Baltimore Man Found Guilty of Assault After Being Charged With Attempted Murder

Thank you for reading Baltimore Witness. Help us continue our mission into 2024.

On Aug. 10, a jury found an attempted murder defendant guilty of armed robbery, first-degree assault, firearm use during a violent crime, illegal possession of a firearm, carrying a handgun, illegal possession of ammo, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, conspiracy to commit first-degree assault, conspiracy to use a firearm in a violent crime, and conspiracy to carry a handgun.

The jury trial for Tayaun Woodard began on Aug. 9 and ended on Aug. 10 with Woodard being found guilty of first-degree assault and armed robbery before Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Paul E. Alpert.

Woodard, 24, was initially charged with attempted first and second-degree murder, armed robbery, robbery, first and second-degree assault, theft of a value between $1,500 and $25,000, use of a firearm during a violent crime, illegal possession of a regulated firearm, carrying/wearing a handgun on his person, illegal possession of ammo, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, conspiracy to commit first and second-degree assault, conspiracy to commit theft of a value between $1,500 and $25,000, conspiracy to use a firearm during a violent crime, and conspiracy to carry a handgun in connection to an incident on Sept. 15, 2021, where the victim identified the defendant as the man who robbed and shot him in the apartment that he was illegally subletting.

The prosecutor told the jury that the victim in this case allowed Woodard, and his friend to enter the apartment that the victim was subletting on Sept. 15, 2021. Woodard was supposedly an acquaintance of the victim and was the boyfriend, at the time, to the woman who owned the apartment.

According to the victim, Woodard robbed and shot him three times.

The prosecutor continued their opening statement, telling the jury that they would see both security footage from a camera on the side of the apartment complex as well as body-worn camera footage from a patrolling officer. The jury was also informed that the victim himself would later take the stand to testify.

Woodard’s defense attorney, Linda Zeit, told the jury, during her opening statements, that the prosecution would not be able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt because they had no evidence to present besides the words of one man.

Zeit argued that no DNA or fingerprint testing was done to link her client to the crime.

In addition, Zeit told the jury that the victim tested positive for cocaine, marijuana, and fentanyl after being taken to the hospital for treatment.

Following opening statements, the prosecutor called thefirst of four witnesses to the stand, who was the assistant property manager of the apartment complex, where the shooting occurred.

The property manager explained where the security cameras are located on the premises and told the jury how she had downloaded footage from the time of the incident to give to the police.

The next witness was a patrol officer who arrived at the scene of the crime and searched the apartment for any suspects or initial evidence. The officer said he saw a trail of blood and found a 9mm shell casing.

During cross examination, Zeit pointed out that the officer was not the lead officer on the case and was only on scene for roughly 15 minutes.

Defense counsel also questioned the officer on finding the shell casing, which led to the officer revealing that he was not the one who obtained it.

The victim took the stand and said the defendant, who he knew as “Dink,” shot him three times after robbing him in the apartment he was subletting.

According to the victim, Woodard, was the boyfriend of “Domo,” the woman who owned the apartment. The victim testified that he met Dink several times before because of his relationship with Domo and had considered them to be friends.

The victim said, on Sept. 15, 2021, Dink showed up at the apartment, saying he was going to be taking a mattress.

Dink then went to allegedly get a friend who he said was going to help him carry the mattress.

After returning with his friend, the victim testified that he allowed them to enter the apartment, not feeling in danger at all.

Dink and his accomplice then allegedly stole $3,500 of the victim’s money as well as $40,000 that the victim was holding for his ticket sales company. Later in the trial, it was revealed that the victim has no paperwork to certify where the money came from or any proof that he had it. It was also revealed that none of the items were ever recovered.

Zeit cross-examined the victim, pointing out inconsistencies in his current testimony compared to the original statement he had given the detective. The victim originally told the detective that he had only been staying in the apartment for a few nights and had only met Dink once or twice.

In addition, Zeit questioned the victim on why he had originally told police that only $2,000 was stolen.

The victim said that as the two men were leaving the apartment with the stolen money he called after them, saying: “I thought we were friends.”

“I don’t give a fuck what you think,” the victim said Woodard told him before shooting him.

During the prosecutor’s rebuttal, the victim said his original statement was flawed because of the pain medication he was on at the hospital, but that he is sure of his identification of Woodard as the shooter.

The final witness that the prosecutor called to the stand was a crime lab technician who collected blood samples at the crime scene.

After Judge Paul E. Alpert gave the jury instructions on Aug. 10, Zeit and the prosecutor each gave their closing statements.

The prosecutor told the jury in his closing statement that the victim has had multiple surgeries and will have to live with this injury for the rest of his life. The prosecutor also pointed out that the victim has repeatedly and confidently identified Woodard as the shooter and, according to jury instructions, a single witness identification is enough to convict.

“Where is the investigation,” Zeit asked the jurors during her closing statement.

Zeit went on to question why the primary detective on the case was never called by the prosecution as a witness to discuss the investigation, saying that the prosecution has only produced the word of one man as evidence.

In addition, Zeit questioned why no DNA testing was ever done.

Zeit also pointed out that the victim has been addicted to drugs since he was 15 years old and was under the influence at the time of the crime. She also pointed out inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, stating that if the defendant had stolen $40,000 in cash from the victim like he said, he would have been seen carrying it in the security footage that shows the shooter fleeing the scene.

Zeit also said there has been no evidence or other witnesses to corroborate anything that the victim said, questioning why the owner of the apartment, “Domo,” was never called to testify. Zeit said the prosecutor could have gotten Domo’s real name from the property manager who leased her the apartment.

However, the prosecution produced no evidence that the apartment belonged to a woman named Domo or that Dink was in a relationship with her. The prosecution also produced no witnesses who can testify that Dink has ever been to that apartment complex and no other witnesses who can testify that Woodard has ever used the nickname “Dink.”

Following Zeit’s closing statement, the prosecutor addressed the jury again to reiterate that, despite some of the inconsistencies in the victim’s story, he has repeatedly identified Woodard as the shooter.

The case is now being held sub-curia.