Parties presented their closing arguments both focused on the issue of choice in a jury trial for a triple-homicide defendant before DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt on April 2.
Nakita Walker, 46, is charged with three counts of second-degree murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, and fleeing a law enforcement officer. The charges stem from her alleged involvement in a fatal car crash that killed Mohamed Kamara, 43, Jonathan Cabrera Mendez, 23, and Olvin Josue Torres Velasquez, 22, on March 15, 2023 on Rock Creek Parkway, NW.
The prosecution’s closing statement framed the incident as a series of choices made by Walker. Walker chose to drive under the influence, to flee a law enforcement officer, and to drive at an “indefensible” speed, asserted prosecutors.
The prosecution outlined the evidence and witness testimony they presented throughout the trial, including data that Walker was driving at an extremely high speed when she collided with Kamara’s vehicle and video evidence of her vehicle moving at a high speed after she was warned to slow down by a police officer.
Prosecutors directed the jury’s attention to evidence that Walker was under the influence of alcohol during the crash, and asked jurors to consider this in addition to Walker’s speeding.
Walker’s attorney, Albert Amissah, said justice for the victims in this case was equally important as justice for Walker.
“This whole case is about choices,” Amissah said. He claimed that the prosecution called two witnesses to testify whose credibility was questionable because they were both under the influence of substances at the time of the incident. Amissah also noted the prosecution granted one of those witnesses immunity for marijuana possession charges, removing his legal liability for a drug charge. He asked the jury to consider the witness’ immunity might be motivation for him to lie.
Amissah questioned the evidence and witness testimonies brought by the prosecution, including blood samples he claimed were improperly preserved and could have produced inaccurate blood alcohol results. He questioned why prosecutors did not call hospital staff to testify about how Walker appeared in the hospital on the night of the incident.
According to Amissah, a toxicology report showed that Kamara had enough alcohol in his system to be considered under the influence if he drove a commercial vehicle. Kamara was driving a Ride Share on the night of the crash, which would be considered a commercial vehicle.
Amissah claimed that the prosecution did not account for Walker’s injuries in their argument and failed to note that Walker sustained multiple fractures and a lacerated lung as a result of the collision.
In conclusion, Amissah told the jury, “Justice for the victims cannot mean injustice for Walker.”
The prosecution insisted the immunity granted to their witness would not protect him from the consequences of lying in court. They also contested Amissah’s statement about how the prosecution they chose their witnesses, saying that they could only call people present at the scene of the incident, aside from the expert witnesses.
Additionally, the prosecution denied ignoring Walker’s injuries, acknowledging that her injuries were consistent with a car crash. They said that hospital staff and the blood test results from the hospital both indicated that Walker was impaired on the night of the incident, and that none of the evidence related to the blood tests indicated improper preservation.
The prosecution concluded by reminding the jury of the importance of looking at the evidence and the law before making their decision.
Parties will reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.
