Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, the appellant was convicted of simple assault with a bias enhancement after an incident at a Metro station. The government’s evidence showed that the appellant approached a group, made derogatory remarks about their sexual orientation, and physically assaulted one of them multiple times. The assailant was later apprehended at a different Metro station and identified as the appellant. The charges were eventually narrowed to simple assault with a bias enhancement, and the appellant was found guilty by a jury.Prior to trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the appellant objected to the composition of the jury venire, arguing that it did not reflect a fair cross-section of the community, as only three of fifty-four potential jurors appeared to be African American. The trial judge denied the motion to strike the panel, finding that the appellant had not shown systematic exclusion of a group from the jury selection process. The judge also denied a subsequent, untimely request for access to jury selection records, reasoning that the request came only after the motion to strike had been denied and that no prior efforts had been made to obtain such records.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and the fair cross-section claim. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the testimony of the arresting officer and the circumstances of the arrest. The court also held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to strike the jury panel or the belated request for jury selection records, finding that the denial was based on the untimeliness of the request rather than an improper threshold requirement. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Brown v. United States" on Justia Law

The appellant was represented by an attorney in a criminal contempt proceeding after allegedly violating a civil protective order. During the course of representation, the appellant twice made statements to his attorney threatening to kill the Assistant Attorney General prosecuting his case, including specific language and gestures indicating an intent to cause harm. The attorney, disturbed by these threats, initially sought to withdraw from representation and later disclosed the threats to the court after being ordered to do so. The attorney subsequently testified before a grand jury and at trial regarding the threats, which led to the appellant being charged and convicted by a jury of threatening a public official and obstruction of justice.Following conviction in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the appellant challenged the admissibility of his attorney’s testimony, arguing that the statements were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The trial court rejected this argument, finding that the threats were not made for the purpose of seeking legal advice and thus were not privileged. On appeal, a division of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals initially vacated the convictions, holding that the statements were privileged and their admission was not harmless error. The United States successfully petitioned for en banc review, and the full court vacated the division’s decision, limiting the scope of review to the attorney-client privilege issue.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held that the attorney-client privilege does not protect communications that themselves constitute criminal threats to cause death or serious bodily harm. The court reasoned that such threats are an abuse of the attorney-client relationship and fall outside the privilege, regardless of whether the technical elements of the privilege are otherwise met. The court affirmed the Superior Court’s admission of the attorney’s testimony and remanded the case for consideration of the appellant’s remaining arguments. View "Moore v. United States" on Justia Law

A woman returning home late at night observed a man, later identified as the defendant, standing near the entrance of their shared condominium building with his lower body exposed. The man, wearing a sweatshirt that did not cover his genitalia, followed the woman as she entered the building, attempted to force his way inside, and did not try to cover himself. After a confrontation inside the building, the woman took what she believed to be the man’s phone and exited to call the police. The man followed her outside, continued to expose himself, and engaged in a physical altercation with her.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia initially convicted the defendant of lewd, indecent, or obscene acts in violation of D.C. Code § 22-1312 after a bench trial. The conviction was vacated following a post-conviction motion for ineffective assistance of counsel, and a new trial was scheduled. The government’s request to continue the trial, due to the unavailability of the key witness, was granted over the defendant’s objection. At the second trial, the court again found the defendant guilty, concluding that his exposure on the walkway in front of the building—an area open to public view—constituted a violation of the statute.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that D.C. Code § 22-1312 is not limited to conduct occurring on public property; rather, it applies to indecent exposures in any location “in public,” meaning in open view or before the public at large, regardless of property ownership. The court also determined that any error in granting the government’s motion to continue the trial was harmless, as the defendant failed to show prejudice. The conviction was affirmed. View "Flowers v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Police received reports of a group committing robberies or attempted robberies in a white Nissan Rogue that had been reported stolen. Officers tracked the vehicle, observed it being driven recklessly, and saw it crash. Four individuals, including E.A., fled from the car. E.A. was apprehended shortly after the crash, frisked, and found to have a handgun in his sweatshirt pocket. He was subsequently charged with carrying a pistol without a license and possession of an unregistered firearm.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia denied E.A.’s motion to suppress the handgun, finding that officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop and frisk him based on his association with the group suspected of recent robberies and the stolen vehicle, as well as his flight from the crash. The court also concluded that, even if the officers’ actions exceeded the scope of a Terry stop, they had probable cause to arrest E.A. for multiple offenses, justifying a search incident to arrest. E.A. was adjudicated delinquent on both firearms charges and appealed, challenging the denial of his suppression motion.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop and frisk E.A., relying on the collective knowledge from radio dispatches, corroborated by officers’ observations and the circumstances of the stop. The court further held that the officers’ use of handcuffs and drawn weapons did not convert the stop into an arrest, given the safety concerns and flight risk. Therefore, the search and seizure of the handgun did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and the judgment was affirmed. View "In re E.A." on Justia Law

