photo by: Lawrence Police Department

Derrick Del Reed

A Douglas County judge on Wednesday ordered prosecutors to hand over video interviews by police to the defendant’s attorney in the case of a 17-year-old who has been charged with the fatal shooting of a 14-year-old.

The defendant, Derrick Del Reed, faces one count of first-degree murder in Douglas County District Court. He is alleged to have shot Kamarjay Shaw in the 1300 block of Maple Lane sometime before 5 p.m. on March 18, as the Journal-World has reported.

Reed’s defense attorney, Mark Hartman, filed a motion to compel discovery, claiming that some evidence had not been provided. Hartman asked Judge Paul Klepper to compel the state to provide videos of police interviews with witnesses, a police report connected to an incident earlier in the day involving some of the witnesses, and the names and contact information of all relevant juvenile witnesses.

“Reed should receive as much discovery as available before the stand-your-ground hearing,” Hartman said at a hearing on Wednesday. The defense intends to argue that the fatal shooting was an act of self-defense and that Reed should be immune from prosecution under the state’s stand-your-ground law.

Reed appeared Wednesday in court via Zoom from a jail cell, where he remains in the custody of Douglas County Youth Services. Hartman also appeared via Zoom. The state appeared in person.

Deputy District Attorney Joshua Seiden told the court that the state had already provided more evidence to the defense than state law requires.

“We are providing discovery when we receive it, which is more generous than required,” Seiden said.

Hartman said that he has received a lot of evidence in the case, including police reports, photographs and police body camera videos. However, he said that the police reports contained multiple references to interviews with juvenile witnesses and that those videos were not provided to him. Body camera footage of those witnesses being transported to and from the scene of the incident and police reports about the interviews were provided, he said, but not the actual video interviews.

Seiden said that Hartman’s motion to compel was too vague and that it didn’t specify particular videos. Without a list of what Hartman was asking for, he wouldn’t be able to provide the requested material, Seiden said.

“I don’t know what I don’t know,” Seiden said.

Seiden added that if the videos exist as Hartman believes, then it is possible that the Lawrence Police Department has not uploaded the videos from their cameras and sent them to the District Attorney’s Office. He said the process to upload and send the files could take a substantial amount of time.

Hartman said that between 12 and 18 of these interviews exist.

Klepper ordered Hartman to create a list of the video interviews he is seeking by midnight Wednesday so that Seiden could begin working with police immediately to find the videos and begin the file-transfer process. Klepper ordered the state to have the material sent to Hartman by Monday morning.

Klepper also ordered the state to provide a copy of a police report that was taken the day of the incident. Hartman said the events that occurred earlier that day in connection with that police report may have been connected to the shooting. He said that police reports in his possession reference that earlier report and name witnesses connected to both events.

The Journal-World acquired only the top sheet of that earlier police report — the only sheet that state law requires police to provide — and that sheet indicates that it was a disturbance with weapons at Dick’s Sporting Goods, 2727 Iowa St., around 2 p.m. The sheet does not detail what took place or who was involved. Police scanner traffic the day of the incident indicated that two groups of teens were in the parking lot arguing and one of the kids was seen holding a machete.

Klepper also ordered the state to provide what contact information it could for the juvenile witnesses relevant to the case.

Seiden said that the state has provided the defense with the information it has but that police are still working to identify witnesses and their guardians and that the court has provided money for the defense to investigate witnesses. He said the police do not work for the defense and that if there is more information about the witnesses that Hartman wants he should use the investigator paid for by the court to get that information.

Klepper expressed concern that these issues with evidence would result in a delay of the stand-your-ground hearing on April 20.

Seiden said that if a motion to continue was filed, it would not be by the state.

Hartman said he did not intend for the hearing to be continued but that he has been working to get all of the evidence in the case for weeks. He said that the charges against Reed were filed very quickly after the incident and maybe the state should have waited a bit longer to allow police to further investigate.

Seiden countered that Hartman’s action could be seen as hasty as well since he filed a motion for immunity without having received all of the evidence in the matter.

Seiden also said during Wednesday’s hearing that the gun alleged to have been used in the shooting was recovered after Hartman provided GPS coordinates of its location to police.

As the Journal-World previously reported, the Douglas County District Attorney’s Office filed a motion to prosecute Reed as an adult and is scheduled to argue that motion in front of Judge Sally Pokorny on June 2. The state has also filed a motion for the court to hear the immunity motion and waiver to adult status motion at the same time.

In an order to remove Reed from his guardian’s custody and to place him in juvenile detention, the court said that it had found probable cause to believe that Reed had committed a homicide using a handgun and that his health and safety, as well as community safety, were at risk if he were not detained.

The order also said that Reed was “allegedly engaged in a fight that escalated to the use of a handgun, which resulted in the death of a minor.” The order stated: “The court does not believe that the juvenile’s present circumstance and supervision are sufficient to protect either him or public safety without significant intervention.”

Multiple juvenile witnesses have been subpoenaed for both hearings, according to court records.