# Bedney v. United States

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · October 24, 1996 · 684 A.2d 759

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752646

## Case

- **Full name:** Vetera BEDNEY, A/K/A Vetera Graves, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 24, 1996
- **Citations:** 684 A.2d 759; 1996 D.C. App. LEXIS 222; 1996 WL 609146
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Mack
- **Judges:** Wagner, Terry, Mack
- **Cited by:** 21 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/9752646

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the movant for a continuance to secure a missing witness “must establish (1) who the missing witness is, (2) what the witness’ testimony would be, (3) the relevance and competence of that testimony, (4) that the witness could probably be obtained if the continuanc…

## Opinion text

MACK, Senior Judge,
dissenting:
I part company with my colleagues when they reason that the prior recorded testimony of Reginald Morris, given under oath, was inadmissible because the government, at the time of the recording, was prevented from cross-examining the witness about activities other than on the date of March 19, 1992. The issue at appellant’s trial was precisely that of her guilt or innocence of drug distribution on March 19,1992, and as counsel for appellant argues, “the probative value of the [recorded] statement [exonerating her] could not have been greater.” See Alston v. United States, 383 A.2d 307 (D.C.1978). Prejudice to the government, if any, was minimal, as well as speculative. 1
In my view, the appellant met all the requisites necessary for invocation of the recorded testimony exception to the hearsay rule. See Feaster v. United States, 631 A.2d 400, 405 (D.C.1993).
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.
. Any evidence of past non-incriminatory association between the witness and the defendant might or might not have undermined the defense.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752646. Public record. Not legal advice.