Kelly v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
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
- Burks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Abney v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Richardson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- John L. Bailey v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969
- Mills v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Jamel Evans v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2015
- Maddox v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
- Baker v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- Appleton v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
- Mindombe v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.