Washington was found guilty in 2023 and sentenced to life in prison for shooting Colston, 21, eight times in a vehicle parked on U.S. 90 near Jones Road. He was also found guilty of one count possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He received a 20-year sentence on that charge.

Karrington Henry, the driver accused of bringing Washington to the scene, testified that Washington told Colston he needed his help to commit a robbery. The pair agreed to meet on U.S. 90 outside of the Iowa, La., city limits. Henry said he borrowed his sister’s car and drove Washington to meet Colston.

“Dorian pulled up behind my car, Jermaine got out and got in the car with Dorian,” Henry testified. “A few minutes later, Jermaine called for me to pull back up.” Henry said when Colston returned, Washington shot him multiple times then got back in the passenger seat of Henry’s car.

“He killed Dorian right then,” Henry testified. “I saw the flames from the gun and Jermaine getting out of the car. Dorian’s car hit me from the back so I pulled up some and then Dorian’s car went into the ditch.”

Henry said after the shooting, the pair drove to Opelousas Street, where Jackson threw the murder weapon into a storm drain. The weapon was later recovered by the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office.

Prosecutor Charles Robinson said Washington killed Colston in exchange for a $5,000 payment from Josiah Jackson — who wanted Colston killed due to a tip off that Colston was intending to rob him. Henry testified he received $2,000 of that payment for his role as the driver and for damage done to his sister’s car.

Calcasieu Coroner Dr. Terry Welke testified Colston was shot in the chest, shoulder, hip, bicep, elbow and arm from someone standing outside of the passenger side of the vehicle.

In addition to the witnesses directly involved with the events of the murder, Robinson also introduced two witnesses who previously claimed to have spoken to Washington regarding the murder while incarcerated. Devonte Stevens testified first, having given a statement to detectives on March 17, 2020, that was video recorded. Stevens was housed one cell over from Washington. At trial, though, Stevens claimed he did not recall the contents of this meeting nor any of his statements.

Chad Levier testified afterwards, stating he was incarcerated in the same cell block as Washington. He admitted he had told law enforcement while he was incarcerated that Washington had told him he killed Colston; however, at trial he testified this had all been a lie.

Washington was convicted by an unanimous jury and sentenced to life in prison without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence for murder and 20 years for the firearm count. Both sentences are to run concurrently.

Washington appealed his conviction citing the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for mistrial due to the prejudicial conduct that took place inside and outside of the courtroom. The second day of trial began with a scolding by Judge Robert Wyatt after jurors told a bailiff they had felt uncomfortable the day before when family members who had appeared in the courtroom on Monday congregated in the parking lot after court was dismissed, some actually leaning against jurors’ vehicles. The families of both Washington and Colston were asked to leave the courtroom so that each juror could be individually interviewed by the prosecution and defense.

Three of the jurors told Wyatt it was actually members of Colston’s family who were making them uncomfortable — not Washington’s supporters.

In his appeal, Washington contends that allegations of jury tampering conducted by members of Colston’s family in the court parking lot caused rumors, which created discomfort for several jurors.The prosecution, however, countered the incident was “blown out of proportion” and that no prejudice was actually proven in this case.

“Not a single juror stated that incident would have any bearing on his or her deliberations, nor did any juror say he or she was actually intimidated,” the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal wrote in its denial of Washington’s claim. “Most surprisingly to the trial court, not a single juror connected the individuals to Washington.”

Washington also claimed the court erred in allowing video evidence of Stevens’ recorded video interview to be introduced during a CPSO deputy’s testimony instead of Stevens’ testimony, violating the appellant’s right to confrontation and cross-examination.

Stevens’ video recording was shown to jurors the day after he testified as CPSO Det. Travis Lavergne was on the stand.

Washington’s attorney objected to this due to confrontation clause issues, emphasizing his concern that such a move would prohibit him from confronting Stevens regarding his statements. The trial court overruled this objection, as well as Washington’s separate request for a limiting instruction, but arranged for Stevens to be brought back for questioning.

“The trial court reasoned that this offered Washington the chance to cross-examine him after the video was played,” the appeals court ruled. “Stevens arrived later that day, but when the trial court asked the defense whether he wanted to keep him around for cross-examination, the attorney specifically said, ‘I have no reason to keep Mr. Stevens.’

“Washington had the opportunity to cross-examine Stevens concerning the recorded statement and expressly opted not to do so,” the appeals court stated in denying Washington’s claim. “This claim is meritless.”

The court also noted that when confronted with the video recording of his statement to police given at the time, Stevens insisted he did not remember giving the statement but confirmed he had seen the recording and that it did not look edited or altered in any way.

Washington also claimed the trial court erred in allowing expert testimony from Lavergne regarding cell phone mapping. He argued that Lavergne lacks sufficient knowledge or training on the matter, pointing out he has not been previously certified as an expert and only began seeking the relevant certifications in 2018. He also admitted during the trial his desire to seek further training.

The appeals court also ruled this claim was without merit.