The Court of Appeals in Miles v. U.S., decided on March 29, 2018, reversed gun related charges and conviction due to defendant’s 4th amendment violations. An anonymous 911 call and tip formed the basis for the Terry stop which led the arrest and seizure of weapons. The tip provided by a concerned citizen described a man wearing a blue army jacket with characteristics similar to Mr. Miles’s shooting a gun in the air. Miles argued on appeal that: The 911 tip was not sufficiently corroborated at the scene and thus was not shown to be reliable. That his flight from
Read More
Archives for washington DC criminal defense lawyer
DISCOVERY RULES IN THE DRUG CASES: DC COURT OF APPEALS: DC DRUG LAWYER
The Court of Appeal in Buchanan v. U.S., decided on August 3, 2017, remanded a Possession with Intent to Distribute (PWID) Marijuana case due to the government’s lack of compliance with the specific scientific discovery requests by defense as deemed to be material on appeal. Specifically, the defendant had requested these documents in preparation for trial from the government pursuant to Rule 16, which provides for discovery of specific information within the government’s control such as: books, papers, documents, photographs, which are material to the preparation of the defendant’s defense. The defense with the assistance of an independent chemist and affidavits
Read More
DC LEAVING AFTER COLLIDING STATUTE: DC COURT OF APPEALS: DC DUI LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in Cherry v. District of Columbia decided on July 27, 2017, revered and remanded the defendant’s conviction for leaving the scene of an accident after colliding and expanded and defined the statutory language. Cherry’s car had collided with the wall adjacent to a convenient store. Cherry had exited his car and initially walked toward the convenient store while police officer were already at the scene. He had initially failed to identify himself but had later (about 12 minutes) after the accident had come forward and identified himself as the driver of the vehicle and to the police
Read More
4TH AMENDMENT: RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES: WARRANTLESS EXCEPTIONS: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizures: Specifically the 4th Amendment provides: THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE TO BE SECURED IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST ANY UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED,AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED. Over the years the Supreme Court has carved out numerous search exceptions to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment. These exceptions are: 1. CONSENT Knowing and voluntary consent to the search
Read More
REVERSAL DUE TO ERRONEOUS JUROR DISQUALIFICATION
The DC Court of Appeals in Mason v. U.S., decided on September 28, 2017, drastically reversed a set of convictions based on trial error in disqualifying a potential juror. Appellant Mason challenged his convictions for tampering with evidence, destruction of property, obstruction of justice, and unlawful entry contending that the trial court committed a reversible error in disqualifying a potential juror. Juror 7575-B was at the center of this ruling and analysis. During the jury voir dire, juror 7575-B was asked if black men in DC are treated fairly or unfairly by the criminal justice system, and she had responded
Read More
JURY MISCONDUCT; RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The Court of Appeals in Poth v. United States decided on December 29, 2016, remanded the case for further proceeding to the trial court due to jury misconduct. Factually, after trial and conviction, the defendant’s counsel learned that two of the jurors had made material omissions in their juror questioner in that one had not disclosed prior felony conviction, a sex offender — and the other juror had omitted that she was a complaining witness in two separate criminal cases. The defense counsel subsequently filed a motion for a new trial and to set aside the conviction pursuant to Super.
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
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: REVERSING DRUG POSSESSION CONVICTION: DC DRUG LAWYER
In OLUSHOLA AKINMBONI V. UNITED STATES, decided on November 19, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s conviction for possession of marijuana, BZP, and drug paraphernalia holding that the cellblock cavity search of the defendant was constitutionally impermissible. Here the defendant was pulled over during a valid traffic stop, and marijuana was observed in plain view and the arrest made. The next day at the courthouse cellblock, the defendant was searched again and during that search the US Marshall had observed plastic bags partially protruding from the defendant’s cavity. Defendant was ordered to remove the items (several bags) and
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
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