Washington DC Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Over the course of a decade, a few hundred dollars pocketed from her employer here and there probably didn't seem like much.

But federal prosecutors say over time, those amounts added up to $650,000, ultimately resulting in the long-time employee, the corporate comptroller, pleading guilty to mail fraud for embezzlement.

D.C. criminal defense lawyers do know that while this case was resolved in federal court, many embezzlement cases are handled in district courts. There, the crime of embezzlement actually falls under the broader umbrella of theft, which is spelled out in D.C. Criminal Code 22-3212. In these cases, it is not necessarily from whom you allegedly stole money but how much and in what way.

For example, first-degree theft is charged when the total value of heisted money or property is over $1,000. This charge carries a maximum fine of $5,000 and a maximum prison sentence of 10 years. Second-degree theft is for any amount under $1,000, and maximum jail time for this is 180 days, with fines of up to $1,000.

Additionally, if you knowingly misrepresent either yourself or hide the truth in order to cause another person to act to his or her detriment, that is charged as fraud.

While there is no specific element in the D.C. criminal code for additional punishment of an employee who steals from an employer, the courts may impose harsher penalties than they might otherwise if you were considered to be in a position of trust.

In this case, the 55-year-old employee, who had worked at the company since 1982, was considered to be in a position of trust. As the comptroller, she was responsible for the oversight of accounting, budget matters and accounts payable and receivable.

She reportedly committed the theft in a number of ways:

• By diverting the restaurant company's money to directly pay off her own personal credit card;


• Charging corporate credit cards for personal expenses the company had not authorized;


• Using restaurant vendors, paid by the restaurant, to obtain goods for her personal use.

In building a case against her, prosecutors were able to show that the defendant attempted to conceal her activities by asking vendors to alter invoices, creating phony e-mail messages and categorizing certain personal credit card expenses as being for corporate training. When the company began conducting an audit last year, she reportedly created a false corporate credit card statement so that the items that weren't authorized business expenses wouldn't be reflected.

One of the ways that a skilled defense attorney can help a person facing theft or embezzlement charges is by first having the charges consolidated. Often, prosecutors will stack multiple theft charges against a person, counting each individual act of theft as a separate incident. Experienced defense attorneys can usually have those consolidated as being each connected to a singular scheme, and therefore reduced to a singular charge.

Cases of white collar crime, such as this, require an attorney who understands both the legal process and the field of accounting and finance.

Continue reading "Restaurant Comptroller Pleads Guilty to $650k Embezzlement in D.C." »

The robbery of cell phones is certainly not an uncommon crime in Washington D.C. these days.

However, D.C. criminal defense lawyers understand that the description of one of the suspects caused quite a stir: A 6 or 7-year-old boy, standing about 4 feet tall and weighing 100 pounds. He would be in first grade.

The victim was reportedly approached by a group of young people between the ages of 6 and 14 years-old.

There is no doubt that juveniles are increasingly being charged as adults for serious, felony crimes - including robbery. According to D.C. Criminal Code 22-2801 and D.C. Criminal Code 22-4502, robbery is is punishable by between 2 to 15 years in prison - assuming you haven't used a firearm, in which case the maximum doubles to 30 years in prison. If a person has a prior record, a minimum mandatory of between 5 or 10 years could be imposed.

But that's only if the the juvenile were charged as an adult.

The juvenile system works differently. The ultimate goal of the juvenile justice system is diversion, whereas the adult justice system centers on punishment. The idea is that a juvenile is more likely than an adult to turn his or her life around.

Recent Supreme Court decisions have determined that even when a juvenile is charged as an adult for a serious crime, he or she can not be sentenced to death or life in prison, as an adult would for the same crime.

Prosecutors use a number of factors to determine whether a juvenile defendant should be tried as an adult or a juvenile. For the most part, it comes down to the nature of the crime and the age of the juvenile. There is no question that a 17-year-old who commits robbery is going to be treated differently than a 6-year-old.

In fact, for any child under the age of 10, a juvenile defense lawyer may be able to make a strong case that the child did not understand right from wrong - particularly if he or she was under the influence or pressure from older peers.

According to the federal Office of Juvenile Justice, about 7 percent of the 1.5 million juvenile cases handled each year involve children under the age of 12. That amounts to about 110,000 total in the country. The vast majority of those cases are going to result in diversion programs.

The D.C. Deputy Attorney, quoted by The Washington Post with regard to the 6-year-old suspect, said that while it is unusual, it is not unprecedented. He said children as young as 8 years-old have been prosecuted for kidnapping, sex offenses, theft and assault.

The majority of juvenile offenses, however, are non-violent (about 70 percent). This case, although a felony, was not reported to be a violent crime, but rather a robbery by snatching.

