Archives for dc criminal lawyer

SEALING OF THE ARREST RECORD STATUTE DECONSTRUCTED: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS CASE

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

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

RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: UNLAWFUL ENTRY REVERSED

The Court of Appeals in Foster v. U.S., decided on November 7, 2019, reversed and vacated the defendant’s conviction for unlawful entry. Foster who was according to his rental lease part of a housing complex consisting of two distinct units — Hopkins I&II was barred by a security guard from the Hopkins I complex for violating the housing rules and two days thereafter was arrested for an unlawful entry into the complex. Foster argued on appeal that the trial record showed insufficient evidence that Hopkins Apartments consisted of more than one legally distinct DCHA property, especially when considering the lease
Read More

MPD USE OF PROBATION GPS TRACKING SYSTEM CONSTITUTIONAL: RECENT DC COURT OF APPEALS DECISION

The Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Jackson decided on August 22, 2019, reversed and remanded to the trial court granting of Jackson’s suppression motion for 4th amendment violations. Jackson who was on probation for Robbery was placed by Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency  (“CSOSA”) on GPS tracking system.  The GPS tracking system accessed by MPD revealed and placed him at a scene of another robbery which resulted in him being arrested and charged with that crime. Jackson argued at trial that CSOSA violated his Fourth Amendment rights first by placing him on GPS monitoring without judicial approval and
Read More

DC DUI RECENT CASELAW: WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA

The Court of Appeals in Maddux v. D.C, decided on July 25, 2019, considered whether the defendant should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea to DUI after sentencing. Before sentencing the burden on the defendant is “a fair and just reason” while after sentencing the burden elevated to “to correct manifest injustice, that is, justice demands withdrawal in the circumstances of the individual case. Maddux’s central argument was that the Magistrate Judge pushed and coerced plea bargaining by threatening to detain him pending trial and pre-trial while making clear he would be treated as a first-time offender with a
Read More

REVERSAL DUE TO JURY SELECTION RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

The Court of Appeals in Haney v. U.S., decided on April 25, 2019, reversed and remanded the defendant’s weapons’ conviction based on the government’s peremptory jury strikes disproportionately excluded black jurors and black male from the jury pool. It is well established according to Batson rule that purposeful and intentional discrimination based on race or gender in the exercise of peremptory challenges is strictly prohibited. The Supreme Court had articulated in Batson a three-step process for analyzing discriminatory claims: There must be a prima facie showing that a peremptory challenge has been exercised due to race or gender; The prosecution
Read More

ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE: RECENT DC COURT OF APPEALS DECISION

The Court of Appeals in Posey v. US, decided on February 21, 2019, reversed the trial’s court denial of the suppression motion and thus vacated the conviction. Posey was arrested after the Officer responded to a look out for Robbery suspects.  The look out was vague and nondescript and essentially depicting “a black male wearing black clothes.” Because Posey had fled upon observing the approaching police officer and subsequently searched and a weapon found – the trial court determined that the fleeing from the scene by itself added to the reasonable suspicion criteria for Terry stop and thus search and
Read More

FACEBOOK v. SUBPOENA: RECENT DC COURT OF APPEALS

The Court of Appeals in Facebook v. Wint, decided on January 3, 2019, determined and analyzed if a criminal defendant is entitled to issue a criminal subpoena on a provider (here Facebook) to obtain certain communications. Specifically, Mr. Wint charged with multiple murders requested the trial Judge to authorize defense subpoenas duces tecum on Facebook for records, including communications relating to certain accounts. Facebook objected pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), arguing that Facebook was prohibited from disclosing such information in response to a criminal defendant’s subpoena. The trial court approved the subpoena request and held Facebook in civil
Read More

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STALKING STATUTE: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION

The Court of Appeals in Beachum v. US decided on December 20, 2018, analyzed and ruled on whether the DC Stalking Statute as written was constitutional. Section 22-3133 (a)(3) in pertinent parts provides that: It is unlawful for a person to purposefully engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific individual . . . [t]hat the person should have known would cause a reasonable person in the individual’s circumstances to: (A) Fear for his or her safety or the safety of another person; (B) Feel seriously alarmed, disturbed, or frightened; or (C) Suffer emotional distress. The appellant argued
Read More

NEAR ACT IN DC: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: DC ASSAULT LAWYER

The Court of Appeals in Coleman v. U.S. decided on October 11, 2018, affirmed simple assault convictions against the police officers as well as affirming the trial’s court denial of the self-defense claim. Coleman was questioned by the police officers during a routine traffic stop regarding his tinted car windows. The stop escalated and Coleman both resisted arrest, and assaulted the police officers. He was charged with APO, Assault on Police Officer. The government at trial dropped the Assault on Police Officers (APO) charges to Simple Assault to eliminate the jury demandable offense to non-jury bench trial, which they typically
Read More