Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ferguson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017In determining whether a defendant was prejudiced by the denial of a motion to compel the government to produce documents, we must determine the “likelihood that the verdict would have been different had the government complied with the discovery rules or whether the remedy offered by the trial court was inadequate to provide [appellant] with a fair trial.” Ferguson, 866 A.2d at 65 (internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted). 2017We explained, however, that where the government has already produced reports on the results of scientific tests done on suspected controlled substances submitted to the DEA for analysis, and where the defense is ―demanding still additional background documents related to DEA testing‖ through a ―broad request‖ that amounts to ―a fishing expedition,‖ the Curtis ―reason to doubt‖ standard applies, and ―the defense w[ill] have to furnish information by affidavit or otherwise contradicting or calling in question the documentation already disclosed before further intrusion into DEA‘s internal proce | 2 | 2 |
Davis v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2017Where we cannot determine the likelihood that the case would have had a different outcome with the requested discovery, the proper course is a record remand ―for consideration of the issue by the trial judge . . . , who may make the necessary comparison and transmit [his] findings to us.‖ Jackson, 768 A.2d at 584 (citing Davis v. United States, 564 A.2d 31, 42 (D.C. 1989) (en banc) (Where this court has ―an incomplete record upon which to assess harmlessness,‖ remand is appropriate for the trial court ―to make the proper evidentiary record and return the matter to this court.‖)); see also Soto | 1 | 1 |
Cole v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Cf. Cole v. State, 378 Md. 42 , 835 A.2d 600, 609-10 (2003) (“If the testimony, however, revealed that the standard operating procedures were not followed, that might be exculpatory evidence which, when brought out in cross-examination, could make a meaningful difference to a fact-finder.”). 8 . 2017Cf. Cole v. State, 378 Md. 42 , 835 A.2d 600, 609-10 (2003) (“If the testimony, however, revealed that the standard operating procedures were not followed, that might be exculpatory evidence which, when brought out in cross-examination, could make a meaningful difference to a fact-finder.”). 8 . | 1 | 1 |
In Re Shearingreen2 sentences2017LLC v. District of Columbia, 84 A.3d 522, 530 (D.C. 2014) (quoting Marshall v. United States, 15 A.3d 699 , 711 n.2 (D.C. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 57 In re Shearin, 764 A.2d 774, 778 (D.C. 2000) (citations omitted). 35 strongly suggests a quantity of pills containing MDPV. 2017LLC v. District of Columbia, 84 A.3d 522, 530 (D.C. 2014) (quoting Marshall v. United States, 15 A.3d 699 , 711 n.2 (D.C. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 57 In re Shearin, 764 A.2d 774, 778 (D.C. 2000) (citations omitted). 35 strongly suggests a quantity of pills containing MDPV. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Hector Soto-Zunigagreen1 sentence2017Where we cannot determine the likelihood that the case would have had a different outcome with the requested discovery, the proper course is a record remand ―for consideration of the issue by the trial judge . . . , who may make the necessary comparison and transmit [his] findings to us.‖ Jackson, 768 A.2d at 584 (citing Davis v. United States, 564 A.2d 31, 42 (D.C. 1989) (en banc) (Where this court has ―an incomplete record upon which to assess harmlessness,‖ remand is appropriate for the trial court ―to make the proper evidentiary record and return the matter to this court.‖)); see also Soto | 1 | 1 |
Aeon Financial, LLC v. District of Columbiagreen2 sentences2017LLC v. District of Columbia, 84 A.3d 522, 530 (D.C. 2014) (quoting Marshall v. United States, 15 A.3d 699 , 711 n.2 (D.C. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 57 In re Shearin, 764 A.2d 774, 778 (D.C. 2000) (citations omitted). 35 strongly suggests a quantity of pills containing MDPV. 2017LLC v. District of Columbia, 84 A.3d 522, 530 (D.C. 2014) (quoting Marshall v. United States, 15 A.3d 699 , 711 n.2 (D.C. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 57 In re Shearin, 764 A.2d 774, 778 (D.C. 2000) (citations omitted). 35 strongly suggests a quantity of pills containing MDPV. | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2006See Brooks v. United States, 717 A.2d 323, 328 (D.C. *801 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Minor v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1989See Minor v. United States, 475 A.2d 414, 416 (D.C.1984). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. United States
green
2 sentences2017We explained, however, that where the government has already produced reports on the results of scientific tests done on suspected controlled substances submitted to the DEA for analysis, and where the defense is “demanding still additional background documents related to DEA testing” through a “broád request” that amounts to “a fishing expedition,” the Curtis “reason to doubt” standard applies, and “the defense w[ill] have to furnish information by affidavit or otherwise contradicting or calling in question the documentation already disclosed before further intrusion into DEA’s internal proce 2017We explained, however, that where the government has already produced reports on the results of scientific tests done on suspected controlled substances submitted to the DEA for analysis, and where the defense is ―demanding still additional background documents related to DEA testing‖ through a ―broad request‖ that amounts to ―a fishing expedition,‖ the Curtis ―reason to doubt‖ standard applies, and ―the defense w[ill] have to furnish information by affidavit or otherwise contradicting or calling in question the documentation already disclosed before further intrusion into DEA‘s internal proce | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Marshall v. United States
green
2 sentences2017LLC v. District of Columbia, 84 A.3d 522, 530 (D.C. 2014) (quoting Marshall v. United States, 15 A.3d 699 , 711 n.2 (D.C. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 57 In re Shearin, 764 A.2d 774, 778 (D.C. 2000) (citations omitted). 35 strongly suggests a quantity of pills containing MDPV. 2017LLC v. District of Columbia, 84 A.3d 522, 530 (D.C. 2014) (quoting Marshall v. United States, 15 A.3d 699 , 711 n.2 (D.C. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 57 In re Shearin, 764 A.2d 774, 778 (D.C. 2000) (citations omitted). 35 strongly suggests a quantity of pills containing MDPV. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Fields v. United States
green
1 sentence2009In responding to the scene, Officer Jones had no description of anyone matching Smith’s description 48 and the officer never saw anything in appellant’s hands. 49 Aside from the DEA-7 report, the evidence bearing on attempted possession included (1) the testimony that the plastic bag depicted in the government’s photographic exhibits was found near the bush where Smith had bent over while Officer Jones was pursuing him; (2) Government Exhibit 20, a photograph of the evidence bag containing the plastic bag (of what presumably was a rock-like substance) that was sent to the DEA for analysis; and | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Schneble v. Florida
green
2 sentences2009Our task, however, is to “determine on the basis of our own reading of the record and on what seems to us to have been the probable impact ... on the minds of an average jury, ... whether [the improperly admitted evidence was] sufficiently prejudicial to petitioner as to require reversal.” Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 432 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2009Our task, however, is to “determine on the basis of our own reading of the record and on what seems to us to have been the probable impact ... on the minds of an average jury, ... whether [the improperly admitted evidence was] sufficiently prejudicial to petitioner as to require reversal.” Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 432 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2009–2009 |