Police are still cautiously vetting the information they received, as the victims were reportedly in the neighborhood to purchase drugs and had stopped at a fast food restaurant when they were reportedly robbed by the youths.

Continue reading "D.C. Cops Search for 6-Year-Old Robbery Suspect" »

It seems the Metro Police Department has some credibility issues.

Washington D.C. criminal defense lawyers understand that in the past 3.5 years, more than 90 police officers - ranging from captains to patrol officers - have been arrested.

This might possibly work to the advantage of those facing criminal charges in D.C. An officer's internal record is considered public, and defense attorneys can access it if deemed relevant to the case at hand.

It's not that we think those who have been arrested are not trustworthy. But the issue is that the primary function of a police officer is to uphold the law. Right or wrong, we as a society hold police officers to a higher standard. When an officer is unable to uphold the law in his or her personal life, we as defense attorneys have a right to question his or her credibility on the job when pertinent to the case at hand.

As a theoretical example, let's say a detective is called to testify in a sexual assault case. Jurors tend to give a greater weight to the testimony of police officers because of their position of authority and sworn oath to uphold the law. However, let's say that detective got a DUI or was arrested for drug possession around the same time the investigation was ongoing. How can we trust the evidence this officer is presenting when we know he or she is known to be a substance abuser?

The Washington Examiner's analysis of arrest data of police officers reveals that some officers were event cuffed for serious offenses.

For example:

• A detective was arrested in the summer of 2011 after he was accused of murdering his girlfriend and their 1-year-old daughter;
• That same summer, an officer was incited on nine counts of sexual abuse involving three women;
• Several weeks ago, a captain was arrested and charged with assault after he reportedly choked his wife in the back of a sport utility vehicle.

Now, it's not likely these officers will be able to hang onto their jobs, but others who have been arrested - and even convicted - most certainly have.

Here's the year-by-year breakdown:

• 2009 - 26 officers arrested
• 2010 - 17 officers arrested
• 2011 - 29 officers arrested
• 2012 - 19 officers arrested (to date)

What's more, this appears to be a problem that is quite unique to D.C. When you look at Philadelphia, which with 6,600 sworn officers has twice as many as D.C., there were just six arrests so far this year. Last year, there were 18 Philadelphia officers arrested, compared to 29 in D.C.

While it's true that the majority of these arrests are occurring when the officers are off-duty, an officer's credibility is called into question regardless. Internal education campaigns have been launched by the department, focusing on education with regard to substance abuse and domestic violence. But that's apparently not working.

Even the head of the D.C. Fraternal Order of Police isn't happy. He was quoted by a reporter as saying that there is a culture within the agency that allows officers off the hook for wrongdoing. In other words, there is zero accountability.

He went on to say that the fact that officers were pleading guilty and being convicted of serious felonies should be a wake-up call to the public - and the department.

Continue reading "D.C. Police Arrests Call Officer Credibility Into Question" »

A recent column by a Washington Post columnist lamented that groping is "a crime, not a misdemeanor."

Washington D.C. criminal defense lawyers want to point out that a misdemeanor is, in fact, a crime. And despite the fact that the court will not appoint you a lawyer for misdemeanor cases, you may still face serious consequences, and you will need an experienced legal advocate who is looking out for your best interests.

The case in question involves a male bicyclist accused of groping numerous women while he zoomed past. One woman's highly-publicized report of an incident in Dupont Circle resulted in a handful of other women coming forward to report similar experiences to police.

After police interviewed numerous witnesses, they began reviewing hours of surveillance footage of the areas where the alleged assaults were reported to have occurred. It was in the course of this aspect of the investigation that detectives were able to identify the suspect.

They then questioned him, and he reportedly confessed to the offenses for which he was accused, as well as potentially eight other offenses.

As a result, he was charged with misdemeanor sexual abuse. D.C. Criminal Code 22-3006 defines misdemeanor abuse as a person who engages in either a sexual contact or a sexual act with another person when the offender should have known that he or she did not have the other individual's permission.

One common example of misdemeanor sexual abuse might be unwanted groping of passengers on the Metro.

The maximum fine for a single count of misdemeanor sexual abuse is 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

This is what the columnist takes issue with. Her stance is that misdemeanor sexual abuse is not harsh enough, and that under current sentencing guidelines, someone who commits theft from a vending machine will get a harsher penalty (potentially up to three years).

D.C. defense attorneys might alternately argue that the penalties for vending machine theft are too high.

As it stands, the 31-year-old defendant in this case is charged with four counts of misdemeanor sexual abuse. That is a maximum penalty of up to five years behind bars.

By contrast, a fourth-degree felony sexual abuse charge is defined as unwanted sexual contact that involves reasonable fear of injury or a victim who is unconscious. Punishment for this offenses is up to five years in jail.

