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
D.C. Council gives first approval to amended PrEP insurance bill
Removes weakening language after concerns raised by AIDS group
The D.C. Council voted unanimously on Feb. 3 to approve a bill on its first of two required votes that requires health insurance companies to cover the costs of HIV prevention or PrEP drugs for D.C. residents at risk for HIV infection.
The vote to approve the PrEP D.C. Amendment Act came immediately after the 13-member Council voted unanimously again to approve an amendment that removed language in the bill added last month by the Council’s Committee on Health that would require insurers to fully cover only one PrEP drug.
The amendment, introduced jointly by Council members Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5), who first introduced the bill in February 2025, and Christina Henderson (I-At-Large), who serves as chair of the Health Committee, requires insurers to cover all U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved PrEP drugs.
Under its rules, the D.C. Council must vote twice to approve all legislation, which must be signed by the D.C. mayor and undergo a 30-day review by Congress before it takes effect as a D.C. law.
Given its unanimous “first reading” vote of approval on Feb. 3, Parker told the Washington Blade he was certain the Council would approve the bill on its second and final vote expected in about two weeks.
Among those who raised concerns about the earlier version of the bill was Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, who sent messages to all 13 Council members urging them to remove the language added by the Committee on Health requiring insurers to cover just one PrEP drug.
The change made by the committee, Schmid told Council members, “would actually reduce PrEP options for D.C. residents that are required by current federal law, limit patient choice, and place D.C. behind states that have enacted HIV prevention policies designed to remain in effect regardless of any federal changes.”
Schmid told the Washington Blade that although coverage requirements for insurers are currently provided through coverage standards recommended in the U.S. Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, AIDS advocacy organizations have called on D.C. and states to pass their own legislation requiring insurance coverage of PrEP in the event that the federal policies are weakened or removed by the Trump administration, which has already reduced or ended federal funding for HIV/AIDS-related programs.
“The sticking point was the language in the markup that insurers only had to cover one regimen of PrEP,” Parker told the Blade in a phone interview the night before the Council vote. “And advocates thought that moved the needle back in terms of coverage access, and I agree with them,” he said.
In anticipation that the Council would vote to approve the amendment and the underlying bill, Parker, the Council’s only gay member, added, “I think this is a win for our community. And this is a win in the fight against HIV/AIDS.”
During the Feb. 3 Council session, Henderson called on her fellow Council members to approve both the amendment she and Parker had introduced and the bill itself. But she did not say why her committee approved the changes that advocates say weakened the bill and that her and Parker’s amendment would undo. Schmid speculated that pressure from insurance companies may have played a role in the committee change requiring coverage of only one PrEP drug.
“My goal for advancing the ‘PrEP DC Amendment Act’ is to ensure that the District is building on the progress made in reducing new HIV infections every year,” Henderson said in a statement released after the Council vote. “On Friday, my office received concerns from advocates and community leaders about language regarding PrEP coverage,” she said.
“My team and I worked with Council member Parker, community leaders, including the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute and Whitman-Walker, and the Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking, to craft a solution that clarifies our intent and provides greater access to these life-saving drugs for District residents by reducing consumer costs for any PrEP drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” her statement concludes.
In his own statement following the Council vote, Schmid thanked Henderson and Parker for initiating the amendment to improve the bill. “This will provide PrEP users with the opportunity to choose the best drug that meets their needs,” he said. “We look forward to the bill’s final reading and implementation.”
District of Columbia
Norton hailed as champion of LGBTQ rights
D.C. congressional delegate to retire after 36 years in U.S. House
LGBTQ rights advocates reflected on D.C. Congressional Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton’s longstanding advocacy and support for LGBTQ rights in Congress following her decision last month not to run for re-election this year.
Upon completing her current term in office in January 2027, Norton, a Democrat, will have served 18 two-year terms and 36 years in her role as the city’s non-voting delegate to the U.S. House.
LGBTQ advocates have joined city officials and community leaders in describing Norton as a highly effective advocate for D.C. under the city’s limited representation in Congress where she could not vote on the House floor but stood out in her work on House committees and moving, powerful speeches on the House floor.
“During her more than three decades in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton has been a champion for the District of Columbia and the LGBTQ+ community,” said David Stacy, vice president of government affairs for the Human Rights Campaign, the D.C.-based national LGBTQ advocacy organization.
“When Congress blocked implementation of D.C.’s domestic partnership registry, Norton led the fight to allow it to go into effect,” Stacey said. “When President Bush tried to ban marriage equality in every state and the District, Norton again stood up in opposition. And when Congress blocked HIV prevention efforts, Norton worked to end that interference in local control,” he said.
In reflecting the sentiment of many local and national LGBTQ advocates familiar with Norton’s work, Stacy added, “We have been lucky to have such an incredible champion. As her time in Congress comes to an end, we honor her extraordinary impact in the nation’s capital and beyond by standing together in pride and gratitude.”
