District of Columbia
Man charged in D.C. trans murder case sentenced to seven years
Judge adds two additional years for probation violation in burglary
A D.C. Superior Court judge on April 22 sentenced one of four men charged with first-degree murder while armed for the July 4, 2016, shooting death of transgender woman Deeniquia “Dee Dee” Dodds on a street in Northeast Washington to seven years in jail for the murder.
Judge Milton C. Lee sentenced Shareem Hall, 28, to an additional two years in jail for violating his probation in an unrelated conviction for a 2013 home invasion burglary, bringing his total sentence to nine years.
Lee pointed out that Shareem Hall’s involvement in the Dodds murder took place while he was on supervised release in connection with the burglary case, which violated the terms of his release. Lee said the additional two years were for the jail time he would have received had he not been given a suspended sentence in the burglary case.
Hall’s brother, Cyheme Hall, 26, who was also charged with first-degree murder while armed in the Dodds murder case, appeared in court on April 22 for what was expected to be his sentencing. But Lee postponed that sentencing until May 10 at the request of Cyheme Hall’s attorney, who said he needed more time to prepare for the sentencing.
Shareem Hall’s sentencing came four months after two other men charged in the Dodds murder – Jalonta Little, 31, and Monte T. Johnson, 26 — were sentenced by Lee to eight years in jail in the Dodds murder case.
Their sentencing came after they agreed to an offer by prosecutors with the Office of the United States Attorney for D.C. to plead guilty to a single charge of voluntary manslaughter in exchange for the murder charge and other gun related and armed robbery charges being dropped.
D.C. police said Dodds was one of several transgender women that the four men targeted for armed robberies on the night of Dodds’s murder in locations in the city where trans women were known to congregate. Police said Dodds was fatally shot in the neck at point blank range after she fought back when the men attempted to rob her. Cyheme Hall testified at a 2019 trial for Little and Johnson that it was Johnson who shot Dodds.
Prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office initially listed the case as a hate crime because the four men were targeting transgender people for crimes. But the hate crime designation was dropped at the time of the trial after Lee ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove the motive was hate rather than robbery.
In handing down his sentence on April 22 for Shareem Hall, Lee noted that Hall cooperated with prosecutors after his arrest in the Dodds case in 2016 by agreeing to testify as a prosecution witness at the 2019 trial for Little and Johnson on the murder and related gun charges in connection with the Dodds murder.
Lee, who presided over the trial, declared a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office initially said they planned to bring the two men up for another trial. But that never happened, and the case remained in limbo for a little over two years until the plea agreement for the voluntary manslaughter charge was reached last year.
Court records at the time showed that shortly before the 2019 trial for Little and Johnson, both Hall brothers accepted an offer by prosecutors to plead guilty to a charge of second-degree murder in addition to each agreeing to testify at the combined trial for Little and Johnson.
Court records do not show any attempt by the Hall brothers’ attorneys to seek a withdrawal of their guilty plea to second-degree murder in exchange for the same offer prosecutors made for Little and Johnson for a voluntary manslaughter plea.
The current public court records for the Shareem Hall case make a reference to a guilty plea by Hall but make no mention of his having pled guilty to second-degree murder. Instead, the records show Hall having a conviction for three of the original murder related charges.
A spokesperson for the D.C. Superior Court could not be immediately reached by the Washington Blade for an explanation of how the ultimate charges for which Shareem Hall has been sentenced came about. Jonathan Zucker, the attorney representing Cyheme Hall, told the Blade outside the courtroom, following the April 22 sentencing hearing for Shareem Hall, that he didn’t think prosecutors would agree to a plea offer of voluntary manslaughter for the Hall brothers.
The court docket states that at the April 22 sentencing hearing, Lee sentenced Shareem Hall to seven years for Murder 1 While Armed; four years for Conspiracy to Commit a Crime of Violence; and four years for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in connection with the Dodds case.
Although the combined sentences come to 15 years, the docket shows that Lee ordered that the three sentences be served concurrently, requiring Hall to serve a total of seven years. Lee ordered that Hall serve the seven years in the Dodds case and the two years for the 2013 burglary case consecutively, bringing his total time served to nine years.
