The defense in a shooting case argued that surveilance evidence was destroyed by Metro Transit Police Department (MTPD) before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson in a July 2 hearing.
Demann Shelton, 32, is charged with three counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with significant bodily injury while armed, seven counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction. The charges stem from his alleged involvement in a mass shooting that injured one victim that occurred on Nov. 9, 2020, on the 3000 block of 14th Street, NW.
During the hearing, Emily Suffrin and Emma Mlyniec, Shelton’s attorneys described a “pattern of negligence” breaching rules requiring the prosecution to disclose all evidence that may aid the defense.
Suffrin said body camera footage from one-third of the officers present was destroyed. This included key footage of witness interviews, initial suspect pursuits, and most notably, the initial discovery of a mask allegedly linked to the shooter with DNA evidence.
The defense says crucial information was unavailable, including records identifying who gave radio callouts describing a shooter that allegedly did not match Shelton, making it impossible to challenge the discrepancy during cross-examination, according to Suffrin.
Additionally, records given to the defense didn’t mention an officer at the scene who reported seeing someone who was said to be a better fit for the suspect’s description fleeing in a direction different than Shelton.
Even more critical, says the defense, was the destruction of surveillance footage from a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) camera that covered the exact corner where the shooting and subsequent chase occurred. Suffrin explained how this footage could have captured individuals who more closely resembled the suspect’s description than the defendant, and may have revealed flight paths or actions inconsistent with Shelton’s alleged involvement.
Suffrin noted that the Civil Rights Section (CRS) of the U.S. Attorney’s Office had twice told the lead detective explicitly to preserve the footage for review, yet it was not retained.
In total, approximately four hours of body camera footage were lost across multiple officers. Suffrin argued that while each instance might be viewed as individual negligence, the accumulation of evidence loss amounted to bad faith, or at the least, gross negligence, warranting a complete dismissal.
“Each individual case could be negligence. But taken together, the prejudice is too extreme to be a coincidence… we are not talking about an isolated incident,” said Suffrin.
The prosecution countered that any lost footage was in line with department-wide data retention policies of preserving footage for only 90 days unless explicitly told otherwise. Charges were initially dropped by the U.S. Attorney’s Office a month after the incident, which reportedly led police to cease evidence preservation efforts.
The prosecution countered that footage from more than 20 officers was successfully preserved, and any losses could be attributed to administrative error. They also claimed that the lead detective on the case was acting in good faith when investigating leads, retrieving four other surveillance angles from nearby cameras after CRS had reportedly determined that the missing CCTV footage was “uneventful.”
Furthermore, the prosecution argued that the defense was overstating the amount of information that was lost in data erasure, showing how many of the missing portions of officer footage can be seen in the remaining recordings of nearby officers. To back this, the prosecution showed how other nearby officers heard initial radio callouts of a shooter description, as well as pointing out that some lost interview footage was inconsequential, as other officers conducted follow-up interviews that were preserved.
Judge Dayson was unconvinced by the argument that the detective bore no responsibility for preserving the key surveillance footage. While she acknowledged that department policy and some investigative efforts mitigated the appearance of bad faith, she did not dismiss the possibility of sanctions on the prosecution for negligence. A ruling on potential sanctions will be issued at a later date.
Shelton’s attorneys also brought up last-minute disclosures involving one of the officers at the scene of the 2020 shooting, prompting Judge Dayson to issue multiple orders aimed at increasing transparency and accountability in the case.
Shelton’s attorneys focused on two key officers in Shelton’s 2020 arrest. One is reportedly under investigation for an unrelated recent police shooting, and another is facing a civil lawsuit, though the cases were not specified in court.
The prosecution claimed it had already turned over all relevant documentation in its possession and had received no response from MTPD after requesting further records. In response, Judge Dayson issued an order compelling the MTPD to provide all requested documentation by the following Monday.
Following that, concerns of prosecution influencing witnesses were brought forward, warning that several had claimed memory lapses during interviews but were now answering in ways that mirrored the materials provided by prosecutors to “jog their memories.” Judge Dayson ruled that any materials given to assist witnesses with memory issues must also be turned over to the defense.
Parties are set to reconvene July 7.
