Thank you for reading D.C. Witness.
Help us continue our mission into 2025 by donating to our end of year campaign.
By
Elizabeth Bernstein
, Joseph Wolf - November 21, 2024
Carjacking
|
Daily Stories
|
Suspects
|
Parties delivered closing statements in an armed carjacking trial before DC Superior Court Judge Andrea Hertzfeld on Nov. 20.
Maurice Edwards, 20, is charged with armed carjacking and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for his alleged involvement in an incident that took place at the intersection of 48th Place and Lee Street, NE on March 11.
Azusa Beatty, 29, was previously a co-defendant with Edwards but the cases were severed and Beatty will have a separate trial. Beatty is also charged with armed carjacking and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for her alleged involvement.
“Accidents happen,” the prosecution told the jury, explaining that an accident happened in this case but that what happened after is a crime.
The prosecution played a video of the car accident which, according to both parties, depicts Edwards and Beatty driving in a car together running a stop sign and hitting another car. Following the accident, Edwards and Beatty exit their car and the victim does the same.
According to the prosecution, the parties got into an argument fueled by “ego, fury, revenge, or road rage.”
The prosecution alleged that Edwards brandished a gun during the argument, citing the victim’s and an eyewitness’ testimony that they believed there was a gun. According to the prosecution, Edwards allegedly brandishing a gun allowed Beatty to the the victim’s car.
The prosecution argued the video footage and the victim’s testimony corroborate that after Beatty entered the car, Edwards told the victim, “Get off the car. Get off the car. Mother******. ‘Fore I f*** you up.” The prosecution argued these statements demonstrate that Edwards played a critical role in the carjacking because they forced the victim to submit allowing Beatty to drive away.
According to the prosecution, the victim’s car was found at Beatty’s house and Beatty told police that she “fell into the victim’s car and accidentally hit the brakes” before being arrested.
When Beatty was incarcerated, the prosecution claimed, she made several phone calls to a number linked to Edwards. Recordings were played for the jury and included a person identified as Edwards saying, “I know you’re not telling on me,” and “We hit him, or he hit us.”
The recording also featured Beatty’s allegedly saying, “I’m only in here because of you,” and “I would not even be in here if I snitched on you.” According to the prosecution, these statements imply consciousness of guilt and collusion.
The prosecution asked the jury to “make decisions for yourself” and use “common sense” when deliberating and find Edwards guilty of all charges.
Raymond Jones, Edwards’ defense counsel, argued the prosecution’s evidence leaves reasonable doubt because there is no proof that Edwards threatened the victim with a gun to aid in a carjacking. Instead, Jones focused his closing statement on Beatty’s responsibility in the crime.
Jones stated that Beatty went into the car without conferring with Edwards and that Beatty was “not in her right mind.” He argued that Beatty was not acting “normally,” citing her loud screams and erratic behavior after getting out of her car. He explained that most people are angry after a car accident but Beatty’s behavior was “irrational.”
Jones stated that if Edwards intended to get in a car accident and help his girlfriend carjack a car by primarily staying in the background then that’s “one of the dumbest crimes in the world.” He added, “No one’s that stupid.”
The defense counsel said the calls between Edwards and Beatty arguing imply confusion, and not guilt, citing the “We hit him, or he hit us?” exchange.
Jones also emphasized that the eyewitness stated he did not see a gun and only believed there was a gun based on Edwards’ “clutching” his waistband.
Jones clarified he is not arguing that Edwards was not in the car but rather he did not aid in the carjacking and there was no conspiracy or “mental agreement” between him and Beatty.
The prosecution rebutted, arguing that it is “obvious” Beatty took the car and the relevant question before the jury is whether Edwards helped Beatty.
The prosecution asked the jury to count how many times Edwards tells the victim to get off of his own car during their deliberations, arguing that these statements are an indication of assisting Beatty.
Parties are set to reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.