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
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.
District of Columbia
Deon Jones speaks about D.C. Department of Corrections bias lawsuit settlement
Gay former corrections officer says harassment, discrimination began in 1993
Deon Jones says he is pleased with the outcome of his anti-gay bias lawsuit against the D.C. Department of Corrections that ended after five years on Feb. 5 with the D.C. government paying him $500,000 in a settlement payment.
The lawsuit, filed on his behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union of D.C. and the international law firm WilmerHale, charged that Jones, a Department of Corrections sergeant, had been subjected to years of discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment because of his identity as a gay man in clear violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act.
A statement released by the ACLU at the time the settlement was announced says Jones, “faced years of verbal abuse and harassment, from co-workers and incarcerated people alike, including anti-gay slurs, threats, and degrading treatment.”
The statement adds, “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.:
Jones said the harassment and mistreatment he encountered began in 1993, one year after he first began work at the Department of Corrections and continued for more than 25 years under six D.C. mayors, including current Mayor Muriel Bowser, who he says did not respond to his repeated pleas for help.
Each of those mayors, including Bowser, have been outspoken supporters of the LGBTQ community, but Jones says they did not intervene to change what he calls the homophobic “culture” at the Department of Corrections.
The Department of Corrections, through the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, which represents city agencies against lawsuits, and the mayor’s office, have so far declined to comment on the lawsuit and the half million-dollar settlement the city offered to Jones, who accepted it.
Among other things, the settlement agreement states that Jones would be required to resign from his job at the Department of Corrections. It also declares that “neither the parties’ agreement nor the District government’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. He said the city’s action to pay Jones a half million-dollar settlement “speaks louder than words.”
With that as a backdrop, Jones reflected on the settlement and what he says was his tumultuous 30-year career as an employee at the D.C. Department of Corrections in a Feb. 9 interview with the Washington Blade.
He and Michelman pointed out that Jones was placed on paid administrative leave in April 2022, one year after his lawsuit was filed. Among his upcoming plans, Jones told the Blade, is to publish a podcast that, among other things, will highlight the hardship he faced at the Department of Corrections and advocate for LGBTQ rights.
BLADE: What are your thoughts on this lawsuit settlement which appears very much in your favor?
JONES: That’s great. I’m happy. I’m glad to resign. It’s been a long time coming. It was the worst time it’s ever been. And I have advocated for the community for many, many years. And not only standing up for my rights but for the rights for others in the LGBTQ community.
And I’m just tired now. And my podcast will start soon. And I will continue to advocate for the community.
BLADE: Can you tell a little about that and when it will begin?
JONES: Once in April, once everything is closed my podcast will be starting. And that’s Deon’s Chronicle and Reveal. Yes, my own podcast.
BLADE: Since we have reported your attorney saying you have been on administrative leave since March of 2022, some in the community might be interested in what you have been doing since that time. Did you get another job or were you just waiting for this case to be resolved?
JONES: I was waiting for this to be resolved. I couldn’t work. That would violate policy and procedures of the D.C. government. So, I could not get another job or anything else.
BLADE: You have said under administrative leave you were still getting paid. You were still able to live off of that?
JONES: Yes, I was able to. Yes, sir. I used to do a lot of overtime. As a zone lieutenant for many years, I have supervised over 250 officers. I’ve also supervised over 25,000 inmates in my 30 years.
BLADE: How many years have you been working for the Department of Corrections?
JONES: It’s 30 years all together. I started down at the Lorton facility. Six facilities — I’ve worked for past directors, deputy directors, internal affairs. I’ve done it all.
BLADE: Do you have any plans now other than doing the podcast?
JONES: Well, to just do my podcast and also to write my book and my memoir inside of the house of pain, the house of shame — what I’ve been through. When I start my podcast off it will be stories — Part 1 through Part 4. And I will go back to the Lorton days all the way up to now. When it first started was sexual harassment and discrimination back down at Lorton. And I mean this has just been the worst time around.
BLADE: So, did you first start your work at the Lorton Prison?
JONES: Yes, I was at the central facility, which was the program institution.
