Examining Allegations of Bias in Prosecutor Matthew Graves’ Decisions

Crowd at building entrance, people wearing red hats.

Matthew Graves, U.S. Attorney for D.C., faces critique over perceptions of partisanship and media bias in prosecutorial decisions.

At a Glance

Graves aggressively prosecuted January 6 participants but was criticized for neglecting local crime issues.
His office declined to prosecute 67% of cases in D.C. amid rising crime rates.
Graves stepped down as U.S. Attorney, with Bridget M. Fitzpatrick set to take over.
Media coverage of these issues was limited, leading to concerns about accountability.

Graves’s Dual Approach to Prosecution

Matthew Graves, appointed U.S. Attorney under President Biden, attracted attention for his approach to cases related to the January 6 Capitol events. His office pursued charges against both violent and nonviolent participants, raising concerns about partisan bias. At the same time, critics point to his less assertive stance on rising local crime issues, notably the high non-prosecution rate of 67% for D.C. cases. Comparative rates, such as San Diego’s 22.6%, highlight the disparity in prosecutorial vigor.

Allegations of favoritism extend to the handling of political figures, such as not prosecuting Hunter Biden, which some interpret as bias. Graves’s handling of activists, particularly the prosecution of Lauren Handy for protests at an abortion clinic, contrasts sharply with declining to prosecute more violent local crimes. The perception of selective justice has fueled calls for accountability and impartiality in his office’s decisions.

Media and Accountability Concerns

Graves’s tenure as U.S. Attorney has been marked by uneven media scrutiny. Critics argue that insufficient coverage of his prosecutorial choices shields him from public accountability. This oversight is troubling given that media serves as a vital check on power. Despite significant prosecutorial actions, such as pursuing national security threats and public corruption, limited media focus on disparities in local crime prosecution has raised eyebrows among political analysts.

“As a career prosecutor, it is incredibly important to me to hold people accountable for their criminal conduct,” Graves told the News4 I-Team.”

Graves’s departure from the role on January 16, 2025, invites further scrutiny of his legacy. Bridget M. Fitzpatrick is expected to step in, tasked with handling ongoing challenges in D.C. While Graves led efforts to reduce violent crime substantially, the criticism surrounding his prosecutorial choices prompts questions about maintaining objectivity in public office.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves has announced his plan to step down from his role just days before President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration. https://t.co/qE5y3HBW79

— ABC News (@ABC) December 31, 2024

Graves’s Record and Legacy

Under Graves’s leadership, efforts to combat violent crime in D.C. saw significant success, achieving the lowest levels in over five decades by 2024. His initiatives included implementing data-driven strategies and tackling backlogs of felony cases. The office also focused on high-profile investigations and prosecutions of fraud, public corruption, and serious cybercrimes, showcasing Graves’s commitment to justice.

“Serving as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia has been the honor of a lifetime” – U.S. Attorney Graves

Despite these achievements, the non-prosecution rates and perceived inconsistency in case prioritization remain contentious issues. The decline in non-prosecuted arrests from 67% to 56% in 2023 alongside Graves’s collaboration with the DEA to address testing deficiencies reflects efforts to address criticism but has not sufficed to quell concerns fully.