In an ongoing criminal investigation, the Justice Department in the Eastern District of NY, on October 9, 2015, requested an order pursuant to all Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to compel Apple to “disabl[e] the security of an Apple device that the government has lawfully seized pursuant to a warrant.” This case has brought to the forefront once again the balancing act between the need from the law enforcement to decode encrypted devices (the going dark problem), prevailing privacy issues, and the lack of Congressional authority to compel third party private manufacturers to cooperate with the government or to
Read More
Archives for dc criminal lawyer
DC ASSAULT LAWYER – — SELF DEFENSE NOT VIABLE
The Court of Appeals in Travers v. U.S., issued on October 8, 2015, revered multiple felony assaultive convictions because the defendant was restricted at trial to fully either testify or to elicit testimony to bolster his self-defense theory. Travers was convicted of assaulting his sister Bethel during a domestic dispute where the complaining witness, his sister had directed her boyfriend/Scott to “get him”, Travers that is. Travers alleged that in self-defense he had used a golf club to swing at the boyfriend and had accidentally hit his sister, the complaining witness. Travers argued that the court erred by precluding him
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: VALIDITY OF MIRANDA WARNING
The Court of Appeals in IN RE S.W., decided on September 17, 2015, reversed conviction due to faulty Miranda rendering post arrest interrogation inadmissible. SW after trial was convicted of: (1) carjacking, (2) attempted unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, (3) unlawful entry of a motor vehicle, and (4) threats to do bodily harm. The post arrest interrogation was deemed admissible as the trial court deemed confession valid and Miranda warning appropriate, the Court of Appeals disagreed as closer analysis of the Miranda warning administered and the dialog before the warning was deemed too coercive. Specifically, the appellant argued that
Read More
THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The Court of Appeals in STANLEY MOGHALU v. UNITED STATES, decided on August 13, 2015, clarified preserving the double jeopardy defense to retrial for appellate review. Stanley Moghalu was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm (“UPF”) and carrying a pistol without a license (“CPWL”). The case at the trial level was declared a mistrial twice as the jury could not “return a unanimous verdict that would be anything other than forced.” The first trial the court granted mistrial at the request of defense counsel, and the second trial the court granted a mistrial over defense objection that anti-lock instructions
Read More
RETURN FOR REWARD DEFENSE; NEW COURT OF APPEALS RULING
The Court of Appeals on a second remand on August 20, 2015, in LIHLAKHA v. U.S., clarifies further the return for reward defense for receiving stolen property (RSP) conviction. Lihlakha was convicted at trial for RSP and her defense and arguments on appeal focused on return for reward defense. The Court on the first review outlined for the first time the elements needed to successfully assert the defense: Specifically, the defense will be satisfied if the evidence shows that: “(1) The reward had been announced, or was believed to have been announced, before the property was possessed or agreed to
Read More
DC ASSAULT; RELEVANT STATUTE AND RECENT CASE LAW
The Court of Appeals in IN RE D.P., APPELLANT, decided on August 13, 2015, reversed D.P.’s conviction for aggravated assault and felonious assault (assault with significant bodily injury). The charges stemmed from an assault by a group of three teenagers on a metro bus on M.G., another student. Thus the government charged M.P., I.C. and D.P. with aggravated assault and assault with significant bodily injury. M.P. pled out to simple assault, the case against I.C. was dropped and D.P. proceeded to trial and was convicted on the two counts. Before the Court reversed D.P.’s convictions, the Court outlined the three
Read More
Deferred Prosecution v. Deferred Sentencing Agreements and the Arrest Record – solicitation cases and other misdemeanors in the District of Columbia:
With the serge of recent arrests in the District of Columbia (DC) for sexual solicitation and the undergoing sting operations with undercover police offices it is important to understand the elements of the crime as well as some of defenses available as discussed in depth: https://www.familylawdc.com/dc-prostitution-solicitation-lawyer/ However, this post addresses some of the diversionary options available short of trial and possible consequence on the arrest record, which ideally should be expunged right after the completion of the prosecution particularly for the possible negative inferences they may draw for the current and future employers, among others, as arrest records are public
Read More
COMMUNITY EXCEPTION TO WARRANTLESS SEARCHES — RECENT COURT DECISION
The Court of Appeals in Steven Davis v. U.S., in an opinion issued on February 26, 2015, expounded and analyzed the doctrine of “community exception” to warrantless search and seizure. Davis was convicted for possession of two zip lock bags of cocaine found in plain view and in his vehicle. The issue on appeal was whether the office had entered Davis’ vehicle pursuant to reasonable exercise of community caretaking function rather than pursuant to a criminal investigation. Factually, the police were alerted when a vehicle was found blocking the entrance to a private apartment building lot. Upon responding, the officer
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS RULING — CRIMINAL SENTENCING LAWS
In Tibbs v. United States (No. 13-CF-1425), decided on January 15, 2015, the Court of Appeals remanded the matter to the trial court for further consideration due to criminal sentencing irregularities. Defendant Tibbs sought to withdraw a guilty plea to assault with a dangerous weapon (“ADW”), conspiracy to commit ADW, two counts of voluntary manslaughter, and carrying a pistol without a license. At sentencing, and several months after the plea — at the commencement of appellant’s sentencing hearing, appellant orally moved to withdraw the plea as factually unsupported. After the government’s proffer to the offenses committed, defendant Tibbs had asserted
Read More
DERIVATIVE EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL STOP: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The DC Court of Appeals in Ken E. Smith v. U.S., on December 4, 2014, reversed a lower court drug conviction and denial of motion to suppress based on the tainted derivative evidence doctrine, which excludes all evidence — primary and secondary obtained and gathered in violation of the 4th Amendment. Specifically, Smith’s car was stopped due to having an obstructed license plate and subsequently marijuana and drug paraphernalia was found on him and in the car. An arrest warrant was requested by the Officer and issued based on the affidavit submitted and approximately two weeks later Smith was located,
Read More
- «Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next Page»