Defense Argues Case Violates Defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right, Judge Disagrees

By Jennifer Ollmann [former] - October 6, 2022
Court | Daily Stories | Domestic Violence | Sex Abuse | Sexual Assault |

During an Oct. 6 motion hearing, DC Superior Court Judge Robert Okun ruled against a defendant’s motion to dismiss a sex abuse trial on the grounds of violating the defendant’s 6th amendment right.

The defendant, who is representing himself along with Howard McEachern as his co-counsel, is being held on charges of assault with intent to commit first-degree sexual abuse, kidnapping, first-degree burglary, sex abuse, and two counts of committing lewd, indecent, or obscene acts for an incident that occurred in September 2020.

At the beginning of the hearing, the prosecution dropped a third-degree sex abuse charge against the defendant.

Later in the hearing, the defendant argued that his case should be dropped based on the assertion that the court and prosecution will continue to violate his sixth amendment right. 

The defense argued that this case has been violating the defendant’s sixth amendment rights on two grounds: right to a speedy trial and right to confront the witnesses and accusers against him.

McEachern argued that the defendant’s right to a fast and speedy trial has been violated because the defendant has been held for over two years since his arrest. The defendant had his jury trial rescheduled five times.

Additionally, the defense argued that the trial would go against the sixth amendment’s confrontation clause, arguing that since the accuser of the defendant is no longer living, any material relevant to her prior remarks is inadmissible because the victim cannot be cross-examined while testifying.

It’s been two years since the defendant was arrested, so it is reasonable to bring up the sixth amendment claim, Judge Okun said. However, he ruled against the motion because the trial was unintentionally pushed back due to COVID-19.

Additionally, in regards to the confrontation clause, Judge Okun ruled against the defense, citing that since the accuser is no longer alive and cannot not testify, any information that is provided about her is not considered witness testimony and therefore does not fall under the confrontation clause. 

Jury selection is set to begin on Oct. 11.