However, as is often the practice in this type of criminal case, Judge Lee gave Hall credit for the five and a half years he has already served in jail since the time of his arrest for the Dodds case in September 2016, for which he has been held without bond. That means Hall can be eligible for release in about three and a half years.
William Miller, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, said his office confirmed that Judge Lee sentenced Shareem Hall to the seven years in prison in the Dodds case based on a single charge of second-degree murder. “I’m not sure why the docket reads like it does,” he said, referring to the online court docket stating that Lee linked his seven-year sentence to the charges of Murder 1, Conspiracy to Commit a Crime of Violence, and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm.
Dorsey Jones, Shareem Hall’s attorney, told Lee at the sentencing hearing that his client, who has a girlfriend and two children, grew up in a high crime neighborhood in which his father, who was known to the family as a drug dealer, was murdered in 2009. Jones said Shareem Hall did not become involved with the criminal justice system until after his father’s murder, which Jones said had “a big impact” Hall’s life.
“Had his father not been murdered, he may have gone down a different path,” said Jones, who added that his client has expressed remorse over the Dodds murder. Jones told the court that Hall demonstrated that remorse by becoming a prosecution witness at the trial of Johnson and Little, placing his own life in danger by doing that.
According to Jones, Johnson and Little, who will be released from prison within the next four years, and people associated with them will likely take steps to retaliate against Hall for testifying against Little and Johnson at their trial. “He can’t remain in D.C. when he gets out,” Jones said. “He is in danger.”
At that point Jones requested and received permission from Lee to continue his statement on his client’s behalf off the public record. He handed the two assistant U.S. Attorneys serving as prosecutors and Judge Lee earphones with a mic. The judge then turned on a static sound noisemaker in the courtroom while Jones spoke for a little over five minutes before Lee reopened the hearing for the public record.
Jones then concluded by asking Lee to sentence Hall to seven years with five years’ probation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Sharon Donovan told Lee the government agreed with the seven-year sentence request.
When Lee asked Hall to speak on his own behalf, Hall apologized for his role in the Dodds murder and said he has apologized for his actions to his family and his kids.
“I’ve programmed myself so I can do better, so I can be a father and a role model for my son,” he said.
“I’m willing to give you some break because I think you were of assistance to the government,” Lee told Hall. “But you can’t get a pass,” the judge said. “The shooting death of Ms. Dodds was one of the most senseless acts I’ve unfortunately been exposed to,” Lee added. “And the individuals you picked on were among the most vulnerable in the District of Columbia.”
At the time of the December 2021 sentencing for defendants Little and Johnson, the D.C. Center for the LGBT Community’s Anti-Violence Project submitted a community impact statement to Judge Lee strongly objecting to the agreement by prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Officer to lower the charge from first-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter. The statement called on Lee to hand down the maximum sentence possible under the law.
“[W]e ask that you take into consideration the perceived vulnerability of the victim of the defendants’ violent crimes as a transgender woman of color whose rights and life were targeted in a way that confirms they did not matter to the defendants,” the statement says. “Her voice is silenced, but the grief and outcry for justice from the LGBTQ+ community rises in honor of her death and demands effective and responsive protection for the lives of all LGBTQ+ people targeted by future criminals,” the statement says.
Court records for the Shareem Hall case do not show a similar community impact statement from an LGBTQ organization was submitted to the judge.
District of Columbia
Deon Jones speaks about D.C. Department of Corrections bias lawsuit settlement
Gay former corrections officer says harassment, discrimination began in 1993
Deon Jones says he is pleased with the outcome of his anti-gay bias lawsuit against the D.C. Department of Corrections that ended after five years on Feb. 5 with the D.C. government paying him $500,000 in a settlement payment.
The lawsuit, filed on his behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union of D.C. and the international law firm WilmerHale, charged that Jones, a Department of Corrections sergeant, had been subjected to years of discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment because of his identity as a gay man in clear violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act.
A statement released by the ACLU at the time the settlement was announced says Jones, “faced years of verbal abuse and harassment, from co-workers and incarcerated people alike, including anti-gay slurs, threats, and degrading treatment.”
