Thank you for reading D.C. Witness.
Help us continue our mission into 2025 by donating to our end of year campaign.
By
Lucy Orgolini
- November 12, 2024
Daily Stories
|
Non-Fatal Shooting
|
Suspects
|
DC Superior Court Judge Marisa Demeo heard closing statements on Nov. 6 in the retrial of a shooting case, where in the prosecution’s controversial closing they asked the jury to hold the defendant “accountable for gun violence in DC.”
Andrew Parsons, 29, is charged with assault with intent to kill while armed, aggravated assault knowingly while armed, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and a felony charge of carrying a dangerous weapon. The charges stem from his alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting incident that occurred on June 26, 2023, on the 800 block of Southern Avenue, SE.
On the final day of testimony, the prosecution called two key witnesses–a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective overseeing the case and the doctor who treated the victim.
The detective’s testimony focused on the identification process. He stated that he relied on video evidence and information from the Special Police Officer (SPO) to identify Parsons as the shooter.
He defended his decision not to pursue additional witnesses, citing their apparent unwillingness to cooperate. The defense questioned the thoroughness of the investigation, particularly the lack of follow-up on potential additional camera angles and witnesses.
The vascular surgeon who treated the victim described the severity of the injuries, which required an upgrade to the highest level of trauma care and four surgeries during a nearly two-week hospital stay.
Closing arguments brought the trial to a dramatic conclusion. The prosecution urged the jury to convict Parsons on all counts, emphasizing the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly the SPO’s identification and subsequent investigation. They controversially asked the jury to hold the defendant accountable for gun violence in DC, prompting a defense objection on the grounds the remark was prejudicial to their client.
The defense countered by arguing reasonable doubt, highlighting the reliance on a single identification from an SPO whose testimony had been inconsistent. They also pointed to the lack of physical evidence and what they characterized as an incomplete MPD investigation.
Judge Demeo will rule on the prosecution’s controversial statement and provide jury instructions on Nov. 7 before the jury begins deliberations.