DC Criminal Lawyer Blog

Three of the top homicide prosecutors for the United States Attorney's Office in Washington DC have decided to leave their positions only months after Ronald C. Machen, Jr., was appointed the District's newest US Attorney to oversee the office. Assistant US Attorneys Glenn L. Kirschner, Deborah Sines, and Daniel Zachem are all leaving their posts after careers filled with the prosecution of high-profile homicide cases.

Glenn Kirschner, head of the US Attorney's Office homicide unit for the past six years, is stepping aside to return to trying cases. Kirschner is notable for prosecuting the Robert Wone conspiracy case in which three of Wone's housemates were accused of covering up his fatal stabbing in 2006. The three were acquitted. DC criminal defense lawyer Vincent H. Cohen, Jr., who has been tapped as the newest US Attorney's right-hand man, observed the Wone trial.

Also returning to full-time prosecution of homicide cases is Deborah Sines, considered the homicide unit's second in command. One of Sines's most notorious cases was the prosecution of Banita Jacks, who was convicted last year of killing her four daughters, aged 5-17.

Leaving homicide prosecution to spend more time with his family is Assistant US Attorney Daniel Zachem. Zachem has recently been criticized for failing to sign an arrest warrant for a suspected drug dealer only days before the man was allegedly involved in a drive-by shooting that killed four people and injured six others.

While the DC United States Attorney's Office has been disparaged by victims' rights advocates who claim that the office only prosecutes cases with a high likelihood of conviction, US Attorney Ronald Machen disputes the allegations, saying that arresting suspects without proper evidence results in a violation of the rights of the accused. Such procedural violations could result in the acquittal of a violent criminal.

This article is presented by The Law Offices of David Benowitz, a criminal and DUI defense firm serving Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia. For more information, please visit our Maryland Criminal Attorney or Virginia Criminal Lawyer websites.

A Maryland man was convicted of first degree murder in the 1990 shooting of the son of a retired Washington DC homicide detective. John B. Holmes, 40, was accused of shooting Ronald Jones, Jr., then 22, after a traffic argument twenty years ago. According to witness testimony, Jones and his friends began arguing with another driver, identified as Holmes, who pulled out a .357 magnum when they approached a traffic light and shot Jones four times.

While several years went by without a suspect, an acquaintance of Holmes, Rodney Hunt, eventually told authorities in 2003 that he was following Holmes after a party and witnessed the shooting. After Hunt's tip, a friend of Jones identified Holmes as the shooter from a photograph in 2007, seventeen years after the incident. John Holmes was charged with the murder in 2008. Holmes's Washington DC criminal defense attorney argued that Hunt is a convicted criminal himself, and that he falsely identified Holmes as the shooter in an effort to seek revenge against his former friend.

Prosecutors called John Holmes a "remorseless killer," but his DC criminal defense lawyers say that there is no DNA evidence linking their client to the scene, and that the evidence in the case is based on questionable eyewitness identification. Despite such shaky evidence during the four day trial, a DC Superior Court jury took less than two hours to return a guilty verdict for John Holmes.Holmes's sentencing is scheduled for October 29, 2010.

This article is presented by The Law Offices of David Benowitz, a criminal and DUI defense firm serving Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia. For more stories like this one, please visit our Maryland DUI Lawyer blog.

On July 8, Harry T. Alexander, a Superior Court judge and DC federal criminal lawyer, died of cardiopulmonary arrest at the age of 85. Judge Alexander was known as a judicial and civil rights activist during his legal career, and his outspoken, charismatic approach polarized the community.

In 1966, Alexander was appointed to the DC Court of General Sessions, which later became known as the DC Superior Court. During his career as a judge, Alexander's proponents praised his support of civil rights and his "conscientious and effective judicial service." His critics decried his methods, which included making "intemperate and injudicious remarks tending to downgrade" those appearing before him. In 1972, a judicial commission publicly censured Judge Alexander, noting at least one case where it appeared that Alexander's personal bias interfered with his judicial obligation. In that case, Alexander chastised a white officer, who did not use the prefix "Mrs." when referring to a black witness, and he refused to let the officer complete his testimony. When the prosecution asked for a continuance because the officer was not allowed to finish testifying, Judge Alexander dismissed the case.

