Parties delivered their final arguments regarding the strength of a 21-year-old murder investigation and witness reliability before DC Superior Court Judge Jason Park on June 25.
Michael Wells, 55, is charged with first degree murder while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, tampering with physical evidence, and arson, for his alleged involvement in the murder of 23-year-old Makia Mosby, a foster sister. The incident occurred on Nov. 24, 2005, on the 1200 block of Valley Avenue, SE.
Mosby was killed in same manner as 30-year-old Michael Carter, Wells’ best friend, and the prosecution speculated that Wells’ believed Mosby had something to do with Carter’s murder earlier that year, and killed her as revenge.
“She had to know him,” the prosecutor began, saying that Mosby had to have known the killer well enough to comfortably sit in her bedroom with nothing but her robe, with her back turned.
The prosecutor argued that there was only one person with DNA and fingerprints linked to the crime scene, one person who allegedly admitted to killing Mosby, and one person who wasn’t at Thanksgiving dinner that day.
“The one, the only, Michael Wells,” the prosecutor asserted.
The prosecutor went over a key witness, Wells’ former girlfriend, who testified Wells admitted to the murder. Although the witness had been known to have mental health and drug problems, the prosecutor highlighted that over the years she never changed her story.
Additionally, the former girlfriend’s story is corroborated by multiple testimonies, as well as exclusive details from the crime scene that, according to a detective’s testimony, only the police and the killer could have known.
The prosecutor also discussed Wells’ other foster sister’s testimony that Wells was nowhere to be found on Thanksgiving Day in 2005, even after getting a call that Mosby’s home was on fire.
She also said that Wells did not show much emotion while the rest of the family was grieving over Mosby’s death, not even going to the funeral. The prosecutor argued Wells’ behavior displayed “consciousness of guilt.”
The prosecutor played clips of Wells’ arrest interview from December of 2024, comparing them with audio tapes of Wells testifying before a grand jury in April of 2010.
In the arrest video, Wells expressed a lot of confusion surrounding Mosby’s death, saying he didn’t remember the day or the manner in which she was killed. He also could not recall the similarities between Carter’s and Mosby’s death.
However, in the grand jury testimony, he described Mosby’s death with apparent ease and accuracy. He also called it a “coincidence” that Mosby and Carter died the same way. The prosecutor made sure to say that memory loss cannot be argued, because in the arrest video Wells was able to accurately recall and describe the way Carter died.
“She never got to fight, you have to fight for her,” the prosecutor concluded before asking the jury to find Wells guilty.
“Michael Wells did not kill Makia Mosby,” said Hannah Claudio, one of Wells’ attorneys in riposte. Claudio called the prosecution’s case one based on an unreliable witness, with an investigation that was mishandled to the point of missing crime scene photos.
Claudio informed the jurors that the number of witnesses that testify for a case does not determine the weight of its evidence. Claudio criticized the prosecution for calling witness after witness to say they did not kill Mosby, and did not understand why they were being questioned.
She called Wells’ former girlfriend one of the only witnesses who had anything to say about Mosby’s murder. Claudio discussed how the witness was off her prescribed medication, taking PCP, and hearing voices the week that she first gave her story to the police.
Claudio said the witness’ story is “not evidence [the jurors] can rely on,” pointing out things she said in her police interview of April 2013 that were not possible to document.
According to the report of her interview, she incorrectly described Carter’s cause of death, identified his killer with a made-up name, and testified to Wells confessing to her in 2008, which police said could not have happened. Claudio speculated that police didn’t even believe the story, as they didn’t question Wells until 2024.
Claudio discussed what she says were problems with the other foster sister’s testimony—namely that believing Wells is guilty for allegedly not showing emotion while grieving Mosby is a “dangerous assumption.”
Acknowledging Wells’ arrest in 2024, Claudio highlighted his confusion in the body cam footage of the event. She explained to the jury that Wells was not informed of what he was arrested for until he signed his Miranda Rights waiver.
“That is the context of his ‘calculated lies’ as she likes to put it,” Claudio remarked, referencing the prosecution’s framing of the arrest interview.
As for missing evidence, “this investigation attacked itself,” said Claudio. Potentially helpful 911 calls and crime scene photos are part of the evidence that went missing over the years, she argued. Claudio said how easy it is to draw wrong conclusions without the requisite information.
Claudio went over multiple leads that the detectives could have followed, such as a handwritten letter from Mosby’s unidentified best friend, Mosby’s former lover who was mentioned by another witness, and Carter’s supposed real killer, who was found with a copy of Mosby’s obituary in his jail cell. She claimed that police would abandon evidence if they couldn’t connect it to Wells.
As for the context of Mosby’s murder, Claudio argued that there was evidence of struggle, showing crime scene photos of furniture thrown around and the crib filled with clothes. In addition to that, DNA that probably did not belong to Wells was found underneath Mosby’s fingernails.
“Memory fades, but science gets better,” Claudio said as she told the jury to look at the evidence and DNA, before asking them to return the only “just verdict,” which is not guilty.
The prosecution’s rebuttal began by addressing the assumed signs of struggle. She emphasized that the fire department, not police, were the first responders to Mosby’s death. She expressed that the fire department’s only concern is putting out fires, not preserving crime scenes.
She discussed the DNA underneath Mosby’s fingernails, disclosing that of the five profiles found, four of them were inconclusive, and Wells tested negative against one partial profile. Since the crime was not an assault, so DNA is not evidence linking the suspect to the crime.
The prosecutor countered Claudio’s criticism of the investigation, explaining that the reason the police took so long to arrest Wells is because they were building a case and exploring all of the leads. She also said there were many witnesses to show that the police investigated other suspects.
She asked the jury to question why the police would wait 21 years if they wanted to fabricate evidence and frame Wells?
The prosecutor also criticized Claudio’s depiction of Wells as disoriented and stressed during his arrest interview. She reasoned that if Wells really didn’t kill Mosby, his live reaction to being accused of her murder would have been much greater.
She characterized his reaction was not shock, but surprise that he was finally caught.
“You are the last line of defense,” the prosecutor told the jury before they adjourned for deliberating.
Parties are slated to reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.
