Nathan Jackson, 36, was acquitted of attempted murder in a shooting dispute with his neighbor in a trial that concluded on March 13.
The trial before Baltimore City Circuit Court before Judge Cynthia H. Jones, ended when jurors returned a guilty verdict on one count of assault and three gun violations, including illegal possession and firearm use.
Jackson initially faced nine charges, stemming from an incident that took place March 17, 2025 on the 5600 block of The Alameda in Northeast Baltimore. The counts included attempted murder, several firearm violations and assault. Jackson was ultimately acquitted on two counts of attempted murder, two gun charges and reckless endangerment.
The state’s attorney urged jurors to rely on their “common sense,” emphasizing that nearly a year had passed since the incident and that trauma could affect how a witness is able to recall events.
The state went on to describe the victim as a mother, a fighter and someone with no motive to lie. According to the state, the confrontation escalated when Jackson allegedly pointed his finger at the victim. In response to the perceived threat, she swatted his hand away, which allegedly led Jackson to pull out his weapon and shoot.
The prosecutor emphasized that despite investigators’ failure to recover a firearm, physical evidence was unnecessary for conviction. She pointed instead to the victim’s testimony, police and detective expertise, and footage that allegedly captured the incident—which she referred to as a “silent witness.”
The defense maintained that the state’s case relied on speculation. Defense attorney Karyn Meriwether urged the jury to think critically and told them that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” She asserted that the case had no basis in physical or forensic evidence.
Meriwether also questioned the victim’s credibility, highlighting inconsistencies in her statements and her delay in reporting the day of the assault. According to the testimony, policy initially determined that no gun was present on the day of the incident, and only changed their stance after the witness called them weeks later. The defense concluded saying that there was no crime scene or medical documentation supporting the victim’s claims.
In rebuttal, the state’s attorney insisted that the recovered evidence aligned with the victim’s account, showing jurors the video footage of the incident and breaking it down frame by frame.
