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
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: 4TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION
The Court of Appeals in Albert Jones v. United States, decided on February 23, 2017, reversed a possession of cocaine charge as the evidence was obtained in violation of the defendant’s 4th amendment rights. Jones was approached by two police officers in a narrow ally common for drug use or sale. The officers had remained in the cruiser while approaching Jones who was on foot with no articulable suspension other than Jones having a Newport container on his right hand and moving it to his back as he was approached by the officers. After few basic questions name address date
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: GOAL CHANGE FROM REUNIFICATION TO ADOPTION NOW APPEALABLE: DC ADOPTION LAWYER
The DC Court of Appeals in: IN RE TA.L.; IN RE A.L.; – decided on December 8, 2016, opined a significant decision in extending and preserving parental rights in the context of adoptions. Here the parents were adjudicated as neglectful and the children were subsequently placed in a foster home. Approximately within a year of the placement, and during a permanency hearing, the goal was changed from reunification to adoption. The goal change from reunification to adoption and the permanency goal change without affording the biological parents a legal procedure and protection was the main subject of the Court’s decision
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION: DC DRUG LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in Lesher v. United States, decided on December 1, 2016, addressed and highlighted legal elements for constructive possession of a controlled substance in affirming the trial court decision. Lesher was found guilty of attempted possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (marijuana) (“attempted PWID”) and possession of drug paraphernalia (“PDP”). He argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions and that the trial court erred by allowing the police officer to testify about the results of a field test. The facts were as follows: pursuant to a valid search warrant the
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION; INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
In SURUR v. U. S., decided on November 3, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed A conviction for attempted possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to sell due to ineffective assistance of counsel and mistaken identity. It was alleged that Ms. Surur was the gas station clerk who sold paraphernalia to an undercover officer. In order to succeed on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim; the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient and that this deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. The Court concluded that absent defense counsel’s constitutionally deficient performance by failing to investigate a mistaken-identification defense –
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: IMMUNITY WHEN REQUIRED: DC CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in YOUNG v. U.S., decided on July 28, 2016, highlighted and analyzed factual circumstances in which granting immunity to a witness is required by the government. Mr. Young was arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute (“PWID”) liquid PCP and was accordingly convicted at trial. Before trial, the defendant’s nephew indicated that if he were granted immunity from criminal prosecution – he would testify that he was the last person who drove the vehicle where the drugs were discovered. The government did not offer immunity and the trial court did not require as such and
Read More
THEFT: RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY: IDENTITY THEFT
This blog outlines statutory elements as well as the penalties enumerated for these offense. THEFT FIRST AND SECOND DEGREES Theft in DC is generally defined as wrongful possession and control over property belonging to others. Specifically, one commits theft by wrongfully obtaining or using property belonging to others with intent to either deprive the owner of a right or the benefit of the property, or to exercise control and appropriate the property for his own use or a third party – still depriving the owner the use of his/her property. Wrongful obtaining and using is statutorily defined as: Taking/exercising dominion
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS’ DECISION: INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE
In NYIA GORE v. U.S., decided on August 18, 2016, the DC Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for destruction of property as the trial court should have granted the appellant’s motion to suppression evidence based on 4th Amendment violations. The facts of the case stemmed from a domestic dispute where the appellant’s boyfriend complained of the appellant destroying his property inside a motel room that they shared. Officers responded to the scene and upon questioning the appellant and without express consent of the appellant entered the room searched and recovered destroyed property and consequently charged the appellant. The appellant’s
Read More
INTERNATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT: FORUM NON CONVENIENS: DC CHILD SUPPORT LAWYER
Generally the DC Corporation Counsel will file and prosecute a child support action on behalf of a DC resident and when both the child and the principles are DC residents. However Under 42 U.S. Code ξ 654(4)(A)(ii), the District may bring a child support action on behalf of a non DC resident, a non US national and from a country which has not signed into Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”) or any other treaty governing terms, that is, a non reciprocating and a non treaty nation. According to the statute, the DC government has the discretion to bring an
Read More
COMPETING ADOPTION PETITIONS: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
In the matter of: IN RE M.V.H. decided on July 21, 2016, by the Court of Appeals, a relative grandmother adoption petition v. a non relative foster parent adoption petition was legally compared and analyzed with the trial court as well as the appellate review all ruling in favor of the foster parent petition. The case had initiated through a neglect petition against the biological mother who resided in the grandmother’s home (M.V.H.) at time, and alleged and proven neglect of physical injuries to the child (A.H.). The mother had given her consent to the adoption by the grandmother M.V.H.,
Read More