The ruling came in the case of Darrise Jeffers, who is among 11 people charged in connection with the killing of 10-year-old Makiyah Wilson. Makiyah was heading to an ice cream truck last July when four masked men jumped from a black Infiniti sedan and opened fire into a crowd. Police said the shooting was prompted by a dispute between neighborhood crews.

AD

AD

Prosecutors contend Jeffers assisted in the planning of the shooting and have accused other men of being the shooters and driver.

The appeals court found that the initial evidence presented by prosecutors was not strong enough to justify holding Jeffers until trial.

In their ruling, the judges said prosecutors made “inferences” based on information they had gathered against Jeffers. But the judges determined “those inferences are not sufficiently strong to support a reasonable conclusion that the United States is more likely than not to persuade a fact-finder at trial that Mr. Jeffers is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder.”

AD

It was the first time in recent years the Court of Appeals, the highest court of the District, opined on the definition of “substantial probability,” the legal term used by D.C. judges to determine whether the evidence is strong enough to justify detention.

AD

The court’s decision, which applies to murder and attempted murder cases, comes as many jurisdictions nationwide are reviewing their own bail systems to determine whether individuals are being unfairly jailed before trial. Advocates of reform argue that bail systems unfairly penalize people who cannot afford to pay.

The District does not use a cash bail system. Instead, a judge reviews evidence presented at the time of arrest, along with information such as a defendant’s criminal history. Judges then determine whether someone should be released with the promise to return for hearings, released with conditions or ordered to jail until trial.

AD

The May 23 decision means that prosecutors seeking to have a suspect held in jail are likely to present stronger evidence at a preliminary hearing, often held weeks after an arrest. Previously, prosecutors could wait until closer to trial to reveal some evidence to the defense.

AD

In turn, defense attorneys will be able to more quickly challenge that evidence, questioning its reliability and whether it was lawfully obtained.

The issue arose at a preliminary hearing in January, when prosecutors argued that Jeffers was a member of the Wellington Park gang. They alleged that as much as 35 minutes before the shooting, he was seen near the Infiniti used by gunmen and seen interacting with some others authorities say were involved. Then a day later, prosecutors said, Jeffers exchanged Instagram messages with a co-defendant regarding firearms that authorities believe were used in the shooting.

AD

Veteran D.C. defense attorney Veronice Holt argued that there was no evidence directly linking Jeffers to Makiyah’s shooting nor any proof that Jeffers knew the shooting was going to take place. Holt argued that Jeffers should be released from jail.

AD

Judge Craig Iscoe denied her request.

Holt immediately took her case to the Court of Appeals. The District’s Public Defender Service, which does not represent anyone charged in Makiyah’s killing, joined Holt’s argument believing that a ruling would have broader ramifications.

Janet Mitchell, a senior attorney with the District’s Public Defender Service, said the appellate decision made clear that compelling evidence is needed for a person to be ordered to jail before a conviction.

AD

“Because our criminal justice system is founded on the presumption of innocence, the Supreme Court has held that liberty prior to trial is the ‘norm,’ and preventive detention is the ‘carefully limited exception,’ ” Mitchell said. “By clarifying the legal standard in our pretrial detention statute, the Jeffers decision re­duces the prospect that a person who will ultimately be found innocent at trial will be incarcerated for months or years before the trial takes place.”

AD

The opinion, by a three-judge panel, was written by Judge Roy W. McLeese III, a former federal prosecutor in the District who once served as chief of the U.S. attorney’s appellate section.

The judges ruled Jeffers should have another hearing, at which prosecutors could provide additional evidence against him if they wanted to keep him in jail.

AD

“There is no direct evidence that Mr. Jeffers was aware of the intended shooting before it occurred, much less that he intended that the shooting occur,” McLeese wrote. “There is also no direct evidence that Mr. Jeffers took an act that aided and abetted the shooting or was intended to do so.”

At the follow-up hearing, Jeffers was released on high-intensity supervision, including GPS monitoring. Trials in the case are set for next year.

The court’s ruling has already resulted in another defendant’s pretrial release from jail.

AD

Kevin McCants, an attorney for another defendant in the Makiyah case, Marquell Cobbs, 17, used the Jeffers ruling to make the same arguments that his client should be released from jail.

AD

Prosecutors vehemently objected, arguing that Cobbs was responsible for the weapons being obtained. They also said there were social media videos and pictures of him with guns. But Iscoe, citing the Court of Appeals ruling, released Cobbs into the custody of his father in Maryland until trial.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment on the court’s decision or whether the office will appeal. But in a Thursday hearing, prosecutors said they are concerned that making some evidence public early in the case could lead to witness intimidation.

But several defense attorneys said it allows them to scrutinize the case.

AD