Defense attorneys in a carjacking case argued for DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz to sentence their clients under the more lenient Youth Rehabilitation Act (YRA) on July 17.
A jury delivered mixed verdicts on Jan. 6 for Jaelen Jordan, 20, Jahkai Goff, 21, Taj Giles, 20, Warren Montgomery, 21, Bryon Gillum, 21, Irshaad Ellis-Bey, 20, and Isaiah Flowers, 21. All were charged in connection to what prosecutors described as an armed carjacking ring.
All defendants were convicted of at least one count of armed carjacking. Apart from Ellis-Bey and Goff, all were convicted of conspiracy.
These charges stem from separate incidents on Feb. 27, 2023 at the intersection of 20th Street and Sunderland Place, NW, on April 27, 2023 at the intersection of K and 8th Streets, NE, and on May 16, 2023 on the 600 block of Butternut Street, NW.
The YRA allows sentencing flexibility for defendants who commit crimes under the age of 25. The statute allows judges’ to sentence defendants’ for less than the mandatory minimum and for their convictions sealed upon successful completion of requirements.
In consideration of the YRA, parties present evidence of mitigating and aggravating factors to support their argument as to whether a candidate is qualified for the program.
If the seven co-defendants are deemed ineligible for YRA sentencing, each faces the mandatory minimum for armed carjacking, which is 15 years in prison.
Brian McDaniels, Jordan’s attorney, argued for YRA based on Jordan’s youth and his intelligence. McDaniels noted that Judge Kravitz should pay attention to the “Y” of the “YRA.” Jordan was 17 when he committed the offense, McDaniels explained, and he should not have to spend “over three times the amount of time he was alive at the time of the incident in jail.”
McDaniels then directed the court to Jordan’s role in the incident, one the prosecution described as the “mastermind” who developed the plan. McDaniels argued that this should not be weighed against Jordan because the YRA can “save” Jordan, as he’s “so smart” and could use his intelligence to “serve the community.”
McDaniel closed by asking Judge Kravitz, “Why wouldn’t we take a chance on someone who’s smart? Why wouldn’t we take a chance on someone who has potential?”
Goff’s attorney, Donna Beasley, argued that the “crux of the [prosecution’s]” objection “centers around the nature of the offense” and that the crime itself shouldn’t outweigh Goff’s chance for rehabilitation.
Beasley then informed the court of the rehabilitation programs at the jail Goff was currently enrolled in, such as cosmology, to show his willingness to reform. As one of the two not found guilty of conspiracy, Beasley asserted Goff wasn’t trying to cover-up the crime. Beasly argued that this showed that Goff didn’t understand the consequences of his actions, and Judge Kravitz should consider maturity in determining his YRA eligibility.
Christopher Young, Giles’ attorney, described his client’s behavior at the jail as “exemplary.” He then said that Giles has taken every opportunity presented to show his capacity for change and rehabilitation. Young concluded that in his own conversations with Giles regarding the incident, he learned Giles is haunted by how the incidents could have ended worse, and expresses deep remorse.
Warren Montgomery’s defense also advocated for YRA based on Montgomery’s rehabilitative efforts in jail. Montgomery wrote a letter to Judge Kravitz, which his attorney, Steven LoGerfo argued showed his capacity for reflection and change.
Daniel Dorsey, Gillum’s attorney, listed his client’s athletic and educational accomplishments in jail. Daniel said that Gillum’s pursuit of higher education through the Georgetown University district program showed that he is “trying to correct the downfall he caused.” Dorsey concluded his argument by claiming that the “only thing that could be his downfall” for YRA eligibility “is that he put on weight.”
Nathaniel Mensah, Flower’s new attorney, asked for more time to craft his argument because he was recently appointed to the case.
Ellis-Bey was not present for the hearing. Due to his absence, all defendants’ sentencing was postponed to allow for another YRA eligibility hearing. Ellis-Bey and Flowers will present YRA eligibility arguments on Oct. 2. Judge Kravitz will rule upon their eligibility prior to sentencing.
Judge Kravitz informed parties he would have his rulings on the YRA for Jordan, Goff, Giles, Montgomery, and Gillum in the following three weeks.
Parties are slated to reconvene for sentencing on Nov. 19.
