Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hicks-Bey v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided November 7, 1994No. 91-CF-644Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSullivan, Associate Judge

Although I concur in the judgment of my colleagues affirming appellant’s conviction, I disagree with the route they took to reach their conclusion. Appellant contends that in the absence of a statute enacted by the District of Columbia authorizing the use of closed-circuit television testimony of minor victims, the Sixth Amendment takes precedence, and therefore, he was entitled to be confronted by the complaining minor victim in this case. Thus, the crucial question upon which this case turns is whether, in the absence of a statute permitting minor complaining witnesses to testify via…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Delaware v. Van ArsdallSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Coy v. IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. Lockhart v. NelsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. M. A. P. v. RyanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971

19 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