Criminal threat requires ability to follow through
Telling someone that you will “slap” his/her “bitch ass” is threatening on its face. But criminal threats require the ability to follow through.
Unlawful Entry in D.C.: Odumn v. United States
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.”
Not guilty of destroying property
The evidence was consistent with an intent to open the car door, not to damage the door handle. The prosecution was therefore unable to prove criminal intent.
Not guilty in unlawful entry case
According to the police report, our client was hanging out by one of the gas pumps when police pulled in. The body worn cameras proved otherwise. Not guilty!
Client acquitted of destruction of property
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.
Unlawful entry: Barring notice must be valid
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.
Unlawful Entry in Rahman v. United States
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.
Prostitution arrests rise in D.C.
There is good news for D.C. criminal defense lawyers: Prostitution-related arrests can be expected to rise in the coming months.
Analyzing D.C.’s “Revenge Porn” Statute
In enacting the statute to criminalize the behavior commonly known as “revenge porn,” the D.C. City Council created “three separate offenses aimed at capturing the three primary forms of non-consensual pornography: (1) unlawful disclosure; (2) first degree unlawful publication; and (3) second degree unlawful publication.”
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
