Carl S. Kelly v. United States
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
1Per curiam
We have considered the contentions ably presented on behalf of appellant by counsel appointed by this court. We find no error which warrants reversal. One contention is that the trial court erred in refusing to give a requested instruction on the law of self-defense, set forth in the margin, 1 or its substance. Assuming there was evidence to justify self-defense instructions, trial counsel expressed complete satisfaction with those given on the subject. In these circumstances the refusal of the one requested, though appropriate in its substance, 2 is not deemed of sufficient significance to…
2Cited by10 opinions
- United States v. William M. DixonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969
- Frederick L. Salzman v. United States of America, James E. Lowery v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
- United States v. Sidney W. HardinCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1971
- Harris v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- United States v. Wilbur Jones, United States of America v. Claude L. Smith, United States of America v. James P. JarvisCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1973
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.