Parker v. United States

STEADMAN, heroin, you then shall consider Before TERRY and distribute NEWMAN, At Judges, charge of heroin.” Associate Senior 27,3 the p.m. Tuesday, January Judge.* 12:10 on * Judge jurors begun 4:00 Judge deliberations at Newman was an Associate of this 3.The argument. Wednesday, January His status p.m. court at changed the time of and were ex- on Judge March to Senior day p.m. They resumed cused for the at 4:50 Thursday, January ap- deliberations on bag twenty-seven packets contained 1. The a.m., proximately 11:00 but were ex- 10:30 or packets and two of cocaine. heroin approximately p.m. 12:55 because cused at severity major snowstorm. Because of the presents only Appellant brief a chal- Parker’s storm, jurors lenge sufficiency resume of the evidence to sus- were unable to however, argument, January Tuesday, tain his conviction. At oral until at 11:50 deliberations argu- adopted later, the additional counsel for Parker Twenty minutes trial court re- a.m. Lewis, by appellant ments advanced government indicating jury was ceived the note objection. interposed Parker no on one count. deadlocked adopt assistance of does not Lewis's ineffective IID counsel claim. See Part infra. Accordingly, question. stating, “We are tent to distribute sent court a note a verdict on one of an- argued unable reach that the trial court should he proceed?” counts. should we How question “yes” jury’s swer possession of heroin it could convict on note, parties Confronted with this The trial agreeing on distribution. without accompanied by agreed judge, that the trial un- responded, “I think attorneys, immediately court reporter the but not the court and “stop jury great- into the room ... they should law to consider the der the have very message to to give jury a the ... brief again judge The then offense first.”6 er to ask them continue their deliberations.”4 “you to jury the that must come instructed that judge parties The trial informed the charge the of Pos- unanimous decision on a very going say I am “substantively, to Heroin With Intent to Distribute session However, upon entering jury little.” the you may any undertake considera- before room, judge jury the that instructed the The of the lesser included offense.” tion may posses- “[y]ou consider the offense of twenty- jury approximately for deliberated only jury re- sion of heroin if and if the being minutes excused for the five before charge guilty a turns verdict of not of the 11:25, evening; morning, the the next her- possession of intent to with distribute appellants guilty of the jury found both judge that repeated oin.” trial then possession heroin greater offense of of only charge jurors “may the consider the to intent distribute.7 with possession heroin if if the of of agreed jury unanimously has aon verdict States, supra, In Jones United charge of guilty respect of not with the to the asso- A.2d at described “flaw” we possession intent to heroin. with distribute first” “acquittal instruction. ciated with the may only You consider a included lesser explained that such an instruction We you if offense have of returned verdict “ jury’s ‘improperly with the interfere^] guilty greater as to the offense.” ” the encour- jury “is deliberations’ because approximately p.m. January At 4.T8 on favor aged say coerced—to would —some jury the the court note sent a second (ci- greater Id. offense.” conviction there specifically, which asked more “Is omitted). tation any way possession to heroin convict on jury Accordingly, that the held “when we agreeing Dur- without on distribution?”5 greater the reports a deadlock between ing colloquy respond, on how to counsel offense, ‘acquittal in- first’ the lesser appellant argued Parker since the it is given struction should not be because his jury effect had to decide whether In- Id. at 1254. impermissibly coercive.” possessed deciding client heroin before stead, said, given should jury we be distribute, he did so with intent to less-stringent efforts” instruc- “reasonable guilty jury find the defendants could in- simple possession resolving the tion. without argued appellant already appellant Parker

