Update on Dieneba Traore vs. State Retrial Motion Hearing

Dieneba Traore’s retrial motion took place on Friday, August 8, 2025. During the motion, it was revealed that the state’s expert testimony regarding the cell tower analyst report contained fraudulent and inaccurate information. Special Agent Fowler repeatedly failed to follow the proper procedures and protocols required for presenting cell tower data in a court of law.

● The cell tower analyst report states that the tower ID used to link Dieneba Traore and Wyketa Burgess to the crime scene is located on U Street in Northwest D.C. Despite this, prosecutors connected Dieneba Traore and Wyketa Burgess to a shooting in Howard County, Maryland. U Street, Washington, D.C., is approximately 30-40 miles from Howard County, Maryland. The report incorrectly relied on this cell tower data to establish the defendants’ presence at the crime scene, although the tower is nowhere near it. This discrepancy came to light only after the trial, on July 1, 2025, through the prosecution’s state attorney.

● During the trial, jurors questioned why the times listed in the report regarding Dieneba’s and Wyketa’s whereabouts were inaccurate. On the stand, the officer admitted under oath that he had not followed AT&T’s prescribed procedure for properly obtaining historical cell tower call detail records. Instead, he testified that the data in the report came from an internal system that provides tower information independently of AT&T. Records from this system were not disclosed to the defense until July 1, 2025, five days after the trial had concluded.

● AT&T provides a statement regarding the Tower Search to Special Agent Fwler: “AT&T does not have historical records of cell site coverage. Your request was processed using current coverage information and when applicable, searched using the search radius shown in the header of your results. This record does not necessarily denote that a particular customer was located in a designated geographical area. The results denote that a particular transaction was processed through a specific tower or towers. Other towers or network elements may be used to complete a transaction that are not displayed on this record. Please exercise caution when using these records for investigative purposes.”

● Special Agent Fowler testified that the final cell tower report had been peer reviewed as it was presented in court. However, no peer review signature, required to confirm and validate the review, was attached to the report at the time it was used as evidence. This omission raises questions about the report’s reliability and whether proper procedure was followed.

● In multiple emails, the Special Agent Fowler admitted that he could not determine the exact location of Dieneba’s phone at the time of the incident and further acknowledged that he could not guarantee Dieneba had the phone at that time. These admissions directly undermine the credibility and reliability of the phone evidence used in the case.

● The state relied heavily on the cell tower report as the foundation of its case. However, this report should have been deemed inadmissible in court, as it contained fraudulent and unreliable information.

● Wyketa Burgess’s motion hearing was held on August 6, 2025. Howard County’s Judicial system refused to move forward with her trial. Wyketa’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated, with the prosecution citing an ongoing investigation as the reason for the delay. Under Maryland Rule 4-271, a defendant is entitled to a trial within 180 days, yet this right was disregarded because the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence. The case against Wyketa Burgess rests on a wrongful and meritless conviction.

● After the trial, the prosecution introduced a third individual as being involved in the crime with Dieneba and Wyketa. To this day, that individual has not been arrested. Conflicting statements also exist regarding the alleged shooter’s appearance. Additionally, police raided the homes of the alleged shooter, Wyketa, Dieneba, and Dieneba’s mother, yet no incriminating evidence connected to the crime was found in any of the residences. No gun, no GSR, no vehicle tags, and no DNA associated to Dieneba or Wyketa at the crime scene has been found to this day.

● If a conviction was already secured in Dieneba’s case, why is Howard County unable to move forward with Wyketa’s case? The reason is that the prosecution’s theory rests entirely on Dieneba and Wyketa conspiring together, as alleged in the flawed cell tower report.

● During the proceedings, the judge questioned why the name of the alleged third individual who was with Dieneba and Wyketa is not included in the cell tower report. The cell tower report only listed a phone number, with no direct association to whose phone number Special Agent Fowler is referencing in court.

● According to the state attorney, the prosecution’s case relied solely on two pieces of evidence: the disputed cell tower report and a white vehicle that merely resembled Dieneba’s car.

● Almost a year has passed since the original incident occurred. No license tags, no gunman, no firearm, no GSR, no arrest of a gunman, no video footage of Dieneba or Wyketa at the crime scene and no witness ID of any suspects have been found tying Dieneba or Wyketa to any crime to this day.

Below are various quotes from Special Agent Fowler during the trial pertaining to Dieneba’s association to the crime scene:

-“Nothing in my analysis can pinpoint the exact location of a headset/cell phone”

-“There is no exact location I can provide specific to the phone number in question. But the measurement when reflected in the report is based on a calculation in time of how long it takes for the signal to travel from the cell tower to the phone and back.”

-“In this case, the Verizon tower list utilized was from October 24, T-mobile from September 24, and AT&T from October 24”

-“It does not mean that this shaded area, or even the arm are reflective of where the device is physically located. The device could be anywhere inside of the coverage area of the tower utilized when reviewing call detail records, data reports, or a timing advanced report with no distance measurement.”