Shooting Defendant Waives Preliminary Hearing

A shooting defendant waived the preliminary hearing rights before DC Superior Court Judith Pipe on Oct. 21.

Thurman Williams, 55, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convict, for his alleged involvement in a shooting on the 1100 block of First Street, NW, on Oct. 17, 2025. No injuries were reported.

According to court documents, Williams allegedly was walking with the victim, when he reached into his coat, pulled out a handgun, and shot one bullet towards the victim.

The victim fled the incident. Williams was arrested shortly after, with a handgun is claimed to match the ammunition found at the scene in his possession.

During the hearing, Williams’ attorney, Camille Wagner, alerted Judge Pipe that Williams would be waiving his right to a preliminary hearing.

The parties are slated to reconvene on Nov. 3.

Evidence Motions Debated in 7 Defendant Carjacking Case

Seven carjacking co-defendants, and their respective attorneys, argued complex motions on the first day of trial before DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz and were unable to select a jury on Oct. 20.

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.

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.

According to court documents, the first verified carjacking took place on Feb. 27, 2023 at the intersection of 20th Street, and Sunderpland Place, NW. The second incident occurred on April 27, 2023 at the intersection of 8th and K Streets, NE.

A third incident occurred on May 16, 2023, in the 600 block of Butternut Street, NE, for which Jordan, Goff, Gillum, Ellis-Bey, and Flowers, are facing additional charges.

The charges include two 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.

On the first day of trial, the prosecution and the entire defense counsel, composed of nine attorneys, moved forward with preliminary motions. Judge Kravitz stated that he had a list of more than 15 motions to address throughout the day.

The prosecution’s notice of intent to introduce evidence of the defendant’s prior crimes was discussed.

The prosecution stated that Goff, Ellis-Bey, and Flowers were involved in a prior carjacking that occurred on Feb. 25, 2023 at the Royal Farms gas station on the 6200 block of Allentown Road in Camp Springs, MD. The prosecution argued that the stolen car from the Feb. 25 carjacking was used two days later as part of the carjacking that took place on Feb. 27, and is direct evidence to the pattern of carjackings the defendants followed.

None of the defense attorneys filed any oppositions, although Goff’s attorney, Donna Beasley, argued that she had “missed” the prosecution’s filing and wished to oppose the notice.

Beasley further argued that the prosecution was proceeding on the Pinkerton Theory, without establishing that the co-defendants had agreed to commit crimes together beforehand.

The Pinkerton Theory holds that a conspirator can be convicted of a substantive crime committed by a co-conspirator if the crime was a reasonable and foreseeable outcome of the conspiracy and was committed in the purpose of the crime, even if the defendant did not directly participate.

Beasley further argued that Goff had not been identified by the victim, and therefore the prosecution was making the assertion that Goff had participated in the crime from cell-site data that showed his phone was in the area at the time of the crime.

Judge Kravitz told Beasley that the jury would be instructed on Pinkerton Theory and the fact that some evidence applies to certain defendants only. Judge Kravitz asserted Goff’s defense that some evidence, specifically regarding cell-site data, could even fail to prove Goff’s involvement or role as a co-conspirator.

However, Judge Kravitz ultimately agreed with the prosecution that the evidence presented about the carjacking committed on Feb. 25, 2023 by Goff, Giles, Ellis-Bey, and Flowers was valid and admissible for conspiracy. Therefore, the prosecution’s notice of intent to introduce evidence of the defendant’s other crimes was granted.

The court further discussed the prosecution’s notice of intent to present evidence from another carjacking that occurred on April 15, 2023.

The prosecution stated that the carjacking was committed by two unknown offenders, but contained valid evidence against the defendants, given that the stolen vehicle was driven to the parking garage used as the headquarters of their operation, located on the 1300 block of Florida Avenue, NE.

With that, the prosecution further argued the evidence was relevant given that the stolen vehicle from April 15 was later sold to undercover Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers by Jordan, with 15 pre-recorded hundred dollar bills.

All 15 hundred dollar bills, with the matching serial numbers, were allegedly recovered during a search of Jordan’s apartment following his arrest in May of 2023.

Jordan’s defense attorney, Brian McDaniel, opposed the motion and argued that there was no evidence that supported that Jordan was involved in the carjacking.

Judge Kravitz referenced the indictment, which stated that the scope of the conspiracy was from February to May of 2023, and included the sales of vehicles stolen and sold solely by the defendants.

The prosecution argued that this evidence was probative to Jordan’s identity, and proves that Jordan sold vehicles to undercover MPD agents.

McDaniels, as well as the other defense attorneys, argued that the prosecution was prejudicial, and that it was not necessary to include another violent carjacking to the case.

The prosecution continued to argue that the evidence was going to be used to prove Jordan’s knowledge that he was selling a stolen vehicle, and was therefore part of the conspiracy.

When Judge Kravitz asked the prosecution what other evidence the prosecution had relating to the fact that Jordan was allegedly selling stolen vehicles, they said that they had recovered hidden camera footage from undercover agents, text messages and hidden phone calls from Jordan’s cellphone with undercover agents.

