In a homicide trial before DC Superior Court Judge Jason Park on June 9, a police officer testified about being on duty near the crime scene where his friend was fatally shot.
Michael Wells, 55, is charged with first-degree premeditated murder while armed, second-degree murder while armed, two counts of firearm possession during a crime of violence, tampering with physical evidence, and arson. These charges stem from his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 23-year-old Makia Mosby at her home on the 1200 block of Valley Avenue, SE, on Nov. 24, 2005. Mosby sustained burns and gunshot wounds.
During direct examination, the prosecution asked if the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) patrol officer needed a moment to gather his thoughts, because recalling the day of Mosby’s death prompted an emotional response from him.
The patrol officer met Mosby when he responded to a traffic accident in which she was a passenger in an impacted vehicle. For approximately four-to-five months, the two kept in touch by calling occasionally and discussing family, friends, and their life events.
The officer claimed that their relationship was “not really” romantic and denied having spent time at each other’s homes. However, when Wells’ attorney, Hannah Claudio, cross-examined the officer, he confirmed that he went on one date with Mosby.
In addition, the officer said he encouraged Mosby to file a police report regarding threatening phone calls that she was allegedly receiving. He noted, though, that he was not aware of the nature of the threats nor who the phone calls were coming from.
On the date of Mosby’s death, the witness was paired with another officer and received his assignment to assist the fire department with traffic control near a “local” fire. When he arrived outside Mosby’s home, he informed his partner that he knew “someone who lives in that building.”
Concerned, the officer said he called Mosby two-to-three times, only to receive “no answer.”
In direct examination, the prosecution inquired, “Did you look in the building on that day?” The officer confirmed that he saw Mosby’s body on the floor. As a result, he said he needed to change his assignment for the day because he was so upset.
A friend of both Mosby and Wells was called to the stand. The prosecution addressed her mental health history, her memory issues, and her drug addiction along with her five months of sobriety.
The friend then identified Wells in the courtroom.
The prosecution then turned to Thanksgiving 2005, the day of the incident. The friend testified that she went to Mosby’s house earlier before dinner and that Mosby and Wells were both there.
Based on her memory, the friend left the house and while walking home, heard gun shots. Approximately five-to-10 minutes later, she received word from her mom that Mosby was dead. When prosecutors asked why she didn’t go to the police as soon as she heard, she said she “wasn’t expecting nothing to happen to her.”
After detailing the events, the witness was reminded that she had previously been asked whether she was at the house when Mosby died during the grand jury when she said she wasn’t there. She clarified that she was at the residence that day but not present at the time of death.
During the cross examination, Claudio described the friend’s memory as “not good.” The witness corrected her and characterized it as “poor.” She said that her bipolar medications affect her ability to remember things and that she struggles to determine whether some experiences are real or not.
Claudio returned to the friend’s grand jury testimony, highlighting inconsistencies between her prior statements and her current testimony.
“I don’t remember half the things I say. I’m sorry. There’s nothing I can do,” the witness said.
Claudio argued that the prosecution was reminding the witness of her prior testimonies which she denied.
In the redirect, the witness was again asked to identify Wells. She testified that no witness instructed her to identify him, no detective instructed her to identify him, and no member of the prosecution instructed her to identify him.
The jury also heard testimony from a former MPD officer and forensic evidence examiner. The analyst testified that a cartridge case, cigarette lighter, Polaroid photograph, Victoria’s Secret gift bag, and a beer can were found at the scene and processed for latent fingerprints.
According to the examiner’s testimony, no fingerprints were recovered from the cartridge case, lighter, or photograph. However, latent prints were recovered from both the beer can and the gift bag.
An expert Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) latent print examiner also testified that a footprint on the bag was compared to Wells’ known footprint. The characteristics did not match, concluded the examiner and said her conclusion was independently verified through a blind review process.
A forensic fingerprint expert testified that among the ten latent prints recovered from the Victoria’s Secret gift bag, three likely matched Mosby’s fingerprints, two matched another individual, and five were inconclusive.
The expert also testified that four latent prints were recovered from the beer can, three of those prints allegedly matched Wells, whereas one print was excluded.
Claudio confirmed with the expert that he could not determine when the fingerprints were left on the bag or beer can.
Parties are scheduled to continue making their cases before the jury on June 15.
