Thank you for reading Baltimore Witness.
Consider making a donation to help us continue our mission.
By
Sage Cho
- May 22, 2025
Attempted Murder
|
Court
|
Daily Stories
|
Non-Fatal Shooting
|
Police investigative methods and victim drug use were debated as Liteeaf Peterson’s attempted murder trial came to a close on May 21.
Peterson, 25, is charged with attempted murder, assault, and firearm use for allegedly attempting to shoot and kill the unnamed male victim on April 29, 2024, in the 400 block of S. Pulaski Street. Peterson was prohibited from owning or possessing a gun due to previous felony narcotics and firearm convictions.
Parties attempted to postpone the case after discovering that the female victim named in the initial indictment sheet wasn’t the perpetrator’s intended target. The intended victim, who took the stand on the first day of the trial to testify against Peterson, was an older man with previous felony convictions.
Two days prior, Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Erik S. Atas had nixed the prosecution’s motion to amend Peterson’s indictment by replacing the female victim with the intended victim.
Defense attorney Hunter Pruette contested the honesty of testimonies given by the intended and the originally named victim, both of whom had known brushes with narcotics. The former, he said, feigned unawareness on the stand of his previous drug convictions over the last 15 years, and the latter was found with heroin and opiates in her system. She gave contradicting statements to police, Pruette said.
The prosecution took the narcotics mentions in stride, explaining that neither victim’s involvement with drugs was relevant to the facts of the case.
“A common theme in this case [is that] drug dealers can be victims of crimes, too,” they told the jury. “I also want you to believe the woman who was high on fentanyl, cocaine – all of it.”
Pruette went on to emphasize the benefit the prosecution offered to the male victim in return for his testimony – should he take the stand, the prosecution would dismiss his pending case for illegal possession of a regulated firearm. They also offered him a plea of six years, suspending all but time served, in a separate case, effectively letting him walk free should he abide by the terms of his probation.
Pruette also pointed to the lack of bullet damage or blood traces found in the area, and questioned how the female victim sustained a gunshot wound to her left big toe. From where the suspected shooter stood in the video, the angle of gunfire seemed unlikely, he said. Additionally, the two 9mm shell casings recovered from the scene were found to be from different brands, and investigators failed to recover a firearm that matched either casing model.
Earlier in the trial, parties established that the detective who positively identified Peterson had become acquainted with the defendant for over a year, and frequently chatted with him about sneakers. However, Pruette found it unusual that it took the detective nearly a month to obtain search and seizure warrants. He further noted that none of the warrants sought access to search Peterson’s house, a likely location for a shooter to stash a firearm.
Lastly, it took investigators roughly six months to file charging documents in the case, a fact that Pruette found suggested a lack of confidence in their identification of Peterson as the primary suspect.
Detectives also failed to obtain followup statements from the female victim. The prosecution noted the victim was homeless and without a fixed location of residence, and that detectives tried and failed to locate her.
The lengthy hearing came to a close shortly after the courthouse’s closing time. The jury deliberates.