The prosecution also stated that they had more than 111 security footage videos from the parking garage on Florida Avenue, many of which capture an individual, identified as Jordan, cleaning and preparing cars for sale, photographing vehicles to display for sale, in addition to the exchange of keys of the stolen vehicles between sellers and undercover MPD agents.

All of this, Judge Kravitz asserted, was strong evidence about Jordan’s identity, and said that the finding from April 15 was not supported by the language of the indictment and was not part of the ongoing conspiracy.

Therefore, Judge Kravitz denied the prosecution’s notice of intent to introduce evidence from the carjacking that occurred on April 15, 2023.

Parties also discussed Jordan’s motion to suppress evidence recovered from his apartment during the execution of a search warrant.

McDaniels argued that the fruits of the search from Jordan’s apartment should be dismissed given that the original search warrant lacked probable cause and particularity, in addition to containing some misstatements.

The prosecution opposed the motion, and Judge Kravitz said that the affidavit made probable cause given that it was believed evidence worn by the defendants at the time of the crimes, as well as pre-recorded funds would be found in his home.

However, Judge Kravitz did admit that some parts of the warrant were overly broad, such as a certain section pertaining to the search for evidence that would show Jordan’s state of mind when committing the crimes.

Despite this statement, Judge Kravitz denied the motion.

Judge Kravitiz also addressed Gillum’s motion to dismiss charges which stem from the carjacking that took place on May 16, 2023 on the 600 block of Butternut Street, NE.

These charges include armed carjacking of a senior citizen, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, robbery while armed of a senior citizen, and unauthorized use of a vehicle.

Gillum’s defense attorney, Daniel Dorsey, argued that there was no evidence that linked Gillum to the offense that took place on May 16, 2023.

However, the prosecution argued that under the Pinkerton Theory the evidence from the carjacking would be admissible against Gillum, using statements from the defendants given that they were proffered.

Given that the defense did not dispute the prosecution’s statement, Judge Kravitz denied Gillum’s motion to dismiss the charges, without prejudice.

Judge Kravitz reviewed Goff’s motion for supplemental severance.

This was the third motion that Goff’s defense attorney had filed requesting severance for his own trial, arguing that the evidence against him was far weaker than his co-defendants.

Beasley claimed that Goff had not participated in the carjackings that occurred in February, April, or May, although the prosecution once again argued that this evidence is admissible under the Pinkerton Theory, given that Goff never withdrew from the conspiracy.

The defense argued that given that Goff had never participated, knowledge of an ongoing conspiracy is not reason to withdraw in the first place.

Judge Kravitz stated that the defense’s arguments would not change in a separate trial or a joint trial, and saw no unique reason for Goff to be severed from the case, as would be the argument from the prosecution.

With that, Judge Kravitz reassured Goff’s defense that the jury would be presented with all of the correct information during cross-examinations to make a knowledgeable decision without confusing the defendants.

Therefore, Judge Kravitz denied Goff’s motion for supplemental severance.

Judge Kravitz also addressed the prosecution’s notice of intent to introduce firearms evidence of the defendant’s other crimes and conspiracy.

The prosecution stated that their position was that the co-defendants’ acquisition and possession of firearms was done as part of their conspiracy to commit armed carjackings and later sell the stolen vehicles.

Judge Kravitz said that the evidence of the co-defendant’s prior possessions of firearms could be permissible, but was confused in part by the prosecution’s full argument.

The prosecution therefore clarified that in each of the noted carjackings, victims described assailants armed with either handguns or rifles.

The carjacking victim from Feb. 27, 2023 was held at gunpoint by two individuals wearing black ski masks, one holding a black and tan handgun, and the other holding a blue handgun.

Similarly, the carjacking victim from May 16, 2023, described one “strange looking” gun that was allegedly later found in Jordan’s apartment with DNA evidence linked back to him.

The prosecution told Judge Kravitz that each victim’s descriptions of the weapons used during the carjackings was most relevant, given that some incidents were not caught on camera, or the footage was captured in black and white or from a considerable distance.

With that, the prosecution said that there was also evidence regarding the acquisition of the firearms, as well as evidence from before and after the charged conspiracy timeframe that had been recovered from Instagram and Jordan’s iCloud account.

According to the prosecution, all of the evidence shows possession in means to commit armed offenses. The prosecution argued that if defendants were posting or sharing their handguns on social media, it further negates any future arguments that they were unaware of the ongoing conspiracy.

While the entirety of the defense counsel attempted to move forward with oppositions, it was quickly revealed to Judge Kravitz that a number of attorneys were either unable to access the entirety of digital evidence, or were overwhelmed with the volume of evidence shared by the prosecution.

The prosecution explained that given the number of co-defendants they had made immense efforts to organize everything properly, and keep only what was most relevant.

For example, the prosecution explained that one exhibit, which contained a group chat on Instagram called “Fent Nation” between all the defendants from January 2023 to May 2023 contained more than 26,000 pages of material.

The prosecution stated that on average they had worked down each exhibit of digital evidence from Instagram to an average of five pages, despite some attorneys saying they were not comfortable moving forward without a definitive list of exhibits that the prosecution planned to use.

Given these statements on the first day of trial, Judge Kravitz urged defense attorneys to figure out a methodology that best worked for them, assuring them that accessing the information was not impossible.

