The defense and prosecution disputed whether a defendant was responsible for lost footage of a homicide during a motions hearing before DC Superior Court Judge Michael Ryan on May 30.
Desmond Gaskin, 39, is charged with second-degree murder while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction greater than a year, tampering with physical evidence, first-degree theft, and destruction of property less than $1000.
The charges stem from his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 40-year-old William Whittington on July 19, 2022 on the 400 block of Burbank Street, SE. Whittington sustained a single gunshot wound to his head. Gaskin allegedly returned to the scene on July 20 and allegedly stole a DVR device with surveillance footage.
During the hearing, parties presented arguments regarding a defense motion requesting the court impose sanctions on the prosecution for failing to preserve material evidence. Gaskin’s attorney, Jason Tulley, informed the court that footage from a Ring camera near the incident was lost. Tulley explained that when motion activated the camera, an image was captured and sent to an external drive, however the videos stayed within the DVR.
Tulley said the detective’s method of screenshotting the images produced “essentially useless” images that are extremely blurry and difficult to read the dates and times. Tulley argued the missing evidence was essential to Gaskin’s defense.
Prosecutors acknowledged the images were low resolution but disputed Tulley’s argument and mentioned that three of Gaskin’s charges relate to him allegedly deleting the recordings. “The defendant broke into the room and took the DVR,” said prosecutors. They also noted the cameras are from a private residence, not proprietary to prosecution.
Tulley and Gaskin’s other attorney, Cora Holt, both laughed when the prosecution noted the defendant’s charges related to destroying evidence.
Judge Ryan noted that a grand jury indicted Gaskin on charges allegedly resulting from actions which made the evidence inaccessible. The judge added it did not benefit the detective to intentionally produce unclear images.
Judge Ryan planned to review Tulley’s questioning of the detective from the preliminary hearing before deciding if he will grant an evidentiary hearing.
Parties are scheduled to resume motions discussions on June 2.
