Connect with us

District of Columbia

D.C. gay couple robbed, pistol whipped but U.S. Attorney has yet to prosecute

Victim says attackers shouted anti-gay slurs, hit him in face with gun last year

Published

on

The victims photographed the getaway car after they say they were robbed and assaulted.

A D.C. gay man says an official with the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia last week explained to him why the office has yet to prosecute two male suspects identified by D.C. police who allegedly assaulted and robbed him and his partner at gunpoint near their home while yelling anti-gay slurs more than a year ago.

The gay man, who asked to be identified by his first name, Michael, said the incident took place shortly after midnight on Jan. 8, 2022, as he and his partner, who has also asked to be identified by his first name, Christopher, were walking home at the intersection of 4th and N streets, N.W., when two men wearing ski masks and brandishing handguns approached them and demanded their money.

According to Michael, the official with the U.S. Attorney’s office, whom he declined to identify, told him the delay in prosecuting the case was due to a lack of sufficient evidence to bring the suspects identified by police to trial. But he said the official told him the case remains open and under investigation.

Michael described the incident in detail in an Aug. 1 letter he mailed to Matthew W. Graves, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who serves as the city’s lead prosecutor.

He urged Graves in his letter to take steps to prosecute the case using information he and Christopher provided police, including the license plate number of the suspects’ getaway car and purchases made with a credit card stolen from the couple during the robbery. Michael provided a copy of the letter to the Washington Blade.

“Two men confronted us yelling homophobic slurs then robbed us at gunpoint,” Michael told Graves in his letter. “During this time, I was also pistol whipped in the face before the two escaped in a getaway car,” he wrote. “To my dismay, it has been more than a year since the incident occurred, and no progress has been made prosecuting the offenders,” he told Graves in his Aug. 1 letter.

Michael points to a D.C. police report confirming that police obtained what they believed was sufficient probable cause to obtain a warrant for the arrest of at least two suspects they identified in their investigation. The police report says the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined the police request for the warrant.

But the report does not list the incident as a hate crime, and a police spokesperson told the Blade that the two victims never told police investigators that the suspects called them anti-gay names. Michael and Christopher told the Blade they thought they mentioned the anti-gay name calling to police, but they acknowledge they may not have done so following the trauma of being robbed at gunpoint.  

Michael told the Blade that the official with the U.S. Attorney’s office for the first time informed him in an Aug. 25 phone conversation that the delay in prosecuting the case was due to difficulty in definitively identifying the two suspects who robbed him and Christopher and a third suspect who drove the getaway car based on just the license number and credit card information.

“She said since they had multiple people in the vehicle, and because the gunmen were masked, they are having a hard time linking the credit card/phone information to the car’s license plate,” Michael said the official told him. “They have to specifically know who did what part of the crime to charge them,” he attributed the official as saying.

Michael said in an Aug. 28 phone interview with the Blade that he told the U.S. Attorney’s office official that he wants the office to prosecute the case, but he is doubtful the office will do so based on what the official told him.

The office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. has a longstanding policy of not publicly disclosing its reasons for not prosecuting cases like this one.

Patricia Hartman, a spokesperson for the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s office, when contacted by the Blade, declined to comment on the case, saying, “We can neither confirm nor deny the existence of investigations.”

The Blade will update this story to include any explanation the U.S. Attorney’s office decides to publicly disclose for its reason for not prosecuting this case.

Christopher, Michael’s partner, told the Blade one of the two suspects that robbed the two men began touching and grabbing his crotch in an “unwelcome action” toward him as the suspect was checking his pants pockets for a wallet or any other belonging that the two suspects intended to steal from the two men as the armed robbery unfolded.

The man who touched his crotch did so after he pointed a gun at his chest, Christopher said.
The D.C. police report for the incident obtained by the Washington Blade says that in addition to taking the two men’s wallets, at least $100 in cash, and credit cards, the armed gunmen took Christopher’s Canada Goose jacket, which the report says had an estimated value of $1,500.

The police report includes the notation, “Prosecution Declined (May 4, 2022).”

The report, however, also states that the incident is not listed as a suspected hate crime.

D.C. police spokesperson Paris Lewbel provided a statement to the Blade saying the two men did not tell the officers responding to the scene of the incident or detectives in follow-up interviews that the suspects called them anti-gay names.