In 1976, Judge Alexander decided not to seek reappointment, and he began practicing as a DC federal criminal lawyer. As a defense attorney, Alexander's most notorious client was Hamaas Abdul Khaalis, leader of the Hanafi Muslim sect which seized three downtown Washington buildings in a 39-hour standoff with dozens of hostages. One person was killed during the siege. The Hanafis were found guilty of kidnapping and murder, and Alexander was criticized for his courtroom behavior. According to a DC Court of Appeals, which upheld the convictions, Alexander "made improper opening remarks to the jury, argued with witnesses, interrupted the court, commented on the testimony and the court's rulings, asked improper questions, and 'baited' the court." His unorthodox behavior continued, and in 1985, Alexander was suspended from practicing law for two years as a result of disciplinary violations. He never practiced law again; however, he continued to insist upon being called "Judge," saying, "A judge keeps his title until someone takes it away or until he dies."

This article is presented by The Law Offices of David Benowitz, a criminal and DUI defense firm serving Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia. For more stories like this one, please visit our Maryland DUI Lawyers blog.

Just weeks after a DC DUI lawyer successfully defended Washington Redskins cornerback Byron Westbrook against DUI charges, a former Redskin was arrested on suspicion of DUI. Quinton Ganther, who was a running back last season with the Washington Redskins, was arrested around 3:15 a.m. on July 10. He was booked into jail and released on $1,482 bail. The Seahawks, with whom Ganther has been signed, had no comment other than to say, "We are aware of the situation, and in the process of gathering information."

The running back is not the only Seahawks team member to be arrested this off-season. Linebacker Leroy Hill was arrested in April and charged with assault and domestic violence. His trial is set to begin at the end of the month. Safety Kevin Ellison, who was signed by the Seahawks this month, was arrested in May while he was still on the Chargers' roster. Ellison is accused of possession of Vicodin without a valid prescription. The Chargers waived him after the alleged offense, and he was signed with the Seahawks. The Chargers are facing their own DUI woes, suspending receiver Vincent Jackson after his second DUI conviction earlier this year. According to the NFL rumor mill, the Redskins are considering attempting to trade for Jackson.

If Washington picks up Vincent Jackson, he and Byron Westbrook will not be the only two Redskins arrested for alcohol related offenses in 2010. In June, Redskins guard Chad Rinehart was found guilty of public intoxication stemming from a January incident. He was ordered to pay $195 in fines and court fees.

This article is presented by The Law Offices of David Benowitz, a criminal and DUI defense firm serving Maryland, Washington DC, and Virginia. For more information, please visit our Maryland DUI Lawyer blog or Virginia DUI Attorney website.

Despite the arguments of his Washington DC Criminal Defense Attorney, a man accused of slaying two store clerks during a botched robbery attempt was ordered held until his preliminary hearing on August 3. While his public defender argued that Christian Taylor, 25, should be released because he has no prior record of violent offenses, a DC Superior Court judge disagreed after noting that the suspect tested positive for cocaine after his arrest.

Taylor's arrest came after he was identified on surveillance video as the man who shot and killed a men's clothing store owner and his son while attempting to rob the store. The video shows a man entering the store and brandishing a handgun, ordering the clerk, Li-Jen Chih, to place money into a bag. After the suspect placed the gun in the bag, Chih attempted to wrestle it away from the suspect. The suspect then stood and fired the gun at the clerk, whose father rushed in upon hearing the gunshots. After Ming-Kun Chih attempted to knock the gun out of the suspect's hands, the shooter fired at him before tucking the gun into the waistband of his pants and fleeing the store.
Witnesses identified the car in which the suspect fled, and one recorded the vehicle's tag number. The car was traced to Taylor's mother, and he was subsequently identified as the shooter on the surveillance video.

Christian Taylor has been charged with two counts of first degree felony murder.

This article is presented by The Law Offices of David Benowitz, a criminal defense firm serving Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia. For more information, please visit our Maryland Criminal Attorney and Virginia Criminal Attorney websites.

