Francisca Miller v. United States, 209 A.3d 75

Miller, a Nigerian-born noncitizen living in D.C., was convicted after a bench trial of attempted possession of a prohibited weapon and attempted threats to do bodily harm based on an incident in which she allegedly produced an eight-inch butcher knife and threatened a housemate.
Prosecution witnesses (housemates) testified Miller brandished the knife and made threats; Miller and two defense witnesses denied she displayed a weapon or threatened anyone.
It was undisputed on appeal that Miller’s convictions provide legal grounds for deportation under federal immigration law.
Miller did not request a jury trial at trial; on appeal she raised, inter alia, a Sixth Amendment jury-trial claim under this court’s recent decision in Bado v. United States.
The D.C. Court of Appeals found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions and reaffirmed that attempted threats is a cognizable offense in D.C.
The court vacated Miller’s convictions under plain-error review because, in light of Bado, denial of a jury trial for a defendant charged with deportable offenses was plain error that affected substantial rights and the integrity of proceedings.

Issue	Miller's Argument	United States' Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Evidence insufficient; trial court erred in crediting prosecution witnesses	Testimony of victims and corroboration provided sufficient proof	Evidence was sufficient; conviction upheld on merits
Validity of offense (attempted threats)	Contends attempted threats is not legally cognizable	Prior D.C. precedent supports the offense	Court reaffirmed Jones: attempted threats is a valid D.C. offense
Right to jury trial for deportable offenses	Miller: conviction of deportable offenses entitles noncitizen to jury trial under Bado	U.S.: Bado should be read narrowly or does not apply; error not obvious	Court applied Bado: failure to provide jury trial was plain error
Plain-error remedy	Miller: denial of jury was structural and warrants reversal without further prejudice inquiry	U.S.: argues possible distinguishing circumstances (e.g., withholding of removal) and cites Weaver	Court found the error affected substantial rights and the fairness/integrity of proceedings and vacated the convictions

Bado v. United States, 186 A.3d 1243 (D.C. 2018) (Sixth Amendment entitles defendant to jury trial if charged with deportable offense)
Blanton v. City of N. Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538 (determines jury-trial right by maximum authorized penalty and serious-vs-petty analysis)
Fortune v. United States, 59 A.3d 949 (D.C. 2013) (plain-error framework and prior recognition that denial of jury right is structural)
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (failure to submit element to jury may be harmless if evidence overwhelming)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (describing the jury-trial right as fundamental)
Jones v. United States, 124 A.3d 127 (D.C. 2015) (recognizing attempted threats as valid offense in D.C.)