Washington DC Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

A D.C. man has been arrested in connection with dozens of commercial burglaries in Maryland, and authorities say he might be connected to dozens more in the district.

Our D.C. burglary defense lawyers know that while the suspect isn't accused of anything violent, a case like this is high stakes, based on the sheer volume of crimes alleged.

We're dealing essentially with two different crimes here: burglary and theft.

Let's start with burglary, as defined in D.C. Criminal Code 22-801(a) and (b). First-degree burglary deals primarily with dwellings that were occupied by other humans at the time you entered. In this case, we're talking about commercial structures, and in these cases, whether or not they are occupied, it will be considered a second-degree burglary. This charge is still a felony offense, which is punishable by between 2 to 15 years in prison.

Next, we have theft charges. Per D.C. Criminal Code 22-3211 and 22-3212, we know that theft is the taking of another person's property for the suspect's own benefit or for the benefit of some other third party. Penalties for theft are going to depend on the amount of property stolen. Anything over $1,000 will be considered first-degree theft, which is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. If the value is less than $1,000, it's considered a second-degree theft, which is punishable by up to 180 days in jail.

So let's assume this individual is convicted for 12 counts of second-degree burglary and 12 counts of second-degree theft. We would be talking about a potential maximum penalty that would exceed the rest of his life in prison.

With the help of a good lawyer, it's possible many of those charges could be dropped and he may not serve more than probation, if that. It all depends on the weight of the evidence against him.

This case was kick-started by a marked increase in commercial burglary reports earlier this year. For this reason, local police agencies dedicated special resources to solving these cases, which they now say were mostly connected to this one individual, who is on probation for similar crimes in Virginia.

Authorities say he used a flathead screwdriver to gain entry to businesses and office buildings, from which he took cellphones, laptops, computers and other electronic devices. He also reportedly stole gift cards and credit cards, making several purchases from Banana Republic, Victoria's Secret and H&M.

What will be a special hurdle for the defense in these cases is the fact that many of these places that were burglarized were equipped with surveillance cameras. Further, in at least two of the break-ins, witnesses reportedly spotted him and were able to describe his appearance to investigators.

How difficult this evidence will be to overcome will depend on the quality of those videos, as well as the reliability of those witnesses. There is a good chance that a decent attorney could successfully suppress evidence of his prior burglary convictions, as it could prejudice a jury against him, but one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other.

Continue reading "D.C. Burglary Arrest Stems from Dozens of Alleged Crimes" »

The Council for Court Excellence, a watchdog of D.C. courts, is proposing a statute that would require law enforcement to immediately release people who are arrested for non-violent, misdemeanor crimes.

Our D.C. criminal defense lawyers know that this would immediately have the effect of reducing the crowded jails in the District, as well as saving taxpayers' money, police officer's time and defendants' headaches.

The law would be primarily intended for those arrested on offenses like possessing an open container of alcohol or minor incidents of shoplifting.

As written, it would not be applicable for those charged with a felony or domestic violence (regardless of whether it was filed as a misdemeanor or felony) or anyone who is already on parole or probation or who is considered to be a potential flight risk.

A measure like this could ease many burdens for those in D.C. Still, it's important to point out that even if it does pass, we don't want to give people a false sense of relief that a conviction isn't going to mean any jail time. This law would pertain only to the initial arrest period. If you are convicted, a judge could still potentially sentence you to up to a year in jail for a misdemeanor.

The best way to avoid this fate is to avoid the conviction. The best way to do that is to hire a good attorney.

No lawyer can promise you a favorable outcome, but having one in a misdemeanor criminal case can bolster your chances. That's because in misdemeanor cases, unlike felony cases, you aren't automatically entitled to an attorney. That means if you don't seek your own, the court isn't going to assign you one and you'll be left to navigate the system on your own.

We're definitely in favor of a measure like this, which would reduce the amount of hassle a non-violent offender would face. The way it is now, a person arrested for urinating in public would be arrested, sent to jail and might have to wait there for several hours or possibly even several days before receiving a court hearing. Under the new measure, they'd pay a $35 fine and be released. If the person couldn't afford to pay the fine, they would be released to ensure there would be some measure of economic equity among defendants.

The council noted that if District officials adopt the proposal, police officers too would spend far less time and energy jailing people on minor nuisances that could easily be handled with a quick citation or summons.

The chances of this measure passing seem fair. You may recall two years ago that the council passed a measure repealing all criminal penalties for those nabbed driving with expired license plates that were more than a month overdue. The move came after two arrests made headlines: Including a mother with an infant in the back seat and another a Navy lieutenant commander who was detained for hours, locked in a jail cell, fingerprinted and photographed - because their tags had expired.

Continue reading "D.C. Misdemeanor Arrests Should Not Involve Jail Time, Group Says" »

A 47-year-old Virginia man is facing federal conspiracy charges in the death of a young man to whom he had sold drugs and who later died of an overdose.