Norton has been among the lead co-sponsors and outspoken supporters of LGBTQ rights legislation introduced in Congress since first taking office, including the currently pending Equality Act, which would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Activists familiar with Norton’s work also point out that she has played a lead role in opposing and helping to defeat anti-LGBTQ legislation. In 2018, Norton helped lead an effort to defeat a bill called the First Amendment Defense Act introduced by U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), which Norton said included language that could “gut” D.C.’s Human Rights Act’s provisions banning LGBTQ discrimination.
Norton pointed to a provision in the bill not immediately noticed by LGBTQ rights organizations that would define D.C.’s local government as a federal government entity and allow potential discrimination against LGBTQ people based on a “sincerely held religious belief.”
“This bill is the latest outrageous Republican attack on the District, focusing particularly on our LGBT community and the District’s right to self-government,” Norton said shortly after the bill was introduced. “We will not allow Republicans to discriminate against the LGBT community under the guise of religious liberty,” she said. Records show supporters have not secured the votes to pass it in several congressional sessions.
In 2011, Norton was credited with lining up sufficient opposition to plans by some Republican lawmakers to attempt to overturn D.C.’s same-sex marriage law, that the Council passed and the mayor signed in 2010.
In 2015, Norton also played a lead role opposing attempts by GOP members of Congress to overturn another D.C. law protecting LGBTQ students at religious schools, including the city’s Catholic University, from discrimination such as the denial of providing meeting space for an LGBTQ organization.
More recently, in 2024 Norton again led efforts to defeat an attempt by Republican House members to amend the D.C. budget bill that Congress must pass to eliminate funding for the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs and to prohibit the city from using its funds to enforce the D.C. Human Rights Act in cases of discrimination against transgender people.
“The Republican amendment that would prohibit funds from being used to enforce anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination regulations and the amendment to defund the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ+ Affairs are disgraceful attempts, in themselves, to discriminate against D.C.’s LGBTQ+ community while denying D.C. residents the limited governance over their local affairs to which they are entitled,” Norton told the Washington Blade.
In addition to pushing for LGBTQ supportive laws and opposing anti-LGBTQ measures Norton has spoken out against anti-LGBTQ hate crimes and called on the office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. in 2020 to more aggressively prosecute anti-LGBTQ hate crimes.
“There is so much to be thankful for Eleanor Holmes Norton’s many years of service to all the citizens and residents of the District of Columbia,” said John Klenert, a member of the board of the LGBTQ Victory Fund. “Whether it was supporting its LGBTQ+ people for equal rights, HIV health issues, home rule protection, statehood for all 700,000 people, we could depend on her,” he said.
Ryan Bos, executive director of Capital Pride Alliance, the group that organizes D.C.’s annual LGBTQ Pride events, called Norton a “staunch” LGBTQ community ally and champion for LGBTQ supportive legislation in Congress.
“For decades, Congresswoman Norton has marched in the annual Capital Pride Parade, showing her pride and using her platform to bring voice and visibility in our fight to advance civil rights, end discrimination, and affirm the dignity of all LGBTQ+ people” Bos said. “We will be forever grateful for her ongoing advocacy and contributions to the LGBTQ+ movement.”
Howard Garrett, president of D.C.’s Capital Stonewall Democrats, called Norton a “consistent and principled advocate” for equality throughout her career. “She supported LGBTQ rights long before it was politically popular, advancing nondiscrimination protections and equal protection under the law,” he said.
“Eleanor was smart, tough, and did not suffer fools gladly,” said Rick Rosendall, former president of the D.C. Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance. “But unlike many Democratic politicians a few decades ago who were not reliable on LGBTQ issues, she was always right there with us,” he said. “We didn’t have to explain our cause to her.”
Longtime D.C. gay Democratic activist Peter Rosenstein said he first met Norton when she served as chair of the New York City Human Rights Commission. “She got her start in the civil rights movement and has always been a brilliant advocate for equality,” Rosenstein said.
“She fought for women and for the LGBTQ community,” he said. “She always stood strong with us in all the battles the LGBTQ community had to fight in Congress. I have been honored to know her, thank her for her lifetime of service, and wish her only the best in a hard-earned retirement.”
District of Columbia
D.C. Council urged to improve ‘weakened’ PrEP insurance bill
AIDS group calls for changes before full vote on Feb. 3
The D.C.-based HIV + Hepatitis Policy Institute is calling on the D.C. Council to reverse what it says was the “unfortunate” action by a Council committee to weaken a bill aimed at requiring health insurance companies to cover the costs of HIV prevention or PrEP drugs for D.C. residents at risk for HIV infection.
