The Court of Appeals in STERLING P. EVANS v. UNITED STATES, decided on March 17, 2016, reversed a Bail Reform Act violation conviction and remanded the matter for further consideration by the trial court. Evans was arrested and charged with possession and failed to appear for his hearing because he did not correctly remember or recollect the date of his scheduled court appearance. He believed he was due in court two days after the actual day due in court. Bench warrant was issued he was picked up on BRA charge and conviction subject of this appeal. Specifically, Evans testified and
Read More
Archives for dc dwi lawyer
DC PROSTITUTION-SOLICITATION LAWYER/LAWS
This blog expands and highlights some of the statutory penalties as well as definitions relating to prostitution, solicitation, procuring and pandering for prostitution. Prostitution is generally defined as exchange of sexual act or contact in return for money. The elements of the crime require meeting of minds. That is there must be some basic agreement offering money for sex. Often times the solicitation or prostitution charges are brought via under cover sting operation. In these operations, the decoy (police officer) entices solicitation and as soon as an agreement in principle is made to exchange money for sex, the back up
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: REVERSAL OF BURGLARY CHARGE
The Court of Appeals in SYDNOR v. UNITED STATES decided on January 14, 2016, reversed the lower court’s burglary conviction and issued an order for the trial court to enter a judgment for unlawful entry instead. The evidence revealed that the appellant had entered a fenced construction site and had removed steal pipes from the yard. The burglary statute in part states: “whoever shall, either in the night or in the daytime, break and enter, or enter without breaking, . . . any yard where any lumber, coal, or other goods or chattels are deposited and kept for the purpose
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: ATTEMPTED THREATS REVERSAL
In Milton v. U.S., decided by the DC Court of Appeals on December 24, 2015, the Court reversed Milton’s conviction for attempted threats against the arresting police officer. Officers had responded to an unlawful entry call on July 5, 2015, and Milton having been identified as one of the culprits was placed under arrest, but while on the curbside and cuffed, uttered to one of the arresting officers that “take that gun and badge off and I’ll fuck you up,” and moreover, that “too bad it’s not like the old days where fucking up an officer is a misdemeanor.” These
Read More
MIRANDA WARNING/CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION: DC CRIMINAL DEFESNE
In Morton v. U.S., the DC Court of Appeals recently reversed defendant’s conviction for one count of felony and one count of misdemeanor Receiving Stolen Property (RSP), due to Miranda violations denial of motion to suppress at the trial level. Officers had approached three individuals engaged in suspicious activity with their hands, appeared to be a drug transaction, Morton, one of three, began running as officers questioned the group – chase ensued and Morton dropped a wallet during chase which was later recovered. Morton was apprehended, chuffed and questioned about the wallet, why he had ran from the officers, questioned
Read More
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The Court of Appeals in LAWRENCE N. HARRIS v. UNITED STATES, decided on October 29, 2015, reversed the appellant’s conviction for malicious destruction of property. The appellant had shared a home with his mother and sister and while locked out of the property by her mother, the complaining witness, attempted to gain entrance by kicking the front door causing damage to the door and ultimately getting arrested. Appellant was convicted under D.C. Code § 22-303, which states: “[w]hoever maliciously injures or breaks or destroys, or attempts to injure or break or destroy, by fire or otherwise, any public or private
Read More
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