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
Archives for criminal law dc
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
SEALING OF AN ARREST RECORD & THE “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” STANDARD: DC COURT OF APPEALS
The Court of Appeals recently in Larracuente v. U.S., determined and defined more precisely application of “Interest of Justice” provision of the sealing of the arrest record Statute. Appellant moved pursuant to D.C. Code § 16-803.02 to seal his records where he had pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute (PWID) marijuana. The trial court concluded that the government had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant possessed an amount of marijuana that exceeded the amount decriminalized, that is more than two ounces and moreover sealing of the record was not available nor discretionary under the “interest
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: UNLAWFUL ENTRY REVERSED
The Court of Appeals in Foster v. U.S., decided on November 7, 2019, reversed and vacated the defendant’s conviction for unlawful entry. Foster who was according to his rental lease part of a housing complex consisting of two distinct units — Hopkins I&II was barred by a security guard from the Hopkins I complex for violating the housing rules and two days thereafter was arrested for an unlawful entry into the complex. Foster argued on appeal that the trial record showed insufficient evidence that Hopkins Apartments consisted of more than one legally distinct DCHA property, especially when considering the lease
Read More
DC DUI RECENT CASELAW: WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA
The Court of Appeals in Maddux v. D.C, decided on July 25, 2019, considered whether the defendant should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea to DUI after sentencing. Before sentencing the burden on the defendant is “a fair and just reason” while after sentencing the burden elevated to “to correct manifest injustice, that is, justice demands withdrawal in the circumstances of the individual case. Maddux’s central argument was that the Magistrate Judge pushed and coerced plea bargaining by threatening to detain him pending trial and pre-trial while making clear he would be treated as a first-time offender with a
Read More
ASSAULT CHARGE REVERSED DUE TO 6TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION
The Court of Appeal in Green v. U.S., decided on June 13, 2019, reversed a simple assault conviction due to defendant’s 6th Amendment violation. Green was arrested after allegations of assault by his girlfriend, there was a contemporaneous 911 tape shortly after the assault reporting such. Green alleged at trial self-defense and that the complainant was the first aggressor. Defense counsel used portions of the 911 tape recording to challenge the credibility of the complainant. The government in turn admitted the entire 911 tape into the record and defense counsel requested re-direct of the witness based on the entire 911
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS: ASSAULT CONVICTION REVERSED
The Court of Appeals in White v. U.S., decided on May 9, 2019, reversed an aggravated assault conviction while defining and expanding on the elements needed for conviction. There are three levels of assault charges in the District: Simple Assault: the lowest level requires minimal or no injury punishable by 180 days in jail. Assault with “significant bodily injury”: the intermediate assault level requiring by definition an injury that requires hospitalization or immediate medical attention, punishable by three years of jail time. Aggravated assault, serious bodily injury generally defined as: bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness,
Read More
CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: DC CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in Toler v. U.S., decided recently determined whether revealing of a social security number during a custodial interrogation was in violation of Miranda rights. Appellant Toler had argued that his firearm convictions must be reversed because he was required to reveal his social security number without a prior Miranda warning, and also that his convictions for possession of unregistered firearms must be reversed because the government failed to prove an element of the offense, namely that the firearms were not “antique” firearms. In general, routine questions related to the booking process are not considered interrogation under
Read More
REVERSAL DUE TO ERRONEOUS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: DC COURT OF APPEALS RECENT DECISION
The Court of Appeals in Jones v. U.S., decided on March 7, 2019 reversed a conviction for armed robbery and assault due to unreliability of the microscopic hair analysis evidence. Factually, defendant was tried in 1996 and convicted of armed robbery and other offenses. The appeal is from the court’s denial of his motions to vacate his convictions pursuant to D.C. Code § 23-110 and for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to the Innocence Protection Act (IPA). Predominantly at trial the forensic evidence of microscopic hair samples testified to by an FBI agent clinched a conviction. Since 1996, and specifically in a
Read More
ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE: RECENT DC COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The Court of Appeals in Posey v. US, decided on February 21, 2019, reversed the trial’s court denial of the suppression motion and thus vacated the conviction. Posey was arrested after the Officer responded to a look out for Robbery suspects. The look out was vague and nondescript and essentially depicting “a black male wearing black clothes.” Because Posey had fled upon observing the approaching police officer and subsequently searched and a weapon found – the trial court determined that the fleeing from the scene by itself added to the reasonable suspicion criteria for Terry stop and thus search and
Read More