Case law

Glenbrook Road Ass'n v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

605 A.2d 22 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 1992

The BZA unanimously held that the University had qualified for the special exceptions. With respect to most contested issues, the Board made comparatively detailed findings. … Counsel for the GRA sought the opportunity, through cross-examination, to try to establish then and there that it was Mr. Brown who was mistaken with respect to significant disputed facts.

Khiem v. United States

612 A.2d 160 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 1992

Following several examinations and communications with the court, the hospital reported that Khiem was competent to stand trial and that he did not qualify for an insanity defense. … Second, the division has now clearly limited its holding to homicide cases.

Bennett v. United States

726 A.2d 156 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 1999

Under Rule 32(e), a defendant may successfully move to withdraw a guilty plea by establishing either of two separate and independent grounds. … In addition, Gooding’s qualified admission of culpability at the plea hearing was consistent with his assertion of innocence following the hearing.

Brown v. United States

766 A.2d 530 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 2001

In order to prove obstruction of justice, the government was required, inter alia, to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants acted corruptly with the intent to prevent Mrs. … The judge responded that “[t]he issue in the case isn’t whether she was properly prescribed medication,” and he stated that “I’ll qualify him as an expert with the understanding we’re not going to be getting into diagnosis

Davis v. United States

724 A.2d 1163 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 1998

Far from establishing a rigid rule, we direct courts to avoid one; there is no warrant for presuming coercive effect where the suspect's initial inculpatory statement, though technically in violation of Miranda, was voluntary … First, the Court noted that one officer's failure to give Miranda warnings "may have been the result of confusion as to whether the brief exchange qualified as `custodial interrogation' or it may simply have reflected [the

Boone v. United States

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

For clearly, "[n]o right ranks higher than the right of the accused to a fair trial." Id. 104 S.Ct. at 823. It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the trial court be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. … We are dealing with the question whether a given juror is competent and qualified to serve in the trial of a particular case.

Moore v. United States En Banc

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 4, 2025

Most statements, when viewed in context, will not qualify as such. … Moore’s statements clearly related to a legal purpose—a proposition that no member of this en banc court contests.

Expedia, Inc. v. District of Columbia

120 A.3d 623 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2015

The OTCs’ Liability for Sales Tax The rules of statutory construction are well established in the District of Columbia. See District of Columbia v. Place, 892 A.2d 1108, 1111 (D.C. 2006). … When, as here, the construction of an administrative regulation rather than a statute is in issue, deference is even more clearly in order.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Irick v. United States

565 A.2d 26 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 5, 1989

S APPEAL L.D. contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he aided and abetted the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute it. [6] Although the case against him was perhaps … the jury truly needed to see the operation of the firearm in order to evaluate Irick's testimony (as to whether he panicked or not), then surely the firearms expert who the prosecutor had already called was much better qualified