Actress Lindsay Lohan is once again making headlines related to her 2007 DUI conviction. When we originally brought you Lohan's story on our DC Criminal Defense Attorney blog, the actress had just been sentenced to wearing an alcohol monitoring device on her ankle after missing a mandatory hearing. The judge had sentenced Lohan to wearing the SCRAMx device after Lohan repeatedly neglected her obligations regarding her DUI conviction. Now, Lohan has been sentenced to jail time after continuing to violate the terms of her probation.

Under her probation conditions, Lohan was required to attend weekly alcohol education classes. After missing seven classes since December, Lohan was forced to appear before a judge, who was unmoved by Lohan's apology. The judge sentenced the "Mean Girls" actress to 90 days in jail and 90 days of inpatient alcohol treatment, a much stiffer penalty than prosecutors requested. The judge listed a number of ways in which Lohan continually defied the rulings of the court and stated, "There were a number of instances of [Lohan] not taking things seriously. It's like someone who cheats but doesn't think it's cheating if they don't get caught." She said that Lohan repeatedly lied to the court and continued to blame others for her own failure to comply with court decisions.

The latest in the Lindsay Lohan saga comes after her 2007 DUI conviction in which she pled guilty to being under the influence of cocaine and pleaded no contest to reckless driving and driving with a BAC over .08. She served 84 minutes of a four-day jail sentence in that case. Since then, she has been ordered to attend alcohol educations classes, which she repeatedly missed, and forced to wear an alcohol monitoring device, which was triggered by a BAC reading of .03 at after-parties following the MTV Movie Awards.

While the actress is sentenced to 90 days in jail, officials say that she will probably serve much less, reporting that non-violent female offenders generally serve only 25% of their sentence.

This article is presented by The Law Offices of David Benowitz, a DC DUI defense firm also serving Maryland. For more information, please visit our Maryland DUI Lawyer and DC DUI Lawyer website.

A charity fundraiser turned deadly when an SUV veered into a line of motorcycles riding in memory of a Windham police officer. A motorcycle passenger was killed and two drivers injured when a Chevy Blazer struck them, sending them into the guardrail. One of the injured victims was treated and released from a local hospital; the other was airlifted in critical condition to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

The driver of the SUV, Randall Stewart, 46, was alleged to be driving while intoxicated at the time of the accident. Numerous area police departments received word of his Chevy Blazer driving erratically before the crash. Officers participating in the Knight Ride charity motorcycle event noticed Stewart's vehicle and tried to get him to slow down; however, before they could do so, Stewart swerved into the opposite lane and struck two motorcycles. Police at the scene noted that Stewart seemed markedly impaired, saying that he "couldn't stand up straight" and "he couldn't put together a coherent sentence."

Stewart admitted to police that he had taken a prescription painkiller earlier that morning, but denied consuming any alcohol. However, only 12 hours before the accident, Stewart was charged with a class A misdemeanor DWI as a second offense under New Hampshire DWI laws. He was previously convicted of his first DWI in 2005.

While it is not unusual for a New Hampshire DWI lawyer to see repeat offenders, it is unusual that someone would be charged with the crime twice in 24 hours. Officers report that the first incident was "kind of routine DWI." Stewart was arrested after motorists observed him driving erratically withouth headlights. After his arrest, Stewart was issued a summons to appear in court, and police officers drove him home. Several hours later, he was again charged with DWI after the accident that claimed the life of a 49-year-old woman. New Hampshire DWI laws stipulate that a DWI accident that causes serious injury is considered "aggravated DWI." As such, Stewart has been charged with negligent homicide, aggravated driving while intoxicated and two counts of felony reckless conduct. He is in police custody with bail set at $100,000.

This article is presented by The Law Offices of David Benowitz, serving Maryland, Washington, DC and Virginia. Please visit Maryland Criminal Lawyer and Virginia DUI Lawyer.