Our D.C. criminal defense attorneys understand that this kind of case is cropping up more frequently throughout the U.S.

It's worth noting that in D.C., council members recently approved the so-called "Good Samaritan Law," which decriminalizes certain legal offenses for people who are suffering from an overdose or those who call for emergency medical help for someone else who is suffering from one.

Both the Leesburg case and the D.C. law reflect two very different approaches to the failed War on Drugs.

In the Leesburg case, federal prosecutors are alleging that the defendant dealt oxycodone to teenagers in Loudoun County from 2006 through 2012 and that this "conspiracy" ultimately led to the death of a 20-year-old regular customer, who was found dead by his parents in their home three summers ago. The deceased was determined to have suffered from an overdose from injecting oxycodone, which officials say was provided by the defendant. The deceased had been released from a rehabilitation center a day earlier.

The federal conspiracy charge is not a minor one. It carries a minimum penalty of 20 years in prison and a maximum of life in prison without the possibility of parole - the same as murder.

The defendant, who owns a local limousine business, was reported to have for years arrived on high school campuses in one of his limousines and sell to high school students and recent graduates. Customers were reportedly lined up four deep.

The defendant's supply reportedly came from D.C.

However, with this particular instance, the defendant didn't even sell directly to the victim. He sold to two others, who later left five pills for the victim in his parents' mailbox, as a "gift" for returning from rehab.

Four hours later, the victim was dead, a used syringe found at his side.

One of those individuals has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute oxycodone.

Other similar cases abound. In Minnesota, prosecutors in Minneapolis vowed last month to begin filing third-degree murder charges against heroin dealers whose customers suffer a fatal overdose. Heroin overdose deaths in Minneapolis are at an all-time high.

In Tampa, Florida, a suspected drug dealer was recently arrested for third-degree murder in the death of a 21-year-old man following his overdose on oxycodone.

And in Orange County, California, a man suspected of supplying heroin to a 21-year-old woman who later died of an overdose has been charged with murder by local authorities there.

Historically, prosecutors had been reluctant to pursue such charges against dealers because there was always the difficulty of proving how the drugs got to the deceased.

As more of these cases are successful, however, more are being filed - both at the local and the federal level.

In D.C., the recent passage of the Good Samaritan Law is intended to encourage those who witness a person overdosing to call for medical or law enforcement assistance.

The allows that:

• Police who observe "small amounts" of illegal paraphernalia or drugs at the scene of an overdose should not consider these to be crimes either for the person experiencing the overdose or for witnesses who sought help;


• A minor should be provided a limited amount of protection from criminal charges for underage possession of alcohol if he or she experiences an overdose or seeks help for a peer;


• An adult 25 or younger is provided limited protection from criminal charges for supplying a minor with drugs or alcohol if he or she seeks medical assistance for a minor in need of it;


• The possession of naloxone, which is a medication that rapidly reverses the effects of an opiate overdose, and its use by laypersons on individuals who are experiencing an overdose, are from now on decriminalized in D.C.

Continue reading "D.C. Drug Overdoses Prompt Mix of Murder Charges, Mercy" »

Pro-gun activists are rallying for a July 4 march across the Memorial Bridge, down Independence Avenue and through the Capitol, and past the U.S. Supreme Court and White House.

And they plan to do this shouldering loaded rifles.

Our D.C. criminal defense attorneys understand this is a measure intended to protest a perceived assault on gun rights.

Where these estimated 1,000 to 10,000-plus activists plan to start their march, on the Virginia side of the Potomac, there may not be much of an issue, as gun laws there are relatively lax.

However, in crossing over the bridge and into D.C., they may be setting themselves up for trouble.

In D.C., as in most other places, it's illegal for people convicted of a felony to be in possession of a firearm or to possess an unregistered firearm or to carry a pistol without a license.

But even assuming everyone involved in the march has a clean criminal record, has a registered firearm and a license, he or she could still face criminal charges in D.C.

In fact, D.C. Metro Police Chief Cathy Lanier warned that if protestors violate the district's gun laws - which prohibit open carry - they will be arrested.

The District is in the company of only three states in banning open carry of handguns outright. Thirty-five states expressly allow it.

However, the District does permit open carry of long guns - that is, rifles or shot guns - in public. But if those long rifles are loaded, it's a different story.

Event organizer Adam Kokesh is an Iraq War veteran, radio host and libertarian. He said he has put the police department "on notice" of his intentions, adding that "We would rather die on our feet than live on our knees."

Kokesh was discharged from the military six years ago, after engaging in political activity while in uniform. While we certainly admire the spirit in which the protest is intended, we have concerns that this won't end well.

Organizers have yet to file a permit or make direct contact with the Metro Police, though Lanier said her agency intends to reach out to the organizers to make them understand what needs to be done in order to be in compliance with the law.

"Passing into the District of Columbia with loaded firearms is a violation of the law, and we'll have to treat it as such," Lanier was quoted as saying.

