Local
‘Outrage’ as killer gets 12 years
Court records unsealed; gay victim shot 5 times at point-blank range
The United States Attorney’s office this week reversed an earlier decision to seal court records showing the outcome of its case against two young men charged with first-degree murder while armed for the January 2010 shooting death of gay Maryland resident Gordon Rivers in Southeast Washington.
At the request of the U.S. Attorney’s office, a D.C. Superior Court judge on Wednesday unsealed records showing that District resident William X. Wren, 18, had been sentenced on Jan. 26 to 12 years in prison after pleading guilty to shooting Rivers five times at point-blank range inside Rivers’ car during a botched robbery.
Wren, who was 17 at the time of the murder, was charged as an adult.
The unsealed records show that Wren agreed to plead guilty last October in exchange for a government offer to lower the charge against him from first-degree felony murder while armed to second-degree murder while armed. Wren also agreed to plead guilty to charges of conspiracy to kidnap Rivers while armed with co-defendant Anthony Hager, 23, and conspiracy to rob Rivers while armed with a firearm. Hager was 22 at the time of the murder.
Judge Herbert Dixon also sentenced Wren to seven years on the two conspiracy charges but agreed to a request by Wren’s defense lawyer to allow the two sentences to run concurrently, limiting the total time served to 12 years.
The U.S. Attorney’s office moved to have the court records unsealed following inquires by the Washington Blade, which discovered through unsealed court records that the government dropped its case against Hager, who was also charged with first-degree murder while armed in the River’s killing.
“The U.S. Attorney’s Office determined that there was probable cause to arrest Anthony Hager in the murder of Mr. Rivers,” said William Miller, a spokesperson for the office. “However, the office later concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to meet the higher legal standard that is required to obtain and sustain a conviction.”
Miller noted that at the government’s request, the court dismissed the case “without prejudice,” which allows prosecutors to reinstate charges against Hager in the future if more evidence surfaces.
“The murder case remains under investigation,” he said.
Miller declined to disclose why prosecutors chose to seal the court records in the case against Wren, saying issues surrounding the sealing of cases are considered confidential. However, knowledgeable sources familiar with criminal cases before the D.C. Superior Court said cases are often sealed when defendants agree to cooperate with the government in the prosecution of another person charged with a crime. Such cooperation could potentially place a defendant at risk for retaliation, according to the sources, and sealing a case can sometimes protect the safety of the cooperating defendant.
Victims’ rights groups have sometimes complained that the sealing of cases also prevents the public from learning whether violent criminals are being prosecuted and sentenced appropriately.
Chris Farris, former co-chair of the D.C. group Gays and Lesbians Opposing Violence, said he was “outraged” that Wren could receive just 12 years for committing a murder and that Hager could get off “completely free” in the Rivers’ murder.
“Take away the gay angle, take away the history of hate crimes against our community, take away everything else, and I just find it incredibly stunning that one person in the case of a murder of someone who was fired on at point blank range five times gets 12 years in jail,” Farris said.
Court documents filed by the government and the defense in the case show that Hager allegedly conspired with Wren to force Rivers at gunpoint to drive the two to Rivers’ house in Maryland, where they planned to rob him of his valuables and steal his two vehicles. But the documents show that that Wren shot Rivers before Hager had a chance to enter the car.
Court records also show that authorities revoked Hager’s parole from an unrelated conviction for armed robbery in 2005 after learning of his arrest in the Rivers case. Miller said the parole revocation resulted in Hager being ordered to serve two more years for the earlier conviction.
Under the D.C. criminal code, Wren faced a possible maximum sentence of 70 years in prison for second-degree murder while armed with a firearm. First-degree murder while armed carries a maximum sentence of 90 years in prison under D.C. law.
Separate sentencing memorandums submitted by the defense and the U.S. Attorney’s Office asked Judge Dixon to consider mitigating factors that would justify a sentence significantly lower than the maximum sentence provided by law. Among other things, the two pointed to Wren’s cooperation with the government in the prosecution of Hager before the U.S. Attorney’s office decided to drop its case against Hager.