According to his Maryland criminal attorney, the former chief financial officer of the Maryland Legal Aid Bureau is expected to plead guilty to charges of theft from a program receiving federal funds. Benjamin L. King, Jr., CFO of Legal Aid from 1978 to 2008, is accused of conspiring with Wendell Jackson to steal from the organization through an inflated invoicing scheme in which the Maryland Legal Aid Bureau overpaid for office supplies from a company that the two men created. Jackson allegedly sent fraudulent invoices which overcharged for purchased products, and King paid the invoices with Legal Aid funds. The men pocketed the difference in the real price and the inflated price, with King alleged to have received 85% of the embezzled funds.

Federal prosecutors estimate that King and Jackson used the scheme to steal $1.1 million from the Maryland Legal Aid Bureau between 2004 and 2007. Prosecutors say approximately $275,000 of that amount came from federal funds supporting the public interest organization. King's Maryland criminal lawyerlawyer, however, says that while his client is ready to plead guilty to charges of stealing from the Bureau, he disputes the amount. King's defense lawyer claims that the involvement of another person in the scheme makes the exact amount difficult to determine, calling the situation "murky." King and his attorney estimate the amount to be over $400,000, but say it falls short of $1 million--a federal sentencing guidelines threshold.

King's alleged partner is also expected to plead guilty later this month to charges resulting from the scheme.

This article is presented by The Law Offices of David Benowitz, a criminal defense firm serving Maryland, Washington DC, and Virginia. For more information, please visit our DC Criminal Defense Attorney and Virginia Criminal Lawyer websites.

With the identification of "hate crimes," a person's motive in an assault becomes key in the development of charges. While DC criminal defense attorneys work to get their clients' charges lessened or dismissed, a person's alleged motive for an attack could actually lead to enhanced charges.

On June 16, the Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department announced that two men charged in a 2009 robbery and assault were convicted, and that a bias enhancement was added to their charges. Michael Cowan, 23, and Vernon Long, 25, were found guilty of robbing and beating two men, at least one of whom they perceived to be homosexual.

The incident, which occurred in November 2009, took place when Cowan, Long, and several other men robbed and attaccked two teenagers, aged 17 and 19, as they were leaving a DC convenience store. After stealing the victims' jackets, Cowan and Long beat them. Cowan was charged with continuing the attack based on his perception of the sexual orientation of one of the victims. He admitted to police that he used a derogatory term to reference the victim's perceived homosexuality as he beat him. Because the attack continued as a direct result of Cowan's belief that the victime was gay, the bias enhancement was added to his charges. Washington DC criminal defense lawyers know that bias crimes, or hate crimes, stipulate greater penalites.

Cowan and Long were found guilty of two counts of robbery, one count of assault with a dangerous weapon/ bias-related crime, and one count of assault with significant injury/ bias-related crime. They will be sentenced on July 26.

The District of Columbia is not alone having bias crime statutes. Forty-five other states have also passed hate crime laws; 32 of them cover bias-motivated violence on the basis of sexual orientation. A DC criminal defense attorney must consider the alleged motive when defending a client against bias-enhanced assault charges.

A man accused of first-degree assault, simple assault, and driving while intoxicated planned to plead guilty to the charges until he discovered that a sentence-review panel could increase his term if urged by prosecutors to review the case. His New Hampshire DWI lawyer said that since no guarantee could be made that his sentence would not increase, he could not recommend that the client accept the plea agreement.

Joseph Nault, 20, was charged with first-degree assault after an incident earlier this year in which he is accused of smashing a woman's face into the door frame of a car, fracturing her nose. He faces additional simple assault charges for allegedly putting the woman in a chokehold and twisting her arm behind her back. When officers pulled Nault over, they found vodka in his vehicle and charged him under New Hampshire DWI laws with driving while impaired and being a minor in possession of alcohol.

Under the proposed plea deal, prosecutors would drop the minor in possession charge and recommend a lower sentence in exchange for Nault's guilty plea in the other charges.

Joseph Nault appeared in court planning to plead guilty to the charges, which, under the agreement, would have made him eligible for a maximum prison sentence of up to four years; Nault's NH DWI lawyer planned to argue for a sentence of only six months. However, the judge in the case informed Nault that a sentence review panel could override the sentence, even beyond the four year maximum negotiated in the plea agreement. Since no guarantee could be made that Nault's sentence would not increase, Nault withheld his plea and will let the case be decided at trial. If convicted of first-degree assault, he faces a prison sentence of up to 15 years.

