According to D.C. Court of Appeals decision in Odumn v. United States, “a landlord may not prohibit a tenant from inviting a third party onto leased premises for a lawful purpose, nor may the landlord prohibit such third party from entering or exiting the property through the property’s common space.”
According to recent D.C. Court of Appeals opinion, Foster v. United States, D.C. Housing Authority residents cannot be barred from accessing areas covered by their leases.
In Weems v. United States, 191 A.3d 296 (D.C. 2018), the D.C. Court of Appeals defines “possession, custody, or control” for purposes of Rule 16.
The evidence suggested that our client intended to exit the store, not damage property. There was also a question as to who actually broke the door.
In unlawful entry cases in which the defendant is charged with violating a DCHA barring order, the underlying order must be authorized by D.C. statute.
In addition to contemporaneity and spontaneity, the proponent of a “present sense impression” hearsay exception must prove that the declarant personally perceived the event described.
If the government introduces new evidence during re-direct examination, the defense has a constitutional right to question the witness about that new evidence.
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.
In Crawford v. D.C., the Court of Appeals confirmed that the Leaving After Colliding statute requires the government to prove mens rea.
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 dealing with angry people who have just found a ticket on their windshield. Such officers, I would assume, are also trained both …