The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizures: Specifically the 4th Amendment provides: THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE TO BE SECURED IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST ANY UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED,AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED. Over the years the Supreme Court has carved out numerous search exceptions to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment. These exceptions are: 1. CONSENT Knowing and voluntary consent to the search
Read More
Archives for criminal law dc
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: REVERSAL OF ASSAULT CHARGE
The DC Court of Appeals on November 9, 2017 in Elaine Jones v. U.S. reversed the defendant’s conviction for simple assault and possession of prohibited weapon. Elaine Jones was charged with simple assault and possession of prohibited weapon a cigarette lighter as she had attempted to ward off another homeless person from her personal space designated by cardboard boxes. She has set a section of her cardboard box taken over by the intruder on fire momentarily to scare off her adjacent homeless neighbor intruding on her and not respecting her personal space. At issue here was employing reasonable amount of
Read More
4TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION: LEGALITY OF STINGRAY: DC CRIMINAL LAW
The Court of Appeals in Prince Jones v. U.S., decided on September 21, 2017, considered and evaluated the legality of the police force use of cell site simulator commonly known as “stingray” without a search warrant. The Court in short concluded that deployment of “stingray” without a valid search warrant violated the 4th Amendment of the Constitution and evidence hence collected would be excluded as “fruits of a poisonous tree.” Prince Jones was convicted for sexual assault and robbery (stolen cell phones). The police force shortly after the incident deployed a cell tower simulator to pinpoint his location via his
Read More
REVERSAL DUE TO ERRONEOUS JUROR DISQUALIFICATION
The DC Court of Appeals in Mason v. U.S., decided on September 28, 2017, drastically reversed a set of convictions based on trial error in disqualifying a potential juror. Appellant Mason challenged his convictions for tampering with evidence, destruction of property, obstruction of justice, and unlawful entry contending that the trial court committed a reversible error in disqualifying a potential juror. Juror 7575-B was at the center of this ruling and analysis. During the jury voir dire, juror 7575-B was asked if black men in DC are treated fairly or unfairly by the criminal justice system, and she had responded
Read More
CRIMINAL INTENT REQUIRED FOR THREATS CONVICTION; RECENT DC COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The DC Court of Appeals in Lee Carroll v. U.S., decided on August 3rd, 2017; redefined the legal requisite for criminal conviction under the Threats’ Statute. Factually, the defendant was convicted for assaulting his girlfriend while also verbally threatening her physical harm. The DC misdemeanor as well as the Felony threats statutes do not enlist legal elements nor require facially mens rea or criminal intent. The misdemeanor threats statute (D.C. Code § 22-407) provides: Whoever is convicted in the District of threats to do bodily harm shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01 or
Read More
LEGAL DEFINITION OF ESCAPE FROM CUSTODY
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Davis v. United States decided on August 10, 2017, reversed an Escape conviction and provided the legal definition for “Lawful Custody” in the applicable Statute. The section of the District of Columbia Code at issue is entitled “Escape from an Institution or Officer (D.C. Code § 22-2601 (a)) and it reads in the relevant part: (a) No person shall escape or attempt to escape from: Any penal or correctional institution or facility in which that person is confined pursuant to an order issued by a court of the District of Columbia; The
Read More
Excited Utterance Exception: Admissibility of the 911 tapes: Recent DC Court of Appeals Decision: Washington DC Criminal Lawyer
Oftentimes in the Washington DC domestic violence assault cases, the complainant does not actually testify for one reason or another. In such cases, the government attempts to introduce the 911 reporting/call of the complainant in lieu of the substantive evidence of assault. If the 911 tape recoding does meet the three prong test for admission; then the recording can and will be admitted and relied upon by the trier of the facts albeit the jury or the judge. The DC Court of Appeals on August 17, 2017, in Pelzer v. U.S., highlighted and outlined the test of admissibility for the
Read More
TREATMENT IN LIEU OF DC CRIMINAL PROSECUTION/DC CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER
The DC Court of Appeals in Paz Cruz v. United States, decided on August 3, 2017, analyzed and highlighted the DC Statute that provides a legal basis for seeking alcohol treatment in lieu of criminal prosecution. Specifically, DC Code § 24-607 provides in pertinent sections that the Court may order a civil commitment for treatment up to a specified period of time a chronic alcoholic who is charged with any misdemeanor and prior to the trial voluntarily and via motion requests “treatment in lieu of criminal prosecution” for such misdemeanor. The Court in such circumstances must determine in a civil
Read More
SIMPLE ASSAULT CONVICTION REVERSAL; SELF-DEFENSE CLAIM HELD VALID: DC ASSAULT LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in Tamika Parker v. U.S., decided on March 16, 2017, reversed a conviction for simple assault holding in short that the claim of self-defense was valid, credible, and supported by the evidence presented. One of the concurring opinions sums up the facts of the case perfectly: This is a strange case. A man shouts an ugly slur against his neighbor across the street as she is getting into a friend’s car. He then crosses the street with members of his family, calls her a “bitch” (and more), and spits in her face as his family surrounds
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: 4TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION
The Court of Appeals in Albert Jones v. United States, decided on February 23, 2017, reversed a possession of cocaine charge as the evidence was obtained in violation of the defendant’s 4th amendment rights. Jones was approached by two police officers in a narrow ally common for drug use or sale. The officers had remained in the cruiser while approaching Jones who was on foot with no articulable suspension other than Jones having a Newport container on his right hand and moving it to his back as he was approached by the officers. After few basic questions name address date
Read More
- «Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- …
- 9
- Next Page»