 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Cosio v. United States, Nos. 98-CF-1906 & 02-CO-1453,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Having shown deficient performance on the part of trial counsel and consequent prejudice to his defense, defendant established that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Counsel had strong reasons to investigate the prosecution's claim that the victim was afraid of defendant, and no good reason not to do so.
|
|||||
| In re Estate of Wilson, No. 05-PR-428,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not abuse its discretion by ordering an attorney to pay to the decedent's estate a portion of the attorney's fees paid to the attorney by the personal representative of the decedent's estate from her personal funds for services the attorney performed because court approval of the fees should have been obtained under D.C. Code § 20-751.
|
|||||
| In re Ukwu, No. 05-BG-788,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an attorney had violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c) and other rules, in light of his inducement of a client to present a false letter and the substantial evidence that his pervasive neglect amounted to intentional misconduct, the attorney would have to prove his fitness to practice before being reinstated after a two-year suspension.
|
|||||
| Moore v. United States, Nos. 00-CF-1111 & 00-CF-1016,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions were affirmed because sufficient evidence showed that defendants maintained a crack house under D.C. Code § 33-542(a)(5) (recodified as D.C. Code § 48-904.02(a)(5)) and possessed a machine gun under D.C. Code § 22-3214(a) (recodified as D.C. Code § 22-4514(a)), and their motions for severance and suppression were properly denied.
|
|||||
| Steward v. United States, Nos. 03-CF-1124 & 06-CO-393,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order denying defendant's motion under D.C. Code § 23-110 for ineffective assistance of counsel was vacated, and the case was remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing because defendant made a colorable claim which, if true, would have provided a basis for relief. Therefore, the trial court should not have summarily decided the matter.
|
|||||
| Structural Pres. Sys. v. Petty, No. 02-CV-1147,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Injured party's treating chiropractor should not have been permitted to testify about appropriateness of doctor's recommendation for physical therapy or reasonableness of fees charged for MRI. There was sufficient evidence to submit case to jury as there was strong argument back injury was new, rather than an aggravation of preexisting hip injury.
|
|||||
| Ventura v. United States, NO. 04-CF-475,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defense counsel's request for DNA testing under D.C. Code § 22-4132(b)(1). DNA testing was not done and thus, it did not result in inclusion of defendant or victim as a source of the biological material. Statements of complainant introduced through testimony of complainant and others did not amount to plain error.
|
|||||
| Williams v. United States, No. 02-CM-73,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given that defendant's trial was a bench trial, because portions of his trial were not transcribed, it was appropriate to defer to the trial court, even though defendant did not follow D.C. Ct. App. R. 10(d), to determine whether additional reconstruction of the record was possible or whether, in the interest of justice, a new trial was necessary.
|
|||||
| Joseph v. United States, No. 00-CF-942,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suppression of evidence was not required because information received from an informant was presumptively reliable, given that informant provided his name, address, and phone number, and reliability was further enhanced by the exchange between the dispatcher and the informant during which the informant described the scene at time of the 911 call.
|
|||||
| Wright v. United States, No. 05-CF-1236,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of possession of an unregistered firearm, under D.C. Code § 7-2502.01(a), and carrying a dangerous weapon outside the home or business, under D.C. Code § 22-4504(a)(1), because police officers saw him pull an object out of his pants, place it on a fence, and walk away before they recovered a shotgun from behind the fence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
