valid basis challenge in District of Columbia

1997At the hearing “a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 , 104 S.Ct. 845, 850 , 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984); Harris, supra, 606 A.2d at 766 n. 5.

1997At the hearing “a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 , 104 S.Ct. 845, 850 , 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984); Harris, supra, 606 A.2d at 766 n. 5.

2016The defendant is entitled to a new trial if he or she demonstrates at the hearing that the “juror failed to answer honestly a material question” and that “a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 , 104 S.Ct. 845 , 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984); accord Young, 694 A.2d at 894 .

2016The second requirement is satisfied if “ ‘the [trial] court ... would have granted the hypothetical challenge’ if it had known the true facts.” United States v. Dangerdas, 867 F.Supp.2d 445, 470 (S.D.N.Y.2012) (quoting United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 304 (2d Cir. 2006)), rev’d in part on other grounds sub nom.

2016The second requirement is satisfied if “ ‘the [trial] court ... would have granted the hypothetical challenge’ if it had known the true facts.” United States v. Dangerdas, 867 F.Supp.2d 445, 470 (S.D.N.Y.2012) (quoting United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 304 (2d Cir. 2006)), rev’d in part on other grounds sub nom.

2015As Judge Fisher’s dissent recognizes, a distinction in the penalty imposed on different categories of defendants is a valid basis for analysis under the Sixth Amendment in the case of recidivists and non-recidivists because it is “in essence, a different offense with a different maximum sentence.” Similarly, federal immigration law essentially creates a substantially different offense for Sixth Amendment purposes applicable only to noncitizens going so far, in this case, as to actually label the offense an “aggravated felony” when it is committed by a noncitizen. 44 law, deportation is an inte

1978For instance, courts may have assumed that “. . .a mother keeps the home, performs household duties, and will have more time to devote to the children and their welfare.” In re Marriage of Bowen, supra at 688.

1978For instance, courts may have assumed that ". . . a mother keeps the home, performs household duties, and will have more time to devote to the children and their welfare." In re Marriage of Bowen, supra at 688.