Contee v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
On this appeal from his convictions for, among other crimes, felony murder while armed, appellant’s sole contention is that his tape-recorded confession to the police was involuntary in fact. We reject that contention. Although this court reviews the trial court’s conclusion of voluntariness de novo, “[w]e will not disturb the trial court’s [underlying] factual findings unless they are without substantial support in the evidence.” Hebron v. United States, 625 A.2d 884, 885 (D.C.1993). The trial judge found, inter alia, that
there’s ... nothing in the testimony I heard about [appellant’s]…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
- Lego v. TwomeySupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Wyrick v. FieldsSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Smith v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Minch v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
- Klayman v. SegalDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
- Lee v. MartinezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2004
- Peyton v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
- Graham v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.