Local
Choi trial halted after challenge to judge’s ruling
Preliminary evidence shows ‘vindictive prosecution’


Former Army Lt. Dan Choi and 12 others were arrested last year after protesting ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ at the White House. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
A federal judge on Wednesday suspended the trial of gay former Army Lt. Dan Choi after the prosecutor said she would challenge his preliminary finding that sufficient evidence exists that Choi was targeted for “vindictive prosecution” in connection with a White House protest last November.
Choi and 12 other activists were arrested Nov. 15 for handcuffing themselves to the White House fence to protest the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. Choi faces a possible sentence of six months in jail or a $5,000 fine if convicted on a misdemeanor charge of disobeying a lawful order to disperse from the fence.
In a tense exchange between U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge John Facciola, prosecutor Angela George announced she would file a request for a writ of mandamus or legal challenge before the court’s chief judge to contest Facciola’s decision to allow Choi’s attorneys to pursue a vindictive prosecution defense.
Facciola responded by saying he would suspend the trial for 10 days to give George, an assistant U.S. Attorney, time to prepare a motion for a writ of mandamus and to provide Chief Judge Royce Lamberth time to consider it.
William Miller, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office, confirmed that George would seek the writ of mandamus from Lamberth. But he declined to comment further on the matter, saying his office never comments on pending cases.
If Lamberth grants the request, legal observers say Facciola would likely be directed not to allow Choi’s attorneys to pursue a vindictive prosecution defense. Should he turn down the request, Facciola would be free to allow the vindictive prosecution defense to move forward.
Such a defense would allow Choi’s attorneys to pursue documents and subpoena witnesses that Choi’s supporters say could possibly link the alleged effort to go after Choi for a harsher prosecution to higher-level government officials, including officials at the White House.
Defense attorney Robert Feldman called Facciola’s finding that the defense presented a “prima facie case” that a vindictive prosecution occurred a “vindication” of Choi’s longstanding contention that his arrest and prosecution violated his constitutional right to free speech.
The clash between George and Facciola came on the third day of the trial and one day after Choi testified for more than two hours as the lead witness for his own defense, saying he was exercising his First Amendment right to free speech at the White House protest.
In response to Feldman’s questions, Choi testified at length about his role as a civil rights activist for LGBT people and for gays in the military. He told how he models his actions on the black civil rights movement of the 1960s, including the famous lunch counter sit-ins at a Woolworth’s department store in Greensboro, N.C., that challenged segregation laws.
Choi testified that a series of three White House protests against the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law on gays in the military, in which he and other activists were arrested at the White House fence, were based on the same principle used in the black civil rights movement for exercising a constitutional right of free speech.
“I believe that was a transformative moment,” he said of the White House protests.
George objected repeatedly to Choi’s dialogue on civil rights, saying it was not relevant to the case at hand. To the amazement of some courtroom observers, Facciola overruled her objections almost every time she raised them.
In her cross-examination of Choi, George pressed the former Army officer, West Point graduate and combat veteran in the Iraq war to respond to the charge that he disobeyed a lawful order to disperse from the White House fence.
Choi responded by citing a provision in U.S. military law pertaining to unlawful orders.
“If you are given an order that is unlawful or immoral, it is your duty to disobey that order,” he said.
Feldman and defense co-counsel Norman Kent told reporters covering the trial that Choi’s defense is based, in part, on the premise that prosecutors singled him out for a harsher prosecution when they charged him with violating a federal regulation pertaining to White House protests and demonstrations along the White House fence and sidewalk.
The federal regulation carries a penalty of six months in jail and a possible $5,000 fine. The two attorneys said people arrested in virtually all other White House demonstrations in recent memory – including Choi and other activists in similar protests in April and May of 2010 – were charged under a D.C. municipal ordinance they compare to a traffic violation that carries no prison sentence.
In his testimony on Tuesday, Choi said he believes prosecutors decided to invoke the far more harsh federal regulation against him in the Nov. 15, 2010 case, which he now faces at trial, because of his role as a gay former military officer who is “standing up for my beliefs.”
