Monday, December 22, 2014

The DCCA rejects medley of appellate claims.

Jamarr Medley, Antoine Richardson, and Lucious McLeod v. United States, Nos. 11-CF-1670, 11-CF-1671 & 12-CF-7 (decided December 18, 2014).

Players: Associate Judges Thompson and Blackburne-Rigsby, and Senior Judge Reid. Opinion by Judge Thompson. PDS for Jamarr Medley. Antoine Richardson for Antoine Richardson.  Cory Carlyle for Lucious McLeod. Trial Judge Ann O'Regan Keary.

Facts: In short, the facts of this case tell the tale of Cordell Brown's very bad year.  In late 2009, Brown was involved in an altercation with Medley and Richardson in which Brown was hit with a pole, a "black gate," and a chair, and was also stabbed two times.  In the ensuing months, Brown and his girlfriend were approached on multiple occasions by Medley and McLeod, who suggested that Brown consider dropping the charges related to the pole/"black gate"/chair/knife assault. Brown voiced his disinclination to do so.  In late 2010, four weeks before the scheduled trial date, Brown was assaulted by McLeod, who stabbed him in the chest and struck him several times. The two assaults and three defendants were joined in a single trial--a move protested by all of the defendants--that involved a bevy of mostly-assault-related charges.  The defendants lost at trial and raised eight appellate claims, three of which are discussed herein.

Issue 1: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to sever Medley's case from his co-defendants' where Medley was uninvolved in the second assault and prejudiced by a joint trial.

Holding 1: No.  In short, the court emphasizes the trial court's considerable discretion and the fact that a defendant must do more than show prejudice--he must show the "most compelling prejudice." The Court did not deny that Mr. Medley was prejudiced but found that his prejudice was more garden-variety prejudice than "most compelling prejudice."

Of Note: Part of Medley's argument was that he suffered prejudice because the government did not keep the evidence of the assaults "separate and distinct."  The Court agreed but dismissed this claim on a novel legal ground raised by neither party: that the "separate and distinct" standard may apply only to cases joined pursuant to Super Ct. Crim. R. 8(a) and not R. 8(b).

Practice Tip: The meaning of the Court's R. 8(a)/(b) detour is somewhat murky.  Future litigants can argue that it does not amount to a rule that the "separate and distinct" standard is inapplicable because the opinion states only that its application is not "required" in the 8(b) context--not that it is impermissible or never appropriate.  Litigants can also attempt to challenge the logic underpinning the court's claim, which is premised on the idea that applying the "separate and distinct rule" is "antithetical" to Rule 8(b)'s "same series of acts or transactions" criterion because 8(b) applies to instances where the offenses "are interrelated in such a manner that proof of charges against one defendant would necessarily have to be introduced in proving the jointly-charged offenses."  The court's rationale seems to ignore the possibility--presented in this case--that: two offenses exist, that one of the offenses has multiple co-defendants, and that the subsequent offense is only related to one of the co-defendants of the first offense, such that evidence of the second offense would not "necessarily have to be introduced" in a trial of the co-defendant who is not connected to the second offense.  On such facts, the "separate and distinct" requirement is not "antithetical" to the 8(b) "same series of acts or transactions" requirement.

Issue 2: Richardson placed phone calls from the jail to Medley and McLeod in which he asked them to speak to or take certain actions towards witnesses in his case.  The calls were admitted only against Richardson.  The DCCA was asked to decide whether the calls should have been redacted to remove McLeod's and Medley's names pursuant to Carpenter v. United States, which holds that trial courts have a duty "to reduce or eliminate any prejudice arising from the joint trial of defendants."

Holding 2: No redaction was required.  Carpenter's requirements do not apply to statements that fall within a hearsay exception and the statements at issue "were either assertions that something ought to occur or were directive or verbal acts."

Issue 3: Did the government present sufficient evidence of serious bodily injury where the complainant was stabbed two times, required eighteen staples to the head, a doctor testified that his wounds were "very painful," and Brown described his pain as "terrible."

Holding 3: Yes.  Although the Court has previously found similar wounds to fall short of the mark, see, e.g., Bolanos v. United States, the Court believed that these facts satisfied the "extreme pain requirement" for reasons that the Court does not entirely articulate.

Of Note: Future litigants can highlight this Court's emphasis in other cases to the effect that "pain that is merely significant, rather than exceptionally severe if not unbearable, does not constitute extreme physical pain."  Or highlight other stabbing cases, like Bolanos, in which similar injuries were deemed insufficient to meet the exacting "serious bodily injury" standard.  In the end, this decision is a reminder that "serious bodily injury" cases are inherently fact intensive and that fact-intensive cases can look different to different panels on different days. CK.

