In closing arguments on Oct. 28 before Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge LaZette Ringgold-Kirksey in the trial of 36-year-old Keith Ray Jr., defense counsel Natalie Finnegar asked the jury, “Does it seem like the police used their resources? Does it seem like they put in a lot of work?”
Ray is charged with first degree murder, second degree murder, first degree assault, reckless endangerment and various weapons charges in connection to a shooting at the intersection of Sinclair Lane and Erdman Avenue on March 17.
According to court documents, Baltimore Police were called to the 4200 block of Erdman Avenue at 1:53 a.m. after receiving a ShotSpotter alert around 1:45 a.m.. The victim’s girlfriend advised that they were driving southbound on Sinclair Lane, making a left turn onto Erdman Avenue, when a pedestrian walked in front of their vehicle and was almost struck.
The pedestrian proceeded to pull out a handgun and fired it at the victim’s vehicle, which traveled several hundred feet before losing control and crashing into a fence. The victim was shot in the face and in the confusion believed that the suspect was pursuing him, so exited the vehicle and ran to the Carroll Fuel gas station to seek help.
Following further investigation, police found video footage showing Ray inside the Crown gas station before the shooting and leaving towards the crosswalk at Erdman Avenue around the time of the shooting. According to the prosecution, the shooting and crash occurred within two minutes of the defendant leaving, and no one else was in the vicinity at the time.
During closing statements, Finnegar said the detectives “only captured part of the evidence”. She said they do not dispute Ray’s presence at the scene, but rather the reliability of the investigation.
Finnegar said the lead detective did not speak to the victim himself and arrived on scene without his bodycam on. Additionally, the defense claimed the detective took no notes and confirmed the timing of the footage, but was unable to remember walking through the scene or the primary patrol officer’s name.
Finnegar further raised concerns about why no DNA was collected, the primary surveillance footage was labeled an hour behind and clipped with no notes verifying accuracy, and neither the girlfriend nor the victim testified.
She explained that the detective received cell phone records for those in the area at the time of the shooting and multiple people were present at the gas station, yet nothing was presented to explain how the others’ records were ruled out. “This is absurd,” she said.
The prosecution rebutted by saying “She [Finnegar] is a good attorney, but I hope she did not purposefully lie to you.” He then proceeded by showing the full video rather than clips to disprove the defense’s claim about incomplete footage and inaccurate timestamps.
According to the state, there was no need to swab for DNA because the footage clearly shows the blood trail left by the victim. They claimed further investigation “was not reasonable” since the footage clearly shows no one else could have been the shooter.
Jury deliberations have started.