Kokesh has said that anyone involved in the protest should respectfully submit to arrest without resistance if he or she is approached "respectfully" by police.

He didn't provide an alternative for action if protesters were met by an officer who approached disrespectfully. He has also been quoted as saying that it won't be violent "unless the government makes it violent."

In a recent Twitter post, Kokesh also said that if the government attempted to take the people's guns, they would have two choices. Either, "shoot government agents, or submit to slavery."

So far, 2,000 people have pledged to attend this march. We would encourage each of them to first be educated on the gun laws in D.C. before openly carrying them.

If you are arrested, immediately seek the counsel of an experienced criminal defense lawyer.

Continue reading "D.C. Weapons Charges Could Result From Activists' Capitol March" »

Had the three suspects who allegedly attacked the 30-year-old husband and father simply stolen his wallet, cell phone and keys, as was allegedly the primary motivation, they may not now be facing decades in prison.

However, our D.C. criminal defense lawyers know that when one of the defendants reportedly brought and used an aluminum bat to the scene, it became a whole new ballgame.

One of those defendants is facing 13 serious felony charges, including armed robbery and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Prosecutors say the three men, ages 17 to 22, had hatched plan to commit a series of robberies near Capitol Hill last summer.

The alleged victim was among the first, and was walking home after having had some drinks with friends following a Nationals baseball game. It was about 1 a.m.

When the three man rushed up to him, the victim reportedly put up his hands, told them he had only a phone and a bank card, which he handed over. As he turned to walk away, the 17-year-old reportedly struck the victim with the but of BB gun.

The victim began to stagger, dazed from the impact. That's when prosecutors say the 22-year-old suspect took his baseball bat and began beating the victim about the head.

They then left him there, taking his nearby vehicle.

The victim wasn't discovered until nearly 8 a.m. the next day. He was unconscious. His skull had been smashed.

Surgeons say he underwent a number of procedures, but has been left permanently brain-damaged.

The 22-year-old defendant is suspected to be the ring-leader. The 17-year-old defendant is believed to have been concerned about the blood he might get on his new shoes.

The 19-year-old defendant, who pleaded guilty and has agreed to testify against both of them, has said that he began to feel an incredible sense of guilt as he thumbed through the photos of the victim's young child on his stolen iPhone.

The 22-year-old defendant is the first to go on trial.

In Washington D.C., robbery includes three basic elements. There is first the element of violence or force. Then, there is the element that is taking something of value. And finally, the item needs to be taken directly from that person.

Under these circumstances alone, it's a felony under D.C. Criminal Code 22-2801. As such, it's punishable by a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 15 years in prison.

Depending on the circumstances surrounding the offense and whether you have any prior criminal history, that minimum sentence could be boosted to anywhere between 5 to years.

If, however, a weapon is used - and that doesn't have to be a gun - it becomes an armed robbery, in which case the maximum sentence becomes 30 years.

Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon may be equally serious.

In order to prove this crime under D.C. Criminal Code 22-402, prosecutors have to establish each of the following elements:

• The defendant injured or attempted to injure or threatened to injure another person by force or violence;


• That the defendant acted on purpose and voluntarily;


• That the defendant had the actual ability to injure the person;


• That the defendant committed this act with a dangerous weapon.

Given the severity of injuries in this case, the prosecution may have at some point also mulled a possible attempted homicide charge. It's not clear why such a charge was not filed in this case.

Anyone who is arrested on charges of robbery or aggravated assault in D.C. should immediately contact an experienced criminal defense attorney.

Continue reading "D.C. Robbery, Assault Defendants Face Decades Behind Bars" »

A man suspected of a 30-year-old D.C. sexual assault was recently convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

The 64-year-old defendant is alleged to have attacked the 25-year-old victim outside of her home after she returned from work.

Our D.C. criminal defense lawyers know that the kind of tactics employed in rape cases back when this happened in 1978 have evolved significantly - most notably with the advent of DNA.

In fact, that's what ultimately solved this cold case, which had been inactive until it was re-opened by the department's cold case unit in 2011. By that time, the defendant had been convicted of a burglary and sexual battery in Florida in 1999, so his DNA was entered into CODIS, which is the national DNA-tracking database. A swab taken from the victim back in 1978 matched the defendant.

Because of the kinds of changes that have occurred in these particular investigations over the last 20 years, the U.S. Department of Justice, back in 2004, issued national guidelines for forensic medical examinations in cases of sexual assault.

Now, the agency has updated those guidelines in its April 2013 National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations for both adults and adolescents, the second edition.

At their core, the guidelines attempt to create uniformity among medical facilities, law enforcement agencies and prosecutors with regard to how sexual assault cases are approached.

A spokeswoman for the agency was quoted as saying that the biggest difference between this newer version and the original is that it takes a less prosecutorial tone. While the emphasis had previously been on pressuring the victim to cooperate with law enforcers to provide DNA samples, statements and other evidence, this new approach focuses on ensuring the mental health and well-being of the alleged victim.