MICHELMAN: Just for context. You may remember this, but the Lorton facility was where D.C. incarcerated people were held. So, that was part of the D.C. Department of Corrections.
BLADE: Yes, and that was located in Lorton, Va., is that right?
JONES: Right.
BLADE: Didn’t that close and is the main incarceration facility is now in D.C. itself?
JONES: Yes. And that closed in 2001.
BLADE: I see. And is the main D.C. jail now at a site near the RFK Stadium site?
JONES: Yes, sir. And next-door is the correctional treatment facility as well.
BLADE: So, are you saying the harassment and other mistreatment against you began back when you were working at the Lorton facility?
JONES: At the Lorton central facility. And they used to flash me too. When I say flash me like the residents, the inmates were flashing. And they [the employees] were flashing.
BLADE: What do you mean by flashing?
JONES: They take their penis out and everything else. I mean the sexual harassment was terrible. And I came out then down there. And I continued to advocate for myself and to advocate for other people who I was told were being picked on as well.
BLADE: As best you can recall, where and what year did that happen?
JONES: That was back in 1993 in April of 1993.
BLADE: The mayor’s office has declined to comment on the settlement and payment the city is giving you. Yet they have always said they have a strong policy of nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people in D.C. government agencies. But do you think that was not carried out at the Department of Corrections?
JONES: That’s a blatant reason why — I had 13 anxiety attacks. It was so blatant. Can you imagine? On the airwaves or the walkie-talkies — everybody had a walkie talkie — the captains and the majors and everything. And you transmit it to the command center or something like that. When you finish someone gets on the air and calls you a sissy or a fag.
They received so many complaints, and I also sent the mayor so many emails and begging for help. And they ignored it. They didn’t address any complaints at all. So, that’s bull.
BLADE: But now after you filed your lawsuit and you received this settlement do you think there will be changes there to protect the rights of other LGBTQ employees?
JONES: I hope so, because I have been defending community rights. For many years I have been advocating for different things and different services. And I’ve seen the treatment. There are a lot of mistreatments towards the community over there. And I have taken a stance for a lot of people in the community and protecting their constitutional rights as well as mine.
BLADE: What advice might you have for what the Department of Corrections should do to correct the situation that led to your lawsuit?
JONES: Well, what my advice for the department is they need to go back over their training. And they need to enforce rules against any acts of discrimination, retaliation, or sexual harassment. They need to enforce that. They’re not enforcing that at all. They’re not doing it at all. And this time it was worse than ever, then I’ve ever seen it. That you would get on the walkie talkie and someone would call you a fag or a sissy or whatever else or do evil things and everything. They are not enforcing what they are preaching. They are not enforcing that.
BLADE: Is there any kind of concluding comment you may want to make?
JONES: Well, I hope that this litigation will be a wakeup call for the department. And also, that it will give someone else the motivation to stand up for their rights. I was blessed to have the ACLU and WilmerHale to protect my constitutional rights. So, I am just really happy. So, I’m hoping that others will stand up for their rights. Because a lot of people in the community that worked there, they were actually afraid. And I had some people who actually quit because of the pressure.
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
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.
District of Columbia
Capital Pride wins anti-stalking order against local activist
Darren Pasha claims action is linked to his criticism of Pride organizers
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.
US wins Olympic gold medal in women’s hockey
Justicia reconoce delito de odio en caso de bullying en Instituto Nacional Mejía de Ecuador
Radical reframing highlights the ‘Wuthering’ highs and lows of a classic
4th Circuit rules against discharged service members with HIV
PHOTOS: Clash
‘Heated Rivalry’ fandom exposes LGBTQ divide in Baltimore
Home is where the heart is
Deon Jones speaks about D.C. Department of Corrections bias lawsuit settlement
European Parliament resolution backs ‘full recognition of trans women as women’
LGBTQ groups question US health agreements with African countries
-
Baltimore4 days ago‘Heated Rivalry’ fandom exposes LGBTQ divide in Baltimore
-
Real Estate4 days ago
Home is where the heart is
-
District of Columbia3 days ago
Deon Jones speaks about D.C. Department of Corrections bias lawsuit settlement
-
European Union3 days ago
European Parliament resolution backs ‘full recognition of trans women as women’