4. Lew- before counsel for court had denied jury is's motion a mistrial his motion for the lesser be able to consider should Winters See Winters v. reaching agreement instruction. on without offense States, (D.C.1974) (en banc). 317 A.2d immediately greater. the trial court Because contention, appellant rejected that counsel for asked, note, jury also is the 5. In this "What ruling to opportunity had no before the Lewis definition intent?” argument. all the join appellant Under Parker’s note, circumstances, response jury’s counsel reverse convictions 6. In to the second we appellant moved on the for ground Lewis for a mistrial for both possession to distribute with intent jury did not that the that the understand identically See situated defendants. these against charge his client was not distribution (D.C. States, Adams v. United possession He but with intent to distribute. 1989); n. A.2d 7 Williams v. United indicated, relying initially apparently also (D.C.1978). form, original instructions and verdict agree” prosecutor's ar- with he "tend[ed] appellants guilty of jury both 7. The also found gument a verdict on had reach possession of cocaine. greater charge they before could consider However, he statement the lesser. made this recently, More in Wright v. United intent to distribute heroin. That issue was (D.C.1991), 588 A.2d 260 appellants’ guilt simple irrelevant to on the general occasion to revisit this issue charges. According- of cocaine ” charge context of the court’s initial ly, “prejudicial ‘spillover’ there was no as jury, specifically open a matter we had left consequence of the instructional error on Jones, supra, 544 A.2d at 1254. We of heroin with intent to dis- observed that version of the in- “[e]ither count. tribute Gethers v. United advantages struction has and disadvan- (D.C.1989).11 tages trial,” for each side in a and that wrong neither was as a matter of law. II. Wright, supra, 588 A.2d at 261-62. Invok- ing analogous considerations to those un- Appellants’ other assertions of error do derlying lenity, the rule of we held that the not merit relief. prevail. defendant’s wishes should Accord- ingly, timely requested, “where the trial A. give court should an instruction which al- jury lows the to consider the lesser includ- Appellants po first contend that the offense, ed if unable to reach a verdict on probable lice lacked cause to arrest them or offense, greater the making after all rea- government’s to search their vehicle. The sonable efforts to do 262. so.” Id. at suppression hearing evidence the at flagged police that a showed citizen down Applying principles these to the in in officer and told him that a man a brown case,8 stant must we conclude that the trial Plymouth with District of license Columbia giving “acquittal court erred in an first” plates drug drop was about to make a at jury reported instruction after the a dead specified away. location a few blocks The greater possession lock on the offense of citizen, gave who her name and address to Jones, with intent to distribute.9 inAs officer, drugs the stated that the were lo 1254, supra, 544 A.2d at a retrial is neces paper cated on the car in a the front seat of sary charge possession the of heroin officer, bag. joined by partner, his with intent to distribute “since we cannot responded Plymouth and observed a brown know what properly verdict a instructed plates District as with of Columbia license jury would have returned.” We see no pulled basis, it to a halt in front of the address however, reversing appellants’ for given by the citizen informant. As the possession convictions of of cocaine be car, police approached one officer cause of the the ob erroneous reinstructions.10 jury’s only ques paper bag deadlock involved the served a brown between the appellants tion requisite passenger. seeing bag, had the the driver and On here, Jones, counsel, objected presence 8. In as the defendant had first” instruction out of the jury to the refusal of the trial court together jury’s inquiry to allow the taken with the second disposi- to consider the lesser offense without a already and the that inclement weather had fact Thus, greater. tion the we have no occasion required jurors sporadically the to deliberate application to consider the of Jones where a week, supra, more than a see note would might opt "acquittal defendant for an first” rein- sufficiently atmosphere establish a coercive position struction. Nor need we take a here purpose. this respect retroactivity with to the vel non of the because, it, Wright decision even without Appellants 10. themselves assert that error would reverse. See note 9 infra. giving "acquittal requires an first” instruction regard charge pos- "a retrial ... with to the Arguing prior Wright before us deci- session intent to heroin." with distribute sion, government distinguished Jones from present grounds case on the that the trial itself, appel- 11. In Jones this court affirmed the court in Jones had created a "coercive atmo- involving lant’s convictions for three crimes sphere” by giving a Winters instruction and ammunition, gun notwith- informing duty that it had "a to reach a Jones, standing giving "acquittal of an supra, erroneous verdict.” 