# Boone v. United States

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · October 2, 1984 · 483 A.2d 1135

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763629

## Case

- **Full name:** Lee P. BOONE, A/K/A Lee P. Walker, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 2, 1984
- **Citations:** 483 A.2d 1135; 1984 D.C. App. LEXIS 520
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ferren
- **Judges:** Belson, Nebeker, Newman, Ne-Beker, MacK, Ferren, Pryor, Bel-Son, Rogers, Yeagley, Kern
- **Cited by:** 29 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/9763629

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing possibility that some “factual or legal considerations ... might place the case beyond the rationale or holding of Robinson”
- noting strength of government’s case was not overwhelming when applying harmless beyond reasonable doubt standard where the trial court erred in refusing to allow defendant to be present during individual voir dire

## Opinion text

FERREN, Associate Judge,
with whom NEWMAN, Chief Judge, and MACK, PRYOR, and ROGERS, Associate Judges, join, concurring:
I join in Judge MACK’s opinion for the court emphasizing peremptory challenges. I also join in Part II of Judge BELSON’s opinion discussing challenges for cause. Because there is only one voir dire process for eliciting peremptory challenges and challenges for cause, a defendant’s right to be present at voir dire for either purpose necessarily embraces the right to be present for the other.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763629. Public record. Not legal advice.