Medina v. United States, 61 A.3d 637

Oct. 14, 2006: Roum arrested by MPD and interviewed by Medina at the Third District station; Roum remained in handcuffs while belongings were collected.
Appellant Medina, an MPD detective, engaged in a verbal exchange with Roum after Roum overheard a racial slur; Roum referred to Medina with a slur.
Video and witness Officers Shymansky and Gallagher show Medina repeatedly asking Roum what he said and then striking Roum with his forearm, causing Roum to fall.
Medina testified he used his forearm to subdue Roum in accordance with MPD procedures after Roum allegedly headbutted him; Gallagher testified Roum did not provoke the strike.
Bench trial resulted in Medina’s conviction for assault and a suspended 30-day sentence plus three years’ probation and 500 hours of community service; Medina’s motion for new trial denied without a hearing.
Court remanded to conduct evidentiary hearing on Jencks materials related to notes by Sergeant Mercier taken during meetings with the prosecutor and Gallagher.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for assault	Medina argues the video and testimony fail to prove intent to assault.	Government contends the record supports the trial court’s credibility finding and inference of intent.	Sufficient evidence supporting conviction.
Jencks materials and trial court inquiry	Medina asserts failure to conduct Jencks inquiry and disclose Mercier notes.	Government contends no Jencks material existed or was disclosed; trial court acted appropriately.	Remanded for evidentiary hearing on Mercier notes and potential harmlessness.
New trial based on newly discovered evidence	Medina claims post-trial Gallagher testimony could yield acquittal.	Government asserts evidence is cumulative/impeaching and not likely to change outcome.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; denial without a hearing affirmed.
Harmlessness of Jencks error if Mercier notes exist	Mercier notes could impeach Gallagher and affect credibility.	Notes, if any, would be non-cumulative and potentially change result.	Harmless error standard applied; court remands for Jencks inquiry to assess harmlessness.

Dunn v. United States, 976 A.2d 217 (D.C.2009) (standard for sufficiency of evidence; defer to fact-finder credibility)
Rivas v. United States, 783 A.2d 125 (D.C.2001) (any rational trier of fact could find elements beyond reasonable doubt)
Lazo v. United States, 54 A.3d 1221 (D.C.2012) (Jencks Act review; seriousness of missing statements; harmless error standard)
Poole v. United States, 929 A.2d 413 (D.C.2007) (demeanor credibility determinations; trial court observes witnesses)
Bayer v. United States, 651 A.2d 308 (D.C.1994) (trial court duty to inquire into Jencks materials; abuse may be harmless)
Johnson v. United States, 800 A.2d 696 (D.C.2002) (prosecutor’s notes not conclusively missing; trial court inquiry required)
Lyles v. United States, 879 A.2d 979 (D.C.2005) (harmless error when missing evidence does not sway judgment)
Moore v. United States, 657 A.2d 1148 (D.C.1995) (harmless error when other documents provide substantially similar information)
Prophet v. United States, 707 A.2d 775 (D.C.1998) (impeachment evidence; importance of credibility; not admissible if merely impeaching)
Gaither v. United States, 759 A.2d 655 (D.C.2000) (impeachment evidence and standard for new trial based on impeaching testimony)