The Court of Appeals in Jones v. U.S., decided on March 7, 2019 reversed a conviction for armed robbery and assault due to unreliability of the microscopic hair analysis evidence. Factually, defendant was tried in 1996 and convicted of armed robbery and other offenses. The appeal is from the court’s denial of his motions to vacate his convictions pursuant to D.C. Code § 23-110 and for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to the Innocence Protection Act (IPA). Predominantly at trial the forensic evidence of microscopic hair samples testified to by an FBI agent clinched a conviction. Since 1996, and specifically in a
Read More
Archives for washington dc criminal lawyer
REVERSAL DUE TO ERRONEOUS JURY INSTRUCTIONS: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in Dawkins v. U.S., decide on July 26, 2018, reversed a manslaughter conviction based on erroneous and incomplete jury instructions on technicalities of the self-defense law and its application. An effective employment of self-defense can negate or diffuse the malice of an intentional act. That is, even an intentional killing based on a valid self-defense is not malicious and thus it is excused and accordingly no crime at all. Here the defendant was in a fistfight with the victim and as the fight escalated, the defendant fatally stabbed the victim as claimed in the self-defense. The
Read More
JURY DEMANDABLE WHEN DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES:
The DC Court of Appeals in Jean-Baptiste Bado v. U.S., decided on June 21, 2018, reversed the appellant’s conviction for misdemeanor sexual abuse of a minor and after a bench trial, on the ground that he was denied the right to a jury trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The question before the Court was whether the Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial to an accused who faces the penalty of removal/deportation when the underlying maximum penalty for the crime was only 180 days of incarceration and not by itself jury demandable. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a
Read More
US SUPREME COURT SIDING WITH THE PRIVACY RIGHTS:
The US Supreme Court in a significant privacy rights case in Carpenter v. U.S., decided on June 22, 2018, reversed a the lower court decisions allowing for Cell Site Location Information (“CSLI”) to be used to obtain a conviction without a proper application of warrant. Carpenter was convicted of armed robbery and weapons’ charges as the investigators were able to map his whereabouts for a 27 days period with 107 data points or location tracker per day through the CSLI data collected by his cell phone carrier. The government had only to show a “reasonable grounds” for believing that the
Read More
DC Marijuana POP-UP Events — Legal? DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
In the midst of another major arrests at the pop-up marijuana event this past Saturday (June 17, 2018) in the NE DC where about thirty vendors were arrests, the legality of these events certainly has been put to the test. The vendors and the event coordinators have pushed the limits of law and in effect have forced the narcotic task force to intervene and make arrests. In the Saturday’s events three weapons were also seized which will heighten the DC police scrutiny of these events. At the heart of promulgation of these events is the DC decriminalization Statute that for
Read More
DUI REMAND: DC COURT OF APPEALS: DC DUI LAWYER
The DC Court of Appeal in TOWNSEND v. DC on May 31, 2018, remanded a DUI (“Driving Under Influence”) conviction based on erroneous admission of scientific evidence. Townsend was found behind the wheels of a running car partially on a curve, and on the wrong side of a street by the police officers. As she appeared under the influence and incoherent, the officers had administered several field sobriety tests to determine or to establish drug or alcohol use. The standardized field sobriety tests performed were: Walk and turn test: To place the right foot on a line and the left
Read More
EXIGENT EXCEPTION TO WARRANTLESS SEARCH: 4TH AMENDMENT: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in Ball v. U.S. decided on May 24, 2018, narrowly affirmed weapons’ conviction under the exigent exception to warrantless search under the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The trial court had dismissed motion to suppress the evidence based on illegal search and seize paving the way to a conviction. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution under certain emergency and exigent circumstances allow an officer to enter a dwelling without a warrant if the officer has an objectively reasonable basis for believing that: The entry is necessary to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant, or
Read More
BREATHALYZER DEVICE: CHALLENGING RESULTS IN COURT: DC DUI LAWYER
The most prevalent form of measuring intoxication by the law enforcement is the breathalyzer. The device is designed to measure the levels of alcohol in the lungs and not in the breath. Thus a sip of alcohol and testing right after would not and should not register any measurable levels of alcohol. Alcohol consumed however gets processed in the body. It gets absorbed from the mouth through throat and stomach and distributes into the bloodstream. Alcohol is not digested upon absorption and remains chemically the same in the bloodstream. As the alcohol infused blood travels through the lunge membranes it contaminates
Read More
DC VOYEURISM STATUTE: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in Castillo v. U.S., decided on March 8, 2018, once again addressed, defined and further expanded certain statutory provision and language of the Voyeurism Statute. Castillo, a cleaning employee of a restaurant, was accused of entering a women’s bathroom and peeping under a stall. On appeal from the conviction under the Voyeurism Statute he argued mainly that technically he was not ever in “a hidden observation post” as the Statute requires and that he had only entered the bathroom to start the cleaning process. The Statute in the pertinent part provides: (b) Except as provided in subsection
Read More
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
D.C Code §23-110, the main statutory language for ineffective assistance of counsel provides for the judicial officer an authority for reversal of sentence due to “denial or infringement” of the defendant’s constitutional rights. Specifically, if the court finds that: (1) The judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, (2) The sentence imposed was not authorized by law or is otherwise open to collateral attack, (3) There has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, The court may vacate under these circumstances the conviction and set aside the
Read More