Read full opinion here.


Tuesday, December 16, 2014

The good faith exception doesn’t help the police when tainted evidence is the sole basis for an arrest warrant


Kim E. Smith v. United States, Nos. 12-CM-1742 and 12-CM-1743 (decided December 4, 2014).

Players:  Associate Judges Blackburne-Rigsby and Beckwith, Senior Judge King.  Opinion by Associate Judge Blackburne-Rigsby.  Cynthia Nordone for Mr. Smith.  Trial Judge Marisa Demeo.

Facts:  Officer Cartwright stopped Mr. Smith’s car due to the officer’s mistaken belief that the frame around Mr. Smith’s license plate violated D.C. law because it obstructed the “Taxation Without Representation” portion of the license plate.  (Under the DCCA’s recent opinion in Whitfield v. United States, 99 A.3d 650, 652 (D.C. 2014), a license plate frame that covers some portion of the plate but that does not obstruct critical identifying information such as the license plate number does not violate D.C. traffic regulations.)  During the stop, Officer Cartwright learned that Mr. Smith was driving without a license.  Officers then retrieved marijuana from Mr. Smith and from his car.  Police officers obtained an arrest warrant for Mr. Smith.  When they saw Mr. Smith in the neighborhood about a month later, they arrested him and found additional marijuana on him.

Issue: Whether the exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant that is based on evidence from an illegal stop.

Holding:  Yes.  The government argued that the Leon good faith exception applies to this situation, as the police officers reasonably relied on a valid arrest warrant.  The DCCA rejected that argument, as the exclusionary rule prohibits the introduction of derivative evidence, i.e., evidence that is acquired as an indirect result of an unlawful search.  Here, evidence obtained from the illegal traffic stop of Mr. Smith was the sole basis for the arrest warrant, and no evidence demonstrated that the police would have discovered the marijuana on Mr. Smith’s person at the time of his arrest in the absence of the illegal traffic stop.  Therefore, it should have been suppressed.  NG


Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Statistical analysis showing underrepresentation of African Americans in Superior Court jury venires fails to convince the DCCA that the Sixth Amendment has been violated





Players:  Associate Judge Thompson, Chief Judge Washington, and Senior Judge Pryor.  Opinion by Judge Thompson.  Jonathan S. Zucker for Mr. Israel.  Quin M. Sorenson for Mr. Cheadle.  Trial Judge Frederick H. Weisberg.


Of note:  These appeals from the appellants' seven-week triple homicide and obstruction of justice trials raised several issues.  The most interesting is the Court’s guidance on using statistical analysis to challenge the composition of a client’s jury:

  • Under Gause v. United States, 6 A.3d 1247 (D.C. 2010) (en banc), defendants are entitled to discovery on the District’s jury selection procedures to support a claim that those procedures systematically underrepresent African Americans in jury venires.  This appeal was originally remanded in 2012 because the trial court erred by summarily denying Mr. Cheadle’s discovery motion.  On remand, Mr. Cheadle obtained discovery that is the subject of this appeal.

  •  According to a statistician retained by Mr. Cheadle, data from the Superior Court Juror Office revealed that during the four months preceding Mr. Cheadle’s trial, African Americans were underrepresented on jury venires by 10 to 15.6 percentage points. 

  • According to a statistician retained by the government, data from the Juror Office showed that during the same time period, African Americans were overrepresented among individuals on the Master Jury Wheel (i.e., the list from which the Juror Office draws prospective jurors) who were sent summonses for jury duty. 

  • The Court held that a constitutionally significant underrepresentation of a distinct group in either the Master Jury Wheel or the venires during a specific time period would satisfy the requirement for appellants to show representation that is not “fair and reasonable in relations to the number of such persons in the community.”  Slip op. at 16 (quoting Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979)). 

  • The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that the Juror Office violated the Sixth Amendment by failing to take corrective action in response to the disproportionately high rate at which African Americans apparently failed to respond to jury summonses and were overrepresented among those whose summonses were returned as undeliverable to the Juror Office.  According to the Court, “[t]he underrepresentation of African Americans appears to be attributable to external factors – undeliverable mail or the choices of individual prospective jurors to respond to their summonses or not appear for service – not to systematic exclusion existing in the jury-selection process.”  Slip op. at 20. 

  • The Court indicated that its analysis would have been different if the appellants had presented evidence that “the Juror Office’s policies and practices . . . encouraged African Americans to avoid or to be absent from jury service.” Slip op. at 21.  NG