544 A.2d at 1254. Even atmosphere" required first” instruction on the of cocaine if a "coercive for rever- sal, Jones, here, charge. supra, response the fact that the trial court with intent to distribute note, 1251, jury's gave “acquittal to first twice an A.2d an basis Along to with informant’s exit officer asked both activity, the infor criminal car, knowledge of re- then inside car. He reached the reliabili general credibility mant’s it, bag, opened and saw what trieved provides he she are ty of the information or then to be The officer appeared narcotics. as important probable in a cause factors trial arrest. The placed under Gates, U.S. at supra, 462 sessment. See upon seeing judge concluded that 4, 2328; n. 4,n. 103 S.Ct. at 2327 probable bag, police had paper brown As Goldston, at 101. to supra, A.2d cause, he denied motion therefore in this case was a credibility, the informant suppress.12 gave her name and address to citizen who Ross, 456 In U.S. United States herself, identifying she exhibited police. In (1982), 102 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d held for the willingness to be accountable rule, originating Supreme Court recited police. provided she information States, v. United Carroll infor recognized that a citizen We have (1925), L.Ed. 543 mant, her one who identifies particularly “ self, than a is ’a ‘more source credible if the search and seizure without a war- ” police v. United paid informant.’ Allen cause, made upon probable rant are (D.C.1985) is, belief, reasonably arising out upon a States, 381 Rushing v. quoting United seizing to the of circumstances known 252, (D.C.1977)(citizen informant 255 officer, or that an other ve- automobile is than herself more reliable who identifies by law hicle contains that which is sub- anonymous)); one to remain who wishes cf. destruction, the ject to seizure and 233-34, Gates, at 103 S.Ct. supra, 462 U.S. and seizure are valid. search (“if unquestionably honest citi at 2330 an 805, Ross, 102 supra, 456 at S.Ct. at U.S. report of crimi zen comes forward with a Carroll, (quoting supra, 2162 267 U.S. at if would sub activity nal fabricated —which 149, 283-84)). at The em- 45 S.Ct. Court liability have ject him to criminal —we exception that this to the phasized warrant scrutiny the basis of his rigorous found of requirement “applies only to searches that unnecessary”). As to the relia knowledge cause,” supported by probable are and that bility provided information a search “is if such not unreasonable based pre informant, notably had the here it justify facts that on would issuance Supreme which the Court quality dictive to warrant, though even has not a a warrant given significant weight. Alabama v. has Id., 456 actually been obtained.” U.S. 2412, White, 325, 2417, 496 U.S. 110 S.Ct. (footnote 809, 102 S.Ct. at 2164-65 omit- (1990). indepen police 110 L.Ed.2d 301 ted). involving this In cases automobile- provid she dently details corroborated rule, reviewing a court contraband seizure ed, and including precise location de employ “totality-of-the-circum- should scription presence and the car analysis” v. stanees announced Illinois seat. bag on the front See paper brown 213, 238, 2317, Gates, 103 244, 462 U.S. S.Ct. 103 S.Ct. at Gates, 462 U.S. at supra, 2332, (1983), right L.Ed.2d (“ 76 527 is ‘[bjecause an informant 2335 determine tip probably an would have es- things, whether informant’s he more about some probable facts,’ including cause for search war- right tablished other about — illegal Ultimately, role “is to ensure activ regarding [suspects’] rant. our claim omitted)); Goldston, supra, (citation ity” trial had a substantial court basis (corroborated details bol concluding 100 probable that cause exist- 562 A.2d at States, credibili reliability of information and A.2d ster ed.” v. 562 Goldston United informant). corrobora- (D.C.1989). type This 96, ty 98 5, (1969). 584, judge expressly n. 21 L.Ed.2d 637 89 S.Ct. 589 The trial did not make clear any whether the police probable it make difference he found had Nor does police probable the entire proba- cause to search to search the car for contraband or had cause case, paper bag v. appellants. itself. cause to arrest In either car or ble California 1982, - -, Acevedo, 111 S.Ct. probable applies. U.S. standard for cause similar 410, (1991). U.S. Spinelli v. 417 n. L.Ed.2d “ eight high tion ‘reduced the chances of a reckless or inches and three to four inches tale,’ prevaricating providing thus ‘a sub bag plain wide. The brown inwas view on crediting stantial basis for seat, exactly the front almost between the [informant’s ” Gates, 244-45, tip].’ supra, 462 U.S. at appellants; approximately it rested ten (quoting S.Ct. at 2335 Jones United away inches from Lewis and twelve to 257, 269, 725, 735, 80 S.Ct. away fourteen from inches Parker. The (1960)). such, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 As we are step officer asked out of the satisfied that trial court had a “sub car, it; paper bag, opened retrieved the Goldston, concluding,” stantial basis inside, he twenty-seven packets discovered supra, probable 562 A.2d at cause packets of heroin and two of cocaine. paper bag existed to search the brown government also offered the testimo- if the front seat of the car to see it con ny qualified of an MPD detective as an Gates, supra, tained contraband. Cf. expert trafficking, packaging, in the (probable U.S. at at 2336 S.Ct. drugs, including use of illicit heroin and anonymous cause for search existed where cocaine, in the District of Columbia. The