Phyllis D. Thompson

In Bradshaw v. District of Columbia, appellant Trinetta Bradshaw sued the District and MPD Officer Milan Jones for false arrest and imprisonment and a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after her 2004 arrest at Club H20. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, but the appellate court reversed and remanded. The core reasoning was that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether Officer Jones had probable cause to arrest Bradshaw for unlawful entry, given conflicting deposition and trial testimony about whether a bouncer had asked her to leave and whether she refused, as well as disputes over her actions at the time of the stop.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned whether Georgetown Court Condominium, LLC created an enforceable lien on real property owned by judgment debtor Scott Wandling by recording a certified copy of the Landlord and Tenant Branch docket sheet that reflected a money judgment against him. After Wandling sold the property to appellant Robinson without satisfying the judgment, Georgetown Court sought judicial foreclosure, and the trial court granted summary judgment in its favor. The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that D.C. Code § 15-102(a) requires only the filing and recordation of a judgment to create a lien and does not prescribe any particular form or document; the certified docket sheet containing the money-judgment entry therefore sufficed. The court rejected arguments that Superior Court Civil Rules 54 and 58 or Landlord-Tenant Branch forms imposed additional requirements, noting the absence of any statutory definition or form mandate and the summary nature of Landlord-Tenant proceedings.

propertyprocedure

This case involved the District of Columbia's condemnation of property owned by Samuel N. Franco and leased to his business in the Skyland Shopping Center for redevelopment. The property owners challenged the taking, asserting lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and that the public purpose was pretextual, and sought additional discovery. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the District, struck the affirmative defenses, denied the motion to compel further discovery, and granted possession of the property. The appellate court affirmed these orders, finding no abuse of discretion in discovery rulings, that the Superior Court had jurisdiction, and that the evidence did not support the pretext defense after extensive discovery.

propertyprocedure

In this case, R.B. challenged a decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings that denied him unemployment compensation benefits after the EPA terminated him for conduct unbecoming a law enforcement officer and lack of candor, based on his wife's allegations of sexual misconduct and statements made during an internal investigation. The ALJ found that EPA had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that R.B. gave misleading or untruthful information to investigators, relying on transcripts of police interviews with his wife and his own interview responses, but did not treat the wife's statements as establishing a disqualifying rule violation. The D.C. Court of Appeals remanded the matter, holding that the ALJ failed to explicitly apply 7 DCMR § 312.10, which bars basing a misconduct finding on prior statements or documents without other reliable corroborating evidence, and that additional evidentiary concerns existed regarding the wife's untested statements, potential contextual issues, and R.B.'s lack of prior access to those statements. The court directed reconsideration of whether EPA met its burden to show gross misconduct under the applicable regulations.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, Kenneth Aiken appealed his convictions for multiple felony and misdemeanor offenses against his former girlfriend, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a Kastigar hearing to determine whether the government improperly used his immunized testimony from a civil protection order hearing. After a remand from an earlier appeal, the trial court found that the government had met its burden of showing no taint from the immunized testimony. On further review, the appellate court determined that the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that no use was made of the immunized testimony and that the use was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for three specific counts (one felony threat and two misdemeanor destruction of property convictions). Accordingly, the court reversed those convictions while upholding the others, based on a detailed examination of witness testimony, investigative records, and potential evidentiary influences from the CPO hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a challenge by Julius Fleischman to the District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment's (BZA) approval of special exception and multiple area variances requested by Hillcrest Homes Association LP to develop 54 one-family detached dwellings on a 12.59-acre wooded property in Southeast D.C., which required reducing lot sizes and other adjustments due to the site's topography. The petitioner argued that the BZA lacked authority to grant such extensive relief, as it amounted to an improper rezoning of the property. The court affirmed the BZA's decision, holding that it acted within its authority under D.C. Code § 6-641.07(e), that substantial evidence supported the findings of practical difficulties justifying the variances, and that the approval did not constitute a de facto amendment to zoning regulations.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Jeremiah Lester's convictions for armed first-degree premeditated murder, armed felony murder, attempted armed robbery, multiple counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and carrying a pistol without a license, all arising from the 2002 execution-style shooting of Eric Murray. On appeal, Lester challenged the admission of a Certificate of No Record regarding his lack of a pistol license without the clerk's testimony, the trial court's refusal to replace a juror alleged to have slept during closing arguments, and the failure to merge certain convictions under double jeopardy principles. The court held that the Confrontation Clause was not violated because a detective personally observed the clerk perform the license search and could testify to the results, that the trial court did not err regarding the juror after a remand hearing, and that the government properly conceded merger of the felony murder conviction and its associated firearm count. Accordingly, the court remanded to vacate those merged convictions but affirmed the judgment in all other respects.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case involved appellant Herschel Shirley, who was convicted after a bench trial of three counts of criminal contempt for violating a civil protection order (CPO) issued in December 2008 that prohibited him from contacting or approaching complainant Tashi Brown. Shirley argued on appeal that the contacts were consensual due to the couple's ongoing romantic relationship and that the court lacked jurisdiction because the government did not prove the violations occurred in the District of Columbia or involved a DC resident. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that consent by the protected party does not excuse violations of a CPO since only the court may modify the order and that jurisdiction was proper given contacts in the District and the presumption favoring the filing court's authority. The core reasoning emphasized that the CPO's explicit terms and warnings controlled, and evidence supported findings of prohibited contacts and threats despite the parties' attempts at reconciliation.

