Local
‘Outrage’ as killer gets 12 years
Court records unsealed; gay victim shot 5 times at point-blank range
The United States Attorney’s office this week reversed an earlier decision to seal court records showing the outcome of its case against two young men charged with first-degree murder while armed for the January 2010 shooting death of gay Maryland resident Gordon Rivers in Southeast Washington.
At the request of the U.S. Attorney’s office, a D.C. Superior Court judge on Wednesday unsealed records showing that District resident William X. Wren, 18, had been sentenced on Jan. 26 to 12 years in prison after pleading guilty to shooting Rivers five times at point-blank range inside Rivers’ car during a botched robbery.
Wren, who was 17 at the time of the murder, was charged as an adult.
The unsealed records show that Wren agreed to plead guilty last October in exchange for a government offer to lower the charge against him from first-degree felony murder while armed to second-degree murder while armed. Wren also agreed to plead guilty to charges of conspiracy to kidnap Rivers while armed with co-defendant Anthony Hager, 23, and conspiracy to rob Rivers while armed with a firearm. Hager was 22 at the time of the murder.
Judge Herbert Dixon also sentenced Wren to seven years on the two conspiracy charges but agreed to a request by Wren’s defense lawyer to allow the two sentences to run concurrently, limiting the total time served to 12 years.
The U.S. Attorney’s office moved to have the court records unsealed following inquires by the Washington Blade, which discovered through unsealed court records that the government dropped its case against Hager, who was also charged with first-degree murder while armed in the River’s killing.
“The U.S. Attorney’s Office determined that there was probable cause to arrest Anthony Hager in the murder of Mr. Rivers,” said William Miller, a spokesperson for the office. “However, the office later concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to meet the higher legal standard that is required to obtain and sustain a conviction.”
Miller noted that at the government’s request, the court dismissed the case “without prejudice,” which allows prosecutors to reinstate charges against Hager in the future if more evidence surfaces.
“The murder case remains under investigation,” he said.
Miller declined to disclose why prosecutors chose to seal the court records in the case against Wren, saying issues surrounding the sealing of cases are considered confidential. However, knowledgeable sources familiar with criminal cases before the D.C. Superior Court said cases are often sealed when defendants agree to cooperate with the government in the prosecution of another person charged with a crime. Such cooperation could potentially place a defendant at risk for retaliation, according to the sources, and sealing a case can sometimes protect the safety of the cooperating defendant.
Victims’ rights groups have sometimes complained that the sealing of cases also prevents the public from learning whether violent criminals are being prosecuted and sentenced appropriately.
Chris Farris, former co-chair of the D.C. group Gays and Lesbians Opposing Violence, said he was “outraged” that Wren could receive just 12 years for committing a murder and that Hager could get off “completely free” in the Rivers’ murder.
“Take away the gay angle, take away the history of hate crimes against our community, take away everything else, and I just find it incredibly stunning that one person in the case of a murder of someone who was fired on at point blank range five times gets 12 years in jail,” Farris said.
Court documents filed by the government and the defense in the case show that Hager allegedly conspired with Wren to force Rivers at gunpoint to drive the two to Rivers’ house in Maryland, where they planned to rob him of his valuables and steal his two vehicles. But the documents show that that Wren shot Rivers before Hager had a chance to enter the car.
Court records also show that authorities revoked Hager’s parole from an unrelated conviction for armed robbery in 2005 after learning of his arrest in the Rivers case. Miller said the parole revocation resulted in Hager being ordered to serve two more years for the earlier conviction.
Under the D.C. criminal code, Wren faced a possible maximum sentence of 70 years in prison for second-degree murder while armed with a firearm. First-degree murder while armed carries a maximum sentence of 90 years in prison under D.C. law.
Separate sentencing memorandums submitted by the defense and the U.S. Attorney’s Office asked Judge Dixon to consider mitigating factors that would justify a sentence significantly lower than the maximum sentence provided by law. Among other things, the two pointed to Wren’s cooperation with the government in the prosecution of Hager before the U.S. Attorney’s office decided to drop its case against Hager.
