DC Superior Court Judge Michael Ryan denied a stabbing defendant’s motion to represent himself on Nov. 14, after struggling to demonstrate a basic understanding of how a criminal trial works.
Ovid Gabriel, 20, is charged with assault with intent to kill while armed and assault on a police officer for his alleged involvement in a stabbing at the DC Jail on Aug. 3. An officer was injured during the incident.
According to documents issued by the court, Gabriel allegedly stabbed the officer nine times after the officer had ordered him into his cell.
Gabriel filed a motion to represent himself after claiming dissatisfaction with his current attorney, Raymond Jones. The defendant said he mailed the motion to the court a week earlier.
Judge Ryan claimed he had not received it, prompting Gabriel to provide the court with a physical copy. The motion was reviewed by the prosecution and Jones, and then, the judge.
The prosecution noted it had no objection to Gabriel representing himself, citing his self-representation in another case.
Judge Ryan questioned Gabriel extensively to determine whether he had the capacity to represent himself in a criminal trial. Gabriel informed the court he had a high school diploma, identified himself as an entrepreneur in tattoos and fine arts, did not use drugs or medication, and understood the charges and possible penalties. He said he had been studying case law for six months but could not recall specific cases when asked.
Judge Ryan pressed Gabriel on his practical understanding of trial procedures, asking him what a jury determines, what evidence is presented in a criminal trial, how to proceed if a witness does not appear, and how cross-examination works. Gabriel was unable to provide correct or confident answers, telling the court he still had “a lot to learn.”
The judge emphasized that his concerns were professional rather than personal, explaining that he believed Gabriel lacked the fundamental knowledge needed to represent himself in a criminal trial. He warned Gabriel not to rely on advice from other detainees about self-representation.
Although Gabriel did not dispute the judge’s assessment, he reiterated that he was not comfortable continuing with Jones as his counsel. Judge Ryan replied that self-representation and dissatisfaction with counsel were two “different issues.”
Gabriel then withdrew his motion to represent himself. The judge granted the withdrawal, and Gabriel submitted a new motion requesting new counsel. Judge Ryan approved the request.
The prosecution outlined the procedural history of the case, noting that it originated as a less serious felony matter before Gabriel was later charged in a separate and more serious case.
They said the overlapping cases had left the current matter pending for several months. The prosecution also told the court that the prosecutors had extended a plea offer in August, which the defense initially considered.
The plea offer, which expired at the close of the hearing, required Gabriel to plead guilty to aggravated assault while armed and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, in exchange for dismissal of all remaining charges and the prosecution not seeking an indictment. The prosecution described the expiration as a “fork in the road” and said no future offer would be more favorable.
Jones confirmed he had discussed the plea with Gabriel, which Gabriel also acknowledged. Judge Ryan then questioned Gabriel to ensure he was knowingly rejecting the offer.
Gabriel claimed he did not recall seeing body-worn camera footage, though Jones attempted to jog his memory.
Gabriel stated he did not want to plead guilty, effectively rejecting the plea offer.
The parties are slated to reconvene on Nov. 18.
