Thank you for reading D.C. Witness.
Consider making a donation to help us continue our mission.
By
Elizabeth Price
- April 4, 2025
Court
|
Daily Stories
|
Non-Fatal Shooting
|
Suspects
|
Prosecutors and defense attorneys delivered closing arguments before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson and the jury in a non-fatal shooting and assault trial on April 2.
Roger Jones, 42, is charged with assault with intent to kill while armed, aggravated assault knowingly while armed, simple assault, assault with a dangerous weapon, threat to kidnap or injure a person, three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, carrying a pistol without a license, unauthorized use of a vehicle, and fleeing from law enforcement. That in connection to his alleged involvement in a shooting and assault that left two victims injured in what police described as a domestic dispute on the 1400 block of Okie Street, NE on Jan. 22, 2022.
During their closing arguments, the prosecution presented cell site evidence from Jones and his co-defendant, Riley Benjamin’s phones, arguing that Benjamin acted as the getaway driver and supplied the weapon to Jones.
The prosecution supported this with surveillance footage of the bar incident, pointing out Jones’ “unique gait.”
They emphasized that even though “this is a circumstantial case,” Jones’ previous acts of violence and “streak of terror” that night prove his guilt.
In her closing, Errin Scialpi, one of Jones’ defense attorneys, highlighted the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case and attacked the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses.
Sciapli alleged that Jones was at another location at the time of the shooting, as none of the eyewitnesses could identify him as the shooter and there is no cell phone data recovered from him during that period.
Furthermore, she cited “tunnel vision” in the investigation as no DNA or fingerprint analysis was conducted on the bullet casings collected from the shooting site.
During their rebuttal, the prosecution asserted “the investigation in this case was competent and compelling” and that the firearms examiner was “paid for his time, not a conclusion.”
Parties are set to return once the jury reaches a verdict.