DC Court of Appeals: Appellate Case Information

Major Legal Issues on Appeal

The appellate case presents twelve major constitutional and legal challenges:

1. Structural Error—Right to Counsel of Choice

Issue: Whether the trial court's sua sponte removal of Appellant's retained counsel of choice, Christopher Mutimer, over Appellant's express objection and without valid cause, constituted structural error under the Sixth Amendment, thereby requiring automatic reversal of the convictions without a showing of prejudice.

Significance: This issue goes to the heart of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and raises fundamental questions about judicial interference with attorney-client relationships.

Authorities: United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006); United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361 (1981); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967).

2. Inadequate Monroe-Farrell Inquiry—Ineffective Assistance

Issue: Whether the trial court's failure to conduct a probing and specific Monroe-Farrell inquiry into Appellant's detailed pretrial allegations of ineffective assistance by appointed counsel, Albert Amissah, deprived Appellant of his constitutional right to effective representation and mandates vacatur of the convictions.

Significance: This challenge addresses the court's duty to investigate claims of ineffective assistance and protect defendants' constitutional rights.

Authorities: Monroe v. United States, 389 A.2d 811 (D.C. 1978); Portillo v. United States, 62 A.3d 1243 (D.C. 2013); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

3. Advocate-Witness Rule and Improper Vouching

Issue: Whether the trial court erred by refusing to disqualify Assistant United States Attorney John Giovannelli under the advocate-witness rule and the prohibition against improper vouching, where Giovannelli's personal involvement in acquiring and authenticating critical, contested evidence (Government Exhibit 8) compromised the fairness and impartiality of the trial.

Significance: This issue raises fundamental questions about prosecutorial ethics and the integrity of evidence presentation.

Authorities: United States v. Edwards, 154 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 1998); Walker v. State, 818 A.2d 1078 (Md. 2003); Simms v. United States, 41 A.3d 482 (D.C. 2012).

4. Admission of Privileged Attorney-Client Communication

Issue: Whether the trial court erred by admitting, and then failing to strike, Government's Trial Exhibit 8—an email from Appellant to former counsel—after expressly finding that the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege did not apply, thereby rendering the communication inadmissible due to enduring privilege, and whether the government's prior use of the email precluded any valid finding of waiver.

Significance: This challenge addresses fundamental protections of attorney-client privilege and the sanctity of confidential communications.

Authorities: Waters v. United States, 302 A.3d 522 (D.C. 2023); Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003); Moore v. United States, 285 A.3d 228 (D.C. 2022); In re Grimm, 252 A.3d 486 (D.C. 2021).

5. Denial of Bifurcated Trial—Mental State Defense

Issue: Whether the trial court's denial of Appellant's written request for a bifurcated trial constituted reversible error by prejudicing Appellant's ability to present a mental state defense on the element of willfulness, without undue prejudice on the factual elements of the Bail Reform Act charges.

Significance: This issue addresses the right to present a complete defense and the proper handling of mental state evidence.

Authorities: Wilkins v. United States, 137 A.3d 975 (D.C. 2016); Evans v. United States, 133 A.3d 988 (D.C. 2016).

6. Speedy Trial Violation—Government's Failure to Extradite

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the indictment where the government returned the indictment while Appellant was abroad, failed to exercise due diligence in seeking extradition for over four years despite knowing Appellant's whereabouts and representing its intent to pursue extradition, thereby violating Appellant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.

Significance: This challenge addresses the government's duty to diligently pursue defendants and protect speedy trial rights.

Authorities: Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972); Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992); United States v. Handa, 892 F.3d 95 (1st Cir. 2018); United States v. Heshelman, 521 F. App'x 501 (6th Cir. 2013).

7. Superseding Indictment—Speedy Trial, Vindictive Prosecution, and Delay

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the superseding indictment on grounds of a speedy trial violation, vindictive prosecution, and inordinate pre-indictment delay, where the government brought a second Bail Reform Act count nearly five years after the underlying facts were known, and only after Appellant exercised his rights and criticized the prosecutor's conduct.

Significance: This issue addresses prosecutorial vindictiveness and the abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

Authorities: Simms v. United States, 41 A.3d 482 (D.C. 2012); United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (1982); United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971); United States v. Handa, 892 F.3d 95 (1st Cir. 2018); Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974).

8. Grand Jury Misconduct—Use of Privileged Material

Issue: Whether grand jury misconduct requiring dismissal occurred where the government presented attorney-client privileged communications to the grand jury before any judicial determination on privilege, substantially influencing the decision to indict and undermining the integrity of the grand jury process.

Significance: This challenge addresses the integrity of the grand jury process and the protection of privileged communications.