HIV + HEP Policy Institute Executive Director Carl Schmid points out in a Jan. 30 email message to all 13 D.C. Council members that the Council’s Committee on Health on Dec. 8, 2025, voted to change the PrEP DC Act of 2025, Bill 26-0159, to require insurers to fully cover only one PrEP drug regimen.
Schmid noted the bill as originally written and introduced Feb. 28, 2025, by Council member Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5), the Council’s only gay member, required insurers to cover all PrEP drugs, including the newest PrEP medication taken by injection once every six months.
Schmid’s message to the Council members was sent on Friday, Jan. 30, just days before the Council was scheduled to vote on the bill on Feb. 3. He contacted the Washington Blade about his concerns about the bill as changed by committee that same day.
Spokespersons for Parker and the Committee on Health and its chairperson, Council member Christina Henderson (I-At-Large) didn’t immediately respond to the Blade’s request for comment on the issue, saying they were looking into the matter and would try to provide a response on Monday, Jan. 2.
In his message to Council members, Schmid also noted that he and other AIDS advocacy groups strongly supported the committee’s decision to incorporate into the bill a separate measure introduced by Council member Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2) that would prohibit insurers, including life insurance companies, from denying coverage to people who are on PrEP.
“We appreciate the Committee’s revisions to the bill that incorporates Bill 26-0101, which prohibits discrimination by insurance carriers based on PrEP use,” Schmid said in his statement to all Council members.
“However, the revised PrEP coverage provision would actually reduce PrEP options for D.C. residents that are required by current federal law, limit patient choice, and place D.C. behind states that have enacted HIV prevention policies designed to remain in effect regardless of any federal changes,” Schmid added.
He told the Washington Blade that although these protections are currently provided through coverage standards recommended in the U.S. Affordable Care Act, AIDS advocacy organizations have called for D.C. and states to pass their own legislation requiring insurance coverage of PrEP in the event that the federal policies are weakened or removed by the Trump administration, which has already reduced or ended federal funding for HIV/AIDS-related programs.
“The District of Columbia has always been a leader in the fight against HIV,” Schmid said in a statement to Council members. But in a separate statement he sent to the Blade, Schmid said the positive version of the bill as introduced by Parker and the committee’s incorporation of the Pinto bill were in stark contrast to the “bad side — the bill would only require insurers to cover one PrEP drug.”
He added, “That is far worse than current federal requirements. Obviously, the insurers got to them.”
The Committee on Health’s official report on the bill summarizes testimony in support of the bill by health-related organizations, including Whitman-Walker Health, and two D.C. government officials before the committee at an Oct. 30, 2025, public hearing.
Among them were Clover Barnes, Senior Deputy Director of the D.C. HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis, STD, and TB Administration, and Philip Barlow, Associate Commissioner for the D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking.
Although both Barnes and Barlow expressed overall support for the bill, Barlow suggested several changes, one of which could be related to the committee’s change of the bill described by Schmid, according to the committee report.
“First, he recommended changing the language that required PrEP and PEP coverage by insurers to instead require that insurers who already cover PrEP and PEP do not impose cost sharing or coverage more restrictive than other treatments,” the committee report states. “He pointed out that D.C. insurers already cover PrEP and PEP as preventive services, and this language would avoid unintended costs for the District,” the report adds.
PEP refers to Post-Exposure Prophylaxis medication, while PrEP stands for Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis medication.
In response to a request from the Blade for comment, Daniel Gleick, Mayor Muriel Bowser’s press secretary, said he would inquire about the issue in the mayor’s office.
Naseema Shafi, Whitman-Walker Health’s CEO, meanwhile, in response to a request by the Blade for comment, released a statement sharing Schmid’s concerns about the current version of the PrEP DC Act of 2025, which the Committee on Health renamed as the PrEP DC Amendment Act of 2025.
“Whitman-Walker Health believes that all residents of the District of Columbia should have access to whatever PrEP method is best for them based on their conversations with their providers,” Shafi said. “We would not want to see limitations on what insurers would cover,” she added. “Those kinds of limitations lead to significantly reduced access and will be a major step backwards, not to mention undermining the critical progress that the Affordable Care Act enabled for HIV prevention,” she said.
The Blade will update this story as soon as additional information is obtained from the D.C. Council members involved with the bill, especially Parker. The Blade will report on whether the full Council makes the changes to the bill requested by Schmid and others before it votes on whether to approve it at its Feb. 3 legislative session.
Human Rights Watch sharply criticizes US in annual report
LGBTQ Victory Fund looks beyond Washington for change in 2026
New Equality Caucus vice chair endorses Equality Act, federal trans bill of rights
D.C. Council gives first approval to amended PrEP insurance bill
44 openly LGBTQ athletes to compete in Milan Cortina Winter Olympics
This queer comedy show will warm you up
Out dancer on Alvin Ailey’s stint at Warner Theatre
Unconventional homes becoming more popular
D.C. Council urged to improve ‘weakened’ PrEP insurance bill
