Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Rogers v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided November 17, 1989No. 85-1421Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

ROGERS, Chief Judge,

with whom NEWMAN and FERREN, Associate Judges, and MACK, Associate Judge, Retired, join, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I join the majority opinion adopting Federal Rule 405(a) permitting lay character witnesses to testify as to their opinion of a defendant as well as their knowledge of the defendant’s reputation. [Majority opinion at 74.]

I am unable to join the majority opinion holding that a reputation character witness may be cross examined by the government concerning the witness’ knowledge of a defendant’s juvenile arrests. To have a consistent body of law…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Thomas v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
  2. McAdoo v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
  3. Devore v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
  4. Rogers v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API