Dawaun Lewis faces five charges as courts prepare to test surveillance footage, physical evidence and an unresolved second man’s role.
PHILADELPHIA — The case against Dawaun Lewis has entered the courts with a murder charge, graphic surveillance evidence and major unanswered questions about what preceded Keisha Furlow’s death and whether another man played any part in the attack.
Lewis, 30, was arrested June 10, three days after police found Furlow dead in a North Philadelphia alley. He is charged with murder, robbery inflicting serious bodily injury, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property and possessing an instrument of crime with intent. Police say surveillance footage shows an attacker beating Furlow with a brick, stomping on her and leaving with her purse. Prosecutors must now convert that police account into evidence that meets courtroom rules, while the defense will have the opportunity to challenge the identification and each element of the charges.
The first major court stage is a preliminary hearing, which was initially listed for June 29. Such a hearing does not decide whether a defendant is guilty. A judge considers whether prosecutors have presented enough evidence to establish that crimes probably occurred and that the accused was probably involved. The standard is lower than the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required at trial. Prosecutors may rely on testimony from a homicide detective who summarizes the investigation rather than calling every witness. The defense can cross-examine that witness, attack gaps in the account and argue that one or more charges should be dismissed.
Public reports did not establish whether the hearing occurred on its original date or was rescheduled. Postponements are common in serious criminal cases, particularly when attorneys need time to review video, laboratory reports and extensive police records. Lewis had been scheduled for an arraignment after his arrest, but no plea or detailed defense statement had been publicly reported. Court records cited in early coverage did not identify an attorney authorized to discuss the case. Lewis is presumed innocent, and the filing of charges does not establish that he committed the offenses alleged by police.
The surveillance recording is likely to be one of the prosecution’s most important exhibits. Investigators said it appears to show a man approach Furlow with a brick in his hand near the 2600 block of North 24th Street at about 1:59 a.m. June 7. The man throws her to the ground, strikes her repeatedly in the head and stomps on her face and chest, according to police descriptions. He then takes her purse and leaves. The complete recording has not been publicly released, so its clarity, duration and camera angle cannot be independently assessed from the available account.
Before a recording can be used in court, prosecutors generally must establish that it fairly represents what it claims to show. That may require testimony from the camera owner, a detective who collected the file or another person familiar with the system. Lawyers may examine whether the footage was copied correctly, whether its timestamp was accurate and whether any part is missing. Identification presents a separate issue. A person may be recognizable from facial features, clothing, movement or comparison with other recordings. Police said Lewis was the man shown in surveillance images released to the public, but they have not explained how that identification was made.
Physical evidence could strengthen or complicate the video account. Officers found Furlow in a rear alley near North Opal Street with severe facial and bodily injuries. She was pronounced dead there, and authorities determined that blunt force trauma caused her death. Two bloodied bricks were recovered close to the body. Police believe they were used in the attack. Investigators may test them for fingerprints, DNA or trace material, but no results have been announced. A forensic pathologist may also compare Furlow’s injuries with the size, shape and surfaces of the bricks to determine whether they are consistent with the alleged weapons.
Furlow’s purse supplies evidence for the robbery and theft counts. Police said the attacker carried it away and that officers later found it emptied several blocks from the alley. Prosecutors could use its location to support the surveillance timeline or show the direction in which the person fled. They may also present evidence about any missing contents. Authorities have not identified those items, said whether they were recovered or disclosed whether Lewis possessed anything belonging to Furlow when he was arrested. Without those details, the public cannot yet evaluate how directly the property evidence connects him to the alleged robbery.
The relationship between the killing and theft may shape the prosecution’s legal theory. If prosecutors argue that the attack was carried out to obtain Furlow’s purse, the robbery could help explain motive and intent. If they contend that the purse was taken after an independently motivated assault, they may need to describe a different sequence. Public statements have not established whether the attacker demanded the purse, whether Furlow resisted a robbery or whether the decision to take it came later. Police also have not said that Furlow and Lewis knew each other or had any prior dispute.
The murder charge itself may develop as prosecutors review the evidence. Pennsylvania law allows different theories of criminal homicide, including intentional killing and killings committed during certain felonies. Early court records reported a general murder count but did not provide a full prosecution filing explaining the intended theory. Prosecutors can sometimes pursue alternatives until a judge requires greater specificity. The distinction matters because each form of murder has different elements. The number of blows, the alleged stomping, the use of bricks and the removal of the purse may all become part of arguments about intent.
The instrument-of-crime count will require prosecutors to connect an object to criminal purpose. An ordinary brick is not illegal to possess, but it can become an instrument of crime if a person holds or uses it with the intent to commit an offense. Video showing the object in an attacker’s hand may support that allegation. Forensic evidence or witness testimony could provide additional support. The defense may argue that the images do not clearly identify the object or the person carrying it. The court will have to consider the evidence actually presented rather than the conclusions contained in public descriptions.
One of the largest unresolved issues concerns a second man reportedly mentioned by police. Authorities have not identified him, released a photograph or described any specific act. It is unknown whether he was inside the alley, nearby on the street or captured only before or after the assault. Police have not called him an accomplice in a formal charging document made public, and no second arrest has been announced. His presence could matter as a source of testimony, an alternate suspect or a possible participant, but each possibility remains unproven.
Criminal responsibility requires more than simply being near another person who commits a crime. To establish accomplice liability, prosecutors generally need evidence that someone intentionally aided or encouraged the offense. A person who merely witnessed an attack may face no charge, although investigators would likely seek an interview. Video, phone data, statements and movements after the event could help define the second man’s role. Until police provide more detail, the lack of an arrest should not be treated as proof that he was involved or cleared.
The investigation moved quickly after police released images June 10 of a man wanted for questioning. The department asked for public assistance, warned people not to approach him and referred to the city’s $20,000 homicide reward. Lewis was taken into custody later that day in the 2100 block of Girard Avenue. Police have not said whether a citizen’s tip led officers there or whether detectives located him through other means. The origin of the identification could become relevant if the defense challenges the reliability of the process.
Outside the courtroom, Furlow’s family and community have faced a loss that legal procedure cannot measure. Furlow was 45 and had four children, including an 11-month-old, according to relatives and local reports. Mourners placed candles and flowers near the alley. Family friend Alexis Stackhouse said it was difficult to see a neighborhood where she had grown up become the site of such violence. The memorial provided a public reminder that the case concerns more than evidence disputes and legal definitions.
Prosecutors will eventually have to disclose evidence to the defense under court rules. That process could include surveillance files, photographs, forensic reports, police interviews and records connected to the purse. Defense attorneys may seek their own experts or ask a judge to exclude evidence they contend was improperly obtained or unfairly prejudicial. If the case reaches trial, jurors would be instructed to decide it only from admitted evidence and to maintain the presumption of innocence unless the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
For now, the public record establishes an arrest, five charges and a police account supported by video and objects recovered from two locations. It does not establish what Lewis may say in response, what forensic tests found or who the second man was. Those gaps will define the next stage as the case moves from allegations announced by police to evidence examined in court.
Author note: Last updated July 12, 2026.