Victim’s credibility questioned during closing statement in shooting trial

By Cameron Horne
– October 3, 2024
court | Daily Stories | Non-lethal shooting | Shoot | Suspicious |

Prosecutors claimed Oct. 1 that a defendant accused of driving a vehicle from which shots were fired is “just as guilty as if he had fired the gun himself” during closing statements before the judge DC Supreme Court Justice Rainey Brandt.

Jamal Coleman, 32, is charged with assault with intent to kill with weapon force and aggravated assault with weapon force for allegedly assisting a driver in a shooting on May 4, 2023, in the 4600 block of Polk Street, NE, one victim was injured.

The parties delivered closing arguments in which Carrie Weletz, Coleman’s attorney, insisted that “[victim] “was not apparent at any time” during the entire investigation.

She added that the victim was unable to conclusively determine that Coleman was the driver of the vehicle from which bullets were fired. Weletz recalled the victim’s statement in which he said, “It was dark in the car, I couldn’t see who was driving” and “I was focused on the gun.”

Weletz claimed the prosecution wanted the jury to “take a logical leap” to fill in gaps in their theory.

The prosecution accepted the defense’s argument that the victim had been unresponsive, but added that in the hours after the shooting he was “in pain…he tried to answer questions as best he could…his focus…was on getting help.” to get.”

After closing statements, Elizabeth Weller, Coleman’s other attorney, filed a motion for acquittal, saying the prosecution had not presented enough evidence to determine whether Coleman had intended to harm the victim.

Weller also argued that Coleman should be acquitted because the victim’s testimony was inconsistent enough to avoid concluding that Coleman was the driver.

Judge Brandt examined the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and denied the motion on the grounds that when Coleman later reported his car missing on May 4, he had told police that he was driving the car at the time of the shooting was on the way. This, coupled with Coleman’s car GPS showing the vehicle near the shooting at the correct time, proves that Coleman may have been the driver, which was not a difficult connection.

“That is a reasonable conclusion,” Judge Brandt said.

The parties will reconvene once the jury has reached a verdict.