The DC Court of Appeals in Golden v. U.S., decided on April 15, 2021, reversed a CPWL (Carrying a Pistol without a License) conviction due to illegal stop, frisk and arrest. On appeal, Golden argued that police had recovered the weapon from him by conducting an unreasonable stop and frisk in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and in that: Unconstitutionally seized Golden by confronting him on the street, subjecting him to accusatory questioning, and asking him to expose his waistband for visual inspection, all without a reasonable basis to suspect him of criminal activity; Unconstitutionally searched Golden by then
Read More
Archives for Criminal Defense
RIGHT TO TESTIFY | SELF DEFENSE
The DC Court of Appeals in Graves v. U.S., decided on February 25, 2021, addressed and analyzed the constitutional requirements of asserting a self-defense claim and the right to testify unhindered. Graves was arrested for theft and assault on a police officer as he attempted to leave a liquor store with a bottle unpaid. Defendant argued at trial that the officer had used excessive force in putting him on a choke hold and his fighting back was justified as self-defense to the excessive use of force. During trial, after reviewing the video footage, the trial Judge sue sponte: Foreclosed any
Read More
INTENT TO ASSAULT STATUTE DECONSTRUCTED: DC COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The Court of Appeals in Powell v. U.S., decided on October 1, 2020, deconstructed the intent-to-frighten assault statute in reversing the appellant’s conviction. Factually, the appellant has kicked a moving police car and had approached the police officer generally in a menacing manner. The trial court held: the appellant displayed kind of intimidating approach, had a hostile look to her as she approached the Officers and while the defendant was not an exaggerated threat — under the totality of the circumstances she was reasonably threatening and the Officers were reasonably afraid under all those circumstances. In order to prove intent-to-frighten
Read More
POSSESSION OF LESS THAN TWO OUNCES NOT PWID: RECENT DC COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The DC Court of Appeals in Kornegay v. U.S., decided on September 3, 2020, clarified whether possession of 2 ounces or less of marijuana can qualify as Possession With Intent to Distribute (“PWID”), which still remains illegal. Appellant was pulled over during a routine traffic stop and the Park Policer Officers had seized few zip lock bags, a scale, and size-able amount of cash from him with total weight of marijuana at 1.73 ounces. He was charged with PWID and at trial a Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) officer testified as an expert in the “packaging, distribution, and sale of marijuana
Read More
RECENT DC COURT OF APPEALS: RULE 16 VIOLATION: DC ASSAULT
The Court of Askew v. U.S., decided on July 2, 2020, addressed to what extent the government must preserve criminal evidence for discovery purposes. Askew was convicted on four counts of assault of police officers and on appeal challenged the government’s lack of both preserving and producing material evidence. Specifically, Askew argued that the trial court erred when it declined to sanction the government for violating Rule 16 by failing to preserve and produce: Surveillance footage from the rotating MPD-operated video camera located near where he was arrested, Footage from any video cameras located inside the police station where Mr.
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: 4TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION | SEARCH & SEIZURE
The Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Bumphaus, decided on May 21, 2020, affirmed the trial court in suppressing the evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure. Based on confidential tip that the defendant possessed illegal weapons, his car was stopped and before the officers had a chance to search the vehicle Bumphus locked the car and released keys to another individual who left the scene. Thus, the officers towed the vehicle in order to obtain a search warrant to break into the car and search for weapons. The search warrant for the car however was not issued until four
Read More
SUBPOENA AGAINST FACEBOOK ENFORCEABLE: RECENT DC COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The Court of Appeal in Facebook v. Pepe, decided on April 15, 2020, decided whether a criminal defendant may subpoena exculpatory electronic records and under what circumstances. Defendant Pepe alleging self-defense in an aggravated assault charge sought at trial to seek evidence of communication transmitted by the complainant shortly before the shooting supporting his claim of self-defense. Specifically, Pepe asked the Superior Court Judge to authorize an ex parte subpoena to Facebook under Rule 17, which permits disclosure of certain personal or confidential information about a victim namely here communications via Facebook around the time of the shooting. The trial
Read More
SEALING OF THE ARREST RECORD STATUTE DECONSTRUCTED: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS CASE
The Court of Appeals in Washington v. U.S., decided recently addressed and interpreted the implications of “interest of Justice” in connection with sealing of the arrest records. DC Code 16-803.02 provides in pertinent parts: (a) person arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a criminal offense pursuant to the District of Columbia Official Code or the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations that was decriminalized or legalized after the date of the arrest, charge, or conviction may file a motion to seal the record of the arrest, charge, conviction, and related Superior Court proceedings at any time, and (A) In cases
Read More
DISCOVERY UNDER THE JENCKS ACT, LEGAL ELEMENTS OF UNLAWFUL ENTRY STATUTE
The Court of Appeals recently in Rahman v. U.S., addressed the legal elements of the unlawful entry statute as well as addressing the appellant’s discovery requests pursuant to the Jencks act. Factually, appellant was told to leave the premises at a Mcdonald’s location by a special police officer (“SPO”) as it appeared that he was loitering or panhandling at the location. Appellant initially refused to leave but eventually left the premises and returned few minutes later at which time he was arrested for unlawful entry by a police officer. On appeal, the appellant essentially argued that he could not have
Read More
ILLEGAL STOP AND ARREST VALID: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The Court of Appeals in Campbell v. U.S. decided on January 30, 2020, in essence affirmed the trial court’s ruling and convictions denying the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Factually, Campbell was approached by a police officer in a middle of a night sitting in a stolen car, visibly drinking from an open container of alcohol (vodka bottle). The critical factual element being that the car was parked in a private church parking lot. Campbell was arrested for POCA (Possession of Open Container of Alcohol), and the ensuing search revealed that the car was stolen and thus was charged with
Read More