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 1986–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Opper v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2011“In this respect, the ... rule essentially functions [to regulate] the admission of statements which ‘are much like hearsay, [having had] neither the compulsion of the oath nor the test of cross-examination.’ ” Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Opper, 348 U.S. at 90 , 75 S.Ct. 158 ). 2011“In this respect, the ... rule essentially functions [to regulate] the admission of statements which ‘are much like hearsay, [having had] neither the compulsion of the oath nor the test of cross-examination.’ ” Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Opper, 348 U.S. at 90 , 75 S.Ct. 158 ). | 1 | 3 |
Chambers v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1996Cf. Chambers, 564 A.2d at 29 (holding that court would not inquire into sufficiency of evidence to support grand jury indictment since any error in grand jury process is rendered harmless by petit jury’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Williamsgreen2 sentences1996But that interpretation is forbidden, according to counsel, by this court’s decision in In re Williams, 464 A.2d 115 (D.C.1983) (per curiam) (Williams I). 1996In ruling that the petitions were not subject to dismissal, we relied not on the particulars of Williams’ “oath deficiency” argument but on the simple fact that he had proceeded to a hearing on the petitions without objecting to the form of verification. “[Sjinee the lack of *366 verification of a petition is not a jurisdictional defect, respondent has waived any defect by failing to object timely.” Williams I, 464 A.2d at 118 (citations .omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1986See also Smith, 348 U.S. at 156 , 75 S.Ct. at 199 ("All elements of the offense must be established by independent evidence or corroborated admissions, but one available mode of corroboration is for the independent evidence to bolster the confession itself and thereby prove the offense ‘through’ the statements of the accused.”) 16 . 1986See also Smith, 348 U.S. at 156 , 75 S.Ct. at 199 ("All elements of the offense must be established by independent evidence or corroborated admissions, but one available mode of corroboration is for the independent evidence to bolster the confession itself and thereby prove the offense ‘through’ the statements of the accused.”) 16 . | 1 | 1 |
Reed v. Southern Railwaygreen1 sentence1986They had neither the compulsion of the oath nor the test of cross-examination. 348 U.S. at 89-90, 75 S.Ct. at 162-63. 15 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Daryl E. Singleterry
green
2 sentences2011“In this respect, the ... rule essentially functions [to regulate] the admission of statements which ‘are much like hearsay, [having had] neither the compulsion of the oath nor the test of cross-examination.’ ” Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Opper, 348 U.S. at 90 , 75 S.Ct. 158 ). 2011But this admissibility analysis by the trial court necessarily involves consideration of whether the confession has been sufficiently corroborated, and “courts often characterize corroboration requirements as governing the sufficiency of the evidence.” Singleterry, 29 F.3d at 738 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.