Homicide Defendant Gets Into Argument With Judge During Trial

By Tyler Parkes [former] , Mackenzie Wright [former] - March 29, 2022
Court | Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

The trial for homicide defendant Darrius Jordan continued on March 28 but came to an end early after the defendant and Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Lynn Mays got into an argument.

Throughout Jordan’s testimony, Judge Mays warned him repeatedly for hearsay for using casual language and continuing to answer after an objection from the prosecutor. As emotions ran high, Jordan became visibly frustrated.

An argument soon broke out between Jordan and Judge Mays, and the judge had the jury leave for a break as she said she felt the argument would influence the jury. The argument became more heated during the break when Jordan complained to the judge how he was attempting to follow her directions and how she was seemingly being unreasonable. 

Judge Mays then decided to conclude the hearing for the day, with Jordan’s trial expected to continue on March 29.

During his testimony, Jordan recounted his experience on the night of the incident, describing his trip to Uptown Bar before being picked up by an individual nicknamed “Black” in a Chevy Equinox.

Guy Thomas, the victim, was allegedly looking to buy drugs from Black after they arrived at the bar, the defendant testified. Thomas was short some of the money, he said, so Jordan gave him the money necessary to complete the transaction.

Later in the bar, Jordan said, he saw Thomas use money to buy drinks and realized that the victim lied about not having any more money for his drug purchase. Jordan confronted Thomas over the matter and the two got into a physical altercation.

Thomas later apologized to him, Jordan said, but when the two returned to the vehicle, another fight ensued.

In the aftermath, Black allegedly came from behind Jordan and shot Thomas. Jordan said he was told to get in the vehicle and remain quiet about the incident before being dropped off near his home.

A detective with the Baltimore Police Department testified earlier in the day that Jordan was not Thomas’ shooter, who has remained unidentified, despite several eyewitness accounts and video surveillance footage from the incident at the intersection of Edmondson Avenue and N. Monroe Street. 

The detective testified that video footage identified a dark-colored Chevy Equinox at the crime scene, but efforts to obtain a license plate number were unsuccessful. 

Defense attorney Roya Hanna questioned the witness on the search for surveillance footage of the car; however, the witness could not recall the exact search area. 

Hanna also questioned the witness about a blue sweatshirt that was recovered from the defendant’s home that he allegedly wore the night of the shooting. The clothing item recovered from the home was a size medium, which Hanna said could not have belonged to the defendant due to his larger size.

At the request of Hanna and permission of the court, the witness approached the defendant and read the size on the clothing label on the defendant’s shirt. The witness told the court that Jordan was wearing a size XXL and that Jordan was much larger than him.

Immediately after Judge Mays sent the jury to lunch, defense counsel made a motion to separate Jordan’s conspiracy charges from his homicide charges. She said allowing a conspiracy conviction to qualify as felony murder was “a slippery slope” in allowing misdemeanors to be applied the same way.

Hanna also objected to the admission of the medical examiner’s expert witness testimony, citing prosecutorial misconduct in proving the chain of custody of the victim’s body. 

Judge Mays ruled that autopsy and medical examiner testimony would not officially be admitted into evidence until the prosecutor could provide the sufficient witnesses. If the prosecutor did not procure the forensic investigator who transported the body, Judge Mays said, she would strike the medical examiner’s testimony from the record and instruct the jury to disregard it. 

Ultimately, the chain of custody was established and the evidence was admitted.