Re-cross examination in Green v. United States

examination graffiti

If the government introduces new evidence during re-direct examination, the defense has a constitutional right to question the witness about that new evidence.

Unlawful Entry in Rahman v. United States

unlawful entry graffiti

The court found in Rahman v. U.S. that remaining in a restaurant for 10 minutes after being asked to leave was sufficient to be found guilty of unlawful entry.

Leaving After Colliding in D.C. requires proof of mens rea

Proving mens rea in DC

In Crawford v. D.C., the Court of Appeals confirmed that the Leaving After Colliding statute requires the government to prove mens rea.

High v. U.S.: Not Every Cross Word Directed at a Cop is Criminal

I tried to argue a while back that, when it comes to D.C.’s statute on Threats to do Bodily Harm, parking enforcement officers should be considered to be particularly immune to threats. After all, they are used to… Read More

Mayhand v. U.S.: “A Statement is Not an Excited Utterance Unless the Declarant is Manifestly Overcome by Excitement or in Shock.”

D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Catharine Easterly writes what I think. The difference is that she finds the words that elude me. And the words she writes impact D.C. law. Her impact continues in Antoine Mayhand v. United… Read More

Teneyck v. U.S.: What is Significant Bodily Injury Under the Felony Assault Statute?

The D.C. Court of Appeals has issued a number of opinions over the last couple of years in which it has refined the definition of “significant bodily injury” under D.C.’s felony assault statute. In Nero v. United States,… Read More

Koonce v. D.C.: Stationhouse Videos in DUI/OWI Cases Are Discoverable

And sometimes the D.C. Court of Appeals gets it just right. For years, the Office of the Attorney General in D.C. has argued that stationhouse videos of suspects in DUI/DWI cases are not “discoverable”; that is, that they… Read More

Saidi v. U.S.: No Special Findings in Defense-of-Property Case

You are allowed to use a reasonable amount of force to protect property.  This is true “regardless of any actual or threatened injury to the property by the trespasser.”  Moreover, upon timely request with sufficient clarity for special… Read More

Gayden v. U.S.: Interpreting the “Resist” and “Intimidate” Provisions of D.C.’s APO Statute

In Cheeks v. United States, a case issued a couple of months ago, the D.C. Court of Appeals interpreted the “interfere” provision of D.C.’s Assault of a Police Officer (APO) statute.  (It is illegal under this statute to… Read More

Cheek v. U.S.: Interpreting the “Interfere” Language of D.C.’s APO Statute

The Assault on a Police Officer (APO) statute is so broad that the D.C. Court of Appeals has had to issue multiple opinions to interpret it.  In Edwin Cheek v. United States, 103 A.3d 1019 (D.C. 2014), an… Read More