Thank you for reading Baltimore Witness.
Help us continue our mission into 2025 by donating to our end of year campaign.
By
Connor Driscoll [former]
- July 26, 2021
Court
|
Daily Stories
|
Non-Fatal Shooting
|
Shooting
|
Suspects
|
Victims
|
Editor’s note: The defendant was acquitted of charges in this case.
Closing arguments concluded on July 23 in the trial of a man accused in a 2019 Halloween shooting. According to the defendant’s defense attorney, a conviction of his client would be “the definition” of injustice.
Baltimore resident Anthony Ward is charged with first and second-degree attempted murder as well as other gun-related charges. Last Friday at the Baltimore City Circuit Court, Ward invoked his right not to testify, and the defense did not call any of its own witnesses.
The victim in the case testified on the first day of the trial on July 22.
The victim told the court she noticed a man staring at her from the sidewalk while sitting in traffic on the 3300 block of Wilkens Avenue on Oct. 31, 2019. A few minutes later, she saw a van speeding to catch up to her. At a red light, the van pulled up next to her. A man got out of the back of the vehicle, approached the driver-side door of her car, and pulled out a gun.
The man shot the victim’s vehicle six times as she sped away. The victim was shot once in her left leg just above her knee. She managed to drive to a parking lot across the street from St. Agnes Hospital. Realizing she was in too much pain to get out of the car, she called 911.
The victim was taken to the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Unit, where she received treatment and was released the same night with crutches.
A few days after the shooting, the victim identified Ward, from photos posted to Instagram, a social media platform, as the shooter to police, according to counsel.
The victim said she rode dirt bikes with Ward for five hours on Oct. 12, 2019, weeks before she was shot. She said Ward was shot that night as well as her cousin, who died. The victim said she believes Ward held her responsible for his gunshot wound and that the shooting was done in retaliation.
Ward’s defense attorney, Todd Oppenheim, said the state had no evidence besides the eyewitness’s testimony of the victim. Oppenheim argued that the victim’s testimony should be viewed skeptically, citing her initial misidentification of the suspect.
However, during closing arguments on July 23, the prosecution revealed that the arrest of Ward took place in the same shop that the witness claims she saw him leave on the day of the shooting.
On Nov. 4, 2019, the victim selected a different man when first asked to make a formal identification through a photo array. A homicide detective then reminded her of the Instagram photographs she had previously sent them, and she said she was “ready to tell the truth.”
The victim said the initial misidentification was due to anxiety, unwillingness to go to court, and the possibility of being harmed.
Last Friday, the court heard the last of the testimony from a detective on the case.
During cross-examination of one of the detectives, Oppenheim said the Baltimore Police Department broke its own policies during the photo array identification on Nov. 4.
According to police regulations, the detective who is presenting the photo array should not have any knowledge of the case or its suspects. However, following the victim’s initial misidentification, detectives investigating the shooting entered the room and spoke to the victim.
On July 23, the prosecution asked the detective whether a reversal of identification between an informal and formal identification would “naturally” trigger a “follow-up” by detectives. He said yes, and that in those rare cases, such a follow-up is appropriate.
After the detective was excused, closing arguments began.
Oppenheim called the photo array identification process “crazy,” and argued that the victim was “shifty.” He concluded that a conviction in this case would be “the definition of unjust.”
The prosecution, on the other hand, sought to downplay the significance of the initial misidentification, calling it a “very human moment.” Such a “momentary human moment,” the prosecution said, should not prevent the delivery of real “human justice.”
The case will now go to the five men and seven women of the jury for deliberation. If convicted, Ward may face up to life in prison.