8 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1974–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2003Indeed, this court in Edwards, supra, 430 A.2d at 1334 , has recognized that in the statutorily-created pretrial detention proceeding “[t]he information presented to the judicial officer by either the government or the defense ... ‘need not conform to the rules pertaining to the admissibility of evidence in a court of law.’ ” In Edwards , we noted “the limited function of a pretrial detention hearing, ie., to determine the appropriateness of detention ... pending a trial on the charges with the full panoply of criminal trial rights, weighs in favor of a simplified hearing.” Id. at 1337 . 2003Indeed, this court in Edwards, supra, 430 A.2d at 1334 , has recognized that in the statutorily-created pretrial detention proceeding “[t]he information presented to the judicial officer by either the government or the defense ... ‘need not conform to the rules pertaining to the admissibility of evidence in a court of law.’ ” In Edwards , we noted “the limited function of a pretrial detention hearing, ie., to determine the appropriateness of detention ... pending a trial on the charges with the full panoply of criminal trial rights, weighs in favor of a simplified hearing.” Id. at 1337 . | 2 | 3 |
Lynch v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1997Rather, because much more than being held answerable for a crime at trial is at stake at a pretrial detention hearing, the statute requires "clear and convincing evidence" of the expressed standard that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required, and the safety of any other person and the community." D.C.Code § 23-1322(b)(2); cf. Lynch, supra, 557 A.2d at 581 (requiring clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness before a person charged with first-degree murder may be detained pretrial, without a prescribed time limit). [13] Th 1997Rather, because much more than being held answerable for a crime at trial is at stake at a pretrial detention hearing, the statute requires "clear and convincing evidence" of the expressed standard that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required, and the safety of any other person and the community." D.C.Code § 23-1322(b)(2); cf. Lynch, supra, 557 A.2d at 581 (requiring clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness before a person charged with first-degree murder may be detained pretrial, without a prescribed time limit). [13] Th | 1 | 1 |
Woodard v. Marshgreen1 sentence1992Compare United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321, 1337-38 (D.C.1981) (en banc), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022 , 102 S.Ct. 1721 , 72 L.Ed.2d 141 (1982) (defendant not entitled to confront and cross-examine government witnesses under D.C. pretrial detention statute) with Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (f) (defendants shall be afforded an opportunity to present witnesses and to cross-examine government witnesses). 17 . | 1 | 1 |
Fasick v. Hiltongreen1 sentence1992Compare United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321, 1337-38 (D.C.1981) (en banc), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022 , 102 S.Ct. 1721 , 72 L.Ed.2d 141 (1982) (defendant not entitled to confront and cross-examine government witnesses under D.C. pretrial detention statute) with Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (f) (defendants shall be afforded an opportunity to present witnesses and to cross-examine government witnesses). 17 . | 1 | 1 |
Hinds v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1992Compare United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321, 1337-38 (D.C.1981) (en banc), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022 , 102 S.Ct. 1721 , 72 L.Ed.2d 141 (1982) (defendant not entitled to confront and cross-examine government witnesses under D.C. pretrial detention statute) with Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (f) (defendants shall be afforded an opportunity to present witnesses and to cross-examine government witnesses). 17 . | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1981Harris v. United States, 404 U.S. 1232 , 92 S.Ct. 10 , 30 L.Ed.2d 25 (1971) (Douglas, J.); Johnson v. United States, D.C.App., 291 A.2d 697, 698 (1972); see 18 U.S.C. ง 3148 (1976); D.C.Code 1973, ง 23-1325; Duker, supra note 10, at 112-19. | 1 | 1 |
Gagnon v. Scarpellired2 sentences1981See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 , 93 S.Ct. 1756, 1759 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973) (probation); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 484-89 , 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2601-04 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (parole). 1981See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 , 93 S.Ct. 1756, 1759 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973) (probation); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 484-89 , 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2601-04 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (parole). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gerstein v. Pugh
green
2 sentences1981Guidance in determining "what process is due" in a pretrial detention hearing may be derived from the Supreme Court's decision in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 , 95 S.Ct. 854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975), and Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). 1981Guidance in determining "what process is due" in a pretrial detention hearing may be derived from the Supreme Court's decision in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 , 95 S.Ct. 854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975), and Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). | 2 | 1981–1997 |
United States v. Montalvo-Murillo
green
1 sentence2024In Montalvo-Murillo, the Supreme Court took as a given that the trial court had held a pretrial detention hearing after the statutory deadline. 495 U.S. at 714-16 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Tyler v. United States
green
1 sentence2003We have cautioned “against permitting a pretrial detention hearing to turn into a trial of the indicted offense or a means of discovery.” Tyler, 705 A.2d at 278 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Bryan v. United States
green
1 sentence2003Id. at 395 . 4 One month after we issued our decision in Bryan I, on October 9, 2003, the United States and Bryan jointly moved this court to vacate the majority opinion and to dismiss Bryan’s appeal so that his pretrial detention hearing could be reopened for the receipt of additional evidence concerning Witness One. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Harris v. United States
green
1 sentence1981Harris v. United States, 404 U.S. 1232 , 92 S.Ct. 10 , 30 L.Ed.2d 25 (1971) (Douglas, J.); Johnson v. United States, D.C.App., 291 A.2d 697, 698 (1972); see 18 U.S.C. ง 3148 (1976); D.C.Code 1973, ง 23-1325; Duker, supra note 10, at 112-19. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences1981Guidance in determining "what process is due" in a pretrial detention hearing may be derived from the Supreme Court's decision in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 , 95 S.Ct. 854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975), and Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). 1981Guidance in determining "what process is due" in a pretrial detention hearing may be derived from the Supreme Court's decision in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 , 95 S.Ct. 854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975), and Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
In Re WINSHIP
green
2 sentences1981Burden of Proof Appellant contends that the burden of proof required in a criminal trial, i. e., proof beyond a reasonable doubt, see In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), is the required standard under the dictates of procedural due process for a pretrial detention hearing. 1981Burden of Proof Appellant contends that the burden of proof required in a criminal trial, i. e., proof beyond a reasonable doubt, see In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), is the required standard under the dictates of procedural due process for a pretrial detention hearing. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
United States v. Kermit N. Gilbert, Jr.
green
2 sentences1974We have considered each one and find them to be without merit. [1] Carbo v. United States, 82 S.Ct. 662 , 666, 7 L.Ed.2d 769 (1962); United States v. Gilbert, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 59 , 425 F.2d 490 (1969). [2] D.C.Code 1973, § 23-1322(b) provides in pertinent part: No person described in subsection (a) of this section shall be ordered detained unless the judicial officer (1) holds a pretrial detention hearing in accordance with the provisions of subsection (c) of this section; (2) finds * * * * * (C) that, except with respect to a person described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of this sec 1974We have considered each one and find them to be without merit. [1] Carbo v. United States, 82 S.Ct. 662 , 666, 7 L.Ed.2d 769 (1962); United States v. Gilbert, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 59 , 425 F.2d 490 (1969). [2] D.C.Code 1973, § 23-1322(b) provides in pertinent part: No person described in subsection (a) of this section shall be ordered detained unless the judicial officer (1) holds a pretrial detention hearing in accordance with the provisions of subsection (c) of this section; (2) finds * * * * * (C) that, except with respect to a person described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of this sec | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.