The DC Court of Appeals in Ken E. Smith v. U.S., on December 4, 2014, reversed a lower court drug conviction and denial of motion to suppress based on the tainted derivative evidence doctrine, which excludes all evidence — primary and secondary obtained and gathered in violation of the 4th Amendment. Specifically, Smith’s car was stopped due to having an obstructed license plate and subsequently marijuana and drug paraphernalia was found on him and in the car. An arrest warrant was requested by the Officer and issued based on the affidavit submitted and approximately two weeks later Smith was located,
Read More
RECENT DC COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL
The Court of Appeals in IN RE J.W. (DEL-1326-12) decided on October 9, 2014, vacated and reversed J.W.’s conviction for “possession of implements of crime.” J.W. and another juvenile were seen near a Vespa scooter chained to a fence. J.W. was wearing a black ski pants with a black ski mask on top of his head loitering around the scooter while carrying a two foot-long bolt cutter. He was arrested and charged with — a statute that prohibits the possession of “any instrument, tool, or implement for picking locks or pockets, with the intent to use such instrument, tool, or
Read More
D.C. Marijuana Legalization Initiative 71
D.C., Marijuana Legalization, Initiative 71 is on the ballot for the November elections and it is anticipated that it would get enough votes to pass. However the passage of the initiative is not tantamount to legalization. The initiative would need congressional approval, which is very unlikely. Federal laws still criminalize use and possession of the substance and US Congress would not approve a measure in the Nation’s Capitol no less that is in direct conflict with the Federal laws. The overwhelming approval of the measure by the city voters however will force the city legislative to go beyond the Decriminalization
Read More
BEARING AND CARRYING HANDGUN IN THE DISTRICT: DC GUN CRIMES LAWYER
The District Court Senior Judge Scullin on July 24, 2014, enjoined the District from enforcing both the handgun registration for home-use only provision as well as the statute criminalizing carrying handgun in public. Specifically the court ordered: ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Memorandum- Decision and Order, are permanently enjoined from enforcing D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) to ban registration of handguns to be carried in public for self-defense by law-abiding citizens; and Court further ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees,
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: STATUTORY DEFINITION, CARRYING A DANGEROUS WEAPON:
The Court of Appeals on July 31, 2014, in IN RE D.R. (No. 11-FS-1320), both reversed a conviction for insufficiently of evidence and also remanded the case to the trial court. Appellant, D.R., was convicted at trial of four criminal offenses including a conviction for Carrying a Dangerous Weapon (CDW). The Court remanded for trial finding on ineffective assistance of counsel claim, however, focused significantly on the statutory construction and language of CDW and ended revering the conviction consistent with the opinion. Factually, D.R., a fourteen year old, was found at trial to have brandished a machete/sword type knife about
Read More
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSES ON 4TH AMENDMENT GROUNDS
In the recent Court of Appeals case: In re D.M. (11-FS—1125) decided on July 10, 2014, the Court reversed the lower court conviction for second- degree burglary, felony destruction of property, and second-degree theft based on 4th amendment violations. Essentially DM and other juveniles were indentified breaking into a property and removing items from the home. DM was seen at the scene by an eyewitness and a look out was broadcasted. Subsequently DM was located and held by the detective pending a show up by the eyewitness. The Court justified in reversing the convictions and holding that there was an
Read More
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION: RECENT DECISION: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
The DC Court of Appeals recently in IN RE L.C., (10-FS-709) vacated the conviction for carjacking and assault with intent to commit robbery and remanded the case to the trial court for determination as to the admissibility of the expert testimony. According to the proffered evidence at trial, L.C. and another companion attacked the complaining witness and attempted to steal her car. Struggled ensued and the assailants escaped on foot and based on the look out given were stopped shortly thereafter in the vicinity and indentified by the complaining witness and charged. L.C.’s defense at trial was essentially one of
Read More
SEARCH OF THE CELL PHONE INCIDENT TO AN ARREST, PERMISSIBLE? TO BE DETERMINED: US v. WURIE:
The Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, heard oral arguments in U.S. v. Wurie, a case testing yet again the boundaries of law and technology with compelling argument on both sides. Brima Wurie was arrested in 2007 after a drug sale for distributing crack cocaine. After arrest, the officers looked through his cell phone which kept ringing and from reviewing the call log connected a number stored as “my house” to his actual house location. The officers then obtained a warrant for search of the house and confiscated substantially additional drugs and weapons form the home. The trial court did
Read More
RETURN FOR REWARD DEFENSE IN RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY CASES
The DC Court of Appeals in LIHLAKHAV. U.S, issued recently on April 24, 2014, was presented for the first time with a case with a factual background to consider and analyze a “return for reward defense” in connection with a receiving stolen property conviction. The defendant here was convicted of both receiving stolen property and unlawful entry. On the stolen property — a laptop– reward was offered by the owner for the return of the property. The D.C. Code enumerates the following elements requisite to prove a stolen property conviction: A person commits the offense of receiving [1] stolen property
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS RULING REVERSING TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS (TPR) —
In the recent opinion issued by the Court of Appeals in IN RE D.M.; T.M., (March 13, 2014), the Court once again articulated that when a biological parent is unable to care for his or her child, her choice of a fit custodian must be given a weighty articulated consideration by the trial court. T.M., the biological mother of D.M., appealed successfully her termination of parental rights by the trial court. She argued on appeal that the lower court erred by “failing to give weighty consideration to the third-party custodial arrangement” she set forth as a placement option and in
Read More