Parties questioned a carjacking victim’s sobriety and if officers followed proper investigative procedures in a trial before DC Superior Court Judge Andrea Hertzfeld on Oct. 30.
Marcus Tucker, 30, is charged with armed carjacking with two prior felony convictions, assault with a dangerous weapon with two prior felony convictions, armed robbery with two prior felony convictions, and three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence with two prior felony convictions for his alleged involvement in a carjacking at the intersection of Hartford and 30th Streets, SE, on April 17.
During the trial, a sergeant with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) testified to picking up the victim from his house and bringing him to a “show up” identification to identify a potential suspect.
The prosecution asked the detective if he provided instructions to the victim about the identification before he arrived, and the detective said that he had.
When asked why, the detective explained that he wanted to ensure that the witness understood what was happening and knew that “just because we’re showing him someone” didn’t mean that they were the suspect.
The detective said he wanted to make sure they got “the right person.” The detective told the victim that they would continue investigating regardless of the victim’s answer, and that being uncertain was “not the end of the world.”
According to the detective, he turned off his lights so that the cruiser’s lights wouldn’t impair or distort the victim’s vision. The detective also explained how he referred to the suspect as the “stopped individual” so that he wouldn’t “lead” the victim to believe that the person was involved.
Pulling up to Tucker, the victim said that he “was the individual with the gun.” The victim said that “he had the exact same clothing on” and was “one-hundred percent” confident that it was the same person.
Tucker was in handcuffs during the identification, which, according to the detective, was protocol because the defendant was stopped in relation to a violent crime.
After the identification, the detective said that he took the victim from the scene and didn’t discuss the case. He also said he had not taken any notes during the procedure, and didn’t write any reports except for an email he sent to his supervisor.
Another officer testified to speaking with the victim, who had been arrested a few hours prior for possessing an open container of alcohol. The officer said that the victim did not appear intoxicated and that he had not seen him consuming any alcohol on the scene.
Tulley asked if the crime scene was located near a liquor store, which the officer said it was, and then showed a video of the witness walking near a set of stairs that would lead to a plaza with a liquor store. The officer stated that he was unsure where the witness was before the incident, and hadn’t checked nearby cameras to find out.
A third officer tracked the victim’s phone to an alleyway with two cars, and found Tucker next to one of them. He described Tucker as “pretty friendly,” and wearing all white except for a black coat, which he said he had put on because it was cold.
The officer detainedTucker, making him aware that he was stopped as part of an active investigation. Items such as keys and a phone belonging to Tucker were recovered.
During a cross-examination by Laura Roman, Tucker’s other attorney, the officer testified that Tucker did not try to flee. Not when the officer’s car drove by him twice, and not when he was approached.
Roman also noted that Tucker asked permission from officers before doing anything. The officer also testified that during a show-up identification procedure, conducted at about three in the morning, the patrol car’s headlights were on and the red and blue lights were flashing. Roman also noted that Tucker was the only person shown to the victim.
Prosecutors called an MPD detective who testified to responding to a report of an armed carjacking. He stated that he spoke to a responding officer and the victim, who seemed agitated and angry based on his demeanor.
When Tulley talked about the eyewitness identification rules to promote “accuracy and reliability,” he asked if the detective documented the victim’s facial expressions during the identification procedure, or if he had obtained a description of the perpetrator from the victim before the identification. The detective said that he did not.
The detective also testified to police instructions saying that the individual should be presented in the least suggestive manner noting that the suspect was wearing handcuffs. .
In a redirect by prosecutors, the detective testified that he had not been reading off of a 19 page general order during the identification procedure and that his main goal was to give the instructions to the best of his knowledge so that the victim would go into the procedure neutral.
When asked by prosecutors, the detective stated that the victim did not appear to be under the influence.
The detective also stated that there was a license plate reader hit for the victim’s car and the tag scene in the photo was the tag given to officers. There were no other hits that night, according to the officer.
Prosecutors noted that any footage related to the case is missing.
He also stated that he talked to an officer over the phone who had stopped the suspect, and he asked if the suspect matched the description given by the victim, to which the officer responded yes.
The detective stated that he could not do the identification procedure because he was dealing with another incident, so he had another detective do it for him.
The detective’s testimony will resume at a later time.
Parties are set to reconvene on Oct. 31.
