SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION – FELONY BRANCH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 2008 CF1 29610

)
v. ) Judge Herbert B. Dixon, Jr.
)
CHARLES ELEGALAM ) Sentencing Date: January 13, 2011

GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING

The United States, by and through its attorney, the United States Attorney for the District

of Columbia, respectfully submits this memorandum in aid of sentencing. On November 4,

2010, a jury found the defendant guilty of First Degree Murder while Armed, Assault to Kill

while Armed, Aggravated Assault while Armed, three counts of Possession of a Firearm during a

Crime of Violence (“PFCOV”) and Carrying a Pistol without a License (“CPWL”) for brazenly

murdering Jason Fennell and repeatedly shooting Justin Fennell on August 12, 2008.

Considering the brutality and senseless nature of this murder and attempted murder of

two brothers, coupled with the defendant’s lack of remorse, the United States recommends the

Court sentence the defendant to a period of incarceration of not less than 59 years. Specifically,

the government recommends a sentence of 35 years incarceration for the murder of Jason Fennell

and 17 years incarceration for the shooting of Justin Fennell. Because these crimes involve

separate victims, the government recommends that the Court run these sentences consecutive to

each other.1 Additionally, the government recommends the Court sentence the defendant to a 5

years sentence as to each of the defendant’s three convictions for possession of a firearm during

those crime of violence, to be run concurrent to each other but consecutive to all other counts,

1
The defendant was also convicted of Aggravated Assault while Armed for the shooting
of Justin Fennell, which carries a guideline range of 6-12 years incarceration. The government is
not opposed to a sentence of 6 years incarceration for this offenses to be run concurrent with the
sentences for Assault with the Intent to Kill while Armed.
and a 2 years consecutive sentence for the defendant’s carrying of a pistol without a license.

In support of its recommendation, the government relies on the following points and

authorities, and such other points and authorities as may be cited at a sentencing hearing.

ARGUMENT

The government’s recommendation is appropriate for several reasons.

First, this was a particularly brutal murder. After a brief verbal argument over a cigarette

– which by all accounts had been resolved and after which the parties began walking – the

defendant shot at Jason Fennell repeatedly, hitting him once and dropping him to the ground.

The defendant shot Jason Fennell in the back, as Justin Fennell was initially walking away from

the defendant and then, after the sounds of gunshots, running away from the defendant in fear of

his life. Jason Fennell died on the sidewalk minutes later. The defendant’s actions were

appalling, and deserve appropriate punishment.

The mandatory minimum sentence of First Degree Murder while Armed is thirty years

incarceration. Given how brutal and senseless this murder was, the government respectfully

submits that sentencing the defendant to that absolute minimum would, quite simply, not capture

the horrific nature of the murder in this case. For that reason, the government is asking for a

sentence of 35 years incarceration on the First Degree Murder while Armed conviction alone.

Second, if it had been up to the defendant, he would killed twice that night, and he should

be punished accordingly. After he shot at Jason Fennell he turned towards the younger brother,

Justin Fennell, and opened fire. The defendant shot Justin Fennell between seven and twelve

times: his neck, his back, his rear end, and his legs. Moreover, the defendant only stopped

shooting after Justin Fennell had fallen to the ground and was playing dead before he fled –

-2-
demonstrating that the defendant’s intent was not to maim or injure, but to kill Justin Fennell.

Although Justin Fennell survived due to incredible medical intervention, the defendant should

not get the benefit of that medical intervention. The jury convicted the defendant of Assault with

the Intent to Kill, and it is the government’s view that the Court should sentence the defendant at

the top end of the guideline range (17 years) for this offense alone.

Additionally, the government believes that this 17 year sentence for the AWIK w/a

conviction should be run consecutive to the First Degree Murder w/a conviction. These two

convictions involve different victims. The Voluntary Sentencing Guidelines contemplates that

these sentences would be run consecutive. See Vol. Sentencing Guidelines § 6.1. In the

government’s view, running the sentences concurrently would be to ignore the injuries and

trauma sustained by Justin Fennell. Only consecutive sentences would capture the magnetite of

the defendant’s crimes in this matter.

Third, the defendant has never expressed remorse for murdering Jason Fennell and

attempting to murder Justin Fennell. To the contrary, later that same night the defendant was

boasting about the murder, saying to a friend, that he “had to pop off on a nigger.”2 If the

defendant’s actions by themselves did not deserve harsh punishment, his atrocious reaction to

having just murdered someone certainly does.

