Connect with us

District of Columbia

Concern over possible D.C. juvenile crime wave targeting LGBTQ victims

Anger, frustration at attorney general’s ‘Listening Session’ in Dupont Circle

Published

on

D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb’s office oversees prosecuting juveniles charged with committing crimes in the District, but critics say it’s a ‘catch-and-release’ system.

The rapidly growing number of violent crimes in the nation’s capital committed by juveniles armed with guns and knives that D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has called a juvenile crime emergency is surfacing in neighborhoods where LGBTQ people are likely being targeted, according to activists following local crime reports.

Concern over reports of cases where LGBTQ people may have been targeted for armed robberies and carjackings in the Dupont Circle area by juvenile assailants coming to the area from other parts of the city surfaced at a Feb. 28 Ward 2 Listening Session hosted by D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb.

The event, held at St. Thomas’ Parish Church in the Dupont Circle neighborhood, included strongly worded presentations from Dupont Circle Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner Vincent Slatt and former Dupont Circle ANC Commissioner Mike Silverstein, both of whom are longtime LGBTQ rights advocates.

The two told Schwalb, whose office oversees prosecuting juveniles charged with committing crimes in the District, that the city’s juvenile justice system appears to be failing to take adequate measures to address the juvenile crime problem.

Among the main concerns raised by Silverstein and Slatt as well as others is that the city’s criminal law pertaining to juvenile offenders has a strict confidentiality provision that prevents D.C. police and prosecutors with the D.C. Office of the Attorney General from publicly disclosing the outcome and disposition of cases in which a juvenile is arrested for a crime of violence or any other crime.

Activists raising this concern have said they do not want authorities to disclose the identity of juveniles charged with crimes. But what they would like to know, Silverstein and Slatt said, is whether officials like Attorney General Schwalb and members of the D.C. Council will take steps to change the law to allow the disclosure of the outcome of juvenile cases.

“Last year there were 1,400 juvenile arrests and 56 percent of those who were arrested had guns,” said Silverstein, whose remarks were recorded on a video taken by Peter Semler, editor and owner of the Capitol Intelligence Group news organization.

“These are children with guns,” Silverstein continued. “Seventy-five percent of those arrested for carjacking last year were kids, were children,” he told Schwalb. “And people are questioning, you know, where is the prosecution?”

Schwalb responded by saying he would consider asking the D.C. Council to pass legislation allowing the public disclosure of the disposition of juvenile criminal cases, but he did not commit to doing so, according to Silverstein and others who attended the AG’s Listening Session.

A spokesperson for Schwalb did not respond to a request from the Washington Blade for a comment from the attorney general elaborating on any plans he may have to propose a change in the law as requested by activists speaking at the Feb. 28 Listening Session.

In his remarks at the Listening Session, Slatt, who serves as co-chair of the city’s ANC Rainbow Caucus, said he and other Dupont Circle residents were especially troubled that they have not been able to determine the status of the prosecution or whether a prosecution took place for three juvenile males arrested for committing four separate armed robberies in the Dupont Circle area within about 30 minutes on Sunday evening, Jan. 29.

Slatt said he and others alarmed over the incidents have not been able to determine whether any of the victims are members of the LGBTQ community or whether any of the incidents might be hate crimes.  

D.C. police released a statement announcing that detectives had arrested three juvenile males for allegedly committing the armed robberies in different nearby locations between 9:45 and 10:14 p.m. on Jan. 29. The police statement says two of the juveniles were 16 years old and the other was 15.

The police statement lists the offenses allegedly committed by the youths as Attempted Armed Robbery, Armed Robbery (Gun), Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (Gun), and Armed Robbery (Gun). It says the 15-year-old was additionally charged with Carrying a Pistol Without a License, and Possession of a Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device.

“The ongoing question about youth crime and youth getting re-released is a major thing in the city right now,” Slatt told the Blade. “And as you know, they won’t release information about these cases,” he said. “And also, they’re not letting us know is this a hate crime?”

Slatt added, “And so we don’t know when they are gay related. And there is no way for us in the gay community to do community impact statements because we’re not allowed to follow these cases because of the anonymity protections on the youth criminals.”

He was referring to the longstanding process in the local D.C. court system for adult criminal cases where victims of a crime and members of the community, including members of the LGBTQ community, can submit to a judge a victim impact statement or community impact statement. 

