analogous federal rule in District of Columbia

2024Puckett, 556 U.S. at 136 (rejecting argument that plain error does not apply to unpreserved claim that 39 government violated terms of plea agreement and explaining that “the defendant has the opportunity to seek vindication of those rights in district court; if he fails to do so, Rule 52(b) as clearly sets forth the consequences for that forfeiture as it does for all others”) (emphasis added).7 Absent the term “waiver,” nothing in the text of the amended rule appears to upset established rules of forfeiture or require appellate courts to apply a “waiver”-absent-good-cause standard to unpreser

2024Puckett, 556 U.S. at 136 (rejecting argument that plain error does not apply to unpreserved claim that 39 government violated terms of plea agreement and explaining that “the defendant has the opportunity to seek vindication of those rights in district court; if he fails to do so, Rule 52(b) as clearly sets forth the consequences for that forfeiture as it does for all others”) (emphasis added).7 Absent the term “waiver,” nothing in the text of the amended rule appears to upset established rules of forfeiture or require appellate courts to apply a “waiver”-absent-good-cause standard to unpreser

2018See Flax v. Schertler , 935 A.2d 1091 , 1105 (D.C. 2007) ("This court reviews a trial court's decision to permit or deny an amendment of pleadings for abuse of discretion."); District of Columbia v. Tinker , 691 A.2d 57 , 60 (D.C. 1997) (same); see also Islamic Ctr. of Nashville v. Tennessee , 872 F.3d 377 , 386-87 (6th Cir. 2017) (interpreting the analogous Federal rule and holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not granting leave to amend sua sponte where appellant never requested it).

2018See Flax v. Schertler , 935 A.2d 1091 , 1105 (D.C. 2007) ("This court reviews a trial court's decision to permit or deny an amendment of pleadings for abuse of discretion."); District of Columbia v. Tinker , 691 A.2d 57 , 60 (D.C. 1997) (same); see also Islamic Ctr. of Nashville v. Tennessee , 872 F.3d 377 , 386-87 (6th Cir. 2017) (interpreting the analogous Federal rule and holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not granting leave to amend sua sponte where appellant never requested it).

2015Id. at 679 . “[C]ourts have long recognized that jurors with young children should be excused for cause when they are unable to obtain child-care for their children.” Johnson v. United States, 307 F.Supp.2d 380, 387 (D.Conn.2003) (citing Fed.R.Crim.P. 24(c)). 4 We review the trial court’s decision to replace a juror with an alternate for an abuse of discretion, recognizing “the trial judge’s superior ability to observe the demeanor of the juror” and understanding that “[i]t is not our function ... to second-guess a reasonable judgment of the trial court.” Hinton, 979 A.2d at 683-84 (internal q

2015Id. at 679 . “[C]ourts have long recognized that jurors with young children should be excused for cause when they are unable to obtain child-care for their children.” Johnson v. United States, 307 F.Supp.2d 380, 387 (D.Conn.2003) (citing Fed.R.Crim.P. 24(c)). 4 We review the trial court’s decision to replace a juror with an alternate for an abuse of discretion, recognizing “the trial judge’s superior ability to observe the demeanor of the juror” and understanding that “[i]t is not our function ... to second-guess a reasonable judgment of the trial court.” Hinton, 979 A.2d at 683-84 (internal q

2015Id. at 679 . “[C]ourts have long recognized that jurors with young children should be excused for cause when they are unable to obtain child-care for their children.” Johnson v. United States, 307 F.Supp.2d 380, 387 (D.Conn.2003) (citing Fed.R.Crim.P. 24(c)). 4 We review the trial court’s decision to replace a juror with an alternate for an abuse of discretion, recognizing “the trial judge’s superior ability to observe the demeanor of the juror” and understanding that “[i]t is not our function ... to second-guess a reasonable judgment of the trial court.” Hinton, 979 A.2d at 683-84 (internal q

1990Kane, Federal Practioe and PROCEDURE § 1493, at 40 (2d ed. 1990) (stating the same with regard to the federal rule); see also Moore, supra, 391 A.2d at 768 (stating that the interpretation of Rule 15(b) of the Civil Rules of Procedure is “aided by” interpretations of the analogous federal rule).

1990Kane, Federal Practioe and PROCEDURE § 1493, at 40 (2d ed. 1990) (stating the same with regard to the federal rule); see also Moore, supra, 391 A.2d at 768 (stating that the interpretation of Rule 15(b) of the Civil Rules of Procedure is “aided by” interpretations of the analogous federal rule).