Connect with us

homepage news

Despite Harris deal, few surgeries granted to trans inmates in California

Campaign says anti-trans bias may play a role in implementation

Published

on

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) speaking at the HRC/CNN LGBT Town Hall on Oct. 10. (Photo courtesy of CNN)

Sen. Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign said Tuesday anti-trans bias may play a role in the implementation of a policy she helped create under pressure to provide transgender inmates in California with gender reassignment surgery, after a Washington Blade public records request found only seven prisoners ever got the male-to-female procedure out of 130 who asked.

Harris, a supporter of LGBTQ rights, nonetheless continues to be asked about her work as California attorney general in litigation seeking to deny gender assignment surgery to transgender inmates in the state prison system — and the data indicate that Harris cast the settlement in a rosier light than ended up playing out.

Despite the policy she announced in 2015 enabling inmates to obtain gender reassignment surgery, the data from California Correctional Health Care Services — provided to the Washington Blade after a request under California’s Public Records Act — reveals only a small percentage of inmates who have requested the procedure have been able to obtain it, raising questions about its effectiveness.

In a letter dated Nov. 8 to the Blade, the state prison health system reveals 130 inmates requested male-to-female gender reassignment surgery since the policy was announced, but only seven were granted the procedure in the same time period. Meanwhile, 51 inmates requested female-to-male gender reassignment surgery, but only 10 obtained the procedure.

Based on these numbers, only 5 percent of inmates who requested male-to-female gender reassignment surgery obtained the procedure under the policy Harris helped create and has promoted on the campaign trail, and only 20 percent of inmates who requested female-to-male gender reassignment surgery have obtained it.

Kate Waters, a spokesperson for the Harris presidential campaign, said anti-trans bias may be playing a role in implementation in response to a Blade inquiry on the data.

“Kamala Harris believes every American has a right to adequate and comprehensive health care, including transition-related care for those at correctional facilities,” Waters said. “Toward the end of her tenure as attorney general she worked behind the scenes to establish a policy around granting gender-affirming surgeries to individuals who are currently incarcerated — the first of its kind in the country. It’s clear the implementation of this policy should be evaluated and examined for bias.”

Very few trans inmates in California prison have been granted requests for gender reassignment surgery

Over the course of her presidential campaign, Harris has had to defend herself amid questions about litigation in which she sought to block transgender inmates from having gender reassignment surgery. In fact, at her first news conference for her 2020 presidential campaign in D.C. at Howard University, it was the topic of her first question, which was asked by the Washington Blade. 

At the time, Harris implied she disagreed with the position of her client, the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, but defended the agency in court because it was her duty as a public official.

“I was, as you are rightly pointing out, the attorney general of California for two terms and I had a host of clients that I was obligated to defend and represent and I couldn’t fire my clients, and there are unfortunately situations that occurred where my clients took positions that were contrary to my beliefs,” Harris said.

Harris also indicated she wasn’t fully aware of the litigation happening within her office.

“It was an office with a lot of people who would do the work on a daily basis, and do I wish that sometimes they would have personally consulted me before they wrote the things that they wrote?” Harris said. “Yes, I do.”

The issue came up in an interview with the Los Angeles Blade and at the Iowa LGBTQ forum hosted by GLAAD in September, where Lyz Lenz, a columnist for the The Gazette, asked the 2020 presidential hopeful about it.

In both of those instances, Harris brought up in favorable terms a policy agreement she helped institute at the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitations as evidence she redirected the litigation into something positive for the transgender community.

“I did it quietly, because I actually disagreed with my client initially, when they had the policy, and so I did it behind the scenes,” Harris told the Los Angeles Blade. “I helped to resolve and change the policy. The issue for me was to make sure the right thing would happen.”

Harris added: “Let me just be very clear: I don’t want to take full credit for that, because I don’t deserve full credit for that. I don’t want what I said to be interpreted as that. There were a lot of people involved in that.”

In an interview with the National Center for Transgender Equality, Harris brought up the issue on her own and in particular underscored the importance of that policy.

