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
Archives for dc dui lawyer
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
ELONIS v. U.S.: FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED SPEECH OR CRIMINAL CONDUCT?
The US Supreme Court on June 1, 2015, issued a ruling reversing and remanding the lower court convictions for transmitting threats via Facebook messages. Elonis, an amusement park employee who was going through separation and custody battle with his wife at the time was charged with transmitting threatening messages under 18 U. S. C. §875(c), which makes it a federal crime to transmit in interstate commerce “any communication containing any threat . . . to injure the person of another.” The lower court conviction was based on jury instructions, which did not require proof of intent to issue threats but
Read More
THE DISTRICT COURT STRIKES DOWN A PROVISION IN THE DC HANDGUN LICENSING REGULATION AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The U.S. District Court in Wrenn v. Linear, issued on May 18, 2015, granted the plaintiff’s preliminary injunction to strike the District’s “good reason/proper reason” statutory requirement before issuing license to carry handguns. In response to the District Court’s decision in Palmer v. Dist. of Columbia, allowing carrying pursuant to the Second Amendment for self defense purposes an operable handgun outside the home (blogged on 9/24/2014), the District redrafted the handgun statute consistent with the decision but adding other limiting language subject of this litigation and the current ruling. Specifically the amended language provided (D.C. Code § 22-4506(a)): “The Chief
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
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL —
The Court in Andrade v. U.S., (No. 13-CM-224), an opinion issued on January 8, 2015, reversed the assault conviction based on erroneous admission of testimonial evidence by the trial court. Specifically, appellant Andrade argued his 6th Amendment right to confront the complaining witness was violating in allowing the witness-complainant’s statement to the police office to be admitted as substantive evidence. The relevant facts are as follows: Ms. Reed (the complainant) had called 911 indicating that her boyfriend Danny Andrade had gotten into an argument with her and that Mr. Andrade “been putting his hands on [Ms. Reed].” Ms. Reed, who
Read More