98 A.3d 192
D.C.2014Background
- Appellant Scott Myerson was convicted of misdemeanor assault on a police officer under D.C. Code § 22-405(b).
- The incident involved United States Park Police arresting a pedicab driver; Myerson allegedly towed another pedicab and argued with officers.
- Officers haled Myerson, placed him under arrest for disobeying a lawful order, and handcuffed him after a scuffle.
- James Fritts, a visiting Pennsylvania officer, witnessed the events and provided a statement; his testimony was sought but contested.
- An information was filed March 26, 2012; discovery and subpoena issues arose, including government control over Fritts’ attendance.
- Two trials were scheduled; Fritts was not produced at the first trial; a new prosecutor later considered producing him, but a continuance was rejected and trial proceeded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether APO applies under Home Rule Act | Myerson argues APO exceeds Council authority for federal park land arrest. | Council may amend local offenses and regulate local traffic; APO valid as applied. | APO as applied does not violate Home Rule Act. |
| Whether Sixth Amendment rights were violated by not compelling Fritts or dismissing | Failure to compel Fritts violated right to speedy trial or right to compulsory process. | Court can balance speedy-trial factors and need for witness; not violation. | No Sixth Amendment violation; no dismissal or missing-witness instruction required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter v. United States, 769 A.2d 143 (D.C. 2001) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- Farina v. United States, 622 A.2d 50 (D.C. 1993) (federal function concept under Home Rule Act)
- In re Crawley, 978 A.2d 608 (D.C. 2009) (Council authority to amend local offenses under Home Rule Act)
- McIntosh v. Washington, 395 A.2d 744 (D.C. 1978) (enables Council to amend and create offenses)
- Greater Washington Cent. Labor Council, AFL-CIO v. District of Columbia, 442 A.2d 110 (D.C. 1982) (federal function concept narrowly construed)
- Hartridge v. United States, 896 A.2d 198 (D.C. 2006) (speedy-trial right as fundamental but relative)
- Graves v. United States, 490 A.2d 1086 (D.C. 1984) ( Barker factors; prejudice and delays)
- Collins v. United States, 596 A.2d 489 (D.C. 1991) (compulsory process for obtaining witnesses requires materiality)
- Valenzuela-Bernal v. United States, 458 U.S. 858 (U.S. 1982) (Sixth Amendment compulsory process limits)