Thank you for reading D.C. Witness.
Help us continue our mission into 2025 by donating to our end of year campaign.
By
Ella Munnelly [former]
- November 21, 2024
Daily Stories
|
Non-Fatal Shooting
|
Suspects
|
A shooting victim said she was terrified by a gunman while cooking in her kitchen in trial testimony before DC Superior Court Judge Erik Christian on Nov. 20.
Nathaniel Daniel, 34, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence in a gun free zone, unlawful possession of a firearm in a gun free zone, carrying a pistol without a license, unlawful discharge of a firearm, possession of an unregistered firearm in a gun-free zone, and unlawful possession of ammunition. The charges stem from his alleged involvement in an April 2 incident on the unit block of N Street, NW, no one was injured.
The prosecution called the victim who testified she was in her kitchen cooking when she heard loud voices coming outside her glass front door. She said she recognized one of them as Daniel’s, who she knew from the neighborhood.
She testified she pretended to call 911 in an effort to scare Daniel off, but instead he flashed a gun at her that was visible through the door–then she immediately called the police. “I was terrified, I thought he was going to come in the door. He terrorized me,” said the victim.
Under cross examination, Emma Mlyniec, who is representing Daniel, asked several questions about the victim’s previous encounters with Daniels, and whether she knew if he had a relationship with her upstairs neighbor.
Mlyneic also asked the victim whether detectives helped her access the Victims of Violent Crimes Fund, and exactly how much she received. At that point, she became less forthcoming.
“You made up a story about him having a gun,” said Mlyneic in response.
The prosecution called a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer who was present at Daniel’s arrest. Police body-worn camera footage was presented to the court showing a person identified as Daniel, and then the officer proceeded to identify him as the defendant in the courtroom.
“I want to be absolutely clear about what you did and didn’t see when it comes to Mr. Daniel,” Erin Griffard, also Daniel’s attorney, told the officer. The officer said he never saw Daniel in possession of a gun, or disposing of one.
The prosecution also called a DNA analyst who explained that because the gun recovered at the scene was wet, it was difficult to get samples from the firearm. Under cross examination, the expert said that it is not impossible. However, she was not able to link the gun to Daniels.
Parties will reconvene Nov. 21 and cross will continue.