Defense Declares a Witness in Decade-Old Murder Case ‘100 Percent Unreliable’

By Sarah Mullen [former] - February 26, 2024
Court | Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

Counsel delivered their closing statements in a decade-old cold case on Feb. 23 before Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Jennifer B. Schiffer.

Brandon Brown, 34, is accused of killing 26-year-old Antonio Mayes in September 2013. Charging documents indicate that Baltimore Police Department officers discovered Mayes’ body on the 1000 block of Valley Street with multiple gunshot wounds to the head, back and arms.

Robert D. Cole, Jr. defended his client against charges of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, firearm use in a felony violent crime and possessing a firearm with a felony conviction. 

The main issue was whether two of the prosecution’s key witnesses, a convicted sex trafficker and a convicted armed robber, were credible given their criminal history. Cole urged the jury to use their common sense to recognize that the second witness was “100 percent unreliable”.

While serving their federal prison sentences, each man wrote a letter to the US Attorney’s office implicating Brown in Mayes’ murder. The assistant state’s attorney emphasized that these men knew details only a person who witnessed the crime firsthand could know, such as the caliber of the murder weapon and how one of the shooters stood above Mayes and fired multiple shots into his head. 

Cole theorized that the witnesses could have talked to other inmates from Baltimore who had knowledge from others involved in the crime. He claimed that by failing to present any evidence that the two witnesses did not cross paths or that the second witness was actually Brown’s cellmate, the prosecution failed to meet its high burden of proof.

Additionally, forensic testimony revealed that Brown was identified as one of four contributors whose DNA was likely present on a bicycle near the crime scene. The prosecutor alleged that Brown picked up the bike and slammed it down on the victim’s chest.

However, Cole pointed out the lack of blood on Mayes’ chest where the bike was supposedly slammed, as well as the fact that Brown’s fingerprints were not found on the bike’s frame. 

Cole focused on the witness’s criminal backgrounds, urging the jury to consider the possibility that they fabricated a story about Brown’s involvement to resolve personal grudges or reduce their sentences. The assistant state’s attorney had the final word, rebutting that just because witnesses are “bad people” doesn’t automatically make their statements false. 

Ultimately, according to the assistant state’s attorney, it’s not a coincidence that not only did two different witnesses come forward after ten years to incriminate one of the original suspects in this case, but Brown’s DNA was also found at the crime scene.

The defense accused her of building her case on the mantra “two wrongs make a right” after she suggesting that each of these three pieces of evidence on their own could be chalked up to coincidence.