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.
5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Julius L. Worthy v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2018Id. at 1096, 1098 . | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. New Yorkgreen1 sentence2004Id. at 1132; see Harris, supra, 401 U.S. at 224-26 , 91 S.Ct. 643 (Evidence inadmissible on Miranda grounds is admissible for impeachment purposes provided “the trustworthiness of the evidence satisfies legal standards.”). | 1 | 1 |
James v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1993The Supreme Court’s next significant decision on the scope of the impeachment exception was James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 , 110 S.Ct. 648 , 107 L.Ed.2d 676 (1990), in which one group of teenagers was robbed by another group of teenagers. 1993The Supreme Court’s next significant decision on the scope of the impeachment exception was James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 , 110 S.Ct. 648 , 107 L.Ed.2d 676 (1990), in which one group of teenagers was robbed by another group of teenagers. | 1 | 1 |
Kitt v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1989Kitt, supra, 379 A.2d at 975 . 1989See Kitt v. United States, 379 A.2d 973, 975 (D.C.1977). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Walder v. United States
green
2 sentences1993In reaching this conclusion, the Court emphasized that the purpose of the impeachment exception is to discourage defendants “in the first instance from ‘affirmatively re-sortpng] to perjurious testimony.’ ” Id. at 314 , 110 S.Ct. at 652 (quoting Walder, supra, 347 U.S. at 65 , 74 S.Ct. at 356 ). 1993In reaching this conclusion, the Court emphasized that the purpose of the impeachment exception is to discourage defendants “in the first instance from ‘affirmatively re-sortpng] to perjurious testimony.’ ” Id. at 314 , 110 S.Ct. at 652 (quoting Walder, supra, 347 U.S. at 65 , 74 S.Ct. at 356 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
United States v. Havens
green
2 sentences1993The impeachment exception evolved further in the Court’s decisions in Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714 , 95 S.Ct. 1215 , 43 L.Ed.2d 570 (1975), and United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620 , 100 S.Ct. 1912 , 64 L.Ed.2d 559 (1980). 1993The impeachment exception evolved further in the Court’s decisions in Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714 , 95 S.Ct. 1215 , 43 L.Ed.2d 570 (1975), and United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620 , 100 S.Ct. 1912 , 64 L.Ed.2d 559 (1980). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Oregon v. Hass
green
2 sentences1993The impeachment exception evolved further in the Court’s decisions in Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714 , 95 S.Ct. 1215 , 43 L.Ed.2d 570 (1975), and United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620 , 100 S.Ct. 1912 , 64 L.Ed.2d 559 (1980). 1993The impeachment exception evolved further in the Court’s decisions in Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714 , 95 S.Ct. 1215 , 43 L.Ed.2d 570 (1975), and United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620 , 100 S.Ct. 1912 , 64 L.Ed.2d 559 (1980). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
United States v. John W. Hinckley, Jr. United States of America v. John W. Hinckley, Jr
green
2 sentences1993It held that to allow the use of this illegally obtained evidence, even in rebuttal, “would do wholesale violence to the rationale of [the Supreme Court’s impeachment exception] decisions and the underlying purposes of the fourth and fifth amendments.” Id. at 280 , 672 F.2d at 133 . 1993It held that to allow the use of this illegally obtained evidence, even in rebuttal, “would do wholesale violence to the rationale of [the Supreme Court’s impeachment exception] decisions and the underlying purposes of the fourth and fifth amendments.” Id. at 280 , 672 F.2d at 133 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Johnson v. United States
green
2 sentences1983Johnson , however, presented a specific factual situation of the government’s impeachment of a defense witness with the witness’ prior inconsistent statements. 387 A.2d at 1085 . 1983Johnson, however, presented a specific factual situation of the government's impeachment of a defense witness with the witness' prior inconsistent statements. 387 A.2d at 1085 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.