A man was charged with multiple counts of first- and second-degree child sex abuse and related offenses, based on allegations that he repeatedly sexually assaulted his then-girlfriend’s young daughter over a period of nearly two years. The complainant, who was nine to ten years old at the time of the alleged abuse, disclosed the assaults to her mother about ten months after the accused moved out of their home. Upon learning of the allegations, the mother, who was a police officer, recorded a nearly twenty-minute video of her conversation with her daughter, in which the child described the alleged abuse in detail, including some claims not raised at trial and references to uncharged violent conduct. Both the complainant and her mother testified at trial, and the prosecution sought to admit the entire recording as evidence.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia admitted the full recording under the “report-of-rape” rule, over the defendant’s objection, and instructed the jury that the recording was not to be considered for the truth of its contents but rather to show that a report was made and to evaluate the demeanor of the witnesses. The jury found the defendant guilty on several counts, and he was sentenced to 384 months in prison. The defendant appealed, arguing that admitting the entire recording was erroneous and prejudicial.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by admitting the entire recording, as the “report-of-rape” rule only allows for the admission of enough details to show that a report was made, not the full substance or highly prejudicial content. The court found the error was not harmless and reversed the convictions, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Johnson v. United States" on Justia Law

The case concerns an incident in which the appellant shot his longtime friend during an argument over a small debt. The altercation escalated when the appellant, sitting in his car, pointed a gun at the friend and fired three shots, injuring him. The friend fled, and the appellant left the scene, later crashing his car. Police identified and arrested the appellant about six weeks after the shooting. He was indicted for assault with intent to kill and related firearm offenses.During pretrial proceedings in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the appellant notified the court and the government of his intent to raise an insanity defense. He provided notice that his expert, Dr. Lally, would testify that the appellant met the legal standard for insanity, basing his opinion largely on a report by Dr. Grant, which detailed the appellant’s history of severe mental illness and hospitalizations but did not reach a definitive conclusion on insanity. The government argued that the expert notice was insufficient under Rule 16 and moved to preclude Dr. Lally’s testimony. The trial court agreed, finding the notice deficient and, without allowing the appellant an opportunity to cure the issue, barred Dr. Lally from testifying. As a result, the appellant abandoned his insanity defense. The trial proceeded on the issue of guilt, and the jury convicted the appellant of aggravated assault while armed and related offenses, acquitting him of the most serious charge.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the appellant’s expert notice satisfied the requirements of Rule 16 as it existed at the time. The court further found that, even if there had been a deficiency, the trial court’s sanction of precluding the expert was disproportionate and an abuse of discretion, especially since the appellant was not given a chance to cure any perceived defect. The court provisionally vacated the convictions and remanded for a new trial limited to the insanity defense. If the jury finds the appellant not guilty by reason of insanity, the convictions remain vacated; otherwise, the convictions may be reinstated. The court also found no reversible error in the trial court’s handling of the self-defense instruction. View "Farmer v. United States" on Justia Law

A law enforcement agency in the District of Columbia, responsible for supervising individuals on supervised release, imposed GPS monitoring on a supervisee without judicial or Parole Commission authorization. The agency’s internal regulations permitted its officers to unilaterally require GPS monitoring as an administrative sanction, and this practice had been applied to thousands of supervisees over two decades. In this instance, the supervisee was placed on GPS monitoring twice, first for a positive drug test and then for submitting questionable urine samples. Subsequently, police investigating an armed robbery used the agency’s GPS data to identify and locate the supervisee, leading to his arrest and the recovery of stolen property and a firearm.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia reviewed the supervisee’s motion to suppress the GPS evidence and its fruits, following the District of Columbia Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Davis v. United States, 306 A.3d 89 (D.C. 2023), which held that the agency lacked statutory authority to impose GPS monitoring absent judicial or Parole Commission approval, rendering such searches unconstitutional. The government conceded the constitutional violation but argued that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should apply, as the agency reasonably relied on its own regulations. The trial court rejected this argument and granted the suppression motion.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The court held that the exclusionary rule applies because the agency is a law enforcement entity, not a neutral third party like a judge or legislature, and thus should feel the deterrent effect of suppression. The good faith exception does not apply when a law enforcement agency unilaterally authorizes unconstitutional searches based on its own mistaken interpretation of its authority. The court concluded that suppression is warranted to deter systemic constitutional violations. View "United States v. Wells" on Justia Law

