In a controversial case that occurred last year, one of the teenagers involved in the lethal shooting of a three-year-old toddler has suggested that the firearm he discarded during his encounter with Buffalo police shouldn’t be permissible as evidence in court. As per his signed affidavit, the boy, who was 14 at the time, eluded the police when they approached him just after the shooting incident at Humason Avenue, a location situated a couple of blocks from Domedion Avenue, the actual scene of the crime.
The boy, now aged 15, provides a vivid account of what transpired, saying that when the police officer attempted to apprehend him, he inadvertently dropped a handgun that he had been carrying. Lawyers representing the two accused teenagers have filed legal documents arguing that the teenagers were unjustifiably detained and searched by police, moments after the deadly gunfire on June 21, 2024, which ended the life of young Ramone ‘Red’ Carter and left his 7-year-old sister injured.
Authorities presenting the case have said that the two kids were merely innocent bystanders, and not the designated victims of the criminal act which took place in Buffalo’s Pine Hill district, situated near the fringes of Cheektowaga. This region saw diligent police officers searching for ‘two unidentified African American males, both clothed head-to-toe in black attire’, as portrayed in the court documents submitted by the 16-year-old defendant’s legal counsel.
According to these lawyers, the officers were operating based on a very broad description when they approached their clients. These points of contention, along with others that challenge possible evidence to be used in the case, are set to be the focus of legal hearings scheduled for January 22, in Erie County Court, Youth Part.
The duo, whose identities remain concealed at this point due to their adolescence, are facing several serious charges including murder, attempted murder, assault and possession of illegal weapons. The case is now in the hands of Youth Part Judge Brenda M. Freedman, who will oversee testimonies from witnesses at the upcoming evidentiary hearings. These testimonies will play a pivotal role in determining the legality of the investigators’ actions, and whether the prosecution is prohibited from using any of the evidence obtained.
Judge Freedman will not only entertain arguments pertaining to the suppression of physical evidence, but will also critically assess the voluntariness of the defendants’ admissions, review whether the police had plausible cause to carry out the arrests, and decide upon the materials that the prosecution might use to discredit the defendants, should they decide to take the stand during the trial.
There’s no word yet on Judge Freedman’s decision regarding the 16-year-old’s petition for separate trials for each defendant. However, she has negated any attempts to have the indictment dismissed and the charges downgraded. As for the content of the defendants’ statements or details regarding the tangible evidence in the case, the prosecution has remained tight-lipped so far.
Both of the accused were arraigned post the shooting and have been ordered to remain under custody since the fatal incident. The attack in question occurred around 9:27 in the evening, with law enforcement coming into contact with the teenagers just around 9:30 pm, as indicated by court documents.
The elder defendant was detained for over three hours alongside his mother in a secure room. Before his release, his clothes, footwear and mobile phone were all seized by police. On the other hand, legal representatives for the younger defendant claim in their court submissions that the police detained the minor in a secure room at their station, covertly recording his interactions with his mother prior to him being informed of his right to remain silent.
Looking at the other side of the coin, the prosecution, in their legal submissions, have defended the actions of the police in this case, stating that their conduct was appropriate. The conclusions of these legal tussles hold the potential to significantly sway the prospects of the young defendants and impact the trajectory of this sensational case.