Store Footage Key Evidence in Attempted Murder Trial

Thank you for reading Baltimore Witness. Help us continue our mission into 2024.

Jurors were asked to decide whether a 19-year-old Baltimore man was the shooter during a Greenmount Avenue incident. That was after the prosecution presented surveillance footage of the shooting before Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Alan C. Lazerow on June 21

“You can see Rito Cox III reaching into his dip area and pulling out a gun,” the prosecution said.

Cox is charged with attempted first and second-degree murder, first and second-degree assault, reckless endangerment, firearm use in a felony violent crime, possession of a firearm as a minor, illegal possession of ammunition, having a handgun on his person and firing a gun in Baltimore City.

On June 20, Cox pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm as a minor. He was sentenced to serve three years, suspending all but time served. He must also serve five years of probation.

Camera footage of the incident was recovered from a nearby store on the 2600 block of Greenmount Avenue which the prosecution said was clear enough to see the shell casing ejected from a semi-automatic handgun.

“You can also see the shooting itself. You can see the victim running,” the prosecution said.

In Cox’s interrogation he denied he was in the surveillance footage.

“I got a tattoo and I do not see it. That’s not me. That’s not me,” Cox said.

According to documents from the District Court of Maryland, camera footage from the store captured a male suspect wearing black pants with a white stripe and black and blue shoes. Pants and shoes matching that description were recovered from Cox’s residence on East Lorraine Avenue.

“Ladies and gentlemen, that right here is the exact firearm and the same pants and shoes,” the prosecution said while showing surveillance footage during closing arguments.

“Everybody got these shoes and clothes. That’s all I’m saying,” Cox said in the interrogation footage.

Defense attorney Matthew Connell, in his closing argument, said there was no DNA or blood residue found at the crime scene or on the clothing. He also stated that BPD detectives did not send requests for DNA testing.

“There is no forensic evidence, no blood or DNA on the clothing,” Connell argued.

“They did not test the pants for blood evidence because he didn’t feel like it. The police did not do much of an investigation. It’s circumstantial evidence clearly.”