Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bragdon v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided November 30, 1995No. 92-CF-648Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMack, Senior Judge

With all due respect to my colleagues, I find it very difficult to follow the route to affirmance that the majority takes in rejecting appellant’s claim that an instructional error has facilitated an “irrational compromise verdict.” It surfaces initially when the majority rejects “the dissent’s contention that appellant was entitled to ‘roll the dice’ on the armed rape charge on the facts of this case_” Majority op. at 404 (emphasis supplied). I know we can all agree, however, that an accused does not enter the dice game by choice and that the government has the burden of introducing facts to…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Winters v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1974
  2. Glymph v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
  3. Lampkins v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
  4. Ballard v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981
  5. Anderson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985

7 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