The state and defendant Michael Reed, who chose to represent himself at his trial, delivered closing arguments before a panel of jurors and Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Michael A. DiPietro on March 19.
Reed, 22, is charged with attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment and several gun violations for allegedly opening fire on another man outside the Cash USA Pawn Shop on the 1200 block of W. North Avenue last July. Reed previously discharged his initial defense attorney, Deborah Warner-Dennis, from the case and pushed for a speedy trial.
Much of the state’s case hinged on the testimony of a security guard employed at Cash USA, who told jurors he witnessed most of the shooting as it unfolded on July 10, 2025. At the time of the incident, the security guard was reportedly working six days a week at Cash USA, and allegedly saw Reed dealing drugs on the block.
Surveillance footage from the block captured sounds of gunfire, followed by repeated exclamations of the name “Mike.” Investigators later learned the suspect went by the nickname “Mike-Mike,” and tied Reed to the case based on his distinctive clothes, gait, Nike logo-shaped eyebrows and height of over 6 feet.
During closing arguments, the state told jurors the case resulted from a series of “bad decisions.” He pointed out how the suspect consistently wore the same clothes, including a pair of New Balance sneakers with a limited silver-and-black colorway, and a pair of gray shorts with a star symbol printed on one of the thighs. In the footage, he was allegedly seen with a face covering that the state described as a “Taliban-style mask,” but his eyebrows remained visible despite the covering.
Reed disputed the state’s claims regarding the sneakers, calling the link “ridiculous” and telling jurors that “everyone wear those type shoes.” He took issue with the state’s focus on his “distinctive” eyebrows, calling the claim “bullsh*t” and exclaiming, “If that’s the case, I can say all y’all’s eyebrows is distinctive.”
Reed’s closing argument drew jurors’ attention to what he perceived as investigative failures, including a lack of forensic evidence, discernible motive, cellphone location records, medical records proving the victim’s injuries and clear footage of the suspect’s face. He called the security guard “a straight liar” and emphasized the state’s decision not to summon the victim to the stand. Anything other than an acquittal, he told jurors, “would be a travesty.”
In rebuttal, the state’s attorney explained that conducting forensic testing on recovered shell casings would prove useless, as the heat from firing bullets often strips casings of fingerprints and other traces of DNA. The security guard, he said, was a trustworthy witness because he “doesn’t have any personal animosity, any personal beef” with the involved parties.
Jurors are expected to return with a verdict by the end of the week.