“I made sure that they changed the policy in the state of California so that every transgender inmate in the prison system would have access to the medical care that they desired and need,” Harris said. “I know it was historic in California, but I believe, actually, it may have been one of the first if not the first in the country where I pushed for that policy in a Department of Corrections.”

As California attorney general, Harris in 2015 defended the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, which was being sued for refusing to provide gender reassignment surgery to two transgender inmates: Michelle Lael-Norsworthy, who was serving time in prison in Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, Calif., for second-degree murder, and Shiloh Quine, who’s serving a life sentence for first-degree murder, kidnapping and robbery.

Transgender advocates maintain transition-related care, including gender reassignment surgery, is medically necessary and should be afforded to inmates in prison, where the costly procedure would be provided at taxpayer expense. Withholding the treatment, transgender advocates argue, is cruel and unusual punishment, therefore a violation of the Eighth Amendment under the U.S. Constitution.

At one point, when a trial court ruled against the state in the Norsworthy case and ordered the state to grant her gender reassignment surgery, Harris as attorney general appealed the decision to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where she continued to argue the procedure should be blocked.

Among Harris’ critics for defending the California state prison system in those cases is Chase Strangio, a New York-based transgender advocate and attorney.

“It would have been one thing had she chosen to settle a legal challenge to establish a policy that might help people in custody but that is not what she did,” Strangio told the Blade. “Instead, Harris’s office fully litigated a case to try to block care for transgender people while simultaneously implementing a supposedly improved policy, which we continue to learn is grossly inadequate.”

Strangio added Harris sought legal precedent that would have made conditions “substantially worse” for people in the Ninth Circuit and “could have hurt transgender people beyond California and ultimately sent a message to corrections staff in her state that the care being requested was not supported by the state.”

“It is impossible to know whether Sen. Harris personally agrees with the notion of providing health care to transgender people in custody but what is abundantly clear is that when she had various opportunities to take a stand to ensure that the system was improved for prisoners who are transgender she failed to act with a commitment to transgender justice,” Strangio said.

As media scrutiny of these cases continued when the case was before the Ninth Circuit, including with coverage in the Washington Blade, a settlement was announced on Aug. 8, 2015 that would enable the inmates to obtain the procedure (although for Norsworthy the process consisted of being granted parole, then being able to obtain gender reassignment surgery under the state’s MediCal program).

“Members of the LGBT community, especially those who are transgender, are too often subjected to discrimination and forced to live on the margins of our society,” Harris said at the time. “In a groundbreaking settlement, the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation has agreed to evaluate and provide sex-reassignment surgery if recommended to Shiloh Quine, a transgender inmate. This is an important step forward in the ongoing effort to protect transgender rights in California.”

As part of this settlement, the California prison system agreed to create a new policy that would ease the process for transgender inmates seeking gender reassignment surgery, enabling them to obtain it without having to win court battles.

But the new data demonstrates only a small number of transgender inmates have been able to obtain the procedure, raising questions about the policy’s effectiveness.

Asked by the Blade to review the data, Strangio said it speaks volumes about the difficulty for transgender people in obtaining transition-related care, including gender reassignment surgery, while serving time in the criminal justice system.

“Sadly, these numbers reflect how dangerously inadequate health care is for transgender people, particularly transgender women, in custodial settings,” Strangio said.

The Washington Blade has placed a request with current California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who’s responsible for enforcing the policy, on whether the guidelines are not properly being implemented.

It’s unclear why only a small percentage of these inmates have been granted gender assignment surgery. Under policy established by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, a person seeking the procedure must have medical clearance, which means they can’t have any health issues that would make the surgery pose too great a risk for the individual.

As laid out in the actual policy memo for California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, which was most recently updated in December 2018, inmates seeking to have gender reassignment surgery have to go through a multi-step process. 

An inmate’s request for surgery is submitted to the Statewide Medical Authorization Review Team, or SMART, which will then refer to the Gender Affirming Surgery Review Committee before that panel sends it back to SMART for final review.

According to the documents, factors the committee should consider when evaluating the request is a verifiable diagnosis of gender dysphoria; whether other treatments besides surgery should be considered; whether the inmate has no other health conditions the surgery would exacerbate; and if the inmate has been consistent with his or her gender identity for 12 months.