criminal lawfamily law

The case involved petitioner V.K. challenging the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency's decision to place his name on the Child Protection Register after substantiating allegations that he abused his thirteen-year-old son by hitting him with a cord, causing scars. The court affirmed the hearing officer's decision to uphold the placement. The reasoning was that under limited judicial review, the decision was supported by substantial evidence, including testimony and photographs, and the hearing officer properly found the physical discipline constituted abuse.

family law

In Kinane v. United States, a group of thirty-four protestors opposed to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility were convicted after a bench trial of violating 40 U.S.C. § 6135 by demonstrating with signs and kneeling on the Supreme Court plaza and inside the building. The appellants argued on appeal that the statute's display clause unconstitutionally restricted speech, that enforcement was unreasonable because they were not directed to the sidewalk, and that their actions did not violate the statute. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that prior decisions such as Lawler v. United States had already resolved the constitutional and interpretive issues in the government's favor and that the trial court committed no plain error in applying the statute to both the plaza and building demonstrations.

free speechcriminal lawcivil rights

This case concerned Priscilla Farrow's appeal from the dismissal of her damages claim against J. Crew Group Inc. arising from a fall outside its store. The D.C. Court of Appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the notice was filed more than thirty days after entry of the final judgment and Farrow's post-judgment motions under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e) were themselves untimely. The court reasoned that clerical or other errors in the judgment, such as naming the wrong defendant and using an improper caption, did not affect the judgment's finality or validity for purposes of appeal under D.C. App. R. 4(a). It therefore dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court's denial of relief under Rule 60(b).

procedure

This case concerned whether an undocumented alien worker injured on the job at a restaurant was entitled to temporary total disability benefits under the District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Act after the employer learned of his status and terminated him. The court held that such a worker qualifies as an "employee" under the Act, that the wage loss was caused by the injury rather than federal immigration law (IRCA), and that IRCA does not preempt an award equal to the claimant's average weekly wage. It affirmed the award of benefits from the date of injury through the date the worker was cleared to return to work but reversed the imposition of an average-weekly-wage penalty for bad-faith delay, finding the record lacked evidence or findings to support that conclusion.