The prosecution said that they had no issue with granting the defense counsel more time to thoroughly review the digital evidence at hand, and suggested that instead the court move forward to review two music videos that were also being considered as firearms evidence.

The first music video, titled Zaymoney was published to YouTube publicly in December 2022, and the prosecution stated they would not be using lyrics as evidence, simply short clippings and still shots.

In the Zaymoney music video, stills of Goff, Flowers, Ellis-Bey, Jordan, and Gillum, were presented to Judge Kravitz, each wearing unique clothing items that were later matched with a corresponding picture from each co-defendant’s Instagram account.

Additionally, the still of Goff depicts him holding a black and tan handgun that matches the description the victim from the Feb. 27, 2023 carjacking gave to officials, as well as in his testimony in front of a grand jury.

Defense attorneys objected to the relevance of the evidence, arguing that the defendants wearing clothes from before December 2022 and later in February 2023 is not relevant. However, Judge Kravitz claimed that it is useful to identify association with each of the co-defendants’ Instagram accounts.

The prosecution moved on to show Judge Kravitz a clip from the Zaymoney music video that depicted Jordan, Goff, and Ellis-Bey together, and later transitioned to show Flowers wearing a crossbody Coach bag, which was later recovered during a search of his apartment with a firearm inside.

Throughout the short clip, there were multiple transitions that show the defendants and others in the music video holding large sums of money, as well as large bags of marijuana.

Jordan’s defense objected to all images relating to the defendant’s holding large sums of money or bags of marijuana, and the rest of the defense counsel later joined in agreement.

The prosecution agreed that they would redact most clips with marijuana or large sums of money, but would not do so at wholesale value.

The prosecution argued that there were certain exhibits where the defendants were captured smoking marijuana, matching up to descriptions given by the carjacking victims stating that their vehicles smelled of marijuana following the return.

With that, the prosecution argued that some exhibits show the defendants holding large sums of money immediately before or after an offense took place, which would be relevant to include.

Judge Kravitz asked the prosecution to highlight these exhibits and share them separately with the court.

While the defense counsels continued to argue that there was no probative link, Judge Kravitz acknowledged that it would be entirely incorrect to say that there was zero logical relevance.

Lastly, the prosecution shared the second music video, titled Boxed In, which was published in May 2023 to a YouTube account titled Juwop that is not part of the indictment.

However, the prosecution argued that the music video showed the association of the co-defendant’s and asserted the claim that they would be more likely to agree to commit crimes together.

The music video, which was shown in full, showed Ellis-Bey and Jordan holding multiple handguns, with lyrics that the prosecution claimed are autobiographical in nature and describe the methodology used by the co-defendants to commit the armed carjackings.

Several attorneys as well as Judge Kravitz however, said that they were unable to follow the music video’s lyrics, and requested a former transcript before moving forward with any rulings.

However, Judge Kravitz did note that the Boxed In music video was more prejudicial than the Zaymoney video, and adequately displayed the association of the co-defendants and their willingness to commit crimes together.

By the end of the hearing, Judge Kravitz urged attorneys to return to the courtroom ready to discuss the digital evidence from Instagram and iCloud in order to have “meaningful discussion”.

Parties are slated to convene Oct. 21.

Judge Finds Probable Cause in Classmate Murder

DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman found probable cause a defendant murdered his classmate during a preliminary hearing on Oct. 17.

Carlton Simon, 20, is charged with second-degree murder while armed for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Angel Dominguez on May 29 on the 900 block of Florida Avenue, NW. Dominguez sustained five gunshot wounds to his chest, calf, thigh, knee, and forearm.

According to court documents, Simon and Dominguez both attended YouthBuild, an alternative high school that provides academic and vocational training to students.

The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective who wrote the arrest warrant for Simon resumed her testimony with cross-examination from Kevin Irving, Simon’s attorney.

The detective wrote in the warrant that a witness said Dominguez previously threatened other students in class. Irving asked for additional details about the content of the threats but the detective said the witness was not specific.

According to the detective, the same witness told her about accusations that Dominguez robbed or attempted to rob people. However, the detective could not provide any specific information regarding the reported robberies.

The prosecutor confirmed with the detective that Simon told her Dominguez robbed people.

Irving confirmed with the detective that only 9mm firearm casings were found at the scene and during the execution of a search warrant MPD did not recover a gun in Simon’s home.

Irving argued there was no probable cause because the detective’s testimony differed from the warrant she wrote and asserted Dominguez could have shot himself because he had a gun in the video footage.

The prosecutor disputed the idea that Dominguez shot himself and pointed to the torso wound as his cause of death.

Judge Edelman found probable cause that Simon committed the murder because of the Metro surveillance videos, which were discussed on Oct. 3, documenting Simon and witness identification of Simon in the videos. The judge also noted Simon’s statements during his interview with MPD could be interpreted as a confession.

Following the probable cause ruling, the prosecutor requested Simon’s continued detention at the DC Jail while he awaits trial because there are no conditions that can ensure the safety of the community.

They noted the crime Simon’s accused of a shooting that occurred in broad daylight and asserted Simon bragged about the murder in social media posts and rap lyrics he reportedly posted following the incident.

