The victim in a shooting case testified about his experience being attacked while driving before the jury in DC Superior Court Judge Errol Arthur’s courtroom on July 21.
Marcus Reavenell, 48, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction greater than one year, unlawful discharge of a firearm, reckless driving, and destruction of property less than $1,000. These charges stem from Reavenell’s alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting following a traffic-related incident at the intersection of 58th and Foote Streets, NE on May 14, 2025. No injuries were reported.
In court, the prosecution called the victim described that on the morning of the incident, he was driving to a DC school to install a security system. He saw a white van next to him, and the driver yelling at him.
After this, the victim claimed that the white van tailgated his vehicle and drove “erratically.” The victim testified that he felt “uneasy” and ran a red light to escape. The victim explained that he slowed down for a speed bump before hearing a “loud pop.”
“I freaked out because I knew I just got shot at,” the victim said.
After hearing the shot, the victim told the jury that he pulled over and called 911. When officers from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) arrived, he extracted videos from his vehicle’s dashboard camera.
The prosecution played the video for the jury showing the white van attempted to merge in front of the victim’s car from a right turn lane. The victim claimed that he did not realize the white van tried to merge at the time of the incident. The victim said he felt scared and just “wanted to get home safely.”
In cross-examination, Margaret Dawson, Reavenell’s attorney, noted that the victim never mentioned the race of the driver during his grand jury testimony. However, in the trial, he said that he remembered that the driver was a Black male.
The prosecution also called a former employee of the American Community Services. In late 2023, she helped hire and train Reavenell so he could provide direct aid to people with disabilities.
According to the witness, in May 2025, two detectives came to the office and asked her for help identifying a suspect. They showed the witness a slow-motion video of a man driving a white van, who she identified as Reavenell. The witness also identified Revanall in the courtroom.
In cross-examination, Dawson confirmed with the witness that people can change their appearances.
In the jury’s absence, the prosecution presented videos from an Instagram account they allege is Reavenell’s. The videos show a van with the same license plate and characteristics as the suspect vehicle.
Michael Bruckheim, Reavenell’s other attorney, objected to the relevance of the videos, arguing that there is no connection between Reavenell and the van in the video.
In response Judge Arthur compared the prosecution’s Instagram evidence as if if he were to go outside of the courthouse and film a video with a car in the background. The judge contended that video would not connect him to the car with certainty.
The prosecution then presented Instagram direct messages which show an account they allege is Reavenell’s messaging another individual that his “rental van was stolen from [his] job last night.” The prosecution argued that since these messages were sent from the same account as the video, they prove the van belonged to Reavenell.
Bruckheim argued that the context and timing was irrelevant, because the video was taken two weeks before the incident. He added that simply filming a vehicle does not prove that Reavenell owns that vehicle.
Judge Arthur asked the prosecution how they would connect Reavenell to the voice in the video and the Instagram account. In response, the prosecution displayed information extracted from Meta that showed the email linked to the account was under Reavenell’s name.
Bruckheim maintained his objection, stating that the prosecution presented an “incomplete narrative” that did not prove Reavenell’s ownership of the van or whereabouts at the time of the shooting.
Judge Arthur expressed concern that Reavenell’s social media statements could interfere with his right to not testify, and told the prosecution they had to call a witness to testify about all of the social media evidence.
Parties are scheduled to reconvene on July 22 to continue the trial.