The impact statements usually are submitted at the time a judge is about to hand down a sentence after the person charged with a particular crime has been convicted in a trial or pleads guilty as part of a plea bargain deal offered by prosecutors.

“My thing specifically is, is this a gay issue or not,” said Slatt. “Are they hiding that data or not? How can we even say these are hate crimes or not if we can’t even follow the cases, if we can’t say what it’s about?”

In a development that may come as a surprise to activists calling for the release of information about juvenile cases without releasing the identity of a juvenile, the controversial 450-page D.C. criminal code reform bill that Congress overturned earlier this month does not address in any way the city’s juvenile criminal code.

The Revised Criminal Code Act, which the Council passed unanimously last September and voted 12 to 1 to override Mayor Bowser’s veto of the bill, became the target of criticism from both Democratic and Republican members of Congress and from President Joe Biden because of several controversial provisions.

Among them are language calling for eliminating most mandatory minimum prison sentences, reducing the maximum sentence for crimes such as burglaries, carjackings, and robberies, and allowing jury trials for all misdemeanor cases in which a prison sentence is possible.

Bowser, who said she supported about 95 percent of the bill’s voluminous proposed overall of the city’s antiquated criminal code, has called on the Council to remove the provisions that triggered the reaction by Congress and a Democratic president to oppose the legislation in its original form.

Jinwoo Charles Park, executive director of the D.C. Criminal Code Reform Commission, which played a lead role in helping the D.C. Council draft the criminal code reform bill, said the Council limited the commission’s scope of work to the city’s adult criminal code when it created the commission in 2016.

According to Park, now that the commission finished most of its work on the criminal code bill for adults – with some changes needed to address the objections by Congress and Biden – the commission can look into possible changes in the criminal code’s provisions dealing with juveniles. He said he would support looking into such a revision for the juvenile code.

“I do think going forward there is a whole other part of the law that probably should be revised,” he said in referring to the juvenile provisions of the D.C. criminal code. “I’m not taking a position on that at this point. But I think it is an important project that does need to be tackled in coming years,” he said.

Bowser, meanwhile, stated at a Feb. 6 press conference in response to a question from the Washington Blade that she would support a revision in the juvenile code to allow the public disclosure of the outcome of juvenile cases with the identity of a juvenile charged in such a case remaining confidential.

“I would, and I say that with a lot of caveats because it is a complicated issue,” Bowser said. “But I agree with the sentiment,” she said, adding that the current blanket confidentiality in juvenile cases might also have a negative impact on other D.C. government agencies that provide services for juveniles.

Among those who have also said they would consider changing the city’s juvenile law to allow the outcome of juvenile cases to be disclosed to victims and possibly to the community is D.C. Council member Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2). Pinto currently serves as chair of the Council’s Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, where any legislation calling for changing the juvenile criminal law will be sent for consideration and approval.

“It is something that the committee is looking at very closely and something that we’re going to try to make some actionable improvements on in the coming months,” Pinto told the Blade. But she said her focus would be “from the perspective of victims’ rights and what survivors need to have some resolution to their case.”

When asked if she would commit to having the disposition of juvenile cases disclosed to the public as well as to victims of juvenile related crimes, Pinto added, “I would say I’m committed to looking at it.” An important concern, she said, is to carefully balance the issue of youth privacy and making sure there is a just resolution to a case for all parties.

“The most important dynamic to me that I’m thinking about are the survivors and victims as well as government partners having access to this information,” she said. “But I am open minded to looking at this other piece to make sure that our communities can be kept safe and have the resolution that they need and deserve.”

The other Council members who serve on the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee who would join Pinto in deciding on whether to change the city’s juvenile criminal statute include Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), Anita Bonds (D-At-Large), Vincent Gray (D-Ward 7), and Christina Henderson (I-At-Large).

Among those expressing concern over the city’s juvenile justice system is Washington Post columnist Colbert King. In a Feb. 24 column, King reported that in response to his request, the Office of the D.C. Attorney General sent him data showing that out of 462 juvenile arrests made by D.C. police between Oct. 1, 2022, and Feb. 15, 2023, the AG’s office prosecuted only 295, or 64 percent, of the cases. Ninety-four of the cases, or 19 percent, were dropped for insufficient evidence, King said the AG’s office informed him.

According to King, 73 of the juvenile arrests during that period, or 16 percent, were dismissed and diverted to “alternative or no-incarceration programs or deferred sentencing agreements.”

