Archives for dc criminal lawyer

DC VOYEURISM STATUTE: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER

The Court of Appeals in Castillo v. U.S., decided on March 8, 2018, once again addressed, defined and further expanded certain statutory provision and language of the Voyeurism Statute. Castillo, a cleaning employee of a restaurant, was accused of entering a women’s bathroom and peeping under a stall. On appeal from the conviction under the Voyeurism Statute he argued mainly that technically he was not ever in “a hidden observation post” as the Statute requires and that he had only entered the bathroom to start the cleaning process. The Statute in the pertinent part provides: (b) Except as provided in subsection
Read More

DC LEAVING AFTER COLLIDING STATUTE: DC COURT OF APPEALS: DC DUI LAWYER

The Court of Appeals in Cherry v. District of Columbia decided on July 27, 2017, revered and remanded the defendant’s conviction for leaving the scene of an accident after colliding and expanded and defined the statutory language. Cherry’s car had collided with the wall adjacent to a convenient store. Cherry had exited his car and initially walked toward the convenient store while police officer were already at the scene. He had initially failed to identify himself but had later (about 12 minutes) after the accident had come forward and identified himself as the driver of the vehicle and to the police
Read More

4TH AMENDMENT: RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES: WARRANTLESS EXCEPTIONS: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER

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

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

Warrantless Use of Cell-Phone Tracking Surveillance Technology by Law Enforcement

Increasing number of cases involving the law enforcement agencies’ warrantless use of cell phone tracking devices has recently promulgated the need for regulations that would address escalating privacy concerns. Metropolitan Police Department has already signed a non-disclosure agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) enabling the agents to keep all the cell-phone surveillance data private. Commonly known as a Stingray, these detection surveillance devices act as a wireless cell-phone tower broadcasting a strong signal allowing for the Stingray to connect to any cellular device in close vicinity. Consequently, the Department of Justice issued new guidelines preventing the federal agents
Read More

RECENT WASHINGTON DC COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL PROPERTY NOT NECESSARILY EQUITABLE: WASHINGTON DC DIVORCE LAWYER

The DC Court of Appeals on April 20, 2017, in Fleet v. Fleet; reversed and remanded the trial Judge’s ruling on division of marital property and award of portion of a retirement account. Mr. Fleet specifically on appeal challenged the court‘s distribution of a portion of the marital home and Mr. Fleet‘s retirement account to his ex-wife, appellee Ericka Fleet. He contended the trial court applied improper legal presumption of equal rather than equitable distribution of property in awarding 50 percent of the equity of the home to Ms. Fleet. Mr. Fleet also argued on appeal that the trial court did
Read More