Pretrial Evidentiary Proceedings Begin in Murder Case as New Defense is Appointed

A DC Superior Court judge began pretrial evidentiary proceedings in a murder case on Nov. 23.

Terrance Prue is charged with the murder of 39-year-old Bruce Gilmore on June 5, 2019, on the 3500 block of 22nd Street, SE. Prue, 21, was arrested the following November and a grand jury went on to indict him on charges of first-degree murder while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon and five gun-related offenses. He is scheduled to go to trial in May.

The adjudication of Prue’s case was held up amid COVID-related restrictions on court operations. Prue’s defense attorney at the time, Brandi Harden, had filed two unsuccessful motions—the second one a week before Prue was indicted—to dismiss the case on the argument that her client’s speedy trial rights were violated.

During the hearing, parties discussed pretrial evidentiary proceedings in accordance with the Innocence Protection Act, which grants defendants a right to seek out independent testing of DNA evidence. 

The prosecution said they would be re-testing firearm and ballistics evidence from a related felony case in which Prue was charged was unlawful possession of liquid PCP and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance while armed. Items they say were recovered during the murder investigation include a cell phone and articles of clothing, which will be submitted for additional DNA testing.

James King, who now represents Prue, opposed the re-testing of evidence on the grounds it is irrelevant. “This is not about admissibility, this is about if Mr. Prue wants to do any independent testing of DNA evidence,” Judge Kravitz replied. 

Judge Kravitz suggested the defense just request independent testing of all DNA testing in the case but also warned about the potential cost. King told Judge Kravitz he can submit a motion on the issue.

Judge Kravitz scheduled another hearing for Jan. 19 to discuss pretrial motions. The defense’s motions are due on Dec. 20 and the prosecution’s responses are due on Jan. 12, 2022.

Follow this case