DC adoptions can be categorized as Child and Family Services (“CFSA”) involved or private adoptions. The legal paradigm remains the same. The CFSA involvement could and generally does complicate the process as there are additional requirements to make the child eligible for the federal subsidy. Such requirements are adoption licensing, home study/visits, Interstate Compact (“ICPC”) when applicable, adoption final report, adoption subsidy agreement, federal and state police as well as Child Protection Registry (“CPS” ) clearances just to name a few. Once the CFSA procedural requirements are met, there still remains the legal threshold to completing the adoption and entering
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: ATTEMPTED THREATS REVERSAL
In Milton v. U.S., decided by the DC Court of Appeals on December 24, 2015, the Court reversed Milton’s conviction for attempted threats against the arresting police officer. Officers had responded to an unlawful entry call on July 5, 2015, and Milton having been identified as one of the culprits was placed under arrest, but while on the curbside and cuffed, uttered to one of the arresting officers that “take that gun and badge off and I’ll fuck you up,” and moreover, that “too bad it’s not like the old days where fucking up an officer is a misdemeanor.” These
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
REVERSING CONFESSION — DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
In Little v. U.S., decided on November 12, 2015, the issue was the constitutionality of the confession, which lead to conviction at trial with little or no collaborating independent evidence. Little was picked up on an abscondence warrant and suspected of being involved in an attempted car robbery and was ushered to the interrogating room. Mr. Little’s cell phone was found inside the car, and although he vehemently denied involvement initially – eventually after several hours of interrogation confessed to the crime. The issue on appeal was the voluntariness of the confession in light of the highly unconventional and aggressive
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
Justice Department v. Apple Computer: IPHONE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
In an ongoing criminal investigation, the Justice Department in the Eastern District of NY, on October 9, 2015, requested an order pursuant to all Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to compel Apple to “disabl[e] the security of an Apple device that the government has lawfully seized pursuant to a warrant.” This case has brought to the forefront once again the balancing act between the need from the law enforcement to decode encrypted devices (the going dark problem), prevailing privacy issues, and the lack of Congressional authority to compel third party private manufacturers to cooperate with the government or to
Read More
DC ASSAULT LAWYER – — SELF DEFENSE NOT VIABLE
The Court of Appeals in Travers v. U.S., issued on October 8, 2015, revered multiple felony assaultive convictions because the defendant was restricted at trial to fully either testify or to elicit testimony to bolster his self-defense theory. Travers was convicted of assaulting his sister Bethel during a domestic dispute where the complaining witness, his sister had directed her boyfriend/Scott to “get him”, Travers that is. Travers alleged that in self-defense he had used a golf club to swing at the boyfriend and had accidentally hit his sister, the complaining witness. Travers argued that the court erred by precluding him
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: VALIDITY OF MIRANDA WARNING
The Court of Appeals in IN RE S.W., decided on September 17, 2015, reversed conviction due to faulty Miranda rendering post arrest interrogation inadmissible. SW after trial was convicted of: (1) carjacking, (2) attempted unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, (3) unlawful entry of a motor vehicle, and (4) threats to do bodily harm. The post arrest interrogation was deemed admissible as the trial court deemed confession valid and Miranda warning appropriate, the Court of Appeals disagreed as closer analysis of the Miranda warning administered and the dialog before the warning was deemed too coercive. Specifically, the appellant argued that
Read More
THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The Court of Appeals in STANLEY MOGHALU v. UNITED STATES, decided on August 13, 2015, clarified preserving the double jeopardy defense to retrial for appellate review. Stanley Moghalu was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm (“UPF”) and carrying a pistol without a license (“CPWL”). The case at the trial level was declared a mistrial twice as the jury could not “return a unanimous verdict that would be anything other than forced.” The first trial the court granted mistrial at the request of defense counsel, and the second trial the court granted a mistrial over defense objection that anti-lock instructions
Read More