A jury heard closing statements about a non-fatal shooting before DC Superior Court Judge Deborah Israel on Oct. 1 that was characterized as either in revenge or self-defense.
Daquan Toland, 25, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, aggravated assault knowingly while armed, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, possession of unregistered firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, and carrying a pistol without a license outside of home or business.
The charges are in connection to his alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting on the 1100 block of 4th Street, SW on June 2. One individual sustained injuries.
In their closing statement, the prosecution claimed that Toland provoked a violent shootout with two unidentified individuals. They stated that they know the shooter in white on surveillance footage is Toland because they tracked him in the video.
The footage included many “costume changes” and included Toland’s arrest after he came out of the Gallery Place Metro Station. During his arrest the police said that Toland had a firearm, according to prosecutors. Cartridge casings from the scene suggest that the firearm was used during the shooting.
Prosecutors also insisted that the victim was shot by Toland because the trajectory from where Toland was shooting in the footage matches the location of the victim.
Prosecutors maintained that Toland did not act in self-defense, rather he intentionally provoked the other shooters and was looking for a fight.
The prosecution stated that Toland’s mother saw him on a bike and he was angry and upset about being robbed earlier in the day. They said his mother wanted him to go to the police, but he ignored her, armed himself, and went looking for the people who allegedly robbed him. Prosecutors played an audio recording of Toland on the phone with his mother allegedly stating that he went home and got a gun.
Surveillance footage of Toland on a bike allegedly “searching” for the robbers about 20 minutes before the shooting was played for the jury. When coming into contact with the individuals who allegedly robbed him, prosecutors claimed that Toland reached for his firearm and the two began backing up. Prosecutors argued that the defendant could’ve retreated, but was the first aggressor.
The prosecutors stated that they previously established that Toland was not licensed to carry a pistol and was in possession of an unregistered firearm and ammunition. They also stated that the assault charges are “transferred intent,” meaning that even if Toland intended to harm someone but accidentally harmed someone else, the intent for that individual still applies to the unintended victim.
Prosecutors also mentioned concurrent intent, meaning that by firing multiple shots Toland created a zone of danger and it can be inferred that he intended to harm everyone in that zone.
In the defense’s closing statements, Henry Druschel, Toland’s attorney, stated that Toland did not shoot first and was ambushed by the two men that robbed him previously. Shots were fired at Toland before he raised his gun, according to Druschel.
Druschel argued that the prosecution changed their story, going from Toland seeking revenge to Toland provoking an attack. He asserted that neither story had supportive evidence.
He argued that the prosecution did not present any evidence regarding the robbery and that Toland was defending himself as the law allows him to.
Regarding the firearm, Druschel asserted that Toland obtained a gun because he was scared and in imminent danger, noting that he only used the weapon after he was shot at first.
He also noted that it doesn’t make sense that Toland would know the two men would be in that location, since there has been no evidence about where the robbery took place. Toland’s mother said he went to a place where he usually hangs out and Druschel noted that Toland did not see the individuals who robbed him.
Druschel argued that Toland was just a young man on a bike and the prosecution tried to make that seem nefarious. What did seem nefarious, according to Druschel, was the other two men walking around with their hands on their waistbands, presumably where their firearms were located.
According to Druschel, the two men spotted Toland, hid from his line of sight, and then waited for him. He noted that it’s normal for a parent to want to keep their child safe or close after something bad has happened to them, but what a mother wants her son to do does not always happen. Toland was not required to stay home after being robbed.
Additionally, the investigation into the robbery was handled poorly with a detective testifying that they did not investigate the robbery because it wasn’t their job, according to Druschel.
Regarding the phone calls, Druschel noted that you don’t hear Toland say that he was looking for the people who robbed him.
Druschel also stated that the prosecution was “cherry picking” evidence as they did not show the jury what happened before the shooting and primarily focused on Toland in the footage. Footage played for the jury said to show two men backing up while drawing their guns, one of them allegedly shooting at Toland before he raised his firearm.
The multiple witnesses called by the prosecution did not advance the jury’s understanding of what led to the shooting, said Druschel. The prosecution also only talked about six shell casings consistent with Toland’s firearm but ignored 11 casings connected to the other firearms.
Druschel claimed that a complete and thorough investigation was not done as the lead detective did not interview every witness, which they testified is usually the case.
Druschel asserted that the prosecutors are looking at everything Toland does through a lens of guilt. He reminded the jury that their role is to review Toland’s actions with the presumption of innocence. He urged the jury to consider Toland’s perspective as he was not able to pause or rewind, he had to make a decision in seconds. He urged the jury to find Toland not guilty.
Regarding their change of story, prosecutors stated that their account has not changed and they still maintain that Toland was out for revenge.
Prosecutors also asserted that they embrace the burden of proof and that they still have to establish their case even if the defense is not contesting certain things.
With regards to witnesses, the prosecution claimed that one witness testified about the direction of gunfire and another witness said they heard shooting and identified the person in the surveillance footage.
Concerning the investigation, prosecutors noted that the detective’s focus was the shooting. They stated that Toland did not deserve to be robbed but that did not give him the right to take justice into his own hands. They also claimed that the detective wasn’t able to fully investigate the robbery because Toland did not report it and that the detective was not required to speak to every witness.
The prosecution also insisted that Druschel made “inflammatory statements” to distract from the case. They argued that the victim possessed a firearm even before the robbery. They stated that he was riding his bike around Waterfront 20 minutes before the shooting, he was in no imminent harm.
Prosecutors stated that the other two men weren’t blameless and their actions are still being investigated. However, they maintained that Toland was the provocateur and the first aggressor and had the opportunity to retreat.
Following closing statements final jury instructions were given.
Parties are scheduled to reconvene on Oct. 2.