In the immediate, this may seem to not affect defendants one way or another. But in fact, it does.

To begin with, an accuser who is reluctant may be hasty in revealing certain information or evidence that could be relevant to the investigation. This could potentially result in a mistaken witness identity or other issues that could later be problematic for the case.

Also, putting less pressure on accusers reduces the chances that false accusations may quickly spiral into an out-of-control situation, which the accuser may feel powerless to stop after a certain point.

Additionally, any delay in evidence collection may favor the defendant.

The other key thing this publication does is provide uniform approaches to forensic testing. That can be beneficial for defendants in a number of ways.

For one thing, it helps to ensure that defendants in districts that may have access to fewer resources won't be treated unfairly just because the testing standards aren't up to par.

Secondly, if those testing protocol are breached, it gives defense lawyers a good opportunity to challenge that evidence.

For example, one of the guidelines stresses the importance of secure storage sites for evidence that is potentially vulnerable to degradation. So let's say we're talking about a sample of wet blood or semen. These kinds of evidence require refrigeration. Urine, meanwhile, would ideally be frozen. There is also the expectation that the individuals working with samples be well-trained and knowledgeable about the potential vulnerabilities of such evidence. When the evidence is being transferred from one facility or location to another, there is the expectation that it will at all times remain preserved throughout the process.

If at any point there was a breach in the storage or if those who handled the evidence aren't as well trained as perhaps they should be, our defense attorneys won't hesitate to challenge the integrity of the evidence on that basis.

Continue reading "D.C. Defense Lawyers Review New Rape Investigation Guidelines" »

Back in the spring of 1998, two young brothers, twins, were gearing up for graduation with political science degrees. They had plans to attend law school together, and from their go into practice with one another.

It was not to be.

Our D.C. criminal defense lawyers understand that the two were swept up in a wave of anti-drug sentiment, accompanied by harsh drug laws that unfairly targeted and punished young, minority males.

Their mother was recently profiled in The Washington Post for activism efforts to educate the community on unfair sentencing laws and other aspects of the D.C. criminal justice system.

It started when a nearby auto repair shop business owner had confessed to dealing drugs. He implicated the twins in a conspiracy plot that involved some 500 grams of crack cocaine and 10 kilos of the powder form of the drug.

U.S. Marshals arrived at the door of the home the two shared. The home was searched. There were no drugs. There was no money.

And yet, the two were convicted in a joint trial, with one receiving 15.5 years and the other receiving 19.5 years.

The drug dealer who had implicated them? The stiff anti-drug laws in the 1980s meant that his "substantial assistance" to the government in those cases meant he got a major break on his own sentence.

Laws governing the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine crimes were handed down back when the crack epidemic was sweeping the country.

Despite the fact that these two were college-educated, had no criminal backgrounds, the evidence against them slim and the witness against them questionable, the minimum mandatory guidelines meant they would not walk out of prison in under 15 years.

There was a law passed in 1994 that would have allowed for significantly-reduced sentences for offenders who committed first-time crimes. However, that would have required that the brothers give information that was "complete and truthful," according to the government's definition. Problem was, the brothers had always maintained that the truth was, they were innocent.

The twins' mother decided she could not rest until wrongs like this were righted. Not only did she want her sons free, but she wanted to ensure such unfair sentencing wouldn't continue to hurt others in the future.

She told her story over and over again - with the Open Society Institute, the Justice Policy Alliance and the Sentencing Project. She joined Families Against Mandatory Minimums. She lobbied Congress for a change in the laws. She hosted her own online radio program from her kitchen, detailing all the injustices of the day stemming from minimum mandatory guidelines.

Then, in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal judges should not be subjected to mandatory sentencing guidelines. Two years later, another legislative tweak in the law with regard to crack cocaine sentencing meant that her sons were able to have their sentenced reduced by 3 and 4 years respectively.

But it wasn't until 2010 that Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which put sentencing for crack cocaine offenses more in line with others of equal caliber.

By that time, however, one of the twins was already at home and another was soon to arrive.

Now, the pair are working to rebuild their lives. They have found jobs. They are slowly trying to pick up the pieces.

Meanwhile, their mother continues their activism, refusing to shy away now that her sons have returned.

We applaud her continued dedication.

While the sentencing laws have changed dramatically, drug offenses still carry significant weight. Hiring an experienced lawyer is critical in these cases, where you could still potentially be facing years behind bars.

Continue reading "D.C. Drug Sentence Minimums Fought by Mom of Convicted Twins" »

A defense lawyer for a D.C.-area landlord facing felony voyeurism charges was able to negotiate a plea deal to have those charges reduced to three misdemeanor charges of visual surveillance with prurient intent.

The highly-educated landlord/attorney was accused of installing video cameras in the smoke detectors of private apartments he rented to young women.