In 1999, a twenty-year-old man was involved in a fatal shooting outside a nightclub after his friend was violently attacked by a group. He fired several shots into the crowd, resulting in the death of one of the attackers. He was indicted for first-degree murder and related weapons offenses. After a mistrial, a second jury acquitted him of first-degree murder but convicted him of second-degree murder and two firearm offenses. He was sentenced to twenty-one years to life in prison, and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.More than two decades later, he sought a sentence reduction under the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act (IRAA), arguing that he had matured and was no longer a danger. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia denied his motion, finding he had not shown non-dangerousness or that the interests of justice warranted a reduction. The court weighed heavily his teenage criminal history, prison infractions, and concluded he had a stable, abuse-free childhood, and that no one else was involved in the offense.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion. The court found three significant errors: the trial court failed to consider the mitigating role of third-party attackers in the offense; it incorrectly found the applicant had not experienced childhood sexual abuse, despite clear evidence; and it gave excessive weight to his teenage criminal history, contrary to the IRAA’s purpose. The appellate court held that these errors, in combination, undermined confidence in the trial court’s decision and were not harmless.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated the Superior Court’s order and remanded the case for reconsideration consistent with its opinion. View "Bryant v. United States" on Justia Law

The case concerns an individual who was implicated in a fatal shootout between two rival gangs in a District of Columbia housing complex. The incident resulted in the death of a bystander. The government’s case against the appellant relied on evidence that he was either the mastermind behind the gun battle, the first shooter, or that he armed himself and lay in wait for the confrontation. The trial featured conflicting witness testimony regarding who initiated the shooting and the appellant’s precise role. Ultimately, the appellant was acquitted of second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder but was convicted of voluntary manslaughter while armed and related firearms offenses.After his conviction, the appellant pursued direct appeal, during which the District of Columbia Court of Appeals significantly changed the legal standard for causation in such cases in Fleming v. United States, replacing the “substantial factor” test with a stricter “but-for” causation requirement. The appellant attempted to challenge his conviction based on this new standard, but the appellate court directed him to file a motion under D.C. Code § 23-110 in Superior Court. The Superior Court denied his motion, finding that although he had cause for not raising the issue earlier, he was not prejudiced by the instructional error, as the evidence was deemed sufficient for conviction under the new standard.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion. The appellate court found that the instructional error regarding causation was not harmless and that there was a reasonable probability the jury would not have convicted the appellant if properly instructed under the “but-for” standard. The court vacated the convictions for voluntary manslaughter while armed and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Parker v. United States" on Justia Law

When Riley S. Walls was eighteen, he committed first-degree murder, assault with intent to kill, and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. He received three consecutive sentences totaling forty-five years to life. Now in his 50s, Walls sought a sentence reduction under the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act (IRAA), effectively requesting immediate release. To obtain IRAA relief, movants must demonstrate they are no longer a danger to the community and that the interests of justice warrant a sentence reduction. The trial court and parties agreed that the indeterminate sentencing scheme was applicable.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia partially granted Walls’s IRAA request. The court found that Walls was no longer dangerous and that the interests of justice favored a sentence reduction. However, it determined that Walls was not ready for immediate release and would benefit from further time and support within the correctional system. Consequently, the court reduced Walls’s sentence by ten years, making him eligible for parole in 2027.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case for further consideration. The appellate court found that the trial court erred by basing its decision on the notion that further imprisonment would benefit Walls, which is inconsistent with IRAA’s directives. Additionally, the trial court imposed an illegal sentence by reducing Walls’s indeterminate sentence for first-degree murder to twenty years to life, exceeding the statutory maximum-minimum sentence of fifteen years. The appellate court directed the trial court to reconsider the extent of Walls’s sentence reduction without considering the benefits of further imprisonment and to modify Walls’s sentence in accordance with the indeterminate sentencing guidelines. View "Walls v. United States" on Justia Law