Justia District of Columbia Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The appellant alleged that, after attending Long Island University and New York University and repaying her student loans, her name was fraudulently used in 1993 to certify additional federal student loans without her consent. She claimed that the universities signed her name on false loan applications, withheld refunds, and that the United States Department of Education attempted to collect on these fraudulent loans through debt collectors who used unlawful practices. The Department of Education ultimately garnished her tax refund and threatened to garnish her Social Security checks. The appellant filed suit against the Department of Education, the universities, the debt collectors, and others.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the claims against the universities and debt collectors for lack of personal jurisdiction, relying on the government-contacts exception. The court dismissed claims against other defendants on different grounds. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the other defendants but, regarding the dismissal based on the government-contacts exception, certified questions to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals about the scope of that exception under District law.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that, under the District’s long-arm statute, the government-contacts exception to personal jurisdiction applies only if a defendant can establish that asserting jurisdiction based on the conduct at issue would violate the First Amendment. The court clarified that its prior decision in Rose v. Silver is binding and limits the exception to circumstances implicating First Amendment rights, even if this interpretation is arguably in tension with an earlier case, Environmental Research International, Inc. v. Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc. The court declined to address whether the contacts alleged in this case fell within the exception, as that would depend on a First Amendment analysis. View "N'Jai v. U.S. Department of Education" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant was convicted in 2010 of several offenses, including aggravated assault while armed, after shooting an individual who was set to testify against his brother. The victim suffered serious injuries. The appellant was sentenced to a total of 336 months in prison, a sentence that was below the statutory maximum for the most serious offense. After an initial appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but remanded for merger of certain offenses and resentencing. The trial court resentenced the appellant to the same term, and the Court of Appeals again affirmed, rejecting arguments that the sentence was improperly enhanced based on prior convictions.Subsequently, the appellant succeeded in having one of his prior convictions vacated. He then moved for resentencing in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, arguing that his sentence had been enhanced based on the now-vacated conviction and that his two remaining prior convictions should not have counted separately for enhancement purposes. The trial court granted resentencing, but determined that the two remaining convictions qualified as separate prior felonies under the relevant statute and resentenced the appellant to 240 months, again below the statutory maximum but above the advisory range in the Voluntary Sentencing Guidelines.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed whether the trial court erred in applying the sentencing enhancement statute when the two prior convictions were adjudicated together. The court declined to reach the substantive statutory interpretation question, holding that because the sentence imposed was below the statutory maximum, it was not reviewable on the grounds asserted. The court reaffirmed that discretionary sentencing within statutory limits, even if based on an alleged misapplication of the Guidelines or enhancement statutes, is not subject to appellate review unless it involves materially false factual information. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. View "Johnson v. United States" on Justia Law

A man was convicted by a jury of several offenses related to a shooting outside a nightclub in Washington, D.C. in July 2021. The evidence showed that the defendant, who was twenty years old at the time, shot another individual and then hid the firearm. He was identified by a witness, and DNA evidence linked him to the recovered handgun. The defendant initially told police he was not the shooter, but at trial, he admitted to firing the gun, claiming self-defense.Prior to trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the defendant moved to dismiss charges related to carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. He argued that the District’s laws, which require individuals to be at least twenty-one years old to obtain a firearm registration or license, violated the Second Amendment, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The trial court denied the motion, finding the age-based restrictions consistent with the Second Amendment and historical firearm regulation. At trial, the government impeached the defendant’s credibility by highlighting inconsistencies between his initial statements and his trial testimony. The jury convicted him on all counts.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the constitutionality of the District’s age-based firearm registration and licensing statutes and the propriety of the government’s arguments regarding the defendant’s credibility. The court held that the age-based statutes are constitutional because they are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court also found that the government’s arguments about the defendant’s change in defense theory were not improper. The court affirmed the convictions but remanded for the limited purpose of merging certain convictions and resentencing as necessary. View "Picon v. United States" on Justia Law

