58 A.3d 1005
D.C.2013Background
- Dalton was convicted after a jury trial of unlawful possession with intent to distribute PCP, cocaine, and marijuana; he appeals on four grounds.
- The trial court denied suppression of the drug evidence, refused to release Jencks material, and imposed sentences.
- Dalton fled from bicycling police; a bag containing PCP, cocaine, and marijuana fell from him during a struggle; he sustained injuries, leading to a use-of-force investigation.
- Pre-trial suppression hearing: defense sought usable force-investigation records; government denied existence of Jencks material; court declined delay and later denied the Jencks request.
- Trial included multiple jury notes on deliberations; the court gave a standard anti-deadlock instruction followed by a Gallagher instruction; verdict was guilty on all counts.
- Post-trial, Dalton’s FOIA request revealed Use of Force Incident Reports related to the officers; the court remanded for a Jencks Act inquiry about potential statements related to the use-of-force investigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of drug evidence based on seizure legality | Dalton | Dalton | Denial affirmed; valid stop and search |
| Juror deadlock handling and Gallagher instruction | Dalton | Dalton | No abuse of discretion in giving Gallagher instruction |
| Vindictive sentencing for trial right | Dalton | Dalton | Not vindictive; sentence affirmed |
| Jencks Act inquiry into use-of-force statements | Dalton | Dalton | Remand required for Jencks inquiry; potential statements may exist; ascertain prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Plummer v. United States, 983 A.2d 323 (D.C.2009) (seizure requires submission; show of authority without submission not a seizure)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991) (seizure requires submission; pursuit alone not seizure)
- Coghill v. United States, 982 A.2d 802 (D.C.2009) (reasonable suspicion for stop based on total circumstances)
- Wilson v. United States, 802 A.2d 367 (D.C.2002) (sufficient grounds for stop heightened by odor and behavior)
- Hankins v. United States, 3 A.3d 356 (D.C.2010) (coercive potential of anti-deadlock instructions; discretion review)
- Davis v. United States, 700 A.2d 229 (D.C.1997) (anti-deadlock instruction standards; Winters lineage)
- Thorne v. United States, 46 A.3d 1085 (D.C.2012) (sentence not vindictively increased for exercising trial right; individuation needed)
- Lazo v. United States, 54 A.3d 1221 (D.C.2012) (Jencks duty to inquire; potential statements; remand for in camera or evidentiary inquiry)
- Johnson v. United States, 800 A.2d 696 (D.C.2002) (Jencks material production and in camera review standards)
- Lyles v. United States, 879 A.2d 979 (D.C.2005) (Jencks material disclosure framework)
- Goldberg v. United States, 425 U.S. 94 (U.S.1976) (defining Jencks statements (Powell concurrence))