ALLEN J. LOGAN, JR. v. UNITED STATES
147 A.3d 292
D.C.2016Background
- Appellant was convicted at a second trial of armed burglary, assaults, second-degree murder of Simona Druyard, and first-degree murder of two-year-old Mika Washington; prior trial ended in mistrial. Appellant appealed convictions and denial of a D.C. Code § 23‑110 motion.
- Facts: appellant met Amin Washington about a promised multi‑million dollar investment for a business; when funds did not appear, appellant became enraged, went to Washington’s home, stabbed Washington, killed landlady Druyard (throat cut), and fatally wounded Mika.
- Police detained appellant June 14, 2002; officers seized his cell phone incident to arrest and, the next day, an officer without a warrant inspected the phone’s contents to record recent calls and names.
- Investigators obtained billing records during a warrant search of appellant’s residence and later served a subpoena for detailed phone records; two witnesses identified via the phone search were called at trial.
- Appellant moved to suppress testimony found via the warrantless phone search and challenged admission of autopsy photographs as unduly prejudicial.
- Appellant also pursued a § 23‑110 motion alleging ineffective assistance and conflict of interest by trial/standby counsel and that standby counsel interfered with his right of self‑representation; the trial court denied the motion and the denial was appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether testimony discovered by warrantless search of appellant’s cell phone should be suppressed | Cell‑phone search was unlawful under Riley; evidence and witnesses identified via that search must be excluded | Inevitable discovery: records and witness IDs would have been obtained lawfully (billing records + subpoena) | Denied suppression: inevitable discovery applies; evidence admissible |
| Whether autopsy/photographs were more prejudicial than probative | Photographs were gruesome and unfairly prejudicial | Photos were probative to show wound orientation and contradictions in appellant’s account; clinical autopsy setting reduced prejudice | Photos admissible; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether trial counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest (§ 23‑110) | Prior representation of appellant’s cousin, a Bar Counsel complaint, and appellant’s statements about harming counsel created an actual conflict | No actual conflict: prior representation ended before reappointment; no Bar Counsel investigation; no divergence of interests shown | No actual conflict; § 23‑110 relief denied |
| Whether standby counsel’s actions deprived appellant of his Faretta right to control defense | Standby counsel accepted plea discussions, moved for mistrial, and stipulated to prior testimony without appellant’s consent, undermining his self‑representation | Appellant had agreed to an active standby role; counsel communicated and sought appellant’s input; these actions reflected strategy or consent | No deprivation: appellant retained control; Faretta rights not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Towles v. United States, 115 A.3d 1222 (D.C. 2015) (standard of review for suppression ruling)
- Robinson v. United States, 76 A.3d 329 (D.C. 2013) (standards cited for factual-review framework)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (warrant required to search cell phones; search‑incident exception inapplicable)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (articulates the inevitable discovery doctrine)
- Hicks v. United States, 730 A.2d 657 (D.C. 1999) (applies inevitable discovery standard in D.C.)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) (limits on standby counsel conduct and defendant control)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self‑representation)
- Rezaq v. United States, 134 F.3d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (admissibility and balancing of autopsy photographs)