The California Department of Corrections didn’t respond to multiple requests from the Blade to comment on whether the system is adequate given the low numbers of requests for gender reassignment surgery from inmates that have been granted.

Transgender advocates, however, said the numbers are evidence the California state prison system, despite the policy Harris helped create, is woefully inadequate in providing necessary transition-related care to transgender inmates.

Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said the paucity of requests granted indicates transgender inmates aren’t being denied the procedure for medical reasons, but due to anti-trans animus and budgetary limits.

“It’s not about whether or not they are medically able to have the surgery, it is about the prisons and the state not wanting to do it,” Keisling said. 

Strangio placed blame with both the California state prison system as well as Harris, saying regardless of the role she had in crafting the guidelines, the data show “it is not a policy that is adequately being implemented.”

“It is impossible to extricate the ongoing recalcitrance on the part of the agency from the message sent from the state’s highest officials, Harris included, that providing health care to transgender people in custody should be fought aggressively in court,” Strangio said.

Keisling, however, was reluctant to criticize Harris, saying her actual role in creating the California guidelines is impossible to verify and bureaucracies have a way of stymying policies created by public officials.

“Definitely the bad guy is the Department of Corrections,” Keisling added.

Shawn Meerkamper, senior staff attorney for the San Francisco-based Transgender Law Center, also responded to the data with generalized concerns that weren’t aimed at Harris.

“Transgender people’s medical needs are real and cannot be dismissed by the state,” Meerkamper said. “California’s prisons affirmed they have the responsibility to provide medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria, including surgery, in 2015 following the Norsworthy and Quine cases. While policies are a good first step, unfortunately the California prisons continue to deny this life-saving health care to the vast majority of people who need it.”

The Transgender Law Center represented Norsworthy and Quine in litigation and hailed the settlement in 2015 when it was reached with the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation.

More recently, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling that made access to gender reassignment surgery for prison inmates binding precedent in all states within its jurisdiction, including California. 

In August, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit issued the per curium opinion in favor of Adree Edmo, who was denied gender reassignment surgery while being incarcerated for sexual abuse at the Idaho State Correctional Institution.

“We hold that where, as here, the record shows that the medically necessary treatment for a prisoner’s gender dysphoria is gender confirmation surgery, and responsible prison officials deny such treatment with full awareness of the prisoner’s suffering, those officials violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment,” the decision says.

At the time, Harris said in a statement to the Blade she supports the ruling, maintaining it “rightly reaffirms the right to adequate and comprehensive health care, including transition-related care for those at correctional facilities.”

Despite the Ninth Circuit ruling, Strangio said denial of care to transgender inmates remains a “systemic problem across corrections systems” and requires “truly committed reformers” to make change. 

But Strangio said that isn’t Harris.

“It is not enough to suggest passive support while publicly opposing humane treatment of transgender people, which is ultimately what Harris did as attorney general,” Strangio said. “As the numbers show, people are not getting the health care that they need and Sen. Harris should take responsibility for the roadblock her office was to improving life chances for transgender people across the state.”

UPDATE 11/25/2019: The California state prison system, after the initial publication of this article, responded to the Washington Blade with a statement announcing current policy on gender reassignment surgery for transgender inmates is under review.

Terry Thornton, a spokesperson for the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, said the prison system has several policies in place on transgender inmates and recognizes the value of gender reassignment surgery as medically necessary care.

“The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires that prisons provide medically necessary treatment for prisoners’ medical needs based on medical considerations,” Thorton said. “For the past several years, gender-affirming surgery has been increasingly viewed by the medical and mental health community as a safe and effective treatment for some people suffering from gender dysphoria.”

Key memos guiding those policies within the California Correctional Health Care Services, Thornton said, are currently under revision: The “Gender Dysphoria” care guide, last modified in May 2015, and the supplement to that care guide, “Guidelines for Review of Requests for Gender Affirming Surgery,” effective in May 2015 and revised in December 2018.

“Guidelines and supplemental documents are continuously revised to align with community standards and as needed to ensure operational efficiency,” Thornton added.

