Legal Opinion · Dissent

Harris v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided January 15, 1992No. 87-155Published

1DissentRogers, Chief Judge

On two prior occasions, the en banc court has defined plain error. See Allen v. United States, 495 A.2d 1145 (D.C.1985) (en banc); Watts v. United States, 362 A.2d 706 (D.C.1976) (en banc). Thus, the government agrees that plain error occurs when “the error complained of [is] so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the very fairness and integrity of the trial.” Watts, supra, 362 A.2d at 709. It further agrees that the plain error rule applies to “a trial infected with error so ‘plain’ the trial judge and prosecutor were derelict in countenancing it, even absent the…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. United States v. FradySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. United States v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
  3. Watts v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1976
  4. Viereck v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  5. Dyson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API