It bears noting that the government made several plea offers to the defendant throughout

the duration of this case – and indeed, even during the trial and after the jury deliberations began

2
This testimony was part of the government’s grand jury investigation, was disclosed to
the defendant pre-trial, and was referenced during the motions hearing in this case.

-3-
– all of which were squarely rejected.3 While of course that was his right, the Court should take

into consideration that the defendant spurned numerous opportunities to take responsibility for

his actions.

Indeed, this remains the case today. While he initially agreed to meet with the PSI writer,

he eventually refused “because he was asked to wait longer than he thought that he should” and

informed an officer “that he was in bed and would not report to the interview room.” See PSI

Report at 18. Accordingly, the defendant refused to provide any statement whatsoever to the PSI

writer about the facts of this case and certainly never expressed any sort of remorse for his

behavior in this case.

Fourth, this murder is, sadly, simply the latest in a series of criminal acts in the

defendant’s young life. The defendant was 21 when he was arrested in this case. He has been

arrested a stunning thirteen times, and has been now convicted five times. His record is replete

with ignored wake up calls and spurned opportunities at reform. He began his criminal career at

age 16, where he charged and adjudicated on a possession of an unregistered firearm case. He

was also placed on probation, and required to take anger management classes, but 7 months later

his probation was revoked. Then, again at age 16, the defendant was charged and adjudicated on

an ADW charge, and again placed on probation. Similarly, however, his probation was revoked

and he was detained at Oak Hill. Then, at age 17, the defendant was charged and adjudicated on

an Armed Robbery charge. This time, the defendant was committed to the custody of the

3
To be precise, after the motion hearing had begun in this case, the defendant did offer to
serve 12 years incarceration for the murder and shooting in this case. The government rejected
that offer.

-4-
Department of Youth and Rehabilitation Services (“DYRS”). Then, at age 19, the defendant was

convicted of Assault and Battery in Prince William, Virginia. He appears to have served six

months incarceration for that offense and a year of probation including (again) required anger

management classes. Then, at age 20, the defendant was convicted of simple assault in DC and

placed on probation again. That was revoked upon his arrest in this matter.4 Based on this

record, it should come as no surprise that the PSI Writer concluded that the defendant “is a huge

safety risk to the community” and that, if released, “will commit another crime of this magnitude

in the future.” See PSI Report at 24-25.

What makes this record particularly troubling is that the defendant cannot hide behind a

history of abuse or neglect or poverty. To the contrary, the defendant was raised in a solid, two-

parent family which he himself described as “loving.” See PSI Report at 19. He noted that his

“needs were met and that the family never struggled financially.” See PSI Report at 19. His

father is Dr. Charles C. Elegalam, Ph.D., a prominent member of the community and the

Executive Director of African Affairs, Inc., while his mother, Mrs. Akunna Elegalam, is a nurse

at Providence Hospital in Washington D.C. The defendant himself observed that “his parents

strived for excellence in the home, which left a very low tolerance for ‘bad grades and an

unwillingness to learn.’” See PSI Report at 19. The defendant himself graduated high school,

had been working at a security company prior to his arrest in this case, and was attending some

college courses. Accordingly, the defendant had a very real and significant opportunity to make

4
Additionally, the defendant appears to have an outstanding fugitive arrest warrant for
failing to appear in a case involving theft under $500 in Prince George’s County.

-5-
something of his life – an opportunity many defendants that come before this Court sadly cannot

claim. Rather than taking advantage of this opportunity to join the other members of his family

in being contributing members of the community, the defendant instead chose to squander it by

carrying a pistol and shooting two men in the back.

In conclusion, the government’s sentencing recommendation of at least 59 years

incarceration for this defendant is entirely appropriate. In such a case where the defendant

murdered one brother in cold blood by shooting him in the back and then attempted to murder a

second brother by shooting between seven and twelve times, and boasting about it afterwards, an

overall sentence of at least 59 years incarceration is certainly appropriate.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the government respectfully requests a sentence of

incarceration of not less than 59 years.

Respectfully submitted,

RONALD C. MACHEN JR.

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

SHARAD S. KHANDELWAL
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Columbia
Homicide Section
555 4th Street, N.W., Suite 9417
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 252-7091 (Tel)
(202) 353-9415 (Fax)

-6-
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing to be served by e-mail this 29th day
of December, 2010:

Lisbeth Sapirstein, Esq.

________________________________
SHARAD S. KHANDELWAL
Assistant United States Attorney