Treatment for gender dysphoria is individualized between a patient and their provider, Thornton said, and each patient is reviewed on a case-by-case basis “taking into account their medical and mental health history and current condition.”

In response to the few number of surgeries granted to transgender inmates, Thornton said a person requesting surgery may not be eligible at first, but subsequently eligible upon resubmittal. Inmates may appeal any health care decision, Thornton said, including denials of gender reassignment surgery.

Thornton identified several reasons why inmates would be denied gender reassignment surgery, including other health conditions that make the procedure too high a risk to their well-being or that must be well controlled; not meeting the WPATH criteria for the surgery; having mental health conditions that would likely worsen with surgery or impede surgical recovery; or simply completing a prison sentences and being released to parole.

“As far as we know, California is the only prison system in the United States with a process to approve gender-affirming surgeries and has policies to improve safety, help prevent sexual abuse, create a more respectful environment, improve outcomes for reentry and improve medical care for its incarcerated transgender community,” Thornton concluded.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

homepage news

Equality Act, contorted as a danger by anti-LGBTQ forces, is all but dead

No political willpower to force vote or reach a compromise

Published

on

Despite having President Biden in the White House and Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress, efforts to update federal civil rights laws to strengthen the prohibition on discrimination against LGBTQ people by passing the Equality Act are all but dead as opponents of the measure have contorted it beyond recognition.

Political willpower is lacking to find a compromise that would be acceptable to enough Republican senators to end a filibuster on the bill — a tall order in any event — nor is there the willpower to force a vote on the Equality Act as opponents stoke fears about transgender kids in sports and not even unanimity in the Democratic caucus in favor of the bill is present, stakeholders who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity said.

In fact, there are no imminent plans to hold a vote on the legislation even though Pride month is days away, which would be an opportune time for Congress to demonstrate solidarity with the LGBTQ community by holding a vote on the legislation.

If the Equality Act were to come up for a Senate vote in the next month, it would not have the support to pass. Continued assurances that bipartisan talks are continuing on the legislation have yielded no evidence of additional support, let alone the 10 Republicans needed to end a filibuster.

“I haven’t really heard an update either way, which is usually not good,” one Democratic insider said. “My understanding is that our side was entrenched in a no-compromise mindset and with [Sen. Joe] Manchin saying he didn’t like the bill, it doomed it this Congress. And the bullying of hundreds of trans athletes derailed our message and our arguments of why it was broadly needed.”

The only thing keeping the final nail from being hammered into the Equality Act’s coffin is the unwillingness of its supporters to admit defeat. Other stakeholders who spoke to the Blade continued to assert bipartisan talks are ongoing, strongly pushing back on any conclusion the legislation is dead.

Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the Equality Act is “alive and well,” citing widespread public support he said includes “the majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents and a growing number of communities across the country engaging and mobilizing every day in support of the legislation.”

“They understand the urgent need to pass this bill and stand up for LGBTQ people across our country,” David added. “As we engage with elected officials, we have confidence that Congress will listen to the voices of their constituents and continue fighting for the Equality Act through the lengthy legislative process.  We will also continue our unprecedented campaign to grow the already-high public support for a popular bill that will save lives and make our country fairer and more equal for all. We will not stop until the Equality Act is passed.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), chief sponsor of the Equality Act in the Senate, also signaled through a spokesperson work continues on the legislation, refusing to give up on expectations the legislation would soon become law.

“Sen. Merkley and his staff are in active discussions with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try to get this done,” McLennan said. “We definitely see it as a key priority that we expect to become law.”

A spokesperson Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who had promised to force a vote on the Equality Act in the Senate on the day the U.S. House approved it earlier this year, pointed to a March 25 “Dear Colleague” letter in which he identified the Equality Act as one of several bills he’d bring up for a vote.

Despite any assurances, the hold up on the bill is apparent. Although the U.S. House approved the legislation earlier this year, the Senate Judiciary Committee hasn’t even reported out the bill yet to the floor in the aftermath of the first-ever Senate hearing on the bill in March. A Senate Judiciary Committee Democratic aide, however, disputed that inaction as evidence the Equality Act is dead in its tracks: “Bipartisan efforts on a path forward are ongoing.”