“We have reviewed the BWC [Body Worn Camera] footage of the officers who responded to the scene and interviewed the two victims of the crime,” the police statement says. “They never told officers that the suspects made any statement or anti-gay remarks,” it says.

“In a review of follow-up interviews by detectives, they also never stated the suspects made any statement,” the statement continues. “Had they told the responding officers or detectives, this case would have been classified as a Hate Crime,” it says.

The statement adds, “The detectives conducted a complete and exhaustive investigation of this offense, and based on probable cause, they submitted arrest warrants to the United States Attorney’s Office; after a review, the USAO declined to pursue charges at that time, and MPD closed the case administratively.”

The police statement concludes by saying, “We cannot comment about USAO’s decision and refer you to them for additional information.

Both Michael and Christopher told the Blade they thought they told police about the anti-gay slurs made by the two suspects who robbed them, but they now believe they may not have disclosed that information under the stress and anxiety they experienced after having been robbed at gunpoint.

“I think we were mostly just in shock at the moment,” Christopher told the Blade in a phone interview. “I don’t know if we focused on that,” he said in recalling that he and Michael were questioned by police officers at the time of the incident for about two hours.

“I’m used to being called a faggot,” Christopher added. “I’m not fazed by that anymore,” he said, pointing out that those feelings and the stress at the moment may have prompted him not to raise the issue of the anti-gay slurs by the two suspects.

Spokespersons for the D.C. police and the U.S. Attorney’s office did not respond to a question by the Blade on whether they might bring a hate crime charge against the suspects if the case is eventually prosecuted.

Under the D.C. hate crimes law as recently amended, hatred need not be the only motive for the underlying crime for which a hate crime designation could be added. Although armed robbery was the underlying crime in this case, prosecutors can add a hate crime designation if they believe there is sufficient evidence to do so.

Michael states in his letter to U.S. Attorney Graves that he and Christopher provided D.C. police with a photo of the rear of the getaway car capturing the license plate number after the two suspects entered the car with a third person driving the vehicle. Christopher said he took the photo with his phone that the suspects, for unknown reasons, did not take. They took Michael’s phone but minutes later tossed it out the window of the getaway car as it drove off.

According to Michael’s letter to Graves, he and Christopher promptly reported the incident to D.C. police, provided police with the photo of the car license number and subsequently provided police with information about how one of the credit cards stolen from them was used to order food through a food delivery service.

“With the help of online account information provided by the food delivery service, MPD told us they had enough telephonic evidence to corroborate our stories and for an arrest warrant,” Michael says in the letter.

Defense attorneys familiar with this type of case have said “probable cause” by itself may not be sufficient to convince a jury to render a verdict of guilty. Defense attorneys point to the requirement under criminal law that prosecutors must convince a jury that someone is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a more stringent criteria than probable cause.

Michael said one or more of the detectives involved in the case told him they believed the evidence obtained from the license plate number of the getaway car, the use of at least one stolen credit card, and information from the food delivery service DoorDash that one of the suspects made purchases through the stolen credit card was substantial enough to charge the suspects, who Michael said the detectives declined to identify by name.

“I do believe that even if one could not prove armed robbery beyond a reasonable doubt, other illegal acts, such as credit card fraud, could be proven,” Michael said in his letter to Graves.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

‘Sandwich guy’ not guilty in assault case

Sean Charles Dunn faced misdemeanor charge

Published

on

Sean Charles Dunn was found not guilty on Thursday. (Washington Blade file photo by Joe Reberkenny)

A jury with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday, Nov. 6, found D.C. resident Sean Charles Dunn not guilty of assault for tossing a hero sandwich into the chest of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent at the intersection of 14th and U streets, N.W. at around 11 p.m. on Aug. 10. 

Dunn’s attorneys hailed the verdict as a gesture of support for Dunn’s contention that his action, which was captured on video that went viral on social media, was an exercise of his First Amendment right to protest the federal border agent’s participating in President Donald Trump’s deployment of federal troops on D.C. streets. 

Friends of Dunn have said that shortly before the sandwich tossing incident took place Dunn had been at the nearby gay nightclub Bunker, which was hosting a Latin dance party called Tropicoqueta. Sabrina Shroff, one of three attorneys representing Dunn at the trial, said during the trial after Dunn left the nightclub he went to the submarine sandwich shop on 14th Street at the corner of U Street, where he saw the border patrol agent and other law enforcement officers  standing in front of the shop.

