Opposing attorneys presented their closing arguments in an armed carjacking and robbery trial before DC Superior Court Judge Andrea Hertzfeld on July 8.
Orlin Lemus-Cruz, 22, is charged with armed carjacking, two counts of robbery while armed, and two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon for his alleged involvement in a carjacking on March 26, 2025, on the 3100 block of Hiatt Place, NW.
Lemus-Cruz’s former co-defendants, 26-year-old Jason Benitez-Umanzor and 21-year-old Julio Villafranco, previously pleaded guilty for their involvement in the incident.
In their closing, prosecutors clarified that although the stolen vehicle was a moped, the offense is an armed carjacking. They asserted this was “inherently a violent act.”
Prosecutors played surveillance footage of the incident, showing the jury that the suspect, who they allege was Lemus-Cruz, was “running at full speed” to help his co-defendants.
Allegedly, Villafranco waved Lemus-Cruz over, and he joined.
Screenshots from Lemus-Cruz’s phone captured one-and-a-half hours after the offense showed a DC alert. Prosecutors questioned the likelihood that Lemus-Cruz “screenshotted some random crime” right after it occurred.
Prosecutors also presented text messages between Benitez-Umanzorand Lemus-Cruz from March 28, 2025. Lemus-Cruz said, “I scanned da Moncler,” to which Benitez-Umanzor replied, “If it’s real, ima just bag you.”
The prosecution argued that the defendants were joking about the robbery they committed two days prior, highlighting “how ludicrous” it was that Lemus-Cruz allegedly plugged in the code for the Moncler jacket to verify its authenticity. Moncler is a high-fashion brand of outerwear with coats costing around $2,000.
According to the prosecution, “the police got lucky” because Lemus-Cruz was arrested with the Moncler jacket. When he spoke to the police, he said, “That’s my jacket.”
Prosecutors addressed the discrepancy between the two different suspects identified by the victims. One of the victims was reportedly identifying a co-conspirator, not Lemus-Cruz, which is why prosecutors said he misidentified the suspect. Prosecutors concluded that it “doesn’t really matter that he got [the identification] wrong.”
A few days before the incident, prosecutors alleged that Lemus-Cruz was sent a photo of a jacket and did not think it was real. In response, Benitez-Umanzor said, “we gon’ bag a migo,” which prosecutors interpreted to mean robbing a Hispanic male for a jacket.
In her closing argument, Quiana Harris, Lemus-Cruz’s attorney, countered that the case contained “many assumptions about [Lemus-Cruz] because of how he looks, where he lives, and who he knows.”
According to Harris, Lemus-Cruz bought a Moncler in March, lived in the area of the crime, and was assumed to be involved by a related officer “because of where he was.”
Harris highlighted “the presumption of innocence” under the law and reminded the jury that it “trumps assumptions” from prosecutors. She also pointed out that neither of the victims identified Lemus-Cruz in court because the prosecutors never asked them to do so.
Harris claimed that the prosecutors’ focus on the co-defendants in the case was a “distraction” and that it does not make Lemus-Cruz a “co-conspirator.”
Addressing the phone message about Lemus-Cruz’s attempt to verify the Moncler, Harris countered that it was “not an admission.” Rather, he wanted to verify it because he bought it. Days before the robbery, he was sent a photo of a designer coat from another brand and was “unimpressed,” claimed Harris.
Harris also addressed the phone location that prosecutors asserted placed Lemus-Cruz in the vicinity of the crime. According to the defense cell site expert, the phone was at that location in January, February, March, and April.
She criticized the investigation by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), characterizing the officer who identified Lemus-Cruz as “sloppy and unreliable” and noting that he is currently under investigation by the MPD for alleged misconduct.
According to Harris, the descriptions from the victim moments after the robbery do not match Lemus-Cruz. They asserted that the suspect was six feet tall, had green eyes, and was 30 years old.
During rebuttal, prosecutors reminded the jury that Lemus-Cruz had the Moncler in his bag when he was arrested and that “he just knew he was caught red-handed.” Additionally, they alleged his phone was at the scene during the incident.
Prosecutors asserted that “as soon as he took a step to help [his co-defendants], the defendant is guilty.”
They also explained the lack of identification in court, saying that the victim did not identify Lemus-Cruz because he was “terrified.”
Before closing statements, Harris re-called the lead MPD detective in the case, who testified that he obtained search warrants for the co-defendants’ phones. Harris then displayed photographs of both Benitez-Umanzor and Lemus-Cruz. The detective confirmed that the shoes they were wearing in the photographs matched those seen in surveillance footage of the robbery.
The detective also disclosed he had a search warrant for Lemus-Cruz’s house, where they found no clothing, firearms, or proceeds that related to the robbery.
Harris then questioned the detective about the photo array used by the victim to identify Lemus-Cruz. The detective acknowledged he was not present for the identification but confirmed he documented it in his reports and that two other detectives were present.
The defense brought their own cell phone data expert to testify about the records collected from Lemus-Cruz’s cell phone.
On cross-examination, the witness said he did not disagree with any of the conclusions from the prosecution’s cell data expert’s report, which was presented on July 1.
Parties are scheduled to reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.
