The University of the District of Columbia Law ... - UDC Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

WHEN LAWYERS BREAK THE LAW 17caine with intent to distribute involves moral turpitude per se, because analogouscases, such as In re Mendes,48 held that possession with intent to distribute was acrime of moral turpitude per se.TABLE 1: DECISIONS OF THE D.C. COURT OF ApPEALS ApPLYING THEMORAL TURPITUDE STANDARDOffense Moral Thrpitude CasePer Se?Any misdemeanor no In re McBride, 602 A.2d 626 (D.C.1992) (en bane)Aiding and abetting a person to no In re McBride, 602 A.2d 626 (D.C.knowingly possess a false1992) (en bane)identification document with theintent to use the document todefraud the United States (amisdemeanor)Aiding and assisting a person to n0 49 In re McConnell, 502 A.2d 454submit fraudulent and false federal (D.C. 1985)tax returnsBank fraud yes In re Roseng~eet, 592 A.2d 1036(D.C. 1991)Bribery yes In re Glover-Towne, 626 A.2d 1387(D.C. 1993)Child abuse yes In re Wortzel, 698 A.2d 429 (D.C.1997)Conspiracy to defraud the U.S. yes In re Hirsch[\eld, 622 A.2d 688(D.C. 1993)Conspiracy to knowingly defraud the yes In re Meisnere, 471 A.2d 269 (D.C.I.R.S. 1984)Conspiracy to possess heroin yes In re Gates, No. D-32-79 (D.C.1979) (published in appendix to Inre Roberson, 429 A.2d 530 (D.C.1981»Conspiracy to possess cocaine with yes In re Bateman, 699 A.2d 403 (D.C.intent to distribute onboard a vessel 1997)Conspiracy to receive and conceal yes In re Roberson, 429 A.2d 530 (D.C.narcotics 1981)Conspiracy to sell narcotics yes In re Roberson, 429 A.2d 530 (D.C.1981)Distribution of child pornography yes In re Wolff, 490 A.2d 1118 (D.C.1985), affd en bane, 511 A.2d 1047(D.C. 1986)Embezzlement yes In re Venable, 641 A.2d 853 (D.C.1993)5248 In re Mendes, 598 A.2d 168 (D.C. 1991).49 However, the Court found moral turpitude on the facts.50 See also In re Saul, 671 A.2d 461 (D.C. 1996) (per curiam); In re Campbell, 635 A.2d 933(D.C. 1994).51 See also In re Lipari, 704 A.2d 851 (D.C. 1997); In re Matzkin, 665 A.2d 1388 (D.C. 1995).52 See also In re Hernandez, 683 A.2d 764 (D.C. 1996); In re Eberhart, 678 A.2d 1023 (D.C.1996).
18 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF COLUMBIA LAW REVIEWEmbezzlement by a bankruptcytrusteeFailure to pay taxesFalse pretensesFiling a false tax returnForgeryFraud in the second degree (Districtof Columbia)Grand larcenyGrand theftyesnoyesnoyesyesyesyesHarassment of a federal witness yes 56Illegal campaign contributions n0 57(misdemeanor)Interstate transportation inyesfurtherance of a fraudMail fraudyesMisapplying funds of a financialinstitutionMisappropriation of funds whileserving as a fiduciaryObstruction of justice(administrative proceedings)Obstruction of justice (judicialproceedings)Offering a false instrument for filingPerjuryyesyesyesyesyesyesIn re Suga~jn, 677 A.2d 1049(D.C. 1996)In re Shorter, 570 A.2d 760 (D.C.1990)In re Anderson, 474 A.2d 145 (D.C.1984)In re Kerr, 611 A.2d 551 (D.C.1992)In re ~ihwartz, 619 A.2d 39 (D.C.1993)In re Rosenbleet, 592 A.2d 1036(D.C. 1991)In re ~oyd, 593 A.2d 183 (D.C.1991) 5In re Caplan, 691 A.2d 1152 (D.C.1997) (interpreting Californiastatute)In re Shillaire, 549 A.2d 336 (D.C.1988)In re Wild, 361 A.2d 182 (D.C.1976)In re Vaccaro, 539 A.2d 1094 (D.C.1988)In re ~ond, 519 A.2d 165 (D.C.1986) 8In re Reggie, 666 A.2d 69 (D.C.1995)In re O'Malley, 683 A.2d 464 (D.C.1996)In re Laurins, 576 A.2d 1351 (D.C.1990)In re ~olson, 412 A.2d 1160 (D.C.1979) 9In re Mirrer, 632 A.2d 117 (D.C.1993)In re Meisnere, 471 A.2d 269 (D.C.1984)53 See also In re Greenspan, 683 A.2d 158 (D.C. 1996).54 See also In re Sluys, 632 A.2d 734 (D.C. 1993).55 See also In re Solerwitz, 601 A.2d 1083 (D.C. 1992) (interpreting New York statute); In reSlater, 627 A.2d 508 (D.C. 1993); In