Local
Opposing attorneys spar as Wone trial begins
Prosecutors say case ‘not about sexual orientation’
Opposing attorneys in the complex Robert Wone murder conspiracy trial clashed during opening arguments Monday over whether the defendants’ sexual orientation prompted authorities to prosecute them.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Glenn Kirschner said the government would point to the fact that Joseph Price, 39, Victor Zaborsky, 44, and Dylan Ward, 39, were in a three-way relationship as a means of showing that their “strong bond” played a role in their alleged conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Wone, a Washington attorney, was found stabbed to death in a guest room in the men’s Dupont Circle area townhouse in August 2006. The defendants, all of whom are gay, have been indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and evidence tampering in connection with the police investigation of the murder. No one has been charged with the murder.
The men face a maximum sentence of 38 years in prison if found guilty on all three charges.
“This case is not about sexual orientation,” Kirschner told D.C. Superior Court Judge Lynn Leibovitz, who is poised to decide the men’s fate after the prosecution and defense attorneys opted to forego a jury trial.
“This case is not about the personal relationship of these three. There is nothing negative that can be inferred due to the sexual orientation or the lifestyle choices of these men,” he said.
But he noted that Price, Zaborsky and Ward “had powerful bonds among them,” which amounted to a “tight knit family” that is protecting its members from the harm that would come to them “if the truth came out.”
Kirschner then spent more than an hour outlining the government’s contention that the men tampered with the crime scene, repeatedly misled police and homicide detectives investigating the murder, and know but refuse to disclose the identity of the person or people who fatally stabbed Wone three times in the chest.
He reiterated the government’s assertion in numerous briefs and a police affidavit that the evidence refutes the defendants’ claim that an intruder killed Wone after entering the house from a rear door while they were asleep in their bedrooms.
Among other things, Kirschner noted that paramedics and crime scene investigators found far less blood on the bed where Wone was found with three “gaping” stab wounds and found no signs of a struggle or defensive wounds. He said this is evidence of crime scene tampering.
Defense attorneys representing the three gay men countered that the evidence doesn’t support any of the government’s allegations, including an assertion that more blood should have been found on the scene. From the moment homicide detectives arrived at the house to investigate the murder, they became “marred and infatuated in a theory based on ignorance,” prompting them to suspect the men were involved in the murder, said Price’s attorney, Bernard Grimm.
“Why is a straight man coming to the house of a gay man,” Grimm quoted a detective as saying while interviewing one of the defendants.
Grimm said the defense would present expert witnesses to prove that one of the three stab wounds that pierced Wone’s heart would have rendered him dead within five seconds or less. Grimm said this, rather than a sinister conspiracy, was the reason there were no signs of a struggle and more blood did not flow from the wounds.
And he said there was “no orchestrating of the crime scene,” contesting the evidence tampering charge.
Ward’s defense attorney, David Schertler, said prosecutors were basing their case on “faulty assumptions, speculation and innuendo.”
Following the opening arguments, Wone’s wife, Katherine Wone, took the stand as the first government witnesses. In response to questions by Kirschner, she told how her husband met Price and recounted the friendship they shared as undergraduate students at the College of William & Mary in Virginia.
She said that her husband, whom Kirschner described as “exclusively straight,” arranged to spend the night at the home of Price, Zaborsky and Ward on the night of the murder because he planned to work late at his nearby office at Radio Free Asia, where he served as general counsel.
The trial, which is expected to last weeks, recessed shortly before 5 p.m. Monday. Katherine Wone was to return and complete her testimony Tuesday.
D.C. attorney Dale Edwin Sanders, who practices criminal law, said the part of the government’s case that appears the strongest is its assertion that no evidence exists to show an intruder entered the house to kill Wone. He noted that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, sometimes “missing” evidence becomes the key to the case.
In his opening arguments, Kirschner noted that an intruder would have had to scale a seven-foot security fence surrounding the back yard of the house, even if the rear door to the house was unlocked, as the defense says was likely.
He pointed to police findings that there were no footprints or other signs that someone jumped into the patio and grounds inside the fence. He said police findings also showed that dust, pollen and other debris on the top surface of the fence was “completely” undisturbed, indicating that an intruder did not go over the fence.
