Parties agree that verdict in non-fatal shooting depends on identification of defendant

By Laura Berol
– 27 August 2024
Daily Stories | Non-Fatal Shooting | Shooting | Suspects |

In their closing arguments on August 26 in the trial of the non-fatal shooting of Marquez Beasley before Judge Anthony Epstein of the Superior Court of the District of DC, the prosecution and the defense agreed that the jury’s verdict would depend on whether they trusted witnesses’ identification of Beasley as the perpetrator.

Beasley, 32, is charged with two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon and three counts of possession of a weapon during a violent crime. These charges stem from his alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting incident that injured three people on August 16, 2023 in the 900 block of Division Avenue, NE.

The prosecution and defense agreed that the incident began with a traffic accident caused by an unlicensed driver carrying two passengers in a Hyundai who cut off an SUV on a curve. After the drivers stopped to exchange insurance information, the Hyundai driver was struck with a pistol and four shots were fired, striking one of the Hyundai passengers and a bystander.

According to the indictment, one of the passengers made a video call with his mother, the owner of the Hyundai, and passed the phone to the driver of the SUV. The mother testified she only saw the driver for a few seconds but recognized him as Beasley because she knew him from casual contact in the neighborhood and his social media posts as a local rapper.

“It only takes a few seconds to recognize someone you know,” said the prosecutor.

“Isn’t it possible that the person she saw looked like him, but she jumped to the conclusion it was him?” asked John Machado, Beasley’s defense attorney.

If the mother’s identification of Beasley was not a mistake, Machado said, there were several reasons for her lie. She may have had animosity toward Beasley, who she said in her testimony was a member of a crew. Perhaps she wanted to capitalize on the notoriety she gained from accusing a local celebrity. Or she may have wanted to divert attention from letting an unlicensed person drive her car, causing an accident.

Machado noted that the mother initially said she never allowed the unlicensed driver to take her car, but later said she sometimes allowed him to.

“When she is presented with evidence of something she herself said that contradicts a previous statement, she suddenly cannot remember it,” Machado argued.

Machado suspected that after the incident, the mother may have persuaded the driver and passengers of the Hyundai to identify Beasley as the attacker.

“You think you had a score to settle and wanted to come here and pin something on Mr. Beasley that he didn’t do?” the prosecutor asked in his rebuttal. “What incentive did you have to do that?”

The prosecutor pointed out that the driver of the Hyundai and a passenger recognized Beasley in a series of photos.

Machado said both witnesses were unsure if they had the right person in front of them.

According to Machado, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) investigator who created the photo series suggested to one of the witnesses that she could say that her confidence in identifying Beasley was a five on a scale of one to 10. The investigator added, “I don’t want to put words in your mouth.”

The witness said her confidence level was “one and a half or two.”

Although this was not the case, the investigator allegedly told the witnesses that the charges would not be pursued without their consent because he wanted their identification to support his arrest warrant for Beasley, Machado said.

“The detective wants to reach this conclusion – he has tunnel vision – and does not want to see any evidence to the contrary,” Machado told the jury.

Machado said one of the witnesses described the attacker to police as a man with a goatee, and another said he could be identified by a tattoo in the middle of his forehead. Social media posts by Beasley from the time of the incident show him with a full beard and no tattoo on his forehead.

“There are people who don’t want to be here, maybe because they know it has gone too far,” Machado said of the witnesses.

Both the prosecution and the defense said the shooting victim was an innocent bystander and was not involved in the traffic accident. He said he heard gunshots from the window of a passing vehicle.

The prosecutor said Beasley fired shots while standing on the sidewalk after getting out of the SUV, and he suggested the passerby was mistaken in thinking the shots came from a vehicle.

Machado said there was no reason to dismiss the bystander’s testimony. He argued that the shots could have come from someone who was not involved in the traffic accident.

Even if Beasley had been the driver of the SUV and fired the shots, he could not be convicted of assault with intent to kill, Machado said, because the shots were targeted. They penetrated the ground or struck the victims in the legs.

The prosecutor said Beasley’s Chevy Tahoe resembled the SUV in the crash based on surveillance camera footage.

A witness who seized Beasley’s Tahoe testified, according to prosecutors, that there were signs of repairs on the front left bumper, the part of the SUV that collided with the Hyundai in the crash.

Machado said he took photos of the left front bumper of Beasley’s Tahoe after the incident and it was undamaged.

According to Machado, the prosecution rejected his photos on the grounds that the resolution was not good. He asked the jury to compare his photos with those of the prosecution and decide which had the better resolution.

“Please consider the sloppy tunnel vision of the investigators in this case and please come to the only reasonable, rational verdict you can make in this case: not guilty,” Machado told the jury.

The prosecution concluded that Beasley had been identified by three witnesses and that there were similarities between Beasley’s Tahoe and the suspect’s vehicle.

“What are the chances that this is all just a big coincidence?” asked the prosecutor.

Once the jury has reached a verdict, the parties will meet again.

There are no notifications available for this specific case yet. Please check back later for updates. Thank you.