I think when judges do this, and make these types of decisions, there’s got to be some accountability and I was, I shouldn’t say pleased to be able to do it, but I thought it was important that I stood up as I did in dissent, given the consequences of that young child getting shot in the head as a result, in part, of the release of this dangerous criminal back onto the streets. Now, in 2020, I was appointed, it was a great honor, by President Trump to a body here in Washington, D.C., called the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure, and the commission is composed of seven commissioners, and I’m the only commissioner appointed by the president.

There’s one slot for presidential appointment. And other slots are there for, the federal court appoints folks, appoints a judge to sit, the D.C. counsel, I think, appoints one person, the D.C. mayor appoints two people, and I think the bar appoints a person as well. I think I covered all seven. And the body has the ability to remove from office someone, a judge for disability, or an ethics issue. And the judges we have oversight over are D.C. superior court judges and D.C. court of appeals judges, basically the D.C. equivalent of our state court judges. So it’s a very powerful body, and it’s an honor to be on it, and it’s a lot of work.

But one of the unique powers we have in terms of a commission, or interesting powers, is the way judges are appointed to that court, is they are appointed initially, after a commission recommends to the president three names, the president has to pick from those names, they’re sent to the senate, and the senate confirms the person. And then they have a term of 15 years. And if they wish to be reappointed, they have to go through us. And we have three choices after an investigation and an analysis of their request for reappointment. We can find them well qualified, and we tell the president that, and they’re automatically reappointed.

But we find them qualified, and we tell the president that, and then it’s the president’s discretion to whether to reappoint them or submit someone else to congress and begin the whole process again. Or we find them well qualified, and they’re out. Now we had a judge come before us, and I put a tweet before on it out there, kind of describing it briefly. Judge Todd Edelman, who by all accounts is well liked and well loved and respected on the court. But he made a decision that I had a significant issue with, and many others did as well.

And let’s go to this tweet for Judge Edelman. The D.C. commission, I write, on judicial disabilities and tenure, on which I sit as a commissioner for appointment by President Trump, just took action to reappoint for 15 years a D.C. superior court judge, the Honorable Todd Edelman, who made what I consider to be a reckless decision to release a criminal with a dangerous record. The criminal later was involved in the shooting death of a young boy named Devonne McNeil here in Washington D.C. Based on this release decision and its catastrophic outcome, I alone found Judge Edelman unqualified for reappointment due to the grave threat to public safety posed by his exercise of judicial discretion.

And then I quoted the dissent below. Now, I didn’t do that lightly. I was the only one who dissented or found him unqualified or not qualified. And I think it’s important that a line be drawn, that there be accountability when a judge releases someone in a way that is so awful in terms of the consequences. And you didn’t have to release the person. It was all a discretionary release. And I want to go over the dissent with you because I think it’s important that public safety in Washington D.C. is an important issue. Judicial accountability is an important issue.

And as President Trump’s appointee and as a citizen of Washington D.C., President of Judicial Watch, everything I bring to the table at that commission, I thought it was important to take a stand in this regard. I respectfully disagree with my fellow commissioner’s conclusion that Judge Edelman is, quote, well qualified. On July 4, 2020, a neighborhood in Washington D.C. was beset by a tragedy that claimed the life of 11-year-old Devon McNeil, a beloved boy who had dreams of NFL stardom. As reported by the Washington Post on June 3, 2022, Devon’s mother, Crystal McNeil, a committed advocate against gun violence, organized an anti-violence cookout that was attended by members of the community.

After Devon was dropped off to meet his mother while fetching a phone charger from his aunt’s house, he was struck and killed by a stray bullet collapsing on the sidewalk. He was shot in the head. His mother, heartbroken, called him, quote, my baby, my everything. It was awful. It was a big story here in Washington D.C. It was an anti-violence cookout and the boy was shot in the head. At the core of this catastrophe were four young men, including Christian Wingfield, who was on release in an illegal gun case six weeks earlier, by Judge Todd E.

Edelman. This is the court, the judge that was before us. Wingfield would eventually plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter for his role in Devon’s death. Wingfield, armed in violating the conditions of his release by Judge Edelman, was among those whose actions led to the murder, his culpability affirmed by his guilty plea. So he plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter. Devon’s grandfather, John Ayla, voiced the community’s outrage and concern about the judiciary’s contributing role, stating, it’s ridiculous that people like Wingfield are being released due to the pandemic from D.C. to New York City. We have to put more pressure on the judges because these guys, if they are violent criminals dealing with firearms, these guys should not be released.

The only ones that are going to release somebody, they have to be non-violent offenders. It is because of Judge Edelman’s misjudgment in this tragedy that I respectfully dissent from the District of Columbia’s Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenures majority determination that he is well qualified for reappointment as an Associate Judge of the Superior Court, which would automatically extend his term for 15 years. Based on his release decision in the Wingfield matter and its catastrophic outcome, I find Judge Edelman unqualified for reappointment due to the grave threat to public safety posed by his exercise of judicial discretion.

It’s pretty serious in my view. The public expects judges to exercise discretion with utmost caution, particularly in cases involving obviously dangerous defendants with criminal convictions or arrests. When releasing Wingfield, Judge Edelman failed to adequately weigh the clear and present danger to the community, a lapse that cannot be excused by any other aspects of his record. On April 22, 2020, almost three months before the shooting death of D.V. McNeil, Christian Wingfield was arrested in Washington D.C. and charged by the government for the illegal possession of a Glock handgun and extended magazine, a configuration designed to maximize its lethal capacity.

