Legal Opinion
Brown v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 18, 1989No. 86-1205, 86-1238PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEWMAN, Associate Judge.
Brown contends that the trial judge violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights in his trial for armed rape and sodomy, by excluding from evidence medical records of the prosecutrix. These records were procured, pre-trial, by Brown’s trial counsel, (not counsel on appeal), by serving subpoenas duces tecum, pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Procedure Rule 17(c), 2 upon Howard University Hospital, Southeast Community Hospital, and D.C. General Hospital. Howard University Hospital complied with the subpoena served upon it by delivering its records directly…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- United States v. NixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Pennsylvania v. RitchieSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Bank of Nova Scotia v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- United States v. MechanikSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Bowman Dairy Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Tyer v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- Brown v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
- Nelson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- Rastall v. CSX Transportation, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- In Re HerndonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.