Botched Police Investigation Led to Defendant’s Arrest, Defense Says

By Andrew Michaels - October 4, 2023
Attempted Murder | Court | Daily Stories | Non-Fatal Shooting | Shooting | Suspects |

Baltimore Police Department (BPD) detectives made “zero effort” to identify the shooter in the case of Taron Whiting, defense attorney Donald Wright said to the jury during his closing arguments on Oct. 4.

Instead, defense counsel charged one of the detectives chose to rely on his colleague’s familiarity with the 20-year-old defendant from city video surveillance.

Whiting’s three-day trial before Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Jennifer B. Schiffer concluded Wednesday morning when the jury began their deliberations. The defendant is currently charged with attempted first and second-degree murder, first and second-degree assault, reckless endangerment, firearm use in a felony or violent crime, possessing a firearm as a minor, having a handgun on his person, illegal possession of ammunition and discharging firearms.

Court documents state police were called to the 600 block of Laurens Street shortly before 9:40 p.m. for a reported shooting on July 1, 2022. They found the victim at the scene with a gunshot wound to his right thigh and he was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment.

The victim later told police he did not hear any arguing or fighting in the moments before the shooter opened fire on a group of people.

“This case is alarming,” Wright said, citing what he described as “a complete lack of an investigation” by BPD. “…There’s no evidence that the person we’re focusing on in the [surveillance] video is the shooter.”

As the prosecutor admitted, the limited evidence included four shell casings found at the scene as well as several pieces of surveillance video footage from different establishments in the area. Wright argued the lead detective failed to contact the firearms expert who completed the case’s report and could have possibly testified to the likelihood of all of the casings coming from the same gun.

In addition to the lack of fingerprints, DNA or motive, the defense attorney said no witnesses were interviewed and the victim was uncooperative with police. His client’s sole identification came from within BPD, specifically, a detective who reported seeing Whiting in the area many times since 2018.

Police body camera footage captured the lead detective and another detective reviewing the video footage in hopes of identifying the shooter. However, Wright said, there was no evidence of the conversations the detectives had prior to watching the footage that led to Whiting’s identification.

The lead detective was notified of Whiting’s involvement when a colleague identified the suspect in a police flyer.

“You can’t make an identification—nobody can—in this,” Wright said, holding the flyer up to the jurors. The defense attorney noted the impossibility of identifying the suspect’s facial features in the flyer given the photo’s poor quality.

During her closing argument, the prosecutor reminded the jury to look at the details of the case. Despite the minimal evidence, the detectives were able to track the shooter using business and city video surveillance footage. The prosecutor said one of the detectives testified seeing the defendant “for years” in other footage.

Whiting’s recognizable features included a scar on his face and prominent cheekbones.

“Yes, the video is blurry, but it isn’t any less him,” the prosecutor said.

The video also showed the suspected shooter running away but keeping his right hand on his waistband—a common indication of someone attempting to hide a gun, according to the prosecution.

“When you point a gun at a group of people, you put all of them in danger, even if you just intended to kill one,” she said.