Democrats are quick to blame Republicans for inaction on the Equality Act, but with Manchin withholding his support for the legislation they can’t even count on the entirety of their caucus to vote “yes” if it came to the floor. Progressives continue to advocate an end to the filibuster to advance legislation Biden has promised as part of his agenda, but even if they were to overcome headwinds and dismantle the institution needing 60 votes to advance legislation, the Equality Act would likely not have majority support to win approval in the Senate with a 50-50 party split.

The office of Manchin, who has previously said he couldn’t support the Equality Act over concerns about public schools having to implement the transgender protections applying to sports and bathrooms, hasn’t responded to multiple requests this year from the Blade on the legislation and didn’t respond to a request to comment for this article.

Meanwhile, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who declined to co-sponsor the Equality Act this year after having signed onto the legislation in the previous Congress, insisted through a spokesperson talks are still happening across the aisle despite the appearances the legislation is dead.

“There continues to be bipartisan support for passing a law that protects the civil rights of Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Annie Clark, a Collins spokesperson. “The Equality Act was a starting point for negotiations, and in its current form, it cannot pass. That’s why there are ongoing discussions among senators and stakeholders about a path forward.”

Let’s face it: Anti-LGBTQ forces have railroaded the debate by making the Equality Act about an end to women’s sports by allowing transgender athletes and danger to women in sex-segregated places like bathrooms and prisons. That doesn’t even get into resolving the issue on drawing the line between civil rights for LGBTQ people and religious freedom, which continues to be litigated in the courts as the U.S. Supreme Court is expected any day now to issue a ruling in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia to determine if foster care agencies can reject same-sex couples over religious objections.

For transgender Americans, who continue to report discrimination and violence at high rates, the absence of the Equality Act may be most keenly felt.

Mara Keisling, outgoing executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, disputed any notion the Equality Act is dead and insisted the legislation is “very much alive.”

“We remain optimistic despite misinformation from the opposition,” Keisling said. “NCTE and our movement partners are still working fruitfully on the Equality Act with senators. In fact, we are gaining momentum with all the field organizing we’re doing, like phone banking constituents to call their senators. Legislating takes time. Nothing ever gets through Congress quickly. We expect to see a vote during this Congress, and we are hopeful we can win.”

But one Democratic source said calls to members of Congress against the Equality Act, apparently coordinated by groups like the Heritage Foundation, have has outnumbered calls in favor of it by a substantial margin, with a particular emphasis on Manchin.

No stories are present in the media about same-sex couples being kicked out of a restaurant for holding hands or transgender people for using the restroom consistent with their gender identity, which would be perfectly legal in 25 states thanks to the patchwork of civil rights laws throughout the United States and inadequate protections under federal law.

Tyler Deaton, senior adviser for the American Unity Fund, which has bolstered the Republican-led Fairness for All Act as an alternative to the Equality Act, said he continues to believe the votes are present for a compromise form of the bill.

“I know for a fact there is a supermajority level of support in the Senate for a version of the Equality Act that is fully protective of both LGBTQ civil rights and religious freedom,” Deaton said. “There is interest on both sides of the aisle in getting something done this Congress.”

Deaton, however, didn’t respond to a follow-up inquiry on what evidence exists of agreeing on this compromise.

Biden has already missed the goal he campaigned on in the 2020 election to sign the Equality Act into law within his first 100 days in office. Although Biden renewed his call to pass the legislation in his speech to Congress last month, as things stand now that appears to be a goal he won’t realize for the remainder of this Congress.

Nor has the Biden administration made the Equality Act an issue for top officials within the administration as it pushes for an infrastructure package as a top priority. One Democratic insider said Louisa Terrell, legislative affairs director for the White House, delegated work on the Equality Act to a deputy as opposed to handling it herself.

To be sure, Biden has demonstrated support for the LGBTQ community through executive action at an unprecedented rate, signing an executive order on day one ordering federal agencies to implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year in Bostock v. Clayton County to the fullest extent possible and dismantling former President Trump’s transgender military ban. Biden also made historic LGBTQ appointments with the confirmation of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Rachel Levine as assistant secretary of health.