So felony or misdemeanor - in this case, the defendant is facing serious criminal charges. Even though a misdemeanor conviction is considered relatively minor, it can affect your future employment prospects - particularly if your alleged crimes were of a sexual nature.

Given the amount of proof police have, with the videotaped evidence and confession, it may be wise for this defendant's attorney to work toward some sort of reduced plea deal.

As he awaits his next court date, he's been ordered to stay away from the accusers and has been sent to live in a halfway house.

While this case is somewhat unique, the fact is a large majority of cases like this are the result of either misunderstandings or mistaken identity. They are difficult for prosecutors to prove, absent either multiple witnesses or surveillance video. Many defense attorneys have successfully had charges in cases like this reduced or dropped on these and other grounds.

Continue reading "Misdemeanor Crimes in D.C. Can Still Have Serious Consequences" »

In a slow shift in their approach toward prostitution, prosecutors are more frequently focusing their efforts primarily on pimps and madams - rather than the prostitutes themselves.

In fact, Washington D.C. criminal defense lawyers understand that seven states - New York, Nevada, Vermont, Washington State, Maryland, Illinois and Hawaii - all have legislation that not only refers to prostitutes as "sex trafficking victims," but under certain circumstances, allows their charges to be dropped and their convictions to be vacated.

These laws include minors in particular, but not always.

Trafficking is defined as the use of force or threat of force or some type of coercion or fraud in order to sell any person for the use of commercial sex OR to cause a person under the age of 18 to engage in a sex act in exchange for money.

A recent article in the New York Times detailed how this approach was working in New York. There, prosecutors were choosing not to go after prostitutes, but rather those who profited from the sale of their bodies. Under old laws, pimps usually faced up to 15 years in prison. Now, updated laws carry a max sentence of up to 25 years. Plus, customers who pay for adult prostitutes used to face up to three months in jail. Now, they face up to a year.

While there is a similar federal law passed in 2000 that increased trafficking penalties, federal prosecutors typically don't have jurisdiction unless a person has been trafficked across state borders.

Right now in Washington, D.C., prostitutes are still arrested regularly. Sex trafficking leaves not only life-long emotional scars upon a victim, but it can also affect his or her future if that arrest or conviction remains on their record.

D.C. Criminal code 22-2701 lays forth that a prostitution arrest can result in up to 90 days in jail. Second or subsequent offenses may include increased jail time and harsh fines.

This is why it's important to have an experienced attorney represent you - one who understands that being victimized by human trafficking is not your fault.

Although D.C. prosecutors don't formally recognize trafficking as a defense to prosecution, if your defense attorney can prove that you were in fact a victim, you may be allowed to plead to some lesser offense or have the charges dropped in exchange for admission to a diversion program.

One of those is called Angels Project Power Program. It is operated by a former prostitute. She was raped and nearly killed in 1987 while working the downtown streets. She works to help prostitutes and trafficking victims learn life skills to help them heal and re-establish themselves in society.

Another resource to aid trafficking victims is the D.C. Human Trafficking Task Force, which was founded in 2004. It works to identify victims of sex trafficking and to provide extensive services to these individuals.

Continue reading "Fighting for Reduced or Vacated Prostitution Charges for Trafficking Victims" »

D.C. criminal defense attorneys want potential clients to understand that your phone could be giving you away.

Police are ever more increasingly using cell phones to track suspects and solve crimes in D.C. and across the country. The advent of smart phones and global positioning devices is fast becoming evidence that can be just as much - if not more - damning than DNA, eyewitness testimony or ballistics.

A few recent examples:

• Police in Idaho nabbed a murder suspect after tracking his phone on GPS. Once they were directed to his general location, a nearby witness was able to point them to his exact location.
• Two Pennsylvania men were arrested after searching text messages in the victim's phone.
• A New York man was arrested for taking pictures under a woman's skirt after she turned her phone on him and snapped a picture. Her photo helped police catch the suspect. The photos he'd taken with his phone helped lead to his conviction.
• Detectives in Indiana found a number of cell phones during a drug bust. By searching the call log histories, they were able to connect others to the alleged drug rings, and scored several convictions, partially based on the phone data.

In that last case, the defendant's attorney appealed his conviction, saying that police's search of his phone was an invasion of privacy. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit disagreed, and said that such a search did not significantly violate his constitutional protection from an unreasonable search.

Text messages, GPS, videos, photos and call data - all of that can be traced and potentially used against you in court.

Prosecutors have been quoted as saying they bank on the fact that suspects use their phones to plan their crimes, document them or are panicking in the aftermath.

But it can also be a tool for defense as well. Most people don't do anything without their cell phone nearby. If defense lawyers can show that a client's phone was many miles away from where the alleged crime took place, a good argument can be made that a suspect wasn't anywhere nearby either.

