Serving Virginia, Maryland
and the District

Major Cases

United States v. Stanley Moghalu
Peterson v. The Islamic Republic of Iran
United States v. Jawad Elamri
United States v. Bartwone Copeland
Young v. The District of Columbia
United States v. Lieutenant W.R. Holman
United States v. Joseph Mesa
United States v. Stanley Moghalu 12 CF1 7932
The government sought to prove that Moghalu was a part of the Viet Nam Court street gang. Moghalu along with 6 other defendants was charged with conspiracy, obstruction of justice, first degree murder with aggravating circumstances, and related gun offenses including being a felon in possession of a firearm. After 2 months of trial and almost 2 months of deliberation, the jury found Moghalu not guilty of 1st degree murder, not guilty of conspiracy, not guilty of the related gun charges. The jury was not able to reach a verdict two offenses arising from the seizure of one gun.
Estate of Peterson et al v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, Civil Action Nos. 01-2094 (RCL), 01-2684(RCL), 515 F. Supp.2d 25, (D.D.C 2007)
On October 23, 1983 at 6:22 a.m., a truck carrying 2,000 pounds of explosives drove into the Marine compound in Beirut and crashed into the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regimental Battalion Landing Team barracks. 241 US service personnel, including 220 Marines, who were there on an international peace keeping mission, were killed. Many more service members were injured, some severely so. Ms. Norman and Mr. Bond, in concert with attorneys Thomas Fortune Fay and Steven Perles, helped obtain and partially collect on a 2.6 Billion Dollar judgment for a number of the victims of the Marine Barracks bombing and their families against the Islamic Republic of Iran for providing material support to Hezbollah in aid and assistance of carrying out the attack. The judgments were obtained pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Efforts to collect the full amount of the judgments with post judgment interest is ongoing.
United States v. Jawad Elamri, 1992 FEL 005400
Dubbed by the press as the "Condom Rape Trial," the Legal Times named Elamri's case one of the trials of the year for 1993. Elamri was charged with raping a prominent Washington woman at gunpoint in Gusties restaurant after she provided him a condom. As a result of Mr. Bond’s aggressive cross-examination aided by painstaking investigation, two juries were unable to arrive at verdicts. Reporters covering the trial describe Mr. Bond's defense as magnificent.
United States v. Bartwone Copeland 16 CF3 019041
Copeland was charged with the crime of assault with a dangerous weapon. The government’s claim was that Copeland stabbed a fellow inmate in the D.C. Jail. Despite a video tape of the incident and due to Mr. Bond’s advocacy, 12 jurors could not arrive at a unanimous verdict. A mistrial was declared. Thereafter, a plea bargain was the negotiated. Mr. Copeland went from facing decades in prison to a sentence that allowed him to be released soon after his sentencing.
Lamont Andre Young v. The District of Columbia, et al., Civil Action No. 14-2129 (BAH)
On December 27, 2013 Lamont Young was celebrating his birthday. He went to his barbershop to get a haircut but had to wait. While he was outside, members of the DC Metropolitan Police Department saw him and believed that he met the description of a suspect wanted for questioning in a domestic assault incident from the day before. Mr. Young, believing that he had done nothing wrong, started walking away refusing to be questioned. Subsequently while attempting to comply with the officer’s commands to take his hands out of his pockets and put his hands up, he was shot in the back by one of the officers sustaining serious life threatening injures for which he was hospitalized. Ms. Norman and Mr. Bond filed suit against the District of Columbia and the officer claiming that the MPD officer that shot Mr. Young used excessive force in violation of Mr. Young’s civil rights under 42 USC §1983. The DC Government moved to dismiss the lawsuit against the MPD officer based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. Ms. Norman and Mr. Bond successfully defeated this common government defense to police excessive force and were able to enter into a settlement with the District of Columbia. The terms of the favorable settlement are confidential.
United States v. Lieutenant W.R. Holman
Holman, a U.S. Marine Corps lawyer, was charged with violating an order by his commanding officer, the law center director, to perform legal service in a way that was clearly legal malpractice. Holman refused and was charged with violating an order from a Superior Commissioned Officer. Once notified, Holman asked the court-martial convening authority to detail then Captain Bond (who was TAD to the 2d Marine Division) to represent him. Instead, a staff lawyer from the 2d Marine Aircraft Wing was detailed to represent Holman. Holman was forced to obtain Mr. Bond’s representation by making an Individual Military Counsel request. Innovative defense tactics Mr. Bond used to defend Holman included creating an interlocutory appellate issue by contending he was detailed Holman’s military counsel and thus Holman was entitled to make an additional IMC request, filing an 1106 complaint for oppressive misconduct against the law center director who issued the order thereby requiring the command to convene an investigation of the law center director who gave the order, filing a 138 complaint against the Staff Judge Advocate after he threatened then Captain Bond with a court-martial for his aggressive defense thereby requiring an additional investigation to be convened. Despite himself being threatened with a court-martial and being forced to endure extremely adverse and intimidating conditions Mr. Bond persevered. His defense forced the Marines to drop all of the charges against Holman. They did so after two separate hearings, an Article 32 investigation and investigations on Holman’s Article 1106 and Article 138 complaints.
To this day, the case is remembered in military circles as a classic example of how to defuse a criminal prosecution through aggressive use of the administrative process.
United States v. Joseph Mesa, 2001 FEL 001002
Mesa was charged with a double homicide at Gallaudet University. Mr. Bond presented an insanity defense claiming Mesa who was profoundly deaf acted in response to visual hallucinations. He also argued that letters seized by the government from Mr. Mesa’s paramour should be barred. In a hearing he claimed the paramour was Mr. Mesa’s common law wife and that the letters were privileged. The case is a now a landmark decision on the law of common law marriage in the District of Columbia.

