Justia District of Columbia Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In this case, the appellant was convicted of simple assault with a bias enhancement after an incident at a Metro station. The government’s evidence showed that the appellant approached a group, made derogatory remarks about their sexual orientation, and physically assaulted one of them multiple times. The assailant was later apprehended at a different Metro station and identified as the appellant. The charges were eventually narrowed to simple assault with a bias enhancement, and the appellant was found guilty by a jury.Prior to trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the appellant objected to the composition of the jury venire, arguing that it did not reflect a fair cross-section of the community, as only three of fifty-four potential jurors appeared to be African American. The trial judge denied the motion to strike the panel, finding that the appellant had not shown systematic exclusion of a group from the jury selection process. The judge also denied a subsequent, untimely request for access to jury selection records, reasoning that the request came only after the motion to strike had been denied and that no prior efforts had been made to obtain such records.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and the fair cross-section claim. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the testimony of the arresting officer and the circumstances of the arrest. The court also held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to strike the jury panel or the belated request for jury selection records, finding that the denial was based on the untimeliness of the request rather than an improper threshold requirement. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Brown v. United States" on Justia Law

A law enforcement agency in the District of Columbia, responsible for supervising individuals on supervised release, imposed GPS monitoring on a supervisee without judicial or Parole Commission authorization. The agency’s internal regulations permitted its officers to unilaterally require GPS monitoring as an administrative sanction, and this practice had been applied to thousands of supervisees over two decades. In this instance, the supervisee was placed on GPS monitoring twice, first for a positive drug test and then for submitting questionable urine samples. Subsequently, police investigating an armed robbery used the agency’s GPS data to identify and locate the supervisee, leading to his arrest and the recovery of stolen property and a firearm.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia reviewed the supervisee’s motion to suppress the GPS evidence and its fruits, following the District of Columbia Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Davis v. United States, 306 A.3d 89 (D.C. 2023), which held that the agency lacked statutory authority to impose GPS monitoring absent judicial or Parole Commission approval, rendering such searches unconstitutional. The government conceded the constitutional violation but argued that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should apply, as the agency reasonably relied on its own regulations. The trial court rejected this argument and granted the suppression motion.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The court held that the exclusionary rule applies because the agency is a law enforcement entity, not a neutral third party like a judge or legislature, and thus should feel the deterrent effect of suppression. The good faith exception does not apply when a law enforcement agency unilaterally authorizes unconstitutional searches based on its own mistaken interpretation of its authority. The court concluded that suppression is warranted to deter systemic constitutional violations. View "United States v. Wells" on Justia Law

A woman from North Carolina was found raped and murdered in a Washington, D.C. apartment in March 2017. The victim’s body was discovered bound and stabbed, with evidence of sexual assault. Surveillance footage and ATM records showed her car and credit cards being used in the days following her death. The investigation led to the arrest of El Hadji A. Toure, whose DNA was found at the crime scene and on items used to bind the victim. Video evidence placed Toure near the victim’s apartment shortly before the crime, and he was later seen using her credit and debit cards, always entering the correct PIN. After the murder, Toure’s financial situation improved markedly, as he paid cash for a hotel stay and a car.A jury in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia convicted Toure of multiple offenses, including first-degree murder, sexual abuse, kidnapping, and related charges. He was sentenced to life without release. While his appeal was pending, Toure moved for a new trial, arguing that the government failed to timely disclose disciplinary records (QCARs) for forensic witnesses, in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The Superior Court denied the motion, finding that, even assuming suppression of favorable evidence, there was no reasonable probability the outcome would have been different given the strength of the other evidence.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed both the convictions and the denial of a new trial. The court held that, although the government failed to timely disclose impeachment evidence, the suppressed material was not material under Brady because the remaining evidence against Toure was overwhelming. The court also found that the prosecutor’s conduct in eliciting certain testimony violated Toure’s confrontation and due process rights, but concluded that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The convictions and denial of a new trial were affirmed, with a remand for merger and resentencing as necessary. View "Toure v. United States" on Justia Law