provided informant detailed information expert stated that the area appel- where by police); corroborated Galloway v. Unit parked lants had highest “is one of the (D.C.1974), ed drug city,” areas and that heroin is denied, cert. U.S. primary drug sold there. He also stat- (1975) (where L.Ed.2d 471 unidentified citi trafficking in ed that heroin the area usual- reported zen of a car had a ly begins a.m. and between 10:00 noon each gun, police corroborated details about According expert, day. heroin distri- occupants, police proba the car and its typically bution schemes involve a number pistol in ble cause to search car for context “holder,” operatives, including who occurrence”). “rapidly moving street handles from one to ten “bundles” of her- Upon discovering appeared what to be nar oin, containing each bundle ten to twelve cotics, police probable cause to “runner,” packets, heroin and a lo- who place appellants under arrest. buyers actually cates and delivers heroin to buyers. expert explained The B. “holder,” turn, typically in receives the Appellants next contend the ev that “lieutenant,” supplier bundles from a a idence was insufficient to sustain their con echelon, higher drug in the distribution any victions on of the counts.13 The marketing who comes into the area and government’s evidence at trial14 showed “drop[s] drugs. off” the In order to ... 2, 1986, July approximately that on 11:00 attention, attracting fre- avoid lieutenants a.m., Metropolitan Department two Police drug marketing quently drive into the area (“MPD”) officers observed an older model inconspicuous, aged” in “middle vehicles. Plymouth brown with two in the carry in These lieutenants also heroin “nat- pulled stop parked. front seat as it to a looking” packages, pa- ural such as brown appellant One of the officers identified per bags, drugs they to “mask” the are Lewis, reg in whose name the car was transporting. istered, appel as the driver of the car and important expert presented The also tes- passenger. ap lant Parker as the As he timony possession to the effect that the proached Plymouth, single had a which seat, twenty-seven bags heroin front the officer saw a small individual was bench distribution, paper bag, approximately explainable only per- six to brown sustained, argument jeop- respect If this were double 14. Evidence with to the citizen infor- ardy presented principles presumably would bar a retrial mant was not at trial. It therefore of evaluating of the convictions for distribute, with intent to course cannot be in considered reverse, today sufficiency underlying appel- which we as well as evidence States, simple possession counts which we affirm. lants’ convictions. See v. United Jackson States, 1, 18, 99, (D.C.1978). appel- See Burks v. A.2d 103 n. 4 Neither 437 U.S. 98 395 2141, 2150, (1978). presented any S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1 lant evidence in his defense. 57 (D.C. 699, States, bags of United He that these sonal use. said 1988).17 “quarters,” which is type a known as heavy A sale. normal size for individual proceeded government in this case larger buy instead in heroin user would con theory both “dippers” “half-dip- quantities, called or drugs in possessed18 the found structively price, im- pers,” in order to reduce the in bag. stated paper As we the brown States, quality, possibility 567 A.2d 907 prove Thompson and lessen v. United (D.C.1989): a conviction going to “To sustain fraud. “Two individuals aren’t must be possession, constructive quarters.”16 utilize doubt that beyond a reasonable able to find sufficiency of the evi reviewing In con presence of knew of the the accused here, operate are mindful that we dence we right a that he exercised ... and traband principles. under a number well-settled objects in over the or control dominion the evidence This court must consider omitted). (citation question.” Id. at govern light most favorable prox “mere Although have noted that ment, reasonable giving it the benefit of all itself imity illegal item does not of to an States, inferences. Patterson v. United or knowledge coupled with dominion prove (D.C.1984). 335, No dis 337-38 479 A.2d control,” 520 A.2d Curry v. United is to be drawn between direct tinction (D.C.1987), sustain a con we will circumstantial evidence. Driver v. United drugs possession of for constructive viction (D.C.1987). 521 A.2d by evi proximity “is colored where government’s may evidence be sufficient ongoing linking the accused to an dence every even if it does not exclude reasonable operation of which criminal evidence, guilt; the hypothesis other than Id.; United States part.” is a see also words, finding compel (D.C.), need not other Hubbard, cert. 429 A.2d doubt, beyond Irick guilt denied, reasonable (D.C. (1981).19 30-31 v. United L.Ed.2d 153 1989). this court nor the trial Neither case, amply supports In this evidence “usurp jury’s prerogative of may court occu- least one of the conclusion that at weighing determining credibility, the evi engaged criminal pants of the car was dence, drawing reasonable inferences.” bag contain- activity. Because the brown A.2d 159- v. United Stack in drugs to and the view ing the was close (D.C.1986). Thus, the issue is not question is whether appellants, of both might find reasonable whether this court sufficient evidence was government’s doubt; rather, can determine that jury’s