Additionally, Kirschner asked if an intruder entered the premises to burglarize the house, as suggested by the defense, why didn’t he take a host of valuable items in clear view, including a laptop computer, which were in his path en route to the guest room where Wone slept.
Schertler, however, disputed the arguments. Among other things, he said that an intruder could have bypassed the fence by using a nearby trash container to climb onto a shed next to the house where Price, Zaborsky and Ward lived, and jumped over the fence. He also noted that the prosecution could not determine the intruder’s “state of mind” as to why he did not steal anything in the house.
District of Columbia
Mary’s House founder, CEO retires
Dr. Imani Woody played leading role in opening DC’s first home for LGBTQ seniors
The board of directors for Mary’s House for Older Adults, DC’s first official home dedicated to providing affordable housing for LGBTQ seniors, announced on July 7 that its founding president and CEO, Dr. Imani Woody, has retired.
Woody, who holds a PhD in Human Services, is credited with playing a leading role over many years in arranging both city and private funding needed to construct and operate the Mary’s House three-story building located at 401 Anacostia Road, S.E., in the city’s Fort Dupont neighborhood.
The house, which opened in March 2025, with a grand opening ceremony held in May 2025, includes 15 single-occupancy residential units and more than 5,000 square feet of shared communal living space.
“It is with profound gratitude and hearts full of celebration that the board of directors of Mary’s House for Older Adults, DC (MHFOA) announces the retirement of our visionary founder, Dr. Imani Woody, from her role as president and CEO,” the Mary’s House board says in a statement.
“Dr. Woody’s journey with Mary’s House began with her vision and a kitchen table gathering of women with a bold, urgent, and loving vision: to create safe, affirming, affordable housing for LGBTQ/SGL older adults in Washington, DC,” the statement says.
It adds, “What started as a dream has grown into DC’s first affordable LGBTQ+/SGL affirming communal living space for adults 60 and over, a 15-room community residence at 401 Anacostia Road in Southeast Washington.”
The statement says Woody will continue to serve on Mary’s House board.
“The board will be sharing information about the leadership transition process in the coming weeks,” the statement continues. “We are committed to honoring Dr. Woody’s legacy by ensuring Mary’s House continues to thrive and grow in faithful service to LGBTQ/SGL elders experiencing housing insecurity and isolation.”
Maryland
Va., Md., advocates brace for next fight after Supreme Court sports ruling
Neither state has statewide ban on trans student athletes
On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for states to enforce laws barring transgender students from participating on school sports teams consistent with their gender identity, a decision LGBTQ advocates say could encourage additional restrictions across the country.
While neither Maryland nor Virginia currently has a statewide ban on trans student athletes, advocates say the decision could reshape future legislative battles and school policies throughout the region.
Directly following the case, attorneys for trans student athletes spoke out about the case and how detrimental it could be to students.
“This ruling is deeply harmful for transgender women and girls who only asked for the ability to participate in sports with their peers,” said Sasha Buchert, senior attorney and director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project for Lambda Legal, in a press release from the American Civil Liberties Union.
The next step is figuring out how states will move forward, specifically in Maryland and Virginia.
As of right now, neither state has bans on trans athletes in schools. The new Supreme Court decision also does not require states to enact bans, only that bans are allowed if states or school districts choose to enforce them.
According to the ACLU, 27 states have banned trans youth from participating in school sports since 2020. Most of these states also require sex testing, which the organization says is invasive for all female athletes.
Equality Virginia Executive Director Narissa Rahaman said that while she has heard a lot of frustration following the decision, people are ready to take action.
“Families, parents and youth have lived through disappointing changes to the Virginia Department of Education’s model policies for the treatment of transgender students, and the Virginia High School League’s decades-old policy that allowed transgender students an opportunity to play sports with their friends,” Rahaman said in a statement to the Washington Blade.
She believes they are not ready to give up this fight quite yet.
As of now, trans and nonbinary students are protected under Virginia law, and Rahaman wants that to continue.
