‘He is an Innocent Man,’ Defense Counsel Says in Closing Arguments

By Emma-Victoria Villanueva [former] , Alyssia Davis [former] - August 3, 2022
Court | Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

The prosecutor called the lead medical examiner and detective to the stand to testify in the  case against homicide defendant Tarence Jones on Aug. 3 before Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Phillip S. Jackson. 

Jones, 31, is charged with first-degree murder and using a firearm during a violent crime in connection to the murder of 28-year-old Desmond Williams on June 13, 2021. 

The prosecutor called the Assistant Medical Examiner who performed the autopsy on Williams on June 14, 2021, the cause of death was ruled a gunshot wound to the abdomen. The witness testified that due to the scalloped edge of the gunshot wound, the weapon used was a shotgun fired from 3 feet away.

Next, the prosecutor called the lead detective to testify that for the first week of the investigation Jones was not a person of interest, but after reviewing video camera footage and his interrogation with Jones, he believed that something about Jones was “off” and deemed him a person of interest in the case. 

In his cross-examination defense attorney Todd Oppenheim argued that a pellet size gunshot could not kill a person if it was not close range. 

Oppenheim also argued that there was no forensic evidence from the scene of the crime, no gun was recovered, no human witnesses, nor an acceptable motive that would make Jones an acceptable person of interest.  

After the prosecutor rested its case, Jones declined to testify.

The prosecutor began closing arguments stating at 3:48 a.m you see the defendant walking up Green Mount Street with no bag but then a few minutes later you see the defendant walking back but not on Greenmount Street but rather on a different street.

“Jones actively retrieved a trash bag, he showed intent walking with a purpose. His demeanor never changed”, said the prosecutor. 

Jones caused Desmond Williams’ death, murder by gunshot in the abdomen. The killing was not justified, Jones had no right to take Williams’ life, said the prosecutor. 

He willingly committed first-degree murder, he blew a hole in the victim’s abdomen. 

Initially, when Jones arrived he had no bag but after six minutes, Jones came back with a trash bag shaped like a gun. He traveled down a less crowded street when he returned, said the prosecutor. 

He gave a false alibi, took alternate routes, and gave an impossible explanation. The defendant’s sister even busted his alibi. He told the detective he lied due to being scared at first. 

Notice how calm he was when he was initially questioned by the police; he lied to the police twice, his demeanor changed once they showed him video footage of the incident. 

I ask that you find him guilty of first-degree murder. 

“Detective says this case is a mystery”, says defense counsel Oppenheim during closing arguments. We have no idea what took place on the incident day, which led to the victim’s death. You have an innocent man caught up in hints and suggestions given by the detective and the prosecutor. 

Jones is innocent, he is a non-violent person, he supports himself, works hard, and helps his sister with the kids, said Oppenheim. It is understandable that Jones lied to the police due to him being a young black man. 

His bag was suspicious but it doesn’t warrant him being arrested, said Oppenheim. Jones voluntarily set up the interviews to talk to the police, they searched his and his sister’s home but found nothing. 

The victim, Williams, seemed to have a drastic change in his mental health which led up to his death. Consider Williams mental health which led to who shot and killed the victim. 

“Was there vendetta, or trouble leading up to Williams death?”, said Oppenheim.

Police got a tip of a possible suspect but did not look at anyone else for the crime. A phone was recovered from the victim’s home and police were shady when asked about forensic work. 

No gun was found that led to Jones. “They say the victim crawled to an exit based on what?”, says Oppenheim. There was an unlocked back door leading to the alley, plus there was a third person who had access to the home. 

You can’t pick apart what you choose to accept or not. Do the right thing for a decent, innocent man and find him not guilty of all charges. 

Jurors begin deliberations tomorrow.