There are several discrepancies in Edward’s conviction that suggest his innocence.
Below are the flaws upon which Edward’s incarceration rests.
Aiding And Abetting Without Requisite Intent
Under Wilson-Bey v. United States, the defendant must have the same intent as the principal actor in order to be convicted as an aider and abettor. Under this requirement, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Edward had the same mens rea to kill as the shooter.
The court used the flaky and inconsistent narratives of Lampkin and Powell as “evidence” suggesting that Edward had the mens rea to kill.
Yet Ryan Nedd, a key witness, maintains that Martinez had no prior knowledge that Hicks was going to get shot. Edward has consistently insisted that he had no intent to kill.
Edward’s attorney at the time of the trial should have objected to the jury instructions, as the jury did not substantiate the mens rea requirement.
Unreliable Witnesses
Wille “Pat” Moore
Moore testified that she was sitting by the entrance to the alley that runs behind David Hick’s house on 9th street when she saw Edward and an unidentified man drive into the entrance of the alleyway around 2:00a.m.
Moore, who later recanted her trial identification, ultimately admitted that she did not know who Edward was and that she had been given the information she presented as truth from another witness, Brenda Lampkin.
Moore, who was a frequent user of crack cocaine and had smoked and consumed alcohol shortly before the shooting, was deemed “completely untrustworthy.”
Brenda Lampkin
Lampkin testified that she witnessed an altercation between Edward and David Hicks around 2:00p.m. on the afternoon before the crime. Yet, Edward had spent the day in North Carolina with his daughter’s mother, and had only returned to D.C. right before the late-night shooting.
During her grand jury testimony, Lampkin also stated that the fight she witnessed took place at the intersection of 9th and Kennedy. At trial, however, Lampkin said the fight occurred at the entrance to the alley that ran behind David Hick’s house, the difference of an entire block.
Daniel Powell
Daniell Powell testified at trial that Edward and David Hicks got into a fight in the alley behind Hick’s home, wherein Edward threw a cup of liquor into Hick’s eyes and Hicks threatened Edward with a brick. No cup or brick was ever found on the crime scene.
Powell also claimed that between 9:00 and 10:00p.m., a masked shooter jumped out of a car and shot Hicks once, after which he pumped the shotgun again, causing Powell to run away.
An appeals court found every aspect of Powell’s testimony to be “wholly unreliable.”
Donna Baxter
Baxter testified that she was smoking crack cocaine with David Hicks in the backyard of 817 Kennedy Street when a car pulled up in the alleyway behind the house. She claims that a figure emerged and fired once at David Hicks with a shotgun.
Baxter was questioned by police immediately after the shooting and said there were at least two other people in the car besides the shooter. She also failed to identify Edward as the driver during an ID procedure on September 28, 2004.
Baxter was high on crack cocaine at Edward’s trial and tested positive for the drug shortly before her testimony.
Improper Witness Payments
Willie “Pat” Moore received a check for $200 from the Marshal's office and another one for $500 from Detective Don Juan Monroe after her testimony at trial, suggesting that she was improperly incentivized to testify against Martinez.
Disgraced Lead Detective
Lead Detective Don Juan Monroe is reputed to coerce and influence witnesses to close cases. Monroe has a history of lying to witnesses about their obligation to appear before grand jury.
In June 2001, Monroe yet again was alleged to have improperly influenced a witness.
In Edward’s case, Monroe had a 33 minute conversation (5-paragraph report) with Moore. Following this phone call, Moore changed her testimony from not witnessing anything to identifying Martinez.
The government has never produced notes from this call.
Multiple Brady Violations
According to Brady v. Maryland, the government's withholding of evidence that is material to the determination of innocence or guilt of a criminal defendant violates the defendant's constitutional right to due process.
The notes from the prosecution’s original conversation with key witness Ryan Nedd, who told the government that Edward Martinez did not know that someone was going to get shot, were never disclosed to the defense. This evidence would have likely been exonerating.
The prosecution violated Brady in failing to overturn the police notes wherein Powell told Detective Monroe that he was not certain that Martinez was the person he saw driving the vehicle.