Conversely, a defense attorney might attack the accuracy of those GPS devices or other evidence scraped from a cell phone and used to initiate an arrest or push forward with a prosecution.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that extraction of cell phone data is a fairly new technology, born out of the problem faced by customers who wanted to switch their cell phones or carriers, but also wanted to keep all their contacts and other data.

A New Jersey company that sells the technology to police departments has reportedly sold tens of thousands of systems. The devices used by police reportedly don't have the capability to write new data to the person's cell phone, as that would compromise the integrity of the evidence.

What is often a central point is that police often cross over the line with regard to what is a lawful search. Generally, an officer is allowed to conduct a search that is "incident to an arrest," meaning an officer can search a suspect's property, such as a purse or backpack, for items such as a weapon or anything else that might provide further evidence regarding the immediate circumstances. However, extraction of data from a cell phone doesn't necessarily constitute as a lawful search that can be conducted prior to obtaining a search warrant.

So if an officer searches your phone without a warrant, your D.C. criminal defense attorney may challenge whatever evidence was uncovered as a result on the basis that it's a violation of your constitution rights.

Continue reading "Cell Phone Data Increasingly Used in Investigation and Prosecution of Crimes" »

Advances in sciences and technology in recent years have significantly altered the prism through which evidence in criminal cases is viewed.

D.C. criminal defense attorneys know the technology used to prove or disprove an alleged crime has shifted light years with the advent of DNA and other sciences.

Now, new technology has taken central stage in a Maryland murder case involving one Army Ranger accused of killing another. The defendant in the case has long contended his friend's death was a result of suicide.

His defense team says they are now able to prove it with MRI brain scan technology.

It's similar to a lie detector test in that it relies on biological measurements taken during questioning. However, lie detector tests, while sometimes used by police in the course of their investigations, are rarely used in criminal courts because they have been deemed flawed and largely unreliable. In other words, a person who is nervous about the testing may produce a false positive, while someone who is a cold stone liar could potentially pass with ease, say scientists.

The defense team in this case says that the technology has advanced, and that brain waves produce a more accurate result. In this case, it's a result that indicates he's telling the truth.

However, judges have yet to allow such evidence into the courtroom. This case was no exception, with the Circuit Court judge ruling that although the evidence was "fascinating," jurors wouldn't be allowed to see it. He based that decision primarily on the fact that scientists have yet to come to a consensus about the device's accuracy.

This technology was originally developed to study Alzheimer's patients. However, some neuroscientists say that using the scans of brain activity, they can tell with quite a bit of accuracy whether or not a person is being deceptive. The MRI measures not just a brain's structure, but it's activity as well. The test conductor will compare scans of the brain when the subject is purposely lying to those when the person purports to be telling the truth.

The defendant in this case is facing what will be his second trial, after an appellate court tossed his earlier conviction for the 2006 slaying of his fellow soldier, with whom he served a tour in Afghanistan and shared an apartment.

Prosecutors allege the two were drinking and smoking pot together and then went to a nearby VFW pool hall. Shortly before 1 a.m., the defendant called 911, sobbing that he had found his roommate in a pool of blood, shot in the head.

Detectives reportedly found the defendant covered in blood, and found the deceased soldier's body in a chair in front of the television, Oddly, though, they found no gun. The defendant then gave conflicting accounts of what occurred (which is not entirely shocking, considering the two had been abusing a number of substances).

Following his conviction and appeal, prosecutors are preparing for another trial. The defendant and his lawyers insist that he should be allowed to present the brain scan results. They say it's not the core of their case, but it is a piece of the puzzle that jurors should be allowed to see.

Independent studies have been conducted in at the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University and in Hong Kong put accuracy rates of the test of between 90 and 100 percent.

Continue reading "D.C. Criminal Defense: Can an MRI Prove Innocence?" »

One of the two defendant's in a fatal shooting that stemmed from a botched robbery attempt at a convenience store will not face murder charges, with prosecutors citing a lack of evidence.

D.C. criminal defense lawyers know that because homicide is the most serious crime for which you can be charged, the evidence should be substantial in order for prosecutors to move forward with a case.

However, this doesn't always stop prosecutors from pressing ahead. This is why in every felony case it's important to have a skilled defense attorney who is adept at handling such matters, and is knowledgeable with regard to having evidence suppressed, challenging witness testimony and uncovering potential elements that may work in a client's favor.

In this case, the primary issue was witness credibility.

According to The Capital Gazette, a 19-year-old was charged with nine felony charges, including armed robbery and first-degree murder for the slaying of a convenience store clerk back in the summer of 2010. The 48-year-old employee was reportedly fatally shot while running away from the suspects.

Prosecutors say they have no doubt the teen was involved, but the witnesses who would testify to his involvement have all been convicted in another fatal shooting that happened at a pizza shop a few months later.

His co-defendant in the convenience store shooting reportedly pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life in prison. He too was involved in the pizza shop murder, and was given another 30 years for that homicide.