The statement adds, “The prolonged mistreatment took a severe toll on Jones’s mental health, and he experienced depression, post-traumatic-stress disorder, and 15 anxiety attacks in 2021 alone.:
Jones said the harassment and mistreatment he encountered began in 1993, one year after he first began work at the Department of Corrections and continued for more than 25 years under six D.C. mayors, including current Mayor Muriel Bowser, who he says did not respond to his repeated pleas for help.
Each of those mayors, including Bowser, have been outspoken supporters of the LGBTQ community, but Jones says they did not intervene to change what he calls the homophobic “culture” at the Department of Corrections.
The Department of Corrections, through the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, which represents city agencies against lawsuits, and the mayor’s office, have so far declined to comment on the lawsuit and the half million-dollar settlement the city offered to Jones, who accepted it.
Among other things, the settlement agreement states that Jones would be required to resign from his job at the Department of Corrections. It also declares that “neither the parties’ agreement nor the District government’s offer to settle the case shall in any way be construed as an admission by the District that it or any of its current or former employees, acted wrongfully with respect to plaintiff or any other person, or that plaintiff has any rights.”
Scott Michelman, the D.C. ACLU’s legal director said that type of disclaimer is typical for parties that agree to settle a lawsuit like this. He said the city’s action to pay Jones a half million-dollar settlement “speaks louder than words.”
With that as a backdrop, Jones reflected on the settlement and what he says was his tumultuous 30-year career as an employee at the D.C. Department of Corrections in a Feb. 9 interview with the Washington Blade.
He and Michelman pointed out that Jones was placed on paid administrative leave in April 2022, one year after his lawsuit was filed. Among his upcoming plans, Jones told the Blade, is to publish a podcast that, among other things, will highlight the hardship he faced at the Department of Corrections and advocate for LGBTQ rights.
BLADE: What are your thoughts on this lawsuit settlement which appears very much in your favor?
JONES: That’s great. I’m happy. I’m glad to resign. It’s been a long time coming. It was the worst time it’s ever been. And I have advocated for the community for many, many years. And not only standing up for my rights but for the rights for others in the LGBTQ community.
And I’m just tired now. And my podcast will start soon. And I will continue to advocate for the community.
BLADE: Can you tell a little about that and when it will begin?
JONES: Once in April, once everything is closed my podcast will be starting. And that’s Deon’s Chronicle and Reveal. Yes, my own podcast.
BLADE: Since we have reported your attorney saying you have been on administrative leave since March of 2022, some in the community might be interested in what you have been doing since that time. Did you get another job or were you just waiting for this case to be resolved?
JONES: I was waiting for this to be resolved. I couldn’t work. That would violate policy and procedures of the D.C. government. So, I could not get another job or anything else.
BLADE: You have said under administrative leave you were still getting paid. You were still able to live off of that?
JONES: Yes, I was able to. Yes, sir. I used to do a lot of overtime. As a zone lieutenant for many years, I have supervised over 250 officers. I’ve also supervised over 25,000 inmates in my 30 years.
BLADE: How many years have you been working for the Department of Corrections?
JONES: It’s 30 years all together. I started down at the Lorton facility. Six facilities — I’ve worked for past directors, deputy directors, internal affairs. I’ve done it all.
BLADE: Do you have any plans now other than doing the podcast?
JONES: Well, to just do my podcast and also to write my book and my memoir inside of the house of pain, the house of shame — what I’ve been through. When I start my podcast off it will be stories — Part 1 through Part 4. And I will go back to the Lorton days all the way up to now. When it first started was sexual harassment and discrimination back down at Lorton. And I mean this has just been the worst time around.
BLADE: So, did you first start your work at the Lorton Prison?
JONES: Yes, I was at the central facility, which was the program institution.
MICHELMAN: Just for context. You may remember this, but the Lorton facility was where D.C. incarcerated people were held. So, that was part of the D.C. Department of Corrections.
BLADE: Yes, and that was located in Lorton, Va., is that right?
JONES: Right.
BLADE: Didn’t that close and is the main incarceration facility is now in D.C. itself?