determination support “[w]e presence is insufficient if we con that the evidence “knew of the appellants both law, contraband,” supra, 567 clude, Thompson, no reason as a matter of that bag con- 908, i.e., that the brown juror, acting reasonably, could convict A.2d at able conclude cocaine.20 We tained heroin and presented.” Beatty v. on the evidence 15. A actual immediate within the mgs. contraband was dipper Each contains around contrast, here, defendants. reach of both quarter in contained about mgs. 19. As the opinion portion of the dissent to this extensively appellant Lewis Counsel notes, con affirm that these rightly recent cases expert this conclu- about cross-examined ability proof both an cepts must reflect and the sion. and control exercise dominion an intent to question. Speight v. United items in over the States, us, present the trial court For a case to reach T.M., (D.C.1991); re In A.2d 794 presentation of the evidence to hear the actual 1990). (D.C. A.2d concluded, applying the same must also have we, the evidence was sufficient standard as that drugs 20. The evidence that containing bag here, the trial court denied to convict. Thus of the car front seat on the sat unobstructed acquittal. defendants’ motions for appellants suffi- length was of both within arm’s " bag 18. This case, however, was ‘convenient that the cient to show is a diminished version appellants. cases, of both within reach”’ many access and constructive it bag, was. The narcotics-laden illegal whereabouts of the may item be commodity value, of considerable was not evidence”); inferred from circumstantial being by appellants, hoarded either of the v. Wheeler United virtually equidistant but was between (D.C.1985) (constructive possession con- them, suggesting permissible inference may viction be sustained “where there are possession. of shared The scene was one giving circumstances rise to an inference of space confined passen- where driver or illegal involving a concert of drugs action ger, engaged in drug distribution busi- by premises of the where the ness, each had control of whether to be found”). drugs are present with the other at all in the car and risk, We are not unmindful of the which where to locate a valuable container of avoided, patina must be expert drugs.21 illicit testimony purely will endow innocent activ- addition, Carpenter In as it did in ity with criminal merely attributes because (D.C.1984), 475 A.2d 369 activity is “consistent”23 with actions government provided here expert testimo- of criminals. An innocent driver double- “ ny to ‘ongoing show the existence of an parked running with a motor cannot be ” Id. at 375 operation.’ (citation criminal accomplice convicted as an in a bank rob- omitted). testimony This established that bery solely expert because an testifies that bag the heroin in the was bound not for activity might such expected be of the driv- use, personal distribution, but for a scheme car, getaway er of a waiting as well as one necessarily which multiple involves individ- emerge for his wife to from a store. But Furthermore, appellants, uals. in an incon- the defendants here were not convicted spicuous car, pulled older model to a halt solely on expert testimony the basis of an area notorious for heroin trafficking at making criminal activity. innocent a time daily drug when typically sales be- paper bag fact is that in the between them gin. significant A individually number of a quantity only drug was of heroin which packaged bags of heroin were concealed possess.24 expert dealers would testi- bag. a brown precisely These facts here, mony making in addition to clear the method, matched the detailed the ex- quantity distributive attribute of the pert, by drug which distribution “lieuten- bag, heroin in gave important color and ants” deliver narcotics to “holders.”22 As meaning not, facts did observed but such, significant there was circumstantial alone, supply the basis for the convictions. parties evidence that both sum, Brown, In supra, See drug delivery. say to a we cannot that “no reason- (“jury may juror acting reasonably, at 394 infer able knowledge ... could convict evidence”); from Curry, Beatty, su- su- presented.” circumstantial on the evidence pra, pra, (“[knowledge 520 A.2d at 263 544 A.2d at 701. 390, (D.C. Brown v. United 546 A.2d 23. This much-used word has certain chameleon- 1988) (citation omitted). The evidence there qualities. Many may like activities be “consist- appel fore was sufficient to establish that both affairs, equally, ent” with a certain state of but joint lants could have “dominion or control" more, completely if not "consistent” with differ- Curry, supra, over the contraband. 520 A.2d at probative ent ones. The effect of “consistent” 263. depends upon evidence the extent to which the consistency explanations, is exclusive of other Harrison, U.S.App. United States v. Cf. testimony using and elicited the word should — 220, 227, 65, 72, denied, D.C. U.S. -, 931 F.2d cert. make this clear. 408, (1991): 112 S.Ct. 116 L.Ed.2d 356 where, "presence especially significant as Thus, here, rationally posses- it if this case ‘could have been viewed as a involved ’’ privilege exclusively participants’ packets reserved for sion of the two of cocaine alone in a (citation omitted). bag, expert evidence about the other con- being drug drop duct consistent with a could aware, jury through

