Bailey v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
SCHWELB, Associate Judge:
Ari C. Bailey was convicted by a jury of rape. 1 On appeal, he contends that the trial judge erred by ruling, in limine, that if Bailey testified and presented a defense of consent, the prosecution would be permitted to introduce evidence of another rape allegedly committed by Bailey in Baltimore, Maryland approximately two months before the offense for which he was being tried. The government argues, inter alia, that because Bailey did not testify, he failed to preserve for appeal the issue raised by the judge’s in limine ruling. We affirm.
I
THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Harris v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Luce v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- New Jersey v. PortashSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Lovely v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1948
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. HolleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2018
- Castellon v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004
- Bailey v. FulwoodDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Haley v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
- Brisbon v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.