A federal judge declared a mistrial in the bribery trial of D.C. Council member Trayon White after the jury said it could not reach a verdict in the case, a temporary legal victory for the embattled Ward 8 lawmaker accused of agreeing to help an associate secure lucrative city grants.
Prosecutors alleged that White accepted $35,000 in illegal payments and agreed to accept over $150,000 in kickbacks from a city contractor who, unbeknownst to White at the time, was cooperating with the FBI as a confidential informant.
The verdict comes after a nine-day trial in federal court and several days of jury deliberations. The mistrial means that White, who would have been ineligible for public office in D.C. if convicted, can remain on the council — at least for now. His colleagues will have to decide whether to vote to expel him for ethics violations. The council ejected him over such violations in 2025, but White subsequently won a crowded special election to fill the seat he was forced to vacate.
A guilty finding would have required the jury to find that White not only accepted the money, but also intended to be influenced by the man who paid him. Prosecutors argued they cleared that bar, while the defense argued the evidence did not show that White intended to carry out a bribery scheme.
Trending
Eighty-seven minutes of video, showing White meeting with former D.C. contractor Allieu Kamara, formed the backbone of the government’s case against the lawmaker. Kamara allowed the FBI to surreptitiously record his conversations with White.
Prosecutors used the video, along with testimony from Kamara and several D.C. government officials, to argue that White agreed to – and intended to carry out – a bribery scheme in which he would use his position as council member to advance Kamara’s financial interests.
White’s defense argued that the payments, which it acknowledged White accepted, weren’t bribes. His attorney told jurors they could have been campaign donations, and said there was no evidence that White actually intended to be influenced by Kamara when he took the cash.
By the end of closing arguments on Tuesday, the jury had been presented with two vastly different readings of White’s behavior. That disagreement was perhaps no better exemplified by the dueling interpretations of White’s response to the first envelope of cash Kamara handed him in the FBI’s videos.
Prosecutors emphasized the first thing White said as he pocketed the cash: “What you need me to do?” They argued it was evidence that White understood the payment was a bribe.
The defense, on the other hand, used the same clip to argue White was hesitant about Kamara’s proposal. It played to the jury what White said immediately afterward: “I don’t want you to feel like you need to give me something to get something. We better than that.”
On Friday morning, after about two days of deliberating, the jury sent a note to the court saying they could not come to a unanimous decision. Federal judge Rudolph Contreras, who is presiding over the case, told the jurors to keep trying. But by the end of the day on Friday, the situation remained largely unchanged.
“We’ve had productive discussions, but have not reached a consensus, and our afternoon vote did not shift from the first vote of the day,” the jury wrote in a note shortly after 4 p.m. on Friday.
Author
