# Munn v. United States

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · December 18, 1997 · 703 A.2d 1239

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729403

## Case

- **Full name:** Walter J. MUNN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** December 18, 1997
- **Citations:** 703 A.2d 1239; 1997 D.C. App. LEXIS 277; 1997 WL 776291
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mack
- **Judges:** Terry, Farrell, Mack
- **Cited by:** 6 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/9729403

## Opinion text

MACK, Senior Judge,
concurring:
I agree with my colleagues that the prosecutor’s opening remarks (relative to a “network” of drug distribution) were improper. I agree with the trial judge, who sustained an objection to those remarks as being “inflammatory.”
Moreover, in this court, we all agree with Mr. Munn that “the government had no evidence that he was part of a conspiracy or ‘network’-” Majority Op. at 1242. As to whether the government made any “attempt to prove that he was,” the record leaves me somewhat ambivalent. Certainly the prosecutor, having been sternly advised by the trial judge to state a factual basis for the inflammatory opening argument, produced no direct evidence in that regard. 1 I note, however, that in closing arguments, the prosecutor did rely in part upon the testimony of an “expert witness” who testified as to the usual pattern of drug distribution. Nevertheless, because the expert expressly disclaimed any knowledge of the facts of this case, and in view of the protective instructions given by the trial court, I join my colleagues in holding that Mr. Munn was not substantially prejudiced thereby. Cf. Russell v. United States, 701 A.2d 1093 (D.C. 1997).
. Mr. Munn was arrested after he was observed returning to the scene of a “stake-out” to retrieve his parked car after having previously been searched together with a group of "loitering” men and ordered to "move on” without the car (a fact which a vice squad officer did not mention on direct examination hut did not dispute on cross).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729403. Public record. Not legal advice.