Prosecutors called several data analysts to build their case in a mass shooting trial before DC Superior Court Judge Danya Dayson on Sept. 22.
Ronell Offutt, 36, is charged with five counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, aggravated assault while armed, and six counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. The charges are in connection to his alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting at the 2300 block of Pennsylvania Avenue, SE on Feb. 4, 2019. Five individuals sustained injuries including a five-year-old girl.
During the trial, prosecutors called a crime scene DNA analyst to interpret a written report of test results for a firearm, ammunition magazine, locks of hair. The witness explained that a DNA mixture is a profile, used to identify people based on differences in DNA among two or more contributors.
The DNA profile used in Offutt’s case was a mixture of three individuals, one being male. The testing yielded a ratio showing a high likelihood that Offutt is the source of the DNA on the evidence rather than a random individual.
Offutt’s defense attorney, Janai Reed, brought up the possibility of an “adventitious inclusion”– the possibility of a relative of Offutt’s being the true DNA donor thus increasing Offutt’s chances of being included as a potential donor of a DNA sample.
The witness stated that based on the comparison between the DNA profile and the DNA evidence along with the strength of the DNA profile, they would not expect an adventitious inclusion.
A former DNA analyst was called by the prosecution and testified to extracting DNA from firearm and magazine swabs and locks of hair related to this case. When questioned by Reed the witness stated that they only had a buccal swab, a swab of the inside of the cheek, from Offutt and not any relatives.
The prosecution also called a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective who responded to a call about a shooting which came in at 5:16 p. m. on Feb. 4, 2019. The officer testified to collecting surveillance footage from a nearby corner store then called Martha’s Market. They noted that when they collected the footage the time was ten minutes earlier than real time.
In footage shown by the prosecution, the detective identified a suspect walking towards the location of the shooting at time stamp 17:05 and away from the shooting at time stamp 17:06. Given that the cameras were 10 minutes behind real time, the detective noted that this would have been 5:15 p.m. and 5:16 p.m.
A Prince George’s County patrol officer called by prosecutors testified to making an arrest on Feb. 10, 2019 and finding the firearm alleged to have been used in the shooting. They stated that they have never met or had contact with Offutt.
Reed insinuated that the individual arrested by the police was Offutt’s nephew, although there was no corroborating evidence.
Prosecutors called a former corporal with Prince George’s County Police Department who testified to swabbing the firearm and magazine on Feb. 11, 2019 and sending the swabs to a DNA lab for testing. The officer did not take swabs of the individual arrested.
The prosecution also called on a forensic firearm and toolmark examiner who received a firearm, cartridge cases, and a bullet related to this case. The examiner performed a test fire with the recovered gun and given the consistent imperfections on the gun slide and cartridge casings, was able to determine that the cartridge casings belonged to the firearm alleged to have been used in the shooting.
In the defense’s cross examination, it was stated that consistency doesn’t definitively mean a match, it is based on the examiner’s training and judgement.
Offutt’s attorney, Donna Beasley, called on a forensic expert specializing in audio, video and photography. The witness asserted that digital photography has exif (exchangeable image file format) data and metadata that has information like the location, date, and time a photo was taken. This is only possible if you’re working with the original photo.
In the prosecution’s cross examination, the witness insisted that for this case they were presented with JPEG copy images on a document and not the original photos making it impossible to verify the validity of the images. The prosecution noted that data can also be edited, but the witness stated it would be easy to tell when viewing hexadecimal data–commonly used in computer science..
The witness claimed they did not use those tools in this case because they were not given the original photographs.
Parties are slated to reconvene on Sept. 23.