Parties discussed under seal what the prosecutor described as the “history and characteristics of the defendant.”

Irving requested Simon’s release because he had no prior adult convictions, could stay with his mother, and had employment prior to his incarceration.

Judge Edelman ordered Simon to remain held due to the weight of the evidence against him and his prior history of violence that remains under seal.

Parties are scheduled to reconvene on Jan. 23, 2026.

Prosecutors Say Carjacking, Shooting Defendant, Pulled Woman, ‘Out of the Car and Threw Her to The Ground’

DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson heard openings from parties in the jury trial for a carjacking and shooting defendant on Oct. 23.

Bernard King, 41, is charged with unarmed carjacking, unlawful discharge of a firearm, and threat to injure or kidnap a person. These stem from King’s alleged involvement in the unarmed carjacking and assault on a victim, the mother of his children, on June 7, at the 1900 block of 18th Street, SE.

The prosecution opened by playing security camera footage of the incident. Two cars can be seen pulling up, a male gets out of a black car, and opens the door to the other vehicle in frame. A woman can be heard screaming as she is “yanked out of her car” and thrown to the ground, according to the prosecution.

The video depicts the male getting in the woman’s car and driving down the block as she runs in the opposite direction. He returned moments later where he could be heard yelling at the woman, “You going to die!” The man in the video is King, alleged prosecution.

The prosecutor stated that the defendant and victim had known each other for a decade. The case is about, “how a relationship spiraled out of control,” according to the prosecution.

The victim ran to an off duty Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer’s house “frantically banging and screaming” on her door. The prosecution said this officer and other eyewitnesses will prove, without a reasonable doubt, that King is guilty of all that he has been charged with.

Defense attorney Karen Minor claimed this case is “chaotic” with lots of moving parts, and that a single event has been viewed from multiple angles. She reminded the jury that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of every charge that they have brought against King.

Minor alleged that prosecutors will fail to meet that burden. Specifically, on the charge for unlawful discharge of a firearm, a weapon was never recovered from King, Minor insisted. .

She ended by telling the jury that prosecutors have claimed a crime has occurred, but that is not their job. Only the jury can decide if a crime occurred, and there is not enough evidence to prove that King committed all of the charges against him, according to the defense.

Parties are slated to reconvene Oct. 27.

Stabbing Defendant Loses Bid to Represent Himself at Trial

DC Superior Court Judge Jennifer Di Toro denied a defendant’s request to represent himself at the first day of trial on Oct. 20, after he criticized his defense attorney for being “ineffective.”

Christopher Samuels, 28, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon for his alleged involvement in a non-fatal stabbing that occurred on the 200 block of Valley Avenue, SE, on Sept. 3, 2023.

On the first day of jury trial, Samuels “made several outbursts and spoke out of turn”, said Judge Di Toro, who reminded Samuels that he had the right to remain silent.

Samuels stated, “I’m pretty sure it’s not against the rules to speak to the court if I want to.”

Judge Di Toro asked Samuels to explain his issue with the jury trial. Samuels criticized his defense attorney Brandon Burrell for being “ineffective,” and explained that Burrell did not make the arguments that Samuels urged him to make.

Samuels, who said he moved to DC from the UK, argued “I feel as though I should represent myself if my attorney doesn’t say what I tell him to say when I tell him to say it.” He asked Judge Di Toro, “If I cannot speak for myself, what am I supposed to do?”

Judge Di Toro denied Samuels’ request to represent himself and argued that Burrell had not been ineffective in any way.

This came after opening statements were heard from Burrell and the prosecution.

During openings, the prosecution explained that the stabbing stemmed from a conflict between Samuels and his roommate. According to the prosecution, Samuels was upset with the victim for not keeping the bathroom in their group home clean.

Samuels allegedly assaulted the victim with a knife as he attempted to block Samuels from entering his bedroom, according to the prosecution.

The prosecution stated that the victim ran to a nearby library for help and called 911.

Additionally, the prosecution claimed, “there were things that officers did not do in this case.”

Burrell agreed with the prosecution. In his opening statement, he claimed that MPD officers never took photographs of Samuels’ residence. He also stated that they never recovered the knife that was used in the assault.

Prosecutors called in an MPD officer, who was assigned to look out for an individual armed with a knife on the day of the assault.

According to the officer, the call described a suspect with very distinct facial hair, wearing a black, colored jacket and grey sweatpants. The officer spotted a man who matched that description standing near Samuels’ apartment building.

The officer, who was with his partner, claimed that the suspect started walking at a fast pace as he saw them.

The officer said he followed the man, who eventually identified himself as Chris, into his apartment where he reportedly observed blood on his hands and grey sweatpants.

During the defense’s cross-examination, the officer said he took photographs of a blood trail at Samuels’ apartment, which he thought had been uploaded for evidence. The officer claimed that he does not know where those pictures are now.

However, the officer confirmed he did not take pictures of the victim’s bedroom door, where the assault occurred, nor did he take pictures of Samuels despite the blood on his hands. When asked by Burrell, “did it not seem relevant to you?,” to photograph those things, the officer explained, “that’s the role of the detective.”

Additionally, the officer stated that he did not recover a knife from Samuels or at the scene.

