Legal Opinion

Dailey v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided February 28, 1989No. 87-407PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SCHWELB, Associate Judge:

As technology advances, ingenious litigants demand, sometimes belatedly, that courts adopt and utilize more sophisticated procedures. In this appeal, we must decide whether there exists an obligation on the part of a trial judge to arrange, sua sponte, for the videotaping of his viewing of an automobile where the defense has requested him to inspect it. Holding that no such duty exists, we affirm.

I

Following a bench trial, appellant Dailey was convicted of driving while intoxicated, D.C.Code § 40-716(b)(l) (1981), and operating after suspension of his license, §…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. United States v. FradySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  3. United States v. Billy G. ByersCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
  4. Cole v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
  5. United States v. Felix WallsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1971

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Irick v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
  2. Barron v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
  3. In the Matter of the Honorable Louise E. Goldston, Judge of the Thirteenth Family Court CircuitWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2021
  4. Irick v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API