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, and three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for their alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of Michael Taylor, 22, on the 1700 block of Benning Road, NE on Jan. 12, 2019. Two additional surviving victims sustained gunshot injuries.

Prosecutors spoke first, playing a video of the victims after they were shot as prosecutors told the jury that Brown and Henderson “unleashed their fury in eight seconds,” when they allegedly shot at a rival apartment complex following the death of their friend.

Several videos were shown to the jury of four men in black masks approaching the Benning Courts apartments. Two of the men were identified as Brown and Henderson by the prosecution’s key witness, a co-conspirator who took a plea deal with the prosecution in exchange for his testimony.

The key witness, who previously testified and walked the jury through the entire crime, “did not take the stand eagerly,” said prosecutors, but knew that the only requirement of his cooperation was to tell the truth.

A primary eyewitness brought by the prosecution had identified Brown at the incident scene as well, though they admitted they only saw Brown’s eyes from a distance, noted prosecutors.

While the only person who identified Henderson at the incident scene was the key witness, prosecutors alleged that Henderson’s distinct hair can be seen in the video footage shown to the jury.

Jurors were told to, “use their common sense,” by prosecutors to see that this case was about “revenge and retaliation.”

Brown’s attorney, Steven Kiersh, attempted to dismantle the prosecution’s case by targeting the credibility of its key witness. The individual was branded an “admitted liar, perjurer, and murderer” by Kiersh, who claimed the witness fabricated their testimony to escape a 70-year prison sentence.

The prosecution’s primary eyewitness, Kiersh argued, admitted they were not certain that Brown was there due to not having his glasses on and being under the influence of marijuana.

There was another eyewitness, said Kiresh, who was unable to identify any of the shooters, despite standing much closer than the prosecution’s primary eyewitness.

Kiersh stressed that it is the prosecution’s job to prove that Brown was there and if their own eyewitness was not sure, the jury could not be sure either.

In addition, Kiersh emphasized that there was no forensic or scientific evidence that connected Brown to the case.. For example, Kiersh said there was no DNA, no fingerprints, no murder weapon, and no cell phone location data presented to the jury.

Henderson’s attorney, Lisbeth Sapirstein, continued the assault against the prosecution’s evidence.

Sapirstein demanded an acquittal for Henderson, arguing that the prosecution’s case relied entirely on guilty by association rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Sapirstien reiterated Kiersh’s argument that there is no independent or forensic evidence linking Henderson to the shooting, as investigators did not match any DNA, fingerprints, firearms, or cellphone data.

According to Sapirstein, the prosecutor made a significant factual error when they claimed a key communication on the day of the crime was a standard phone call, not a FaceTime call.

The remainder of Sapirstein’s closing statement targeted the prosecution’s key witness, branding him as an admitted liar who fabricated facts to protect himself under a plea agreement.

Sapirstein concluded by urging the jury to view the key witness with extreme caution, arguing that a man with a “tenuous relationship with the truth,” cannot be trusted to identify the shooters.

The prosecutor attempted to rebut the defense’s arguments, saying that the key witness did not need to “point the finger” at Brown and Henderson specifically to get their cooperation deal. They argued that Brown and the key witness were close friends before the alleged crime, as the prosecutors attempted to reaffirm the key witness’ credibility.

While prosecutors acknowledged the primary eyewitness’ shortcomings, they said he has been “nothing but consistent.” They asked the jury to focus on the evidence in front of them instead of the “wishlist” of evidence the defense asked for.

“Trust your eyes,” the prosecutor said. “Trust the evidence and return the only verdict that is consistent with the evidence.”

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

Case Acquitted: Shortly After Murder, Witness Claims Defendant Says, ‘Your Little Man Dead’

Editor’s note: Randolph Thomas was acquitted of all charges by a jury on June 11, 2026.

A key witness testified that a defendant confessed to him that he committed a 2009 homicide in a trial before DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman on June 2.

Randolph Thomas, 43, is charged with felony murder while armed, assault with intent to kill while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, five counts of possession of firearm during a crime of violence, robbery while armed, and first-degree burglary while armed of Emmanuel Durant Jr., 19, on the 200 block of Webster Street, NE on Dec. 31, 2009.

A witness who claimed he and Thomas spent nearly every day together testified that the day of the incident, the defendant walked him and others through a robbery that turned fatal the night before.

Thomas’ friend revealed that upon picking up Thomas on New Year’s Eve, the defendant’s first words were, “Your little man dead,” referring to Durant’s brother, who the witness described as a drug dealer.

