Farina v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
ROGERS, Chief Judge:
Appellants appeal their convictions under D.C.Code § 9-112(b)(5) (1989 Repl.), on two grounds relating to the jury instructions. First, they contend that without a limiting construction requiring that serious disruption is an element of the offense, the statute is unconstitutional as applied to their non-violent protest on the Capitol Grounds, and hence, the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury that to convict it had to find that appellants’ conduct caused a serious disruption. Second, they contend that the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury on its…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Ward v. Rock Against RacismSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. ButtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. MeggyesyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1998
- Hasty v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Gamble v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011
- United States v. RendonNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2016
- Berg v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.