Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Home

Wednesday, April 23, 2025

View Back issues

South Carolina man asks Fourth Circuit for new trial in trans woman's slaying

Daqua Ritter's case was the first time federal prosecutors brought a hate crime based on gender identity to trial.

CHARLESTON, S.C. (CN) — A South Carolina man convicted for the killing of a transgender woman in 2019 argued Thursday in the Fourth Circuit that he deserves a new trial.

Daqua Lameek Ritter was sentenced last year to life in prison after he was found guilty of fatally shooting Dime Doe, a local hairdresser whom Ritter was rumored to be romantically involved with.

Federal officials had previously prosecuted hate crimes based on gender identity, but Ritter’s case was the first one in the country to make it to trial.

Ritter argues that rumors about his relationship with Doe swirled in the small town of Allendale. After she was found shot to death on a rural road, those rumors coalesced into a false narrative pinning him as the gunman.

Ritter admitted he was in the car with Doe about 2 1/2 hours before she was found dead. An officer who conducted a traffic stop on the vehicle said it did not seem like anything was wrong between them.

Ritter’s DNA was found on the passenger door handles of Doe’s car, but he was excluded as a contributor to DNA found on cartridge casings in the car, on the driver’s seat and under the victim’s fingernails.

Ritter argues two witnesses provided inadmissible testimony during the trial.

Kerria Mallory, a former girlfriend of Ritter’s uncle, who lived down the road from the scene of the shooting, testified that Ritter appeared at the house that evening and got a ride back to Allendale from his uncle. Over the defense’s objection, Mallory added that the uncle told her he heard Ritter killed Doe.

Later, a federal agent involved in Ritter’s arrest mentioned the defendant’s criminal record to the jury.

Defense attorney Lindsey S. Vann of Justice360 in Columbia, South Carolina, claimed that U.S. District Judge Sherri A. Lydon, a Donald Trump appointee, waited until after the lunch break to tell the jury to disregard Mallory’s statement.

“So they sat with that (information) for a couple of hours, at least, after the lunch break,” Vann said. “It was not this immediate curative instruction that we see in some other cases.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Robert B. King, a Bill Clinton appointee, pointed out the instruction was emphatic. About the hearsay testimony, Lydon told the jury to “wipe it from your minds” because it was not evidence.

Vann said it still left an “indelible impression” in a case where the government’s evidence was thin.

U.S. Department of Justice appellate attorney David N. Goldman rebutted that the defense did not request a curative instruction. The judge decided alone it was necessary after the lunch break.

“So any delay really can’t be the fault of Judge Lydon here,” Goldman argued.

Vann also raised issue with the judge’s decision to seat a transgender juror.

Dee Elder, a transgender woman from Aiken and former Democratic candidate for State Senate, served as the foreperson for Ritter’s trial. She contacted The Associated Press after the trial to discuss the historic case, telling the wire service: “We are everywhere. If one of us goes down, there’ll be another one of us on the jury.”

Vann argued the juror’s statements reflected a bias that should have been discovered during voir dire.

Goldman said Elder was asked 12 times during the course of the trial whether she could remain impartial. She responded in the affirmative every time. Goldman noted it was Elder herself who told the judge she was a transgender woman and later informed the court she had a coworker who was related to Doe.

“The record evidence of the juror’s actions show not someone who is attempting to hijack this trial, but quite the opposite — Juror 71 showed a real conscientiousness for the integrity of the trial," Goldman said.

U.S. Circuit Judge Julius N. Richardson, a Donald Trump appointee, pointed out that trial judges are afforded significant deference on credibility issues. If the judge believed Elder was being truthful, it was difficult for the appellate court to say otherwise.

U.S. Circuit Judge Pamela A. Harris, a Barack Obama appointee, also served on the panel.

Categories / Appeals, Criminal

Subscribe to our free newsletters

Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.

Loading...