Defense attorney Spencer Hecht also states in his sentencing memorandum that Wren recounted that Rivers paid him for sexual encounters at Rivers’ house in Brandywine, Md., during a one-year period prior to the murder. Hecht’s sentencing memo says the sexual encounters began when Wren was 16.
“While the defendant unequivocally accepts responsibility for his extremely serious and dangerous conduct, and is extremely remorseful for taking the life of another, he offers the nature of his relationship with the decedent in mitigation,” Hecht says in his sentencing memo.
“The decedent was someone who preyed on the defendant’s youth, immaturity, and impressionability for a substantial period of time,” the memo says. “On frequent occasions, the decedent would contact the defendant and pay him to perform sex acts upon him. This is nothing less than child sexual abuse and rape – offenses which carry significant prison sentences.”
Hecht provides no evidence or substantiation of the alleged sexual encounters between Rivers and Wren other than Wren’s claim that they occurred. The sentencing memo doesn’t say where the two met or under what circumstances, only that the two met after Wren’s mother kicked him out of her home “because her live-in girlfriend believed the defendant a troublemaker.” His estrangement with his mother resulted in his having no fixed address, the memo says.
“It was during this period of time that the defendant began using and selling drugs and committing robberies of known drug dealers to support himself,” according to Hecht’s sentencing memo. “It was also during this period of time that the defendant met the decedent Gordon Rivers (aka ‘Mr. G’), when he (‘Mr. G’) propositioned him (the defendant) for paid sex,” it says.
The memo also states that Wren moved into a row house where his girlfriend lived at 2409 S St., S.E., seven months prior to the murder, saying his girlfriend’s residence provided him with a stable home. It says he has two children with his girlfriend, Breana Smith, with whom he had been in a relationship for two years at the time of the murder.
Gay activists have long complained that defendants who target gay men for assault, robbery and murder have often claimed, after being charged with such crimes, that the victim made a sexual pass at them that prompted them to assault or kill the victim in self-defense. Gay rights attorneys, who describe such a claim as the “gay panic defense,” have said prosecutors often lack the training or understanding to adequately contest this defense tactic.
Hecht did not return calls to his office seeking comment on the case and on his client’s allegations of sexual encounters between Wren and Rivers.
Miller, the spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office, said he could not comment on whether his office considered Hecht’s allegations in the sentencing memo as an attempt to invoke the gay panic defense.
In its own sentencing memorandum, the U.S. Attorney’s Office recommended that the court sentence Wren to the “middle range” of sentences available to a court for the offenses to which Wren pleaded guilty. The government sentencing memo recommends that Dixon sentence Wren to some jail time but doesn’t object to the defense recommendation that he be sentenced under the D.C. Youth Rehabilitation Act.
The act allows judges to waive a required minimum sentence of five years in jail for a conviction or guilty plea to second-degree murder while armed. The memo adds, “The government does not oppose a motion by the defendant for a downward departure under the sentencing guidelines.”
In his sentencing order, Dixon did not indicate that he approved the defense request for a Youth Rehabilitation Act sentence.
The government’s sentencing memo describes Rivers as “an accomplished, well-loved man with family and friends who dearly miss him.” It says he was born in Alabama and was a retired veteran of the U.S. Navy who, at the time of his death, worked as an executive assistant with Raytheon Corporation in Arlington, Va., in a job he held for five years.
The government sentencing memo says Wren’s effort to express remorse over his action and the prospects that he could turn around his life in the future don’t offset the consequence of his behavior toward Gordon Rivers.
“The defendant preyed upon Mr. Rivers by taking advantage of the trust they shared, however inappropriate the foundation of the relationship,” the memo says. “And it was the defendant, not Mr. Hager, who got in the car, put the gun to Mr. Rivers, and pulled the trigger five times.”
The memo notes that Wren was “no newcomer to armed robberies,” referring to his own admission that he committed armed robberies against drug dealers in the months prior to his arrest in the Rivers case.