Our D.C. criminal defense lawyers know that it will be the difference between a maximum 18 months and three years in jail (15 years if those recordings had been disseminated).

According to the Washington Post, this incident happened in the Chevy Chase neighborhood of Maryland, just a half hour north of D.C.

Reports are that he leased rooms in a house to young women at significantly reduced rates. At some point, he had cameras installed in their bedrooms, usually in the smoke detector. He then reportedly watched that video from another location, copying recordings of the women in various states of undress or engaging in sexual activity.

This allegedly went on for years until one of the tenants happened to be reading an article about ways in which people hide surveillance cameras. The article noted smoke detectors.

She became concerned when she realized her own smoke detector didn't beep as it normally should during a power outage. She called her boyfriend over to help her look at it. That is when they reportedly discovered the camera, with wires that lead through the ceiling. The police were called.

Investigators found similar recording devices in the other units. While searching the defendant's home, they discovered video and photographs of all three tenants engaged in sexual activity.

The defendant initially faced seven counts each of using a camera without consent for prurient intent and visual surveillance without consent, as well as a single count of placement of a surreptitious surveillance device. He later agreed to plead guilty to the three misdemeanor counts, on the condition that the other, more serious charges be dropped.

The most he faces now is 18 months behind bars. He will learn his fate at a sentencing hearing this summer.

He is free on bond in the meantime, with conditions on that freedom, including that he is forbidden from advertising the lease of rooms in his home. He is also to continue to receive treatment, with reports of that treatment being forwarded to the judge prior to his sentencing.

Two of the women have already filed civil lawsuits against the defendant as well. With the criminal case still pending, he reportedly sent them a private text message, prior to their filing, saying he was willing to discuss settlement options with them before they filed civil claims, but not afterward.

Being an attorney, he should have known better than to contact witnesses in a pending criminal case. He is fortunate he wasn't charged additionally with witness tampering, even though his offer relates to the civil case.

Continue reading "D.C.-Area Felony Voyeurism Charges Reduced to Misdemeanors" »

A Maryland man recently pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from an interstate prostitution ring that reportedly involved some 100 women who were transported to work in D.C., Maryland, Virginia and other surrounding states between 2009 and 2012.

Our D.C. criminal defense defense lawyers know that cases like this, whether charged federally or at the district or state level, are going to be serious because more often, they are viewed through the lens of human trafficking. That means that while the sex worker, frequently viewed now as a victim, will face less serious charges, if any at all, those who organize the operation could end up facing serious felonies.

In this case, the individual admitted to his role in recruiting foreign nationals for prostitution, promoting the operation through the distribution of business cards at various Spanish restaurants, construction sites and day labor operations, personally transporting the women to various locations for the purposes of engaging in sex work and collecting a substantial portion of the proceeds.

He faces up to five years in prison, though it is expected as a Mexican citizen, he will be deported following the completion of his sentence. It will be the third time he has been deported from the U.S.

In D.C., a boom of major construction projects downtown has resulted in an increase of prostitution arrests, according to Metro police. Investigators say that while most prostitution activity takes place between midnight and 5 a.m., a recent surge was being observed around 3:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m., which correlates to the changes in construction workers' shifts.

Police said that while prostitution had been a major issue in D.C. back in the 1970s, it hadn't been since - until recently.

A sex worker who is charged with prostitution under D.C. criminal code will face up to three months in jail and a $500 fine for a first-time offense. Rarely will a person actually receive that much, especially if your attorney can prove you were a victim. Second-time offenders face up to 135 days in jail and a fine of up to $750. Third and subsequent offenders face up to 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

There are many options for diversion programs for sex workers. Even though these are misdemeanor charges, it is wise to obtain the services of a skilled attorney, who can help to significantly reduce or eliminate your chances of jail time and hefty fines.

Those facing human trafficking charges, more commonly referred to as "pimps," are often facing felony charges. They may be granted a public defender to their case, but seeking out an attorney with specific experience in handling these types of cases is critical. This is particularly true if any of the sex workers whose services you allegedly sold were under the age of 18. In cases such as that, under D.C. Criminal Code 22-2704, you would be facing up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $20,000.

Continue reading "D.C. Prostitution Ring Results in Federal Conviction, Possible Deportation" »

Initially charged with second-degree murder following the death of her husband, a woman was released from jail and into a lower-security halfway house by a D.C. Superior Court judge who found there was substantial evidence the slaying may have instead been an act of self-defense.

The charge she now faces is voluntary manslaughter.

Washington D.C. criminal defense attorneys know it is a rare move for a judge to reduce the charges prior to trial, and it speaks to the strength of evidence in the case.

Family members told reporters that the suspect, a local pharmacist, had been fighting extensively with her husband of four years in recent weeks.

On the night in question, the pair were allegedly arguing about the husband's change in his Facebook status to "separated." The wife had been staying elsewhere when the husband called and asked her to return to the home and talk. There, a series of fights erupted. The suspect's sister said she received a call that night and described her sister's demeanor as "frightened."

