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
D.C. Council gives first approval to amended PrEP insurance bill
Removes weakening language after concerns raised by AIDS group
The D.C. Council voted unanimously on Feb. 3 to approve a bill on its first of two required votes that requires health insurance companies to cover the costs of HIV prevention or PrEP drugs for D.C. residents at risk for HIV infection.
The vote to approve the PrEP D.C. Amendment Act came immediately after the 13-member Council voted unanimously again to approve an amendment that removed language in the bill added last month by the Council’s Committee on Health that would require insurers to fully cover only one PrEP drug.
The amendment, introduced jointly by Council members Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5), who first introduced the bill in February 2025, and Christina Henderson (I-At-Large), who serves as chair of the Health Committee, requires insurers to cover all U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved PrEP drugs.
Under its rules, the D.C. Council must vote twice to approve all legislation, which must be signed by the D.C. mayor and undergo a 30-day review by Congress before it takes effect as a D.C. law.
Given its unanimous “first reading” vote of approval on Feb. 3, Parker told the Washington Blade he was certain the Council would approve the bill on its second and final vote expected in about two weeks.
Among those who raised concerns about the earlier version of the bill was Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, who sent messages to all 13 Council members urging them to remove the language added by the Committee on Health requiring insurers to cover just one PrEP drug.
The change made by the committee, Schmidt told Council members, “would actually reduce PrEP options for D.C. residents that are required by current federal law, limit patient choice, and place D.C. behind states that have enacted HIV prevention policies designed to remain in effect regardless of any federal changes.”
Schmid told the Washington Blade that although coverage requirements for insurers are currently provided through coverage standards recommended in the U.S. Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, AIDS advocacy organizations have called on D.C. and states to pass their own legislation requiring insurance coverage of PrEP in the event that the federal policies are weakened or removed by the Trump administration, which has already reduced or ended federal funding for HIV/AIDS-related programs.
“The sticking point was the language in the markup that insurers only had to cover one regimen of PrEP,” Parker told the Blade in a phone interview the night before the Council vote. “And advocates thought that moved the needle back in terms of coverage access, and I agree with them,” he said.
In anticipation that the Council would vote to approve the amendment and the underlying bill, Parker, the Council’s only gay member, added, “I think this is a win for our community. And this is a win in the fight against HIV/AIDS.”
During the Feb. 3 Council session, Henderson called on her fellow Council members to approve both the amendment she and Parker had introduced and the bill itself. But she did not say why her committee approved the changes that advocates say weakened the bill and that her and Parker’s amendment would undo. Schmid speculated that pressure from insurance companies may have played a role in the committee change requiring coverage of only one PrEP drug.
“My goal for advancing the ‘PrEP DC Amendment Act’ is to ensure that the District is building on the progress made in reducing new HIV infections every year,” Henderson said in a statement released after the Council vote. “On Friday, my office received concerns from advocates and community leaders about language regarding PrEP coverage,” she said.
“My team and I worked with Council member Parker, community leaders, including the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute and Whitman-Walker, and the Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking, to craft a solution that clarifies our intent and provides greater access to these life-saving drugs for District residents by reducing consumer costs for any PrEP drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” her statement concludes.
In his own statement following the Council vote, Schmid thanked Henderson and Parker for initiating the amendment to improve the bill. “This will provide PrEP users with the opportunity to choose the best drug that meets their needs,” he said. “We look forward to the bill’s final reading and implementation.”
Maryland
4th Circuit dismisses lawsuit against Montgomery County schools’ pronoun policy
Substitute teacher Kimberly Polk challenged regulation in 2024
A federal appeals court has ruled Montgomery County Public Schools did not violate a substitute teacher’s constitutional rights when it required her to use students’ preferred pronouns in the classroom.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision it released on Jan. 28 ruled against Kimberly Polk.
The policy states that “all students have the right to be referred to by their identified name and/or pronoun.”
“School staff members should address students by the name and pronoun corresponding to the gender identity that is consistently asserted at school,” it reads. “Students are not required to change their permanent student records as described in the next section (e.g., obtain a court-ordered name and/or new birth certificate) as a prerequisite to being addressed by the name and pronoun that corresponds to their identified name. To the extent possible, and consistent with these guidelines, school personnel will make efforts to maintain the confidentiality of the student’s transgender status.”
The Washington Post reported Polk, who became a substitute teacher in Montgomery County in 2021, in November 2022 requested a “religious accommodation, claiming that the policy went against her ‘sincerely held religious beliefs,’ which are ‘based on her understanding of her Christian religion and the Holy Bible.’”
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in January 2025 dismissed Polk’s lawsuit that she filed in federal court in Beltsville. Polk appealed the decision to the 4th Circuit.
District of Columbia
Norton hailed as champion of LGBTQ rights
D.C. congressional delegate to retire after 36 years in U.S. House
LGBTQ rights advocates reflected on D.C. Congressional Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton’s longstanding advocacy and support for LGBTQ rights in Congress following her decision last month not to run for re-election this year.
Upon completing her current term in office in January 2027, Norton, a Democrat, will have served 18 two-year terms and 36 years in her role as the city’s non-voting delegate to the U.S. House.
LGBTQ advocates have joined city officials and community leaders in describing Norton as a highly effective advocate for D.C. under the city’s limited representation in Congress where she could not vote on the House floor but stood out in her work on House committees and moving, powerful speeches on the House floor.