Although there was surveillance footage of the homicide, it was grainy and not clearly visible as to who did what or even who was carrying the gun.

So ultimately, aside from the testimony of convicted murderers, there was no other evidence linking the 19-year-old defendant to this crime.

Still, he won't go free, as he too was convicted in the pizza shop murder, and was sentenced to 50 years in prison, though he could be released after 30 years. Prosecutors say this factored into their decision not to move forward with the convenience store shooting as well, saying they hope his other conviction will keep him behind bars for some time.

Although witness credibility became a key issue in this case, it can be a critical matter in many other criminal cases, both before and during trial. If a prosecutor suspects a witness may be lying or is simply not believable, he or she may choose to reduce the charges originally filed. However, this usually doesn't happen without some push from defense lawyers in convincing them that they don't have a solid case.

Other times, credibility is raised at trial, and it's up to the judge or jury to weigh whether to believe a witness or not.

Some of the ways that a good defense attorney can effectively question a prosecution witness's testimony would be to point out:

• Inconsistency. Has the person's account of events remained consistent from start to finish? If not, why? Does the person have a bad memory or are they trying to hide something?
• A history of lying. If a person has a proven history of lying about one thing or another, how can they be trusted to tell the truth this time?
• Objectivity. Is there something the person has to gain by providing this testimony, whether financial or a reduced sentence for themselves or some other motivation that would cast doubt on their word?
• Outside circumstances. Maybe the person isn't lying, but is there a likelihood they are mistaken? For example, was it too dark to reasonably have a good look at the defendant's face? Were they wearing their prescribed glasses or contact lenses? Was he or she intoxicated? What was the weather like? Were there any outside circumstances that could prevent the witness from providing an accurate account of events?

Continue reading "D.C. Defense: Charges in Fatal Shooting Dropped Due to Witness Credibility Issues" »

Police are searching for a group of more than a dozen youth who reportedly robbed and assaulted two people - one after another - on the main campus of Virginia Commonwealth University.

D.C. criminal defense attorneys understand that neither victim was seriously hurt, but if those involved are convicted, they could be facing serious time.

D.C. Criminal Code 22-2801 addresses robbery, which is a felony that carries a sentence of between 2 and 15 years in prison. Assault, which is defined in D.C. Criminal Code 22-404 can be charged either as a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the circumstances, and could result in up to 3 years in prison if the alleged victim was injured.

In cases where there are a relatively large number of defendants, there are challenges for both the prosecution and the defense.

From a defense standpoint, you must always be concerned about whether one of the co-defendants will choose to cooperate with the state for a lesser sentence in exchange for their testimony against you.

This is a common tactic even prior to the plea deal phase. Police officers will threaten defendants, try to trick them into believing the others have offered up "the truth" and may even promise to let them go if they simply cooperate. Keep in mind that officers are allowed to lie to suspects, and the more people you have involved in a particular incident, the more likely one of you is to crack under the pressure.

Your best bet in these scenarios is to refuse further questioning until you can have your attorney present - no matter what they try to tell you to convince you otherwise.

But these cases are by no means a slam-dunk for prosecutors.

When you have multiple individuals involved in any given incident, prosecutors are often limited in being able to prove exactly who did what. Even with the presence of surveillance tapes (which are available in this case), footage may be grainy, the lighting may be poor and there could be enough doubt that one individual was any more responsible than the other.

Same goes for eyewitness evidence. When you've got multiple defendants, it's often very tough for a victim or witness to say exactly who was doing what and at what time.

In this case, police suspect a group of males between the ages of 17 and 22 years-old.

The first incident reportedly occurred as a man was getting out of his vehicle. He reported he was approached unprovoked and then punched. The group then crowded him and then robbed him.

Moments later, the same group reportedly approached a second person, a student who was walking by. Members of the group reportedly punched him in the back of the head and pushed him to the ground. He was then robbed of a pack of cigarettes in his pocket.

There is footage of the alleged incidents, but it does not appear as if faces are recognizable given the distance and the darkness of the street.

There are many ways in which a skilled defense attorney can help you if you've been involved in a crime with multiple defendants. Each scenario will vary on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, defendants may face trial together. While in other cases, a move to separate the cases may be in the best interest of a defendant.

Continue reading "D.C. Defense Attorneys Discuss Issue of Multiple Defendants " »

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals recently handed down a decision that affirmed your protection from a search without a warrant - a violation of the Fourth Amendment - even in cases where you may have been lawfully arrested.

D.C. criminal defense lawyers understand that the court in U.S. v. Taylor affirmed a District of Columbia Superior Court ruling holding that the nature of the crime doesn't automatically allow police to conduct a search without a warrant.

