In their closing argument in a homicide trial before DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz on Aug. 11, the prosecution asserted that the defendant did not act in self-defense, but out of anger that she was romantically scorned.
Vanessa Bonaparte, 34, is charged with first-degree premeditated murder and misdemeanor destruction of property. The charges stem from her alleged involvement in the fatal stabbing of 31-year-old Dwayne Boyd. Bonaparte allegedly stabbed Boyd with two kitchen knives on June 22, 2024, on the 3500 block of East Capitol Street, SE. Boyd sustained two stab wounds, to his heart and lung, and died at the scene.
Throughout the three-week trial, attorneys from both sides contrasted Bonaparte’s testimony with the testimony of a key witness, Boyd’s romantic partner, who was present when he died.
The prosecution alleged in their closing arguments that Bonaparte’s story didn’t add up, but claimed the romantic partner’s testimony is supported by the evidence.
According to the prosecution, Boyd rejected Bonaparte, choosing to get back together with his romantic partner. They were allegedly on a break from their relationship when Boyd and Bonaparte, who were friends, had sex.
“Rejection is a hard pill to swallow,” the prosecution said. “[Bonaparte] was gonna show [Boyd] that he made the wrong choice,” prosecutors asserted.
The prosecution summarized the case’s evidence, emphasizing the events on the day of Boyd’s death.
While presenting body-worn camera footage from police officers that responded to the scene, the prosecution pointed out that Bonaparte didn’t appear disheveled or harmed as she rushed down the stairs and across the courtyard. There were no clear marks or bruising on her face, neck, or exposed back, and her head scarf was still tightly-wound, emphasized prosecutors.
In her previous testimony, Bonaparte asserted she stabbed Boyd in self-defense. After she went to the apartment to retrieve her laptop, Bonaparte claimed an argument ensued which Boyd turned physical.
Boyd also had a history of domestic violence, according to court documents and witness testimony.
The defense contends that Boyd threw Bonaparte around the apartment during their argument, dragged her into the kitchen, and choked her against the countertop before she could grab the two kitchen knives and defend herself.
The prosecution maintained that Bonaparte appeared unharmed directly after the incident, despite her accusations of intense violence from Boyd. In her arrest photo the next day, there was no visible bruising or marks on her face or neck, the prosecution added.
As the prosecution replayed audio clips from a voicemail recording on Boyd’s phone of the altercation that preceded the stabbing, they asked the jury to “Think about the first aggressor.”
In the recording, the prosecution claimed Bonaparte said, “She won’t be able to suck your d*** no more or nothing,” allegedly referring to Boyd’s romantic partner.
They argued these words showed that Bonaparte’s animosity stemmed from wanting Boyd for herself, not in simply wishing to retrieve her belongings.
The prosecution also noted that, in the voicemail recording, there is a 20-to-30-second gap when Bonaparte’s voice isn’t heard. They claimed this is when she went outside and around the apartment, dropping her bags in the courtyard before allegedly breaking all the apartment unit’s windows.
The defense theory is that the couple let Bonaparte in through the front door, and she did not shatter the windows.
In contrast, the prosecution claimed Bonaparte climbed through one of the broken windows. They said a fingerprint expert who testified earlier in the trial concluded that Bonaparte’s palm had likely been on the window pane, implying that she braced herself as she climbed down.
“You can’t break in and attack people, then claim self-defense,” the prosecution said.
Furthermore, the prosecution argued that Bonaparte’s decision to enter the kitchen and locate the knives was very purposeful because of the unit’s layout.
The prosecution also questioned Bonaparte’s decision to grab not just one, but two knives. If she was just defending herself, they asserted, one would’ve been enough.
The prosecution then showed crime scene photos of the kitchen counter Bonaparte claimed Boyd choked her against. The counters were filled with items, with nothing seemingly displaced, the prosecution highlighted.
In addition, the prosecution said that blood evidence reportedly revealed Bonaparte didn’t run directly out of the apartment after stabbing Boyd. According to prosecutors, two cuts, outlined by blood, in the bedroom door that Boyd reportedly hid behind indicated Bonaparte sought to follow him instead of fleeing herself.
“[Bonaparte] runs to finish the job and get [Boyd’s romantic partner] as well,” the prosecution claimed.
The prosecution implored the jury to find Bonaparte guilty on both charges.
Due to time constraints, Judge Kravitz dismissed the jury after the prosecution’s closing argument, and asked them to return the following morning to hear the defense’s.
Before closing arguments began, a witness who previously testified was called back to the stand for the defense to re-cross examine him.
Judge Kravitz explained to the jury that after the witness testified, the prosecution disclosed information that the defense could’ve used to question his credibility. The prosecution had the information when he testified, but reportedly failed to properly disclose it on time.
The witness worked on this case as a crime scene forensic scientist employed by the DC Department of Forensic Sciences (DFS).
In his cross-examination of the witness, Roderick Thompson, one of Bonaparte’s attorneys, asked about a DFS investigation into a social media post the witness made in 2020.
This workplace investigation took place the same year as the post, and led to the witness being placed on administrative leave, with termination recommended. He went through a mediation process and was ultimately allowed to continue working in his position with DFS.
The scientist had commented under a Facebook post of a news article about a shooting.
“I sure AF hope a white guy shot her, so that he can be arrested,” the witness wrote.
On the stand, the forensic scientist explained that the comment was intended to be sarcastic, and in reference to what he saw as a changing political climate, with new policies that he felt made race more of a factor in arrests.
The defense played recordings of interviews conducted by DFS during the investigation about his social media post.
In one of the interviews, the witness said his Facebook comment reflected his belief that there was a “seeming permissiveness of crimes committed by [people] other than white males.” He believed that 2020 witnessed a decriminalization of behavior by people from different racial or ethnic categories.
The forensic scientist explained that DFS expressed a loss of confidence that he could do his job in an unbiased manner based on these beliefs.
Judge Kravitz said he’d classify the forensic scientist as an impeached witness for inconsistent statements.
Parties are set to reconvene on Aug. 12.
