Frank Q. Nebeker

This per curiam order in McClary v. United States concerns an unopposed motion for clarification filed by the appellee regarding a prior amendment to the panel opinion. The court granted the motion and specified that the August 18, 2011, order amending the original opinion on rehearing is limited solely to the section entitled “Sufficiency of Allowed Bias Cross-Examination.” The clarification ensures that the amendment does not extend to other portions of the panel's decision.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal from criminal convictions in which the trial court restricted the defendant's cross-examination of the victim regarding potential self-interest bias stemming from the victim's juvenile record, probation status, and recent arrest before testifying. The court held that this complete denial of inquiry into an independent area of bias violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, even though cross-examination on other bias topics like an immunity agreement was permitted. However, the constitutional error was deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because two other witnesses gave independent identifications, additional corroborative evidence existed, and the restricted questioning would not have substantially weakened the victim's already challenged testimony. The convictions were therefore affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves reciprocal attorney discipline in the District of Columbia based on a prior order from the Supreme Court of Florida suspending Andrea R. Bateman. The D.C. court imposed a ten-day suspension after Bateman responded to a show-cause order but did not establish any exceptions under D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(c). The court noted that she could not relitigate the underlying facts from the Florida proceeding and that her conduct would constitute misconduct in D.C. as well, citing precedents on client neglect and communication failures. The suspension period will not begin until Bateman files the required affidavit under D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14(g).

procedure

In McClary v. United States, the appellant was convicted by a jury of multiple charges including assault with intent to kill while armed and various firearm offenses after he shot a sixteen-year-old victim multiple times during a confrontation on the street. The court considered claims that the trial judge improperly limited cross-examination of the victim regarding his juvenile record and probation status to show bias, gave an erroneous jury instruction on the attitude and conduct of the jury, and failed to merge certain related charges. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but ruled that the three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence merged into one, and that aggravated assault while armed merged with assault with a dangerous weapon, as they constituted the same offense under the Blockburger test. The court reasoned that the proposed cross-examination did not demonstrate sufficient bias comparable to precedents like Davis v. Alaska, the jury instruction was standard and appropriate, and merger was required to prevent multiple punishments for the same conduct.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved disciplinary proceedings against attorney Brian D. Geno for his representation of a client seeking political asylum in an immigration matter. Geno failed to notify his client of a scheduled hearing, did not appear at the hearing himself (due in part to going to the wrong location), resulting in an in absentia deportation order, and took inadequate steps to remedy the situation afterward, including demanding extra payment before filing to vacate the order. The Board on Professional Responsibility found violations of D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3(c) and 1.4(a) regarding diligence and communication. The court adopted the Board's recommendation of public censure rather than an informal admonition, citing the attorney's lack of responsibility for his omissions and the serious potential consequences to the client, while noting the conduct was an isolated incident with no prior disciplinary history. The decision was unopposed by either party.

immigration

The case concerned disciplinary proceedings against attorney Robert W. Johnson, II, who had represented the pre-1994 Rwandan government and accepted $55,000 from its ambassador for lobbying and immigration services, including asylum applications. After the Rwandan Patriotic Front took power and was recognized by the United States, Johnson refused the new government's demands to return unspent funds or cease following instructions from the former ambassador, leading to a federal district court judgment against him for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty that was affirmed on appeal. Bar Counsel and Johnson submitted a petition for negotiated discipline based on those facts. The court approved the petition, finding that Johnson knowingly admitted the misconduct, the facts supported it, and the agreed sanction was justified under D.C. Bar rules governing such dispositions. It therefore imposed a 30-day suspension from practice.

criminal lawprocedureimmigration