Legal Opinion

Fortune v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided May 2, 2013No. 09-CF-780PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GLICKMAN, Associate Judge:

Following a short trial in appellant’s first-degree murder prosecution the jury thrice reported itself deadlocked — stymied, it said in its second note to the court, by “a fundamental disagreement.” The third note, sent after more than eight hours of deliberation, informed the court that the jury was evenly split; that the jurors in each camp had “absolutely no doubt about their vote” on the question of appellant’s “guilt or innocence”; that despite “several attempts to consider the evidence objectively,” the jurors had “not been able to overcome this impasse”; and…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Green v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Clyde Mattox v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  4. Tanner v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. Jenkins v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1965

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Michael D. Tann v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2015
  2. Thomas R. Jones v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2015
  3. Kittle v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
  4. Charles A. Grant v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2014
  5. Callaham v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2022

3 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