Nashville police say digital analysis connected two Murfreesboro suspects to a fatal pursuit that began after a college gymnastics event.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A five-month examination of cellphone information helped Nashville homicide detectives identify two young men now charged in the highway shooting death of Fisk University basketball player Andre Bell, police said.
The Metropolitan Nashville Police Department has provided few technical details about the analysis, but investigators described it as extensive and central to the case against Brayden Carter, 19, and Damarion Coleman, 18. Police allege the two were at the Nashville Fairgrounds on Jan. 11, followed Bell and two teammates as they drove toward campus and were involved when multiple shots were fired into Bell’s car on Interstate 65. Both defendants face serious charges, and neither has been convicted.
Digital evidence can become especially important in a shooting that unfolds across several locations. In this case, investigators had to examine events at the fairgrounds, the route taken by Bell’s Nissan Sentra, the movement of a dark sedan and the gunfire near the Interstate 40 East junction. Cellphone records may help place devices within certain areas or reveal communications, but police have not said which records they obtained, how precise they were or what each defendant’s device allegedly showed.
The investigation began with a moving crime scene. Bell, 20, was driving north with two other Fisk students after volunteering at a university gymnastics meet. His passengers told police that a dark-colored sedan pulled beside them before shots entered their car. Bell was struck and taken to Vanderbilt University Medical Center, where he died Jan. 12. The sedan left, and detectives initially appealed to the public for information about the shooting.
Unlike a shooting confined to a building or parking lot, an attack between moving vehicles can leave evidence spread across a long route. Witnesses may see only a few seconds of activity. Traffic conditions, darkness, lane changes and highway exits can complicate descriptions. Investigators may have to combine physical evidence from the victim’s car with roadway cameras, witness statements, electronic records and information about where the vehicles had been before the shots were fired.
Police eventually concluded that the encounter did not begin as a random dispute between motorists. Their announced theory traces the events to the fairgrounds, where Bell and his teammates had been helping with a Fisk gymnastics event. Investigators allege Carter’s girlfriend was a member of the gymnastics team and that Carter was jealous when other men spoke with her. Carter and Coleman allegedly followed the students to scare them into staying away from her.
The department has not disclosed what evidence supports each part of that motive. It has not released messages, recordings or witness accounts showing what Carter allegedly said about the basketball players. Nor has it explained whether investigators believe a confrontation occurred inside the fairgrounds. The accusation that the two intended to scare the students is a police conclusion that will have to be supported through admissible evidence if the cases reach trial.
The cellphone analysis may help prosecutors argue that the defendants’ movements were not coincidental. Records can sometimes show that devices traveled from one place to another during the same period, but location evidence varies in accuracy. Data associated with a cellular tower does not necessarily place a person at one exact spot, while information from applications or other services may be more detailed. Police have not identified the type of data used here, and no court has yet ruled on its significance.
Communications could provide a different form of evidence. Calls, messages or online activity may show contact between suspects before or after an alleged offense, though the public reports do not say whether investigators obtained such material. The department has also not said whether the phones were seized, searched under warrants or examined through records provided by service companies. Those procedural details may emerge in court filings or hearings over the evidence.
The investigation produced different arrest operations for the two suspects. Detectives stopped Carter in Murfreesboro shortly after he left a home on Melodic Way. Police described the maneuver as a vehicle stop and reported finding a pistol inside the car. Coleman was arrested at a Chelanie Circle home by Murfreesboro Police Department SWAT officers. The department has not said why the tactical team was used for Coleman’s arrest or whether officers expected to find a weapon there.
Police announced the pistol recovered from Carter’s vehicle but stopped short of identifying it as the gun used in Bell’s killing. No public report has described a ballistic comparison between that firearm and evidence collected from Bell’s Nissan. Investigators have also not said whether they recovered cartridge cases from the highway, bullets from the vehicle or another gun during the five-month inquiry. The firearm’s evidentiary role therefore remains uncertain.
Several other core questions remain unanswered. Authorities have not publicly identified the shooter. They have not said who drove the dark sedan or whether both defendants were inside it when Bell was struck. They also have not disclosed whether anyone else was present during the alleged pursuit. The filing of charges indicates that prosecutors believe the available evidence supports criminal responsibility, but the public narrative does not yet describe the claimed actions of each defendant in detail.
Carter’s case has moved into the adult criminal system. A grand jury indicted him on one count of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted first-degree murder and three counts alleging use of a firearm during a dangerous felony. The attempted-murder counts concern Bell’s two passengers, who were exposed to the gunfire but were not reported wounded. A Criminal Court judge set Carter’s bond at $250,000.
Coleman faces the same allegations in Juvenile Court because he was 17 when the shooting occurred. His 18th birthday before the arrest did not change his age on the date of the alleged crimes. Police said he would be held pending a detention hearing. If prosecutors seek to try him as an adult, they would generally have to follow Tennessee procedures for transferring a juvenile case, but authorities had not publicly confirmed such a request in the material reviewed.
The split between the adult and juvenile proceedings may affect how much information becomes public. Adult indictments and hearings are generally easier for the public to track, while access to juvenile records may be more restricted. The two cases may also move at different speeds. Even so, prosecutors must establish the evidence against each defendant, and lawyers for Carter and Coleman may challenge searches, data interpretations, witness identifications and any claim of shared intent.
The alleged motive will be legally important because the charges go beyond an accidental discharge or reckless act. First-degree murder allegations may require prosecutors to prove the mental state and circumstances specified by Tennessee law. Police have said the suspects meant to frighten the students, but the precise prosecution theory has not been fully explained. Prosecutors may argue that conduct directed at an occupied vehicle supports the charged offenses even if the announced purpose was intimidation.
Bell’s passengers could be important witnesses to the highway portion of the case. They were in the Nissan when the sedan approached and shots were fired. Public accounts do not identify them, detail what they saw inside the other car or say whether they recognized anyone from the fairgrounds. Their statements may help establish the vehicles’ movements and the danger posed by the gunfire, but their full accounts have not been released.
Other witnesses may help connect the fairgrounds to the interstate. Gymnastics participants, spectators, volunteers or security personnel could have observed interactions before Bell left. Surveillance systems at or near the venue might also provide timing or vehicle information. Police have not described any such evidence, and its existence should not be assumed. The only investigative method highlighted in the arrest announcement was the cellphone-data work.
Bell was more than the endpoint of that digital trail. Fisk identified him as a sophomore business administration student and a member of its men’s basketball team. He came from Jackson, Tennessee, and was listed as a 6-foot-4 small forward. Athletic Director Valencia Jordan said he was a scholar and an integral member of the program. He had volunteered at the gymnastics meet before beginning the drive back to campus.
His family said the arrests brought a measure of comfort but could not erase the pain of his death. Their statement came after months in which no suspect had been publicly named. The shift from an unsolved shooting to a prosecuted case gives the family a possible path toward answers, but it also begins a legal process that can be lengthy and uncertain.
The next stage will test the evidence that led detectives from a dark sedan on a Nashville interstate to two arrests in Murfreesboro. No trial date had been announced, and police had not released a complete evidentiary timeline. Carter and Coleman remain presumed innocent unless proven guilty, while Bell’s family and the Fisk community await the court’s examination of the case.
Author note: Last updated July 15, 2026.