A local prosecutor asked a D.C. Superior Court jury this week to convict six District men for murdering a 19-year-old man in December 2000 because the perpetrators believed the victim was gay, even though the government has no proof of the youth’s sexual orientation.

The sexual orientation of Kenneth Muldrow — who died from a brutal beating in Northeast D.C. that included the insertion of an aluminum pole into his rectum — is considered pivotal to the case.

If prosecutors can convince the jury that the defendants committed first-degree murder and committed an additional “aggravating” offense by killing Muldrow because of his actual, or perceived, sexual orientation, the prosecutors can seek a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. D.C. law does not allow the option of the death penalty.

Defense attorneys said the defendants got into a fight with Muldrow because he allegedly stole money from one of them inside a crack house. They had no knowledge of Muldrow’s sexual orientation, they told the jury in opening arguments, and claimed the government was using rumors about Muldrow’s sexual orientation as a ploy to obtain a longer sentence.

The incident began about 10:30 p.m. on Dec. 8, 2000, in front of a small apartment house at 4607 Central Ave., N.E., according to court records. The men charged in the case, all of whom are D.C. residents, are Raq Baxter, 24; Lamont Kenney, 19; Kevin Dobbins, 19; Matthew Ingram, 20; Darion Ingram, 20, and Jamar Brown, 25. Matthew and Darion Ingram are cousins.

Assistant United States Attorney Glenn Leon, the lead prosecutor, told the jury in his opening argument on Monday that the defendants repeatedly called Muldrow a “faggot” as they struck him with their fists, feet and a series of objects, including a vacuum cleaner, a trashcan, a lamp and an aluminum pole. Leon, who described Muldrow as being “slightly effeminate,” said he was 5-feet-4 and weighed 128 pounds.

“Witnesses were so horrified that they had to leave the scene,” Leon said. “After a half hour, the defendants dragged him behind some bushes. They took the aluminum pole, pulled down his pants and his underwear and rammed the pole into his anus.”

“Kenneth was still alive,” Leon said. “He died en route to the hospital.”

An autopsy report showed that Muldrow received multiple injuries to the head and upper body, including a crushed nose, severed teeth, fractured facial bones and a severe brain hemorrhage.

Leon called the motive behind the murder “inexplicable,” saying the true reason for the killing may never be known. However, he said witnesses would testify that one possible motive was the defendants’ belief that Muldrow was gay. They base that assertion on the alleged use of anti-gay slurs during the beating and past observation by the defendants of the victim’s effeminate mannerisms.

Attorneys representing the defendants took strong exception to Leon’s assertion about Muldrow’s sexual orientation.

“We believe this is an abuse of the hate crimes law,” said attorney Carry Clennon, who represents defendant Matthew Ingram. Clennon, who spoke during a recess in the trial, acknowledged that government witnesses are expected to testify that they heard some of the defendants shouting anti-gay names at Muldrow.

Alleged theft led to killing
But Clennon said he and other defense attorneys would argue that the defendants used anti-gay slurs such as the word “faggot” as derisive terms intended only to insult Muldrow. Such terms are commonly used among blacks as insults, Clennon said, with no intent to link the insults to a person’s sexual orientation. All of the defendants are black. Muldrow was also an African American.

Willie Hewett, Baxter’s attorney, told the jury in his opening argument that his client and Muldrow knew each other prior to the murder because both had visited a second floor apartment at 4607 Central Ave., N.E., a four-unit duplex apartment house. Witnesses told police the attack against Muldrow began on the sidewalk in front of that building.

“It was a crack house,” Hewett told the jury. “Drug dealings went on. Prostitution went on. That’s why Mr. Muldrow went there. Mr. Baxter was there. That’s how he knew Mr. Muldrow.”

Hewett said that, on an occasion prior to the murder, Baxter left his coat, which had $300 in one of its pockets, at the apartment while he left to buy something at a nearby store. When he returned, “his money was missing and Mr. Muldrow was gone,” Hewett told the jury.

When Baxter saw Muldrow on the night of the murder, Hewett said, he accused him of stealing his money. An argument began, and Baxter hit Muldrow three times then left the scene, according to Hewett.

That’s when “the other people” jumped in, he said.

“That’s how the bloody scene occurred.” It was “the other people” who were responsible for Muldrow’s death, he told the jury.
Attorneys representing the other five defendants said their clients were present but were not responsible for the murder, saying witnesses became confused by a crowded crime scene and could not say for certain who did what to whom.

Hewett told the jury that Baxter cooperated with police when they questioned him about the incident about a year after the murder, saying his client agreed to go to the Sixth District police headquarters to give a statement.

Hewett said nearly all of the prosecution’s witnesses, who had refused to come forward in the months following the murder, suddenly began to “talk” to police after they learned that Baxter had given a statement to police. Worried that Baxter had revealed information about their involvement with the crack house, most of these witnesses decided to implicate Baxter in Muldrow’s murder.

“The witnesses in this case come to you with a lot of baggage,” said attorney Janet Mitchell, who is representing defendant Lamont Kenney. “The witnesses in this case are people who hung out in that crack house,” she said. “Those are the witnesses that the government is relying on.”

Mitchell said many of the witnesses were “high on crack” or were “drunk or stoned.” She said the government rounded up unreliable witnesses and could produce no physical evidence against her client, such as matching fingerprints, hair or blood.

“What is clear is how unclear things were that night,” Mitchell said.

A grand jury in February 2002 handed down a three-count indictment against the defendants, charging them with first-degree murder with aggravating circumstances, first-degree murder while armed (premeditated) and first-degree sexual abuse while armed. The later charged was based on the allegation that the defendants inserted the pole into Muldrow’s rectum.

The indictment states that one of the aggravating circumstances was that “the murder was committed because of Kenneth Muldrow’s sexual orientation.” Other aggravating circumstances were the “heinous, atrocious, and cruel” nature of the murder and the commission of a “sexual offense” during the murder, according to the indictment.

Patricia Reilly, special counsel to the U.S. Attorney’s office, said her office used a little known D.C. law called the First Degree Murder Amendment Act of 1992 as the basis for seeking the aggravating circumstance charge linked to Muldrow’s sexual orientation. The act gives judges authority to hand down a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole in first-degree murder cases that involve various aggravating factors. One of those factors included in the act is a murder based on the victims’ sexual orientation.

The D.C. Council passed the act three years after it passed the Bias Related Crimes Act of 1989. The 1989 law gives judges, among other things, the authority to hand down sentences one and a half times greater than the maximum sentence for crimes such as assault or murder, if the motive of the crime is based on a person’s race, religion, sex, sexual orientation and other factors.

Reilly said the U.S. Attorney’s office decided to invoke the First Degree Murder Amendment Act rather than the Bias Related Crimes Act in the Muldrow case because it could lead to a more severe sentence — life in prison without the possibility of parole.