The black hoodie and grey sweatpants that Samuels wore were collected for DNA testing. According to the prosecution, DNA from the blood stains on the grey sweatpant said it belonged to two contributors.

Additionally, Burrell mentioned a recent discovery of hair and fiber that was found with the clothing. According to the prosecution, the hair and fiber was never tested.

Judge Di Toro asked Samuels if he wanted the blood on the clothing and hair and fiber to be independently tested–a re-examination of the prosecution’s evidence by a third party.

Samuels waived his right to have the prosecution’s evidence independently tested.

Parties are slated to reconvene on Oct. 21.

Judge Denies Shooting Defendant’s Request for Release

DC Superior Court Judge Jason Park denied a shooting defendant’s request for release on Oct. 22.

Solaiman Richardson, 39, is charged with second-degree murder while armed for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of his brother, 41-year-old Allen Shropshire, at the 100 block of Fort Drive, NE on July 18, 2025.

Judge Park found probable cause that Richardson was the perpetrator in a hearing on Oct. 20. Rachel Cicurel, Richardson’s defense attorney, argued for Richardson’s release.

Cicurel highlighted Richardson’s minimal criminal history. She stated Richardson had a few finance related cases from more than 15 years ago and no violent crime.

Cicurel read parts of three different letters in support of Richardson, one from his family, one from his boss, and one from a former coworker. According to Cicurel, all of the letters seem to portray Richardson as a very different person than the allegations depict him to be.

Cicurel also stated that Richardson had reached out to the head detective for his case to ask if he should turn himself in, but he received no response.

The defense pushed for the case to be considered in self-defense. She pointed to a line in the arrest warrant that, to her, suggested Shropshire was sexually assaulting Richardson. She also quoted the detective who investigated the incident, saying “there were knives everywhere” at the scene of the crime. Cicurel also noted that they discovered a knife in Shropshire’s hand.

The prosecution insisted Richardson remain held, arguing that if he was willing to kill his brother, then there is no way to guarantee the safety of others should he be released.

The prosecution claimed they were unaware of the sexual assault allegations against Shropshire until the Oct. 20 hearing. Judge Park agreed that the line Cicurel read did not make such allegations obvious.

Judge Park agreed that the letters, job and time between cases did depict Richardson as an honest man. However, he concluded that there was little evidence that pointed to self-defense and that there is no question that Richardson is the perpetrator of the incident.

Judge Park denied Richardson’s release.

Parties are slated to reconvene on Feb. 6.

Non-Fatal Stabbing Defendant Accepts Plea Deal

A domestic stabbing defendant accepted a plea deal extended by prosecutors before DC Superior Court Judge Judith Pipe on Oct. 21.

Antonio Williams, 59, was originally charged with assault with a dangerous weapon. These charges stem from his involvement in a domestic dispute that led to a stabbing on Aug. 1, at the 2600 block of Q Street, SE.

Williams pled guilty to attempted assault with a dangerous weapon. The maximum penalty for this charge is five years incarceration and or a $12,500 fine.

The prosecution waived their right to sentencing enhancements and reserve step backs. Additionally, they are seeking to cap their recommendation at the bottom half of the sentencing guidelines.

According to the prosecution, had the case gone to trial, they would have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that on Aug. 1 the defendant was in an argument with the victim, he grabbed a knife during the dispute, and cut the victim’s ear.

Parties are slated to reconvene Dec. 19.

Judge Orders Mental Competency Exam For Non-Fatal Shooting Defendant

DC Superior Court Judge Judith Pipe ordered a preliminary competency evaluation for a non-fatal shooting defendant on Oct. 21.

Gerniya Duncan, 21, is charged with aggravated assault knowingly while armed and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for her alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting. The incident occurred on the 2400 block of Elvans Road, SE on Aug. 2. One individual sustained injuries.

During the hearing, Peter Odom, Duncan’s attorney, asked for a preliminary competency examination. The request was granted by Judge Pipe.

In order to stand trial, a defendant must understand the charges and be able to help the defense.

Parties are slated to reconvene for a mental observation hearing on Oct. 24.

Homicide Defendant Under Warrant Can’t Turn Herself in

DC Superior Court Judge Jason Park told a defendant that she could not turn herself in on a warrant in a different jurisdiction because the paperwork had not been filed in a hearing on Oct. 21.

Lashawn Washington, 34, is charged with first-degree murder, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice for her alleged involvement in the abduction and murder of 25-year-old Chyna Crawford on Oct. 24, 2023. Crawford was last seen on the 4000 block of South Capitol Street, SW.

During the hearing, the prosecuting attorney notified the court that the defendant had a warrant in a Virginia jurisdiction, but said that she was unable to get in contact with the warrant office.

Defense attorney Sara Kopecki asked if Washington could turn herself in at the Virginia jurisdiction if she were put on GPS monitoring and had a police escort. Park said the warrant office can’t accept Washington until the paperwork goes through.

Because of the jurisdiction issues, Judge Park offered to waive Washington’s presence in future proceedings, noting that it is a “burden” to be transferred back to DC from another jurisdiction. Judge Park ordered Washington to be released to Fairfax County.

