A teenager in Newport News, VA, was sentenced to 113 years based on contradictory testimony and flawed evidence. We demand a full investigation, transparency, and a path to justice.

At just 16 years old, a child in Newport News, Virginia, was arrested in connection to a 2023 shooting. By age 17, he was sentenced by Judge Bryant L. Sugg to 113 years in prison — not for murder, and without any co-defendants. This sentence was imposed despite serious gaps in evidence, investigative irregularities, and deeply concerning courtroom practices.

This child was not treated fairly — he was made an example.

The investigation began with the victim’s family, not law enforcement. They accessed the victim’s Instagram account and presented a theory that led detectives to focus on one username — assumed to belong to the child. No one verified who controlled the account at the time of the crime, even though multiple devices and IP addresses were associated with it.

Although the child was never identified as the shooter, the prosecution shifted tactics — arguing instead that he had “set up” the victim. But this theory was built on speculation, not facts. Instagram messages showed that the victim asked the child to meet up, not the other way around. Additionally, direct messages not revealed in court show the victim exchanged threats with another Instagram user just hours before the shooting — a separate individual who was never investigated or mentioned at trial. In a different instance, the victim initially stated that a second person was present during the incident, but when presented with a photo lineup, he failed to identify anyone and later claimed he did not know who the second person was. Despite these conflicting accounts and the absence of any evidence suggesting coordination or planning, the prosecution’s vague “setup” theory was used to justify extreme charges and ultimately impose a 113-year sentence.

The victim initially told police that the Instagram user did not shoot him. Only after hospitalization, while sedated and under pressure from Newport News Detective Dodge, was the victim shown a video (not a traditional photo lineup). He then identified the child based on a beige hoodie — a detail never previously mentioned.

The video used to make that identification was years old, yet it was shown in court to support the narrative. The jury never saw the actual hospital footage showing the victim alert and aware, asking for help. According to the family, medical care was delayed until the victim made an identification.

Marijuana allegedly stolen during the incident was actually recovered from the victim’s own person and logged into evidence — but that truth was never shared with the jury. There were no fingerprints, no recovered weapon, and despite suggestions of accomplices, no other person was ever charged.

Everyone involved — including the victim — wore ski masks. The incident occurred at night in a poorly lit area. Still, the prosecution insisted the child was clearly identified and portrayed him as a close friend who had betrayed the victim. But under oath, the victim stated he had never met the accused in person.

In a separate lineup, the victim picked out a completely different person, and the original warrant to seize digital evidence even named that individual. Yet the case was ultimately built around the child instead.

Juvenile court proceedings were overseen by Judge Shawn Overby, who allowed inconsistent and shifting testimony to proceed. At trial, Commonwealth’s Attorney Josh Jenkins painted the teen as manipulative — despite no direct evidence tying him to the crime. Then came sentencing: Judge Bryant Sugg, known for harsh punishments against juveniles, imposed 113 years — with only 10 suspended. In another case, he gave a 16-year-old 240 years, suspending all but 45.

We demand:

A full, independent review of the investigation, trial, and sentencing
Public release of all suppressed video and digital evidence 

Accountability from the Newport News Police Department and prosecutors
A path to appeal, clemency, or sentence reconsideration for the teen

This is not about guilt or innocence alone. It’s about fairness. It’s about due process. And it’s about whether we believe children — especially Black children — deserve a chance at life beyond bars.

Sign and share this petition. Help us demand transparency, justice, and humanity.