Opening statements and witness testimony marked day one of a brutal murder trial before DC Superior Court Judge Jason Park on Nov. 12
Julius Worthy, 39, is charged with second-degree murder while armed, assault with intent to kill while armed, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a prior convict for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting and stabbing of Orlando Galloway, 36, on April 2, 2023 at the 200 block of 14th Street, SE. Also injured was Galloway’s girlfriend, who was stabbed but survived.
In opening statements, the prosecution explained the violence that had occurred in an apartment building in April. “Shot. Stabbed. Beaten,” he said, stating that Galloway had been shot eight times, stabbed five times in the neck, and beaten so extensively with a firearm that his skull caved in and a part of the gun’s frame snapped off.
The assault had was over $20, the prosecution alleged. He claimed that Worthy had returned to the apartment angry and the two men had fought. It escalated quickly into the fatal shooting and stabbing. One of the shots hit the air mattress Galloway and his girlfriend had been sleeping on. She had tried to play dead according to the prosecution, but Worthy still choked her and stabbed her repeatedly, including 16 times in the hand.
“There is only one possible verdict,” the prosecutor told the jury, confident they would find Worthy guilty on all counts. He said that the testimonies of Galloway’s girlfriend, experts, police, medical personnel, and neighbors would prove the brutality of the shooting and stabbings.
A neighbor, who had called police, had seen Worthy stabbing the woman through the open front door, the prosecution said. This second assault had occurred an hour after the initial gunshots.
The prosecution told the jury that when Worthy was arrested, he was found in an alleyway near the incident address and he was soaked in blood. He had been found and arrested the day after the shooting and stabbing occurred.
The prosecution argued Worthy not only murdered Galloway, but attacked his girlfriend with the intent to kill her.
Despite the certainty of the prosecution, defense attorney Steven Ogilvie argued that “the only possible, just verdict” is not guilty. He argued that the testimony of Galloway’s girlfriend is not credible, claiming that her story changes and does not agree with the physical evidence in the case.
He argued that she had said that Worthy had the gun and that neither she or Galloway had a weapon. But Worthy’s DNA was not found on the gun, Ogilvie argued, and both of the victims’ DNA profiles were found on the gun.
Therefore, he argued that it was impossible to reconcile the testimony and the DNA evidence. “That story is contradicted by physical, scientific evidence,” Ogilvie said. Even so, he told the jury “you decide where the doubt is” within the prosecution’s theory.
Several witnesses testified. One of Galloway’s sisters spoke about his character. Though brief, her testimony was emotional as she paused, trying to find the right words.
“He was a big gentle teddy bear, he was our protector…,” she said. “He was our everything.”
One of the responding officers with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) testified about the scene and the state he found the surviving victim in. Multiple clips of his body-worn camera footage were shown in court, depicting his arrival and the subsequent canvass of the surrounding area.
In the footage, smears of blood are seen on the white door of the apartment and a window is visibly broken. Loud music and a male voice shouting indistinguishably can be heard from the unit directly above before a female voice from inside the apartment, crying for help.
When she opened the door on the footage, the surviving victim was covered in blood and had visible cuts. She was on the floor, disoriented, repeatedly telling the two officers that “he ran out the back door” and begging for help. Galloway was seen laying on his back on the floor of the kitchen.
When questioned by defense attorney Michael Bruckheim, the officer testified his first priority was to help the victim and attempt to provide medical attention before the paramedics arrived.
The officer testified that he did, however, go to the back of the apartment building, canvassing the area when directed to do so by his supervisor. He was searching for any suspects or possible evidence that may be at the rear of the building. The officer said that he did not find either.
Bruckheim asked if he had found blood at the open gate to the backyard of the apartment building. The officer said he did not, but that he was not primarily looking for blood.
While officers investigated the backyard, the upstairs neighbor in the apartment building spoke to them through his screen door. He was argumentative, the testifying officer claimed, and was “loud and obnoxious” as he asked the officers questions about what they were doing and why they were there.
When asked in cross-examination, the officer clarified that more officers had arrived to keep an eye on him. The officer stated they were watching the upstairs neighbor because they were unsure if he was involved in the homicide in any way. The neighbor did calm down after speaking to the officer’s supervisors.
The officer was also present for the defendant’s arrest. He testified that Worthy was cooperative, but was shuffling around and would not make eye contact. The officer said Worthy may have been “passively resisting,” as he laid down when they were trying to handcuff him and he had to be lifted up. Bruckheim suggested that Worthy was making it easier to handcuff him by laying down, but the officer claimed it had not been.
Another officer who responded to the scene testified. He testified that, when he got to the apartment, he knocked on the door multiple times before anyone answered. The person who eventually opened the door was a woman the officer said was badly injured. He heard her weakly saying “help me.” He said he also noticed a man who appeared to be unconscious.
The officer testified he immediately called for paramedics and his supervisor. He waited to enter the apartment, and when he did, he said he saw blood “everywhere” and that the “apartment was in disarray.” He checked the man further for signs of life, and said he noticed none.
When paramedics arrived, they quickly started treating the injured woman, according to the officer. When he asked why they didn’t treat the man, the paramedics told him he was already declared dead. He said the paramedics had to cut parts of her clothing off to treat her fully.
The officer mentioned clothing that were cut off the victim. He said some pieces were recovered from the scene where paramedics cut it and the rest was recovered from the floor of the hospital room she was treated at.
The prosecution also showed body camera footage of officers arresting a suspect and collecting two items from him: a knit cap and a phone. A bandage can be seen on the suspect’s wrist, which the officer clarified was already there when they found him.
During cross examination, the officer further clarified that he was not involved in searching the apartment for evidence nor did he speak with detectives who did or who interviewed the surviving victim.
Bruckheim asked the officer if the clothing they recovered from the hospital was truly recovered from the floor, to which the officer said yes. He stated the bag they put the clothes in was a plastic bag hospital staff gave them.
The prosecution brought in another witness: a forensic scientist who investigated the scene.
He explained that forensic scientists often sketch the areas they investigate to create a clearer picture of the scene. He and his partner both drew one. The prosecution showed both.
The sketch showed the front room of the apartment in 3D. He pointed out several markers on the sketch that referenced “leftover projectiles” and strike marks where they hit.
The other sketch was from the witness’s partner showed a top-down view of the apartment and where relevant items were located.
Parties are scheduled to reconvene Nov. 13.