Kopecki agreed and waived Washington’s future appearances.

Parties are slated to reconvene Oct. 22.

Judge Says, ‘Bullets Don’t Have Names,’ in Finding Probable Cause

DC Superior Court Judge Renee Raymond found probable cause in a non-fatal shooting case on Oct. 16.

Zion Greely, 19, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon for his alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting on Oct. 14, 2024. The incident occurred at the 700 block of N Street, NW. No one sustained injuries.

During the hearing prosecutors called a detective with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) who told the court that surveillance footage from before the shooting was recovered from an apartment building. The footage is said to show the suspects involved in the shooting.

In a cross examination by Greely’s attorney, Diana Yu, the witness testified that in surveillance footage of the shooting it is hard to see faces clearly. Yu also pointed out that there were no eyewitnesses and the victim is still unknown. She asserted that no one with direct personal knowledge of the shooting identified Greely, the detective agreed.

The detective also testified that he was not able to determine a relationship between the defendant and the vicrim. Yu also noted that the surveillance footage from the apartment building doesn’t have sound so the detective is unable to know the “words or threats” that were spoken.

A witness in the investigation did not see the shooting, but according to Yu and the detective, they saw a suspect, who prosecutors believe to be Greely, and the victim arguing.

According to Yu, the witness claimed not to have seen a firearm or grabbing at waistbands. The detective did not recall the witness, the property manager and their assistant, and the residents being able to identify any suspects.

The detective testified to creating a “Be On the Lookout” (BOLO) for the case which included photos of suspects from surveillance footage. MPD also created a press release including photos to help identify suspects. The detective did not recall anyone coming forward with knowledge of the suspects.

The case was suspended from active investigation in December 2024 until the detective received a lead from the FBI that Greely could be one of the suspects after reviewing photos. The lead was not used as a positive identification, according to the detective.

Yu noted that the detective could not find a connection between Greely and the apartment building itself, there is no information connecting Greely to his co-defendant, Lorenzo Covington, and Greely has not been found to have a firearm or ammunition in his possession. Yu also stated that Greely turned himself in.

The detective testified to sharing the BOLO with another officer who then identified Greely as one of the suspects having had prior interaction with him. He also showed the photos to Greely’s Pre-Trial Services Agency (PSA) case manager who also identified Greely. Yu noted that the MPD officer and the PSA officer did not witness the incident.

The detective also stated that the individuals alleged to be involved in the shooting were tracked from the apartment building to 8th Street. He agreed with Yu that the surveillance was not completely continuous or unbroken.

Yu asserted that there were six people in the group of individuals, but only three individuals appear in surveillance footage from the shooting. She also stated that multiple people in the group were wearing similar clothing and that it is harder to see clothing and facial features in the shooting surveillance.

When asked how he determined that one of the suspects in the apartment building surveillance was the same suspect in shooting surveillance footage, the detective replied that it was based on the clothing and build of the individual.

After the detective was excused, Yu asked the court not to find probable cause. She reasoned that there is nothing corroborating the claim that one of the suspects in the apartment building footage is the same suspect in shooting surveillance footage. She stated that the tracking of the individuals was not unbroken and three people disappeared and multiple people were wearing the same clothing.

Yu also claimed that there is no evidence Greely was involved given that there is no physical evidence and no eyewitness identified Greely. Additionally, she noted that the investigation did not yield ties between Greely and the apartment building. She asserted that Greely was arrested because of an investigative lead by the FBI which is not enough for probable cause.

The court did find probable cause based on testimony and that surveillance footage showed young men walking in the direction of the shooting, according to Judge Raymond.

Following the ruling, Yu motioned for Greely’s release reasserting that there are no eyewitnesses, the victim has not been identified, and there is no physical evidence. She stated that Greely has complied with previous release conditions for another case. She also presented letters of support from Greely’s mother, partner, and an employee at Youth Build where he is doing well, according to Yu.

The prosecution argued that Greely lured the victim into an ambush on video. They also noted that multiple cars were struck with bullets, one bullet going through a bedroom window. Prosecutors also mentioned a theft case which they say is concerning. They argued that Greely should remain held.

The court ruled that Greely will remain held. Judge Raymond stated that there is probable cause to believe that one of the suspects is Greely. She also stated that the period of time between the theft case and this case speaks to Greely’s “dangerousness.”

Judge Raymond stated that the victim seemed to be lured into an ambush and that whatever was said before the incident shouldn’t have led to shooting, noting that “bullets don’t have names on them.”

Judge Raymond asserted that the nature of the offense is “incredibly disturbing.” She also stated that the prosecution’s evidence is “moderately strong.”

Parties are slated to reconvene on Nov. 5.

Stabbing Victim Testifies He Felt Threatened

The jury in a stabbing trial heard testimony from the victim before DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman on Oct. 9.

Maurice Felder, 54, is charged with aggravated assault with grave risk while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with significant bodily injury while armed, and possession of a prohibited weapon for allegedly stabbing a person on the 1900 block of 7th Street NW, on Nov. 10, 2024.

The victim was stabbed in the chest, by an “uncle”, as the victim referred to the man who allegedly stabbed him. According to the victim’s testimony, an “uncle” and his “nephew” approached the victim and his friends to confront them about a comment one of the victim’s friends made.