22. The was cross-examina- nor, not sustain a for conviction distribution tion, expert familiarity with the likely, possession. most testifying facts of this case before and could accounting weighing take that into mony. in his testi- drugs being drugs belonged concealed C. —the bag equidistant paper in the closed brown finally argue that the tri Appellants passenger and the driver —the between the denying court erred in a motion al proper it is for the majority holds copy of mistrial made after an unredacted this offends of them. Since convict both in Drug Agency Enforcement form was process, Thompson due see constitutional jury. Be advertently submitted to Louisville, 362 U.S. 80 S.Ct. City v. portion the unredacted was cumula cause (1960)(a conviction de- 4 L.Ed.2d 654 trial, testimony improp tive of other due evidentiary support violates void of “sub erly admitted evidence could have process), I dissent. stantially swayed” jury, Vaughn v. (D.C. 367 A.2d United drug offense possessory To convict 1977), no abuse of discretion. and there was pos- of constructive on the doctrine based States, 430 A.2d Carpenter v. United session, government prove must three (D.C.) (en banc), denied, 454 U.S. cert. (1) a reasonable doubt: things beyond (1981). 70 L.Ed.2d of the location of the defendant was aware (2) ability to drugs; that he had the D. them; dominion and control over exercise 89-847, appeal distinct appeal In No. (3) he had the intent to control the the denial of a motion under D.C.Code from T.M., destiny drugs. In re of the (1989) relief, appel- 23-110 for collateral § (D.C.1990) cases, (citing among other judge, lant contends that the trial Lewis A.2d 1191 Bernard conducting hearing on ineffective his (D.C.1990)). quite recently re- We have allegation, assistance of counsel failed to centrality of the intent re- affirmed inquiry adequate make an to determine States, 599 quirement. Speight v. United witness, alleged whether a whom Lewis his (D.C.1991). In A.2d 794 both T.M. trial, counsel should have called at had a presence defen- Speight held that the privilege. valid Fifth Amendment How- proximity in close to contraband dants ever, assuming even that the witness had (a pistol and ammuni- open plain view privilege, no Fifth Amendment Lewis’s tri- T.M., parapherna- tion in and narcotics and hearing al counsel testified at the that he satisfy insufficient to Speight) lia in was had made a tactical decision not to call the prong guide destiny the intent to on his