Silverstein, the former Dupont Circle Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner and LGBTQ rights advocate, raised the issue of how many juvenile cases were being prosecuted or dropped in his remarks to D.C. Attorney General Schwalb at Schwalb’s Feb. 28 listening session.

“There is this growing belief, sir, and I’m not one of those who wants to lock everybody up or anything like that,” Silverstein said, “that people don’t believe it’s anything but catch and release, that people are getting away with this kind of stuff and there is no prosecution.”

Silverstein concluded his remarks telling Schwalb about an anti-gay hate crime that took place several years ago involving juvenile attackers.

“A gang of between 10 and 15 kids set upon two young gay men on U Street and beat the hell out of them, called them all kinds of homophobic names, and broke the bones around one of their eyes,” he said. “We never found out what happened to the kids – the three who were arrested. The rumor was they had to write a paper.”

Added Silverstein, “There’s no trust, sir, in the consequences. It breaks my heart because it plays to those who want to lock everybody up. I’m sorry if I had to spill my guts, but it scares the hell out of me.”

The audio part of the video recording of Silverstein’s remarks became mostly inaudible when Schwalb responded to Silverstein.

“He said he would consider the possibility of supporting some change in the confidentiality laws regarding the disposition phases, that he would consider supporting it,” Silverstein told the Blade in an interview. “And it was just word salad. It’s totally nonspecific and it is not a promise at all,” said Silverstein.

The Washington Blade will report Schwalb’s positions in greater detail on these issues if his office responds to the Blade’s request for comment by the attorney general.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

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

Published

on

(Photo by chalabala/Bigstock)

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.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Capital Pride wins anti-stalking order against local activist

Darren Pasha claims action is linked to his criticism of Pride organizers

Published

on

Darren Pasha was ordered to stay 100 feet away from Capital Pride officials. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

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.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

D.C. pays $500,000 to settle lawsuit brought by gay Corrections Dept. employee

Alleged years of verbal harassment, slurs, intimidation

Published

on

Deon Jones (Photo courtesy of the ACLU)

The D.C. government on Feb. 5 agreed to pay $500,000 to a gay D.C. Department of Corrections officer as a settlement to a lawsuit the officer filed in 2021 alleging he was subjected  to years of discrimination at his job because of his sexual orientation, according to a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union of D.C.

The statement says the lawsuit, filed on behalf of Sgt. Deon Jones by the ACLU of D.C. and the law firm WilmerHale, alleged that the Department of Corrections, including supervisors and co-workers, “subjected Sgt. Jones to discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment because of his identity as a gay man, in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act.”

Daniel Gleick, a spokesperson for D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, said the mayor’s office would have no comment on the lawsuit settlement. A spokesperson for the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, which represents the city against lawsuits, said the office has a longstanding policy of not commenting on litigation like the Deon Jones lawsuit.

Bowser and her high-level D.C. government appointees, including Japer Bowles, director of the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs, have spoken out against LGBTQ-related discrimination.   

“Jones, now a 28-year veteran of the Department and nearing retirement, faced years of verbal abuse and harassment from coworkers and incarcerated people alike, including anti-gay slurs, threats, and degrading treatment,”  the ACLU’s statement says.

“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,” it says.

“For years, I showed up to do my job with professionalism and pride, only to be targeted because of who I am,” Jones says in the ACLU  statement. “This settlement affirms that my pain mattered – and that creating hostile workplaces has real consequences,” he said.  

He added, “For anyone who is LGBTQ or living with a disability and facing workplace discrimination or retaliation, know this: you are not powerless. You have rights. And when you stand up, you can achieve justice.”

The settlement agreement, a link to which the ACLU provided in its statement announcing the settlement, states that plaintiff Jones agrees, among other things, that “neither the Parties’ agreement, nor the District’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.

“But actions speak louder than words,” he told the Blade. “The fact that they are paying our client a half million dollars for the pervasive and really brutal harassment that he suffered on the basis of his identity for years is much more telling than their disclaimer itself,” he said.

The settlement agreement also says Jones would be required, as a condition for accepting the agreement, to resign permanently from his job at the Department of Corrections. ACLU spokesperson Andy Hoover said Jones has been on administrative leave since March 2022. Jones couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

“This is really something that makes sense on both sides,” Michelman said of the resignation requirements. “The environment had become so toxic the way he had been treated on multiple levels made it difficult to see how he could return to work there.”

Continue Reading

Popular