Legal Opinion
Foster v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided October 6, 1992No. 90-CF-1069PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROGERS, Chief Judge:
Appellant Thaddeus Foster contends that he is entitled to be resentenced by a new judge because of the trial judge’s ex parte communication, in violation of Canon 3(A)(4) and Canon 3(C)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, with the D.C. Parole Board regarding its recommendation that appellant be sentenced under the D.C. Youth Rehabilitation Act, D.C.Code § 24-803 (1991 Supp.). The trial judge acknowledged, prior to sentencing appellant as an adult, 1 that he had initiated an ex parte communication with the Parole Board and declined to hold a hearing when the Board…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Glasser v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Williams v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Rose v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- United States v. CercedaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1999
- Eldridge v. BerkebileCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015
- Coulter v. Gerald Family Care, P.C.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
- Harris v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999
- Jerome Bradley v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2015
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.