Choi stated in his testimony that thousands of people appeared to have violated the same regulation with which he was charged when they gathered at the White House earlier this year to celebrate President Barack Obama’s announcement that accused terrorist Osama bin Laden had been killed in a U.S. military operation in Pakistan.
Choi and his attorneys noted that dozens of the revelers that evening clung to the White House fence and did not move back and forth along the sidewalk, as required under the ordinance for a demonstration, when they cheered and expressed support for the president’s role in bin Laden’s capture and death.
By not attempting to disperse or arrest the throngs that congregated at the fence on that occasion while they arrested Choi and other protesters for challenging Obama on his handling of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law shows that Choi was singled out for “vindictive” prosecution, Choi’s attorneys argue.
Choi and his attorneys also argue that the ordinance that Park Police used to arrest Choi violates the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham. The decision overturned a Birmingham, Ala., law used by police there to arrest a civil rights protester in 1963 for demonstrating without a permit on grounds that the law was used to stifle his constitutional right to peacefully parade in a civil rights protest.
In anticipation of Choi’s vindictive prosecution defense, the government filed a motion last Sunday, one day before the trial opened, arguing that rules established by previous court decisions require a vindictive or “selective” prosecution defense to be introduced prior to the start of a trial. The 14-page motion argues that such a defense cannot be introduced during a trial and that Choi’s defense team failed to introduce the defense before the trial started.
Facciola did not rule on the motion at the start of the trial, saying he would do so as the trial progressed to first determine whether Choi’s attorneys would move forward with that defense.
When questioned by George during the trial on Wednesday, Facciola said he chose to reject the government motion on grounds that prior decisions by appeals courts requiring a vindictive or selective defense to be introduced prior to trial applied only to jury trials.
Choi’s case moved forward as a non-jury trial similar to other misdemeanor cases involving alleged violation of regulations pertaining to protest demonstrations at the White House.
George’s announcement about the writ of mandamus came after Facciola appeared to side with arguments by the defense that the government singled out Choi for a harsher prosecution for his Nov. 15, 2010 White House protest.
They attracted national media attention when Choi and 12 other LGBT activists handcuffed themselves to the White House fence. About 75 supporters who assembled across the street in Lafayette Park cheered and chanted slogans for LGBT equality while Park Police removed the handcuffs with bolt cutters and placed Choi and the other protesters under arrest.
In May of this year, the 12 others who were arrested agreed to a government offer to plead guilty to the charge in exchange for the government dismissing the case against them in six months if the activists don’t get arrested during that period for any reason, including a similar civil disobedience protest.
Choi told reporters at a news conference outside the federal courthouse Monday, after the trial recessed for the day, that he rejected the government’s plea bargain offer because he believes the law and regulation used to arrest him is unconstitutional.
“I believe there is no law that, in the history of this country, abridges freedom of speech, assembly, or the right to protest for redress of grievances, which were clear and made plain by all of the defendants,” he said.
George called five Park Police officers and a U.S. Park Ranger as government witnesses on Monday. Under questioning from George, they testified that they had no intention of singling out the protesters for their political beliefs or because of their sexual orientation.
In his cross-examination of the officers, Feldman questioned the validity of their decision to charge Choi under the federal regulation rather than the less serious D.C. municipal statute.
Feldman released an e-mail sent to the defense on Friday by George that extended another offer for Choi to plead guilty to the charge in exchange for the dismissal of the case by the government if Choi refrained from getting arrested for the next four months.
Feldman said Choi responded by saying he would accept the offer only on condition that the government issue a public apology to Choi in court on Monday for the arrest and prosecution against him. Feldman said the government rejected the conditions, prompting Choi to turn down the offer.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office said the office would have no comment on the case while the trial is in progress.
Park Police Lt. Robert Lachance, who led a team of officers assigned to arrest the protesters, testified that an assistant solicitor general at the Department of Interior, which has jurisdiction over the Park Police, advised him that the act of chaining oneself to the White House fence violated a federal regulation against actions that pose a threat to public safety, obstruct traffic, and potentially prevent “emergency responders” from carrying out their work.