The case stems from a drunk driving case in D.C. Defendant Larry Taylor was accused of driving under the influence in 2010 after he struck another vehicle from behind. Metropolitan Police who arrived on scene a short time later determined he was intoxicated due to his slurred speech, the fact that he was unsteady on his feet and the smelled alcohol on his breath. He also admitted to police he had drunk two beers while at his sister's home several hours earlier, and he blew a 0.16 on the breathalyzer. Additionally, he failed a field sobriety test.

Taylor did not contest the drunk driving charge.

At issue was the search that ensued after Taylor was handcuffed in the back of the patrol car. According to police, the officer was looking in Taylor's vehicle for an insurance car when he found a loaded handgun.

Subsequently, a grand jury indicted Taylor for possession of an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a license and unlawful possession of ammunition.

At a suppression hearing the following year, Taylor's defense attorneys argued evidence in the case (i.e., the gun and ammunition) was inadmissible because it was discovered during a search for which the officer did not have a warrant.

Prosecutors argued that the evidence was admissible because it had been obtained during a "lawful search incident to arrest." They contended that there was reasonable suspicion that officers may find evidence relevant to the crime of DUI by searching the vehicle, and relied on Arizona case law.

They further contended that there were "more facts than just any DUI" and that because Taylor knew police would be on their way following the accident, he had ample time to hide potential evidence relating to the DUI. The officer testified that in other similar DUI cases, he had found alcohol underneath the seats, in the console, or in the glove box or along side doors. The contention was that if a person seems reasonably intoxicated, than it is reasonable to assume there may be further evidence of that in the vehicle.

The trial court, however, disagreed, and granted the defense's motion to suppress the evidence, holding that the prosecutor failed to prove that there was probable cause that there may be evidence relating to the DUI in the vehicle.

The court held that allowing a search based on this sort of generalized evidence would result in a per se rule, which would essentially give officers the automatic authority to search a vehicle in the course of any arrest.

Prosecutors appealed that decision, but the appellate court upheld the earlier ruling.

Continue reading "D.C. Appeals Court Limits Warrantless Search After Arrest" »

Your right to free speech is guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

However, D.C. criminal defense lawyers know there are certain types of speech that amendment doesn't cover. Particularly in this day and age, authorities tend to take these quite seriously.

For example:

1. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater;
2. You can't tell everyone there is a bomb on an airplane when there isn't;
3. You can't threaten a shooting rampage at a school or office.

That last one recently got two Maryland men in trouble.

The only fortunate thing for the 19 and 28-year-old suspects is that Maryland law is lacking when it comes to the ability to charge them with anything other than a misdemeanor.

Both were charged with misdemeanor telephone misuse. This is defined as the use of a telephone to either:

• Make an anonymous call that could be reasonably expected to annoy, torment, abuse, embarrass or harass someone else;
• Make repeated calls with the same intent;
• Make a comment or suggestion or request or proposal that is obscene, indecent or lascivious.

Even as a misdemeanor, however, Maryland Code Criminal Law 3-804 is punishable by up to 3 years in prison and a fine of up to $500.

Other places do have stricter laws, so it really depends on where you are charged.

In the first case, the 19-year-old former University of Maryland student had made posts online threatening to shoot up his campus. In one of those posts, he reportedly warned his friends not to go to a certain part of campus at a certain time.

He eventually pleaded guilty to disturbing school operations as well as telephone misuse. His hasn't yet been sentenced, but the judge allowed him at that time of his plea to be released from home detention. He also ordered the defendant to continue to receive care for mental health issues and fixed a 9 p.m. curfew. While awaiting sentencing, he is to begin work on 200 community service hours.

What may factor into the ultimate sentencing is the question of whether this defendant actually had the real intent and the means to carry out his threats. Police who had searched his dorm, car and family home found no weapons at all.

By contrast, the second Maryland defendant to be caught up in a similar case reportedly had possession of 15 weapons - including pistols, semiautomatic rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition - that he possessed legally under state law. In that case, the defendant reportedly referred to himself as "the Joker" when calling his former employer threatening to shoot up the office. Gun crimes defense in D.C. must always be handled by an experienced criminal defense firm.

Those calls came just after the late July shooting rampage in a movie theater in Colorado, where 12 people died and 58 were hurt.

State and local officials in that case have said they haven't been able to charge him with a felony under state law, though prosecutors are now saying they intend to lobby legislators to tighten the law. It won't affect this case, but officials are saying it's still possible that he could face certain federal charges, though they haven't specified which may apply.

Continue reading "MD Officials Hope to Increase Penalties on Phone Threats " »

D.C. police are still trying to sort out how it was that a man who ordered a television instead ended up with an assault rifle - similar to the M16s used by military and law enforcement agencies.

The man isn't facing weapons charges, as D.C. criminal defense attorneys understand he contacted authorities immediately after receiving the package.

