Defense Counsel Questions Baltimore Detective’s Validity in Homicide Trial 

By Alyssia Davis [former] - March 25, 2022
Court | Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Victims |

Defense counsel in the fatal shooting trial of Kalim Satterfield questioned the reliability of the Baltimore Police Department and one of the state’s two main witnesses who identified the defendant as the shooter during closing arguments on March 23 before Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Phillip S. Jackson. 

During closing arguments on Wednesday, the prosecutor argued that former University of Maryland football player David Mackall Jr. could never have imagined that on May 29, 2019, his family, friends, and kids would never see him again.

The prosecutor said that Satterfield gunned down Mackall, leaving him to die in the street. Mackall’s girlfriend ran to him after he was shot, resulting in her being covered in his blood.

The victim was pronounced dead at the hospital.

On Wednesday, the prosecutor reviewed testimony heard throughout the trial, beginning with a medical examiner who said that the bullet traveled up the victim’s back, fracturing his skull. Mackall was also shot on the right side of his neck and the back of his head. 

Mackall’s girlfriend testified that she was afraid to say anything about what she witnessed until she was taken to the hospital to check on her boyfriend where she would be safe. 

The lead detective testified that the victim’s girlfriend gave a description of the shooter to police, describing his eyes as “very distinctive.” The prosecutor noted that the victim’s girlfriend was given a double-blind photo array, but it wasn’t until June when she told the lead detective that she recognized a picture of Satterfield on social media based on the photo array previously shown to her.

The victim’s girlfriend’s father testified as well during Satterfield’s trial and said that the defendant drove a white Honda. He also said he was with the defendant and victim prior to the incident, later providing a description of the shooter’s clothes and shoes. 

During Mackall’s girlfriend’s father’s interview with the police on June 5, 2019, he said he became emotional when he saw Satterfield’s picture in a photo array. Although the witness did not quickly identify Satterfield as the shooter, he knew who it was but did not say anything out of fear.

The father was visibly shaken and afraid and later identified Satterfield as Mackall’s shooter.

Defense counsel Donald Wright countered with his closing arguments.

“Imagine the horror of being accused of murder by witnesses and detectives,” he said. “The prosecutor proves a crime was committed but not who committed it.”

The victim and the defendant deserve justice, Wright said, and convicting Satterfield was not justice.

The lead detective had a consistent theme of getting the witnesses to change their story, Wright explained. During his interview with the police, he said, the victim’s girlfriend’s father never mentioned anything about a white car leaving the scene. He was acting bizarre and in his initial interview with the police, the victim’s girlfriend’s father could not identify the defendant after seeing his pictures numerous times.

He also misidentified the shooter 10 times while talking to the police, Wright added. 

The defense attorney alleged that the lead detective came to his own conclusion and did everything to make the story add up. Wright suggested that seeing as the detective mentioned the car to the witness, he would not have any problem making suggestions of other facts to people.

Wright questioned the validity of the lead detective’s investigation, explaining that the prosecutor did not provide a motive or evidence that proves that Satterfield and Mackall knew each other. 

“The detective did a sloppy and inexcusable job”, Wright told the jury.

Jury entered deliberations Wednesday afternoon.