Authorities: Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1988); In re Public Defender Service, 831 A.2d 890 (D.C. 2003); Adams v. Franklin, 924 A.2d 993 (D.C. 2007); Moore v. United States, 285 A.3d 228 (D.C. 2022).

9. Remedy for Counsel's Collusion—Tainted Indictment

Issue: Whether dismissal of the indictment is the appropriate remedy where Appellant's former defense counsel disclosed privileged communications to the government, and the indictment was the direct fruit of this egregious breach and alleged collusion, fundamentally tainting the prosecution.

Significance: This issue addresses the appropriate remedy for fundamental breaches of attorney-client privilege and prosecutorial misconduct.

Authorities: Shillinger v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 1995); Simpson v. United States, 632 A.2d 374 (D.C. 1993); In re Grimm, 252 A.3d 486 (D.C. 2021); Cherdak v. O'Grady, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35122 (E.D. Va Feb. 28, 2022).

10. Failure to State a Felony Offense—Statutory Construction and Lenity

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the superseding indictment for failure to state a felony offense, where D.C. Code § 23–1327, properly construed, does not authorize felony charges for failure to appear in connection with a misdemeanor, and the rule of lenity requires the offense to be treated as a misdemeanor.

Significance: This challenge addresses statutory interpretation and the rule of lenity in criminal law.

Authorities: (James) Jones v. United States, 716 A.2d 160 (D.C. 1998); Brown v. United States, 795 A.2d 56 (D.C. 2001).

11. Multiplicitous Indictment—Double Jeopardy

Issue: Whether charging Appellant with two separate felony Bail Reform Act counts based on two notices to appear in the same underlying misdemeanor case constitutes a multiplicitous indictment in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, requiring vacatur of the duplicative conviction.

Significance: This issue addresses double jeopardy protections and the proper charging of multiple offenses.

Authorities: Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (1980); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932); Sanchez-Rengifo v. United States, 815 A.2d 351 (D.C. 2002).

12. Illegal Sentence Increase and Due Process Violation

Issue: Whether the trial court acted without jurisdiction under Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 when, more than 120 days after imposing a legal sentence, it sua sponte resentenced Appellant to a harsher term, and whether this belated and substantive increase—which included a term of probation the court had previously rejected—violated Appellant's due process right to finality in sentencing.

Significance: This challenge addresses judicial authority, sentencing finality, and due process protections.

Authorities: Jordan v. United States, 235 A.3d 808 (D.C. 2020); Allen v. United States, 495 A.2d 1145 (D.C. 1985); Smith v. United States, 687 A.2d 581 (D.C. 1996); Ready v. United States, 620 A.2d 233 (D.C. 1993); Littlejohn v. United States, 749 A.2d 1253 (D.C. 2000).

Procedural History

The appellate case has a complex procedural history spanning multiple years:

Initial Proceedings

On July 9, 2018, Appellant Ranjith Keerikkattil was found guilty by a jury of one count of misdemeanor stalking in Superior Court case number 2015-CMD-17652 and was released pending sentencing. He signed notices to appear on July 10, 2018, and September 14, 2018. He did not appear on either date, and a bench warrant was issued.

On July 11, 2018, a grand jury returned an indictment (hereinafter "original indictment") charging Mr. Keerikkattil with one count of felony Bail Reform Act (BRA) violation under D.C. Code § 23–1327, for the failure to appear on July 10, 2018. Mr. Keerikkattil remained outside the United States until October 2022, when he returned and was arrested. He was held without bond until his sentencing in early 2024.

Superior Court Proceedings

Mr. Keerikkattil was arraigned on October 4, 2022, represented by retained counsel Christopher Mutimer. On March 3, 2023, the government obtained a superseding indictment charging Mr. Keerikkattil with two separate counts of felony BRA violation, one for the July 10, 2018, non-appearance and one for the September 14, 2018, non-appearance.

Around this time, on March 8, 2023, Mr. Mutimer was dismissed from the case, and Albert Amissah was appointed as counsel. Throughout the pretrial proceedings, Appellant, at times proceeding pro se or through counsel, filed numerous motions, including motions to dismiss for speedy trial violations, vindictive prosecution, grand jury misconduct, failure to state an offense, and motions related to attorney representation and the admissibility of evidence.

These motions were largely denied by the trial court, the Honorable Judge Pasichow presiding after the case was transferred to her in January 2023. Trial commenced on November 7, 2023. On November 13, 2023, the jury found Appellant guilty of both BRA charges.

Sentencing and Appeal

On January 17, 2024, Appellant was sentenced to one year of incarceration on each count, to run concurrently, followed by three years of supervised release. On July 19, 2024, the trial court resentenced Appellant, determining that the sentence for the two BRA counts must run consecutively. The court resentenced him to one year incarceration on each count to run consecutively, suspended the incarceration sentence on the second count, and placed him on five years of probation for that count (later amended to four years of supervised probation in the final judgment).

