Prosecution Says Girls Were ‘Out Looking For A Victim’ in Juvenile Homicide Trial

By Adriana Marroquin - September 6, 2024
Court | Daily Stories | Homicides | Juveniles | Suspects | Victims |

A prosecutor told DC Superior Court Judge Kendra Briggs on Sept. 5 that a group of juveniles was “out looking for a victim,” when they allegedly fatally beat a man to death last fall.  

The juveniles, a 13 and 14-year-old, are two of five girls aged 12-to-15-years-old charged with first-degree murder and assault with a dangerous weapon for their alleged involvement in the fatal beating of 64-year-old Reggie Brown. The incident occurred on Oct. 17, 2023, on the 6200 block of Georgia Avenue, NW. 

The girls “were out on Georgia Avenue looking for a victim,” the prosecution told Judge Briggs in opening statements, adding they “found the most vulnerable man” to attack. 

The prosecutor added that the five girls offered to help an adult man, who they have identified as “blue coat,” after they saw him already assaulting Brown. According to the prosecutor, the girls offered to assist with the assault. She claimed the girls “whipped [Brown] with his own belt and stomped his head repeatedly,” after chasing him into an alleyway. According to the prosecutor, two of the girls went as far as jumping a fence to get to Brown.  

The prosecutor went on to claim that the 14-year-old, who is represented by Charlotte Gilliland and Victoria Clark, “delivered four of the most forceful blows,” adding the group acted with “premeditation and deliberation.”

According to the prosecutor, the 13-year-old, who is represented by Geoffrey Harris, recorded their involvement on one of the other girls’ cellphones, conversed about the incident through messages, and detailed their attack on Instagram. 

The prosecutor argued the girls depicted their “enthusiastic participation,” stating they celebrated on the video as they walked away from the scene, leaving behind a lifeless Brown. 

Gilliland deemed the prosecution’s evidence and arguments “unreliable, untrustworthy, and unacceptable,” adding that it is “unacceptable that [the prosecution] is asking [the judge] to convict a child with unreliable evidence.”

The defense had previously argued through a motion that statements provided by the 14-year-old girl to the lead detective should not come in as evidence during the trial, claiming they were involuntary. During her opening, Gilliland claimed the girl thought the detective was her mom’s new boyfriend or an Uber driver when he picked her and her mother up from an undisclosed location. She said he told her he’d take her and her mother home. 

Instead, she was taken to the police station where she provided information that allegedly corroborated evidence already in the Metropolitan Police Department’s (MPD) possession. There, Gilliland argued, the detective gave the girl two options – be a snitch or become an inmate. 

Gilliland claimed MPD committed multiple errors during their investigation due to the “pressure to solve the case… without any actual investigation.”

She insisted the only “just verdict,” is not guilty, arguing there is no forensic data or fingerprints connecting the 14-year-old girl to the scene, and no cell site data that puts her in the area of the homicide. 

“Not every death is a murder,” Harris told Judge Briggs, arguing that the prosecution’s case is largely based on speculation. He claimed that although the videos are disturbing, they do not prove his client’s guilt. He requested Judge Briggs acquit his 13-year-old client of all charges. 

Prosecutors called on the deputy chief medical examiner from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME), who said she supervised the autopsy conducted on Brown on the day he was killed. 

The doctor told Judge Briggs that Brown sustained multiple blunt force injuries to his head, torso and extremities. According to the doctor, the blunt force trauma caused Brown’s brain to hemorrhage, leading to his death. 

She testified that his injuries were “indicative of something hitting him multiple times,” adding that it was clear that “the injuries were inflicted by others.”

The doctor also mentioned that a toxicology done on Brown at the time of the autopsy showed cocaine in his system, but insisted the cocaine did not play a part in his death or on the brain’s hemorrhage. 

On Sept. 6, prosecutors called two women who were roommates and lived in the area of the incident. They testified that they were in their apartment when they heard screaming, which prompted them to go out onto their balcony. 

According to the women, they saw a figure lying in the alleyway. One of them called 911 as the other went out to check on the figure. 

In the two 911 calls placed by the witness, she can be heard telling the dispatcher “someone’s lying in the alleyway. They’re not moving,” and “he’s bleeding from the head.” 

The other woman stated she is CPR certified, and approached Brown’s body to see if she could render aid. However, she testified that he did not respond when she attempted to call out to him. 

When help arrived, both women left the scene.

Previously, on Sept. 5, an emergency medical technician from the DC Fire and Emergency Medical Services (DCFEMS), who was the first to respond to the scene of the murder. He testified that he located an individual, later identified as Brown, lying face down in an alleyway with his pants around his ankles and “brain matter and a pool of blood by his head.” When he arrived, the EMT said, the victim was unresponsive. He was declared dead at the scene. 

Parties are slated to reconvene on Oct. 15 due to the Judge’s schedule.