Self-Defense Claim Disputed in A Homicide over A Pair of Shoes

By Alex Garcia Pecina - September 18, 2024
Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

A murder defendant testified in trial and changed his narrative multiple times before DC Superior Court Judge Marisa Demeo on Sept. 16.

Darius Anderson, 23, is charged with first-degree premeditated murder while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and two counts of carrying a pistol without a license, for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of Israel Mattocks, 30 on the 3900 block of Minnesota Avenue, NE that occurred on June 15, 2022.

Wole Falodun, Anderson’s defense attorney, called the defendant to the stand to tell his side of the shooting.

In his testimony, Anderson revealed Mattocks asked Anderson to buy him a pair of shoes. Anderson agreed for $10, but did not follow through, according to his testimony. Mattocks became angry and followed Anderson and they argued. In the moment, Anderson testified, he saw a bulge on Mattocks’ waistband which he believed to be a firearm.

According to Anderson, he walked home after buying the shoes, but quickly returned to inquire about a new pair. Then he saw Mattocks come out, look at him with an aggressive expression, and reach for a something in his waistband, which prompted Anderson to shoot Mattocks because he was afraid for his life.

The prosecution argued that Anderson’s narrative changed from the last time he spoke. 

During a prior interview with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), Anderson police showed Anderson pictures of himself at the crime scene.

He reportedly laughed and said, “I just didn’t want to throw myself under the bus.” He also told police officers, according to the prosecution, that he waited outside the store to shoot Mattocks because he did not want any “innocent bystanders,” to be affected. 

Falodun asked for an acquittal saying the prosecution did not have enough evidence to prove Anderson was the aggressor, and insisted he acted in self-defense. Judge Demeo denied the motion, explaining that a jury could reasonably find Anderson guilty with the evidence presented.

The prosecution argued that Anderson planned Mattock’s death. He walked home and decided to return to the scene, looking to shoot Mattocks. At the store, the prosecutor argued, Anderson peaked inside to check if Mattocks was there and positioned himself out of view while waiting outside.

“Nothing caused him to fear Mr. Mattocks,” the prosecution insisted. They showed video of Mattocks walking out of the store while holding a phone up to his right ear carrying bags. The prosecutor argued that Mattocks could have never reached for a gun, because his hands were full.

Falodun said the self-defense claim was based on Anderson’s real fear of death.

The prosecutor rebutted by focusing on Anderson’s credibility and how he had changed his narrative.

Parties are slated to reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.