“This ruling will likely embolden right-wing members of the General Assembly to pursue trans athlete bans, and we will continue to defeat every bill like we have the past five legislative sessions. Now is our time to be proactive,” Rahaman said.
She also calls upon Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger to defend trans youth in Virginia from what she describes as bullies and to continue to stand up to federal attacks on the trans community in general.
For trans students, Rahaman wants to ensure that they continue to know that they belong and have a place in school sports.
“To the transgender young people watching this decision unfold: you belong on your team, in your school, in your community, and here in Virginia. This ruling does not change that. A single Supreme Court decision cannot define your worth or your future,” Rahaman said.
For people who may be outside the community but want to help, she encourages them to speak with trans and nonbinary people in their community, befriend the families of youth to show their support, and continue to speak up on these issues when needed.
According to ACLU of Virginia, high schooler Eliza Munshi was told she could not compete on the girls’ track team because she was trans. To prove a point, she decided to compete with the boys.
She had previously competed on the girls’s track team before her Virginia school decided to enforce the ban demanded by President Donald Trump. With pink hair and pink makeup, she decided to continue her love for the sport alongside boys. According to Munshi, her entire community rallied for her.
“I did it to prove a point. I knew I could do it. I knew it wouldn’t phase me. My gender itself and that label has been the least important part of my transition: I want to look how I want to look. I want to dress how I want to dress. If you don’t like that, then that’s not my business,” Munshi said.
DOE has launched Title IX probe against Md. school districts
In the weeks leading up to the ruling, multiple Maryland school districts were included in a Title IX probe stating that not enforcing sex-based protections guaranteed by federal law. Currently, there have been no updates on the lawsuit or the district’s decisions.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, the federal probe is based on parent complaints that the school districts were violating a specific Trump-Vance administration addition to Title IX, stating it aligned the sex-based protections “with biological reality, not ideological fantasy.”
According to FreeState Justice, an LGBTQ advocacy group in Maryland, while this is a disappointing ruling to see, they will continue to fight for trans student-athletes in Maryland and want trans youth to know that they belong.
“Every young person deserves the opportunity to participate in school and community life without being singled out because of who they are. These decisions send a harmful message to transgender youth that they are somehow less deserving of that opportunity,” said Phillip Westry, the group’s executive director.
Westry wants to make sure the community knows that their commitment to the organization has not changed and will continue to provide the same legal services they have prior and to advance policy solutions, to ensure “every LGBTQ+ Marylander can live with dignity, safety, and equal opportunity.”
Another issue brought up by trans advocates is the issue of testing women to determine whether they are biologically female or not.
According to Human Rights Watch, as of 2023, World Athletics required cis women with increased testosterone levels to undergo medical procedures to have it reduced to avoid advantages. Other forms of “sex verification” may include genetic testing, screenings of an athlete’s anatomy or chromosomes.
However, this can become detrimental because not all women have ovaries, a uterus, or XX chromosomes, meaning cisgender women could potentially be included in these bans, depending on how the specific state plans to enforce them.
Maryland
Eastern Shore school board wants an 18-and-over rule for young adult books
Classics like ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ and ‘Little Women’ might be off limits to most students
By LIZ BOWIE | Somerset County’s school board is considering barring students under the age of 18 from reading any young-adult literature in school libraries, essentially restricting all but 12th graders from checking out books written for teens and tweens.
The proposed policy also calls for the superintendent to discipline librarians if “adult” reading material appears in the children’s section.
The policy defines young adult as students over 18. “Young adults are not minors and books suitable for young adults shall be placed on a separate Young Adults library section to reflect age-appropriate literature,” a draft of the policy says.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Mary’s House founder, CEO retires
Va., Md., advocates brace for next fight after Supreme Court sports ruling
Eastern Shore school board wants an 18-and-over rule for young adult books
Gay teacher, LGBTQ-supportive parent win $1 million in Fairfax County defamation lawsuits
As Washington shifts right, Democratic Socialists gain ground
‘Transcendent’ a tough but important read
‘My Favorite Sociopath’ debuts at Shepherdstown’s CATF
Under-the-radar Delaware beach towns smart buyers are targeting
In Trump’s divided America, Michael Weinstein’s AHF responds
