The DC Court of Appeals in David Thomas v. U.S., on October 12, 2017, issued an opinion on a conviction pursuant to the DC Voyeurism Statute, which provides: D.C. Code 22-3531 (c)(1) in pertinent parts provides: (c)(1) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, it is unlawful for a person to electronically record, without the express and informed consent of the individual being recorded, an individual who is: (A) Using a bathroom or rest room; (B) Totally or partially undressed or changing clothes; or (C) Engaging in sexual activity. The Defendant in this case was convicted for taking nude photographs of his
Read More
Archives for Criminal Defense
REVERSAL DUE TO ERRONEOUS JUROR DISQUALIFICATION
The DC Court of Appeals in Mason v. U.S., decided on September 28, 2017, drastically reversed a set of convictions based on trial error in disqualifying a potential juror. Appellant Mason challenged his convictions for tampering with evidence, destruction of property, obstruction of justice, and unlawful entry contending that the trial court committed a reversible error in disqualifying a potential juror. Juror 7575-B was at the center of this ruling and analysis. During the jury voir dire, juror 7575-B was asked if black men in DC are treated fairly or unfairly by the criminal justice system, and she had responded
Read More
CRIMINAL INTENT REQUIRED FOR THREATS CONVICTION; RECENT DC COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The DC Court of Appeals in Lee Carroll v. U.S., decided on August 3rd, 2017; redefined the legal requisite for criminal conviction under the Threats’ Statute. Factually, the defendant was convicted for assaulting his girlfriend while also verbally threatening her physical harm. The DC misdemeanor as well as the Felony threats statutes do not enlist legal elements nor require facially mens rea or criminal intent. The misdemeanor threats statute (D.C. Code § 22-407) provides: Whoever is convicted in the District of threats to do bodily harm shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01 or
Read More
LEGAL DEFINITION OF ESCAPE FROM CUSTODY
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Davis v. United States decided on August 10, 2017, reversed an Escape conviction and provided the legal definition for “Lawful Custody” in the applicable Statute. The section of the District of Columbia Code at issue is entitled “Escape from an Institution or Officer (D.C. Code § 22-2601 (a)) and it reads in the relevant part: (a) No person shall escape or attempt to escape from: Any penal or correctional institution or facility in which that person is confined pursuant to an order issued by a court of the District of Columbia; The
Read More
Excited Utterance Exception: Admissibility of the 911 tapes: Recent DC Court of Appeals Decision: Washington DC Criminal Lawyer
Oftentimes in the Washington DC domestic violence assault cases, the complainant does not actually testify for one reason or another. In such cases, the government attempts to introduce the 911 reporting/call of the complainant in lieu of the substantive evidence of assault. If the 911 tape recoding does meet the three prong test for admission; then the recording can and will be admitted and relied upon by the trier of the facts albeit the jury or the judge. The DC Court of Appeals on August 17, 2017, in Pelzer v. U.S., highlighted and outlined the test of admissibility for the
Read More
TREATMENT IN LIEU OF DC CRIMINAL PROSECUTION/DC CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER
The DC Court of Appeals in Paz Cruz v. United States, decided on August 3, 2017, analyzed and highlighted the DC Statute that provides a legal basis for seeking alcohol treatment in lieu of criminal prosecution. Specifically, DC Code § 24-607 provides in pertinent sections that the Court may order a civil commitment for treatment up to a specified period of time a chronic alcoholic who is charged with any misdemeanor and prior to the trial voluntarily and via motion requests “treatment in lieu of criminal prosecution” for such misdemeanor. The Court in such circumstances must determine in a civil
Read More
SIMPLE ASSAULT CONVICTION REVERSAL; SELF-DEFENSE CLAIM HELD VALID: DC ASSAULT LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in Tamika Parker v. U.S., decided on March 16, 2017, reversed a conviction for simple assault holding in short that the claim of self-defense was valid, credible, and supported by the evidence presented. One of the concurring opinions sums up the facts of the case perfectly: This is a strange case. A man shouts an ugly slur against his neighbor across the street as she is getting into a friend’s car. He then crosses the street with members of his family, calls her a “bitch” (and more), and spits in her face as his family surrounds
Read More
Warrantless Use of Cell-Phone Tracking Surveillance Technology by Law Enforcement
Increasing number of cases involving the law enforcement agencies’ warrantless use of cell phone tracking devices has recently promulgated the need for regulations that would address escalating privacy concerns. Metropolitan Police Department has already signed a non-disclosure agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) enabling the agents to keep all the cell-phone surveillance data private. Commonly known as a Stingray, these detection surveillance devices act as a wireless cell-phone tower broadcasting a strong signal allowing for the Stingray to connect to any cellular device in close vicinity. Consequently, the Department of Justice issued new guidelines preventing the federal agents
Read More
RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY ELEMENTS; COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL
The Court of Appeals in Williams v. United States decided on March 23, 2017, reversed the conviction for receiving stolen property and remanded the case to the trial court. The underlying facts were that four men had approached a police office to borrow his phone to and to report a robbery. The next day the same officer detained and searched the defendant who was found in possession of four identification cards that matched the same four men who had approached the officer earlier. The trial court found the circumstantial evidence to be compelling enough to warrant the conviction. Specifically, the
Read More
JURY MISCONDUCT; RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
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