DC Superior Court Judge Carmen McLean clashed with prosecutors as they attempted to impeach their own witness on April 8.
Marquis Allen, 32, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of firearm during crime of violence, threats to kidnap or injure a person, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction greater than a year for his alleged involvement in shooting at his sister on Aug. 19, 2025 at the 3500 block of East Capitol Street, SE. No injuries were reported.
Before calling the jury, the prosecution informed the court that they wished to impeach, or challenge, an eyewitness, Allen’s sister’s roommate, who testified the previous day, believing the roommate had a motive to lie. Impeachment highlights prior inconsistent statements from a witness to discredit their credibility to the jury.
According to prosecutors, the roommate’s feelings for Allen could have motivated her to lie during her testimony. The prosecution requested to ask the roommate in their re-direct whether she was in a relationship with Allen, and planned to ask for her impeachment if she said no. If the roommate denied her relationship with Allen, prosecutors said they want to present text messages and jail phone calls between Allen and the roommate, claiming they hinted at a romantic relationship between the two.
Allen’s attorney, Shawn Sukumar, found this problematic, claiming that prosecutors shouldn’t be allowed to impeach a witness they called to testify. Additionally, Sukumar stated that the prosecution knew about this evidence for a while but did not take action.
Sukumar continued, saying the phone calls and messages are inadmissible, out-of-court statements, and that if the roommate said anything on direct examination that was false, it should have been addressed during then so that the defense could have an opportunity to question her about it.
Judge McLean questioned the prosecution about the points Sukumar raised, asking why the prosecution hadn’t talked with the roommate about this issue, stating that the prosecutors failed “to do an adequate amount of trial preparation.”
The judge also mentioned that she had requested prosecutors send all relevant information regarding the impeachment matter by 5:30 p. m. the previous day and they failed to meet this deadline. Prosecutors apologized, to which Judge McLean retorted, “I don’t want your apologies, I want you to be candid with the court.”
Prosecutors apparently forgot which of Sukumar’s points they were discussing and asked Judge McLean to remind them. “I’m not going to do your job for you,” stated the judge.
Judge McLean then asked prosecutors a question regarding the timeline of the jail calls, to which a but the response wasn’t clear. “I want a f*****g answer to my question,” McLean exclaimed. Then Judge McLean apologized to the prosecutors, calling her actions “wildly inappropriate.”
Judge McLean did not allow prosecutors to impeach the roommate, as she didn’t find any bias in her testimony.
Prosecutors called the roommate who testified the previous day to continue her questioning. The roommate claimed she felt pressured by her friend, the victim, to lie to the police on her behalf during an interview. She also stated that she called 911 the morning of the incident only after the victim told her to.
Prosecutors also called the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer who responded to the scene after receiving a 911 call. The officer stated that she asked the victim if she needed medical attention and identified two other individuals in the apartment, an adult and a child.
The prosecution played the officer’s body-worn camera footage, which, according to the officer, showed the victim pointing at a bullet hole in the wall. The officer stated that she did not search the apartment for a firearm.
On cross-examination, Allen’s other attorney, Gabriela Menna Barreto Scanlon, asked the officer if a firearm was recovered from the scene, to which the officer said no. Additionally, the officer claimed she was only in the apartment’s kitchen and living room, and did not enter the bedrooms.
Barreto Scanlon asked the officer about residents living on other floors of the building. The officer said she didn’t interview anyone else in the building, and stated none of the building’s other residents reported a gunshot to the police.
The prosecution called an MPD crime scene search officer who testified about the physical evidence that he recovered.
The officer testified about photos of a cartridge casing in the living room and a bullet hole through the wall from the living room into the kitchen. He explained how he determined the bullet’s path and recovered it from the kitchen wall. The officer also displayed the casing and bullet to the jury, noting that he sealed and logged them himself.
On cross-examination, Sukamar highlighted the gaps in the investigation and questioned why the casing was not tested for DNA. The officer said he does not handle DNA testing and was unsure why it hadn’t been done in this case.
During closing arguments, the prosecution emphasized credibility. The prosecution claimed that the victim had no reason to fabricate her story, emphasizing her emotional testimony and the fact that she had also called 911, along with the roommate.
The prosecution stated that Allen threatened his sister before firing the shot and then fled, urging jurors to “not let him avoid justice again.”
Sukamar questioned, “How many things do [prosecutors] tell you to assume are true?”
Sukamar explained that the victim argued with Allen before the incident, which gave her motive to lie about who fired the shot and stated that the victim “wants her brother out of her life.”
The prosecution dismissed the defense’s theory, asking jurors what reason the victim would have to lie.
Parties will reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.