 Shroff and others who know Dunn have said he was fearful that the border agent outside the sub shop and immigrant agents might raid the Bunker Latin night event. Bunker’s entrance is on U Street just around the corner from the sub shop where the federal agents were standing.

 “I am so happy that justice prevails in spite of everything happening,“ Dunn told reporters outside the courthouse after the verdict while joined by his attorneys. “And that night I believed that I was protecting the rights of immigrants,” he said.

 “And let us not forget that the great seal of the United States says, E Pluribus Unum,” he continued. “That means from many, one. Every life matters no matter where you came from, no matter how you got here, no matter how you identify, you have the right to live a life that is free.”

The verdict followed a two-day trial with testimony by just two witnesses, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent Gregory Lairmore, who identified Dunn as the person who threw the sandwich at his chest, and Metro Transit Police Detective Daina Henry, who told the jury she witnessed Dunn toss the sandwich at Lairmore while shouting obscenities.

Shroff told the jury Dunn was exercising his First Amendment right to protest and that the tossing of the sandwich at Lairmore, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, did not constitute an assault under the federal assault law to which Dunn was charged, among other things, because the federal agent was not injured. 

Prosecutors  with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. initially attempted to obtain a grand jury indictment of Dunn on a felony assault charge. But the grand jury refused to hand down an indictment on that charge, court records show. Prosecutors then filed a criminal complaint against Dunn on the misdemeanor charge of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers of the United States.

“Dunn stood within inches of Victim 1,” the criminal complaint states, “pointing his finger in Victim 1’s face, and yelled, Fuck you! You fucking fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!”

The complaint continues by stating, “An Instagram video recorded by an observer captured the incident. The video depicts Dunn screaming at V-1 within inches of his face for several seconds before winding his arm back and forcefully throwing a sub-style sandwich at V-1. 

Prosecutors repeatedly played the video of the incident for the jurors on video screens in the courtroom. 

Dunn, who chose not to testify at his trial, and his attorneys have not disputed the obvious evidence that Dunn threw the sandwich that hit Lairmore in the chest. Lead defense attorney Shroff and co-defense attorneys Julia Gatto and Nicholas Silverman argued that Dunn’s action did not constitute an assault under the legal definition of common law assault in the federal assault statute.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael DiLorenzo, the lead prosecutor in the case, strongly disputed that claim, citing various  provisions in the law and appeals court rulings that he claimed upheld his and the government’s contention that an “assault” can take place even if a victim is not injured as well as if there was no physical contact between the victim and an alleged assailant, only a threat of physical contact and injury.

The dispute over the intricacies of  the assault law and whether Dunn’s action reached the level of an assault under the law dominated the two-day trial, with U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols, who presided over the trial, weighing in with his own interpretation of the assault statute. Among other things, he said it would be up to the jury to decide whether or not Dunn committed an assault.

Court observers have said in cases like this, a jury could have issued a so-called  “nullification” verdict in which they acquit a defendant even though they believe he or she committed the offense in question because they believe the charge is unjust. The other possibility, observers say, is the jury believed the defense was right in claiming a law was not violated.

DiLorenzo and his two co-prosecutors in the case declined to comment in response to requests by reporters following the verdict.

“We really want to thank the jury for having sent back an affirmation that his sentiment is not just tolerated but it is legal, it is welcome,” defense attorney Shroff said in referring to Dunn’s actions. “And we thank them very much for that verdict,” she said.

Dunn thanked his attorneys for providing what he called excellent representation “and for offering all of their services pro bono,” meaning free of charge.

Dunn, an Air Force veteran who later worked as an international affairs specialist at the U.S. Department of Justice, was fired from that job by DOJ officials after his arrest for the sandwich tossing incident. 

“I would like to thank family and friends and strangers for all of their support, whether it  was emotional, or spiritual, or artistic, or financial,” he told the gathering outside the courthouse. “To the people that opened their hearts and homes to me, I am eternally grateful.” 

“As always, we accept a jury’s verdict; that is the system within which we function,” CNN quoted U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro as saying after the verdict in the Dunn case. “However, law enforcement should never be subjected to assault, no matter how ‘minor,’” Pirro told CNN in a statement.