The victim allegedly put himself between his friend and the perpetrator and tried to “diffuse the situation”. The victim and his friends were walking away when the uncle allegedly pushed the back of the victim’s head.

During the prosecution’s direct examination, the victim testified that the uncle’s behavior was hostile and claimed he was “bucking up”. Additionally, the victim heard one of his friends say that the uncle had something in his hands. The victim then turned around, claiming to defend himself and feeling threatened, and then the uncle allegedly stabbed him.

The prosecution revealed that the victim had one prior conviction for marijuana consumption and had an open warrant for failure to appear in court.

On cross examination, defense counsel Matthew Rist continuously asked about the victim’s intoxication level, to which the victim responded that although he had shared joints with his friends and had three to four shots of alcohol, he felt “tipsy” but aware and in control.

Additionally, Rist played cell phone video of the incident and pointed out several discrepancies in the victim’s account of events and his friend’s justification for feeling threatened by the “uncle”.

Specifically, Rist pointed out that when the victim claimed he felt the uncle hit him in the back of the head, that the uncle was actually a couple steps in front of him. Additionally, Rist claims by the number of friends the victim had that it was actually the uncle that was surrounded and questioned how his friends could have felt threatened.

Lastly, Rist pointed out that the victim emailed the prosecutors asking if there was any way to drop the case. Moreover, Rist asked if the victim continued to testify to gain leverage with the prosecution on his other cases. The victim did not answer the question as the prosecution objected to the Rist’s question.

Prosecutors called the victim’s friend who was present the night of the incident. She testified to meeting up with a group of about eight or nine people in DC and going out to eat for the victim’s birthday. After dinner she and her friends were walking down the street when she witnessed the victim and another friend talking with a man they had never met.

The witness claimed that the man then followed her friends across the street when another man, believed to be Felder, pulled up on a scooter, jumped off, and started becoming aggressive towards the males in her group although her boyfriend never got involved. She claimed that the man who followed them identified himself as the man on the scooter’s nephew. According to the witness, the victim and the person on the scooter went back and forth, the group tried to keep walking, and at some point the victim was shoved.

The witness did not see who shoved the victim, but the victim then turned around and “flipped out” meaning he threw his bag down and began tugging on his jeans. She then stated that he never became physical or retaliated.

After more back and forth between the victim, Felder, and another person, the victim was then stabbed in the chest.

A recording of the incident taken by the witness was played for the jury. In the video the witness can be heard telling the victim to back up because the man on the scooter had something between his index and middle fingers. She can be seen pulling her friend away from the other individuals.

In the footage the victim appears to be punched in the chest. The witness stated that she didn’t realize until seconds later that her friend was stabbed. When she did realize she attempted to stop the bleeding, flagged down an officer, and received an escort to the hospital where she showed police the recording.

In cross examination, Rist claimed that the victim was doing more than just tugging on his pants, he was showing that he’s a tough guy too, to which the witness agreed. Rist also noted that at some point in the footage the men in her group were behind a person believed to be Felder and his nephew as they walked through the group of friends.

Rist also questioned the witness laughing in the recording and stated that it’s unusual of someone who feels threatened. The witness disagreed stating it’s something she does when she’s nervous.

In the recording, Rist also pointed out that the individual believed to be the defendant said “go ahead”. The witness noted that where she’s from this could mean two different things, one of them meaning someone is gearing up for an altercation. Rist also noted that members of the group smoked and drank tequila that night.

In their redirect, prosecutors reasserted that the witness’s boyfriend never became involved in the situation. The witness also reasserted that she was nervous during the incident as she’s not from around here. She believed the victim was going to be jumped.

On cross examination, Rist questioned why the responding officer didn’t make any effort to see if there was audio to the cell phone video of the incident that occurred and eliminate possibilities of self defense. To which, the officer responded that to him it didn’t look like self-defense because the stabbing looked unprovoked.

Judge Edelman allowed the defense to cross-examine the responding officer about several incidents of police misconduct that were pending at the time of the incident and current ones with limitations on the facts of the incidents.

Therefore, Rist asked if the two reprimands based on previous complaints of police misconduct in his three years of being an MPD officer made him worried about his employment and if it changed his testimony. To which the officer replied, it didn’t because he learned his lesson as a new officer and those complaints were closed before the incident in question occurred.

The prosecution called a forensic DNA analyst who testified that for this case they received swabs from a knife and a outh swab from the victim. The tests were positive for blood and showed strong support that the victim’s DNA was included.

Document: Third Arrest Made in 2024 Northwest Shooting

The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) announced the third arrest related to a 2024 shooting incident in the 700 block of N Street, NW, where no injuries were reported. On Oct. 21, 19-year-old Gregory Nelson was arrested and charged with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (Gun). Previously, Lorenzo Covington and Zion Greely, both 19, were also arrested and charged in connection with the incident.

10.21.25 Additional Arrest made in an Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (Gun) 700 block of N St NW CCN 24159617 Download

Stabbing Defendant Waives Right to Preliminary Hearing

A stabbing defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing before DC Superior Court Judge Renee Raymond on Oct. 20.

