Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Thomas v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided December 30, 1992No. 91-CF-113Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSullivan, Associate Judge

I join in the court’s opinion affirming appellant’s conviction for distribution of cocaine. Where I part company with the majority, however, is with regard to its holding that “a government expert witness is not the appropriate person to provide the jury with the definition of ‘usable amount.’ ” Ante at 26. In my opinion, this holding conflicts with this court’s holding in Gray v. United States, 600 A.2d 367, 369 (D.C.1991), wherein we approved a virtually identical definition of usable amount, offered by a government expert witness, in a virtually identical factual context. Thus, because no…

2Cases cited53 opinions

  1. M. A. P. v. RyanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971
  2. State v. WoodsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Moreau v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1978
  4. State v. MorenoArizona Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Bernard v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990

48 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