12 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sheffield v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2018As to appellant‟s Brady and Rule 16 claims, the rule that guides our analysis is that where — as here — “defense counsel fails to move for the production of evidence and does not request the imposition of sanctions against the government for failing to preserve discoverable material, the trial court‟s failure to sua sponte impose a sanction will only be reversed upon a finding of plain error.” Sheffield v. United States, 397 A.2d 963, 968 (D.C. 1979). 6 Where no objection was made during the sentencing proceeding, this court applies plain-error review to a claim that the trial court erroneousl 2018As to appellant's Brady and Rule 16 claims, the rule that guides our analysis is that where-as here-"defense counsel fails to move for the production of evidence and does not request the imposition of sanctions against the government for failing to preserve discoverable material, the trial court's failure to sua sponte impose a sanction will only be reversed upon a finding of plain error." Sheffield v. United States , 397 A.2d 963 , 968 (D.C. 1979). *655 Where no objection was made during the sentencing proceeding, this court applies plain-error review to a claim that the trial court erroneous | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Olanogreen2 sentences2000See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); Sheffield v. United States, 397 A.2d 963, 968 (D.C.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 965 , 99 S.Ct. 2414 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1979) (trial court’s failure to impose a sanction sua sponte for failure to preserve discoverable material, after defense fails to request a sanction, will only be reversed upon a finding of plain error). 2000See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); Sheffield v. United States, 397 A.2d 963, 968 (D.C.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 965 , 99 S.Ct. 2414 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1979) (trial court’s failure to impose a sanction sua sponte for failure to preserve discoverable material, after defense fails to request a sanction, will only be reversed upon a finding of plain error). | 1 | 2 |
Veney v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2018See Veney v. United States, 738 A.2d 1185, 1198 (D.C. 1999). 2018See Veney v. United States , 738 A.2d 1185 , 1198 (D.C. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
District of Columbia v. Wical Ltd. Partnershipgreen1 sentence1996E.g., District of Columbia v. Wical Limited Partnership, 630 A.2d 174, 182 (D.C.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Beatty v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1993The reliability of an identification is predicated upon a number of factors, among which are "the ability of the witness to make a meaningful identificationthe witness' opportunity to observe and the length of time of the observations, the lighting conditions, the length of time between the observations and the identification, the stimuli operating on the witness at the time of the observation, as well as the degree of certainty expressed by the witness in making the identification." Beatty v. United States, 544 A.2d 699, 701 (D.C.1988). 1993The reliability of an identification is predicated upon a number of factors, among which are “the ability of the witness to make a meaningful identification — the witness’ opportunity to observe and the length of time of the observations, the lighting conditions, the length of time between the observations and the identification, the stimuli operating on the witness at the time of the observation, as well as the degree of certainty expressed by the witness in making the identification.” Beatty v. United States, 544 A.2d 699, 701 (D.C.1988). | 1 | 1 |
Rhema Christian Center v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustmentgreen1 sentence1987Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 515 A.2d 189, 196 (D.C.1986). [8] In Proctor v. United States, 381 A.2d 249 , 252 n. 4 (D.C.1977), we said: We do not intend, by our resolution of the ineffectiveness claim here or by our reference to appellant's failure to utilize D.C.Code 1973, § 23-110, to preclude the appellant from raising the issue in a collateral proceeding under § 23-110 at a later time. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Robert L. Scribergreen2 sentences1979See United States v. Scriber, 163 U.S.App.D.C. 36, 43 , 499 F.2d 1041, 1048 (1974). 1979See United States v. Scriber, 163 U.S.App.D.C. 36, 43 , 499 F.2d 1041, 1048 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Watts v. United States
green
2 sentences1983Watts v. United States, 362 A.2d 706 (D.C.1976) (en banc). 1983Watts, supra. Despite the fact that the prosecutor successfully impeached his own witness without claiming surprise, and the fact that no cautionary instruction was given, we find this case to be factually distinguishable from Lucas and Towles and conclude that the trial court error in allowing the impeachment was harmless. | 3 | 1978–1983 |
Jones v. United States
green
2 sentences2011In (Marcus) Jones v. United States, 946 A.2d 970 (D.C.2008), we held that jurors “should not be told impliedly that they fail the ‘test’ of responsible service if they do not overcome their ‘opinions’ and reach agreement on a verdict.” Id. at 974 . 2011In (Marcus) Jones v. United States, 946 A.2d 970 (D.C.2008), we held that jurors “should not be told impliedly that they fail the ‘test’ of responsible service if they do not overcome their ‘opinions’ and reach agreement on a verdict.” Id. at 974 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Winters v. United States
green
1 sentence2008Compromise may indeed have played a role in the verdict returned — as it not infrequently does, and legitimately so, see Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10, 22 , 100 S.Ct. 1999 , 64 L.Ed.2d 689 (1980) — but the supposition that the lesser verdict here was driven by the Winters instruction rather than disagreement over whether Jones manifested the culpability needed to convict him of the most serious charge is too weak to support a finding of plain error. 7 The Winters instruction, to repeat, is “the highwater mark for an anti-deadlock charge” in this jurisdiction, but we have not held its | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Standefer v. United States
green
2 sentences2008Compromise may indeed have played a role in the verdict returned — as it not infrequently does, and legitimately so, see Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10, 22 , 100 S.Ct. 1999 , 64 L.Ed.2d 689 (1980) — but the supposition that the lesser verdict here was driven by the Winters instruction rather than disagreement over whether Jones manifested the culpability needed to convict him of the most serious charge is too weak to support a finding of plain error. 7 The Winters instruction, to repeat, is “the highwater mark for an anti-deadlock charge” in this jurisdiction, but we have not held its 2008Compromise may indeed have played a role in the verdict returned — as it not infrequently does, and legitimately so, see Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10, 22 , 100 S.Ct. 1999 , 64 L.Ed.2d 689 (1980) — but the supposition that the lesser verdict here was driven by the Winters instruction rather than disagreement over whether Jones manifested the culpability needed to convict him of the most serious charge is too weak to support a finding of plain error. 7 The Winters instruction, to repeat, is “the highwater mark for an anti-deadlock charge” in this jurisdiction, but we have not held its | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Sheffield v. United States
green
1 sentence2000See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); Sheffield v. United States, 397 A.2d 963, 968 (D.C.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 965 , 99 S.Ct. 2414 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1979) (trial court’s failure to impose a sanction sua sponte for failure to preserve discoverable material, after defense fails to request a sanction, will only be reversed upon a finding of plain error). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Boggs v. United States
green
2 sentences2000See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); Sheffield v. United States, 397 A.2d 963, 968 (D.C.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 965 , 99 S.Ct. 2414 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1979) (trial court’s failure to impose a sanction sua sponte for failure to preserve discoverable material, after defense fails to request a sanction, will only be reversed upon a finding of plain error). 2000See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); Sheffield v. United States, 397 A.2d 963, 968 (D.C.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 965 , 99 S.Ct. 2414 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1979) (trial court’s failure to impose a sanction sua sponte for failure to preserve discoverable material, after defense fails to request a sanction, will only be reversed upon a finding of plain error). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Proctor v. United States
green
1 sentence1987Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 515 A.2d 189, 196 (D.C.1986). [8] In Proctor v. United States, 381 A.2d 249 , 252 n. 4 (D.C.1977), we said: We do not intend, by our resolution of the ineffectiveness claim here or by our reference to appellant's failure to utilize D.C.Code 1973, § 23-110, to preclude the appellant from raising the issue in a collateral proceeding under § 23-110 at a later time. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.