Thank you for reading D.C. Witness.
Help us continue our mission into 2025 by donating to our end of year campaign.
By
Phoebe McConnell
, Ivanna Ceballos - October 23, 2024
Daily Stories
|
Shooting
|
Suspects
|
Victims
|
Closing trial arguments were delivered before DC Superior Court Judge Marisa Demeo on Oct. 23 with the defense claiming there is no evidence that the co-defendants influenced or coerced a witness to recant his testimony.
Eugene Burns, 32, is charged with first-degree murder while armed, carrying a pistol without a license, and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for his alleged involvement in the Nov. 14, 2015, fatal shooting of 24-year-old Onyekachi Emmanuel Osuchukwu III on the 2900 block of Second Street, SE.
Burns was convicted of these charges in 2017, but the DC Court of Appeals overturned the verdict on a technical issue in 2020.
Burns and Tyre Allen, 24, are also charged with conspiracy, obstruction of justice by influencing or delaying a witness or officer, and obstruction of justice for their alleged involvement in persuading a witness, identified as Allen’s brother and Burns’ cousin, to retract his testimony from Burns’ 2017 trial.
The prosecution argued that Allen played a crucial role in the conspiracy to undermine the witness’ original testimony, contributing to Burns’ initial conviction. Allen’s defense attorney, Brandon Burrell, contends that he was merely advising his brother to speak the truth and that no coercion was involved.
During his closing arguments, Burrell claimed there was no evidence, witness, or proof that Allen bribed, threatened, or persuaded anyone.
Burrell argued that the prosecution failed to provide a script of Allen’s phone or other platforms, in which they claimed he obstructed justice, or influenced a witness.
A transcript from a phone call between Burns and Allen was presented with a conversation about allegedly getting rid of a physical phone. Allen had asked, “Somebody else joint?” and Burns replied, “Get that joint a.s.a.p,” the joint supposedly meaning a phone.
The prosecution claimed that Allen knew precisely what he was doing when he got rid of his physical phone, knowing that deleted messages could be retrieved if it was collected as evidence.
A phone call was played during closing arguments between Allen and his brother, during which Allen stated, “If you want to tell the truth, then tell the truth…you making a choice that you feel is the right choice on your behalf, and that’s the only way I want it.”
Burrell stressed that there is no evidence Allen ever told any witness to lie. Burrell claimed the intention during the phone call was not to influence the witness, so the defense asked, “Where is the obstruction?”
The prosecution rebutted that Allen’s brother had lied during testimony and had a motive to recant because MPD paid him 12,500 dollars and granted him immunity by making him a prosecution witness in the case.
His credibility was questioned because he admitted to lying by recanting his original testimony, and both parties instructed the jury to scrutinize everything he said with caution.