Defense attorney Spencer Hecht also states in his sentencing memorandum that Wren recounted that Rivers paid him for sexual encounters at Rivers’ house in Brandywine, Md., during a one-year period prior to the murder. Hecht’s sentencing memo says the sexual encounters began when Wren was 16.
“While the defendant unequivocally accepts responsibility for his extremely serious and dangerous conduct, and is extremely remorseful for taking the life of another, he offers the nature of his relationship with the decedent in mitigation,” Hecht says in his sentencing memo.
“The decedent was someone who preyed on the defendant’s youth, immaturity, and impressionability for a substantial period of time,” the memo says. “On frequent occasions, the decedent would contact the defendant and pay him to perform sex acts upon him. This is nothing less than child sexual abuse and rape – offenses which carry significant prison sentences.”
Hecht provides no evidence or substantiation of the alleged sexual encounters between Rivers and Wren other than Wren’s claim that they occurred. The sentencing memo doesn’t say where the two met or under what circumstances, only that the two met after Wren’s mother kicked him out of her home “because her live-in girlfriend believed the defendant a troublemaker.” His estrangement with his mother resulted in his having no fixed address, the memo says.
“It was during this period of time that the defendant began using and selling drugs and committing robberies of known drug dealers to support himself,” according to Hecht’s sentencing memo. “It was also during this period of time that the defendant met the decedent Gordon Rivers (aka ‘Mr. G’), when he (‘Mr. G’) propositioned him (the defendant) for paid sex,” it says.
The memo also states that Wren moved into a row house where his girlfriend lived at 2409 S St., S.E., seven months prior to the murder, saying his girlfriend’s residence provided him with a stable home. It says he has two children with his girlfriend, Breana Smith, with whom he had been in a relationship for two years at the time of the murder.
Gay activists have long complained that defendants who target gay men for assault, robbery and murder have often claimed, after being charged with such crimes, that the victim made a sexual pass at them that prompted them to assault or kill the victim in self-defense. Gay rights attorneys, who describe such a claim as the “gay panic defense,” have said prosecutors often lack the training or understanding to adequately contest this defense tactic.
Hecht did not return calls to his office seeking comment on the case and on his client’s allegations of sexual encounters between Wren and Rivers.
Miller, the spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office, said he could not comment on whether his office considered Hecht’s allegations in the sentencing memo as an attempt to invoke the gay panic defense.
In its own sentencing memorandum, the U.S. Attorney’s Office recommended that the court sentence Wren to the “middle range” of sentences available to a court for the offenses to which Wren pleaded guilty. The government sentencing memo recommends that Dixon sentence Wren to some jail time but doesn’t object to the defense recommendation that he be sentenced under the D.C. Youth Rehabilitation Act.
The act allows judges to waive a required minimum sentence of five years in jail for a conviction or guilty plea to second-degree murder while armed. The memo adds, “The government does not oppose a motion by the defendant for a downward departure under the sentencing guidelines.”
In his sentencing order, Dixon did not indicate that he approved the defense request for a Youth Rehabilitation Act sentence.
The government’s sentencing memo describes Rivers as “an accomplished, well-loved man with family and friends who dearly miss him.” It says he was born in Alabama and was a retired veteran of the U.S. Navy who, at the time of his death, worked as an executive assistant with Raytheon Corporation in Arlington, Va., in a job he held for five years.
The government sentencing memo says Wren’s effort to express remorse over his action and the prospects that he could turn around his life in the future don’t offset the consequence of his behavior toward Gordon Rivers.
“The defendant preyed upon Mr. Rivers by taking advantage of the trust they shared, however inappropriate the foundation of the relationship,” the memo says. “And it was the defendant, not Mr. Hager, who got in the car, put the gun to Mr. Rivers, and pulled the trigger five times.”
