Trespass Charges Case Study in Washington D.C. | Multi Count Allegations Resolved with Full Prosecutorial Dismissal

The client was a university student who became the subject of trespass charges after attempting to reenter a shared residence during an intense emotional disagreement, and the situation escalated when he sought to retrieve his personal belongings while the other party refused entry. 

In Washington D.C., unlawful entry under D.C. Code § 22-3302 is triggered when a person knowingly enters or remains on property against the will of the lawful occupant, and although D.C. cases allow consideration of possessory interest in shared spaces, the client’s conduct was interpreted as exceeding his lawful access when he acted impulsively under emotional distress. 

Additional allegations, including misdemeanor assault, threats, and repeated contact, were added as the investigating officers evaluated statements made during the conflict. 

Because trespass charges often strengthen the government’s willingness to pursue related offenses, the early phase of representation required a precise reconstruction of events. 

Counsel concentrated on identifying the moment emotional volatility overcame judgment and structured this information to highlight impulsivity rather than criminal intent. 

This initial foundation was essential in influencing how prosecutors reviewed the case.

Defense counsel contextualized the trespass charges by emphasizing that the client’s conduct stemmed from a sudden emotional escalation rather than planning, and this distinction is highly relevant in D.C. because prosecutors commonly distinguish between intentional unlawful entry and temporary loss of judgment. 

Counsel clearly explained that the client neither brought tools nor attempted forced entry with preparation, and instead reacted impulsively when denied access to retrieve personal belongings. 

To strengthen this argument, counsel provided a timeline demonstrating the absence of sustained contact or repeated attempts before the incident, and offered corroboration showing that the client had lived at the property and sought only to collect personal effects. 

Because trespass charges in Washington D.C. rely heavily on a clear boundary violation combined with intent, showing diminished intent significantly undercut the government’s basis for moving forward.

Several additional accusations, including repeated contact and proximity violations, were tied to a temporary civil protective measure imposed shortly after the incident.

Defense counsel collected communications indicating that many interactions were initiated or encouraged by the complaining witness during the post incident period, which materially changed the interpretation of the client’s conduct. 

By demonstrating that any proximity issues arose within mutual communication rather than stalking behaviors, counsel significantly weakened the credibility of the related allegations. 

This approach also reduced the perceived risk factor that prosecutors often consider when determining whether to pursue trespass charges in multi count cases.

The attorney recommended participation in D.C.’s criminal mediation framework, which allows indirect communication when direct contact is restricted, and this approach is frequently effective for cases involving trespass charges within domestic contexts. 

During the mediation process, the client conveyed remorse, and the complaining witness acknowledged shared responsibility for ongoing communication following the incident. 

The mediation resulted in a written understanding confirming that the complaining witness did not desire prosecution. 

Counsel then submitted detailed mitigation letters highlighting the client’s cooperation, sincere apology, educational background, and upcoming military service obligations, which further supported the argument that prosecution would not serve the community’s interest.

After receiving the mediation results, mitigation documentation, and clarification of the relationship context, the prosecutor made a full non prosecution decision and entered a nolle prosequi, dismissing all charges, including the trespass charges and each related allegation.

Key factors included the absence of ongoing risk, the client’s lack of criminal history, the emotional nature of the incident, and strong evidence of mutual communication. 

This outcome reflects the District’s discretionary approach when trespass charges arise in emotionally reactive circumstances rather than intentional property violations.

The case demonstrates that strategic narrative construction, properly presented statutory interpretation, and structured restitution are critical for achieving favorable results in Washington D.C.