A White House spokesperson insisted Biden’s team across the board remains committed to the Equality Act, pointing to his remarks to Congress.

“President Biden has urged Congress to get the Equality Act to his desk so he can sign it into law and provide long overdue civil rights protections to LGBTQ+ Americans, and he remains committed to seeing this legislation passed as quickly as possible,” the spokesperson said. “The White House and its entire legislative team remains in ongoing and close coordination with organizations, leaders, members of Congress, including the Equality Caucus, and staff to ensure we are working across the aisle to push the Equality Act forward.”

But at least in the near-term, that progress will fall short of fulfilling the promise of updating federal civil rights law with the Equality Act, which will mean LGBTQ people won’t be able to rely on those protections when faced with discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Continue Reading

homepage news

D.C. bill to ban LGBTQ panic defense delayed by Capitol security

Delivery of bill to Congress was held up due to protocols related to Jan. 6 riots

Published

on

New fencing around the Capitol following the Jan. 6 insurrection prevented some D.C. bills from being delivered to the Hill for a required congressional review. (Blade file photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A bill approved unanimously last December by the D.C. Council to ban the so-called LGBTQ panic defense has been delayed from taking effect as a city law because the fence installed around the U.S. Capitol following the Jan. 6 insurrection prevented the law from being delivered to Congress.

According to Eric Salmi, communications director for D.C. Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), who guided the bill through the Council’s legislative process, all bills approved by the Council and signed by the D.C. mayor must be hand-delivered to Congress for a required congressional review.

“What happened was when the Capitol fence went up after the January insurrection, it created an issue where we physically could not deliver laws to Congress per the congressional review period,” Salmi told the Washington Blade.

Among the bills that could not immediately be delivered to Congress was the Bella Evangelista and Tony Hunter Panic Defense Prohibition and Hate Crimes Response Amendment Act of 2020, which was approved by the Council on a second and final vote on Dec. 15.

Between the time the bill was signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser and published in the D.C. Register under procedural requirements for all bills, it was not ready to be transmitted to Congress until Feb. 16, the Council’s legislative record for the bill shows.

Salmi said the impasse in delivering the bill to Congress due to the security fence prevented the bill from reaching Congress on that date and prevented the mandatory 60-day congressional review period for this bill from beginning at that time. He noted that most bills require a 30 legislative day review by Congress.

But the Evangelista-Hunter bill, named after a transgender woman and a gay man who died in violent attacks by perpetrators who attempted to use the trans and gay panic defense, includes a law enforcement related provision that under the city’s Home Rule Charter passed by Congress in the early 1970s requires a 60-day congressional review.

“There is a chance it goes into effect any day now, just given the timeline is close to being up,” Salmi said on Tuesday. “I don’t know the exact date it was delivered, but I do know the countdown is on,” said Salmi, who added, “I would expect any day now it should go into effect and there’s nothing stopping it other than an insurrection in January.”

If the delivery to Congress had not been delayed, the D.C. Council’s legislative office estimated the congressional review would have been completed by May 12.

A congressional source who spoke on condition of being identified only as a senior Democratic aide, said the holdup of D.C. bills because of the Capitol fence has been corrected.

“The House found an immediate workaround, when this issue first arose after the Jan. 6 insurrection,” the aide said.

“This is yet another reason why D.C. Council bills should not be subject to a congressional review period and why we need to grant D.C. statehood,” the aide said.

The aide added that while no disapproval resolution had been introduced in Congress to overturn the D.C. Evangelista-Hunter bill, House Democrats would have defeated such a resolution.

“House Democrats support D.C. home rule, statehood, and LGBTQ rights,” said the aide.

LGBTQ rights advocates have argued that a ban on using a gay or transgender panic defense in criminal trials is needed to prevent defense attorneys from inappropriately asking juries to find that a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression is to blame for a defendant’s criminal act, including murder.

Some attorneys have argued that their clients “panicked” after discovering the person against whom they committed a violent crime was gay or transgender, prompting them to act in a way they believed to be a form of self-defense.