JONES: Yes. And that closed in 2001.
BLADE: I see. And is the main D.C. jail now at a site near the RFK Stadium site?
JONES: Yes, sir. And next-door is the correctional treatment facility as well.
BLADE: So, are you saying the harassment and other mistreatment against you began back when you were working at the Lorton facility?
JONES: At the Lorton central facility. And they used to flash me too. When I say flash me like the residents, the inmates were flashing. And they [the employees] were flashing.
BLADE: What do you mean by flashing?
JONES: They take their penis out and everything else. I mean the sexual harassment was terrible. And I came out then down there. And I continued to advocate for myself and to advocate for other people who I was told were being picked on as well.
BLADE: As best you can recall, where and what year did that happen?
JONES: That was back in 1993 in April of 1993.
BLADE: The mayor’s office has declined to comment on the settlement and payment the city is giving you. Yet they have always said they have a strong policy of nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people in D.C. government agencies. But do you think that was not carried out at the Department of Corrections?
JONES: That’s a blatant reason why — I had 13 anxiety attacks. It was so blatant. Can you imagine? On the airwaves or the walkie-talkies — everybody had a walkie talkie — the captains and the majors and everything. And you transmit it to the command center or something like that. When you finish someone gets on the air and calls you a sissy or a fag.
They received so many complaints, and I also sent the mayor so many emails and begging for help. And they ignored it. They didn’t address any complaints at all. So, that’s bull.
BLADE: But now after you filed your lawsuit and you received this settlement do you think there will be changes there to protect the rights of other LGBTQ employees?
JONES: I hope so, because I have been defending community rights. For many years I have been advocating for different things and different services. And I’ve seen the treatment. There are a lot of mistreatments towards the community over there. And I have taken a stance for a lot of people in the community and protecting their constitutional rights as well as mine.
BLADE: What advice might you have for what the Department of Corrections should do to correct the situation that led to your lawsuit?
JONES: Well, what my advice for the department is they need to go back over their training. And they need to enforce rules against any acts of discrimination, retaliation, or sexual harassment. They need to enforce that. They’re not enforcing that at all. They’re not doing it at all. And this time it was worse than ever, then I’ve ever seen it. That you would get on the walkie talkie and someone would call you a fag or a sissy or whatever else or do evil things and everything. They are not enforcing what they are preaching. They are not enforcing that.
BLADE: Is there any kind of concluding comment you may want to make?
JONES: Well, I hope that this litigation will be a wakeup call for the department. And also, that it will give someone else the motivation to stand up for their rights. I was blessed to have the ACLU and WilmerHale to protect my constitutional rights. So, I am just really happy. So, I’m hoping that others will stand up for their rights. Because a lot of people in the community that worked there, they were actually afraid. And I had some people who actually quit because of the pressure.
District of Columbia
U.S. Attorney’s Office drops hate crime charge in anti-gay assault
Case remains under investigation and ‘further charges’ could come
D.C. police announced on Feb. 9 that they had arrested two days earlier on Feb. 7 a Germantown, Md., man on a charge of simple assault with a hate crime designation after the man allegedly assaulted a gay man at 14th and Q Streets, N.W., while using “homophobic slurs.”
But D.C. Superior Court records show that prosecutors with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C., which prosecutes D.C. violent crime cases, charged the arrested man only with simple assault without a hate crime designation.
In response to a request by the Washington Blade for the reason why the hate crime designation was dropped, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office provided this response: “We continue to investigate this matter and make no mistake: should the evidence call for further charges, we will not hesitate to charge them.”
In a statement announcing the arrest in this case, D.C. police stated, “On Saturday, February 7, 2026, at approximately 7:45 p.m. the victim and suspect were in the 1500 block of 14th Street, Northwest. The suspect requested a ‘high five’ from the victim. The victim declined and continued walking,” the statement says.
“The suspect assaulted the victim and used homophobic slurs,” the police statement continues. “The suspect was apprehended by responding officers.”
It adds that 26-year-old Dean Edmundson of Germantown, Md. “was arrested and charged with Simple Assault (Hate/Bias).” The statement also adds, “A designation as a hate crime by MPD does not mean that prosecutors will prosecute it as a hate crime.”
