Judge considers identification procedures in stabbing cases to be “unsuitable”

By Ella Munnelly
– October 2, 2024
Daily Stories | piercing | Suspicious |

D.C. Supreme Court Justice Heidi Pasichow postponed her decision to suppress an identification request on October 1.

Warnell Reams, 57, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon and obstruction of justice for his alleged involvement in a June 5 stabbing in the 200 block of Vine Street, NW, in which one person was injured.

According to court documents, investigators from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) showed the victim a series of photos that included several potential suspects, including Reams. The witness identified Reams as the stabber, not who MPD originally thought was the potential suspect.

During the hearing, prosecutors called an MPD detective who testified that during the identification process, the victim identified Reams as the stabber and provided his first name, but was unable to provide an exact last name.

Reams’ defense attorney, Michelle Lockard, argued against the use of this ID at trial, stating that crime scene investigators prompted the photo ID by telling the victim not to “have any doubts about himself.”

Lockard said investigators did not give the victim enough time to be confident in his decision.

When conducting a photo series, the detective must go through a series of questions and instructions, and Lockard stated that in this case the detective failed to do so, rendering this identification invalid.

However, the prosecutor explained that although the investigator may have given the victim an abridged version of the instructions, he still passed them on to him. She also added that if MPD wanted to ask the witness to identify someone, it would be for the suspect and not a filler photo, which they claimed at the time was Reams.

“I’m not saying I would describe the detective’s process as salacious, but I would certainly describe it as sloppy,” Judge Pasichow said. She informed the parties that she needed more time to review the body-worn camera footage before she could decide on the application. “This photo distribution process was so clumsy,” Judge Pasichow added.

The parties will meet again on October 2nd.