In its Response, the Government relies on misstatements facts and inflated inferences to support a conviction on the three counts. The Government repeatedly asserts that certain surveillance footage shows an individual at 50 West Armory wearing a “maroon jacket” similar to the one being worn by one of the suspects on the U-Haul video, without so much as ever acknowledging the problematic fact that the video from 50 West Armory was in color and the owner of the store said the jacket was blue, not maroon. Opp. 4-5, 9.
The Government also tries to make something out of a couple of items found at Mr. Holmes’ apartment, namely, a pair of jeans, a pair of black UGG boots, and a maroon jacket, all of which, the Government contends, “were perfectly consistent with the items plainly worn by the individual who first approached 50 West Armory.” Opp. 16. But once again, the Government’s characterization of the evidence is substantially off the mark. To start, the individual who first approached 50 …show more content…
For example,

1. The Government says Ms. Shuler identified Holmes as the getaway driver. Opp. 8, 15. But Ms. Shuler never said that. She said that she and Holmes were asleep in the back of the van and then described how the two of them moved to the front of the van while Quarles and Jones were inside the store. According to Ms. Shuler, she and Holmes made the move to the front of the van because she got cold.

2. The Government says she testified that she saw the receipt book inside the 77 H St, NW apartment in the presence of Jones, Holmes, and Quarles. Opp. 7. But Ms. Shuler actually said she saw the receipt book on the counter but never specified where Holmes was in the