witness based belief that wit- Here, however, possession. constructive testimony inculpato- ness’s would be more container, drugs were a closed where ry agree exculpatory. than We with the which, either, if with no evidence reason court’s conclusion that there was no the car knew even the con- persons within “strategic guess” to “second this choice.” bag, majority finds suffi- tents of the Washington, See Strickland v. in- knowledge and cient evidence of both 668, 689, 2052, 2065, 80 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. respectfully suggest I that what tent. (1984). un- government’s factual witnesses of heroin convictions provided either to show cannot be able for a with intent to distribute are reversed testimony was “expert whose an witness” new trial. The convictions for was conduct merely that the defendants’ deny- order of cocaine are affirmed. The opera- drug distribution consistent with a ing appellant under the motion of Lewis (a truism) “factual” by appellate or tion 23-110 is affirmed. D.C.Code § supra at 52. majority opinion fiat. See ordered. So drug (The “engaged in a appellants were business.”) distribution NEWMAN, concurring in Judge, Senior dissenting part: part, was insufficient evidence Since there convictions, Jeopar Double sustain the government was unable to Since Burks v. prevents retrial. See showing dy Clause present evidence whom (1978).1 2141, 2150, 57 L.Ed.2d WALLS,

Anthony Appellant, STATES, Appellee.

UNITED

No. 90-1352. Appeals.

District of Columbia Court

Argued Oct. Dec.

Decided Davis, Defender Ser- B. Public

Laurie Klein, De- vice, whom James Public with Service, appel- the brief for fender onwas lant. Atty., Wiegand, Asst. U.S. with

Barry Atty., U.S. Jay Stephens, B. whom Facciola, M. Asst. R. Fisher John and John brief, appellee. Attys., on the U.S. ROGERS, Judge, and Before Chief WAGNER, Associate FERREN and Judges.

ROGERS, Judge: Chief appeal in this principal issue committed to Saint a defendant 1974,as a result of a Hospital Elizabeths plea to by insanity guilty reason assault, manifest simple has demonstrated by trial of errors injustice reason entitling him to judge and trial counsel re- and unconditional plea of his vacation (1989 24-301(k) under lease D.C.Code § majority opinion. join portions 1. I the other

Case Details

Case Name: Parker v. United States

Court Name: District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Date Published: Dec 20, 1991

Citation: 601 A.2d 45

Docket Number: 87-565, 89-847 and 87-1332

Court Abbreviation: D.C.