In October, an inspection by the U.S. Marshal Service for D.C. found “evidence of systemic” failures and unacceptable living conditions at the jail. Inspectors reported clogged toilets, and observed guards who punitively withheld food and water from residents. 400 people held in federal custody at the jail were slated to be transferred to a federal prison in Pennsylvania, but as of Dec. 3, only 200 residents had been moved, according to the USMS.
Impetus for the inspection came after months of allegations from lawyers for Jan. 6 defendants being held at the jail, who reported that their clients were being denied medical treatment or having other rights violated. Five days before the inspection, a judge held DOC officials in contempt of court for failing to provide information on the medical treatment of one Jan. 6 defendant. (None of the 400 residents transferred were Jan. 6 defendants).
Shortly after the USMS inspection, D.C. entered into agreement with them, pledging to “provide a collaborative, accurate assessment of conditions of confinement” at the jail, and establish a plan to fix the problems. According to the Washington Post, that agreement barred both the city and the U.S. Marshals from conducting “a media interview in connection with the activities that are the subject of this agreement without prior consent by the other party” – a term that the Dec. 7 media tour may have violated.
The USMS did not immediately return DCist/WAMU’s request for comment on Racine’s decision to withdraw representation, or on any violations of the USMS agreement with the city.
Mayor Muriel Bowser discussed the attorney general’s decision with D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson and Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen on Dec. 13, according to a letter from the mayor to both lawmakers on Dec. 17, reviewed by DCist/WAMU. During the meeting on Dec. 13, the mayor and lawmakers “discussed the sudden need for the District government to forge a new process for its legal representation” after Racine decided to “step away without notice.”
According to the letter, the city will need to set up “legal funds and a process to represent the city,” and develop a plan for future instances where the attorney general decides to opt out of representation. (Per D.C.’s Home Rule Act, the city’s attorney general can opt out of representation if they deem it in “the public interest.”)
Spokespeople for Mendelson and Allen, who chairs the Council’s Judiciary and Public Safety committee, did not immediately return DCist/WAMU’s request for comment.