re Sluys, 632 A.2d 734 (D.C. 1993); In re Eberhart, 678 A.2d 1023(D.C. 1996); In re Caplan, 691 A.2d 1152 (D.C. 1997).56 A reading of Shillaire, however, could lead to the interpretation that the Court believed thatmoral turpitude existed on the facts. The Court did not explicitly state that it was deciding that everyharassment of a federal witness would be moral turpitude. Nonetheless, after noting that obstructionof justice was moral turpitUde per se, the Court then went on to compare obstruction of justice andharassment of a federal witness and concluded that they were nearly identical. It is thereforeprobable that Shillaire was a statement that harassment of a federal witness is moral turpitude per se.57 This was the implicit holding of Wild, as noted by Judge Ferren in his concurrence in Colson.See Colson, 412 A.2d at 1181.58 See also In re Krowen, 573 A.2d 786 (D.C. 1990); In re Fox, 627 A.2d 511 (D.C. 1993); Inre Zimmer, 637 A.2d 103 (D.C. 1994); In re Juron, 649 A.2d 836 (D.C. 1994); In re Ferber, 703 A.2d142 (D.C. 1997); In re Bereano, 719 A.2d 98 (D.C. 1998)59 See also In re Schwartz, 619 A.2d 39 (D.C. 1993).
Page 1: The University of theDistrict of Co
Page 5 and 6: KENNETH SEALLS, B.A., J.D., Adjunct
Page 7 and 8: The University ofThe District of Co
Page 9: 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRlcr OF
Page 12 and 13: 6 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF
Page 14: WHEN LAWYERS BREAK THE LAW: HOW THE
Page 17 and 18: 12 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf O
Page 21: 16 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICI'
Page 25 and 26: 20 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRlcr O
Page 29 and 30: 24 THE UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRlcr
Page 35 and 36: 30 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRIcr O
Page 37 and 38: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: 21ST CENTURY LY
Page 57 and 58: 54 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT O
Page 65 and 66: 62 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT O
Page 67 and 68: 64 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRlcr O
Page 73 and 74:
70 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf O
Page 75 and 76:
72 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRIcr O
Page 77 and 78:
74 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT O
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
80 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRlcr O
Page 85 and 86:
82 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT O
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
86 THE UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICT
Page 91 and 92:
88 THE UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICf
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
94 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICI'
Page 99 and 100:
96 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRlcr O
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
100 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRlcr
Page 105 and 106:
102 THE UNIVERSITY OF mE DISTRICf O
Page 107 and 108:
104 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRIcr
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
110 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT
Page 115 and 116:
112 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRlCf
Page 117 and 118:
114 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT
Page 119 and 120:
116 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRlcr
Page 121:
118 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf
show all

The University of the District of Columbia Law ... - UDC Law Review

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?