229 A.3d 1230
D.C.2020Background
- Police stopped Askew driving south on Georgia Ave. for nonworking vehicle lights; officers believed his license was suspended and sought to arrest him. A physical struggle with four officers followed; both Askew and officers were injured.
- Askew was initially charged with felony assault on a police officer, later recharged by information with four misdemeanor APO counts.
- Defense repeatedly requested preservation and production of CCTV footage (street cameras) and stationhouse video, and sought medical records for officers treated at the Police and Fire Clinic; defense warned MPD footage is routinely looped over if not preserved.
- Government did not produce the CCTV or stationhouse videos and said it never had reason to preserve them; trial court denied defense sanctions without taking evidence.
- At trial the officers testified and the court found them credible despite memory inconsistencies; Askew was convicted on four misdemeanor APO counts.
- On appeal the court affirmed in part but remanded for a hearing on whether the rotating CCTV could have captured the car’s lights or the outside struggle, and therefore whether Rule 16 preservation obligations were breached and prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Askew's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to continue to obtain Brown subpoenas (officers’ clinic records) | Denial prejudiced defense—records needed for impeachment and expert review | Defense delayed and lacked diligence; photographs already available; limited prejudice to government | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Napue claim (government knowingly used false testimony about arrest policy) | Officer falsely testified he was required to arrest for OAS; government failed to correct | Officer’s testimony reflected MPD general order requiring arrest; no proof of falsity | Rejected—no sufficient showing of false testimony |
| Rule 16 preservation: street CCTV footage (rotating camera) | Govt. failed to preserve discoverable CCTV; footage likely material to basis for stop and struggle | Camera out of range; footage immaterial; defense requested too late | Trial court misapplied preservation law; factual disputes about camera capability require remand for hearing |
| Rule 16 preservation: stationhouse video | Stationhouse footage would show mobility, injuries, demeanor; govt. should have preserved without specific request | No specific request; footage irrelevant because events occurred elsewhere | Government had duty to preserve stationhouse video; trial court erred in ruling otherwise; harmlessness assessment deferred pending remand |
| Police & Fire Clinic medical records | Records were discoverable and withheld; dismissal warranted as sanction | Govt. lacked possession/control; no bad faith; alternative means available | Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying dismissal; issue of control unresolved and not decided on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (government may not use known false testimony)
- Koonce v. District of Columbia, 111 A.3d 1009 (D.C. 2015) (Rule 16 duty to preserve stationhouse/video evidence where reasonably material)
- Robinson v. United States, 825 A.2d 318 (D.C. 2003) (duty to preserve evidence precedes disclosure requests)
- Weems v. United States, 191 A.3d 296 (D.C. 2018) (standard of review for Rule 16 discovery rulings)
- Laniyan v. United States, 226 A.3d 1146 (D.C. 2020) (remand procedure when record requires supplementation)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (harmless-error test for nonconstitutional errors)
- Farley v. United States, 694 A.2d 887 (D.C. 1997) (remand for Brady-related evidentiary hearing)
- Mitchell v. United States, 101 A.3d 1004 (D.C. 2014) (Napue requires sufficient demonstration of uncorrected false testimony)