The witness then revealed the rest of what Thomas disclosed during an estimated 10-minute long conversation. The reported confession included Thomas and one accomplice allegedly waiting outside the house where the crime occurred, holding multiple victims inside the house at gunpoint, before putting a pillow over Durant’s head and fatally shooting him.

The witness additionally detailed calls between him and Thomas hours before the incident, in which Thomas reportedly asked him to contact Durant’s brother for drugs at the request of his accomplice.

Because of time limitations, the witness will finish his testimony the next day of trial.

An additional witness whose sister was in a romantic relationship with Thomas at the time told the prosecution that Thomas slept over at his residence around five-to-six times per week. He also testified that Thomas carried a 40-caliber firearm at his hip, he had named “his baby,” but usually hid it from family.

The witness testified that he was unaware of Durant’s murder at the time and the following day where the witness, Thomas, and others went to a family New Year’s Eve party.

An eyewitness, Durant’s brother’s former girlfriend, also testified who said she was in the house and was held at gunpoint during the incident. The eyewitness said she heard her then-boyfriend say to the gunmen, “That’s my girlfriend” right before the barrel was pointed at her face.

She recalled her then-boyfriend was faced down with the other gunman standing above him. According to the eyewitness, the gunman told her to call down Durant from upstairs. After Durant came downstairs, the witness said he and the gunman started to tussle.

Then, the eyewitness described hearing the fatal shot and seeing both gunmen run out the side door. After they left, she ran to her boyfriend because they both feared he was shot by the second bullet, but sustained no injuries.

During her testimony, the eyewitness revealed that when one of the suspects approached her, it “seemed like he was about to shoot me, but he didn’t.” The eyewitness added that she felt there could’ve been sympathy towards her from the gunman.

At the time, the eyewitness revealed to police that the suspect reminded her of someone who she knew and went to high school with. Thomas’ attorney, Kevin Steward, homed in on this detail and emphasized that Thomas did not attend high school with her.

During their redirect, the prosecution clarified that the eyewitness was simply using the person from her high school as a descriptive reference. The eyewitness compared her reference to, “If it was a clown, a clown has a red nose.”

The eyewitness described the suspect as someone who dressed young, talked young, and was likely 18-years-old. Both the defense and prosecution emphasized the eyewitness’ description of the suspect’s eyelashes, which she said were very “curly and girly.”

Throughout her testimony, parties questioned the eyewitness about how she described the height of the suspects. Originally, the eyewitness said the suspect was two-to-three inches taller than her height of five-foot-four.

During the redirect, the prosecution brought up height again, and asked if the eyewitness would like to read the police report to “refresh [her] memory.” After a brief moment of looking at the report, the eyewitness stated, “he was five-foot-seven.”

The jury trial is scheduled to resume on June 3.

Defense Disputes Admission of Protective Orders Ahead of Murder Trial as ‘Unduly Prejudicial’

Prosecutors in a murder case argued for the inclusion of protective orders the victim filed against the defendant as evidence before DC Superior Court Judge Michael Ryan on June 3.

Wonnell Jones Jr., 38, is charged with first-degree murder while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction for a crime of violence for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 33-year-old Audora Williams on the 2900 block of Knox Place, SE, on July 19, 2022. Williams sustained a total of 52 gunshot wounds and other injuries.

The prosecution argued for the inclusion of multiple pieces of evidence against Jones at trial, including a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) filed by Williams against Jones on Feb. 28, 2021. There was also an arrest warrant for Jones after he allegedly unlawfully entered Williams’ address on May 5, 2022. The prosecution also mentioned a witness they expect will testify that they heard Jones threatening to kill Williams.

The prosecutor explained the purpose of these was to show the “nature and pattern of their relationship.”

Jones’ attorney, Megan Allburn, responded that these TPO’s are “unduly prejudicial” against Jones, claiming their inclusion in the trial would leave the jury to speculate allegations about the TPO itself. Allburn explained that Williams had an attorney at the time of the TPO, while Jones was proceeding “pro se,” without an attorney.

Judge Ryan suggested the prosecution wanted to use the TPO’s as proof of motive. He explained that “the fact of the [homicide] being in the midst of TPO proceedings seems pretty pertinent to me.”

Allburn refuted, claiming there would be no one to cross-examine Williams’ position which would cause details to be left out, arguing the defense would be at a disadvantage.

In response, Judge Ryan asserted that “sensible lawyers deal with these issues and eliminate speculations of the jury.”

