proffer defense (District of Columbia) · Go Syfert
← District of Columbia issues

proffer defense in District of Columbia

5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2003 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Springer v. United Statesgreen
dc · 1978 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
2 sentences

1987See Springer v. United States, 388 A.2d 846, 856 (D.C.1978). [10] As for the second type of information alleged to have been precluded by the court's ruling, there is no evidence, nor a proffer from defense counsel, that appellant said anything else to Hayes about the incident that would have been consistent with his trial testimony.

1987See Springer v. United States, 388 A.2d 846, 856 (D.C.1978). 10 As for the second type of information alleged to have been precluded by the court’s ruling, there is no evidence, nor a proffer from defense counsel, that appellant said anything else to Hayes about the incident that would have been consistent with his trial testimony.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

CaseNegativeCited
Messina v. District of Columbiagreen
dc · 1995 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003But see Geddie, 663 A.2d at 535 (noting that delay in presenting claim of intimidation may raise questions about its credibility).

2003But see Geddie, 663 A.2d at 535 (noting that delay in presenting claim of intimidation may raise questions about its credibility).

11

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
McBride v. United States green
dc · 1982
2 sentences

2000Even so, we recognized in McBride that ”[t]he courts .. . have not enforced the proffer requirement in a rigid fashion,” id., and we rejected the government’s claim that the plain error standard should be applied.

2000Even so, we recognized in McBride that "[t]he courts ... have not enforced the proffer requirement in a rigid fashion." id., and we rejected the government's claim that the plain error standard should be applied.

12000–2000
Beale v. United States green
dc · 1983
2 sentences

1994The critical omissions from the proffer by the defense in Beale , were “any evidence that those other individuals, assertedly with motives to kill the victim ..., were in the area at the time of the shooting” or evidence “linking these [prior] events to the subsequent murder.” Id.

1994The critical omissions from the proffer by the defense in Beale , were "any evidence that those other individuals, *613 assertedly with motives to kill the victim ..., were in the area at the time of the shooting" or evidence "linking these [prior] events to the subsequent murder." Id.

11994–1994
Monroe v. United States green
dc · 1978
2 sentences

1980Monroe, supra, intended as a shield for an accused, would become a sword if interpreted in such manner as to permit the betrayal of the confidence of one who has sought its protection.

1980Monroe, supra, intended as a shield for an accused, would become a sword if interpreted in such manner as to permit the betrayal of the confidence of one who has sought its protection.

11980–1980

Where else courts name it

VA 10 (2001–2025) AR 8 (1993–2018) DC 5 (1980–2003) CA 4 (1988–2015) LA 4 (1991–2025) IN 3 (1999–2020) MD 3 (1992–2013) UT 3 (2004–2025) PA 2 (2000–2016) TX 2 (2008–2011) IL 2 (1989–2023) NM 2 (2016–2016) CO 2 (2005–2009) WA 2 (2014–2014) NJ 2 (1989–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check