Replies

A jury trial would be nice but recognizing the uphill battle with a jury (even a DC jury) the prosecution lowered the charges to attempted possession of ammunition for which the defendant is not entitled to a jury trial.

That's funny, my Constitution says exactly the opposite:

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

And this is especially applicable because DC is not part of any State and therefore all the Bill of Rights's restrictions must apply to them.

Right before the trial began, Mr. Nathan’s office dropped the charge from possession of unregistered ammunition to attempted possession.
It’s unclear how Mr. Witaschek could attempt to possess something that was in his home, but the facts aren’t the reason for the shift. The lesser charge carries a penalty of six months in jail, which means Mr. Witaschek was not eligible for the jury trial he wanted.