When arrests are not immediately made and witnesses cannot instantly identify a suspect in a crime, the elapsed time between the incident and the arrest can either help or hinder an investigation. While an ongoing investigation may allow for the discovery of new evidence, it can also taint existing evidence, such as witness statements as memory begins to fade. A DC criminal defense attorney must look closely at any investigation and the evidence it reveals regardless of whether an arrest is immediate or the result of a lengthy investigation.

Nearly a week after the shooting of three men in a northwest Washington DC neighborhood, police have arrested a suspect. A Washington DC criminal defense lawyer will defend Herbert Jackson Arrington, 24, against charges of assault with intent to kill in the shooting that left two men with life-threatening injuries and a third man in serious condition
.
On June 9, off-duty police officers working at the 9:30 Club heard nearby gunshots and reported to the scene. When they arrived at Eighth and V streets in the Shaw neighborhood, just a couple of blocks from Howard University, they found two seriously injured men. One had a gunshot wound to the head, and the other had bullet wounds to his body. Both men were transported to the hospital with life-threatening injuries. A third injured man had run to a nearby McDonald's for help and was also hospitalized. Though serious, his wounds were not considered life-threatening.

After the incident, police were looking for a green Chrysler 300 that fled the scene. On June 15, six days after the shooting, Arrington was arrested and charged in the assault.

When an alleged crime results in injury to multiple people, the accused person often faces increased hostility from public perception. It is imperative that A Washington DC criminal defense attorney ensures that an impartial jury is seated should the case go to trial, regardless of the situation leading to an arrest.

A Washington DC criminal defense attorney knows that no one is immune to criminal charges. Political leaders, public officials, and law enforcement officers have all found themselves facing prosecution. Recently, a former DC police officer was convicted of charges stemming from a shooting in 2008.

The DC Superior Court found former police detective Sheldon Hargrove guilty of weapons charges in an incident in which his longtime friend shot an employee after arguing over wages. Hargrove's DC criminal defense lawyer challenged the charges that stemmed from his client supplying the weapon used in the shooting.

According to the prosecutors, Ronald Johnson, a general contractor, called his friend Hargrove for help in an argument with a worker. When Hargrove arrived, he handed Johnson a loaded semi-automatic weapon. Johnson shot the victim, who was sitting in a truck, twice in the chest. When the victim exited the vehicle and ran, Johnson continued to fire the pistol until it was emptied. An off-duty police officer witnessed the shooting and helped apprehend Johnson.

Convicted of assault and weapons charges, Johnson faces up to 15 years in prison. Hargrove, who supplied the weapon, faces up to 5 years as a result of DC Superior Court's guilty verdict. His sentencing will be held July 23.

Not even law enforcement officials and ex-cops are immune to weapons charges such as carrying a pistol without a license, assault with a weapon, and unlawful sale of a firearm. A DC criminal defense attorney knows that no one--regardless of political, professional, or societal contributions--is above the law.

Law enforcement agents frequently set up sobriety checkpoints in an effort to catch intoxicated drivers and reduce the number of DUI accidents. Sometimes, these checkpoints lead to charges other than DUI. While DC DUI lawyers have heard all kinds of strange stories as a result of these sobriety checks, the recent discovery at a sobriety checkpoint may be a first for attorneys and law enforcement.

A DC woman was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint in a neighboring state. When she pulled up to the checkpoint, the officer heard loud noises coming from her trunk. He asked the driver what she had in the trunk, and she stated matter-of-factly, "A goat."

When the officer had the driver open the trunk, sure enough, there was a heavily panting goat tied up in the trunk. Animal control officers gave the goat water and took it to a local pound. An officer on the scene said the temperature in the trunk was 94 degrees, even after being opened for over ten minutes.

As a result of the treatment of the goat, the driver faces animal cruelty charges and will need the services of a DC criminal defense lawyer rather than a DUI attorney. When asked to explain the goat in the trunk, the driver said that she bought the goat from a farmer and was going to give it to her four passengers, who are originally from Kenya. The driver said she is from the United Kingdom, where she claims it is acceptable to transport livestock in the trunk of a vehicle.

