The Court of Appeals in Washington v. U.S., decided recently addressed and interpreted the implications of “interest of Justice” in connection with sealing of the arrest records. DC Code 16-803.02 provides in pertinent parts: (a) person arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a criminal offense pursuant to the District of Columbia Official Code or the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations that was decriminalized or legalized after the date of the arrest, charge, or conviction may file a motion to seal the record of the arrest, charge, conviction, and related Superior Court proceedings at any time, and (A) In cases
Read More
DC PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS: FAQ
1) I have no assets or property now to protect or to designate, do I still need a prenuptial agreement? Yes, because not only prenuptial agreements protect assets and property before marriage, certain language can be drafted to protect future assets as potentially non-marital. 2) What are the common items prenuptial agreements protect? Assets and property, inheritance, retirement accounts, trust benefits and distributions, business and partnership ownership to name a few. 3) How can one insure that the agreements drafted are enforceable? Premarital agreements are not enforceable if: Not voluntarily executed by both parties The agreement was unconscionable The unconscionability
Read More
DISCOVERY UNDER THE JENCKS ACT, LEGAL ELEMENTS OF UNLAWFUL ENTRY STATUTE
The Court of Appeals recently in Rahman v. U.S., addressed the legal elements of the unlawful entry statute as well as addressing the appellant’s discovery requests pursuant to the Jencks act. Factually, appellant was told to leave the premises at a Mcdonald’s location by a special police officer (“SPO”) as it appeared that he was loitering or panhandling at the location. Appellant initially refused to leave but eventually left the premises and returned few minutes later at which time he was arrested for unlawful entry by a police officer. On appeal, the appellant essentially argued that he could not have
Read More
ILLEGAL STOP AND ARREST VALID: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The Court of Appeals in Campbell v. U.S. decided on January 30, 2020, in essence affirmed the trial court’s ruling and convictions denying the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Factually, Campbell was approached by a police officer in a middle of a night sitting in a stolen car, visibly drinking from an open container of alcohol (vodka bottle). The critical factual element being that the car was parked in a private church parking lot. Campbell was arrested for POCA (Possession of Open Container of Alcohol), and the ensuing search revealed that the car was stolen and thus was charged with
Read More
DC CIVIL PROTECTION HEARINGS/TRIAL AND DISCOVERY
The Civil Protection filing and litigation although has an expansive reach in enforcing a range of orders, has a limited scope with regards to witness statement under the Jencks Act and generally discovery before the hearing. Moreover, the threshold burden of proof is rather low. Specifically, the Statute provides: If, after hearing, the judicial officer finds that there is good cause to believe the respondent has committed or threatened to commit a criminal offense against the petitioner or against petitioner’s animal or an animal in petitioner’s household, the judicial officer may issue a protection order that: Directs the respondent to
Read More
UNSEAL ADOPTION RECORDS: DC COURT OF APPEALS
The Court of Appeals in In re G.D.L., decided on January 2, 2020, addressed the legal criteria to have the adoption records unsealed. The appellant who was no longer a minor sought a court order release of his adoption records, original birth certificate, and biological parental information. The trial court in balancing all interests involved in deciding the motion for disclosure ordered to protect G.D.L.’s birth father’s information and directed the child-placement agency to give G.D.L. redacted copies of the original birth certificate and adoption records. The biological mother’s information was already known to the appellant and not subject of
Read More
SEALING OF AN ARREST RECORD & THE “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” STANDARD: DC COURT OF APPEALS
The Court of Appeals recently in Larracuente v. U.S., determined and defined more precisely application of “Interest of Justice” provision of the sealing of the arrest record Statute. Appellant moved pursuant to D.C. Code § 16-803.02 to seal his records where he had pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute (PWID) marijuana. The trial court concluded that the government had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant possessed an amount of marijuana that exceeded the amount decriminalized, that is more than two ounces and moreover sealing of the record was not available nor discretionary under the “interest
Read More
LEGAL CRITERIA FOR PENDENTE LITE ALIMONY
DC Code § 16–911, titled Pendente lite relief, allows for filing of a petition for support during the pendency of: A legal separation, Divorce; or The termination of a domestic partnership In such cases, the court may require one party after holding a hearing to make payment of: A pendente lite alimony, or Child support Health insurance coverage or Suit money, including counsel fees. The Court generally considers the same factors in awarding alimony to dispense Pendente lite alimony and support, that is: Ability of the party seeking alimony to be wholly or partly self-supporting; Time necessary for the party
Read More
4TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The Court of Appeals in Dozier v. U.S., decided on December 5, 2019, reversed and remanded conviction for Possession with Intent to Distribute (PWID) due to constitutional violations. Appellant was observed in a high crime area and at night emerging from a dark ally, four Officers in a cruiser entered the ally and two approached asking if they could speak to the appellant, as appellant walked away ignoring the question, the officers persisted asking him if he had any weapons on him which he replied no and whether he would lift his shirt for a visual inspection which the appellant
Read More
ADMISSIBILITY OF PRIOR BAD ACT: DC COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL
The Court of Appeals in Jackson v. U.S., decided on June 27, 2019, determined whether the trial court had erred in admitting evidence of prior PCP use by the defendant before committing assault with a deadly weapon. (“ADW”). Factually, appellant was convicted of assaulting his roommate with a knife and prior to the trial, the government moved to admit evidence of recent use of PCP to bolster a case for erratic behavior by the defendant prior to the assault. The court admitted the evidence justifying that such would provide context and serve to explain the defendant’s observations, beliefs, and behaviors in
Read More