At the news conference, Feldman said he planned to argue at the trial that Choi’s action at the White House fence did not violate the regulation and statute cited by the Park Police and by prosecutor George.
“It’s uncontroverted that Lt. Choi is no threat to the public safety whatsoever,” said Feldman. “Neither does he obstruct traffic, which is the second part of the regulation.”
Feldman said he would also argue that the regulation used by authorities to arrest Choi applies only to the sidewalk next to the White House fence. He noted that Choi and the other protesters were standing on a masonry ledge that rises above the sidewalk and serves as an anchor for the White House fence.
“It’s very clear that my client was never on the sidewalk,” Feldman said. “He was on the masonry fence, which is above the sidewalk. And the warnings from Lt. Lachance said, ‘Get off the sidewalk.’ How can you get off the sidewalk if you were never on the sidewalk?”
He said he would also argue that Choi was unable to hear the warning that Lachance made to the protesters through a loudspeaker brought to the scene by Park Police. Lachance testified that he read a scripted message three times ordering the protesters to leave the fence and warning them they would be arrested if they did not comply with that order.
Feldman said Lachance’s warnings were drowned out by loud shouts and chants by Choi and the other 12 protesters handcuffed to the fence as well as by dozens of other protesters assembled in Lafayette Park.
The chants and shouts could be heard in a video recording of the protest that George played in the courtroom as part of a prosecution exhibit for the trial.
“There’s a cacophony of noise all around, and how can you possibly hear Lt. Lachance’s warnings to go away?” Feldman said at the news conference.
Gay activist and former military Capt. Jim Pietrangelo II testified on Tuesday as a defense witness, saying he observed first-hand what he believes were attempts by Park Police and government officials overseeing the police action an effort to single Choi out for a harsher charge based on Choi’s statutes as a gay former military officer and advocate for gays in the military.
Virginia
Education Dept. probes pro-trans policies in Northern Virginia schools
Investigation targets schools in Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William County

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights is investigating five school districts in Northern Virginia for pro-trans policies that may violate provisions of Title IX and run afoul of President Donald Trump’s Jan. 29 executive order prohibiting federally funded educational institutions from promoting what his administration calls “gender ideology.”
The Hill reported news of the probe on Monday, citing a Feb. 12 letter from the agency to America First Legal, a conservative organization founded by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, which indicated that an investigation had been opened into the Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William County school districts.
The letter comes in response to a complaint filed by America First Legal, which argued that “These school districts violate Title IX by maintaining policies that permit ‘gender
expansive and transgender students’ the ability to feel safe and comfortable by using
sex-segregated intimate facilities consistent with their ‘gender identity,’ while
denying similarly situated individuals, whose ‘gender identity’ is the same as their sex, the ability to feel safe and comfortable in the use of the sex-segregated common
restrooms and locker rooms of their sex.”
Per the Education Department’s letter, “the specific polices challenged by complainant are as follows: Alexandria City Public Schools’ ‘Nondiscrimination in Education’ policy; Arlington County Public Schools’ ‘Transgender Students in Schools’ policy; Fairfax County Public Schools’ Regulation 2603.2; Loudoun County Public Schools’ Policy 8040; Prince William County’s Regulation 738-5.”
America First argues that the five policies constitute unlawful sex-based discrimination as defined under Title IX because the “only option” available to cisgender students in these school districts who “feel unsafe and uncomfortable” in these spaces is to use “a private restroom or an alternative that ‘minimize[s] the loss of instructional time.'”
The organization further argues that provisions in these policies that instruct educators and staff to use the names and pronouns chosen by their students violate a provision of Trump’s executive order prohibiting schools from helping to facilitate their “social” gender transitions.
District of Columbia
‘AG Schwab! Do your job!’ D.C. activists protest for trans youth healthcare
Action comes days after anti-trans executive order

About 100 activists protested outside of the offices of D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb on Thursday, Feb. 13. The assembled protesters held signs in support of access to gender-affirming care and support for trans youth.
