Stalker Defense Attorney Non Prosecution Outcome

During the initial consultation, the attorney conducted a detailed review of the client's timeline, relationship history, and the circumstances surrounding the communication. 

The client had been in a consensual relationship with the complainant before the parties separated amicably. 

While on an out of town school program, the client had written a personal message expressing gratitude and wishing well being, placing it into a delayed mail system where letters are delivered approximately one year later. 

When the letter finally reached the former partner, she reported it as unwanted contact and asserted that earlier communications during the breakup were also distressing. 

After learning of the police inquiry, the client sought immediate legal representation to prevent escalation.

The attorney explained that Washington D.C. Defines stalking under D.C. Code § 22-3133 as engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person with the intent to cause fear, emotional distress, or to interfere with their safety, and that such conduct must consist of two or more acts. 

A single communication, without repetition or threatening behavior, generally does not constitute a course of conduct. 

The attorney also clarified that the government must prove intent or knowledge that the conduct would cause fear or emotional disturbance, a standard not supported by the facts presented.

The first component of the defense was establishing that the client’s act of mailing the letter constituted only one instance of communication. 

Under D.C. Code § 22-3132(8), a “course of conduct” requires two or more actions, meaning a single message especially one sent through a delayed delivery system cannot independently satisfy the statute. 

The attorney documented this clearly in a written submission to the investigator, emphasizing that the client had no further contact with the complainant prior to or after the letter’s delivery. 

This argument underscored that the statutory requirements of repetition and persistence were entirely absent.

The complainant additionally asserted that earlier conversations during the emotional period surrounding the breakup constituted stalking. 

The attorney analyzed these interactions and demonstrated that the communications in question were non threatening, limited in duration, and typical of relationship dissolution rather than indicative of harassment or intimidation. 

To meet the statutory definition of stalking, the conduct must be intended or reasonably expected to cause fear or serious emotional distress. 

The attorney argued that the text message exchanges and attempts at closure did not demonstrate intent to provoke fear, nor did they rise to a level of behavior that would satisfy the objective standard of causing emotional harm under D.C. Code § 22-3133.

The prosecutor concluded that a single act of communication, particularly one lacking any threatening content, failed to constitute the required course of conduct. 

Additionally, no credible evidence existed to establish fear or emotional distress at a level required for prosecution.

As a result, the U.S. Attorney’s Office elected to non Prosecution the case, meaning it declined to file formal charges and the investigation was closed with no further action. The client avoided arrest, prosecution, and the potential consequences of a criminal record.