Ferris R. Bond , J.D.


1975-1978 - Judge Advocate, United States Marine Corps. While on active duty he had three primary areas of responsibility; the defense and prosecution of military personnel charged with criminal violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the representation of military personnel before administrative discharge boards as well as formal boards of inquiry, and advising military personnel concerning criminal and civil proceedings. Mr. Bond has tried over 200 special and general courts-martial and administrative hearings. His military trial experience included in addition to military offenses, Rape, Forgery, Grand Larceny, Drug Offenses, Obstruction of Justice, Kidnapping, Maiming.

1978-1983 - Trial Attorney Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice. While at Justice, Mr. Bond was responsible for the prosecution of significant, multi-district, drug trafficking organizations under Title 21, Title 31, Title 28, and Title 18. Successful prosecutions Mr. Bond first chaired included the following offenses: Conducting a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, Participating in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization, Income Tax Evasion, Conspiring to Obstruct and Impede the IRS from the Ascertainment and Collection of Taxes, and Title 31 currency offenses. Mr. Bond is familiar with the forfeiture provisions of Titles 18, 21, and 28. For several months in 1983, He worked on a contract basis as a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the Western District of North Carolina.

1983-present - Private Practice of Law, presently a name partner in the Washington Law Firm of Bond & Norman Law, P.C. specializing in both Criminal and Civil Litigation. He has appeared before almost every judge in both the U.S. District Court and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Civil matters have included wrongful death arising out of violations of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, wrongful death arising out of medical malpractice, wrongful death arising out of 1983 Civil Rights Violations, Tort Claim Violations, legal malpractice claims, breach of partnership obligations, wrongful eviction and negligence actions arising from automobile accidents. He is an expert in all areas of military law and has continued to practice military law since his retirement from the United States Marine Corps. Mr. Bond also represents professionals before licensing authorities.

Doctor of Jurisprudence South Texas College of Law - Houston, Houston, Texas - 1974
Bachelor of Arts University of Denver, 1970
Bar Admissions
District of Columbia
District of Columbia Court of Appeals U.S. District Court for District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia
Supreme Court of Virginia
Supreme Court of Texas (emeritus)
Military Courts
United States Court of Military Appeals Court of Veteran Appeals
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Of Virginia U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit United States Tax Court
Professional Associations
American Association of Justice
Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association
National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys
American Association of Justice Chairman: Criminal Law Section – 2019-2020