Possession of a weapon like that without a license is subject to all types of penalties under D.C. Criminal Code 22-4503, 22-4505(a), 7-2502.01 and 22-4514.

The first of those is unlawful possession of a firearm. This statute prohibits a person from possessing or owning a gun if that individual falls under any of the following categories:

• Has ever been convicted of a felony;
• Has ever been convicted of a firearms charge;
• Is a drug addict;
• Has ever been convicted of certain misdemeanors, such as domestic violence;
• Is currently the subject of a civil protection order.

Violation of this statute is an automatic 1-year prison term, though the person can serve up to 10 years. It doesn't appear that the man to whom the gun was delivered falls under any of those categories - he's a musician who simply wanted to buy a television. Other forms of unlawful possession of a gun in D.C. are punishable by between 2 and 10 years behind bars and maximum fines of $15,000.

The second statute deals with carrying a pistol without a license. In D.C., it's illegal to carry a pistol or any deadly or dangerous weapon that is capable of being concealed. If the weapon is found inside a person's residence, it's considered a misdemeanor with a jail sentence of up to 1 year and fines of up to $1,000. There is case law that could be used to challenge this particular use of the law, as it was argued to have violated the Second Amendment in D.C. v. Heller.

If, however, someone is found to have violated this statute by taking the weapon outside, it's charged as a felony, which means you could be facing up to five years in prison.

Then there is D.C. Criminal Code 7-2502.01, which addresses possession of an unregistered firearm. In order to sell or possess any kind of firearm in D.C., you have to have a valid registration certificate. Failure to do so can result in up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine.

And finally, D.C. Criminal Code 22-4514 deals with possession of a prohibited weapon. These are weapons that are considered to be especially dangerous (an assault rifle would be applicable), and there are a number of others. For a first-time offender without a prior felony conviction, the penalty would be up to 1 year in prison and a $1,000 fine. Any subsequent offenses could result in up to 10 years in prison.

Again, though, this individual isn't facing any charges, as he did report the delivery to police immediately. Authorities are trying to piece together what happened, and they did have to confiscate the weapon, saying it was not only illegal for the man to keep the gun in his home, it was also unlawful for him to try to transport it back to the seller.

Continue reading "D.C. Gun Laws: Man Orders TV, Gets Assault Rifle " »

With a final decision pending from the U.S. Supreme Court, police in Maryland are being allowed to resume the collection of DNA from suspects who have been charged - but not yet convicted - of a serious crime.

Criminal defense lawyers in Washington D.C. are troubled by this development, though it appears likely to become permanent once the Supreme Court has a chance to formally consider it. Attorneys for the man at the center of the case, in Alonzo Jay King Jr. v. State of Maryland, contended that doing so was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

The Maryland Court of Appeals had sided with King's defense on this issue, prompting Maryland to put the brakes on the practice, which began in 2009. Prior to that, police had only been able to collect DNA from convicted criminals. The decision was decried by police and prosecutors throughout the state, who argued it would weaken their ability to solve crimes and would jeopardize the convictions of nearly 35 rapists, robbers and burglars.

The real problem though is that the Maryland appellate decision conflicts with rulings that have been handed down by multiple federal appellate courts, as well as one by the Virginia Supreme Court. This led U.S. Supreme Court Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to intervene, issuing an opinion late last month indicating that there is a "fair prospect" that the justices will overturn the King decision, and allowing police to resume the practice until the court has a chance to hear the case.

Here's what happened in the King case:

King was arrested in April of 2009 on first-and-second-degree assault charges. Pending the conclusion of this case, while he was incarcerated, police took a swab of his DNA. This resulted in a DNA match to a 2003 rape case.

King was subsequently convicted of first-degree rape and was sentenced to life in prison.

His attorneys appealed the conviction, on the basis that the DNA collection violated King's Fourth Amendment right, which guarantees freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The appellate court had ruled that King, having been arrested but not convicted, had a reasonable expectation of privacy that outweighed the state's interest in properly identifying him as the perpetrator of the 2009 assault - namely because there were already eyewitnesses to that crime and he had been identified in a photo line-up. There was no reason, the court said, to collect a DNA sample in order to connect him to that crime.

That put the state practice on hold. Robert's opinion reverses that for now.

That means that anyone arrested for a "violent crime or burglary" in Maryland will be subject to a DNA test at the discretion of prosecutors. This practice is also legal in 25 other states, according to the governor's office.

The bottom line is that if you are arrested - particularly if you know that your DNA may connect you to some earlier crime - it is absolutely critical for you to contact an experienced attorney as soon as possible following your arrest. Don't answer any questions from authorities until you've had a chance to speak with your lawyer.

Continue reading "MD Police Can Resume DNA Collection of Arrestees" »

A 29-year-old D.C. man and his longtime homosexual partner were reportedly viciously attacked just a few blocks from their apartment recently, and now investigators have honed in on hate bias as a motivation for the crime.

