Washington, D.C. — A D.C. Superior Court judge found sufficient evidence to proceed with a carjacking case involving Kevin Lester, 36, during a preliminary hearing held on June 24. The incident under scrutiny occurred on June 13 on the 300 block of 40th Street, SW.
Prosecutors presented video footage in court depicting the alleged carjacking, which showed Lester and another individual confronting the victim. According to court documents, Lester reportedly threatened the victim with a firearm, demanding he exit his vehicle. While the second suspect is said to have removed the keys from the ignition, Lester allegedly forcibly dragged the victim from the car and assaulted him before the pair fled in the vehicle.
During the hearing, a Metropolitan Police Department officer testified regarding Lester’s arrest, confirming the details of the incident as outlined by the prosecution. However, defense attorney Theodore Shaw contended that the video did not clearly show a firearm. The officer acknowledged that the positioning of the camera and Lester’s “aggressive stance” could imply the presence of a weapon.
Judge Judith Pipe expressed confidence in the evidence presented, stating she saw no reason to doubt that Lester was involved in the carjacking. Additionally, she referenced his criminal history, which includes three prior convictions, two of which involve firearms, raising concerns about public safety.
Shaw petitioned for Lester’s release under GPS monitoring with a stay-away order from the victim. Judge Pipe denied this request, citing the troubling nature of the incident and emphasizing the importance of public safety in her decision.
The prosecution also offered a plea deal: if Lester pleaded guilty to robbery and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, the carjacking charge would be dismissed. However, Lester opted for a jury trial instead of accepting the offer, asserting his right to contest the charges in court.
Court proceedings are expected to resume on August 18, as both sides prepare for the next steps in what has become a significant case in the local justice system.
This article was automatically generated by Open AI. The information contained within may be inaccurate, and requests for retractions or corrections can be made by emailing contact@publiclawlibrary.org.