On July 27, DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt granted a prosecutor’s motion to limit cross-examination of a detective previously found not credible by two other judges.
John Scogins, 55, is charged with assault with intent to kill while armed and aggravated assault knowingly-grave risk while armed. These charges stem from his alleged involvement in a stabbing that occurred on Dec. 9, 2024 on the 1700 block of Minnesota Avenue, NE. The victim sustained stab wounds to his head, face, neck, two to his arm, and two to the left side of his torso.
Scogins’ charges face an aggravating factor of being allegedly committed after at least two felony convictions.
The prosecution filed a motion on March 13 to limit cross examination of the case’s lead Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective. Judge Brandt’s ruling would determine the extent to which Scogins’ attorney, Alvin Thomas, could ask the detective about his history during questioning.
In two prior cases, DC Superior Court Judges have ruled that the detective is not a credible witness. The prosecution anticipated that, should Thomas ask the detective about these findings, it would “result in more confusion for everyone else.”
Thomas opposed the motion, asking Judge Brandt, “How can I not be allowed to go into that?” He argued that the detective’s history was essential in demonstrating his level of credibility as a witness in Scogins’ case.
Similar to how defendants must disclose any prior convictions to the jury, the detective should have to carry his history with him as “baggage” in trial, Thomas argued.
“That is not baggage,” Judge Brandt responded, and granted the motion.
A witness’ credibility should be assessed within the context of the evidence in each specific case, Judge Brandt noted. She stated that it is up to the jury to decide whether the detective is credible.
In some circumstances, it would be appropriate to deny the motion, Judge Brandt claimed. But, “neither one of those judges drew that hard line in the sand and called him a liar,” which would have made it impermissible for the detective to testify.
In addition, Judge Brandt denied another motion filed by the prosecution asking to exclude a voluntary intoxication defense theory. As a result, Thomas was permitted to use the theory to argue that Scogins was incapacitated due to alcohol use on the day of the incident.
The prosecution argued that this theory should not be permitted because Thomas has not formally laid out the evidentiary basis in the form of a proffer.
However, Thomas claimed that because police reports mention Scogins’ and the other individuals’ intoxication, there is a strong “indication that parties were drinking,” and that he should be allowed to employ this theory.
“Until I hear all of the evidence,” Judge Brandt noted, “I don’t know whether this case is going to marry into voluntary intoxication.”
Parties are set to reconvene on Aug. 6.
