Markeisha Burns-Cross testified without a completed plea deal before resolving her own first-degree murder case.
SAGINAW, Mich. — A woman whose testimony helped convict her former boyfriend of a fatal Michigan ambush has been sentenced to 10 to 30 years after entering a no-contest plea to second-degree murder.
Markeisha Burns-Cross, 27, occupied two positions in the prosecution of Devon L. Williams’ killing: a defendant accused of helping arrange the confrontation and a witness who described the gunman’s actions from inside the room. Her account supported the first-degree murder case against Zakeem F. Jones, who received life without parole. Burns-Cross later avoided a trial on the same top charge by accepting responsibility for second-degree murder, while prosecutors dismissed the remaining weapons counts.
When Burns-Cross took the witness stand during Jones’ trial, her own future was unresolved. She still faced five criminal charges, including first-degree murder, and public accounts said no plea agreement was in place. That circumstance gave both sides reasons to examine her testimony closely. Prosecutors relied on her direct knowledge of the hours before the killing and her presence during the shooting. The defense could question whether she hoped to benefit from helping the state. Jurors nevertheless accepted a case that included her account, crime-scene evidence and the circumstances of Jones’ later arrest. They convicted him in January 2026 of premeditated murder and several firearm felonies.
Burns-Cross traced the case to an argument with Jones on March 29, 2023. The couple had come from Indiana to Michigan for a family event and spent part of the evening drinking in Bay City. Burns-Cross said they argued over Jones’ communications with other women. She responded by contacting Williams, a former partner with whom she shared a child. The messages included a plan to meet. Jones later examined her phone and found the conversation. According to Burns-Cross, he became enraged and told her to continue arranging the meeting. The messages that began during an argument then became evidence of how Jones located Williams and why prosecutors believed jealousy motivated the shooting.
Burns-Cross and Jones traveled to Williams’ duplex in Buena Vista Township during the overnight hours. Jones had a 9 mm handgun and wanted Williams brought outside, prosecutors said. Burns-Cross went into the residence, where Williams was caring for several children. When she did not lead him outside, Jones entered behind her. Williams was sitting at a table. A prosecutor said his facial expression changed when he looked up and saw Jones. Williams tried to leave through the front door, but it was locked. Jones fired repeatedly. Burns-Cross testified that she heard “pop, pop, pop” and felt the heat of the gunfire near her face. Williams fell and later died at a hospital.
Her description connected the earlier argument to the physical evidence found in the home. Investigators recovered multiple shell casings and bullet fragments, supporting the conclusion that several shots had been fired. Williams was unarmed. Prosecutors said he had no warning that Jones considered him a rival and no knowledge that an armed man was traveling to his home. The state described the killing as a premeditated ambush rather than a confrontation that unexpectedly became violent. Williams’ blocked attempt to reach the door, the gun Jones carried to the address and the plan to draw Williams outside all became parts of the prosecution’s theory of advance intent.
Burns-Cross’ testimony also established her own involvement. She had exchanged the messages that led to the meeting, traveled with Jones and entered Williams’ home before the gunman followed. She was not accused of pulling the trigger, but the state charged her under a theory that treated her assistance as participation in the killing. Her decision to testify did not erase those allegations. Instead, it allowed prosecutors to present an insider’s narrative against Jones while preserving the separate case against her. The legal strategy produced two different resolutions: a jury verdict imposing the most serious level of homicide liability on Jones and a negotiated second-degree murder conviction for Burns-Cross.
After leaving Williams on the floor, Burns-Cross and Jones fled Michigan and returned to Indiana. Their shared flight ended long before their legal cases did. Burns-Cross was arrested in July 2023, while Jones remained outside Michigan custody for more than a year. Authorities obtained Jones in September 2024 when he was released from an Illinois prison following an unrelated case. He was extradited to Saginaw County, where prosecutors could finally move toward trial. The delay gave investigators time to assemble testimony and physical evidence but also meant Williams’ relatives waited through multiple stages before either defendant was convicted.
Jones’ jury trial resolved the central factual dispute over the gunman’s intent. First-degree premeditated murder required jurors to find more than an impulsive killing. Prosecutors pointed to the handgun, Jones’ reaction to the messages, the demand that Burns-Cross lure Williams outside and the interstate trip to the residence. They said Jones wanted to obliterate the competition, presenting jealousy as the reason he deliberately pursued a man who did not know he was in danger. The jury returned guilty verdicts in January. The mandatory punishment for the murder count left the sentencing judge without the option of setting a term that could lead to parole.
At the March sentencing, Saginaw County Circuit Judge Andre R. Borrello ordered Jones to spend the rest of his life in prison without parole. He added three consecutive two-year firearm sentences and ordered $1,218 in financial penalties. Williams’ mother, Shontele Lockett, addressed the court remotely and said Jones had shown no regret for killing someone he did not know. Jones gave her little reason to revise that view. Offered a chance to speak, he said, “I’m cool, man. It is what it is.” People in the courtroom applauded after the sentence, prompting the judge to call the proceeding back to order.
Burns-Cross then approached a scheduled April settlement conference with Jones’ conviction already secured partly through her testimony. She entered a no-contest plea to second-degree murder. Such a plea permits a conviction without a conventional guilty plea and is often used when a defendant does not wish to make a full admission but agrees that the prosecution has sufficient evidence for judgment. The court dismissed the first-degree murder charge and the associated weapons allegations. That distinction was decisive. A first-degree conviction could have produced mandatory life without parole, while second-degree murder allowed the judge to impose a sentence with a minimum and maximum term.
The court chose 10 to 30 years. The minimum means Burns-Cross cannot simply leave prison after a fixed short period, and the maximum allows continued confinement if release is not approved. Public reports did not provide a detailed breakdown of sentencing credits or a projected first parole date. They also did not identify specific concessions, if any, tied to her earlier testimony. What is clear is that cooperation did not result in immunity or dismissal of the homicide case. Burns-Cross remains convicted of murder and faces at least a decade in custody despite helping prosecutors prove that Jones intentionally killed Williams.
The sequence illustrates how one participant’s testimony can divide a joint criminal case without removing that participant’s exposure. Burns-Cross gave the jury facts available to few other witnesses, including Jones’ reaction to her phone and the moments directly before the gunfire. Prosecutors used those facts to establish planning and motive. They then relied on many of the same events to support her own criminal responsibility. Her cooperation made her valuable as a witness, while her transportation, communications and entry into the home kept her within the state’s theory of the murder.
The court outcomes also formalized a hierarchy of responsibility. Jones received the system’s harshest punishment because jurors found that he planned and personally carried out the shooting. Burns-Cross received a term of years after accepting a lesser murder charge. Williams’ role remained unchanged throughout the competing testimony and legal negotiations. He was unarmed, inside a home with children and unaware that the couple’s private dispute had placed his life at risk. He died at 33 and left five children, including the child he shared with Burns-Cross.
Jones is now serving life without parole, and Burns-Cross is serving a 10-to-30-year sentence. Future appellate filings or parole decisions may create additional proceedings, but the prosecutions that once depended on Burns-Cross’ testimony have ended with murder convictions for both defendants.
Author note: Last updated July 12, 2026.