Appellant filed timely appeals from the conviction and the resentencing, which have been consolidated by this Court.

Factual Background

The appellate case involves complex factual circumstances that raise fundamental legal and constitutional questions:

The Underlying Misdemeanor Case

In July 2018, Appellant Ranjith Keerikkattil was at the concluding stages of a misdemeanor stalking case, 2015-CMD-17652, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. On July 9, 2018, following a jury trial, he was found guilty. He was released pending sentencing and signed two separate notices requiring him to return to court: one for July 10, 2018, and another for September 14, 2018.

Appellant did not appear on either of these dates. Consequently, a bench warrant was issued. The day after the first missed court appearance, on July 11, 2018, the government secured an indictment from the grand jury, charging Mr. Keerikkattil with a single count of felony Bail Reform Act (BRA) violation, pursuant to D.C. Code § 23–1327, for the alleged failure to appear on July 10, 2018. At the time of this indictment, Mr. Keerikkattil was already abroad, having boarded an international flight to Iceland on the night of July 9, 2018.

Government's Failure to Pursue Extradition

Mr. Keerikkattil remained outside the United States from July 2018 until October 2022. During this period, the government was aware of its duty to seek extradition. Indeed, on September 14, 2018, a mere two months after the original indictment, Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) John Giovannelli stated on the record that "our office is working on extradition". AUSA Giovannelli also indicated at that time that Appellant was believed to be in India, a country with an extradition treaty with the United States.

Despite this early representation to the court, the government made no apparent efforts to locate Appellant or pursue extradition for over two years. By November 2020, the government possessed concrete information that Mr. Keerikkattil was residing in Australia. Specifically, on November 25, 2020, the Department of Justice Office of International Affairs (OIA) explicitly communicated to the U.S. Mission in Australia that the OIA had "no intent to seek the defendant's extradition". This decision was made despite the existence of a valid extradition treaty with Australia, under which the U.S. had successfully extradited other individuals in 2021 and 2022.

Attorney-Client Privilege Violations

A central piece of evidence in this case was an email dated July 10, 2018, purportedly sent by Mr. Keerikkattil to his then-counsel in the misdemeanor stalking case, Bernard Grimm (hereinafter "the July 10 email" or "Government Exhibit 8"). Almost immediately after receiving this email, Mr. Grimm, without Mr. Keerikkattil's knowledge or permission, transmitted this privileged communication directly to AUSA John Giovannelli. This act by Mr. Grimm constituted a violation of D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6.

The government, through AUSA Giovannelli, then utilized this still-privileged email extensively. It was presented to the grand jury to secure the original indictment in July 2018 and again, in redacted form, to secure the superseding indictment in March 2023. The government also attached the email to various pretrial filings.

Legal Significance

The appellate case has broader implications for the legal system:

Constitutional Rights

The case raises fundamental questions about:

• Sixth Amendment Rights: Right to counsel, right to counsel of choice, and right to effective assistance
• Due Process: Fair trial rights and procedural protections
• Attorney-Client Privilege: Protection of confidential communications
• Speedy Trial: Government's duty to diligently pursue defendants

Systemic Issues

The case highlights systemic problems in the legal system:

• Judicial Oversight: Need for better judicial accountability and oversight
• Prosecutorial Ethics: Limits on prosecutorial discretion and misconduct
• Attorney Regulation: Gaps in attorney disciplinary systems
• Grand Jury Process: Protection of grand jury integrity

Potential Impact

The appellate case may establish important legal precedents:

Legal Precedents

• Attorney-Client Privilege: Enhanced protection of privileged communications
• Judicial Misconduct: Remedies for judicial bias and incompetence
• Prosecutorial Ethics: Limits on prosecutorial misconduct
• Due Process Rights: Protection of defendants' constitutional rights

Systemic Reform

The case may lead to:

• Judicial Reform: Improved judicial oversight and accountability
• Prosecutorial Reform: Enhanced prosecutorial ethics and oversight
• Attorney Regulation: Strengthened attorney disciplinary systems
• Procedural Reform: Enhanced protection of defendants' rights

Conclusion

The DC Court of Appeals case represents a critical opportunity to address fundamental failures in the legal system. The twelve major legal issues presented raise questions about constitutional rights, judicial misconduct, prosecutorial ethics, and the integrity of the legal process.

The extensive documentation and legal arguments in this case provide a comprehensive framework for understanding how systemic failures can compound to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights. The appellate proceedings offer an opportunity to establish important legal precedents and promote systemic reform.