# Rambert v. United States

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · February 7, 1992 · 602 A.2d 1117

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718178

## Case

- **Full name:** Stephen L. RAMBERT, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** February 7, 1992
- **Citations:** 602 A.2d 1117; 1992 D.C. App. LEXIS 32; 1992 WL 23283
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Schwelb
- **Judges:** Terry, Schwelb, Farrell
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718178

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the government’s introduction of witness testimony after it had initially rested was not prejudicial to the defense because the testimony “was no more damaging . . . than it would have been if the government had presented it earlier”

## Opinion text

SCHWELB, Associate Judge,
concurring:
The trial judge granted the prosecutor’s motion to reopen on the strength of representations by Officer Brown which proved to be untrue. Whether Brown lied or simply “blew it,” this situation is less than edifying and should not be readily countenanced. I agree with Judge Terry, however, that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion, especially since Rambert could have requested a continuance but did not do so. Accordingly, I join in the opinion of the court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718178. Public record. Not legal advice.