The Court of Appeals in Dozier v. U.S., decided on December 5, 2019, reversed and remanded conviction for Possession with Intent to Distribute (PWID) due to constitutional violations. Appellant was observed in a high crime area and at night emerging from a dark ally, four Officers in a cruiser entered the ally and two approached asking if they could speak to the appellant, as appellant walked away ignoring the question, the officers persisted asking him if he had any weapons on him which he replied no and whether he would lift his shirt for a visual inspection which the appellant
Read More
Archives for washington DC criminal defense lawyer
ADMISSIBILITY OF PRIOR BAD ACT: DC COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL
The Court of Appeals in Jackson v. U.S., decided on June 27, 2019, determined whether the trial court had erred in admitting evidence of prior PCP use by the defendant before committing assault with a deadly weapon. (“ADW”). Factually, appellant was convicted of assaulting his roommate with a knife and prior to the trial, the government moved to admit evidence of recent use of PCP to bolster a case for erratic behavior by the defendant prior to the assault. The court admitted the evidence justifying that such would provide context and serve to explain the defendant’s observations, beliefs, and behaviors in
Read More
DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT: DC COURT OF APPEALS
The Court of Appeals in Andre v. U.S., decided on August 19, 2019, determined the scope and implications of the Double Jeopardy Clause. At trial, Andre was convicted of two counts of simple assault and sentenced and served seven days on each count while his case was on appeal. Due to conflict of interest of his trial counsel, his convictions were overturned on appeal and case was remanded at which time the government moved to prosecute him again on the same changes one more time. Andre argued on appeal that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment barred his
Read More
COMMUNITY CARETAKING DOCTRINE: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The Court of Appeals in McGlenn v. U.S., decided on July 19, 2019, expanded and defined “community caretaking doctrine” in holding that an arrest and seizure of the defendant was justified. A 911 call reported assault in progress and upon arriving at the scene the Officers came in contact with the defendant outside a housing complex. Defendant appeared intoxicated and under the influence of illegal substances mainly PCP. It was determined quickly by the Officers that McGlenn had not assaulted anyone inside the complex and was only acting erratically. Defendant’s mother residing there had originated the 911 call. The trial
Read More
ADMISSIBILITY OF AN OUT OF COURT STATEMENT IN TRIAL: HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS
In both criminal trials as well as the civil cases often the outcome hinges on a witness statement that is hearsay (out of court statement) but admissible under one of the exceptions. The Court of Appeals in Sims v. U.S., decided on August 15, 2019, expanded and explained in details the admissibility of the “present sense impression” exception to the hearsay rule. Sims was convicted of murder at trial and a significant corroborating evidence was introduced through the present sense impression statement/exception to the hearsay rule. One of witnesses at trial testified that he arrived to the scene shortly after
Read More
BALLISTIC IMAGING EVIDENCE — DISPOSITIVE? NOT EXACTLY …
The Court of in Williams v. U.S., decided on June 27, 2019, reiterated the legal standard for admissibility and reliability of the ballistic scientific evidence. Williams was convicted of felony murder and one of key pieces of evidence against him was a testimony of the ballistic expert who had matched the toolmarks of a weapon found in the defendant’s home against the bullet shells found at the crime scene. The expert at trial had testified with certainty that the ballistic imaging was a 100 percent match. The Court of Appeals held that there was a lack of scientific data to
Read More
REVERSAL OF CONVICTIONS DUE TO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
The Court of Appeals in Hooks v. U.S., decided on May 30, 2019 reversed weapons and drug charges due to the defendant’s constitutional violations mainly the 4th Amendment. Hooks and few friends were in a barbeque gathering and an unmarked narcotics police car with was surveying the neighborhood and pulled in front the group. The officers zeroed on Hooks and one of them ordered Hooks to stand up from his lawn chair where a bag of marijuana exceeding a legal limit was protruding from his pocket and search incident to the arrest recovered a handgun. The Court expounded that the
Read More
DC COURT OF APPEALS: MERE TOUCH NOT AN ASSAULT
The DC Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. U.S., in overturning an assault conviction provided much needed clarity and definition to the current DC Assault Statute. Section 22-404 of the statute provides two forms of assault: (a)(1) Whoever unlawfully assaults, or threatens another in a menacing manner, shall be fined and or be imprisoned not more than 180 days, or both. (2) Whoever unlawfully assaults, or threatens another in a menacing manner, and intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes significant bodily injury to another shall be fined or be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both. Significant bodily injury means: an injury
Read More
LEGAL ELEMENTS FOR DC PERJURY & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
The Court of Appeals in Wilson v. U.S., decided on October 11, 2018, reversed and remanded Wilson’s conviction for Perjury as well as the Obstruction of Justice. In the District a person if guilty of obstruction of justice if that person: (1)Knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens or corruption to persuade another person, or by means of a threatening letter or communication endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede a juror in the discharge of the juror’s official duties; or an officer in any official proceeding, with intent to: Influence, delay, or prevent the truthful testimony of the person in
Read More
CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: DC CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in Toler v. U.S., decided recently determined whether revealing of a social security number during a custodial interrogation was in violation of Miranda rights. Appellant Toler had argued that his firearm convictions must be reversed because he was required to reveal his social security number without a prior Miranda warning, and also that his convictions for possession of unregistered firearms must be reversed because the government failed to prove an element of the offense, namely that the firearms were not “antique” firearms. In general, routine questions related to the booking process are not considered interrogation under
Read More