“During her more than three decades in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton has been a champion for the District of Columbia and the LGBTQ+ community,” said David Stacy, vice president of government affairs for the Human Rights Campaign, the D.C.-based national LGBTQ advocacy organization.
“When Congress blocked implementation of D.C.’s domestic partnership registry, Norton led the fight to allow it to go into effect,” Stacey said. “When President Bush tried to ban marriage equality in every state and the District, Norton again stood up in opposition. And when Congress blocked HIV prevention efforts, Norton worked to end that interference in local control,” he said.

In reflecting the sentiment of many local and national LGBTQ advocates familiar with Norton’s work, Stacy added, “We have been lucky to have such an incredible champion. As her time in Congress comes to an end, we honor her extraordinary impact in the nation’s capital and beyond by standing together in pride and gratitude.”
Norton has been among the lead co-sponsors and outspoken supporters of LGBTQ rights legislation introduced in Congress since first taking office, including the currently pending Equality Act, which would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Activists familiar with Norton’s work also point out that she has played a lead role in opposing and helping to defeat anti-LGBTQ legislation. In 2018, Norton helped lead an effort to defeat a bill called the First Amendment Defense Act introduced by U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), which Norton said included language that could “gut” D.C.’s Human Rights Act’s provisions banning LGBTQ discrimination.
Norton pointed to a provision in the bill not immediately noticed by LGBTQ rights organizations that would define D.C.’s local government as a federal government entity and allow potential discrimination against LGBTQ people based on a “sincerely held religious belief.”
“This bill is the latest outrageous Republican attack on the District, focusing particularly on our LGBT community and the District’s right to self-government,” Norton said shortly after the bill was introduced. “We will not allow Republicans to discriminate against the LGBT community under the guise of religious liberty,” she said. Records show supporters have not secured the votes to pass it in several congressional sessions.
In 2011, Norton was credited with lining up sufficient opposition to plans by some Republican lawmakers to attempt to overturn D.C.’s same-sex marriage law, that the Council passed and the mayor signed in 2010.
In 2015, Norton also played a lead role opposing attempts by GOP members of Congress to overturn another D.C. law protecting LGBTQ students at religious schools, including the city’s Catholic University, from discrimination such as the denial of providing meeting space for an LGBTQ organization.
More recently, in 2024 Norton again led efforts to defeat an attempt by Republican House members to amend the D.C. budget bill that Congress must pass to eliminate funding for the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs and to prohibit the city from using its funds to enforce the D.C. Human Rights Act in cases of discrimination against transgender people.
“The Republican amendment that would prohibit funds from being used to enforce anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination regulations and the amendment to defund the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ+ Affairs are disgraceful attempts, in themselves, to discriminate against D.C.’s LGBTQ+ community while denying D.C. residents the limited governance over their local affairs to which they are entitled,” Norton told the Washington Blade.
In addition to pushing for LGBTQ supportive laws and opposing anti-LGBTQ measures Norton has spoken out against anti-LGBTQ hate crimes and called on the office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. in 2020 to more aggressively prosecute anti-LGBTQ hate crimes.

“There is so much to be thankful for Eleanor Holmes Norton’s many years of service to all the citizens and residents of the District of Columbia,” said John Klenert, a member of the board of the LGBTQ Victory Fund. “Whether it was supporting its LGBTQ+ people for equal rights, HIV health issues, home rule protection, statehood for all 700,000 people, we could depend on her,” he said.
Ryan Bos, executive director of Capital Pride Alliance, the group that organizes D.C.’s annual LGBTQ Pride events, called Norton a “staunch” LGBTQ community ally and champion for LGBTQ supportive legislation in Congress.
“For decades, Congresswoman Norton has marched in the annual Capital Pride Parade, showing her pride and using her platform to bring voice and visibility in our fight to advance civil rights, end discrimination, and affirm the dignity of all LGBTQ+ people” Bos said. “We will be forever grateful for her ongoing advocacy and contributions to the LGBTQ+ movement.”
Howard Garrett, president of D.C.’s Capital Stonewall Democrats, called Norton a “consistent and principled advocate” for equality throughout her career. “She supported LGBTQ rights long before it was politically popular, advancing nondiscrimination protections and equal protection under the law,” he said.
“Eleanor was smart, tough, and did not suffer fools gladly,” said Rick Rosendall, former president of the D.C. Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance. “But unlike many Democratic politicians a few decades ago who were not reliable on LGBTQ issues, she was always right there with us,” he said. “We didn’t have to explain our cause to her.”
Longtime D.C. gay Democratic activist Peter Rosenstein said he first met Norton when she served as chair of the New York City Human Rights Commission. “She got her start in the civil rights movement and has always been a brilliant advocate for equality,” Rosenstein said.
“She fought for women and for the LGBTQ community,” he said. “She always stood strong with us in all the battles the LGBTQ community had to fight in Congress. I have been honored to know her, thank her for her lifetime of service, and wish her only the best in a hard-earned retirement.”
-
Florida5 days agoAIDS Healthcare Foundation sues Fla. over ‘illegal’ HIV drug program cuts
-
China5 days agoTwo Chinese men detained over AI-generated picture of pandas engaging in same-sex behavior
-
Arts & Entertainment5 days agoCatherine O’Hara, ‘Schitt’s Creek’ star and celebrated queer ally, dies at 71
-
Calendar5 days agoCalendar: January 30-February 5
