Legal Opinion
Kleinbart v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided February 15, 1989No. 11932PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MACK, Associate Judge:
On appellant’s motion, and with the government’s agreement that it would be appropriate, a division of this court has recalled its prior mandate remanding the case to the trial court for a new trial on appellant’s insanity defense, and a hearing on claims that the government withheld Brady1 materials2 from him. See Kleinbart v. United States (Kleinbart II), 426 A.2d 343 (1981). This division, while concerned with the nonfinality of a cause of action which has moved back and forth *1238between the trial and appellate courts, nevertheless concludes that the mandate of Griffith…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Griffith v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Kleinbart v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- Frye v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- William Leach A/K/A William Martin v. Darrell Kolb, Acting Superintendent, and Attorney General of the State of WisconsinCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
- Kimes v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
- Hazel v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.