Qwayne Patterson, 33, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon for his alleged involvement in a stabbing at the 4400 block of Barnaby Road, SE on Oct. 16. One individual suffered a stab to the neck.

Patterson signed a waiver of his preliminary hearing, which Judge Raymond verified and accepted in the hearing on Oct. 20.

Daniel Kovler, Patterson’s defense attorney, requested Patterson’s release, stating that he has no criminal record, a full-time job, and a negative drug test on his arrest.

Kovler claimed that fear and frustration may have led Patterson to making a poor decision, and that he apologized to the victim and took responsibility for the incident. He also argued the wound the victim suffered was “a mere nick.”

Kovler pushed for release with a stay-away order and GPS monitoring.

The prosecution acknowledged the apology from Patterson, but insisted on keeping Patterson detained, claiming that he held a knife to and cut the victim’s neck. They also noted that Patterson has a pending firearms related case, where he allegedly possessed multiple guns..

Judge Raymond denied the request for release, and Patterson will be held until the next hearing.

Parties are slated to reconvene on Nov. 3.

Detailed Motions About Key Evidence Shape Homicide Trial

A series of pre-trial motions about key evidence in a homicide case were debated before DC Superior Court Justice Danya Dayson on Oct. 20.

David Pena, 48, is charged with second-degree murder while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence or dangerous offense, assault with a dangerous weapon, and unlawful possession of a firearm (prior conviction). The charges stem from his alleged involvement in a fatal shooting on June 12, 2023 on the 3000 block of 30th Street, SE. Maurice Robinson, 24, died in the incident.

The discussions revolved around four key motions before the case is expected to go to trial on Nov. 3.

Defense attorney Dana Page argued against the prosecution’s motion to prevent the defense team from making a self-defense argument in their opening statements. Page argued that she and fellow attorney Gail Engmann should be able to argue self-defense in their opening and that they were not required to explain their arguments beforehand.

Judge Dayson noted that making a self-defense argument in opening statements while not providing much evidence for their claims could put prosecutors in an awkward position.

“The issue is that if there is an opening on self-defense and then no evidence, it shifts the burden of proof,” Judge Dayson said.

Judge Dayson said that allowing Page and Engmann to argue self-defense hinged partly on another motion before the court to suppress information about alleged prior bad acts by the victim. Judge Dayson did not give a ruling on the issue, and the parties opened a discussion on what information from the victim’s past could be brought in as evidence in the trial.

Prosecutors argued that evidence of the victim’s prior bad acts in separate criminal incidents in 2019 and 2020 should not be entered because it was not clear that the victim was actually implicated in the incidents, and their admission would unnecessarily prejudice the jury.

In the 2019 matter, prosecutors said that testimony from an investigation that indicated the victim ran after a witness with something that could have been a gun was far too vague and speculative to be introduced as evidence. Engmann agreed with prosecutors that the testimony alone was insufficient, but indicated that the defense had more evidence to corroborate the witness’s statements.

The 2020 incident revolved around a witness identification of the victim in a robbery incident. Prosecutors argued that the witness identified the victim at the scene of the crime but then later re-identified someone else.

“It’s not clear who was even involved,” prosecutors said.

Judge Dayson did not deliver a ruling on the matter during the hearing and parties turned to the issue of whether statements Pena made while in police custody were admissible as evidence.

Engmann argued that officers elicited statements from Pena before reading him his rights. Engmann pointed to a moment in footage of the interrogation when one of the officers interrupts another officer about to read him his rights and says “let him talk.”

“Let him continue to talk and engage in the very conversation that we’ve been trying to have for the last few minutes,” Engmann said.

Prosecutors painted a very different picture of the interaction between officers and Pena, arguing that Pena made voluntary statements before officers were able to read him his rights.

“The detectives did pretty much everything they could to prevent him from giving statements before they Mirandazed him,” a prosecutor said.

Judge Dayson said that she would return to the video of the incident after the hearing and make a determination then.

Finally, parties discussed a motion by the prosecution to suppress references to an arson incident that occurred at the defendant’s apartment building after the shooting.

Prosecutors’ effort to suppress the incident hinged on their claim that there was no evidence linking the arson incident to the shooting. Page argued that the arson was clearly an act of retaliation for the shooting.

She based her claim on witness testimony and the fact that Pena’s family has received witness protection as a result of the incident. Prosecutors disagreed with the defense’s claim that a witness in the incident had positively identified one of the arson perpetrators as a relative of the victim.

Judge Dayson said that she could not give a ruling on the motion until the witness’ statements were clarified.

Parties are slated to reconvene Oct. 30.

Homicide Defendant Rejects Plea Offer

A homicide defendant rejected a plea offer in a hearing before DC Superior Court Judge Jason Park on Oct. 21.

Walter Parker, 48, is charged with first-degree murder for his alleged involvement in the fatal beating of 77-year-old Bernard Williams on the 400 block of M Street, SE, on April 23.

Parker rejected a plea offer that the prosecution had previously extended, which would have had him plead guilty to second-degree murder. In exchange, the prosecution would not seek any other charges and would ask for the guideline sentence of 12-to-24 years.

Parties are set to reconvene on Jan. 9.

Search