At that time, he was on probation under the Youth Rehabilitation Act for a 2017 felony conviction for illegal possession of a handgun under the act. His criminal history was extensive, with a demonstrated pattern of dangerous criminal behavior. In the arrest paperwork, the police also included information, which I consider to be quite powerful, regarding the alleged discharge of a weapon in a public area during daylight hours. That, if true, was an act of reckless disregard that could have endangered innocent lives. In the lease, the record shows he was on probation for one felony gun conviction, but had a new felony gun charge, and there was information about a dangerous firearm firing on a public street.

Wingfield’s record, which includes both public and non-public information, persuades me that Wingfield was a clear and present danger to the community, and I do not believe he should have been on the streets at all. So I looked at all sorts of documents, including material that was under seal, and that I can’t talk about. To experience superior court judges effectively recognized Wingfield’s dangerousness and did not release him, despite the discretion under law to do so. On April 23, 2020, the day after his arrest, the Hon. Julia J. McKenna, who was a superior court judge here in Washington, D.C., ordered Wingfield held without bond.

Her decision was based on the 2020 pretrial detention statute that had an initial presumption of detention for dangerous crimes. A decision, obviously, I agree with, right? I understand her decision was based on the information before her, including the government’s new felony gun and extended magazine charge, arrest paperwork filed in court, Wingfield’s prior criminal history, including a 2017 felony gun conviction, and other information presented by the Pretrial Services Agency, which is an arm of the court that helps the court determine whether to keep people held, pending trial. Subsequently, on May 7, 2020, another judge, the Hon.

James A. Quarwell IV, reviewed an emergency bond review motion filed by Wingfield’s counsel, which sought Wingfield’s release based on, among other things, alleged health risks from COVID-19 in the D.C. jail and procedural arguments about the superior court’s temporary suspension of full detention hearings due to the pandemic. So, I mean, it was kind of a mess in the court, generally speaking, because of the reaction to COVID. Judge Quarwell denied the motion. Although the judge’s written order was later challenged as legally deficient, his ultimate conclusion was also to keep Wingfield off the streets. Together, these rulings by Judges McKenna and Quarwell established a significant judicial record that Wingfield’s release would jeopardize public safety.

So, Judge Edelman’s subsequent release of Wingfield on May 22, 2020, seems oblivious to the clear evidence of Wingfield’s dangerousness and the combined import of the prior detention orders of Judges McKenna and Quarwell. The consequences of Judge Edelman’s decision were catastrophic and irreversible. And foreseeable generally, if not specifically, on July 4, 2020, Wingfield violated the terms of his release, was present and armed at the scene of the shooting death of Daven MacNeil. After MacNeil was killed, Wingfield cut off his GPS monitoring device and fled the jurisdiction. His subsequent guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter legally affirmed his culpable role in the child’s homicide.

The murder’s impact on the community was profound. DC residents, already burdened by the scourge of gun violence, reported pervasive fear with parents restricting their children’s outdoor activities to shield them from further harm. Judge Edelman continues to assert the propriety of his release in Wingfield, even though the motion for reconsideration filed by Wingfield attached information about his juvenile history. And Judge Edelman was aware of his 2017 felony conviction for illegal handgun possession, act of probation status, and possession of a high-capacity Glock handgun. And of course, the credible evidence that I highlighted before, that he fired a gun in a public area during daylight hours.

As Judge Edelman remains convinced that releasing a defendant with Wingfield’s profile was justified, the public may fairly presume he will make similar, reckless decisions in future cases involving defendants with, at best, dangerous criminal histories, firearms, offenses, or probation violations. The Wingfield decision is not a minor judicial lapse, but a decision with devastating consequences, the death of an 11-year-old child, and it demands a central focus in the commission’s evaluation. Indeed, the Wingfield decision garnered intense criticism during Judge Edelman’s 2022 nomination to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He was nominated by President Biden on September 27, 2022.

The Senate response was definitive. He was not confirmed. Judge Edelman’s continued presence on the court is an unacceptable risk in a position where public safety and trust are paramount. The judiciary and the commission must prioritize accountability and public safety, and by conclusion, finding Judge Edelman unqualified for reappointment reflects that imperative. Therefore, I respectfully dissent, and I sign it, Tom Fitten, Commissioner, on the Commission for Judicial Disabilities and Tenure. As I noted, I’m the only person on the commission of the seven who found him to be unqualified, who was found well-qualified, and therefore he gets automatically reappointed for 15 more years.

I think I made a good case as to why that should not be the case. I think this is the first time I voted any judge to be unqualified. I know it’s the first time I’ve done that since I’ve been on the commission. I’ve been on the commission for five years, and I didn’t do it lightly. And I think when judges do this and make these types of decisions, there’s got to be some accountability, and I was, I shouldn’t say pleased to be able to do it, but I thought it was important that I stood up as I did in dissent, given the consequences of that young child getting shot in the head as a result, in part, of the release of this dangerous criminal background.

So that’s kind of, you know, it’s interesting in the sense I’m doing it as a D.C. resident. I was appointed by President Trump to this important commission, but you’ll see in this case, I tried to uphold, in my view, the rule of law, and I’m trying to protect the public by standing up and highlighting that the judge made the wrong call here in a way that makes someone suitable for future office. So I wish there were more votes with me, but that’s life. I respect my fellow commissioners, and I understand we disagree here, but I wanted to share this with you because I think it’s important.

I mean, we all know about these types of cases happening in other jurisdictions, and at least in my corner of the world, here in Washington, D.C., our nation’s capital, I’m not going to sit idly by or quietly as it happens without saying something about it. I mean, that kid didn’t have to die, in my view. It was just awful, and decisions like that have consequences, and there’s got to be accountability, and that’s what I tried to provide here. Thank you. [tr:trw].

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.