Leander v. United States
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 259
D.C.2013Background
- Appellant Leander Jay Young Leander was convicted after a bench trial of simple assault and APPW (b).
- The alleged evidence included a videotaped interview used to impeach appellant’s trial testimony.
- Before trial, defense counsel reportedly did not timely receive the videotape; the government delivered it to counsel five days prior per its claim.
- The judge discussed plea possibilities at trial start; she stated she credited acceptance of responsibility but did not intervene in negotiations.
- The trial proceeded with appellant testifying for the defense and a detective testifying for the government; the court credited the victim’s account over appellant’s.
- Sentences included jail terms (mostly suspended), probation, and mandated treatment and restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 16 timing sanctions | Leander claims Rule 16 violation due to late videotape delivery. | Leander argues prejudice and improper sanctions not applied. | No plain error; no sanction imposed; tape not central to core issue. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence fails to prove the alleged weapon and assault details. | Evidence supports credibility determinations favoring brother’s account. | Sufficiency supported; gravy pot qualifies as a dangerous weapon. |
| Judge's participation in plea negotiations (Rule 11(e)) | Judge’s comments to accept responsibility improperly influenced plea considerations. | Judge’s intent was to inform; not directly coercive. | Rule 11(e) violation; harmless error; no reversible prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stroman v. United States, 878 A.2d 1241 (D.C.2005) (credibility determinations review limited; not clearly erroneous)
- Harper v. United States, 811 A.2d 808 (D.C.2002) (household object can be a dangerous weapon)
- Thorne v. United States, 46 A.3d 1085 (D.C.2012) (improper sentencing based on right to a trial cited in discussing vindictiveness)
- United States v. Tobin, 676 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir.2012) (coercive impression from a judge’s plea-discussion remarks)
- Cano-Varela, 497 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir.2007) (courts view court remarks about penalties with caution)
- Boyd v. United States, 703 A.2d 818 (D.C.1997) (Rule 11(e) limits on sentencing discussions prior to plea)
- German v. United States, 525 A.2d 596 (D.C.1987) (sentence not shown to be vindictive in absence of direct evidence)
- Jackson, 390 F.2d 130 (7th Cir.1968) (judge should refrain from pre-judging disposition if guilty plea)