A forensic scientist confirmed a homicide defendant’s DNA was not found in the victim’s fingernails in trial before DC Superior Court Judge Jason Park on June 24.
Michael Wells, 55, is charged with first-degree premeditated murder while armed, second-degree murder, two counts of firearm possession during a crime of violence, tampering with physical evidence, and arson. These charges stem from his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of his 23-year-old foster sister, Makia Mosby. Mosby sustained burns and gunshot wounds at her home on the 1200 block of Valley Avenue, SE, on Thanksgiving Day, Nov. 24, 2005.
Molly Bunke, Wells’ attorney, called on a senior forensic scientist to analyze three DNA samples. The samples included nail clippings from Mosby’s right and left hands, as well as a buccal swab from Wells’ cheek. Mosby’s right nail clippings contained DNA from at least three males and one major contributor, which was the most prominent DNA source identified. The analyst compared the major contributor to Wells’ DNA.
When referencing her findings, the scientist stated, “The DNA did not match.”
During cross-examination, the prosecution argued that Mosby could have come into contact with the DNA under her fingernails in various ways. The prosecutor stated that “Touch DNA” could transfer casually, such as through hands running through hair and firm handshakes. The forensic scientist agreed that these were possibilities.
The prosecution also noted that the DNA retrieved from Mosby’s fingernails was less than a single nanogram and not visible to the naked eye.
Bunke then called an investigative specialist with the Public Defender Service (PDS) for DC to the stand. He took pictures of the area outside the apartment building where the incident occurred. The specialist explained the contents of the photos and confirmed that the building had not changed since the incident, aside from the brick coloring and fencing. He was able to verify this using Google Street View photos from 2007.
During cross-examination, the prosecution argued that the specialist was not present in November 2005 and didn’t work for PDS at the time. The investigative specialist also didn’t speak to any witnesses or building residents.
The prosecution called a former Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective whose partner was the lead detective in the homicide case of Wells’ close friend, Michael Carter. According to the detective, Mosby was never identified as a witness in Carter’s murder, but a connection was made because of the similarities between her and Carter’s deaths. They both died from a gunshot wound to their head and were burned afterward.
The man convicted of Carter’s death was incarcerated at the time of Mosby’s death, but a search of his phone found Mosby’s obituary. The prosecution emphasized that no other items that connected Carter’s killer to Mosby were found in his cell. Earlier testimony suggested that Mosby’s murder might have been in retaliation for Carter’s death which she might have abetted.
The prosecution and defense both rested their cases.
After the jury was excused, the parties discussed proposed revisions to jury instructions ahead of closing arguments.
The jury returned, and Judge Park read instructions to the jury, which highlighted that on Nov. 24, 2005, four crime scene technicians visited the scene, used five rolls of film to document, and took handwritten notes. Another officer visited the scene again two days later. The judge reminded the jury that the investigators “failed to preserve” these photographs and the technicians’ notes, and that they may believe this evidence would have been “unfavorable” to the prosecution.
Judge Park also asserted that prosecutors “failed to preserve” the two 911 calls made that night.
Judge Park informed the jury of the prosecution’s “failure to timely disclose” photographs of a social gathering located in case files for Carter’s murder. Prosecutors disclosed these files on June 3, a day before Wells’ trial.
The judge also read the defense theory of the case to jurors, which stated that Wells did not kill Mosby or confess to another witness, citing her testimony as incredible. They maintained that Wells did not have a motive to kill Mosby, and other suspects did. They called the investigation “deeply flawed,” with witnesses not being interviewed until almost a decade later and with contradicting stories.
Parties are slated to reconvene on June 25 for closing arguments.