The activists called upon the D.C. Attorney General to “issue public guidance affirming that denying care based on gender identity is unlawful under D.C.’s anti-discrimination laws as well as use the full authority vested in their office to ensure this care is reinstated,” according to a statement.
This action comes days after President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning gender-affirming care nationwide for minors. D.C. hospitals, including Children’s National Hospital, began to comply.
Speakers at the rally included Rebecca York, director of youth development and community engagement for the D.C.-area LGBTQ youth services organization, SMYAL.

“SMYAL has long been a partner of Children’s National, a partnership we have been incredibly proud of, especially working with their Pride Clinic team,” York told the crowd. “Their dedication to providing gender-affirming care has been a lifeline for many young people and their families in our communities, offering relief, comfort and hope. But now those lifelines have been cut off. We are incredibly disappointed in and concerned by the hospital’s decision to suspend gender-affirming care to comply — in advance — with the administration’s executive order attempting to restrict healthcare for trans youth.”
“This decision was made out of fear: the fear of losing funding,” York continued. “And it has abandoned the very youth who need it most. This executive order, barely two weeks old has already had devastating impacts on the lives of trans and non-binary youth. These cruel policies are not abstract. They are real, they are dangerous and they are hurting our young people today.”
“Gender-affirming care saves lives for trans youth,” said York.
Also speaking at the event was Dr. Omar Taweh.
“In our youthful, vibrant, queer city, doctors provide compassionate care for trans people literally all the time.” Taweh told the assembled protesters. “And we’re just here to demand that our local government leaders, including AG Shwalb over here, join the rest of the states that are taking stances …to defend trans and gender-affirming care.”
Protesters formed a picket line and began a series of chants, including, “AG Schwab! Do your job!”
The action was organized by the Democratic Socialists of America.
District of Columbia
Death of D.C. gay robbery victim ruled a homicide
Police pursuing additional charges against two juveniles

D.C. police announced on Feb. 15 that the death of gay DJ and hairstylist Bryan Smith, 39, who police say was assaulted and robbed Oct. 27, 2024, in the 500 block of T Street, N.W., has been ruled a homicide.
Police said Smith was found unconscious at about 5 a.m. on the street where they believed he was assaulted and robbed and taken to a D.C. hospital. A short time later he was transferred at the request of family members while in a coma to a Northern Virginia hospital, where he died on Nov. 7.
“On Thursday, February 13, 2025, the Northern Virginia Medical Examiner’s Office advised that the cause of death for the victim was blunt force trauma and the manner of death a homicide,” the D.C. police statement says.
The statement notes, as the Washington Blade and other media outlets have reported, that D.C. police on Nov. 14, 2024, arrested two juvenile males, 14 and 16 years of age, on robbery and assault charges in connection with the assault and robbery of Smith.
At the time of the arrest, police said they had evidence showing the two juveniles were implicated in three other assault and robbery incidents that occurred on the same night as the assault and robbery of Smith in nearby locations.
According to the statement, D.C. police detectives are working with the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, which prosecutes crimes committed by juveniles, to determine whether “additional charges” should be brought against the two juveniles following the determination that Smith’s death was a homicide.
The arrest of the two juveniles was announced by D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith at a Nov. 15 press conference near the site where Smith was attacked.
“We are here today to announce the arrest of two suspects responsible for a series of robberies in this community on Sunday, Oct. 27, including the robbery of 39-year-old Bryan Smith, who was walking home in the 500 block of T Street, N.W.,” Chief Smith told reporters attending the press conference.
“On behalf of the Metropolitan Police Department as well as myself, I send my deepest condolences to Mr. Smith’s family as well as his friends,” Chief Smith said. “While nothing can undo this senseless loss, we hope today’s arrests are of some measure of justice and a step toward healing,” she said.
Chief Smith also said that police investigators had no evidence to indicate the assault and robbery of Bryan Smith was “motivated by hate or bias.”