Autrey v. United States
21-CO-282
| D.C. | Dec 14, 2021Background
- Appellant Vernon Autrey, serving 20 years to life for a 1997 non‑fatal shooting, moved for compassionate release under D.C. Code § 24‑403.04 based on age (45) and medical conditions (obesity, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, asthma) that he said made him acutely vulnerable to severe COVID‑19.
- Autrey had received two doses of the Pfizer‑BioNTech vaccine; the United States argued vaccination substantially mitigated his risk and made him ineligible under the statute’s catch‑all "other extraordinary and compelling reasons" provision.
- The Superior Court denied Autrey’s motion on the ground that vaccination reduced his risk and thus he failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons; it did not reach dangerousness.
- This court, guided by Page v. United States, held vaccination status is a permissible and relevant factor but not dispositive; eligibility requires a fact‑specific inquiry into residual risk despite vaccination.
- The court clarified that prisoners seeking release while vaccinated must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they remain "acutely vulnerable" despite vaccination; courts may consider factors like immunocompromise, vaccine efficacy for subpopulations, boosters, long COVID, and variants.
- The Superior Court’s denial was affirmed as within its discretion because Autrey presented no evidence rebutting the government’s showing that vaccination materially mitigated his risk; successive motions remain allowed.
Issues
| Issue | Autrey's Argument | United States' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of vaccination to eligibility under § 24‑403.04(a)(3) catch‑all | Vaccination status is irrelevant; the existence of medical conditions alone determines "extraordinary and compelling reasons" | Vaccination substantially mitigates risk and is therefore relevant to eligibility | Vaccination status is a relevant, permissible factor but not automatically dispositive; courts must assess residual risk case‑by‑case |
| Burden and standard of proof to show acute vulnerability despite vaccination | Underlying conditions suffice to show eligibility | Prisoner must prove residual acute vulnerability despite vaccination | Prisoner bears burden by preponderance to show acute vulnerability despite vaccination; unsupported claims insufficient |
| Permissible factors trial courts may consider in assessing residual risk | Only the medical conditions should matter | Courts may consider reasonable evidence reducing risk (e.g., vaccination, prior infection, boosters, variant efficacy, immunocompromise) | Courts may consider any reasonable factor that directly affects risk, including vaccination, variants, boosters, immunocompromise, and long COVID |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Autrey’s motion | Trial court erred by treating vaccination as fatal to eligibility | Trial court properly found Autrey failed to rebut vaccination evidence showing reduced risk | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion because Autrey produced no evidence showing vaccine failed to mitigate his risk |
Key Cases Cited
- Page v. United States, 254 A.3d 1129 (D.C. 2021) (trial courts may consider prior infection and any reasonable factor affecting risk of severe COVID‑19 under the catch‑all)
- Bailey v. United States, 251 A.3d 724 (D.C. 2021) (adopting preponderance standard for dangerousness inquiry)
- United States v. Broadfield, 5 F.4th 801 (7th Cir. 2021) (held vaccine availability may defeat extraordinary‑and‑compelling claim for those who can benefit)
- United States v. Lemons, 15 F.4th 747 (6th Cir. 2021) (endorsing Broadfield approach)
- Grayson v. AT&T Corp., 15 A.3d 219 (D.C. 2011) (statutory interpretation requires holistic inquiry)