The memo notes that Wren was “no newcomer to armed robberies,” referring to his own admission that he committed armed robberies against drug dealers in the months prior to his arrest in the Rivers case.
District of Columbia
D.C. bar Rush facing eviction on charge of failing to pay rent
Landlord says $201,324 owed in back payments, late fees
The owners of the building at 14th and U Streets, N.W. where D.C.’s newest LGBTQ bar and nightclub Rush opened on Dec. 5, 2025, filed a complaint in D.C. Superior Court on Feb. 3 seeking Rush’s eviction on grounds that the bar has failed to pay its required rent since last May.
According to the court filing by building owners Thomas and Ioanna Tsianakas Family Trust and Thomas Tsianakas Trustee, Rush owes $141,338.18 in back rent, $19,086.19 for utilities, and $40,900 in late fees, coming to a total of $201,324.37.
Rush owner Jackson Mosley didn’t immediately respond to a Feb. 5 phone message from the Washington Blade seeking comment on the court filing seeking his eviction from the building located at 200114th Street, N.W., with its entrance around the corner on U Street.
WUSA 9 TV news reported in a Feb. 5 broadcast that Mosley said he “doesn’t see why the eviction notice is news and called it a ‘formality.’” The WUSA report adds that Mosley said he and the Rush landlord “have no bad blood” and if the action did reach the point of eviction he would file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to restructure the lease and his debts.
The eviction court filing follows a decision by the city’s Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board on Dec. 17 to suspend Rush’s liquor license on grounds that its payment check for the liquor licensing fee was “returned unpaid.” The liquor board reissued the license three days later after Mosley paid the fee with another check
He told the Blade at the time that the first check did not “bounce,” as rumors in the community claimed. He said he made a decision to put a “hold” on the check so that Rush could change its initial decision to submit a payment for the license for three years and instead to arrange for a lower payment for just one year at a time.
Around that same time several Rush employees posted social media messages saying the staff was not paid for the bar’s first month’s pay period. Mosley responded by posting a message on the Rush website saying employees were not paid because of a “tax related mismatch between federal and District records,” which, among other things, involved the IRS.
“This discrepancy triggered a compliance hold within our payroll system,” his statement said. “The moment I became aware of the issue I immediately engaged our payroll provider and began working to resolve it,” he said.
But WUSA 9 reports in its Feb. 5 broadcast about the eviction issue that at least some of the now former employees say they still have not been paid since their first paycheck failed to come on Dec. 15.
Superior Court online records for the eviction case show that a “Remote Initial Hearing” for the case has been scheduled for March 30 before a Landlord & Tenant 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.”
Maryland
4th Circuit dismisses lawsuit against Montgomery County schools’ pronoun policy
Substitute teacher Kimberly Polk challenged regulation in 2024
A federal appeals court has ruled Montgomery County Public Schools did not violate a substitute teacher’s constitutional rights when it required her to use students’ preferred pronouns in the classroom.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision it released on Jan. 28 ruled against Kimberly Polk.
The policy states that “all students have the right to be referred to by their identified name and/or pronoun.”
“School staff members should address students by the name and pronoun corresponding to the gender identity that is consistently asserted at school,” it reads. “Students are not required to change their permanent student records as described in the next section (e.g., obtain a court-ordered name and/or new birth certificate) as a prerequisite to being addressed by the name and pronoun that corresponds to their identified name. To the extent possible, and consistent with these guidelines, school personnel will make efforts to maintain the confidentiality of the student’s transgender status.”
The Washington Post reported Polk, who became a substitute teacher in Montgomery County in 2021, in November 2022 requested a “religious accommodation, claiming that the policy went against her ‘sincerely held religious beliefs,’ which are ‘based on her understanding of her Christian religion and the Holy Bible.’”
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in January 2025 dismissed Polk’s lawsuit that she filed in federal court in Beltsville. Polk appealed the decision to the 4th Circuit.
