Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Drew
Citation: 422 F. App'x 1Docket: No. 07-3104
Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; May 19, 2011; Federal Appellate Court
The appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is affirmed. The appellant failed to demonstrate entitlement to the dismissal of charges based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel from the District of Columbia Superior Court, as he had already been assigned new counsel prior to the dismissal of his case. The district court did not err in declining to rule on the appellant's pro se motion to dismiss since the request was merely to include it in the record without seeking a ruling, and it did not implicate the attorneys involved in the district court. Additionally, the court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the government's objection to proposed testimony from a police detective regarding non-testifying victim statements, as these were not relevant for impeachment purposes under Federal Rule of Evidence 613(b). The appellant's allegations of government conspiracy to secure a conviction through perjury and witness coaching lack evidentiary support. The ineffective assistance of counsel claims presented do not warrant a remand based on precedent set in United States v. Rashad, 331 F.3d 908 (D.C.Cir.2003). The court refrains from expressing opinions on the merits of these claims. The disposition will not be published, and the Clerk is instructed to delay the issuance of the mandate until seven days after any timely petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc are resolved.