Lee v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
NEWMAN, Chief Judge:
Tried by a jury and convicted of grand larceny, attempted unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and petit larceny, 1 appellant contends on appeal that given his proper and timely discovery demand under Super. Ct.Cr.R. 16, the government’s failure to disclose, until trial, the recovery of latent palm prints on an automobile in the vicinity of the larceny violates that rule as well as the due process requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Finding no substantial prejudice to appellant’s rights from the government’s conceded…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- United States v. AgursSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- United States v. Consolidated Laundries Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- State v. CoelhoSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1982
- Holiday v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- Clifford v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- Lee v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
- Davis v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.