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
Archives for dc dwi lawyer
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
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
RECENT DC COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL
The Court of Appeals in IN RE J.W. (DEL-1326-12) decided on October 9, 2014, vacated and reversed J.W.’s conviction for “possession of implements of crime.” J.W. and another juvenile were seen near a Vespa scooter chained to a fence. J.W. was wearing a black ski pants with a black ski mask on top of his head loitering around the scooter while carrying a two foot-long bolt cutter. He was arrested and charged with — a statute that prohibits the possession of “any instrument, tool, or implement for picking locks or pockets, with the intent to use such instrument, tool, or
Read More
D.C. Marijuana Legalization Initiative 71
D.C., Marijuana Legalization, Initiative 71 is on the ballot for the November elections and it is anticipated that it would get enough votes to pass. However the passage of the initiative is not tantamount to legalization. The initiative would need congressional approval, which is very unlikely. Federal laws still criminalize use and possession of the substance and US Congress would not approve a measure in the Nation’s Capitol no less that is in direct conflict with the Federal laws. The overwhelming approval of the measure by the city voters however will force the city legislative to go beyond the Decriminalization
Read More
BEARING AND CARRYING HANDGUN IN THE DISTRICT: DC GUN CRIMES LAWYER
The District Court Senior Judge Scullin on July 24, 2014, enjoined the District from enforcing both the handgun registration for home-use only provision as well as the statute criminalizing carrying handgun in public. Specifically the court ordered: ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Memorandum- Decision and Order, are permanently enjoined from enforcing D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) to ban registration of handguns to be carried in public for self-defense by law-abiding citizens; and Court further ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees,
Read More