Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Roundtree v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided October 2, 1990No. 86-1382Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSchwelb, Associate Judge

With due respect for Judge Steadman’s erudite opinion for the court, I am unable to join my colleagues’ disposition of this appeal. In my opinion, Roundtree did not receive a fair trial on the sodomy charge. I so conclude for two reasons. First, in spite of persuasive evidence that the complaining witness, W.D., fabricated claims of sexual abuse in the past, the trial judge precluded cross-examination of her with regard to these prior accusations. Second, the judge excluded, as “irrelevant,” proposed medical evidence about the existence of a “cheesy white extrudance” in the area of W.D.’s…

2Cases cited72 opinions

  1. Kotteakos v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Boyde v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  4. Frontiero v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. Bowers v. HardwickSupreme Court of the United States · 1986

67 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