Owens v. United States: The Standard for Defining State-of-Mind in an RSP Case is a Subjective One
In law school, we learned the difference between a subjective standard in defining a mental state and an objective one. The subjective standard focuses on the defendant’s actual state of mind. With the objective standard, it is how… Read More
Jacobs v. United States: Narrowing the Definition of “Seizure” in D.C.
You are sitting in a legally parked car on the side of the road minding your own business when a police car pulls in directly behind you and activates its overhead lights. How many people would feel that… Read More
Navarette v. California: Anonymous Tips, Reasonable Suspicion, and Car Stops
The state of the law with respect to reasonable suspicion, anonymous tips and car stops is already pretty muddy. Now, with Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. ___ (2014), the Supreme Court has just made it worse. A woman… Read More
Refining the Definition of “Testimonial Evidence” under Crawford v. Washington
You take a worthwhile social goal – protecting domestic partners from abuse – and then you contort the U.S. Constitution to achieve that goal. In the days of Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), the testimony came in… Read More
The Duty to Disclose Includes the Duty to Preserve
Police officers fail to preserve a critical piece of evidence, in this case a video recording taken of the incident in question. The defendant moves for sanctions. In opposing this motion, the government argues that the defendant’s arguments… Read More
No Strong-Arming of Defendants Into Accepting Pleas
When the two defendants opted for trial, rejecting a deferred sentencing agreement that had been offered by the government, Judge Brian Holeman may have been doing them a favor when he warned them that they would face certain… Read More
Is Concession of Guilt In Opening Statement A Guilty Plea?
During the defendant’s opening statement at trial, Denardo Hopkins’ lawyer got up in front of the jury and conceded that this client was guilty of felony drug dealing charges. The issue the D.C. Court of Appeals faced in… Read More
Adam Ortberg v. United States: Unlawful Entry Requires More Than “General Intent”
The common law distinction between “general intent” and “specific intent” offenses doesn’t work. This is what the D.C. Court of Appeals emphasized once again in Adam Ortberg v. United States, 81 A.3d 303 (2013), a recent case dealing… Read More
PDS Launches Criminal Law Blog
The Public Defender Service (PDS) has just begun a blog — the PDS Criminal Law Blog — that reviews recent D.C. Court of Appeals opinions. With Samia Fam, Nancy Glass, Jackie Frankfurt, and a handful of other public… Read More
Mitchell v. U.S.: Cruelty to Children is a General Intent Offense
In Pennsylvania, the offense is known as endangering the welfare of a child. In D.C., it is cruelty to children and, as the D.C. Court of Appeals pointed out recently in Mitchell v. United States, 64 A.3d 154… Read More
