A key witness in a 17-year-old homicide case testified that the defendant confessed to him in a trial before DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman on June 3.
Randolph Thomas, 43, is charged with felony murder while armed, assault with intent to kill while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, five counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, robbery while armed, and first-degree burglary while armed. The charges stem from his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of Emmanuel Durant Jr., 19, on Dec. 31, 2009, on the 200 block of Webster Street, NE.
The shooting reportedly stemmed from a robbery in which Durant’s brother was also shot at but did not sustain any injuries.
The trial continued with the prosecution’s direct examination of a witness who was previously Thomas’ friend. The witness confirmed his conviction for the fatal stabbing of Darlene Bryant, 43, on May 13, 2015, on the 4300 block of Wheeler Road, SE. In addition the witness admitted he lied about his innocence as a strategy to appeal his conviction.
After the witness was sentenced for murder, he said he attempted to negotiate a shorter sentence by offering up information to prosecutors about other homicides and sought to reduce it further through participation in Thomas’ trial.
Pierce Suen, Thomas’ attorney, pointed out the witness’ timing, questioning the credibility of the claims. In response, the witness said the information “didn’t come out of a genie hat,” to convey the validity of the details.
The witness claimed that the defendant had confessed to him that Thomas shot Durant’s brother and thought he had killed him. The witness said he gained this information from a phone call with Thomas on Dec. 31, 2009.
The bulk of cross-examination in the afternoon session concerned the process by which the witness received homicide case information and later chose to share it in testimony. The witness alleged that perpetrators, including Thomas, confessed their crimes to him.
When questioned, the witness repeated that each of his statements about these confessions was “not a claim, [but] a fact.”
Suen argued that instead of directly receiving confessions, the witness asked his acquaintances to gather information and relay it back to him. The witness denied this, reminding Suen that he was under oath and “committed to telling the truth, sir.”
Suen alleged the witness planned the robbery and murder because he knew where they lived and identified Durant’s brother’s car. The witness responded, “You know he [Thomas] did it.”
Then, Suen emphasized the witness’ past, including a “15-year history of assaulting and abusing women.” The defense introduced the witness’ prior convictions, including two assault charges from 1999 and a second-degree assault charge from 2000.
Suen continued to reference the other eleven criminal cases in which the witness was charged with and five other assaults he was accused of. When previously asked about those five assaults, Suen noted, he responded in the past, “I don’t remember that happening.” The witness confirmed he still did not remember.
Suen then attempted to uncover more holes in the witness’s testimony. He presented the court with written and audio evidence that contradicted the claims he was making on the stand.
The witness was in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), in which he received a one-to-two year subscription to The Washington Post from his attorney. He denied asking for newspapers or information from the outside, but the defense then played a phone call in which the witness requested delivery of the paper during weekdays. In another call, he asked his sister to research prosecutors through the internet.
In response, the witness claimed that he needed something to read for entertainment and that he could not have derived all of the information in his testimony from those sources. The witness then admitted to smuggling in a cell phone but denied any of the claims that the phone was used for researching other inmates.
Later, the defense played a phone call of the witness admitting that he “looked him up” from inside prison.
The day concluded with Suen confirming that the witness would gain immense financial benefits after a potential resentencing, which could occur if Thomas is convicted. The witness argued that these assets, including housing and a biweekly stipend, were for his protection, whereas in the phone call evidence, he refers to them as a “financial boost.” However, the defense questioned his motives for cooperating in the trial.
In a phone call Suen played, the witness said he was “trying to get everything [he] can out of these people.”
Parties are set to reconvene on June 4 to conclude this witness’ testimony.