About two hours later, the wife called 911 to report her husband had gotten violent, so she shot him. First responders arrived to find the husband had been shot in the back of the head.

The woman would later tell investigators that at one point, her husband picked up a pistol and placed it on the TV stand in the living room. He then walked away and she said she picked up the weapon. He then lunged at her, she said, and she fired the gun three times.

She conceded he hadn't hit her that night or threatened to do so, but he had in the past.

Investigators reportedly found three other firearms in the home, none of which were registered to either the husband or wife.

In a later hearing, the woman's defense attorney revealed to the judge that his client had been battered repeatedly by her husband over the course of the marriage, but she had never called police because he had expressed a desire to enter politics, and she wanted to protect his future career.

Still, prosecutors were planning to elevate the charge to first-degree murder when the judge ordered it to be reduced to voluntary manslaughter. The primary difference between these two charges under D.C. law is the presence of adequate provocation.

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought. That is, you had ill will and/or "wickedness of heart," and the act was deliberate and premeditated.

Voluntary manslaughter, meanwhile, is an intentional killing, but it is one with adequate provocation. One example that is given is if a wife returns home to find her husband in bed with her best friend and in a moment of sudden and intense fury, she kills both of them, she would be charged with voluntary manslaughter. The charge implies the person is still culpable, but had little time to reflect or plan the crime.

Involuntary manslaughter, meanwhile, is when a death is caused by criminal negligence. That is, the death was entirely unintentional, but still caused by the failure to exercise an appropriate degree of care.

While a person convicted of murder may serve up to life in prison, a person found guilty of manslaughter may serve up to 30 years. If you are facing charges in any capacity in the death of another person, you need to seek experienced legal representation.

Continue reading "D.C. Murder Suspect Presents Strong Case for Self-Defense" »

Our D.C. criminal defense lawyers have been watching closely the developments out of California, Colorado and Washington State, as medical marijuana dispensaries in D.C. were gearing up for an opening following many months of legal wrangling.

Now, the very first one - Capital City Care - is set to open its doors this month, according to The Washington Post.

Dispensary operators say they have invested a great deal of funding on security cameras and other protections to minimize the chances of a robbery or other problems that might be associated with a storefront provider of medical marijuana.

Of course, the biggest problem is the fact that marijuana remains illegal under federal law, which makes no distinction or exception for medicinal purposes. The Department of Justice has been ruthless in its pursuit of charges against dispensaries in California. It's hard to imagine officials will go easy on facilities here on their own turf.

But more than simply the concern for the operators of the facility are potential issues for patients and recreational users. While federal authorities haven't historically gone after patients with any great vigor, it's certainly not unheard of. In addition to arrests for possession or cultivation, patients have faced hurdles with child custody and even their jobs as a result of their use.

In some cases, they have been arrested for DUI after the drug was found in their system, despite having a prescription and despite ample proof that unlike alcohol, presence of marijuana in the system is not a positive indicator of intoxication, due to the amount of time the drug takes to cycle through the bloodstream.

The drug-related activities of recreational users, of course, are not protected under D.C. law.

D.C. Code 48-904-01 holds that simple possession of marijuana in D.C. is a misdemeanor, carrying a first-time conviction penalty of 180 days behind bars and a $1,000 fine. Second or subsequent convictions will result in doubled penalties.

One of the better case scenarios for a first-time conviction is a withholding of adjudication in exchange for successful completion of a year-long probation stint.

But if you are consuming marijuana as a patient, you have every right to transport your medicine from your provider to your home and to consume it as directed by your physician. Our D.C. criminal defense lawyers are ready to aggressively defend your rights, should authorities attempt to circumvent them.

D.C. legalized the drug in 2010, but no dispensaries were eager to dive head-first into anything, even though there are currently 17 states that have approved the plant for medicinal consumption. We can attribute that in no small part due to the fact that more than 100 dispensaries were shuttered by federal officials last year, either through raids or forfeiture threats.

District rules will grant allowances to patients with certain conditions, such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma and HIV/AIDS to purchase up to 2 ounces of the drug monthly. Prices haven't yet been set, but it's expected half an ounce will cost anywhere from $200 to $240.

In addition to marijuana, the store will also sell grams of hash, and accessories such as vaporizers, grinders and pipes. Eventually, the dispensary operator is hoping to offer marijuana-laced baked goods, such as muffins and cookies.

Continue reading "First D.C. Medical Marijuana Clinic to Open This Month" »

Fighting back against red light camera traffic ticket in D.C. can prove challenging. It's essentially your word against the snapshot on the camera.

But our D.C. traffic defense attorneys know that the reality is, most of them aren't challenged because most people mistakenly believe they have zero chance. The $21 million the district raked in just in February as evidence of how few people even bother.

However, a recent ruling made by an Ohio judge regarding the controversial devices has set an interesting precedent that could potentially influence the way future challenges are approached in other areas.