D.C. criminal defense lawyers know that no one can deny that hate crimes exist. We can't say whether this situation was motivated by a hate for homosexuals or not. What we do know is that officials are often quick to pull this card, sometimes regardless of the true motivation, because they want the defendant to face the increased penalties that are incurred as a result.

One need only look at the number of hate crimes alleged in the last several years.

The Washington Post reported in 2007 that there were 19 hate crimes reported against homosexuals. In 2011, there were 42. Plus, by this time last year, there were 15 hate crimes reported, and so far this year, there have been 22.

Across the country, there have been a estimated 12,000 over the last decade.

But even gay anti-violence groups acknowledge that this has more to do with an increase of reporting rather than an increase of actual crime.

Again, that's not to say that hate crimes or those motivated by a certain bias don't happen. They do. But law enforcement officials also take advantage of the fact that in 2009, the president signed bill making it a federal crime to assault someone on the basis of his or her sexual orientation or sexual identity.

Such crimes run the gamut of acts, but here are a few examples:

1. A physical attack;
2. A destruction of certain property;
3. Burning of a cross;
4. Arson;
5. Harassment, either by phone or electronically;
6. Use of racial slurs;
7. Painting of certain hate symbols, such as a swastika;
8. Verbal abuse;
9. Fireboming a residence, church, business or other gathering place;
10. Vandalism.

It's also in violation of D.C. Code 22-4001 to 22.4004, which mandates increased penalties for crimes committed against someone on the basis of some protected status, such as their race, sexual orientation or religion. In fact, the Metro Police Department even as a D.C. Bias Crimes Task Force, which was founded back in the mid-1990s.

The challenge for prosecutors, however, is in first of all proving that the accused was the one to have committed the crime and secondly that the motivation for carrying out that crime was hatred of a certain group. Usually, this is done using certain electronic communication (which you should never assume to be private) prior to or after the attack. Things like your Facebook page, Twitter account or text messages.

They may also incorporate witness statements regarding any slurs that may have been used prior to, during or after the crime.

It will be up to your defense attorney to prove that the evidence has been taken out of context.

Continue reading "D.C. Attack Investigated as Hate Crime" »

A sexual assault reported by a female jogger on Capitol Crescent has prompted investigators to seek the public's help in locating the suspect.

D.C. criminal defense lawyers know that this case is somewhat unique in that most allegations of sexual assault are made by someone who knows the alleged victim. Stranger attacks, while they do happen, are pretty rare.

That said, one thing that most sex crimes cases have in common is a heavy reliance on DNA evidence. Prosecutors use DNA evidence to prove that there was some contact - presumably sexual - between the victim and the defendant.

When DNA is present, the defense is two-pronged:

1. Does the mere fact that there is DNA present prove that a crime occurred?
2. How reliable is that DNA evidence?

With regard to sex crime allegations in which the two individuals know each other, it's not enough to show that they had contact with each other. Obviously if they knew one another, the fact that one's DNA is found on another doesn't necessarily prove anything - particularly if the two were dating or in an otherwise romantic relationship.

Prosecutors have to have a fair amount of circumstantial evidence, and a big part of that is eyewitness testimony. The truth of the matter is, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. We are just now - through DNA evidence - finding that cases that were tried 10, 20, 30 years ago or longer that resulted in convictions based on eyewitness testimony were completely faulty.

That's not to say witnesses lie. Of course, sometimes they do, but more often than not, they want to help investigators. They want so badly to help solve the crime that they won't readily admit that they truly didn't see the person's face or other features clearly. A good investigator will be able to tell when a witness isn't solid, but sometimes, they want to solve it as badly as the witness, and they allow that to get in the way of their objectivity.

Now with regard to sexual assaults involving supposed strangers, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. One is that just because two people don't know each other well doesn't mean a consensual sexual encounter was impossible, particularly if alcohol was involved.

And secondly, DNA evidence isn't fool-proof. It's considered the gold standard by law enforcement and prosecutors, and it's true that a large number of defendants have been convicted in cases where there was strong DNA evidence. But more and more, the public has been made aware of issues of contamination, improper methodology and faulty tests. Cases in Texas, for example, caused an entire lab to shut down for a time due to contamination issues.

It hasn't been raised as a point specifically in D.C., but it's always a possibility.

On the flip side, DNA can call into question other sources of forensic evidence, such as fingerprints, bite marks and firearm ballistics.

In this case, the alleged victim reported she was running along the trail around 9:15 p.m. when she was attacked from behind and placed in a choke hold. She reportedly lost consciousness for a time, and awoke to the suspect fondling her.

It remains to be seen what role, if any, forensics will play in this case.

Continue reading "Investigators Seeking D.C. Sex Attack Suspect" »