labor & employmentimmigration

In Richardson v. United States, the appellant was convicted after a 1996 jury trial of five felonies related to the shooting of Lanita Spears and later sought relief under the Innocence Protection Act based on an affidavit from an uncalled witness, Dana Croskey, asserting that the key identifying witness could not have observed the shooter, along with a successive motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate that witness. The trial court held a hearing and denied both claims, finding the new evidence insufficient to establish actual innocence, and the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that Croskey's affidavit and testimony were inconsistent, did not establish that the identification witness lacked opportunity to observe the events, and failed to prove the appellant's innocence, while the successive § 23-110 motion was procedurally barred because the underlying facts were known at the time of the first motion and direct appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, a juvenile appellant was convicted after a bench trial of felony assault and carrying a pistol without a license for participating in a group assault on a woman that caused a laceration to her ear requiring four to six stitches at a hospital, leaving visible scars, along with related weapons and threats offenses. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. The court reasoned that the injury satisfied the statutory requirement of 'significant bodily injury' needing immediate medical attention based on the prompt hospital treatment and resulting scars, and that evidence of the defendants' actions with the guns, including ditching and recovering them despite police presence, was sufficient to prove operability beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawguns

The case concerned disciplinary proceedings against attorney Rachele Gaines based on two complaints. In the first, she neglected her duties as guardian for an incapacitated client by failing to visit, attend hearings, file reports, or address Medicaid issues, leading to her removal. In the second, she failed to serve process in a personal injury case, causing dismissal, did not inform the client, left the handling firm without notice, and filed misleading documents to reinstate the suit. Gaines stipulated to multiple violations of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, and the court accepted the negotiated sanction after review by the Hearing Committee, imposing a 30-day suspension stayed for one year of unsupervised probation with the CLE requirement already met.

procedure

This case arose after a creditor obtained a monetary judgment for unpaid legal fees and sought to enforce it by having the U.S. Marshal sell the debtor's real property at a public auction under a writ of fieri facias. The debtor then sued to quiet title and prevent unjust enrichment, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the creditor and buyer while denying the debtor's motions. The appellate court reversed, ruling that the execution sale must be set aside because the sale price was grossly inadequate relative to the property's value and because the notices of the sale failed to strictly comply with statutory requirements by omitting key details such as the time, place, and date.

propertyprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Candace French suing Dr. Louis Levitt, Dr. Paul Ruff, and related medical entities for failing to diagnose a bone infection in her foot after an ankle fusion surgery, which she alleged led to a below-the-knee amputation. Shortly before the scheduled trial, French lost both of her designated medical expert witnesses and moved for additional discovery to name a replacement expert along with a continuance, but the trial court denied the motion after weighing relevant factors including prejudice to the parties and the impact of delay. French then conceded she could not meet her burden of proof without an expert, leading the court to grant the defendants' motion to dismiss. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the late request to add an expert and that dismissal was proper given the concession rather than as a sanction.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a long-running dispute in which plaintiffs, including Terrie Patterson, challenged the District of Columbia's seizure of a vehicle under drug forfeiture laws and sought attorneys' fees after prevailing on certain constitutional claims. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal named only Patterson—who had already settled her claims—in both the caption and body, failing to identify the other plaintiffs as required by D.C. App. Rule 3(c)(1)(A). The core reasoning is that Rule 3(c)(1)(A) imposes a strict jurisdictional mandate to specify each party taking the appeal, as confirmed by precedents such as Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., and neither the absence of prejudice to the appellee nor equitable considerations can cure the defect.

procedurecivil rights

The case involved Bryan K. Wilson, who was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder while armed and related weapons charges for the shooting death of his wife Inga Wilson. On appeal, Wilson challenged the trial court's disqualification of a defense attorney, the admission of a videotape and hearsay testimony under the Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules, the sufficiency of the evidence, and cumulative errors. The court affirmed the convictions, finding no violation of Wilson's Sixth Amendment rights, that the evidence was properly admitted or any error was harmless, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a contract for the purchase of an apartment building in Washington, D.C., where the buyer, 3511 13th Street, LLC and its owner Steven Madeoy, sought specific performance after the seller, Sonnythia Lewis, sold the property to another buyer. The trial court denied specific performance, finding that Madeoy had not provided the required earnest money deposit, was not ready and willing to perform due to title issues he did not properly address, and that the equities did not favor granting the equitable remedy. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the failure to deposit the earnest money constituted a material breach, Madeoy did not demand the seller clear the title or tender performance accepting any defects, and the court properly exercised its discretion in denying specific performance based on these factors and equitable considerations.

property