Thank you for reading D.C. Witness.
Help us continue our mission into 2025 by donating to our end of year campaign.
By
Aerial Lopez [former]
- January 31, 2023
Daily Stories
|
Sex Abuse
|
Sexual Assault
|
The defense attorney in a sexual assault case has once again been met with resistance in a request for a continuance.
Attorney Michael Lawlor’s client was charged with four counts of sexual assault in 2019. At the time of the assault, both the alleged assailant and the victim served as officers under the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). The assault occurred while both were off duty and at a spa owned by the defendant’s wife, as stated in court documents. It was while receiving a cellulite treatment at this spa that the victim said she was assaulted.
On Jan. 30, Lawlor submitted a motion for continuance. This request would further delay the trial’s start date to allow newly appointed co-counsel time to familiarize himself with the case.
In a previous hearing, Lawlor said he hoped to obtain local counsel to assist him on this case so as to “represent his client to the best of his ability.” In just a week’s time, Lawlor recruited defense attorney Brian McDaniel as co-counsel.
Both the prosecutor and DC Superior Court Judge Maribeth Raffinan were reluctant to support this motion.
After reading the motion for continuance, the prosecution urged Judge Raffinan to deny the request because he said Lawlor did not put in substantial effort to obtain local counsel and prepare him for this hearing.
Taking this into consideration, Judge Raffinan inquired as to why Lawlor enlisted McDaniel into the case.
Lawlor said he chose McDaniel because he is both “incredibly qualified” and a friend of his.
McDaniel mentioned that he was grateful for Lawlor’s praise and wished to oversee this case as co-counsel, should Judge Raffinan support it.
Since it was made clear to her that McDaniel was eager to stay on this case, Judge Raffinan approved the motion for continuance and set the next available date for the trial to begin.
Due to an immense increase in caseload from all legal parties, and backlog from the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial is now set to begin on June 10, 2024.
The trial is slated to begin nearly 5 years after the initial complaint was filed.