Connect with us

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

Published

on

Deeniquia ‘Dee Dee’ Dodds was killed in 2016.

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.

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