Suppression Motion Denied In Revels Trial

The murder trial of Dashawn James Revels, 22, of Brooklyn, N.Y., opened today at with testimony from the police officers who responded to reports of a shooting in the vicinity of State Pier Rd. and Crystal Avenue in New London at 11:06 p.m. on March 31, 2009.

Tina Cook, a dispatcher, testified that she took the initial 911 call, which came from the victim himself. Listening to tapes of the 911 call, the jury heard 20-year old Bryan Davila say, “I’m hit. I just got shot,” but that’s all he could say. When he was unresponsive to Cook’s questions about his condition and location, Cook said she triangulated his position using cell phone towers and sent police to State Pier Road.

Police found Davila easily when they arrived on the scene just a few minutes later. He was lying on the sidewalk adjacent to the well-lit driveway for . “He was gurgling and moaning. He wasn’t communicating,” said New London Police Sergeant Michael Strecker, who was shift supervisor and one of the first officers on scene that night. Strecker told the jury that he recognized the victim as Bryan Davila.

After police secured the scene, Emergency Medical Technicians got to work cutting away Davila’s clothes to try to find the source of his injuries. Strecker said he observed what appeared to be three bullet wounds. Strecker said he also saw a semiautomatic pistol about three feet from where Davila was laying and a shell casing on the ground near the victim’s body.

New London Police Sergeant Kristy Christina testified that she accompanied Davila in the ambulance to l to take any statements should he regain consciousness. She stayed with him as doctors tried to resuscitate him, she said, but Davila was pronounced dead at 11:47 p.m.

Meanwhile, back at the crime scene, police were combing the area for potential witnesses to the shooting. There are two large housing complexes in the neighborhood—Thames River Apartments, which comprises three high-rise buildings owned by the , and the privately-owned low income housing complex at 93 State Pier Road. Police testified that when they arrived at the scene of the shooting, many people where looking out their windows.

“We spoke to numerous people,” said New London Police Officer Justin Clachrie. “A lot of people said they heard shots but hadn’t seen anything.” One woman, however, did come forward.

The witness’s testimony is likely to be crucial to the prosecution’s case, as Revels was arrested and charged based on her identification of him as the shooter. However, the jury heard little about that witness today, because defense attorneys had moved to suppress her testimony based on the way police had her make that identification.

With the jury removed from the court room, Judge Stuart M. Schimelman heard testimony from the witness, who described seeing the shooting from her apartment on Crystal Avenue. He then heard from police about how, based on her description of an African American with braided hair wearing a red ball cap, dark pants, and a light and dark green camouflage jacket, they apprehended a suspect on Home Street.

The defense argued that the witness had a limited view in the dark from her apartment, which was about 300 feet away from where the shooting is believed to have happened. They also argued that the one-on-one identification, during which police shone a spotlight on Revels as he stood in handcuffs surrounded by police officers on Home Street, was overly suggestive.

Judge Schimelman agreed that, compared to the more common technique of showing witnesses a photo array or a lineup that includes a number of people who physically resemble each other, the one-on-one technique is suggestive. However, he noted, the law allows one-on-one identifications under certain conditions, most of which the events of that night met.

After hearing the testimony, Schimelman concluded that the witness had been able to see what happened, had given police an accurate description, and was given appropriate instructions by police before making the identification. The fact that she said, “That’s the guy!” before the police officer had a chance to ask her to take a look, Schimelman said, was significant.

Defense attorneys set out to prove a point by seating an intern at the defense table who, like Revels, was African American with close-cropped hair and a short goatee, had similar build and was dressed in a white shirt and black pants. The one difference in their attire was that the intern had on a red tie and Revels’ tie was blue/green paisley. When asked to point to the suspect in court, the witness pointed to the college intern in the red tie.

However, the witness also testified that it would have been impossible for her to see the shooter’s face from her vantage point and that she had identified him by his hair, which was in braids at the time, and by his clothes. “The accuracy of that description is very significant,” said Schimelman.

Although in hindsight, a traditional lineup might have been preferable, Schimelman said, the law gives police some leeway to bring a witness to identify a potential suspect while the memory is fresh. “It aids reliability and allows for the quick release of innocent parties so police can continue to investigate,” said Schimelman.

And while he agreed that presenting people in handcuffs is suggestive, such precautions were necessary in this case, given that was a serious shooting and police did not know whether the shooter or the gun was still out there. It was, Schimelman said, “within the realm of what was appropriate.”

So though Schimelman said the defense was right to raise the issues, the motion to suppress was denied. The jury is expected to hear testimony from the witness on Tuesday.