District of Columbia
‘Sandwich guy’ not guilty in assault case
Sean Charles Dunn faced misdemeanor charge
A jury with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday, Nov. 6, found D.C. resident Sean Charles Dunn not guilty of assault for tossing a hero sandwich into the chest of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent at the intersection of 14th and U streets, N.W. at around 11 p.m. on Aug. 10.
Dunn’s attorneys hailed the verdict as a gesture of support for Dunn’s contention that his action, which was captured on video that went viral on social media, was an exercise of his First Amendment right to protest the federal border agent’s participating in President Donald Trump’s deployment of federal troops on D.C. streets.
Friends of Dunn have said that shortly before the sandwich tossing incident took place Dunn had been at the nearby gay nightclub Bunker, which was hosting a Latin dance party called Tropicoqueta. Sabrina Shroff, one of three attorneys representing Dunn at the trial, said during the trial after Dunn left the nightclub he went to the submarine sandwich shop on 14th Street at the corner of U Street, where he saw the border patrol agent and other law enforcement officers standing in front of the shop.
Shroff and others who know Dunn have said he was fearful that the border agent outside the sub shop and immigrant agents might raid the Bunker Latin night event. Bunker’s entrance is on U Street just around the corner from the sub shop where the federal agents were standing.
“I am so happy that justice prevails in spite of everything happening,“ Dunn told reporters outside the courthouse after the verdict while joined by his attorneys. “And that night I believed that I was protecting the rights of immigrants,” he said.
“And let us not forget that the great seal of the United States says, E Pluribus Unum,” he continued. “That means from many, one. Every life matters no matter where you came from, no matter how you got here, no matter how you identify, you have the right to live a life that is free.”
The verdict followed a two-day trial with testimony by just two witnesses, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent Gregory Lairmore, who identified Dunn as the person who threw the sandwich at his chest, and Metro Transit Police Detective Daina Henry, who told the jury she witnessed Dunn toss the sandwich at Lairmore while shouting obscenities.
Shroff told the jury Dunn was exercising his First Amendment right to protest and that the tossing of the sandwich at Lairmore, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, did not constitute an assault under the federal assault law to which Dunn was charged, among other things, because the federal agent was not injured.
Prosecutors with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. initially attempted to obtain a grand jury indictment of Dunn on a felony assault charge. But the grand jury refused to hand down an indictment on that charge, court records show. Prosecutors then filed a criminal complaint against Dunn on the misdemeanor charge of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers of the United States.
“Dunn stood within inches of Victim 1,” the criminal complaint states, “pointing his finger in Victim 1’s face, and yelled, Fuck you! You fucking fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!”
The complaint continues by stating, “An Instagram video recorded by an observer captured the incident. The video depicts Dunn screaming at V-1 within inches of his face for several seconds before winding his arm back and forcefully throwing a sub-style sandwich at V-1.
Prosecutors repeatedly played the video of the incident for the jurors on video screens in the courtroom.
Dunn, who chose not to testify at his trial, and his attorneys have not disputed the obvious evidence that Dunn threw the sandwich that hit Lairmore in the chest. Lead defense attorney Shroff and co-defense attorneys Julia Gatto and Nicholas Silverman argued that Dunn’s action did not constitute an assault under the legal definition of common law assault in the federal assault statute.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael DiLorenzo, the lead prosecutor in the case, strongly disputed that claim, citing various provisions in the law and appeals court rulings that he claimed upheld his and the government’s contention that an “assault” can take place even if a victim is not injured as well as if there was no physical contact between the victim and an alleged assailant, only a threat of physical contact and injury.
The dispute over the intricacies of the assault law and whether Dunn’s action reached the level of an assault under the law dominated the two-day trial, with U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols, who presided over the trial, weighing in with his own interpretation of the assault statute. Among other things, he said it would be up to the jury to decide whether or not Dunn committed an assault.
