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 1978–1982 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 |
|---|---|---|
Springer v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1982To hold harmless such error in curtailing constitutionally-protected cross-examination, it must be clear beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that the defendant would have been convicted without the witness’ testimony, or (2) that the restricted line of inquiry would not have weakened the impact of the witness’ testimony. [Springer, supra 388 A.2d at 856 (citations and footnote omitted).] Appellant Taylor first contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it limited his cross-examination of Detective Schwartz. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. California
yellow
2 sentences1982If, however, the trial court has permitted some cross-examination so that the jury has sufficient information from which to infer bias (should it so choose), this court will evaluate error by application of the harmless constitutional error test of Chapman v. California [ 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)]. 1982If, however, the trial court has permitted some cross-examination so that the jury has sufficient information from which to infer bias (should it so choose), this court will evaluate error by application of the harmless constitutional error test of Chapman v. California [ 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)]. | 5 | 1979–1982 |
State v. Schilling
green
1 sentence1979If, however, the trial court has permitted some cross-examination so that the jury has sufficient information from which to infer bias (should it so choose), this court will evaluate error by application of the harmless constitutional error test of Chapman v. California, [ 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ] supra. To hold harmless such error in curtailing constitutionally-protected cross-examination, it must be clear beyond a reasonable doubt “(1) that the defendant would have been convicted without the witness’ testimony, or (2) that the restricted line of inquiry would not have we | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Gillespie v. United States
green
1 sentence1979If, however, the trial court has permitted some cross-examination so that the jury has sufficient information from which to infer bias (should it so choose), this court will evaluate error by application of the harmless constitutional error test of Chapman v. California, [ 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ] supra. To hold harmless such error in curtailing constitutionally-protected cross-examination, it must be clear beyond a reasonable doubt “(1) that the defendant would have been convicted without the witness’ testimony, or (2) that the restricted line of inquiry would not have we | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Glasser v. United States
green
2 sentences1978As we begin our analysis, we must bear in mind the Supreme Court’s admonition that appellate courts must “guard against the magnification on appeal of instances which were of little importance in their [trial] setting.” Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 83 , 62 S.Ct. 457, 471 , 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). 1978As we begin our analysis, we must bear in mind the Supreme Court’s admonition that appellate courts must “guard against the magnification on appeal of instances which were of little importance in their [trial] setting.” Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 83 , 62 S.Ct. 457, 471 , 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.