The U.S. Supreme Court in Ohio v. Clark decided on June 18, 2015, addressed admissibility of the non-testimonial statements in the context of child abuse investigation. Clark was trusted with care of his two children L.P., age 3 and A.T. eighteen months while their mother was engaged in prostitution at the direction of Clark. L.P. was observed at school with a black eye, belt marks on his back and stomach, and bruises all over his body. A.T. after further investigation had two black eyes, a swollen hand, and a large burn on her cheek, and two pigtails had been ripped
Read More
Archives for DC litigation lawyer
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
PARENTAL FITNESS DEFINED; RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: DC CHILD CUSTODY LAWYER
The DC Court of Appeals in IN RE PETITION OF S.L.G & S.E.G.; D.A. (No. 14-FS-73) decided on March 5, 2015; once again reiterated and cemented the presumption of parental fitness in a contested adoption proceedings. The case is significant as the Court defined and expanded on the definition of “fitness” and outlined the legal criteria the trial court must use in rendering an opinion. The appellant biological mother contested the adoption petition by the foster family S.E.G. and S.L.G. Evidence established that the child was in the foster home for over two years, well integrated in the home and
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
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: STATUTORY DEFINITION, CARRYING A DANGEROUS WEAPON:
The Court of Appeals on July 31, 2014, in IN RE D.R. (No. 11-FS-1320), both reversed a conviction for insufficiently of evidence and also remanded the case to the trial court. Appellant, D.R., was convicted at trial of four criminal offenses including a conviction for Carrying a Dangerous Weapon (CDW). The Court remanded for trial finding on ineffective assistance of counsel claim, however, focused significantly on the statutory construction and language of CDW and ended revering the conviction consistent with the opinion. Factually, D.R., a fourteen year old, was found at trial to have brandished a machete/sword type knife about
Read More
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSES ON 4TH AMENDMENT GROUNDS
In the recent Court of Appeals case: In re D.M. (11-FS—1125) decided on July 10, 2014, the Court reversed the lower court conviction for second- degree burglary, felony destruction of property, and second-degree theft based on 4th amendment violations. Essentially DM and other juveniles were indentified breaking into a property and removing items from the home. DM was seen at the scene by an eyewitness and a look out was broadcasted. Subsequently DM was located and held by the detective pending a show up by the eyewitness. The Court justified in reversing the convictions and holding that there was an
Read More