Legal Opinion

Kelly v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided March 15, 1994No. 93-CF-1022PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROGERS, Chief Judge:

In this expedited interlocutory appeal, appellant James W. Kelly contends that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars his retrial, after a remand based on reversible instructional errors, unless this court finds that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support his conviction of armed robbery. Appellant contends that he may not be retried because there was insufficient evidence that he knew the principal intended to commit the robbery, and that he knew or should have foreseen that a weapon would be involved. We hold that, in the absence of an express finding on evidentiary…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Burks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Abney v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Richardson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. John L. Bailey v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969
  5. Mills v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Jamel Evans v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2015
  2. Maddox v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
  3. Baker v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
  4. Appleton v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
  5. Mindombe v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002

6 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