Self-Defense or Murder: What Happened in the Trial of the Squeegee Boy?

By Shayna Sefret [former] - July 29, 2023
Court | Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

“I’m not here because Timothy Reynolds died, I’m here because Tavon Scott lived,” said the defense attorney in the closing arguments of Scott’s murder trial on July 24. 

Also under the moniker of “the squeegee boy’s trial,” testimony and evidence stood to prove whether the 16-year-old defendant shot Reynolds in self-defense or as an intentional act of murder.

After three days, on July 27, the jurors found the charge of first-degree murder as a lesser included offense, finding Scott guilty of firearm use in a crime of violence, possession of a firearm as a minor and manslaughter.

On July 7, 2022, Reynolds–standing at six feet, three inches tall and weighing 229 pounds– allegedly became upset by the young squeegee workers on the corner of Light and Conway streets where Scott attempted to wash Reynolds’ windshield for money. Unlike most drivers who endure, Reynolds angrily pulled over to the side of the road, parked his car and approached the boys with a baseball bat in his hand.

When at least six or seven boys met the victim, he began walking away, but as the boys followed him, Reynolds started swinging. Scott was accused of then taking a gun from a shared backpack and shooting Reynolds five times.

After one final effort by defense attorney J. Wyndal Gordon to dismiss Scott’s case, citing a chain of custody issues, Gordon threw his energy into the character of Scott, Reynolds and the investigation.

To Gordon and his co-counsel, Warren Brown, the trial was not about proving Scott’s innocence, but rather the calculated actions of Reynolds that forced a 14-year-old boy to commit homicide.

“His life was in danger,” Gordon told the jury, asking them to “imagine a 14-year-old kid trying to process in real time what’s going on.”

Gordon told the jury that Scott was a good kid who built a relationship with the Baltimore Police Department officers on the street.

He then pivoted his argument by questioning Reynolds’ character. He told the jury that Reynolds was taking psychiatric medication and had had a few drinks before the incident, which was confirmed in the autopsy report presented at trial. He also cited Reynolds’ tattoo that read “mutant and proud,” an alleged reference to the Proud Boys organization and an intrinsic racial hatred that the prosecution referred to as a reference to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.  

Additionally, he asked the jury multiple times if anybody had come in to vouch for Reynolds. The prosecution quickly objected to this line of reasoning, which was sustained multiple times. Judge Jeniffer Schiffer appeared agitated with Gordon and could be heard muttering, “What is happening?” under her breath.

Following a private discussion between counsel and the judge, Judge Schiffer told Gordon that his tattoo argument was inflammatory and that all her “rulings have been based on the evidence rules.” 

Gordon pivoted, once more, to the nature of the investigation, telling the jury that it was up to the state to paint a clear picture, but they failed. He cited the lack of fingerprint and DNA evidence, no recovery of a pink shirt, inconsistent testimony and evidence, grainy video footage and an asymmetric investigation with no clear evidence of Scott as the perpetrator.

To sum up his arguments, Gordon told the jury that, “Mr. Reynolds was the author of his own book,” and the one true verdict is not guilty.

“We wouldn’t be here if Mr. Reynolds hadn’t taken the actions he took,” he told them. The investigators and the prosecutor are “painting [the squeegee boys] with the same brush.”

The prosecutor took a completely different approach from defense counsel as she told the jury that Scott “didn’t have to kill Mr. Reynolds, but he chose to.”

She believed the video of the incident spoke for itself, showing Reynolds trying to retreat from the situation when instead he was met with five gunshots.

“At 14, you’re old enough to know better,” the prosecutor said. “At 14, you’re old enough to know right from wrong. … All of this for what? A swing and a miss?”

With that precise question of where to place the blame weighing on everyone’s minds, both sides rested their arguments and the jurors broke for deliberation.