In addition to its provision banning the LGBTQ panic defense, the Evangelista-Hunter bill includes a separate provision that strengthens the city’s existing hate crimes law by clarifying that hatred need not be the sole motivating factor for an underlying crime such as assault, murder, or threats to be prosecuted as a hate crime.

LGBTQ supportive prosecutors have said the clarification was needed because it is often difficult to prove to a jury that hatred is the only motive behind a violent crime. The prosecutors noted that juries have found defendants not guilty of committing a hate crime on grounds that they believed other motives were involved in a particular crime after defense lawyers argued that the law required “hate” to be the only motive in order to find someone guilty of a hate crime.

Salmi noted that while the hate crime clarification and panic defense prohibition provisions of the Evangelista-Hunter bill will become law as soon as the congressional review is completed, yet another provision in the bill will not become law after the congressional review because there are insufficient funds in the D.C. budget to cover the costs of implementing the provision.

The provision gives the D.C. Office of Human Rights and the Office of the D.C. Attorney General authority to investigate hate related discrimination at places of public accommodation. Salmi said the provision expands protections against discrimination to include web-based retailers or online delivery services that are not physically located in D.C.

“That is subject to appropriations,” Salmi said. “And until it is funded in the upcoming budget it cannot be legally enforced.”

He said that at Council member Allen’s request, the Council added language to the bill that ensures that all other provisions of the legislation that do not require additional funding – including the ban on use of the LGBTQ panic defense and the provision clarifying that hatred doesn’t have to be the sole motive for a hate crime – will take effect as soon as the congressional approval process is completed.

Continue Reading

homepage news

D.C. man charged with 2020 anti-gay death threat rearrested

Defendant implicated in three anti-LGBTQ incidents since 2011

Published

on

shooting, DC Eagle, assault, hate crime, anti-gay attack, police discrimination, sex police, Sisson, gay news, Washington Blade

A D.C. man arrested in August 2020 for allegedly threatening to kill a gay man outside the victim’s apartment in the city’s Adams Morgan neighborhood and who was released while awaiting trial was arrested again two weeks ago for allegedly threatening to kill another man in an unrelated incident.

D.C. Superior Court records show that Jalal Malki, who was 37 at the time of his 2020 arrest on a charge of bias-related attempts to do bodily harm against the gay man, was charged on May 4, 2021 with unlawful entry, simple assault, threats to kidnap and injure a person, and attempted possession of a prohibited weapon against the owner of a vacant house at 4412 Georgia Ave., N.W.

Court charging documents state that Malki was allegedly staying at the house without permission as a squatter. An arrest affidavit filed in court by D.C. police says Malki allegedly threatened to kill the man who owns the house shortly after the man arrived at the house while Malki was inside.

According to the affidavit, Malki walked up to the owner of the house while the owner was sitting in his car after having called police and told him, “If you come back here, I’m going to kill you.” While making that threat Malki displayed what appeared to be a gun in his waistband, but which was later found to be a toy gun, the affidavit says.

Malki then walked back inside the house minutes before police arrived and arrested him. Court records show that similar to the court proceedings following his 2020 arrest for threatening the gay man, a judge in the latest case ordered Malki released while awaiting trial. In both cases, the judge ordered him to stay away from the two men he allegedly threatened to kill.

An arrest affidavit filed by D.C. police in the 2020 case states that Malki allegedly made the threats inside an apartment building where the victim lived on the 2300 block of Champlain Street, N.W. It says Malki was living in a nearby building but often visited the building where the victim lived.

“Victim 1 continued to state during an interview that it was not the first time that Defendant 1 had made threats to him, but this time Defendant 1 stated that if he caught him outside, he would ‘fucking kill him.’” the affidavit says. It quotes the victim as saying during this time Malki repeatedly called the victim a “fucking faggot.”

The affidavit, prepared by the arresting officers, says that after the officers arrested Malki and were leading him to a police transport vehicle to be booked for the arrest, he expressed an “excited utterance” that he was “in disbelief that officers sided with the ‘fucking faggot.’”