Court observers have said in cases like this, a jury could have issued a so-called “nullification” verdict in which they acquit a defendant even though they believe he or she committed the offense in question because they believe the charge is unjust. The other possibility, observers say, is the jury believed the defense was right in claiming a law was not violated.
DiLorenzo and his two co-prosecutors in the case declined to comment in response to requests by reporters following the verdict.
“We really want to thank the jury for having sent back an affirmation that his sentiment is not just tolerated but it is legal, it is welcome,” defense attorney Shroff said in referring to Dunn’s actions. “And we thank them very much for that verdict,” she said.
Dunn thanked his attorneys for providing what he called excellent representation “and for offering all of their services pro bono,” meaning free of charge.
Dunn, an Air Force veteran who later worked as an international affairs specialist at the U.S. Department of Justice, was fired from that job by DOJ officials after his arrest for the sandwich tossing incident.
“I would like to thank family and friends and strangers for all of their support, whether it was emotional, or spiritual, or artistic, or financial,” he told the gathering outside the courthouse. “To the people that opened their hearts and homes to me, I am eternally grateful.”
“As always, we accept a jury’s verdict; that is the system within which we function,” CNN quoted U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro as saying after the verdict in the Dunn case. “However, law enforcement should never be subjected to assault, no matter how ‘minor,’” Pirro told CNN in a statement.
“Even children know when they are angry, they are not allowed to throw objects at one another,” CNN quoted her as saying.
Maryland
Democrats hold leads in almost every race of Annapolis municipal election
Jared Littmann ahead in mayor’s race.
By CODY BOTELER | The Democratic candidates in the Annapolis election held early leads in the races for mayor and nearly every city council seat, according to unofficial results released on election night.
Jared Littmann, a former alderman and the owner of K&B Ace Hardware, did not go so far as to declare victory in his race to be the next mayor of Annapolis, but said he’s optimistic that the mail-in ballots to be counted later this week will support his lead.
Littmannn said November and December will “fly by” as he plans to meet with the city department heads and chiefs to “pepper them with questions.”
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Democrats on Tuesday increased their majority in the Virginia House of Delegates.
The Associated Press notes the party now has 61 seats in the chamber. Democrats before Election Day had a 51-48 majority in the House.
All six openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual candidates — state Dels. Rozia Henson (D-Prince William County), Laura Jane Cohen (D-Fairfax County), Joshua Cole (D-Fredericksburg), Marcia Price (D-Newport News), Adele McClure (D-Arlington County), and Mark Sickles (D-Fairfax County) — won re-election.
Lindsey Dougherty, a bisexual Democrat, defeated state Del. Carrie Coyner (R-Chesterfield County) in House District 75 that includes portions of Chesterfield and Prince George Counties. (Attorney General-elect Jay Jones in 2022 texted Coyner about a scenario in which he shot former House Speaker Todd Gilbert, a Republican.)
Other notable election results include Democrat John McAuliff defeating state Del. Geary Higgins (R-Loudoun County) in House District 30. Former state Del. Elizabeth Guzmán beat state Del. Ian Lovejoy (R-Prince William County) in House District 22.
Democrats increased their majority in the House on the same night they won all three statewide offices: governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general.
Narissa Rahaman is the executive director of Equality Virginia Advocates, the advocacy branch of Equality Virginia, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy group, last week noted the election results will determine the future of LGBTQ rights, reproductive freedom, and voting rights in the state.
Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin in 2024 signed a bill that codified marriage equality in state law.
The General Assembly earlier this year approved a resolution that seeks to repeal the Marshall-Newman Amendment that defines marriage in the state constitution as between a man and a woman. The resolution must pass in two successive legislatures before it can go to the ballot.
Shreya Jyotishi contributed to this article.
-
District of Columbia3 days ago‘Sandwich guy’ not guilty in assault case
-
Sports4 days agoGay speedskater racing toward a more inclusive future in sports
-
New Jersey4 days agoBlue wave hits Northeast: Sherrill and Mamdani lead Democratic comeback
-
District of Columbia5 days agoTrial begins for man charged with throwing sandwich at federal agent
