12 Charges Dropped for Alleged Drive-By Shooter

Thank you for reading Baltimore Witness.
Consider making a donation to help us continue our mission.

The third day of trial for 39-year-old Marquita Echols ended with the dismissal of 12 of her 15 charges on April 16. Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Kimberly McBride presided over the hearing as counsel concluded their closing statements.

In connection to an alleged drive-by shooting at a shelter in the 300 block of Fallsway, Echols initially faced two counts each of attempted first- and second-degree murder, first-degree assault, and firearm use in a violent crime, as well as several single various firearm-related offenses.

She is set to plead not guilty to two counts of firearm use in a violent crime and one count of firearm possession with a prior felony conviction.

The prosecution presented witnesses’ recollections of the incident from responding officers’ body-worn cameras. They claimed they heard multiple gunshots and one witness who knew Echols identified her as the shooter. Her full name was provided to officers on the scene.

The prosecution maintained the credibility of the eyewitness testimonies, emphasizing that their taped testimonies aligned with their official statements seven months later.

“When witnesses come forward and are willing to give police their information, they are more likely to be telling the truth,” the prosecution said.

The video showed the crime scene technicians arriving at the area, where they later recovered five shell casings.

An officer testified previously the casings were likely from the incident involving Echols, because the frequent traffic in the area would have made it unlikely they remained on the road where they were recovered.

Defense attorney Michael S. Clinkscale criticized the prosecution’s selective usage of body-worn camera clips, arguing they did not reflect all the facts of the case.

“I heard laughter when the state said that the body camera footage was an hour and 20 minutes,” Clinkscale said to jurors. “I want you to watch all of it.”

Clinkscale referenced a clip where an officer who was near the scene of the incident didn’t hear the alleged gunshots. Additionally, one witness initially told officers the suspect was driving an SUV, but retracted the statement 30 minutes later and called the vehicle a sedan.

“What changed his mind?” Clinkscale asked. “Why did he all the sudden say it was a sedan?”

He asserted that this case revolved around identification and that the state purposefully glossed over important information.

No 911 call was made until 10 minutes after the incident, prompting Clinksdale to question what may have occurred during that unexplained gap. It was dark outside, the car windows were tinted, and although the video footage shows there were additional witnesses, none had come forward, he said.

The prosecution reminded the jury that the key eyewitness was certain of Echols identification. He knew her, as he was a staff member at the shelter Echols previously stayed in. There was no ill will between the witness and Echols, so they had no reason to lie about identifying her.

CCTV footage showed the witness in a panicked state as the sedan pulled up, supporting the claim that they genuinely believed they were in the way of harm.