The Court of Appeals in Williams v. United States decided on March 23, 2017, reversed the conviction for receiving stolen property and remanded the case to the trial court. The underlying facts were that four men had approached a police office to borrow his phone to and to report a robbery. The next day the same officer detained and searched the defendant who was found in possession of four identification cards that matched the same four men who had approached the officer earlier. The trial court found the circumstantial evidence to be compelling enough to warrant the conviction. Specifically, the
Read More
Archives for dc criminal defense lawyer
JURY MISCONDUCT; RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The Court of Appeals in Poth v. United States decided on December 29, 2016, remanded the case for further proceeding to the trial court due to jury misconduct. Factually, after trial and conviction, the defendant’s counsel learned that two of the jurors had made material omissions in their juror questioner in that one had not disclosed prior felony conviction, a sex offender — and the other juror had omitted that she was a complaining witness in two separate criminal cases. The defense counsel subsequently filed a motion for a new trial and to set aside the conviction pursuant to Super.
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
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION: DC DRUG LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in Lesher v. United States, decided on December 1, 2016, addressed and highlighted legal elements for constructive possession of a controlled substance in affirming the trial court decision. Lesher was found guilty of attempted possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (marijuana) (“attempted PWID”) and possession of drug paraphernalia (“PDP”). He argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions and that the trial court erred by allowing the police officer to testify about the results of a field test. The facts were as follows: pursuant to a valid search warrant the
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION; INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
In SURUR v. U. S., decided on November 3, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed A conviction for attempted possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to sell due to ineffective assistance of counsel and mistaken identity. It was alleged that Ms. Surur was the gas station clerk who sold paraphernalia to an undercover officer. In order to succeed on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim; the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient and that this deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. The Court concluded that absent defense counsel’s constitutionally deficient performance by failing to investigate a mistaken-identification defense –
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: IMMUNITY WHEN REQUIRED: DC CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in YOUNG v. U.S., decided on July 28, 2016, highlighted and analyzed factual circumstances in which granting immunity to a witness is required by the government. Mr. Young was arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute (“PWID”) liquid PCP and was accordingly convicted at trial. Before trial, the defendant’s nephew indicated that if he were granted immunity from criminal prosecution – he would testify that he was the last person who drove the vehicle where the drugs were discovered. The government did not offer immunity and the trial court did not require as such and
Read More
THEFT: RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY: IDENTITY THEFT
This blog outlines statutory elements as well as the penalties enumerated for these offense. THEFT FIRST AND SECOND DEGREES Theft in DC is generally defined as wrongful possession and control over property belonging to others. Specifically, one commits theft by wrongfully obtaining or using property belonging to others with intent to either deprive the owner of a right or the benefit of the property, or to exercise control and appropriate the property for his own use or a third party – still depriving the owner the use of his/her property. Wrongful obtaining and using is statutorily defined as: Taking/exercising dominion
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS’ DECISION: INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE
In NYIA GORE v. U.S., decided on August 18, 2016, the DC Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for destruction of property as the trial court should have granted the appellant’s motion to suppression evidence based on 4th Amendment violations. The facts of the case stemmed from a domestic dispute where the appellant’s boyfriend complained of the appellant destroying his property inside a motel room that they shared. Officers responded to the scene and upon questioning the appellant and without express consent of the appellant entered the room searched and recovered destroyed property and consequently charged the appellant. The appellant’s
Read More
CHILD CRUELTY REVERSAL: DOCTRINE OF INHERENT INCREDIBILITY
In DION M. SLATER-EL v. UNITED STATES, decided on July 7, 2016, the DC Court of Appeals reversed a second degree child cruelty case while applying a rather rare and archaic legal doctrine: the doctrine of inherent incredibility. The child cruelty statute specifically provides: A person commits the crime of cruelty to children in the second degree if that person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly . . . [m]altreats a child or engages in conduct which causes a grave risk of bodily injury to a child[.]‖ D.C. Code § 22-1101 (b)(1). The facts of the case gave rise to the doctrine
Read More
DC DUI LAWYER: LEAVING THE SCENE AFTER COLLIDING
The pertinent DC statute addressing driving a motor vehicle while under the influence also addresses leaving the scene of an accident after colliding because often drinking and driving results in accidents. Thus this blog addresses both of these offenses in detail enumerating the statutory/legal elements for both offenses separately. Specifically, the statute criminalizes damage to property as well as damage to an individual and also a domestic animal. That is, any person operating a vehicle that causes “substantial damage” to another property (vehicle) and leaves without either giving assistance or without leaving his name, place or residence, and identifying information
Read More