Judge Suppressed Evidence in Cleveland Murder Trial
A judge ruled that items seized under an improper warrant cannot be used against defendant Dionte Davis.
Updated on Oct. 13, 2026 in Financial Crime
Judge David Matia of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas ruled to suppress evidence in the ongoing murder trial of Dionte Davis and Dojuan Nettles. The suppressed items include a laptop, cell phone, and memory stick, all of which were seized during an arrest involving an improper warrant.
Why it matters
The ruling limits the prosecution's ability to use specific physical evidence previously tied to the suspects. Despite the exclusion of these items, the case against the men, who face charges including aggravated murder, continues.
The court suppressed evidence including a cell phone, laptop, memory stick, book bag, and water bottle following a ruling by Judge David Matia. Dionte Davis and Dojuan Nettles remain on trial for charges including aggravated murder and kidnapping.
The players
David Matia
He is a judge at the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas presiding over the criminal proceedings.
Dionte Davis
He is a defendant in the murder trial who was arrested in August 2025.
Dojuan Nettles
He is a defendant in the murder trial who was arrested in July 2025.
Brandon Cartellone
He was the 21-year-old victim who died by asphyxia in 2011.
The details
Prosecutors have previously stated that DNA evidence linked both Dionte Davis and Dojuan Nettles to the murder of 21-year-old Brandon Cartellone, who died by asphyxia in his Tremont apartment. The defense successfully argued that the physical items were collected through an improper arrest warrant, prompting the judge to remove them from the court record.
Timeline
July 26, 2011: Brandon Cartellone was murdered in his apartment.
July 27, 2011: The victim was discovered dead by his girlfriend.
July 2025: Dojuan Nettles was taken into custody.
August 2025: Dionte Davis was arrested.
October 13, 2026: Judge David Matia ruled to suppress the evidence.
Legal Context
The ruling follows the Mapp v. Ohio exclusionary rule, which prevents evidence obtained through unconstitutional means from being introduced at trial. Such decisions highlight the ongoing judicial focus on protecting Fourth Amendment rights during the evidence collection process.
Residents may observe continued activity and heightened security at the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas as the trial proceeds. The court's ruling serves as a reminder of the procedural standards required by local agencies during criminal investigations.
The takeaway
Evidence collection must strictly adhere to warrant requirements to ensure it is admissible in court proceedings. This case demonstrates how procedural errors by law enforcement can lead to the loss of evidence before a trial concludes.
Further reading
For more on legal proceedings and judicial rulings, visit the Financial Crime section.
