Tensions Rise About Undisclosed Documents During Murder Trial

Thank you for reading D.C. Witness. Help us continue our mission into 2024.

On July 11, defense counsel in murder trial continued to argue for the dismissal of a murder case before DC Superior Court Judge Maribeth Raffinan, citing the prosecution’s failure to provide all evidence in a timely manner.

Antonio Jackson, 32, is charged with first-degree murder while armed and carrying a dangerous weapon outside a home or business for his alleged involvement in the murder of Maria Antoinette Evans, 59. Jackson is alleged to have stabbed Evans 19 times on March 29, 2018, on the 500 block of Oakwood Street, SE.

At the hearing, Molly Bunke and Jessica Willis, Jackson’s defense attorneys, alleged the prosecutors failed to disclose all of the evidence they collected. The attorneys said that evidence could be exculpatory to the defendant.

Willis cited two main subjects that she argued prosecutors failed to provide, including video footage of a white van and an anonymous tip provided to law enforcement, which the prosecution thinks is insufficient information to this case.

The prosecutor argued that the surveillance footage of the white van was not favorable to the defense and that there was “nothing any more significant about this car than any other car.”

The prosecutor insisted that if the white van was an evidence dislosure violation, “every other car is Brady.”

“Movements of this vehicle and proximity to the crime,” are imperative to the investigation, Willis said. According to Willis, the prosecution withheld the significance of the vehicle in the pretrial report.

In a written motion, Willis also argued that an anonymous call to the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) was not properly preserved by the prosecution and therefore is in direct violation of evidence law.

The prosecution also stated that in regards to the anonymous tip line “any favorable information that came out of that call was handed over.”

Willis gave an oral request that the case be dismissed due to the misconduct and violation of evidence laws.

Judge Raffinan did not give an answer, requesting that all parties file another written motion for her to analyze and consider.

Parties are slated to meet on Oct. 1.