45f8bfef-c2b3-4607-b185-1fef00e4d10a[Editors Note:  Video below shows a man being hit and ran over This video may be hard for some readers]

[Editors Note:  Video below shows a man being hit and ran over This video may be hard for some readers]

On the evening of September 4, 2020, the tranquil atmosphere of a residential neighborhood in Southeast DC was shattered by a horrifying incident. The 2100 block of Young Street, typically a haven of suburban peace, became the backdrop for a tragedy that would ignite a complex and contentious legal battle. David Farewell, a local resident, was the victim of a hit-and-run while cycling. Despite the heroic efforts of DC Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Farewell's injuries proved fatal. The incident, initially thought to be a hit-and-run, took a chilling twist when investigations pointed towards a deliberate act.

Eric Beasley, a 29-year-old resident, was arrested six days later by the Capital Area Regional Fugitive Task Force. Charged with first-degree murder, Beasley's case seemed to be a straightforward one. However, the trial took an unexpected turn when the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict, resulting in a mistrial.

The trial, commencing on September 28, 2023, was marred by a series of misinterpretations and misunderstandings. The jury, entrusted with deciding whether Beasley was guilty of first or second-degree murder, misunderstood their task. They believed they had to agree on both charges before delivering their verdict. This misunderstanding led to a deadlock, with the jury unable to reach a consensus.

In a surprising revelation post-trial, it was discovered that the jury had unanimously agreed on Beasley's innocence regarding the first-degree murder charge. Their disagreement lay solely on the less severe charge of second-degree murder. This discovery led to Beasley's defense attorney filing a motion to dismiss the first-degree murder charge, arguing that her client was being unfairly penalized due to her misunderstanding of the jury's ability to deliver a partial verdict.

The trial was a showcase of compelling evidence and testimonies. Prosecutors presented surveillance footage of Beasley's vehicle striking Farewell, emphasizing the sound of the car accelerating post-collision. They argued that Beasley's actions, including fleeing the scene and failing to call 911, were indicative of a "consciousness of guilt".

In contrast, Beasley's defense attorneys, Madalyn Harvey and Patrick Nowak, argued that the crime scene may have been contaminated. They presented police body-worn camera footage showing various individuals at the scene before it was cordoned off, and a witness tampering with potential evidence.

Beasley himself took the stand, expressing remorse and claiming that he had not intended to hit Farewell. He testified that he was concerned about an alleged altercation between Farewell and his girlfriend, and that his actions were driven by fear rather than malice.

Despite the compelling arguments on both sides, the jury's deadlock and the subsequent mistrial have left the case in a state of uncertainty. On March 2, 2023, Beasley's lawyer requested the court to dismiss the first-degree murder charge against him.

During his trial, which started on September 28, 2023, there was some confusion about the jury's decision. The jury couldn't agree on a decision, but after the trial, it was found out that they all agreed Mr. Beasley was not guilty of first-degree murder. They were only split on a less serious charge of second-degree murder.

However, Beasley's lawyer made a mistake during the trial. She asked for a mistrial, which means the trial has to stop and start again, instead of asking for a partial verdict. A partial verdict would have meant that the jury could have said Beasley was not guilty of first-degree murder, even if they couldn't agree on the second-degree murder charge.

The jury had to decide if Beasley was guilty of first-degree murder or second-degree murder. They thought they had to agree on both charges before they could give their decision. This was a mistake. They could have given their decision on just one charge.

In a similar case, the jury was told not to tell anyone how they voted until they all agreed. This happened again in Mr. Beasley's case. After the trial, the jury told the lawyers and the judge's assistant that they all agreed Mr. Beasley was not guilty of first-degree murder.

Unlike the other case, the government suggested the jury might have only decided on one charge. The judge didn't understand this and made a mistake by saying the jury couldn't have made a decision on just one charge. This mistake hurt Beasley's defense because it didn't allow for a formal decision that he was not guilty of first-degree murder.

Because of these mistakes, Beasley's lawyer is asking the court to dismiss the charge of first-degree murder. They believe that if the jury had been given the right instructions, Beasley would have been found not guilty of first-degree murder. They are asking the court to correct this mistake by dismissing the charge.

The handling of this case by the US Attorney has raised concerns. The fact that such a high-profile case could be marred by such glaring errors is alarming. The question remains: how can you get a hung jury when the evidence of Beasley swerving into the direction of a complete stranger and hearing Beasley running over Farewell on video is so clear? It's hard to believe that after watching it, there's any question that Beasley committed first-degree murder.  If video does not appear below follow: