Victim Credibility Questioned During Closing Statements in Shooting Trial

By Cameron Horne [former] - October 3, 2024
Court | Daily Stories | Non-Fatal Shooting | Shooting | Suspects |

Prosecutors asserted Oct. 1 that a defendant accused of driving a vehicle where shots were fired from is “just as guilty as if he fired the weapon himself,” during closing statements before DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt.

Jamal Coleman, 32, is charged with assault with intent to kill while armed and aggravated assault knowingly while armed for his alleged aiding and abetting role as the driver in a May 4, 2023, shooting on the 4600 block of Polk Street, NE in which one victim was injured.

Parties delivered closing arguments, during which Carrie Weletz, Coleman’s attorney, insisted that the “[victim] was not forthcoming at any point” of the entire investigation. 

She added the victim could not make a positive identification that Coleman was the driver of the vehicle bullets sprayed from. Weletz recalled the victim’s testimony in which he stated, “it was dark inside the car, I couldn’t see who was driving” and “I was focused on the gun.” 

Weletz claimed the prosecution wants the jury to “make a leap in logic,” to fill what she deems are holes in their theory. 

The prosecution acknowledged the defense’s argument that the victim was not forthcoming, but added that in the hours following the shooting “he was in pain … he was trying to answer questions to the best of his ability … his focus … was to get help.” 

Following closing statements, Elizabeth Weller, Coleman’s other attorney, filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, stating the prosecution had not submitted enough evidence to determine if Coleman had intent to harm the victim. 

Weller also argued Coleman should be acquitted because the victim’s testimony was inconsistent enough to be unable to conclude Coleman was the driver. 

Judge Brandt, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, denied the motion, arguing that when Coleman reported his car missing later on May 4, he told police he was driving around the time of the shooting. That, combined with Coleman’s car GPS showing the vehicle in the vicinity of the shooting at the correct time, establishes that Coleman could have been the driver, which was not a difficult connection to make.

“It’s a reasonable inference,” Judge Brandt said.

Parties are set to reconvene when the jury reaches a verdict.