Legal Opinion

Reale v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided April 18, 1990No. 89-188, 89-189 and 89-253PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

After a jury trial, appellants were convicted of disorderly conduct within the United States Capitol. D.C.Code § 9 — 112(b)(4) (1989 Repl.). 1 Relying on our decision in Wheelock v. United States, 552 A.2d 503 (D.C.1988), they contend that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the “tourist standard” is an element of the offense of disorderly conduct. They also assert that the court improperly prohibited them from bringing the concept of jury nullification to the attention of the jury, and erred in denying them the opportunity to assert the defense of necessity. We affirm.

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Fong Foo v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Watts v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1976
  3. Wheelock v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
  4. Griffin v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
  5. Morgan v. ForetichDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. People v. MooreIllinois Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Hasty v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
  3. State v. BjerkaasCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1991
  4. Lederman v. United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2001
  5. Berg v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993

6 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