The prosecution also argued for the inclusion of a photo of Williams’ phone containing her call log on the day of the homicide, showcasing a call from Jones that they claim was a threat. The prosecutor also wanted to elicit the location of Jones’ arrest in Florida.

Allburn stated she expected the prosecutor to make those arguments and needed to make a decision with Jones’ other attorney Steven Kiersh about their client’s testimony. Judge Ryan granted the request for more time to litigate the issue.

Parties are slated to reconvene June 23 prior to a jury trial scheduled for July 1.

Judge Gives Prosecutors More Time to Indict Non-Fatal Shooting Suspect

DC Superior Court Judge Jennifer Di Toro granted prosecutors a 45-day extension to secure an indictment against a shooting defendant on June 5, despite objections from the defense.

Derrick Carter, 33, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction greater than a year. The charges stem from a non-fatal shooting incident on Dec. 2, 2025 on the 1400 block of Canal Street, SW. A shot was fired toward the victim but she wasn’t injured.

The 90-day deadline for prosecutors to secure an indictment against Carter lapsed on June 4, and the prosecutors filed a motion on June 3 asking to extend the deadline.

Carter’s attorney, Emma Mlyniec, argued that the prosecution should not be granted a deadline extension based on Carter’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Prosecutors explained that they had not yet brought the case before a grand jury for an indictment because of a witness availability issue.

Judge Di Toro granted the motion for an extended deadline with the condition that the planned trial date of Aug. 7 would not move in order to protect Carter’s rights. The judge granted the prosecution a 45-day extension to obtain an indictment against Carter by July 19.

Mlyniec then requested that he be released from jail until the prosecution secures an indictment.

Judge Di Toro denied that motion on the grounds that the indictment extension does not violate Carter’s right to a speedy trial since he has the same trial date.

The defense also made Judge Di Toro aware of some evidentiary issues they had as a part of the discovery process.

Mlyniec stated that she was waiting on the prosecution to hand over any previous criminal complaints made against the victim in Carter’s case. Under Giglio vs. United States, any evidence which discredits a witness in a case could prove the defendant’s innocence, and the prosecution must hand such evidence over to the defence in the discovery process.

The prosecutor responded that the defense’s discovery requests regarding the victim had been too broad up to that point, and also that previous criminal complaints against the victim were themselves not Giglio material.

Mlyniec also stated that she had received footage from one body-worn camera in Carter’s arrest but not from a second camera. The prosecutor responded that footage from only one body-worn camera existed, and the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) had deleted the footage from the other camera in the arrest pursuant to their evidence retention policies.

Mlyniec said the defense team intended to file a motion to dismiss based on failure to preserve evidence.

The defense also had an issue with the ShotSpotter report from the night of the incident. According to Mlyniec, when ShotSpotter detected the noise allegedly from Carter’s gun, it didn’t initially label it as gunfire, but later someone manually changed the report to indicate that it had in fact picked up gunfire from the incident address.

The prosecutor denied knowing anything about any changes to the ShotSpotter report.

Parties are scheduled to reconvene July 17 for a felony status conference, two days before the new indictment deadline.

Judge Lifts Electronic Monitoring, Curfew for Homicide Defendant on Release

DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman granted a defense request on June 5 to lift a homicide defendant’s curfew and eliminate GPS tracking because he has been compliant.

Gary Denny, 53, 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 a crime of violence for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of Michael Evans, 56, on April 4, 2023, on the 600 block of 46th Place SE. Evans died from a gunshot wound to his chest.

All charges face an aggravating factor of allegedly being committed while Denny was on release for a prior offense.

According to court records, Denny has been on a curfew, enforced by a GPS tracking system, since his release in May 2023.

Denny’s attorney, Dana Page, requested to remove both the curfew and electronic monitor on the basis of Denny’s consistent adherence to his release conditions. The prosecution opposed the removal, citing the violent nature of the case.

Page explained that lifting the curfew and removing the GPS was inspired by a suggestion from an officer of the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA). Page emphasized that Denny has compiled on release for the last three years, accumulating no violations.

“If it’s not broken, don’t fix it,” the prosecutor countered.

The prosecutor argued that Denny’s conditions of release are actively benefiting the safety of the community. Citing the severity of the charges, the prosecution stressed that the limitations should not be lifted.

However, Judge Edelman said that this line of reasoning was inapplicable because he does not see a direct connection between Denny’s curfew and the safety of the community. Highlighting Denny’s compliance, Judge Edelman granted the defense’s request. Denny’s sole release condition is to attend future hearings.

Parties are slated to reconvene on Aug. 28.

Search