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 small business that imports and sells shea butter hired an individual in 2017 to provide communication, marketing, and sales support, particularly focusing on social media. The individual worked under a contract that labeled her as an independent contractor, but after the contract expired, she continued to perform a mix of social media, event, and administrative tasks. She stopped working regularly for the business in September 2018. A dispute arose over unpaid wages, with the individual claiming she was owed for work performed, and the business asserting that she was paid for all work under the terms of the contract.The Office of Wage-Hour (OWH) initially determined that the business owed the individual back wages, liquidated damages, and a statutory penalty. The business appealed to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), arguing that the individual was an independent contractor. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the individual was an employee, not an independent contractor, and awarded damages. On the first petition for review, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the individual worked in both capacities—sometimes as an employee and sometimes as an independent contractor—and remanded for OAH to determine the hours worked in each capacity and adjust the damages accordingly. On remand, the ALJ used a percentage-based approach to allocate hours and payments between employee and independent contractor work, ultimately awarding the individual approximately $26,550 in unpaid wages and damages, plus a statutory penalty.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, reviewing the case again, affirmed the OAH’s amended final order. The court held that under the current D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law, employees may pursue claims for disputed wages even if the employer paid conceded wages. The court also held that, due to inadequate recordkeeping by the employer, the burden of proof shifted to the employer to disprove the employee’s evidence regarding hours worked and payments received. View "Shea Yeleen Health & Beauty, LLC v. Office of Wage-Hour" on Justia Law

The appellant was represented by an attorney in a criminal contempt proceeding after allegedly violating a civil protective order. During the course of representation, the appellant twice made statements to his attorney threatening to kill the Assistant Attorney General prosecuting his case, including specific language and gestures indicating an intent to cause harm. The attorney, disturbed by these threats, initially sought to withdraw from representation and later disclosed the threats to the court after being ordered to do so. The attorney subsequently testified before a grand jury and at trial regarding the threats, which led to the appellant being charged and convicted by a jury of threatening a public official and obstruction of justice.Following conviction in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the appellant challenged the admissibility of his attorney’s testimony, arguing that the statements were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The trial court rejected this argument, finding that the threats were not made for the purpose of seeking legal advice and thus were not privileged. On appeal, a division of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals initially vacated the convictions, holding that the statements were privileged and their admission was not harmless error. The United States successfully petitioned for en banc review, and the full court vacated the division’s decision, limiting the scope of review to the attorney-client privilege issue.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held that the attorney-client privilege does not protect communications that themselves constitute criminal threats to cause death or serious bodily harm. The court reasoned that such threats are an abuse of the attorney-client relationship and fall outside the privilege, regardless of whether the technical elements of the privilege are otherwise met. The court affirmed the Superior Court’s admission of the attorney’s testimony and remanded the case for consideration of the appellant’s remaining arguments. View "Moore v. United States" on Justia Law

