Defendant’s Whereabouts in 2021 Murder Debated in Closing Arguments

Baltimore Court Seal

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

Donate Now

“We know exactly what was happening that night. He was the driver. He was complicit,” the prosecutor emphasized to the jury as counsel delivered closing arguments in the trial of a homicide defendant on July 3. 

Kevin Dudley, 41, is charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count each of firearm use in a felony violent crime and illegal possession of a regulated firearm in connection to the June 3, 2021, murder of 18-year-old Kozee Spriggs

Before Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Yolanda A. Tanner, the prosecutor walked the jury through a detailed timeline of and video footage from the night of Spriggs’s murder. According to the prosecution’s narrative, Dudley, though not Spriggs’s shooter himself, was guilty of first-degree murder as an accomplice. liability. 

The prosecutor alleged Dudley was the renter and driver of the red Chrysler reportedly captured on video footage in an alleyway adjacent to where Spriggs’ decomposing body was later found in the backyard of a residence on the 1300 block of Ensor Street. Two unidentified men were seen removing a body from the vehicle’s trunk and disappearing into the woods. When the two individuals returned to the car, it fled the scene. 

“We’re not saying Kevin Dudley pulled the trigger that night. But we’re saying he was complicit,” the prosecutor told the jury. “Driving a girl who’s in your trunk to an abandoned area at two o’ clock in the morning —that’s a conspiracy.”

The prosecution also reminded jurors that, regardless of the first-degree murder charges, Dudley allegedly violated the law by transporting a firearm in his vehicle on the night of the murder due to a previous firearms conviction which prohibited him from possessing a firearm.

In her closing argument, Dudley’s defense attorney Anne-Marie Gering argued Dudley could not have been at the scene of the crime because his phone was pinged in motion on the opposite side of the city at the same time as Spriggs’ murder. 

She also mentioned that in the video footage, no one could be seen in the trunk of the car — the place Dudley and Spriggs’ shooter allegedly put Spriggs — and that Spriggs’ DNA, which was found in the trunk, could be from her placing something of hers inside it.

Additionally, Gering argued that Dudley had no motive to kill Spriggs. 

“Justice can be convicting someone of a crime, but I think even more [it] is preventing someone from being convicted of a crime they didn’t commit,” Gering said.

During their rebuttal, the prosecution said that the phone’s absence at the crime scene only showed that the phone, not the defendant, was not at the crime scene. 

Follow this case