“Even children know when they are angry, they are not allowed to throw objects at one another,” CNN quoted her as saying.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Trial begins for man charged with throwing sandwich at federal agent

Jury views video of incident that went viral on social media

Published

on

Posters depicting Sean Charles Dunn throwing a sandwich quickly appeared around the city last summer. (Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

Prosecutors showed jurors a video of Sean Charles Dunn throwing a sub sandwich into the chest of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent at the bustling intersection of 14th and U streets, N.W. at around 11 p.m. on Aug. 10 of this year on the opening day of Dunn’s trial that has drawn national attention.

According to a knowledgeable source, Dunn threw the sandwich at the agent after shouting obscenities at him and other federal law enforcement officers who were stationed at that location after he was refused admission to the nearby gay bar Bunker for being too intoxicated.

Charging documents and reports by witnesses show that Dunn expressed outrage that the federal officers were stationed there and at other locations in D.C. under orders from President Donald Trump  to help curtail crime in the city.

Prosecutors with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. initially attempted to obtain a grand jury indictment of Dunn on a felony assault charge, but the grand jury refused to hand down an indictment on that charge, court records show. Prosecutors then filed a criminal complaint against Dunn on the misdemeanor charge of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers of the United States.

“Dunn stood within inches of Victim 1,” a criminal complaint states, “pointed his finger in Victim 1’s face, and yelled, Fuck you! You fucking fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” 

The complaint adds, “Dunn continued his conduct for several minutes before crossing the street and continuing to yell obscenities at V-1. At approximately 11:06 p.m. Dunn approached V-1 and threw a sandwich at him, striking V-1 in the chest.”

The complaint continues by stating, “An Instagram video recorded by an observer captured the incident. The video depicts Dunn screaming at V-1 within inches of his face for several seconds before winding his arm back and forcefully throwing a sub-style sandwich at V-1.”

At the opening day of testimony at the trial on Tuesday, Nov. 4, V-1, who was identified as Customs and Border Patrol Agent Gregory Lairmore, testified as the first government witness. Also testifying was Metro Transit Police Detective Daina Henry, who said she was present at the scene and saw Dunn throw the sandwich at Lairmore.

The position taken by Dunn’s defense attorneys is outlined in a 24-page memorandum in support of a motion filed on Oct. 15 calling for the dismissal of the case, which was denied by U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols.

“This prosecution is a blatant abuse of power,” the defense memo states. “The federal government has chosen to bring a criminal case over conduct so minor it would be comical – were it not for the unmistakable retaliatory motive behind it and the resulting risk to Mr. Dunn.”

It adds, “Mr. Dunn tossed a sandwich at a fully armed, heavily protected Customs and Border Protection {CBP} officer. That act alone would never have drawn a federal charge. What did was the political speech that accompanied it.” 

The trial was scheduled to resume at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, Nov. 5.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

D.C. mayor announces use of local funds for SNAP food aid

Md., Va. arrange for similar local replacement of federal money

Published

on

Mayor Muriel Bowser has arranged for at least $129 million in local D.C. funds to be used for SNAP. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced on Oct. 30 that she has arranged for at least $129 million in local D.C funds to be used to support as many as 141,000 D.C. residents in need who depend on the federal food assistance programs known as SNAP and WIC whose funding will be cut off beginning Nov. 1 due to the federal shutdown.

SNAP, which stands for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and WIC, the Women, Infants, and Children Program, provide food related services for 10 million or more people in need nationwide.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, and Delaware Gov. Matt Meyer also announced similar plans to provide emergency state funds to replace the federal funds cut off beginning Nov. 1 for the two food programs. 

Similar to Bowser, Moore and Youngkin said their replacement funds at this time would only last for the month of November. Each said they were hopeful that Congress would end the shutdown before the end of November.

“We know that SNAP and WIC play a critical role in keeping thousands of Washingtonians and millions of Americans put food on the table each month,” Bowser said in a statement. “We were hopeful it wouldn’t come to this – and we will need the federal government to reopen as soon as possible – but for right now, we’re moving forward to ensure we take care of D.C. residents in November,” she said.

The mayor’s statement says about 85,000 D.C. households, consisting of 141,000 individuals, receive SNAP support each month, with an average monthly allocation of $314. It says more than 12,500 city residents in 8,300 households benefit from the WIC program.  

A spokesperson for the D.C. Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs couldn’t immediately be reached to determine whether the city has an estimated count of how many LGBTQ residents receive support from the SNAP and SIC programs. 

Continue Reading

Popular