In a small village of Elmwood Place, just outside of Cincinnati, a judge ruled that the speed camera ordinance there amounted to a constitutional violation. Specifically, he ruled, the cameras were an infringement on the 5th Amendment right to due process. His reasoning was that defendants in these cases are not given the chance to contest the maintenance of the cameras or their effectiveness.

Although the speed camera program has been controversial, challenges of violations have been spotty throughout the country. What this case shows is that it is possible to successfully challenge them, even here in the Washington area.

Since the District's fiscal year began in October, the city has pulled in nearly $50 million from traffic camera enforcement operations. That is a nearly 70 percent increase from the amount collected by this time last year, when nearly $30 million had been collected.

In January, the cameras had raked in about $26 million - 113 percent more than the $12 million received from the program in January 2012.

Officials say public safety is the main goal, but clearly, the city has a clear profitable interest in keeping these cameras operational.

A few proposals by council earlier this year would reportedly reduce the chances that a person would get a ticket. For example, one councilman has proposed that the yellow traffic signals match the recognized national standard for length, so as to ensure the district isn't manipulating the signals just to generate revenue.

Given the amount the district is collecting each month, there is little confidence that that isn't already happening.

In the Ohio ruling, the judge called the cameras a scam that drivers can't win because the case tends to be stacked against the defendant.

However, in Maryland recently, an attorney who was representing himself in a speed camera ticket case argued that the police couldn't put a camera too far from a residential zone. He was successful, and later told a reporter he believed everyone should be challenging these cases in court.

So do we.

It's worth noting that a Metropolitan Police Sergeant, who had previously tried to convince traffic officials to rescind some 100,000 speed citations he said weren't valid because the speed cameras weren't reliable, was successful in challenging his own case in court. In that case, the hearing officer agreed that the speed limit was improperly enforced near the Third Street Tunnel. The matter was being referred for a review by the Department of Motor Vehicles to determine whether thousands of tickets should be rescinded.

Continue reading "D.C. Traffic Ticket Defense: Red Light Cameras Called "Scam" By Judge" »

When U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. was recently summonsed to jury duty, the case for which he was a potential juror was a cell phone theft.

Our D.C. criminal defense attorneys know that cell phone theft is far and away one of the most frequently-reported crimes in the District.

Last year marked a record in the country for number of smart phone thefts. According to CNBC, approximately 113 smart phones are stolen every minute. That amounts to 160,000 daily or approximately 30 million annually. And that number is rising sharply.

In New York City, smartphone thefts accounted for 40 percent of all robberies in 2011. Unlike theft of cell phones, which will generally be charged as misdemeanors because their value is under $1,000, robbery of a cell phone in D.C. - that is, physically strong-arming or demanding it from another person's possession - is a felony. It's punishable by between 2 and 15 years in prison. If you use a gun, your maximum sentenced is upped to 30 years behind bars. If you have a prior criminal record, you could serve a minimum of 5 to 10 years.

This is no minor matter.

Still, law enforcement officials tend to have a tough time tracking culprits, so only a percentage actually end up in court and even fewer are convicted.

But lately, it seems law enforcement and prosecutors are stepping up their effort. In the past several weeks, Metro police have reported nearly a dozen cell phone thefts that have led to arrests.

Ensuring you have a skilled and experienced attorney can put a significant distance between you and that jail cell.

Among the recent cases was a robbery in which a man was walking along Alabama Avenue SE around 7 p.m., sending a text message as he walked, when he was approached by two individuals who demanded his phone. When he refused, the two allegedly beat him and then took both his phone and his wallet. The two suspects were soon apprehended and charged with robbery by force.

There were several incidents near Capitol Hill that mirrored this same method. A man walking on Constitution Avenue NE was approached by a group of people who demanded his phone. When he refused, he was reportedly punched in the face and robbed.

Same thing happened the next day on Pennsylvania Avenue SE. The next day, two teens were arrested on charges of robbery by force.

So there is no question these incidents occur. The question is in ensuring police have the correct suspect. That's not easy.

True, a lot of these phones are equipped with tracking devices. However, those safeguards can often be turned off or don't work if the phone is turned off.

And usually, those who steal the devices aren't trying to keep them anyway. Resale value for the phones is around $200 each.

But keep in mind, if you are caught with a stolen phone, you could be charged with receiving stolen property - even if you didn't know the phone was stolen. Under D.C. Criminal Code 22-3232, this is a felony offense if the value of the item is $250 or more. It's quite possible a cell phone could be. In these cases, you would face up to 7 years in prison. If on the other hand the value of the property is less than $250, it's a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a 180 days in jail.

Continue reading "D.C. Cell Phone Theft Arrests Increasingly Commonplace" »

A 26-year-old man lost his court battle against numerous D.C. criminal charges, including aggravated assault with intent to kill, assault with a dangerous weapon, aggravated assault while armed and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence.

