Whether, as a matter of law, the Trial Court erred by adjudicating V.P. delinquent on a charge of misdemeanor assault on a police officer in violation of D.C. Code § 22-405 where the government produced no evidence that Appellant, by fleeing on foot when ordered by police to stop, assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, or interfered with the officer who intended to arrest him?
In re V.P., No. -- Juvenile who fled from police found involved in reckless driving, failure to obey a lawful order of a police officer and assault on a police officer and adjudicated delinquent
1. Whether Appellants were deprived of their Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury because the Trial Court, over objection, erroneously permitted the government to introduce a vast array of evidence of uncharged violent crimes the jury could not have concluded by a preponderance of evidence they committed, that were neither similar to nor related to the charged offenses, and were far more prejudicial than probative of any issue in this case?
2. Whether, due to misinterpretation of evidence rules, the Trial Court deprived Appellants of their right to confront government witnesses and to present a complete defense by excluding evidence of uncharged crimes by a key cooperating codefendant, where counsel had a good faith basis for their questions; from the proffered evidence jurors could conclude that the witness committed the crimes; the uncharged conduct was evidence of the witness’s bias and motive to implicate Appellants, rather than other, closer associates; and the proffered evidence was substantially more probative than prejudicial?
United States v. Burwell, et al., No. 06-3070 — Appellants charged with RICO conspiracy, conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery, four armed bank robberies, two armed assaults with intent to kill. Appellants challenged the Trial Court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence of their alleged other crimes and bad acts, and exclusion of similar evidence they proffered regarding the government's star cooperating codefendant. Individual appellants argued that the Judge erred by denying severance motions, by failing to limit government interference with final argument, and that tere was insufficient evidence to convict them.