Closing arguments were made on Oct. 22 before Judge Paul Cucuzella in Baltimore City Circuit Court in the murder trial of Tirrell Evans, 41, who stands accused of murdering his former best friend, Richard Evans,-no relation- 41.
However, the proceedings were interrupted when family members representing both sides became unruly with one person making an audible threat of violence.
The victim was killed outside of a local bar, the Odyssey Lounge, on the 1300 Block of North Calhoun Street on Sept. 11, 2024.
The defendant is charged with first-and-second degree murder, committing conspiracy to commit murder, being an accomplice to first-degree murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a violent felony, and possession of a regulated firearm with a prior conviction.
Even before the jury was summoned, tensions boiled over in the gallery, which was packed with friends and family of the victim and defendant. A sheriff’s deputy escorted someone out of the courthouse after they refused to listen to his instructions before entering the courtroom. When the sheriff’s deputy told the gallery to keep their voices down, someone snapped back, “good thing we’re laughing and not killing.”
The gallery was shortly cleared from the courtroom, and after returning they were admonished by the judge and told that the courtroom had been notified of potentially threatening and intimidating behavior by members of the gallery. He warned that there would be a zero tolerance policy for any further behavior.
Soon after, the jury was brought back into the courtroom and testimony from the prosecution’s ballistics forensic expert resumed. After walking the jury through the extensive amount of ballistic evidence found, she stated that there were 11 .45 caliber cartridge cases recovered, and one .9mm cartridge casing. On cross-examination, they agreed that without a weapon to connect the firearms evidence to, they could not determine the individual who used that weapon.
Closing arguments were set to begin after a lunch break, but first, Judge Cucuzella asked the jury to notify him of any safety concerns they might have with a note sent during their lunch break. After lunch, there were no concerns from the jury and closing arguments commenced.
The prosecutor focused on the extensive amount of camera surveillance, phone tracking, and ballistic evidence connecting the defendant to the murder. They stated that the defendant was “cold, calculating and sophisticated,” in his plans.
An off-duty detective saw two individuals fleeing the scene shortly after the 15 shots were fired, and a silver Jeep was seen fleeing the scene shortly after the murder with two individuals who allegedly were the same as the two fleeing the scene.
License plate scans connected the silver Jeep to a trucking company “Second Life Trucking” owned by the defendant, and when the Jeep was found in nearby Randallstown, with changed license plates, it appeared the license plate from the suspect vehicle spotted the night of the murder was found inside the Jeep.
A phone connected to the defendant was traced to the same silver Jeep and tracked as it moved around the crime scene before and after the shooting. Police discovered that the defendant had gotten a new cell number after his initial number stopped making calls, but when they found the silver Jeep in Randallstown, the old cell phone was allegedly found in the defendant’s possession.
Defense attorney Marc Zayon argued that even with the extensive surveillance footage there was no evidence that connected his client to be the one in the car at the time of the shooting. There was no motive presented, which he found baffling in a case between former best friends. The prosecution did not present a murder weapon,
He focused on the fact there were no ey-witnesses to connect any of the circumstantial evidence that the prosecution provided. He argued that it was just as likely his client was a bystander fleeing the scene rather than the killer without any direct evidence to connect him to the incident. The only eyewitness saw someone that might have been his client fleeing the scene, and that alone should not be enough to convict the defendant of first-degree murder.
Deliberations began immediately afterward, but were expected to continue into the next day.
