Local
Judge rules against Choi in ‘vindictive’ prosecution claim
Gay activist on trial for arrest over White House protest
A federal judge ruled on Oct. 11 that gay former Army Lt. Dan Choi cannot argue in his ongoing trial that he was targeted for “selective” or “vindictive” prosecution following his arrest last year for chaining himself to the White House fence in a protest against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
In a 17-page decision, Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia overturned an earlier ruling by Magistrate Judge John Facciola that allowed Choi’s lawyers to pursue allegations of selective or vindictive prosecution in the trial, which began Aug. 29.
Lamberth’s decision, among other things, granted a petition by prosecutors for a Writ of Mandamus, a formal and unusual request challenging a ruling of a trial judge by appealing to a higher court or to another judge with greater authority.
Under Lamberth’s decision, Facciola is prohibited from “considering selective or vindictive prosecution as a defense to the merits of the prosecution,” prohibited from “allowing evidence as to either claim” and barred from entertaining any motion filed by Choi to dismiss the case based on selective or vindictive prosecution.
Facciola is presiding over a non-jury trial in which Choi is being prosecuted for a misdemeanor charge of disobeying a lawful police order to disperse from the White House fence. Although the prohibition against Choi’s use of a defense based on selective or vindictive prosecution is a blow to the defense, one of his attorneys, Norman Kent, said Sunday that the defense will move forward on other grounds and that Choi’s defense team remains confident that Choi will be found not guilty.
Choi was the only one of a group of protesters arrested during the November 2010 protest that did not agree to plead guilty to the charge in exchange for having the case dismissed if they weren’t arrested again at the White House within a four-month period.
Through his attorneys, Choi has argued that he had a constitutional right to handcuff himself to the White House fence. The attorneys also have contested the government’s case on a technicality, saying police ordered Choi to disperse from the sidewalk. They note that Choi was standing on an elevated ledge on which the White House fence is attached, not the sidewalk itself and thus Choi was not legally bound to obey the police order.
Lamberth said in his decision that prosecutors were correct in arguing that under longstanding court rules of evidence, a case alleging selective or vindictive prosecution must be initiated in a pre-trial motion, not during the trial itself.
Choi’s attorneys — Kent of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and Robert Feldman of New York — have argued that they lacked sufficient evidence of selective or vindictive prosecution prior to the start of the trial. The two said persuasive evidence of a selective-vindictive prosecution only emerged during their cross-examination of government witnesses during the trial itself.
Following strong opposition by the prosecutor in the case, Facciola ruled on Aug. 31 that preliminary evidence existed to show a selective or vindictive prosecution could have occurred against Choi. Facciola ruled that Choi’s lawyers could go forward with using selective-vindictive enforcement as a defense.
Feldman and Kent argued that Choi’s decision to handcuff himself to the White House fence in November 2010 was identical to two prior White House protests in which he and others handcuffed themselves to the fence. They noted that while prosecutors charged Choi in the earlier protests under a local municipal statute that carried no jail time, in the November 2010 protests, they charged Choi under a more stringent federal statute that includes a possible sentence of six months in jail.
Feldman and Kent alleged that prosecutors chose the more stringent statute in the November case because Choi’s protests were embarrassing the Obama administration over the gays in the military issue. They said the harsher prosecution was in retaliation for Choi’s political message that the White House wasn’t moving fast enough to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela George, the lead prosecutor in the case, disputed that assertion, saying the government prosecuted Choi for refusing to obey a lawful order by police to move away from the White House fence. She said Choi’s political message was irrelevant to the government’s case and had no role in the decision to prosecute him.
In court briefs, George said prosecutors charged Choi under a more stringent law in the November case because it was the third time in less than a year that he had been arrested for the same illegal conduct and the government has legal discretion to select different statutes or regulations under which to make an arrest in such a case.
Facciola put the trial on hold on Aug. 31 after George said the government would take the unusual step of challenging his ruling through a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. Under U.S. District Court rules, the court’s chief judge rules on such a petition.
Kent told the Blade on Oct. 16 that following consultation with Choi he and Feldman are strongly considering appealing Lamberth’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. He said Choi’s legal team would make a final decision on whether to file an appeal by Oct. 20, a deadline set by Judge Facciola for the two sides to inform the court whether an appeal will be made or whether the trial will resume.
Choi enjoyed widespread support from LGBT activists when he worked with the LGBT direct action group GetEqual last year in a series of non-violent civil disobedience protests at the White House and other locations to pressure Congress and the Obama administration to push harder for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
But since Obama signed legislation approved by Congress repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and since the repeal took effect on Sept. 20, some activists have questioned the rationale for Choi’s decision to demand a trial in the current case. Some have asked why Choi is contesting the type of civil disobedience arrest that most other protesters acknowledge involves breaking a law and choose to resolve by paying a small fine or agreeing to a plea offer like the one prosecutors made to Choi.
Gay rights attorney and television commentator Mark Levine called non-violent civil disobedience arrests an important and historic tradition in the U.S. civil rights movement made famous by Martin Luther King Jr. in his efforts to end racial discrimination. Levine said the benefit of drawing public attention to an injustice comes from the arrest itself, “not a long drawn out trial that has the potential for wasting court resources that would be better used for something else.”
Choi has said he chose to take his case to trial because he believes his action handcuffing himself to the White House fence is protected by his First Amendment right to free speech and should not be considered an illegal act.
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.
Erica Deuso elected as Pa.’s first openly transgender mayor
LGBTQ legal leaders to Supreme Court: ‘honor your president, protect our families’
Suicide and the policy crisis facing trans Americans
Nancy Pelosi: an LGBTQ appreciation of the retiring House speaker emerita
Gala Hispanic Theatre’s Flamenco Festival returns
‘Sandwich guy’ not guilty in assault case
Gay speedskater racing toward a more inclusive future in sports
Jonathan Bailey is People’s first openly gay ‘Sexiest Man Alive’
New York City mayoral race gets nasty but Mamdani will win
FBI thwarts Halloween terror plot targeting Mich. LGBTQ bars
-
District of Columbia1 day ago‘Sandwich guy’ not guilty in assault case
-
Sports2 days ago
Gay speedskater racing toward a more inclusive future in sports
-
Celebrity News4 days ago
Jonathan Bailey is People’s first openly gay ‘Sexiest Man Alive’
-
Opinions5 days ago
New York City mayoral race gets nasty but Mamdani will win
