Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge LaZette Ringgold-Kirksey presided over closing arguments in the trial of 20-year-old Montay Brown, who is charged with first-degree murder and firearm use in a felony violent crime in connection to the death of 33-year-old Garfield Redd in Baltimore’s Charles North neighborhood.
Before closing statements began on Oct. 30, defense attorney Alex Leikus continued cross-examining a Baltimore Police Department officer about inconsistencies in the investigation. The officer testified that “attempt-to-identify” flyers were created on May 7 and May 10, but not on May 6 as the defense had suggested.
Leikus also pointed out conflicting descriptions of a bag shown in surveillance footage. The officer first referred to it as a book bag and later said it was a cross-body bag. He admitted the difference, saying that a book bag and a cross-body bag are not the same. He also confirmed that he was not the first officer to arrive at the scene. Leikus pointed out that the officer changed his statement, noting it was unacceptable for the police to be wrong in a case this serious and that the investigation lacked accuracy.
During closing arguments, the prosecution replayed surveillance footage from East 21st Street and Charles Street on the morning of May 6, 2024, when Redd was shot while sitting in his vehicle. The prosecutor told jurors that one gunshot took the life of a young man and called the act deliberate and premeditated.
The prosecutor argued that the defendant identified Redd’s vehicle before walking up with a shotgun in hand and firing once through the driver’s side window. The prosecutor said the defendant had many chances to change his mind before pulling the trigger and that carrying a shotgun showed intent.
Jurors were shown several angles of surveillance footage from Latin Mart, Mi Comalito, and American Fuel, which the state said showed the same person before and after the shooting wearing the same clothing and boots. According to the prosecutor, the defendant ran into an alley after the shooting, changed into a bright green sweatshirt, and then returned to the area.
Although motive was not required to prove guilt, the prosecution said both Redd and the defendant were known to sell drugs in the same area and that the shooting was tied to a dispute between them. The prosecutor said the defendant acted intentionally and deliberately, urging the jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defense argued that the case relied on an unreliable eyewitness who did not come forward until May 30, several weeks after the incident. The witness was also facing other criminal charges, including one for lying to police. Leikus questioned how anyone could believe someone already convicted of lying.
Leikus also criticized the detective’s testimony, saying he first claimed to have video evidence of Brown coming out of an alley before later admitting he did not. He told jurors that this case was built on the testimony of a liar and that there was no concrete evidence proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In rebuttal, the prosecution acknowledged that the eyewitness had lied in the past but said that he later came forward with the truth and consistently identified the defendant as the shooter.
The prosecutor said that the witness risked his life to testify and argued that the evidence in the case supported his statement. The prosecutor questioned where the lie was if the witness had told the same account multiple times and said that his cooperation led detectives to the defendant. They also said Brown had enough time to change his clothes and return to the area after the shooting, describing it as a deliberate act of revenge.
After closing arguments, one juror was excused and replaced by an alternate prior to deliberations. The jury is expected to continue deliberating.
