Defense Counsel Says Detectives Failed to Investigate Evidence

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

In Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Charles Blomquist‘s packed courtroom on Oct. 7, jurors in the murder trial of a 21-year-old defendant listened attentively to closing arguments from the defense and the prosecution.

D’Angelo Woodrun, who was 19 at the time of the incident, has been charged with two counts of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, two counts of using a firearm to commit a felony violent crime, possession of a firearm as a minor and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder in connection to the death of 39-year-old Tayvon Kenan and wounding of another 50-year-old man on the 1500 block of Carswell Street on May 23, 2021, over a family dispute about a baby shower.

The prosecutor said Woodrun’s alleged actions were premeditated because the mother of his child and then-girlfriend, a family member of Kenan’s, was engaged in an argument on the front porch of their home with the victim. She had texted Woodrun to come over.

“D’Angelo Woodrun wanted to take it one step further,” the prosecutor said of the argument between Kenan’s family members. “He brought a gun.”

She said Woodrun was angry that his child’s mother was being disrespected by her uncle and that he planned to kill him and the other victim that night. “It all is tied together. There’s motive,” the prosecutor said.

While investigators and the sole witness concluded there were two shooters, Woodrun was later identified as the shooter by the surviving victim, who was shot in the head on the porch. Grisly photographs of the gunshot wounds Kenan sustained were also displayed in court, which left many jurors visibly disturbed.

Both sides agreed that Woodrun, along with another man, exchanged words with the victims approximately 45 minutes before the shooting that night. However, defense attorney Hunter Pruette vehemently disagreed with the prosecution’s theory that his client came back later to shoot them.

He argued that there was a complete lack of credibility for multiple reasons. He brought up the drug use and day drinking of the lone witness, as well as the low visibility at night in the midst of flying bullets.

He added that there was a clear inconsistency between the trajectory of the gunshot wounds and the testimony of the witness.

“They came down, had words, and they left,” said Pruette during his closing statements, adding, “The state’s primary witness was drunk, stoned, and high.”

Pruette’s other main argument was that the lead detective investigating the case failed to follow through on multiple leads. According to court testimony from Woodrun’s then-girlfriend, another individual was present during the family dispute on the porch and had “smacked” Kenan. He was never interviewed by law enforcement or investigated for the shooting.

Pruette also told the jury that the lead detective didn’t bother to read the medical examiner’s report, which was sent to her directly, failed to canvas the area or check for surveillance footage. He said the detective could not provide any reports on forensic evidence found at the scene.

Also, an unknown cell phone and a knife, both of which were never investigated or tested for DNA evidence, were recovered from the scene.

“Everyone in this room deserves better than that. The citizens of Baltimore deserve better than that,” Pruette told the jury.

In response to the defense, the prosecutor said the injured victim was “positive” in his identification of Woodrun because he saw him “without a mask, standing right over top of him” on the porch. He previously testified that he had met Woodrun twice before the murder, so he recognized him, even though he had a mask on at the time.

Although the prosecutor didn’t address the identity of the second shooter or the issue of untested evidence raised by the defense, she said that law enforcement officers in the lead detective’s squad did canvas the neighborhood and told the jury that Woodrun had a clear motive.

Soon after the prosecution’s closing response, the jury began their deliberations.