Objections over message and iCloud data were the focus of proceedings as twenty pictures taken from defendants’ phones were considered for their probative value before DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz on Dec. 1.
Irshaad Ellis-Bey, 20, Isaiah Flowers, 20, Taj Giles, 20, Bryon Gillum, 20, Jahkai Goff, 21, Jaelen Jordan, 20, and Warren Montgomery, 20, are charged with conspiracy, trafficking stolen property, two counts of armed carjacking, two counts of unauthorized use of a vehicle, four counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and two counts of robbery while armed. These charges stem from the group’s alleged involvement in a series of armed carjackings and the subsequent distribution of the stolen vehicles between February and May of 2023.
One of the carjackings occurred on Feb. 27, 2023, at the intersection of 20th Street and Sunderland Place, NW. Another carjacking took place at the intersection of K and 8th Street, NE, on April 27, 2023.
Additionally, Ellis-Bey, Flowers, Giles, Gillum, Goff, and Jordan are charged with two additional counts of unauthorized use of a vehicle, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, armed carjacking of a senior citizen, receiving stolen property of $1000 or more, and robbery of a senior citizen while armed. These charges stem from their alleged involvement in a carjacking that occurred on the 600 block of Butternut Street, NW, on May 16, 2023.
Four photos that prosecutors stated depict Gillum wearing latex gloves were admitted. Donna Beasley, attorney for Goff, and Stephen LoGerfo, attorney for Montgomery, argued that it was impossible to ID the person in the photos since you can only see a hand. The prosecution argued that two of the pictures show continuity of attire and can be confirmed as Gillum since they came from his phone on the day of one of the incidents. The prosecution was also allowed to admit two similar photos from April of 2023.
Group photos depicting the defendants and other associates were not admitted after an objection from Beasley. She stated that hand signs made by the defendants could be interpreted as gang signs and would thus be prejudicial to include. Kravitz advised the prosecution to blur out the hands on the photos if they wanted to admit them into evidence.
Multiple photos of Jordan were admitted, which the prosecution stated showed him wearing shoes, clothing, and a ski mask consistent with footage of a suspect during one of the incidents. They also stated that he could be seen in the apartment where police recovered multiple firearms. Judge Kravitz cautioned the prosecution that “You cannot argue it is the same face mask, only that the image is consistent.”
Screenshots of a news broadcast about the arrest of multiple defendants were not allowed into evidence. The prosecution argued that the screenshots of the event show a connection between Jordan and the individuals arrested in connection with the conspiracy. Judge Kravitz concurred with LoGerfo that the depiction of an arrest warrant for Montgomery in the screenshot is too prejudicial to admit.
The morning session concluded with the prosecution’s offer proffer that a police officer would be able to testify about the meaning of slang words used throughout the evidence related to the case. They cited King v. US when arguing that familiarity with a region and age group can satisfy the requirement to testify about this information without needing a qualified expert on the subject. Kravitz agreed that he would be allowed to testify but that a proper basis would need to be established before they decided whether questioning could proceed.
The prosecution also called on a special agent from the military who had been working with federal investigators for more than four years. He explained that he works on digital evidence, such as phones and computers, and that he is certified to extract and study this information. He described his past work overseas and at a training center in the United States. He also explained how a program used for phone extractions can pull data like call logs, messages, photos, and locations.
The prosecutors asked him about several phones that were taken as evidence. He checked the reports to make sure they matched the devices. He confirmed that the extraction reports showed photos from the phones, debit card images, screenshots of money-transfer apps, pictures of car information, a report related to DNA testing, and contact lists.
Many exhibits were shown and admitted as he verified each one, including a video of a luxury car and more photos of cash and guns. The court also looked at a device report for another phone that included a message thread between two people. The prosecutors also showed backup files that contained messages linked to an address on Florida Avenue, which prosecutors have claimed was the defendants’ headquarters. Parties are slated to reconvene on Dec. 2.