DC DUI attorneys know that sobriety checkpoints result in more arrests than just DUI. The checkpoint which discovered the overheated goat yielded 82 arrests and citations--only three of which were for DUI. With so many discoveries that day, however, a goat in the trunk may be the strangest of all.

Earlier this year, the news media reported that the Metropolitan Police Department discovered that some machines used to determine a person's blood alcohol concentration were not calibrated correctly or were not working properly. An investigation into the matter revealed that the results of Department's Intoxilyzer machines, which are larger than the roadside breathalyzers, have been used to convict at least 400 people of DUI and DWI. Over half of the convictions resulted in jail time. This news was not surprising to DC DUI lawyers, who know that machines are not infallible in assessing a person's BAC, and that field sobriety testing can be subjective when being used to determine someone's level of intoxication.

While earlier reports found that at least eight of the ten Intoxilyzer machines used by the DC Metropolitan Police Department were working improperly, the investigation revealed that all ten machines were in fact defective. The machines were not calibrated correctly and showed a person's BAC to be up to 20% higher than it actually was. Unfortunately, some people convicted of DUI based on the faulty Intoxilyzer readings had already served mandatory jail sentences, paid heavy fines, and lost driving privileges as a result of their convictions. Veteran DC DUI attorney David Benowitz calls for action from the DC Attorney General Peter Nickles, but feels he is "just not willing to deal with the situation." The discovery of the flawed readings will keep DC DUI attorneys busy as those convicted by the inaccurate readings call for new trials and expungements. At least one lawsuit has already been filed.

Prior to clinical sobriety tests, a person may be subject to field sobriety tests if he or she is pulled over and the officer suspects DUI. Sobriety tests often include the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, which assesses a person's ability to smoothly track an object with the eyes; and the One-Legged Stand and the Walk and Turn, in which the officer looks for clues that suggest impairment, including balance and ability to follow directions. An officer's interpretation of these tests can be highly subjective or can inaccurately predict a person's impairment through a lack of officer training. A DC DUI attorney will evaluate the results of any test leading to the DUI arrest and charge of a client.

A Washington DC criminal defense attorney saw victory for his 16-year-old client as the DC Court of Appeals overturned the teen's drug conviction, saying that the drugs were discovered in an illegal search of the teen after a flawed arrest for disorderly conduct.

In the court's opinion, the rationale for the teen's disorderly conduct arrest was wrong. Because there was no reason for the teen's arrest, the search that followed was illegal. While prosecutors have the option to retry the teen for drug possession, the drugs discovered in the illegal search are not admissible as evidence.

According to the teen's DC criminal defense lawyer, the circumstances surrounding the teen's arrest did not warrant an arrest for disorderly conduct. In December 2005, the teen known as T.L. was standing with several other men on a street corner "notorious" for drug dealing when the arresting officer drove by. T.L. shouted out to the officer, asking, "What's up?" as the other men dispersed. The officer asked T.L. if he had any guns or drugs on him, and the teen replied, "Yo, Officer Elliott, you know me. I ain't got no drugs or guns. . . . Go ahead and search me."

When Officer Robert Elliott searched the teen, he found $974 in cash. He confiscated the money, telling T.L. that it was a "large amount of currency to have on your person" in such a high drug-trafficking area. He said that if T.L. could produce a pay stub, he might be able to get the money back.

After the money was taken, T.L. began yelling and calling for his mother. At the commotion, about 10-15 people came out of their homes to see what was happening. Officer Elliott found it dangerous to draw a crowd in an area of high crime and arrested T.L. for disorderly conduct. A search after the arrest discovered 24 baggies of crack cocaine in the teen's pants.

The teen's Washington DC criminal defense lawyer argued that the yelling alone was not enough to merit a disorderly conduct arrest or a search of his client. The DC Court of Appeals agreed, saying that T.L. did not incite the crowd to intervene on his behalf, nor was there any evidence that the crowd was likely to become hostile or violent. With no rationale for the arrest, the drug search was illegal, and the teen's conviction in the trial court was overturned.