111 A.3d 611
D.C.2015Background
- On Dec. 11, 2008 Butler and Lewis, masked, forced entry into Franklin Johnson’s home, shot and killed Johnson, wounded a child; Butler was also shot and later treated at Prince George’s County Hospital.
- Hospital staff removed Butler’s pants and placed them in a biohazard bag; PGPD detectives retrieved the bag and logged the clothing into PGPD property before turning it over to MPD; later DNA testing of the pants showed both Butler’s and Johnson’s blood.
- Butler and Lewis were tried and convicted (lesser-included second-degree murder while armed and related weapons counts); Butler moved to suppress the pants, DNA results, and statements to police.
- Sheffield (third appellant) provided a videotaped statement and grand-jury testimony asserting she had given Butler an alibi; she was convicted of perjury and two counts of obstruction of justice (one obstruction count was later conceded to be invalid).
- Mid-trial Brady disclosure: a child witness (L.B.) had earlier identified one assailant as “Gangsta”; the government later located Gary Young (aka “Gangsta”) and used him in rebuttal, including a ski-mask demonstration.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Seizure of Butler’s clothing and subsequent DNA testing | Butler: warrantless seizure and later forensic testing violated Fourth Amendment; pants and DNA should be suppressed | Police lawfully observed and seized pants under plain-view (hospital called police); transfer to MPD and lab testing reasonable; no warrant required under circumstances | Court: seizure and testing were reasonable; plain-view exception and precedent support admission; no Fourth Amendment violation upheld |
| Statements to police (Miranda/Edwards) | Butler: after arrest/medical treatment he was in distress and should have been readvised of Miranda per Edwards; suppression required | Trial court found Butler initiated the conversation and waived rights; no interrogation by police; Edwards protection inapplicable if detainee initiates further communication | Court: affirmed trial court’s credibility findings; statements were voluntary initiation and not barred by Edwards/Miranda |
| Late Brady disclosure re: “Gangsta” and mid-trial identification of Young; ski-mask demonstration | Butler & Lewis: government’s late disclosure and use of Young unfairly prejudiced defense; mistrial warranted | Government: disclosure was inadvertent and then promptly corrected; defendants had strategic choices (no pretrial continuance); Young’s rebuttal and mask demo were probative and permissible rebuttal/demonstrative evidence | Court: no Brady-based mistrial; rebuttal testimony and ski-mask demonstration not plain error or unduly prejudicial |
| Sheffield’s perjury and obstruction convictions; sufficiency and one invalid obstruction count | Sheffield: testimony not knowingly false; insufficient evidence of intent to obstruct; joinder prejudiced her | Government: Sheffield repeatedly affirmed a false alibi despite evidence (hospital arrival, cell records); one obstruction count properly charged but the December 13 statement predated an official proceeding | Court: perjury and one obstruction conviction supported by evidence; second obstruction conviction (based on pre-official-proceeding statement) vacated and remanded to adjust sentence as needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. United States, 675 A.2d 474 (D.C. 1996) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in appearance/clothing in public hospital under similar facts)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test)
- United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800 (1974) (clothing seized at detention may be later subjected to lab analysis)
- Soldal v. Cook Cnty., Ill., 506 U.S. 56 (1992) (Fourth Amendment protects possessory interests in property even absent privacy interest)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (Katz test supplements, not replaces, trespass/seizure analysis)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (definition of seizure of property: meaningful interference with possessory interests)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (plain-view doctrine does not require inadvertence)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required during custodial interrogation)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (prophylactic rule limiting reinitiation of interrogation after request for counsel)
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) (DNA testing of arrestees reasonable for identification under Fourth Amendment)
- Robinson v. United States, 283 F.2d 508 (D.C. Cir. 1960) (pre-1971 circuit decision upholding seizure and lab analysis of clothing incident to arrest)
- United States v. Pindell, 336 F.3d 1049 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (plain-view seizure requires lawful presence, lawful access, and immediately apparent incriminating nature)