A woman returning home late at night observed a man, later identified as the defendant, standing near the entrance of their shared condominium building with his lower body exposed. The man, wearing a sweatshirt that did not cover his genitalia, followed the woman as she entered the building, attempted to force his way inside, and did not try to cover himself. After a confrontation inside the building, the woman took what she believed to be the man’s phone and exited to call the police. The man followed her outside, continued to expose himself, and engaged in a physical altercation with her.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia initially convicted the defendant of lewd, indecent, or obscene acts in violation of D.C. Code § 22-1312 after a bench trial. The conviction was vacated following a post-conviction motion for ineffective assistance of counsel, and a new trial was scheduled. The government’s request to continue the trial, due to the unavailability of the key witness, was granted over the defendant’s objection. At the second trial, the court again found the defendant guilty, concluding that his exposure on the walkway in front of the building—an area open to public view—constituted a violation of the statute.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that D.C. Code § 22-1312 is not limited to conduct occurring on public property; rather, it applies to indecent exposures in any location “in public,” meaning in open view or before the public at large, regardless of property ownership. The court also determined that any error in granting the government’s motion to continue the trial was harmless, as the defendant failed to show prejudice. The conviction was affirmed. View "Flowers v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Police received reports of a group committing robberies or attempted robberies in a white Nissan Rogue that had been reported stolen. Officers tracked the vehicle, observed it being driven recklessly, and saw it crash. Four individuals, including E.A., fled from the car. E.A. was apprehended shortly after the crash, frisked, and found to have a handgun in his sweatshirt pocket. He was subsequently charged with carrying a pistol without a license and possession of an unregistered firearm.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia denied E.A.’s motion to suppress the handgun, finding that officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop and frisk him based on his association with the group suspected of recent robberies and the stolen vehicle, as well as his flight from the crash. The court also concluded that, even if the officers’ actions exceeded the scope of a Terry stop, they had probable cause to arrest E.A. for multiple offenses, justifying a search incident to arrest. E.A. was adjudicated delinquent on both firearms charges and appealed, challenging the denial of his suppression motion.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop and frisk E.A., relying on the collective knowledge from radio dispatches, corroborated by officers’ observations and the circumstances of the stop. The court further held that the officers’ use of handcuffs and drawn weapons did not convert the stop into an arrest, given the safety concerns and flight risk. Therefore, the search and seizure of the handgun did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and the judgment was affirmed. View "In re E.A." on Justia Law

A group of ten Black men, including the appellant, were conversing on a sidewalk in Ward Four of the District of Columbia when four officers from the Metropolitan Police Department’s Gun Recovery Unit approached them as part of a firearm interdiction operation. The officers, wearing tactical vests and displaying police equipment, approached the group without any specific suspicion of criminal activity. One officer, DelBorrell, approached the appellant from behind and asked if he was carrying a firearm. The appellant denied it and twice lifted his shirt to show his waistband. The officer then asked the appellant to “hike” his pants up, which he did. Another officer then noticed a bulge in the appellant’s groin area, believed it to be a firearm, and after a brief struggle, the officers recovered a gun from the appellant’s pants.The appellant was charged with eight firearm-related offenses. He moved to suppress the firearm and a subsequent statement, arguing they were the result of an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia denied the motion, finding that the appellant was not seized until after he raised his pants, at which point the officers had reasonable suspicion based on the observed bulge. The appellant was convicted on all counts following a trial on stipulated facts and appealed.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that the appellant was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when the officer requested that he raise his pants. The court found that, considering the officers’ show of authority, the accusatory and repetitive questioning, and the appellant’s status as a Black man in a highly policed area, a reasonable person in his position would not have felt free to leave. Because the seizure was not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause, it was unreasonable. The court vacated the convictions and remanded for further proceedings. View "Carter v. United States" on Justia Law

A man was charged with multiple counts of first- and second-degree child sex abuse and related offenses, based on allegations that he repeatedly sexually assaulted his then-girlfriend’s young daughter over a period of nearly two years. The complainant, who was nine to ten years old at the time of the alleged abuse, disclosed the assaults to her mother about ten months after the accused moved out of their home. Upon learning of the allegations, the mother, who was a police officer, recorded a nearly twenty-minute video of her conversation with her daughter, in which the child described the alleged abuse in detail, including some claims not raised at trial and references to uncharged violent conduct. Both the complainant and her mother testified at trial, and the prosecution sought to admit the entire recording as evidence.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia admitted the full recording under the “report-of-rape” rule, over the defendant’s objection, and instructed the jury that the recording was not to be considered for the truth of its contents but rather to show that a report was made and to evaluate the demeanor of the witnesses. The jury found the defendant guilty on several counts, and he was sentenced to 384 months in prison. The defendant appealed, arguing that admitting the entire recording was erroneous and prejudicial.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by admitting the entire recording, as the “report-of-rape” rule only allows for the admission of enough details to show that a report was made, not the full substance or highly prejudicial content. The court found the error was not harmless and reversed the convictions, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Johnson v. United States" on Justia Law