JAMES J. DORSEY v. UNITED STATES
154 A.3d 106
| D.C. | 2017Background
- On June 7, 2013 MPD officers executed a search warrant at an apartment; officers observed James J. Dorsey on a balcony and later saw him near/exiting the kitchen when they forced entry. A .357 revolver was found on a top shelf in the kitchen cabinet.
- A police crime-scene technician photographed the gun on the shelf, then on a kitchen counter, then bagged it and submitted it as evidence.
- Government DNA analyst developed a partial single-source male DNA profile from a swab of the gun that matched Dorsey at all detected loci; statistical calculations showed extremely low random-match probabilities.
- A jury convicted Dorsey of unlawful possession of a firearm (UPF), possession of an unregistered firearm (UF), and unlawful possession of ammunition (UA). The trial court imposed a 3-year mandatory minimum for UPF based on a 1999 Maryland first-degree assault conviction.
- Dorsey appealed arguing (1) insufficient evidence of possession; (2) Brady violation and trial-court refusal to continue after a late government disclosure about Detective Campanalle’s prior liability in Wesby; (3) denial of a mid-trial continuance to secure a defense DNA expert; and (4) constitutional error in the court (rather than the jury) finding that his prior conviction was a "crime of violence" triggering the mandatory minimum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dorsey) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession of gun/ammunition | DNA match and proximity do not prove possession; possible secondary transfer and timing uncertainty create reasonable doubt | DNA match plus proximity, evasive conduct, and layout support constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed: viewed in light most favorable to government, jury could infer knowledge, dominion, and intent to control the gun |
| Timing of government disclosure re: Wesby and Brady claim | Late, "cryptic" disclosure of Campanalle’s involvement in Wesby prevented effective use of impeachment and warranted delay or dismissal | Disclosure occurred before Campanalle testified; defense had time, used Wesby for impeachment; no material prejudice | Affirmed: no true Brady violation—defense had adequate time and used the material to impeach |
| Denial of mid-trial continuance to obtain defense DNA expert | Defense lacked funds; short continuance was necessary to examine collection/preservation issues and possible contamination | Court offered funding, defense provided no adequate disclosure of expected expert testimony, availability (not money) prevented production, and delay would disrupt trial | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion—court reasonably denied further delay given diligence, prejudice to government, and limited likely benefit |
| Court-found prior conviction increased mandatory minimum (Apprendi/Alleyne challenge) | Nature of the prior conviction (crime of violence) is an element that must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt | Fact of prior conviction is excepted from Apprendi/Alleyne; whether the prior conviction’s elements match D.C. "crime of violence" is a legal, categorical inquiry for the judge | Affirmed: court correctly treated the issue as an elements-based legal inquiry (Descamps approach); Maryland first-degree assault qualifies as a crime of violence for the mandatory-minimum enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- Rollerson v. United States, 127 A.3d 1220 (review standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- Hammond v. United States, 77 A.3d 964 (elements of UPF and UF)
- Alexander v. United States, 331 F.3d 116 (constructive possession: proximity + evasive conduct)
- Wesby v. District of Columbia (Wesby II), 765 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. decision affirming liability in related false-arrest litigation)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution duty to disclose favorable material)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (Brady materiality test)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (any fact increasing mandatory minimum is an element)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts increasing penalty must be found by jury)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (categorical/modified-categorical approach for prior-conviction inquiry)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (exception for fact of prior conviction)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (harmless-error/substantial sway standard)