Under D.C.’s Bias Related Crime Act of 1989, penalties for crimes motivated by prejudice against individuals based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and homelessness can be enhanced by a court upon conviction by one and a half times greater than the penalty of the underlying crime.
Prosecutors in the past both in D.C. and other states have said they sometimes decide not to include a hate crime designation in assault cases if they don’t think the evidence is sufficient to obtain a conviction by a jury. In some instances, prosecutors have said they were concerned that a skeptical jury might decide to find a defendant not guilty of the underlying assault charge if they did not believe a motive of hate was involved.
A more detailed arrest affidavit filed by D.C. police in Superior Court appears to support the charge of a hate crime designation.
“The victim stated that they refused to High-Five Defendant Edmondson, which, upon that happening, Defendant Edmondson started walking behind both the victim and witness, calling the victim, “bald, ugly, and gay,” the arrest affidavit states.
“The victim stated that upon being called that, Defendant Edmundson pushed the victim with both hands, shoving them, causing the victim to feel the force of the push,” the affidavit continues. “The victim stated that they felt offended and that they were also gay,” it says.
District of Columbia
Capital Pride wins anti-stalking order against local activist
Darren Pasha claims action is linked to his criticism of Pride organizers
A D.C. Superior Court judge on Feb. 6 partially approved an anti-stalking order against a local LGBTQ activist requested last October by the Capital Pride Alliance, the D.C.-based LGBTQ group that organizes the city’s annual Pride events.
The ruling by Judge Robert D. Okun requires Darren Pasha to stay at least 100 feet away from Capital Pride’s staff, board members, and volunteers until the time of a follow up court hearing he scheduled for April 17.
In his ruling at the Feb. 6 hearing, which was virtual rather than held in-person at the courthouse, Okun said he had changed the distance that Capital Pride had requested for the stay-away, anti-stalking order from 200 yards to 100 feet. The court records show that the judge also denied a motion filed earlier by Pasha, who did not attend the hearing, to “quash” the Capital Pride civil case against him.
Pasha told the Washington Blade he suffered an injury and damaged his mobile phone by falling off his scooter on the city’s snow-covered streets that prevented him from calling in to join the Feb. 6 court hearing.
In his own court filings without retaining an attorney, Pasha has strongly denied the stalking related allegations against him by Capital Pride, saying “no credible or admissible evidence has been provided” to show he engaged in any wrongdoing.
The Capital Pride complaint initially filed in court on Oct. 27, 2025, includes an 18-page legal brief outlining its allegations against Pasha and an additional 167-page addendum of “supporting exhibits” that includes multiple statements by witnesses whose names are blacked out.
“Over the past year, Defendant Darren Pasha (“DSP”) has engaged in a sustained, and escalating course of conduct directed at CPA, including repeated and unwanted contact, harassment, intimidation, threats, manipulation, and coercive behavior targeting CPA staff, board members, volunteers, and affiliates,” the Capital Pride complaint states.
In his initial 16-page response to the complaint, Pasha says the Capital Pride complaint appears to be a form of retaliation against him for a dispute he has had with the organization and its then president, Ashley Smith, last year.
“It is evident that the document is replete with false, misleading, and unsubstantiated assertions,” he said of the complaint.
Smith, who has since resigned from his role as board president, did not respond to a request by the Blade for comment at the time the Capital Pride court complaint was filed against Pasha.
Capital Pride Executive Director Ryan Bos and the attorney representing the group in its legal action against Pasha, Nick Harrison, did not immediately respond to a Blade request for comment on the judge’s Feb. 6 ruling.
4th Circuit rules against discharged service members with HIV
PHOTOS: Clash
Gay Treasury Secretary’s silence on LGBTQ issues shows he is scum
Lawsuit to restore Stonewall Pride flag filed
EXCLUSIVE: Markey says transgender rights fight is ‘next frontier’
Four bisexual women on stereotypes, erasure, representation, and joy
Magic is happening for Round House’s out stage manager
‘Heated Rivalry’ fandom exposes LGBTQ divide in Baltimore
Home is where the heart is