Court records show that Malki is scheduled to appear in court on June 4 for a status hearing for both the 2020 arrest and the arrest two weeks ago for allegedly threatening to kill the owner of the house in which police say he was illegally squatting.

Superior Court records show that Malki had been arrested three times between 2011 and 2015 in cases unrelated to the 2021 and 2020 cases for allegedly also making threats of violence against people. Two of the cases appear to be LGBTQ related, but prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not list the cases as hate crimes.

In the first of the three cases, filed in July 2011, Malki allegedly shoved a man inside Dupont Circle and threatened to kill him after asking the man why he was wearing a purple shirt.

“Victim 1 believes the assault occurred because Suspect 1 believes Victim 1 is a homosexual,” the police arrest affidavit says.

Court records show prosecutors charged Malki with simple assault and threats to do bodily harm in the case. But the court records show that on Sept. 13, 2011, D.C. Superior Court Judge Stephen F. Eilperin found Malki not guilty on both charges following a non-jury trial.

The online court records do not state why the judge rendered a not guilty verdict. With the courthouse currently closed to the public and the press due to COVID-related restrictions, the Washington Blade couldn’t immediately obtain the records to determine the judge’s reason for the verdict.

In the second case, court records show Malki was arrested by D.C. police outside the Townhouse Tavern bar and restaurant at 1637 R St., N.W. on Nov. 7, 2012 for allegedly threatening one or more people with a knife after employees ordered Malki to leave the establishment for “disorderly behavior.”

At the time, the Townhouse Tavern was located next door to the gay nightclub Cobalt, which before going out of business two years ago, was located at the corner of 17th and R Streets, N.W.

The police arrest affidavit in the case says Malki allegedly pointed a knife in a threatening way at two of the tavern’s employees who blocked his path when he attempted to re-enter the tavern. The affidavit says he was initially charged by D.C. police with assault with a dangerous weapon – knife. Court records, however, show that prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office lowered the charges to two counts of simple assault. The records show that on Jan. 15, 2013, Malki pleaded guilty to the two charges as part of a plea bargain arrangement.

The records show that Judge Marissa Demeo on that same day issued a sentence of 30 days for each of the two charges but suspended all 30 days for both counts. She then sentenced Malki to one year of supervised probation for both charges and ordered that he undergo alcohol and drug testing and undergo treatment if appropriate.

In the third case prior to the 2020 and 2021 cases, court records show Malki was arrested outside the Cobalt gay nightclub on March 14, 2015 on multiple counts of simple assault, attempted assault with a dangerous weapon – knife, possession of a prohibited weapon – knife, and unlawful entry.

The arrest affidavit says an altercation started on the sidewalk outside the bar when for unknown reasons, Malki grabbed a female customer who was outside smoking and attempted to pull her toward him. When her female friend came to her aid, Malki allegedly got “aggressive” by threatening the woman and “removed what appeared to be a knife from an unknown location” and pointed it at the woman’s friend in a threatening way, the affidavit says.

It says a Cobalt employee minutes later ordered Malki to leave the area and he appeared to do so. But others noticed that he walked toward another entrance door to Cobalt and attempted to enter the establishment knowing he had been ordered not to return because of previous problems with his behavior, the affidavit says. When he attempted to push away another employee to force his way into Cobalt, Malki fell to the ground during a scuffle and other employees held him on the ground while someone else called D.C. police.

Court records show that similar to all of Malki’s arrests, a judge released him while awaiting trial and ordered him to stay away from Cobalt and all of those he was charged with threatening and assaulting.

The records show that on Sept. 18, 2015, Malki agreed to a plea bargain offer by prosecutors in which all except two of the charges – attempted possession of a prohibited weapon and simple assault – were dropped. Judge Alfred S. Irving Jr. on Oct. 2, 2015 sentenced Malki to 60 days of incarnation for each of the two charges but suspended all but five days, which he allowed Malki to serve on weekends, the court records show.

The judge ordered that the two five-day jail terms could be served concurrently, meaning just five days total would be served, according to court records. The records also show that Judge Irving sentenced Malki to one year of supervised probation for each of the two counts and ordered that he enter an alcohol treatment program and stay away from Cobalt.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @washblade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular