Legal Opinion

Allen v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided December 11, 2003No. 99-CF-1666PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FARRELL, Associate Judge:

At trial, the prosecutor was allowed to cross-examine appellant repeatedly, over objection, as to whether he knew of any reason why two police officer witnesses would “lie against [him]” in their testimony. This was error, as our past decisions have made clear, and because the error was prejudicial in the circumstances of this case, we must reverse appellant’s convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and related weapons offenses, and remand for a new trial.

I

According to the government’s evidence, uniformed police officers approached an apartment…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Kotteakos v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. State v. GravesSupreme Court of Iowa · 2003
  3. State v. SinghSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
  4. State v. EmmettUtah Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Brooks v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1976

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. State v. WarholicSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
  2. State v. RoperMissouri Court of Appeals · 2004
  3. Dionas v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013
  4. Thomas v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
  5. Baker v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005

14 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