A shelter providing housing to individuals experiencing homelessness terminated a client's services on an emergency basis, alleging that the client posed an imminent threat to the health or safety of others. The client, who had previously been removed from the shelter without proper notice, returned to the shelter and was involved in a confrontation with security officers. The shelter claimed the client was hostile, pushed a security officer, and made threats. The client challenged the termination, leading to an evidentiary hearing.The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reviewed the case. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the shelter had previously attempted to terminate the client without proper notice and that the client was within his rights to be at the shelter at the time of the incident. The ALJ determined that the security officers escalated the situation by provoking the client, who only pushed the officer after being provoked. The ALJ did not credit the shelter's witness's testimony that the client made threats, finding it uncorroborated and inconsistent with video evidence.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court upheld the ALJ's decision, agreeing that the ALJ correctly applied the law and that the client's actions were not severe enough to warrant emergency termination under the Homeless Services Reform Act. The court found that the ALJ's credibility determinations were supported by substantial evidence and that the shelter's arguments regarding the client's prior misconduct were unpreserved for appeal. The court affirmed the OAH's order, rejecting the shelter's arguments. View "Catholic Charities--801 East Men's Shelter v. Byrd" on Justia Law

A national news reporter employed by a prominent newspaper sued her employer and six of its editors in Superior Court, alleging violations of the D.C. Human Rights Act and the common law tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. She claimed that the defendants discriminated against her based on her status as a sexual assault victim and her gender, took adverse employment actions against her, subjected her to a hostile work environment, and retaliated against her for protesting their discriminatory actions.The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and filed a special motion to dismiss under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act, arguing that the claims arose from acts in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest. The Superior Court denied the special motion to dismiss, finding that the claims did not arise from speech protected by the Anti-SLAPP Act, but granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, concluding that the complaint failed to plausibly allege unlawful discrimination or retaliation.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the denial of the special motion to dismiss, agreeing that the Anti-SLAPP Act did not apply. The court reversed the dismissal of the counts alleging adverse action discrimination, finding that the complaint plausibly alleged that the defendants took certain adverse employment actions against the reporter in violation of the Human Rights Act. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the hostile work environment and retaliation claims, concluding that the allegations did not meet the necessary legal standards. The court also noted that it was premature to decide whether the defendants' actions were protected by the First Amendment, leaving that issue open for further proceedings. View "Sonmez v. WP Company, LLC" on Justia Law

Dagoberto Machado was convicted by a jury of multiple offenses related to the inappropriate touching of I.A., his girlfriend’s young niece. The incidents allegedly occurred during the summers of 2016 and 2017 when I.A. was staying with Machado and his girlfriend. I.A. testified that Machado touched her inappropriately on several occasions, including at a public pool and in their home. She did not immediately report the incidents due to uncertainty and fear of affecting family relationships. The government introduced expert testimony from Dr. Stephanie Wolf, a child psychologist, to provide context for I.A.'s delayed reporting, including cultural barriers within Latino communities.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia admitted Dr. Wolf’s testimony over Machado’s objections. Machado argued that Dr. Wolf’s statements about “machismo” in Latino culture were prejudicial. The trial court qualified Dr. Wolf as an expert and allowed her to testify about cultural norms that might impede a child from disclosing abuse. Dr. Wolf mentioned that in Latino culture, men might have a higher standing, which could impact how sexuality and abuse are viewed. The jury found Machado guilty on all counts.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the trial court erred in admitting Dr. Wolf’s testimony about Latino culture. The court held that the testimony had minimal probative value and was substantially outweighed by its potential to unfairly prejudice the jury against Machado based on ethnic stereotypes. The court emphasized that such testimony could lead the jury to view Machado as more likely to have committed the abuse simply because of his ethnicity. Consequently, the court reversed Machado’s convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Machado v. United States" on Justia Law