Our D.C. criminal defense attorneys know that his recent conviction could result in a sentence of several decades behind bars, despite the fact that all three men who were shot survived the alleged attack.

His sentence won't be handed down until summer.

Prosecutors contend that in the summer of 2010, the defendant had arranged the purchase of a large quantity of marijuana. He met three men in a parking lot on 8th Street NW. One man handed over the drugs. An argument reportedly followed, and the suspect in turn allegedly fired at all three at point-blank range, prosecutors said.

All recovered, though two were seriously injured. Officers who were working a detail at a nearby nightclub heard the gunshots and responded.

While cases like this might seem somewhat straightforward, they can actually be quite problematic for prosecutors.

For one thing, none of the three men who were there that evening really knew the man they were meeting. They knew him only by a street name. They had a phone number, but that only led police to a prepaid cell phone.

Detectives ended up showing a series of mug shots to the alleged victims in a photo line-up, and two of the three ended up identifying the suspect. It's worth noting that just last month, a local task force created by the DC. Superior Court chief judge recommended that Metro police alter the way they conduct lineups of suspects. In the future, lineups are to be conducted with computers - not staff associated with a particular case. The idea is to prevent potential influencing of the witness, has been known to happen routinely in previous cases.

This particular line-up was conducted before that directive was handed down.

When a client of ours is facing charges as serious as these, we work to analyze the case from all aspects - from the most minute detail of fact as to how the incident unfolded, down to even the most obscure legal technicalities.

There are two ways prosecutors can prove aggravated assault, as described in D.C. Criminal Code 22-404.01. The first is to show that the defendant either knowingly or purposely caused serious bodily injury to another person. The other is to show that amid circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, you knowingly or intentionally engaged in conduct or an action that created a grave risk of bodily injury to another person and through this action, you did indeed cause serious bodily injury. For someone to have suffered the legal definition of serious bodily injury requires that the person was at risk of death, or suffered unconsciousness, a great deal of physical pain, disfigurement or loss or impairment of a body part or organ.

This is a felony charge, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and/or a $10,000 fine.

Assault with a deadly weapon, as spelled out in D.C. Criminal Code 22-402, is similar, except it doesn't require that the person have suffered any serious injury and it does require that you carried out the act with a deadly weapon, such as a firearm. A conviction on this charge is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Continue reading "D.C. Shooting in Drug Robbery Could Result in Decades in Prison" »

The arrest of a D.C. Uber limousine driver, accused of raping a young customer, drew international attention, primarily for the fact that it involved a relatively new transportation service.

However, our D.C. sex crimes defense attorneys know that when it came down to pressing forward with charges, prosecutors just didn't believe it all added up.

It's a rare move for prosecutors, who almost always move forward on criminal cases based on the investigation of law enforcement. But there was an apparent lack of communication between the two agencies, given that police officials were announcing the criminal charges at a news conference outside headquarters at virtually the same time an official for the U.S. attorney's office held a similar press conference announcing no charges would be filed.

The driver was released soon thereafter.

The case is still reportedly under investigation, but according to the wife of the driver, who spoke to reporters, the accuser had made sexual advances toward the driver. It's not clear whether or not any sexual contact did in fact take place, but the woman's mother reportedly questioned her about what had occurred, and at that time, the woman reportedly falsely claimed she had been attacked.

Reports are that the 20-year-old accuser called Uber from a local bar, where she had reportedly consumed three alcoholic drinks and smoked a marijuana joint. The woman told police that after the driver had picked her up, he made several sexual advances toward her. She said she attempted to ignore them, but said as she got out of the vehicle, she said the driver grabbed her from behind, knocked her to the ground and then raped her.

A DNA test was done, but there has been no information provided as to what the results of those tests were.

During the police news conference, it was announced that the driver would be charged with first-degree sexual abuse. This charge, as found under D.C. Criminal Code 22-2002 and D.C. Criminal Code 22-3020, holds that sexual contact took place either by force or threat or in a situation in which one of those involved would not have been able to consent, usually due to some type of impairment. This is a deeply serious charge that carries a maximum of 30 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. The situation is worsened if prosecutors are able to show that there was some type of aggravating circumstance, such as the victim suffering a serious bodily injury.

Even if the ordeal is totally behind the driver, he has already lost his job, his employer having fired him after the allegation was made several months ago.

While we don't know what prompted prosecutors to reach the conclusion we did, there are several possibilities. One would be that the accused was not a reliable witness. She was certainly intoxicated to some degree, and there may be other credibility issues we don't yet know about. Secondly, the DNA tests might not have returned results that would have assisted the prosecution in its case. A lack of that in a case that was supposedly so cut-and-dry would really hurt the prosecutor's chance of success. And finally, there is the possibility that it simply wasn't true, and all the facts proved that before it ever got to to the arraignment stage.

Continue reading "D.C. Rape Charges Dropped Amid Clash With Prosecutors, Police" »