The jury in a stabbing trial heard testimony from the victim before DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman on Oct. 9.
Maurice Felder, 54, is charged with aggravated assault with grave risk while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with significant bodily injury while armed, and possession of a prohibited weapon for allegedly stabbing a person on the 1900 block of 7th Street NW, on Nov. 10, 2024.
The victim was stabbed in the chest, by an “uncle”, as the victim referred to the man who allegedly stabbed him. According to the victim’s testimony, an “uncle” and his “nephew” approached the victim and his friends to confront them about a comment one of the victim’s friends made.
The victim allegedly put himself between his friend and the perpetrator and tried to “diffuse the situation”. The victim and his friends were walking away when the uncle allegedly pushed the back of the victim’s head.
During the prosecution’s direct examination, the victim testified that the uncle’s behavior was hostile and claimed he was “bucking up”. Additionally, the victim heard one of his friends say that the uncle had something in his hands. The victim then turned around, claiming to defend himself and feeling threatened, and then the uncle allegedly stabbed him.
The prosecution revealed that the victim had one prior conviction for marijuana consumption and had an open warrant for failure to appear in court.
On cross examination, defense counsel Matthew Rist continuously asked about the victim’s intoxication level, to which the victim responded that although he had shared joints with his friends and had three to four shots of alcohol, he felt “tipsy” but aware and in control.
Additionally, Rist played cell phone video of the incident and pointed out several discrepancies in the victim’s account of events and his friend’s justification for feeling threatened by the “uncle”.
Specifically, Rist pointed out that when the victim claimed he felt the uncle hit him in the back of the head, that the uncle was actually a couple steps in front of him. Additionally, Rist claims by the number of friends the victim had that it was actually the uncle that was surrounded and questioned how his friends could have felt threatened.
Lastly, Rist pointed out that the victim emailed the prosecutors asking if there was any way to drop the case. Moreover, Rist asked if the victim continued to testify to gain leverage with the prosecution on his other cases. The victim did not answer the question as the prosecution objected to the Rist’s question.
Prosecutors called the victim’s friend who was present the night of the incident. She testified to meeting up with a group of about eight or nine people in DC and going out to eat for the victim’s birthday. After dinner she and her friends were walking down the street when she witnessed the victim and another friend talking with a man they had never met.
The witness claimed that the man then followed her friends across the street when another man, believed to be Felder, pulled up on a scooter, jumped off, and started becoming aggressive towards the males in her group although her boyfriend never got involved. She claimed that the man who followed them identified himself as the man on the scooter’s nephew. According to the witness, the victim and the person on the scooter went back and forth, the group tried to keep walking, and at some point the victim was shoved.
The witness did not see who shoved the victim, but the victim then turned around and “flipped out” meaning he threw his bag down and began tugging on his jeans. She then stated that he never became physical or retaliated.
After more back and forth between the victim, Felder, and another person, the victim was then stabbed in the chest.
A recording of the incident taken by the witness was played for the jury. In the video the witness can be heard telling the victim to back up because the man on the scooter had something between his index and middle fingers. She can be seen pulling her friend away from the other individuals.
In the footage the victim appears to be punched in the chest. The witness stated that she didn’t realize until seconds later that her friend was stabbed. When she did realize she attempted to stop the bleeding, flagged down an officer, and received an escort to the hospital where she showed police the recording.
In cross examination, Rist claimed that the victim was doing more than just tugging on his pants, he was showing that he’s a tough guy too, to which the witness agreed. Rist also noted that at some point in the footage the men in her group were behind a person believed to be Felder and his nephew as they walked through the group of friends.
Rist also questioned the witness laughing in the recording and stated that it’s unusual of someone who feels threatened. The witness disagreed stating it’s something she does when she’s nervous.
In the recording, Rist also pointed out that the individual believed to be the defendant said “go ahead”. The witness noted that where she’s from this could mean two different things, one of them meaning someone is gearing up for an altercation. Rist also noted that members of the group smoked and drank tequila that night.
In their redirect, prosecutors reasserted that the witness’s boyfriend never became involved in the situation. The witness also reasserted that she was nervous during the incident as she’s not from around here. She believed the victim was going to be jumped.
On cross examination, Rist questioned why the responding officer didn’t make any effort to see if there was audio to the cell phone video of the incident that occurred and eliminate possibilities of self defense. To which, the officer responded that to him it didn’t look like self-defense because the stabbing looked unprovoked.
Judge Edelman allowed the defense to cross-examine the responding officer about several incidents of police misconduct that were pending at the time of the incident and current ones with limitations on the facts of the incidents.
Therefore, Rist asked if the two reprimands based on previous complaints of police misconduct in his three years of being an MPD officer made him worried about his employment and if it changed his testimony. To which the officer replied, it didn’t because he learned his lesson as a new officer and those complaints were closed before the incident in question occurred.
The prosecution called a forensic DNA analyst who testified that for this case they received swabs from a knife and a outh swab from the victim. The tests were positive for blood and showed strong support that the victim’s DNA was included.
